As the February Fulcrum Newsletter, we have just published the Church of England Newspaper interview with me on tomorrow's General Synod motion, concerning the Anglican Church in North America. This will be copublished with the Church of England Newspaper on the Religious Intelligence site today. Looking forward to comments...

Constructive responses from Graham, as always.  What I never understand is why we must wait for revisionists to walk away e.g. why wait for yet more divisive actions (in May) rather than applying the logic of 1 Cor 5-7 and other passages which do not mention glacial speeds when dealing with false teaching?   Better if revisionists walk away....in PR terms but not biblical tems?

Also, loyalty to any ABCis not an article of faith. It may be right not to be loyal - depending on the actions of an ABC.   After 7 years of delays and indabas and more delays, it is hard to see that the current ABC has not been instrumental in keeping the majority view of the AC from being implemented -   and that is only in the interests of the tiny group of revisionists who have been tearing the unity of the AC since 2003.  GAFCON need not have happened if Lambeth invitations had not been extended to those who tore the fabric of the Communion.....and they are still at the top table with the ABC, talking and flying around the world and talking some more.... as years go by, but never making decisions in line with the mind of the Communion.......no wonder ++Anis has given up being part of the charade....... loyalty to the ABC can help revisionists undermine the mind of the Communion and it looks like it has.

It is painstakingly obvious that Graham Kings does not understand what it's like to be an orthodox Anglican in North America: Enter his "wait and see" approach. My word, brother, how long? Is this your position on the Sudan as well? The "spiritual violence" we are suffering in the US is not a metaphor.

What GK fails to understand is the dire state of affairs for faithful Christians in TEC. There is -- and has been for more than a decade now -- an organized persecution of orthodox believers within TEC. Yes, there are a few orthodox bishops left, but they are the exception to the rule. What's more there are a few truly liberal bishops, too, who are willing to think-and-let-think. Typically, however, the systematic attempt (descending from the highest episcopal office) to extricate from the church all who are committed to historic orthodoxy remains the norm.

In the 18th century the American colonies and England went through this little thing called the War for Independence. As a means of punishing the rebellious Americans for their actions, the Bishop of London called home nearly all Anglican clergy. (An attempt to withhold Christ from the rebels!) In response to the pastoral emergency an Anglican clergyman, John Wesley, ordained Methodist "superintendents" for the American colonies. Within 50 years the number of Methodists grew from 1,200 to 214,000. Today there are more than 8 million Methodists and only about 800,000 Anglicans. 

The English "wait-and-see" approach at the expense of the spiritual well-being of others was short-sighted then and it is no better now. Please, Graham, pick up a copy of "Never Silent" by Thad Barnum and ask yourself if waiting is really the best approach.

Dear Graham,

I read with interest your interview with the Church of England Newspaper.  For your consideration and that of Fulcrum readers, especially Synod members:

1.  The Church of England is in communion with those churches as determined by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York (see Canons, p 208).  The resolution before the Synod is therefore appropriate, while the amended resolution is not.  The resolution states the desire to be in communion, which would leave it to the Archbishops to decide.  The amended resolution asks the Archbishops to report to Synod, which is inappropriate given the decision making process.

2.  The Church of England is in communion with member churches of the Anglican Communion, but also with other categories of churches, such as Extra-Provincial Dioceses (eg, Bermuda), United Churches incorporating former Anglican churches (eg, South India), Churches signing the Porvoo Declaration, and Old Catholic Churches of the Union of Utrecht.  The resolution before the Synod thus does not imply membership in the Anglican Communion, but an affirmation of common theology.  Synod members might ask if they share the same theology as the Anglican Church of North America, which affirms the doctrinal basis of the Church of England (Articles of Religion, BCP and Ordinal), noting that the Episcopal Church views these as historical documents with no authority in matters of doctrine. 

3.  The Church of England is in communion with Churches which have overlapping jurisdictions with both Church of England and Episcopal Church dioceses (for instance, in Germany, there are parishes of the Church of England, of the Convocation of the Episcopal Churches in Europe, and the Old Catholics).  Also, some Extra-Provincial churches are under the authority of other metropolitans, such as the Episcopal Church of Cuba, whose Metropolitan authority consists of the Archbishop of Canada, of the West Indies and the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church.  Special circumstances of Gospel need helped pave a way for special consideration of being in communion.  The Gospel need of Anglican ministers in Canada and the States should result in positive encouragement rather than a "we will wait and see if you survive" posture.

4.  Your stance is that the Covenant is the only path to follow.  I suggest that wisdom and prudence may dictate that a parallel course should be followed, that of encouraging the ministry of Anglicans with whom Synod members share the same theology.   As the Episcopal Church weakens and hemorrhages members, while the ACNA grows through proclamation of the Gospel, can we not envisage a day when the member province of the Anglican Communion (TEC) and the extra-provincial member church (ACNA) become a united church?  This would seem to be Paul's hope in Romans 9-11, that those who reject the truth that is their heritage would be jealous because of the Gospel growth of the new upstarts.  This has at least as much biblical warrant as a course which does little to encourage the ministry of the Gospel but merely indicates the circumstances when one church will be bid farewell by the others.

5.  I note that your only statement about the beliefs of the dominant majority in the Episcopal Church is that they are unAnglican (as regards sexuality).  The Episcopal Church stated that these matters do not touch on core doctrine (in the trial of Bishop Richter), and it moves forward with the decisions of General Convention in continued disobedience to scripture and the pleas of the Anglican Communion.  I am ignorant of what hints among the Episcopal Church bishops and the Presiding Bishop indicate they will begin to turn from their stated course of action.  Or on what basis you predict the Primates will not welcome the Presiding Bishop into their midst beyond 2011.  The track record is this:  at Lambeth/Primates' Meetings/ACC, declare fidelity to the Communion, then at General Convention and in practice, do the exact opposite. 

Graham and Synod members, will you please consider that the ACNA is not asking anyone to turn their backs on those who have chosen to remain in the Episcopal Church.  In fact, here in my own context in Manhattan, I initiated fellowship opportunities for Episcopal and Anglican clergy, and we have jointly sponsored a  ministry conference attended by Episcopal and Anglican clergy.  The Episcopal clergy find diocesan events so alienating and dispiriting that these prove to be a balm to them.  We support them in their witness, will you not support us in ours?

In Christ's service,

Clifford Swartz

ordained in the Diocese of York, now serving Christ Church NYC

(www.christchurchnyc.com)

I have a different interview from the Church in England Mirror...

Graham,

Please can you explain from Scripture how your outlook relates to the New Testament approach to denouncing and expelling false teaching from the Body of Christ?

Thanks,

David Baker

Thanks, David. It is rather late here in England, but I made some attempt in my Fulcrum Newsletter for July 2008,  'Disagreeing Christianly: Unity, Humility and Prophecy' and in my Fulcrum Newsletter for April 2008, 'Faith and Fellowship in Crisis'.

I still need to get more up-to-date on this discussion and the details of Ms. Ashworth's motion.  But my husband, who is also an ACNA priest, and I were looking into your synod vote this evening here in NM.  It was so discouraging to hear your response, Bishop Kings.  What you say sounds right and good and logical about the Covenant -- and we would have gone along with you for several years.  But the truth on the ground here is so much different than how you express it.  I want to say this respectfully, but clearly:  there has been what I would now call a real purge of orthodox Episcopal (now Anglican) parishes in the United States.  You know that, but I'd like you somehow to hear more, and more deeply, how it has been.  My husband and I are ones who held out so long -- and then have been disappointed over and over again by the inaction of the more northern and western bodies of Anglicanism.  (We finally joined the ACNA in late September of this year, forming a new parish.)  We used to be what we thought was fairly moderate -- but that has all changed, although we're trying to maintain soft hearts, with God's grace.  What we've been under here is a strange but not uncommon kind of psychological persecution -- lies expressed as truth, truth expressed as lies.  And it's not going to change.  The US Episcopal Church is not going to abide by the Covenant, so what does that do for the rest of us who just couldn't stomach it any more and truly want to be in communion with fellow Anglican believers worldwide?  Dean Key of Jersey will be here this coming week to hear some of our details.  I beg you to ask for and consider some more, too -- not necessarily from the voices you're used to hearing, but others, on the ground here.  Consider that the letter of the 'law' may be what you're following in your interview response, but it's not touching the spirit nor the reality of what is actually going on.  It's crazy-making!  And it's caused a lot of physical and mental illness here among clergy.  We're always wanting to yell, 'Help!' and the very people to whom we'd like to yell just don't seem to 'get it'!!  After spending a year in England, at Wycliffe Hall in the '90's through the Regent College/Vancouver Anglican Studies program, one of the best years of our lives and one of the best years of our education at so many levels, we keep thinking you'll hear. 

I agree with David Baker.

To the proposition ‘Yet how do we square this with Jesus’ own words of prophetic denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees?’ how can we square any of the NT teaching if we cant square it?

I see 2 Peter 2 as crucial, false teaching that is ‘introduced’ of a nature that reflects God’s purposes for humans. Issues such as women’s ordination would be interpretation as there are a number of scriptures offered to support both views, and it concerns the order of the church. Though it may well split and divide churches I don’t see it destroying the essential unity of faith in Christ.

Those issues such as same sex relations however, are not only matters affecting core faith as we are saved from sin such as same sex relations are described, but also it is therefore false teaching ‘introduced’

As pointed out the NT teaching that warns of false doctrine specifically cites sexual immorality to be expelled and disassociated with.

Those proposing what some see as false teaching are also proposing the false teaching of accommodating it.

The word "affirm" used in relation to ACNA wanting AC relationships is a very good thing!  All that could be achieved at this stage - but worthwhile nonetheless.   In May, TEC will take another step away from the AC (nobody really believes they won't) and ACNA's membership of the AC will be one step closer. 

Of course, ACNA does not really need CofE recognition given it is recognised by the largest Anglican provinces already.....recognising ACNA is in the CofE's interests really i.e. in not being left behind with the slowly dwindling, small, "liberal" provinces that will be extinct in not too many decades at current rates of decline. It's in the CofE's long-term interests to "affirm" a relationship with ACNA and we know that really.....trouble is TEC has inherited lots of cash, so people in the AC still work with a leadership never envisioned by those who gave the cash.......but even that will run out one day  (especially with the amount being spent by TEC on lawyers!)

Trouble for TEC is that ACNA is much more like the CofE than TEC itself......the CofE is not Southwark!