Laurence,

Please, no more threats to leave us alone. You really have played this card too many times. You presence could not be interpreted as approval of any form of bigotry by anyone who had read a reasonable sample of your posts.

David

Scott,

I think that the challenge from Fulcrum to TEC is one of integrity. TEC is seen as promising one thing and doing another. If the agreed position of TEC is that inclusiveness is just too important to delay because other provinces do not see it that way they should say so. They have been seen as prevaricating, saying they will not rock the boat and then doing so anyway. Even now the election is not approved or disapproved but merely accepted because procedures were followed. Perhaps TEC needs the courage of its convictions but you need to be aware that this will intensify problems in the Communion.

David

Thank you, Fulcrum, for a clear and fair statement - and from a group of leaders who have shown great patience (much more than was deserved by either TEC(usa) or the ABC....but you have certainly gone the extra mile for unity, rightly or wrongly, and this gives your statement even more credibility). What you do not say is that most of the AC is perfectly happy together and it is only a small no of revisionists who demand to both stay in, because of their small nos and irrelevance in the US, but also to tear the fabric of the Communion at will.... you are too polite to say that.....but I think we need to affirm that most Anglicans, including those in ACNA, have no great issues with each other. I hope this statement brings evangelicals together. There is a lot of respect for Fulcrum leaders amongst those who might be thought of as more 'conservative'. Disagreements have been more to do with strategy and timing, and how patient to be with the ABC, than any core disagreement on scripture. We have our family squabbles, us evangelicals, and we need to repent in many ways (all sides), but in the end, we are united in wanting the authority of scripture upheld because we do not preach ourselves, or for our rights and preferences. I hope a positive response comes from AM, Reform and GAFCON....they need Fulcrum people and Fulcrum people need them....branches on the same vine. Kurt - do you see any irony in you talking for "the American Church" when the US has a high level of churchgoing but TEC(usa) can only get 1 in 400 Americans attending on a Sunday? You guys really ain't "the American church".....

The suggestion from the leadership that the Anglican Communion can deal with individual dioceses directly by recognizing their acceptance of the covenant will put further strains on relations within TEC and is uncomfortably close to the cross boarder interventions which have hereto been condemned. The covenant deals with the nature and organization of the communion and relationships between its members. For an individual diocese or church to be a party to the covenant would set it apart from its own church.

We are then told that the Anglican Communion "must now proceed in its common life without TEC". What does this mean? The CofE must proceed with its relations with other churches both within and outside the communion.  Thus positive interaction with TEC at any level should be encouraged.

Let us criticize TEC, if we think it will do any good, but any form of sanction even failures to invite seem very unAnglican and rather tacky. I hear the echo of the playground "I won't invite you to my party unless you..."

This unhappy situation will continue for some time yet.

David 

Ken Sawyer: "Conservative label for Fulcrum! Tell that to Reform, Sugden and others!!!!!!!!!!!"

Perhaps they are looking at it from the perspective of the Episcopal Church?

Episcopal Life headline: ENGLAND: Conservative group denounces consent to Glasspool's election in Los Angeles.

http://www.ecusa.anglican.org/81808_121130_ENG_HTM.htm 

Conservative label for Fulcrum! Tell that to Reform, Sugden and others!!!!!!!!!!!

Well done, Fulcrum!

Best wishes,

David Baker