Worth watching a bit of the 'service' - 

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2010/05/23/if-you-wanted-any-proof-tec-has-apostasised%e2%80%a6/

I'm close to the end of Hilary Mantel's Booker Prize winner Wolf Hall -- which I really recommend: a very stimulating view of how modernization and the newly accessible gospel came to England; and a bit like watching a train crash in slow motion. It has made me wonder again about why the consecration of Bishop Mary Glasspool is such a deal breaker. Is it because once is eccentricity but twice is a habit? TEC had made clear where they stood a while back, I thought. Is it  actually acting on the position they had set out that makes the difference? If TEC is successfully relegated to a second circle of anglicanism along with Canadians and on recent showing New Zealanders, will it still be ok to say things from a CofE pulpit that are critical of the doctrinal and ecclesiological position that the English bishops will have agreed to covenant with? Or will licenses and authorizations and what not be withdrawn? I'm sure Thomas Cromwell could have produced the appropriate legislation. 

David, As stated in the article Fulcrum thinks actions have consequences, and that the 2011 Primates meeting should go ahead without ++Jefferts Schori.

"unless he gives a clear lead then all that he and others have worked for since the Windsor Report and all that is promised by the covenant is at risk because of the new situation in which TEC has placed us"

What does Fulcrum think now?

Fulcrum again prefers an answer from the "Global South" to that from "GAFCON". The thing that puzzles me is that principal members of the Global South  such as Southern Colne, Nigeria and Uganda are also leading members of GAFCON. These two organisations seem closely interconnected. Does anyone know what the dominant view in the Global South is?

David

Seems like Fulcrum and AM can agree and work together.....will that take a miracle?     Last week, our bible study was John 17 .........

Graham - I think it is good to see some white faces in the GAFCON leadership, given we do not judge a person on race, and given opposition to revisionists has been misrepresented as Akinola's project or based in some other society and not applicable to the 'west'.....one falsehood of  revisionist propaganda is that only a few Africans object to their clever innovations......not true, of course, but often said or implied   -  misleadingly ignoring the strong academic qualifications and independent minds of African bishops and archbishops.....and  ignoring the consistent and good work of Fulcrum and the ACI.

Fulcrum and AM have both done great work in the last 7 years,  costly work; and it is also true that both have made some errors (being human and all that), but we agree on so much  -  if our leaders want greater unity, there can be much greater unity.....after all, we do not follow AM or Fulrcum or Appollos.....

I did wonder whether you still held to your Quadrant model. Does it need updating to reflect the moves towards structures within the Global South? Could you comment on the gerrymander issue for your "continental primates"  propsal (and the current standing Committee proposal) which gives great weight to Europe and North America (where the church es are small) and ISTM under reprresets Afrioca where the churches are large.

The cirrent ACC/Primates standing Committee is overwhelmingly white/"northern", and ISTM your proposal will have the same problem.

This afternoon at 4.30pm, I took part in a discussion live on Premier Christian Radio with Chris Sugden of Anglican Mainstream and Sharon Ferguson of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement.

The page on Premier Christian Radio is here.

Short audio clips of three of our contributions may be heard as follows:

• Chris Sugden
• Sharon Ferguson
• Graham Kings

In the discussion, though not on the audio clip, it was interesting to hear Sharon Ferguson mention with approval the word 'schism' concerning the action of The Episcopal Church, and that TEC clearly knew of the consequences of their action, but went ahead nevertheless.

In Chris Sugden's audio clip, he claims that the future lies with GAFCON. He used the word GAFCON rather than the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, which has not really caught on in media terms and did not mention that the chair of the GAFCON Primates' Council is now English, Greg Venables, the secretary is Australian, Peter Jensen, the key theologian is American, Stephen Noll, and the unofficial media secretary is English, Chris Sugden. So much for the end of neo-colonialism...

It seems to me, in contrast, that the future lies with a renewed and reshaped Anglican Communion, without the representatives of The Episcopal Church on the leadership structures of the Communion and with the increasing importance of the Global South Anglican movement, led by John Chew and Mouneer Anis.

Personally, I think it best that, in addition to not inviting the presiding bishop of TEC to the Primates meeting (if indeed this actually takes place), the other recommendations put forward by the Fulcrum leadership team should be put in place immediately.

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=524

To date, unfortunately, we have not heard a word from the Archbishop of Canterbury, other than a cursory statement from his office after the bishops of TEC consented to the election of the Rev Glasspool to the office of bishop.  Further delay in response from Dr. Williams only exacerbates the situation, and indeed risks unilateral actions by other Provinces of the Communion, or even individual bishops of the Church of England and elsewhere (not to mention individuals and families).  The Archbishop or his predecessor, Dr. Carey are signatory to each of the Primates meeting communiques since 2003, none of which have, to date, been enforced.  If the office of the Archbishop is to carry any authority at all on a Communion-wide basis, it is time to use that authority to act on behalf of the Churches of the Communion.

If it has been determined at the Communion level that there will be no doctrine or discipline within the Communion structure, then at least we should be so informed.  We all have decisions that need to be made, and as the silence continues, the relevance of the Communion to those decisions diminishes.

The inevitable results of avoiding decisions which most of the AC wanted to make years ago, of time-wasting indabas, ignoring inconvenient biblican teachingve and institutional untiy being put ahead of truth............no surprise.  Given they attract so few people and have declining nos, revisionists have played their hand well politically in the last 7 years and have much to thank the ABC for  -   especially his Lambeth invitations to them which he knew would lead to the bishops of most Anglicans in the world not attending..... yet some evangelicals called for everyone to support him .   He could not have done more for revisionists than he has......they are still in the AC and still tearing the fabric of the Communion,  largely thanks to his "leadership" of the AC in the last 7 years......anyone seriously expecting any meaningful response to events from the ABC??

The consecration of Mary Glasspool took place yesterday, 15 May 2010, in Long Beach, California.

It is worth rereading Fulcrum's earlier statements on this issue:

1. Fulcrum Response to Consents being Given to the Consecration of Mary Glasspool

This is a clear rejection of the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Primates' Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council.

We believe that it is vitally important for the Primates' Meeting planned for January 2011 to go ahead, and that for this to happen the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church should not be invited to attend. Actions have consequences.

2. Fulcrum Article, 'Consecration of Mary Glasspool: Where Do We Go From Here?', published on Fulcrum and in the Church of England Newspaper, 26 March 2010, and republished on Fulcrum today, 16 May 2010.