Dear Bewildered,

ﾠ

This is the thread you were looking for. The lengthy post from Stephen is indeed from Stephen Kuhrt and I assume you know Andrew Nichols but their readers may benefit from reminding themselves of the details he gives of the Dundonald organisation.

I find myself using Wimbledon, Dundonald and Co-mission interchangeably, I hope this is not confusing. How should the terms be used

Dear John R

It is my own understanding that what is at stake here is ecclesiology.As a curate in Southwark Diocese I have been privy to some of the issues at hand. I myself once used to be  Baptist and even trained at Spurgeon's college in order to enter ministry. The strength of the Baptist model of church was its congregational style of leadership - following the model of the priesthood for all believers. Yet as is so often the case the great strength can also be a great weakness - for inherent in many Baptist churches was the independent nature of each congregation. The Baptist Union is a Union of churches - all who can call a minister of their own choice if they wish. They do not even have to be 'ordained' if they choose that option - they can choose to be in the Union or not. The great strength of the Church of England, I believe, is its accountability and line of authority. This is the model of church that makes the Church of England what it is. The weakness is that some who are independently minded (i.e. congregational/Baptist model) find it difficult when the lines of authority say something different - or who actually ask something different to be done. Anyone who is ordained into the CofE is asked to make the declaration of assent. This does not mean one does it with ones fingers crossed behind ones back - and say I'll just do what I want. To be ordained into the CofE means we accept the way the church is modelled and accept to live in communion with those who differ to me. If you wish to congregational go and join the Baptist or FIEC - and many blessings be upon you.

If we say that we will be in 'impaired communion' simply because we do not agree with a statement or a position, we take the easy way out and seek martyrdom, not true communion. The Anglican Communion is built on its breadth - unity in diversity not unity in conformity. If we disagree we wait, listen, enagage, listen, talk, listen - not shout about and walk away. We respect and honour the other's view not claim we only hold the Truth.

John,

Certainly a provocative (and perhaps one-dimensional) view of the situation ;-)

From my reading between the lines there is certainly an awful lot of 'impaired communion' flying around the Diocese of Southwark, and - from my experience of such matters - all parties share in the pain and responsibility of this.

If Richard HAS operated in a way which effectively 'transcends' the functional polity of the Church of England then he carries responsibility for the pain this induces.  Clearly if he feels that the 'polity' of the CofE is something he can't 'work with' then perhaps he needs to make 'In finality' what is 'In actuality'?  However the diocese of Southwark (namely those individuals which constitute it) also bears responsibility before the Lord to ensure that they are not causing needless obstacle and offense to a brother in Christ - and certainly not enforcing extra 'works of the law' (meaning 'works of the denomination'!).

I think, again reading between the lines, that fellowship has been extended towards Co-mission, but has been rebuffed.  Whether one should invoke the '70 times 7' argument and keep turning the other cheek is up to each individual consience, but refusal of relationship is terribly hurtful and I'm sure everyone (including Richard and Co-mission) are feeling the pain and rejection as well.

As you so rightly hint, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and our communion is not dependant on denominational barriers - but true communion and relationship requires all parties to work together, sacrifically, in Love and if this hasn't been happening on the part of Co-mission then don't they need to be made aware of this?

Love in Christ,

Richard Collins

Dear Karen'

I think you can rest assured that the Anglican ministers involved in Co-Mission will not put the Canons and articles before the Gospel. That is why they are so committed to church planting.

My concern is your dismissal of predestination. Article 10 is a reminder that all of us are dead in our sins and so entirely dependent on the grace of God to make us alive in Christ.

But surely you think that Article 17 teaches that predestination is a core doctrine of classical Anglicanism. Or am I misreading it? Or should we just ignore these things?

With best wishes, Bob Marsden

Hi Karen. I'd be very happy to continue to debate these things with you privately, but its off the main point I wanted to make in my original response, so I'll say no more here.