Fulcrum logo graphic
 | login
Fulcrum strapline graphic
   Feedback/Contact help icon printer icon

Forum Thread
End of an Era

The opinions expressed are the authors, and not necessarily those of the Fulcrum leadership team. Messages are subject to approval before they appear online.

You are not logged on and so have only read access to the forum.
Please Login, or Sign up for a free account so you can post replies and start new threads.

Messages (newest first): [Sort by Oldest first]

 Posted by: Ian Paul Sunday 16 November 2008 - 07:31pm
Nick

I agree with most of what you say--indeed, would like to give it at least four cheers (sorry not to say hello to you there.)

But I would like to take issue with one point. The motion 'not to vote' wasn't a procedural nicety. It was the only way many of us felt we could say 'Please stop bullying us, stop pushing us around, and stop telling us what we must believe, without debate, to avoiding being labelled unsound by you.' The sad thing is that, although the vast majority would have no problem with the content of the Jerusalem statement (myself included--what's there to dislike?), Richard Turnbull seemed entirely unwilling to countenance that we should do anything other than what he told us to.

But I do agree with you, that the day marked the end of an era.

 Posted by: Nick Jones Saturday 15 November 2008 - 05:26pm

On my way back to the 'frozen North' after NEAC 5 in a fairly gloomy mood.  Not I should say because of the content of the conference, all of which was informative and worthwhile and at times inspiring, but because I leave feeling that I have been present at a death - that of the Evangelical movement within the Church of England as we have known it.

It was quite simply foolish to spring a motion onto the "Consultation" unforewarned.  It was also highly depressing that it was defeated by a procedural motion.  That may have excited the minority who clearly revel in these things but, as was pointed out in the course of the day,many of us as Evangelicals are entrepreneurs by nature and that sort of politicking is the biggest turn off of all.  We won't be back.

It could have been so much better an outcome with a little more thought.  There was clearly unity around a great deal in particular around our solidarity with fellow Evangelicals in North America. 

Being an optimist by nature, I think all this could be a good thing in the long run.  I came away with an overwhelming sense that CEEC, rather than be inflitrated by the broader body as Pete Broadbent argued, needs to die.  I spoke to a member of it during the lunchbreak and even she didn't seem to know what was going on with the motion.  The whole gathering was too old and too male dominated, as Christina Baxter said.  I just can't comprehend that I was at a conference on a Saturday for goodness sake and there was such a preponderence of blazers and ties!  For me, it was a symbol of a movement badly out of touch with most of the people it claims to represent.  Another indication was the obsession with John Stott and the continuous and tedious references to 'past glories.'  If it dies, that will be good.  It will give space for something better in time.  Meanwhile, you probably won't see me for dust.  I'm back to the inner city where God has called me and the issues of our time that I care about: global poverty, climate change, HIV/AIDS, reaching the next generation for Christ especially those in the forgotten places.  And I'm back to the networks and connections in the Christian community that bless and inspire - our own networks in Bradford that have grown and broadened as a result of Hope '08, New Wine and many connections with the global church, a good number of whom are in fact finding a home together through GAFCON.



you are not logged in