|
Fulcrum Response
to the Lambeth Conference and to GAFCON
 Fulcrum coverage of items relating to these two conferences:
Lambeth Conference GAFCON
1. Lambeth Conference
we appreciate:
- the vision of the Communion 'intensifying' its current relationships ie that those who do not wish to continue on that 'intensifying' trajectory may remain where they are, while the centre of the Communion moves on and the clear implication that no group can veto this movement forward.
- the authority of the Conference to proceed with an Anglican Covenant and the clear sign, in the first Presidential Address that not all are likely to agree to the Covenant. Its content would not be just bland – there would be ‘teeth’ - and eventually a ‘two tier’ Communion would be likely to emerge, of those in the centre who will sign, and of those on the edge who will not.
- the reiterated vital importance of the three moratoria: on public same-sex blessings, on the consecration of bishops in same-sex unions and on cross provincial interventions.
- the announcement of the Pastoral Forum, ‘strengthened by arrangements like the suggested Communion Partners initiative in the USA’.
- the learning about different provinces and memorable, poignant stories from multicoloured contexts around the world during the presentations at evening worship and the indaba groups
- the encouragement in the Archbishop’s final words concerning inviting ‘those absent from Lambeth to be involved in these next stages’ and of looking for ‘the best ways of building bridges’ with GAFCON.
- the ministry of the organisers, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Windsor Continuation Group
we question:
- whether some bishops, who are not willing to work with the Windsor Report and the Anglican Covenant, should have been present
we urge:
- a prompt announcement of the chair of the Pastoral Forum and its membership
- the bridge building with GAFCON to begin as soon as possible
- the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA) to co-operate with the Pastoral Forum
2. GAFCON
we appreciate concerning GAFCON in Jerusalem:
- no schism in the Anglican Communion, but plans to work within the Communion
- the tone of the communiqué being serious
- the positive points of the Jerusalem Declaration and its setting the controversies in a wide context
we appreciate concerning the GAFCON Primates’ Council in London:
- the decision not to recognise immediately a new province in North America, though that is still a ‘possibility’
- the mention of the Anglican Covenant - even if it is in somewhat dismissive tones - a move forward from the Jerusalem communique
- the door being left open on the Pastoral Forum, even if it is also mentioned in dismissive tones
- the hint from Greg Venables, in the report of The Living Church, that the FCA Primates will attend the Anglican Communion Primates' Meeting in early 2009
- the polite reference to the Global South Anglican leaders who were not present at GAFCON.
- the clarification that if people who are conservative on sexual issues do not join the FCA, they are not thereby going to be considered ‘unorthodox’
we question:
- the substantial authority that the FCA Primates' Council claims for itself to define who is authentically Anglican - it specifically excludes the Archbishop of Canterbury from such a role
- whether the FCA is in fact a 'church within a church' - or even 'a church in fellowship's clothing'. How can you have a province of the FCA, if the FCA is not a 'church' or a 'communion'? A ‘fellowship’ does not have ‘provinces’. A ‘communion’ or a ‘church’ does.
- whether an FCA province in North America is needed now that the Pastoral Forum is being set up.
- the meaning of becoming members of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans’? Is this a blank cheque? Does membership imply agreement to the FCA strategy as set out in the ‘Jerusalem Declaration and Statement on the Global Anglican Future’?
- whether it would be at all helpful to have interventions in England from the FCA Primates' Council, even if so invited by some evangelical leaders in England.
we urge:
- the FCA Primates’ Council to respond positively to the Pastoral Forum and to the building bridges initiative of the Archbishop of Canterbury
- those in FCA in North America to join the Pastoral Forum
Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum
Forum Posts About This Article:
Posted by: DavidW
Friday 26 March 2010 - 07:52am
To Beryl the Peril,
Well my question was whether you accept that there are people who have diseases but that in the beginning God didn’t create that way? I am still uncertain from your reply. As one can see God didn’t originally create us for disease, one can be sure its no point in thanking God for it. Jesus not only healed people but taught His disciples to pray for healing as well. God looks at the heart and mind.
It should be fairly obvious then that God's purposes are not perfectly reflected in a sin corrupted and degenerated world.
That the donkey spoke doesn’t mean all animals speak, but it does mean the donkey spoke; no idea what your point was.
Posted by: Pamela
Thursday 25 March 2010 - 12:21pm
DavidW,
I certainly accept that "in the beginning God created male and female".
That is not to say that I accept that every successive creation is a result of God's will and design. Just as one would not expect a child with muscular dystrophy to be grateful to God for the way they have been created, neither would I expect those who are physically or hormonally orientated to be neither male or female to be grateful to God either.
And, bearing that in mind, do God's purposes dictate that we must be male OR female? Just because it was God's purpose to use the ass/donkey to speak to Balaam in the OT does not mean that it was God's purpose for all animals to speak in that way for all time.
Just because God can does not mean that He will.
Posted by: DavidW
Thursday 25 March 2010 - 07:46am
To Beryl the Peril,
Of course there are such people today, and no God didn’t create them that way, as the word of God that I cited says ‘in the beginning God created them male and female’
Is it possible for you to accept that there are people who have diseases but that in the beginning God didn’t create that way? And indeed one day there will again be no more tears.
Is it also possible for you to accept the word of God and His purposes?
Posted by: Pamela
Wednesday 24 March 2010 - 05:01pm
DavidW,
You said in your penultimate post: "the human species has two sexes in the species created to reproduce sexually, homosexual orientation is therefore a human construct and error both functionally and logically, God created male and female for a reason."
Is it possible for you to accept that there is a minority of people in the world who are neither male nor female - and therefore not capable of reproduction ? Did God create them that way?
Posted by: DavidW
Wednesday 24 March 2010 - 09:54am
The church can not tolerate doublemindedness on the homosexual issue. There is as clear NT teaching to show that the church is not to judge the world but to expel wilful promotion of sexual immorality (1 Cor 5) as there is clear NT teaching to show same sex relationships are sexual immorality, against God's creation purposes and error. (Matt 19, Eph 5, 1 Cor 6-7, Romans 1)
Reading secular commentary from the world however, it is obvious they recognise a difference of opinion within the church, and are thus confident that the church can therefore adopt the world's position and view on this. This is why there is even a potential for civil partnerships in religious establishments and why Lord Carey has just recently given the warnings.
Posted by: DavidW
Tuesday 23 March 2010 - 08:08am
I think this statement is the crux of the matter..
“His point is that if a certain class of people are not to repent of what the Bible declares they should repent, because they were born with an orientation to this, then here is a group of people who need affirmation, not salvation, from God in matters of sexuality. “
The key word being ‘if’ There is no class of people identified anywhere in the Biblical testimony that shouldn’t repent of any of the sins described in the Bible, so there is no ‘if’ The human species has two sexes in the species created to reproduce sexually, ‘homosexual orientation’ is therefore a human construct and an error both functionally and logically, God created male and female for a reason.
Until this issue is grasped all subsequent arguments based on homosexual orientation are faulty.
Posted by: CliffordSwartz
Thursday 18 March 2010 - 08:03pm
Dear Roger,
Through an accidental click, I came across your postings, and read your call for statements about whether gay marriage (as an instance of issues of human sexual morality) is primary. And "primary" is taken to mean an issue over which one would break fellowship. Some scattered items in reply:
1. Scriptural Authority
In a similar vein to your discussion with Ian, the general reply has been that, since the issue is clear in the Bible, then biblical authority itself is at stake. So the Kuala Lampur Statement seems to indicate in point ten...
We are deeply concerned that the setting aside of vital teaching in such actions as the ordination of practicing homosexuals and the blessing of same-sex unions, calls into question the authority of the Holy Scriptures. This is totally unacceptable to us.
Your reply to Ian indicates, I think, that you believe this begs the question -- might the authority of scripture be maintained (by Evangelicals) but a different conclusion reached by interpretation. I have found the arguments about the relevant scriptures supporting monogamous homosexual relationships (but not promiscuous homosexual relationships) to be unconvincing. They seem to be based on the notion that, because in the New Testament era the modern notions/awareness of sexual orientation or committed same sex relationships were unknown, then the language must only refer to things such as cultic sexual practices. My reading as a first year student of Platos Symposium would seem to indicate otherwise.
2. Security of Salvation
I am unclear from your post whether you support the idea that Jesus did not speak about homosexuality so this cannot be a matter of primary importance (you could be citing the opinion of others). In any case, this point has been answered by others -- that when Jesus spoke about sexual immorality (e.g., Mark 7.20,22), the content of his statements would be informed by the Old Testament teaching on the matter, including prohibition of same sex intercourse. The same would be true of the apostles. In this, they were going against the culture of the day as much as the church does today when addressing such matters -- people were being saved in the midst of their involvement in a sexually troubled culture (as is indicated by 1 Cor 6.11).
As far as why Evangelicals view this as a matter of primary importance, they do so because it is described as a matter of salvation by Jesus and the apostles. Jesus speaks of sexual immorality defiling the heart (again in Mark 7). He also says that pride, deceit and envy likewise defile the heart. I am guilty of the items of this list and others in the New Testament, and yet I have the assurance of salvation trusting in the work of Christ on the Cross -- to present me to God undefiled, declared holy. We repent of the things Jesus lists, asking God to strip them from, not wrap them up into, our personal identity. If something He calls sin, I decide to exempt from repentance because I file it under the heading of love, then I have denied his lordship, exercised by the Spirit through the Word. The apostles, writing in cities across the Roman Empire,
make the same point -- that sexual immorality is to be repented of, and if we hold fast to it, we deny the lordship of Christ (I think this is why the use of kingdom and inheritance is used by the apostles, eg, 1 Cor 6.9, Eph 5.5).
3. An uncorrupted portion of humanity?
Paul Zahl, then an Episcopal cathedral dean, pointed out that the theological basis of the arguments in favor of homosexual relations being accepted undermines the Gospel. His address (http://www.adventbirmingham.org/articles.asp?ID=1625) is not a treatment of the scriptural texts, but would relate more to the lawful use of the law in 1 Tim 1.10 as it relates to these matters. His point is that if a certain class of people are not to repent of what the Bible declares they should repent, because they were born with an orientation to this, then here is a group of people who need affirmation, not salvation, from God in matters of sexuality.
4. Clarity of the issue as primary among non-Fulcrum Evangelicals
I see on the Reform website that there are eleven papers detailing the importance of issues of human sexuality (http://www.reform.org.uk/pages/bb/issueshsex.php), and so the stance among Evangelicals who see this as primary (ie, an issue that jeopardizes fellowship) is well stated.
5. Your view that Fulcrum avoids debate on the issue
I do not know why Fulcrum would shy away from debating the point, and perhaps the letter you refer to from the chair of the time makes this clear. I can see that there could be a concern to hold people together by having a clear line from the top, but not acting on the implications of the principle in practice, knowing this will irritate some of the constituency. That happens often enough in the Church of England. Pretty soon, however, the error becomes a tradition and is perceived to be deserving of respect because of venerability instead of veracity.
I was glad Andrew Goddard made a weighty reply to the Bishop of Liverpool recently. I was surprised to see the reference to Issues in Human Sexuality ((2.13) that there are clear rules for conduct...there is also...is a conscious focusing, in Paul especially but not exclusively, on breach of the sexual rules as one of the sins most likely to endanger the security of salvation for Christians ) in Goddards recent article. My surprise was that if he accepted this statement, then his criticism of the Bishop of Liverpools address must take on greater strength -- because the bishop endangers the salvation of his flock by false teaching.
Well, I learned at Ridley that to communicate briefly takes much more time, and so do apologize for the length of this post. Hopefully there are some points that pick up on the questions you wish to address.
In Christs service,
Clifford Swartz (ordained in York, serving in New York!)
www.christchurchnyc.com
Posted by: Roger Harper
Saturday 7 February 2009 - 09:35pm
Dear Ian,
Many thanks for replying to my latest post about gay marriage as primary or not. Like you, it seems, I am not always able to reply soon. Partly because of the way the Forum works, posting here is not now a primary concern of mine!
I understand you arguing that because Scripture is clear about homosexuality, gay marriage is a primary issue, ie one over which it is right to break fellowship.
Some people argue that women not leading churches is also clear in Scripture. Others argue that our equality in Christ is also clear and takes precedence, particularly because Jesus went as far as his cultural conventions allowed in including women, and our all being one in Christ is a weightier matter. In Scripture there are weightier matters and matters such as tithing dill and cumin. Jesus even treated the command to obey the Sabbath, as interpreted by contemporaries, as a less than weighty matter. The weightier ones are the outworking of the principles of love.
Scripture is clear that slavery is part of the way the world is. We should treat slaves well, but Scripture does not suggest abolishing slavery. However, the weightier matter of loving your neighbour as yourself eventually takes precedence.
For some people, loving faithfulness to one person is weightier than the gender of the person. And Jesus said nothing about homosexuality… If we are guided by the weightier matters of Scripture and we base all our doctrine on what Jesus said (listening to him primarily rather than equally to Moses, Elijah, Paul, and Jesus), we can believe, Scripturally, that the Holy Spirit could be leading us to support gay marriage. Even if we don’t go that far, as I don’t, we can see this as an issue which is less than primary.
You write, Ian, that you do not find these parallels compelling. Other people do. Surely there should be more good debate about this?
Lack of space constrains me from developing this further, but I hope I have shown you how an Evangelical might deem gay marriage not primary, even when, as I do, they believe it not to be of the Holy Spirit.
The importance of this matter is that if gay marriage is primary it makes sense to break fellowship over it – as Mainstream etc argue. If it is not primary, we have to instead continue to make every effort to maintain our unity.
I mentioned before that Jody said that, for her, gay marriage is not primary. It is clear that we Evangelicals disagree about this. Why not make this the subject of a Fulcrum conference?
I have been calling, on and off, for such debate since NEAC4. After Blackpool I wrote a paper criticising the Conference and calling for something better, a paper which I sent to Graham Kings. When Fulcrum announced a Day Conference on Christ and other faiths I wrote that it would be better to address the gay marriage issue in front of us rather than risk being accused of ‘theological fiddling while Anglicanism burns.’ This post was not allowed on the Forum and Francis Bridger, as Chair, wrote to me personally taking me to task. Since then I have, from time to time, continued my call for proper exploration of the adiaphora issue, to no avail. (Following one such post of mine someone replied that he agreed with me and had joined Fulcrum just to say that.) But there is only so much banging one’s head against a brick wall one can do.
Posted by: Deleted user 974
Saturday 27 December 2008 - 12:33am
Who and where and when is the Church of the Settled postion ? Souns nice and comfy and of course, must keep out any who would disturb its cc * too much.
If you went to art school you'd find no settled postions but room for lots of mark making, lots of contributions of free* *selves.
** not coerced
cc = cozy consensus.
Never forget that Rabbi Nachman advised talking out to God from the heart as to a friend. --- no settled postions there.
Try having a settled postion on your face at the burning bush !
Posted by: Ian Paul
Tuesday 23 December 2008 - 10:59pm
Kevin
You question is an important one. The most immediate measure of what the constituency thinks is to read responses on these discussions.
But it is worth noting that our website says 'renewing the evangelical centre' not 'the authentic voice of evangelicals in the C of E.' We are aiming to provide resources to strengthen evangelical reflection, and perspectives and a voice with which evangelicals can identify, not a line that evangelicals must follow.
Posted by: Ian Paul
Tuesday 23 December 2008 - 10:48pm
David
1. I wasn't 'attempting to judge' anything. My post was in response to a question about whether I saw the issue of homosexuality as 'primary' or 'secondary' in Roger's categories. I am not sure I have answered his question in the terms he sets it.
2. I was quoting my own comment from another discussion, which was primarily about doctrine, but in the first line I mention 'any position, whether a doctrine of Scripture or a position on homosexual practice' so I am clearly not stating that there is a 'doctrine' on homosexuality.
3. The main point of that quotation is that a particular position cannot be, in and of itself, a shibboleth for orthodoxy, without the hermeneutical discussion.
I am intrigued that you are worried about my position, since it can close down discussion, though in my case does not. One of the key problems in the discussion (which I have encountered personally) is that I am not allowed to have a settled position coming into the discussion, but must allow that all positions are equally valid, regardless of how well they stand up to scrutiny. The reality is that the church does have a position, and is officially always open to discussion about this, but that does not mean surrendering the position prior to any discussion of it.
The question of how the hermeneutical process differs in relation to divorce, slavery and women's ordination has been well rehearsed in the literature, but does not for me provide a compelling case on homosexuality.
I would be interested to hear which arguments have changed your mind, and how these engage with the cases put forward by, for example, Richard Hays or 'True Union in the Body'. My last conversation with Giles Fraser on this was to ask him for a compelling case built on the overarching biblical narrative, similar to True Union, but for the revisionist position. His comment was that there isn't one. But are in danger of getting off topic for this thread...
Posted by: Kevin Ellis
Tuesday 23 December 2008 - 10:12pm
I am not sure whether this is the best thread to raise the issue, but the reply by Ian to Roger prompts the following question, when Fulcrum speaks for whom is it speaking, and how would the Fulcrum leadership team know they were speaking on behalf of the Fulcrum constituency? This is not expressing disatisfaction at all, I appreciate the work of Graham, Ian, Simon et al and would broadly be in agreement with them; but when Fulcrum responds to GAFCON or CEEC, do Fulcrum envisage they are speaking for me, and what measures do Fulcrum have in place to ensure that they know what the constituency might be thinking?
Thanks very much for all you do. Happy Christmas when it comes.
Kevin
Posted by: DavidR
Tuesday 23 December 2008 - 09:00pm
Ian,
I am very uncomfortable with your attempt to judge a person's fidelity to the authority of scripture to an approach to a specific issue as you do. That approach is too often used to avoid discussion at all and to exclude views we strongly oppose (though I know that is not your own style).
You speak of a situation in which a particular 'doctrine is so clearly evidenced in Scripture, and has so clearly stood the test of the hermeneutical process, that it is not possible to disagree with this doctrine without jettisoning Scripture itself.' The example you then give is homosexuality. But there is no 'doctrine' of homosexuality in scripture is there? And my own view is the possibility of faithful same-sex relationships as some seek today is not a possibility recognised or directly addressed in scripture. I fully accept this is a sensitive and difficult debate. But it is simply not true that I have abandoned a belief in the authority of scripture by saying that. I have not.
And as to 'the test of the hermeneutical process' - what about divorce or slavery or the ordination of women? Aren't they examples of just such a process leading to very significant change in understanding scripture and social practice even after centuries of solid consensus to the contrary?
Posted by: Ian Paul
Tuesday 23 December 2008 - 06:10pm
Roger
As a member of the LT, I was not aware you had been asking 'for years' for clarification of whether the issue of gay marriage was primary or not. Perhaps this reflects some assumptions--I certainly do not read all the posts all of the time.
I tackled this question indirectly on the 'Defining Evangelical' thread, where I commented (on 22nd November):
"It therefore means that any particular question, whether a doctrine of Scripture or a position on homosexual practice, cannot in and of itself become a shibboleth, but can come close to the centre if it has stood the test of undergoing this hermeneutical process. In other words, we can never say 'This doctrine is sacrosanct in and of itself' but what we can say is 'This doctrine is so clearly evidenced in Scripture, and has so clearly stood the test of the hermeneutical process, that it is not possible to disagree with this doctrine without jettisoning Scripture itself.' This must surely be true for something like the doctrine of the Trinity; it is not 'in' Scripture, but has emerged from the hermeneutical process that reached a climax in the formulation of the creeds."
This is where the gay issue is for me. Having looked long and hard at a range of arguments from across the spectrum for something like 30 years (it was all the rage in Buzz magazine when I was a teenager!) I am clear that to be revisionist on the gay issue means to reject the authority of Scripture--not because sexuality is necessarily central to Scripture (as some liberals appear to think some evangelicals claim) but because on this issue Scripture is relatively clear.
In the terms of your question, does that mean I see gay marriage as primary or not? Not sure!
Posted by: Simon Morden
Tuesday 4 November 2008 - 05:03pm
I have been - perforce briefly - in conversation with John Richardson over on his Ugley Vicar blog.
ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2008/11/harmony-with-belial-can-conservative.html
Scroll down to the bottom of the comments.
Posted by: Peter Carrell
Tuesday 4 November 2008 - 01:50am
Hi Roger
I cannot quite follow your logic re primary /secondary status for 'gay marriage'. If I am in the First XI it doesn't matter whether I am no 1 or no 11 in the batting order, I am still in the First XI and not the Second XI. If the Jerusalem Declaration is a statement of primary issues then it makes little difference where on the list one of the issues comes.
I also cannot quite follow you in your assumption or presumption that us Fulcrumites treat 'gay marriage' in one distinctive way.
Mind you, I am not sure what constitutes a Fulcrumite ... but as a reader and occasional commenter on Fulcrum threads I first dispute the validity of the term 'gay marriage' since marriage only refers to the diversity-in-union permanent coupling of a man and a woman. Secondly, because the permanent union of two men or of two women is a concept at least unknown to Scripture, if not outrightly condemned by Scripture, then the possibility of the church taking a decisively different view to Scripture on such a profoundly important matter for human society goes to the heart of the church's relationship with Scripture and its understanding of its authority and implementation. From this perspective, unless we were to say that important matters of human society and/or issues in understanding the authority and implementation of Scripture are secondary to the project of understanding God's will for life, the debate around permanent same-sex unions or (if you persist) 'gay marriage' is a matter of primary doctrinal importance.
Posted by: Roger Harper
Monday 3 November 2008 - 11:31am
Has anyone picked up the lack of clarity, or even confusion, in The Jerusalem Declaration about whether gay marriage is a primary issue, a secondary issue, or what?
The ‘tenets of orthodoxy’ are listed, apparently beginning with truths which are foundational to the Gospel and define Christian faith (Salvation by grace through faith, affirming the ecumenical Creeds).
Then the specifically Anglican truths of the 39 Articles and the Book of Common Prayer are affirmed. But these can hardly be deemed foundational to the Gospel and defining of Christian faith – unless you want to say that every non-Anglican is a non-Christian (and all the Christians who lived before the Reformation were not really Christians at all.) You cannot say that those who reject the BCP are teachers of a false gospel.
Then there is the statement of traditional sexual ethics. Are we therefore to understand, from its lowly position in the Statement, that this is even less foundational than the BCP? But those who promote gay marriage are deemed teachers of a false gospel…
Somewhat to my surprise, GAFCON also did not call for TEC to be expelled from the Communion, as did the Archbishop of Sudan. GAFCON stated that they want to continue to be part of the current Communion, which includes TEC, even an unrepentant TEC. They are affirming being ‘in the same Communion’ while also stating that they are ‘out of communion.’ I think this expresses quite well the reality of the situation. TEC have gone off on their own path, and we cannot go down it with them. But we still count them in some way brothers and sisters. The Lambeth Conference and the Covenant Proposals also seem to be pointing to this kind of relationship, in which a TEC promoting gay marriage would not be ‘full’ members but still in some way members. Much more work needs to be done, in FCA and across the whole Communion, on how exactly these relationships will be fleshed out. But the point here is that GAFCON / FCA are not consistent in their attitude to N. American Liberals. They seem to envisage continuing fellowship with the Liberals (as we have had for years), or at least continuing fellowship with others in fellowship with the Liberals, while still deeming TEC etc teachers of a false gospel.
Of course if FCA now want to go further and call for TEC to be expelled, unless they repent, that would be consistent. If TEC are really deemed teachers of a false gospel on an issue that is of the same, primary, level as salvation by grace through faith and the contents of the Creeds, then it makes sense to have absolutely nothing to do with them and to have nothing to do with anyone else who maintains fellowship with them – ie FCA becomes a separate Communion. But this is not what was declared in Jerusalem. Hence the confusion. In some ways Jerusalem was saying that gay marriage is not primary, in some ways it was saying it is primary.
This really is the crux of the matter. In the thread on Tear Fund, Jody states that for Mainstream people gay marriage is a primary issue, whereas for her it is not. Surely it is high time this ‘adiaphora’ issue is examined properly. Mainstream need to give their Biblical reasons why they think gay marriage is primary – more primary than divorce, although Jesus spoke about the latter and not the former. Fulcrum need to give Biblical reasons why gay marriage is not primary. (I would happily help in this.)
For years, I have been pushing Fulcrum to do this. The Leadership Team have refused to take up the issue. When I have raised it in Forum Threads, it has been mostly ignored. (This is partly why I have not posted here for months.)
Across the Communion there are 3 views: that gay marriage is a primary issue, that gay marriage is a purely secondary, ‘agree to disagree’ issue, that gay marriage is an issue somewhere in between. I think we Fulcrumites tend to hold the last view. We need to set out the arguments fully and challenge the faulty inconsistent Mainstream / FCA view. If not beginning at NEAC5 then when?
Posted by: Sergei
Friday 19 September 2008 - 10:26am
Thanks you for that Nersen. A straight (hypothetical) answer to a straight (hypothetical)question, though not one that necessarily reflects the practice of all 'conservative' bishops who inherit 'facts on the ground'.
Posted by: nersenpaul
Friday 19 September 2008 - 09:23am
Hi Sergei, since you ask an hypothetical question, I will give you an hypothetical answer.....if I had:
- clergy who felt tempted to steal but fought that temptation recognising the sin, I would support them;
- clergy who felt tempted to steal and fought that temptation themselves BUT taught that it was ok for others to steal, trying to justify the sin, I would not accept that as it would be leading others into sin;
- clergy who tried to justify their unrepentant stealing as good and holy...... I could not accept that stance as it lacks honesty in so many ways and would be leading others into sin.
Posted by: Sergei
Thursday 18 September 2008 - 03:34pm
Nersen, mea culpa so far as my sloppy use of terms is concerned. 'Radical conservatives' was perhaps a poor choice of words, but my reference was to half a dozen acquaintances (including one very close relative) that earlier were loosely connected with Reform and who have said similar things to me. Not evidence that would stand up in court, though I believe I saw an American article on the Anglican Mainstream website earlier in the summer that said something to the effect that recognising an orientation would be the thin end of the wedge. But as I cannot track the piece down and in the interests of fairness I happily admit that my standards of evidence were inadequate to meet your forensic requirements. But I am still interested in the more substantive issue of handling pastoral situations, though perhaps inevitably these remain behind closed doors. If you were a bishop (assuming you are not) what would you do?
Posted by: James
Thursday 18 September 2008 - 03:25pm
If you just Google the words homosexual orientation sin, and follow it through you will find that there is a minority of people who do indeed rejcect the idea of orientation. Some of them, arguably, do not understand orientation in quite the same way as others - but they are clear that homosexual orientation is inherently sinful.
Posted by: nersenpaul
Thursday 18 September 2008 - 11:00am
Sergei - any EVIDENCE for your assertion about what you speculate people you call "some radical conservatives" might do and think?????
Easy to make assertions - do you have any real evidence to back up your assertion?
Posted by: Sergei
Wednesday 17 September 2008 - 05:24pm
James, Yes I did mean to refer to action, though for some radical conservatives the notion of an orientation, which might imply God made them that way, could be seen as the thin end of the wedge. And I still think a number of evangelical bishops must be turning a blind eye -and I am not criticising them for doing so, just wondering about the implications of this and how they justify their position. My own episcopal friend put it in terms (a) as I said, of not making an issue it was not a cause of scandal and (b) because he didn't like the way some were elevating homosexuality into a sin above all others. Or as he rather bluntly put it, 'if I ejected all sinners from their livings, we would all be out of a job'.
Posted by: James
Tuesday 16 September 2008 - 10:42am
Even for the most conservative bishop surely the fact that one of their clergy is gay is not the issue. It is action not orientation that is the issue.
Posted by: Sergei
Monday 15 September 2008 - 03:11pm
I had always wondered how bishops handled this when they took over dioceses where there were homosexual clergy. The logic of the GAFCON position is surely that if people are persistently sinning then they should be reproved, asked to repent and, if they persist, then ejected, and bishops are failing in their duty it they fail to discipline erring clerics.
But presumably for most 'conservative' bishops the solution is more pragmatic and I would interested to know how people do handle this, again whilst recognising that every situation is different. One episcopal friend I asked, who is definitely of a traditionalist disposition, said that his general rule of thumb was (a) he would not ordain people in a gay relationship (he was not clear about people in a currently celibate position); (b) he would not question previous ordinations so long as the clergyman in question was not living in a way that caused a scandal (in the theological sense) in the parish and the community. I assume this must be a fairly common position amongst more conservative bishops but would be interested to know if other approaches are emerging and whether such bishops come under pressure from GAFCON types groups or individuals to oust gay clergy.
Posted by: Kien
Monday 15 September 2008 - 10:31am
Hello kind Anglicans - as far as I can tell, you guys are the only ones addressing the challenge raised by homosexual Christians. It seems to me that you do this by experimenting in three possible models: (a) a North American model that manages to read Scripture as welcoming homosexual Christians without condemning homosexual relations, (b) a GAFCON model that condemns homosexual relations but (hopefully) still welcoming homosexual Christians, and (c) somewhere in between (although precisely what is not clear). Matthew records Jesus as observing that we will know whether a prophet is false or true by their fruits? Each model must somehow show the rest of the world (including Muslims) how Christians relate to homosexuals. Over the next century or so, we (or more accurately, future generations) should hopefully be able to decide which model works best. Let each local church find its own way to guide its congregation on how they can proclaim the gospel to homosexuals, and how homosexual Christians can proclaim the gospel to others. I think this means not filing law suits against one another, but letting each church find its own way forward. Try to live in peace with one another.
Just a suggestion. Kien
Posted by: James
Monday 15 September 2008 - 10:19am
I agree that the needs of people should be at the centre of our thinking when we are trying to work our way through this question. Both the presenting needs and the underlying needs.
Depending what view someone takes about homosexuality and homosexual acts they will feel that different needs are being presented. On the one hand a person taking one view may say that a person should be encouraged to enter into a permanent, faithful and committed relationship - perhaps even call it a marriage. On the other hand a person taking a different view may say that a person should be encouraged and supported to develop strong friendships and accountability relationships, but should be discouraged from entering into any sexual relationship. But either of these basic approaches are likely to need considerable nuance and flexibility in the case of each individual person.
It is hard to see how a pastoral strategy can be evolved without some kind of decision in principle about what is good for people spiritually, emotionally and physically. Probably that process needs to be a circular/spiral process in which day to day pastoral encounters are fed back into the thinking process as well.
Posted by: Peter Carrell
Monday 15 September 2008 - 09:16am
George, The question you pose appears to generate its own answer if no one responds!
I agree, there is much discussion here there and everywhere in the Fulcrum, GAFCON, Lambeth axis which is focused on the issue or issues, and not on people. Yet to focus on people and their pastoral needs is not always straightforward when engaged in written discourse such as internet comment requires. Some pastoral responses we make are instinctive and intuitive and not easily written up. Other responses may be pragmatic and make perfectly good sense in the reality of human relating, but be difficult to write about - words explaining a response can readily become words justifying a response, and then the words can seem more about the issue or issues than about people. Perhaps less words and more silence would be appropriate!
But there is also a small but important fact that is not easily dislodged. The challenge for some of us is that we do not feel we are primarily being asked to formulate an evangelical general pastoral response to homosexuality. We are being asked to agree or disagree on particular matters (ordinations, blessings of people in same sex partnerships) with some substantive reasoning in support (lest we be derided or disowned by erstwhile colleagues to the left and to the right). Given that in these particular matters it is not a general pastoral response which is being sought but a permanent decision of the church in favour of that which the church has hitherto been against, there is definitely an issue or two to discuss!
Posted by: George Day
Sunday 14 September 2008 - 04:01pm
Although I am personally thankful for much that came out of Lambeth and appreciative too of the Fulcrum response, as I reflect on Lambeth and Gafcon and the Fulcrum response and on much else beside, what really concerns me is that in all the discussions about the presenting issue of homosexuality what is being totally ignored is the situation and needs of the people involved - i.e. those who find themselves to be of homosexual orientation. To my mind that seems totally foreign to the way Jesus worked - he dealt primarily with people, not issues. (I stress primarily because clearly he did deal with issues, but he never let the needs of people be submerged by the issues, and indeed roundly castigated those who did so, (e.g. Matthew 23:4)).
Reflecting on the present situation, on the one hand TEC may have done enormous damage and can be justly criticised for its approach, (although at least TEC is trying to deal with the needs of people).
At the other extreme, the strongly conservative may even try to effectively deny the existence of the people involved (as in Peter Akinola's comments), and at present there seems little chance of any change in that dismissive approach.
So I would like to address a question to those who are not happy with either extreme, (and that is hopefully the majority of Fulcrumites, perhaps even the majority of the CofE as a whole): even if you follow Lambeth and the Fulcrum response in advocating non-acceptance of gay relationships, how would you want the church to respond pastorally to those who are personally affected? This is an absolutely vital question, but at present it seems to be utterly ignored. And as said above, I cannot see that such ignoring is Christ-like, and I only wish as much attention was being given to the people as to the issue.
Posted by: James
Sunday 14 September 2008 - 07:09am
He clearly feels very embattled, but this looks like a clear example of Godwin's law.
It seems that as far as David Anderson is concerned the split is an established reality on the ground. The only remaining question is who the buildings etc. belong to. Some of what he says seems to be shaped with an eye to the forthcoming legal disputes.
Posted by: CliffordSwartz
Sunday 14 September 2008 - 04:19am
Reviewing the Fulcrum Response to Lambeth and GAFCON, I am wondering what difference is perceived between what is appreciated about the results of Lambeth and questioned with GAFCON:
appreciated from Lambeth:
there would be ‘teeth’ - and eventually a ‘two tier’ Communion would be likely to emerge, of those in the centre who will sign, and of those on the edge who will not.
appreciated from GAFCON:
no schism in the Anglican Communion, but plans to work within the Communionbut a question about GAFCON:
whether the FCA is in fact a 'church within a church'
What is the difference between a "two-tier communion" and a "church within a church" that will "work within the Communion"?
Don't such distinctions already peacefully exist within in the Church of England? There are various networking groups (such as Fulcrum, Affirming Catholics, Reform, etc) allowing their respective members to work closely together, sometimes officially distinguishing themselves according to the network (eg, a "New Wine Church" is a common self-designation). Yet an individual congregation will still have, to greater or lesser degrees, official participation in a diocese, even if the real pastoral networks (especially for the clergy) are alongside the official ones. I would guess most would attend deanery functions with a sense of grudging obligation, and your annual conference with joy! In the North American context, the official diocesan activities can be toxic, not just boring.
Other issues crop up in my mind, such as the aggressive liberalism of US and Canadian bishops versus the fairly benign version in England; and the question of the fundamental "unit" of the worldwide church being a national church, province, diocese or local congregation. But those are probably topics for another occasion, as they may not appear related to this particular thread.
Thank you for the opportunity to take part in the discussion.
(Rev) Clifford Swartz, serving an Anglican church in Manhattan.
Posted by: John Martin
Saturday 13 September 2008 - 05:24pm
David Anderson says:
"I am also reminded, however, that following the Second World War there were some English leaders who insisted on blocking the Jewish Holocaust survivors on the refugee ship Exodus from disembarking in Palestine, and instead sent them back to German internment camps in British-occupied zones. Upon arrival, they were beaten, dragged off the ship and placed behind barbed wire again on German soil."
If that is the situation he and his friends face in the US we should be really concerned. But isn't he over-stating somewhat?
Posted by: carl
Saturday 13 September 2008 - 04:56pm
David Anderson is absolutely correct about the unworkability of the Pastoral Fourm. In order for this Forum to gain the confidence of the disaffected minority in TEC, it must essentially duplicate the actions of the GS bishops. Only complete separation from TECs authority will satisfy. But this is precisely the condition that TEC will never tolerate. So stalemate is achieved. The minority will see a weak forum as a cat' paw intended to return them under TECs authority. On the other hand, TEC will see a strong forum as the leading edge of an officially-approved second province. The non-negotiable demand of one side excludes the non-negotiable demand of the other.
Because this is the case, both sides will proceed along their current trajectories. Neither will pay any heed to the Pastoral Forum. It might eventually organize, and meet and issue a committee report. But it will have all of the enforcement power of the League of Nations - and all of the effectiveness as well. There is simply no way to compel either side to sacrifice its vital interests. So TEC will continue on with its blood purge of the orthodox, and the new North American province will continue to form. There is nothing in the formation of the Pastoral Forum that can stop either.
carl
Posted by: Graham Kings
Saturday 13 September 2008 - 12:36pm
David Ould, has commented on the 'Fulcrum Response to the Lambeth Conference and to GAFCON', Stand Firm site, 9 September 2008.
David Anderson, President and CEO of the American Anglican Council, has written a critique of the Fulcrum Response which was published on the Anglican Mainstream site, 12 September 2008.
What do people make of these comments?
Posted by: nersenpaul
Wednesday 10 September 2008 - 08:00am
Back on topic.................the Fulcrum response to Lambeth and GAFCON is helpful and fair, it does not put institutional unity above truth but does still want to allow time for repentance in TEC et al leading to unity being restored in the AC.
As always, Fulcrum is overly optimistic about possible outcomes and unwilling to criticise the negative impact of the (in)decisions of the ABC, but still, the statement is fair.
Reality is, TEC et al are willing to talk until the cows come home, but will not change their revisionist, rights-based direction - this has to be addressed at some point by a DECISION to which the AC is committed in both word and action (i.e. with integrity)
Posted by: Graham Kings
Tuesday 9 September 2008 - 06:33pm
David Ould has put a link, with his comments, on the Stand Firm site today, into the Fulcrum Response to the Lambeth Conference and to GAFCON. Some interesting comments...
Posted by: Deleted user 1491
Tuesday 9 September 2008 - 11:35am
I am surprised to see Liddon's comments regarding the decline of the church in England, and their interesting reading of history. I am further surprised to learn that evangelicalism has captured the C of E; this is not my experience at a diocesan level.
Further, neither of these assertions is supported by statistics. Following the 1800s, where 1/3 of clergy claimed to be "evangelical" and where church attendance was at its peak, decline has been steady in both numbers of 'evangelical' clergy and in attendance. Discuss whether this is the fault of the evangelicals at the time or not if you like.
What cannot be said is that growth of liberalism following the second world war halted this decline, and the battle cry of liberalism to engage more with society against those backward evangelicals has not had the great turning of the tide that was hoped for- and I think it self-deceiving to blame this failure also on evangelicals. I agree with Liddon on the perception of evangelicals, and it might be something that we wish to address (for which, see the recent call to grace-soaked evangelicalism in Evangelicals Now by Chris Green).
Posted by: liddon
Tuesday 9 September 2008 - 08:48am
Hi Pluralist,
I hope you do stop blogging here. I did, because I agreed with what you have just said about Fulcrum's sense of self-importance and its lack of perspective about itself. As far as I can see, the evangelicals have captured the Anglican Communion, and the Church of England, at the expense of losing the nation. The 'tight-little, right-little' world of evangelicalism has very little to say to ordinary people, so, it is gathering large congregations of like-minded people in a few churches, and contributing to the decline of non-evangelical churches by altering the general perception of what church is about. You should stop blogging here because your presence lends Fulcrum an intellectual integrity and respectability which it otherwise lacks. By blogging here you confer more honour on Fulcrum than they confer on you. Leave them, even though they are the best of the evangelical world, to their own devices.
Posted by: James Mercer
Tuesday 9 September 2008 - 08:30am
No Adrian, please don't stop. The Fulcrum blogs would be the poorer without your perspective - and we all need humbling from time to time.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Tuesday 9 September 2008 - 07:40am
Hi Pluralist, I do hope that you will blog again on Fulcrum for the following reasons:
1. You have interesting perspectives and flashes of insight that others do not have
2. It is sad if people only blog on the sites that reflect their position - we need more interaction, not less - I've posted this comment on your site too...
3. the impetus of Liberalism is to engage, and converse - preferably in the same (virtual) room
4. In response to your comment on Fulcrum: 'I find the Fulcrum view one that aggrandises its own small position and that is out of place and out of time' Celinda replied, 'If you think Fulcrum's view is small, unimportant, out of date, and out of time, why do you contribute?' I think this was more pointing out irony than suggesting you stop commenting.
5. We need you to take us down a peg or two, or three or four hundred...
Posted by: Peter Carrell
Tuesday 9 September 2008 - 05:04am
By 'council' I did not mean a congress! I am thinking of an event in which evangelicals, particularly evangelical theologians, of more stripes and hues than represented at GAFCON, could 'council' together on issues of urgency and importance - noting, for instance, the seeming intractibility of the ordination of women as an issue differentiating evangelicals.
Put in other words, whether organised by EFAC, CEEC, or any other acronym, could we see the likes of ++Peter Jensen, +Tom Wright, ++Henry Orombi, Elaine Storkey, Christopher Seitz, Michael Poon etc sit round a table and work out something, whether it be confession or covenant or 21st-century 39 Articles, which forwards the unity of Anglican evangelicals, and the making of common cause in the mission and fellowship of the Anglican Communion?
No doubt, prior to such a conciliar meeting, we need good exemplars in the forthcoming NEAC, and in conferences within other member churches of the Communion. I think, as a matter of fact, that GAFCON modelled a number of aspects of conciliarity very well. For all sorts of reasons it was not as wide an evangelical conference as some would have liked; but I hope history proves it to be a significant step on the way to a new Anglican evangelical unity for this present generation.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Monday 8 September 2008 - 11:04pm
Pluralist, I hope you will continue to comment here, as well as on your site.
Pete (Broadbent), what do you make of John Chane's article about the Lambeth Conference?
Posted by: Deleted user 1222
Monday 8 September 2008 - 10:34pm
I'll stop.
Posted by: John Martin
Monday 8 September 2008 - 09:10pm
Further to Peter Carrell's comments, I'd be fascinated to think through what a pan-evangelical Anglican Congress would look like and what instrument or individual could steward it. We have EFAC (the Evangelical Fellowship in the Anglican Communion) and it's been around for a long time. But its affiliate base is patchy. It's a good question how much 'evangelical' is important to the self-identity of some of the Churches of Africa and Asia even though many of them have evangelicalism in their spiritual DNA. As for EFAC, it's been invisible as the Anglican crisis has unfolded. The emergence of GAFCON raises even more questions as to whether EFAC has a future role. But if not EFAC, who or what?
Posted by: Graham Kings
Monday 8 September 2008 - 08:46pm
Thanks, Peter (Carrell), for your interesting suggestions. A 'careful yet comprehensive canvassing of all relevant issues in the articulation of theology', is a very good phrase. How about you editing the book?
In England, the Pan-Evangelical Anglican organisation is CEEC, and an important beginning for your wider suggestion, could take place at NEAC5 on 15 November - if all three streams of evangelical Anglicanism are included. A decision is being made this coming Wednesday - see the NEAC5 forum thread here.
Thanks, Pluralist, for your response, 'Two Speed Anglicanism: Blowing in the Wind'. You say 'It is not clear that [the Archbishop of Canterbury] implied a two-speed Communion'. The implications are clear and this was also recognised in articles by Robert Piggot of the BBC. See the following quotation from the first Presidential Address at the Lambeth Conference:
And those who in conscience could not make those intensified commitments are not thereby shut off from all fellowship; it is just that they have chosen not to seek that kind of unity, for reasons that may be utterly serious and prayerful.’
See also the final Presidential Address:
As has been said, there will be those for whom ‘covenanted restraint’ is conscientiously hard, even impossible. And to my mind this simply means there are steps they cannot take towards a deeper unity - or rather that they conceive such a deeper unity in other ways; their questions must still be valued by us, even if the answers are not the same.
Posted by: Peter Carrell
Monday 8 September 2008 - 06:57pm
Pete and Graham
If Calvin has one thing to teach us at this time - in which, paradoxically, the use of the term 'calvinism' appears uncongenial - it is the importance of careful yet comprehensive canvassing of all relevant issues in the articulation of theology.
While it is useful, and comparatively simple in terms of time and energy to have these internet discussions, I suggest the differences between 'Fulcrum' evangelicalism and 'FCA' evangelicalism require resolution through something more Calvin-like by way of a decent book (to which these discussions might be a prolegomena).
Or, to take a different approach, in times past the church has resolved some matters through councils. Is this a time to call a pan-Anglican evangelical council? The strength of GAFCON is that it found a way to be conciliar in its proceedings. Its weakness is that, in the end its outcomes do not reflect debate between all shades of evangelical theology within the Anglican Communion.
Posted by: Jody
Monday 8 September 2008 - 06:34pm
as someone on the leadership team of fulcrum i can tell you from my point of view that i couldn't care less whether fulcrum were big, small, humungous or microscopic.
i came to fulcrum because i had found a place where i could stand as an anglican evangelical, a place that was a blessed relief having been battered and bruised by a reform affiliated vicar and the inevitable assimilation of that congregation to that theological standpoint.
GAFCON in this country is unashamedly a political movement, those involved from the church of england side have, quite deliberately from what i can see, made it very difficult for ordained women to affirm or go with them - indeed my understanding is that no ordained women from the c of e were invited to GAFCON.
it may be that GAFCON as a global organisation has a place in it for fulcrumites, but as long as the c of e side continues to be defined by reform and anglican mainstream, then i cannot stand with them - or rather they cannot stand with me as the woman God made me to be.
fulcrum, contrary to what adrian says on his blog, is not a bunch of people designing the world - goodness me, on one hand you say we are not influential and then on the other we are the despots of the world, make your mind up! i can tell you that this is not the motivation or the atmosphere present in our meetings or communications - it certainly isn't my motivation.
one last word about communion or confession - in my understanding, communion is soething that happens to us as we are brought into communion with God by the sacrament of baptism and are gathered around the cup and the plate, by the grace of God. we are brought into communion both within the dance of the Trinity and into communion with others who participate in the dance. i can do no thing to get myself into this communion, nor any thing to demand that others are extracted from that which God has constituted. however, out of my understanding of this communion i am compelled to confess the truth of this God that i see and feel, know and love. i think it is erroneous to try to pull these two apart - we will be malnourished if we do.
Posted by: Celinda
Monday 8 September 2008 - 04:34pm
Pluralist--if you think Fulcrum's view is small, unimportant,
out of date, and out of time, why do you contribute?
Posted by: Deleted user 1222
Monday 8 September 2008 - 12:17pm
I find the Fulcrum view one that aggrandises its own small position and that is out of place and out of time.
Posted by: Pete Broadbent
Monday 8 September 2008 - 10:44am
1. My critique of the polarised positions into which I think we are moving - a polarisation between GAFCON and Fulcrum, if we aren't careful - is an attempt to get us to think through the basis on which we are moving forward. If we are confessional (and I think we are), then it's not a question of dissing one confessional statement in order to privilege another. So is either the Anglican Covenant or the GAFCON confession fit for purpose?
2. Nobody is accusing Fulcrum of calling GAFCON Calvinistic - but some evangelicals are!
3. My point is that "intensification" is a meaningless word, theologically speaking. Just repeating it doesn't help us to embrace it. You could restate it as "we're going to carry on deepening our relationships regardless of any dissenting voices. If you don't like it, you're left behind." But there is no sense of where the journey is going, or its trajectory. Intensification of relationships is not per se a theological imperative. Paul's pleas for such "intensifications" are based in the gospel.
4. What all this means is that the Anglican Communion in its current form stands or falls on the Covenant and the instruments of communion. If, as I am, you are sceptical about these, you may well consider that the whole thing is a busted flush.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Monday 8 September 2008 - 09:16am
Thanks, Pete.
As to calling FCA 'Calvinistic' - is that mentioned in our Fulcrum Response?
As to a confession - in some ways the Anglican Covenant is a response to your question.
As to intensification - again, the Anglican Covenant is a key part of this and as we stated in our Fulcrum Response:
those who do not wish to continue on that 'intensifying' trajectory may remain where they are, while the centre of the Communion moves on ... the clear implication that no group can veto this movement forward.
...not all are likely to agree to the Covenant. Its content would not be just bland – there would be ‘teeth’ - and eventually a ‘two tier’ Communion would be likely to emerge, of those in the centre who will sign, and of those on the edge who will not.
Posted by: Pete Broadbent
Monday 8 September 2008 - 08:39am
The issue that I think Fulcrum needs to address (and, indeed, that all evangelical Anglicans need to address) is the question "If evangelical Anglicans can in good conscience describe themselves as authentically Anglican (and I believe that they can), on what grounds are they authentically Anglican other than confessional grounds?" I want to call Fulcrum on its ecclesiology, for it seems to me that an uncritical adoption of the Lambeth quadrilateral without some foundational reasons for embracing that quadrilateral simply won't do. To be catholic, you embrace the worldwide church that is. To be a reformed catholic, you embrace that church from the critical standpoint of semper reformanda, and the basis of semper reformanda is inevitably confessional.
So it's simply no good name-calling FCA as "calvinistic" unless you can produce a credible reason for continuing to embrace the instruments of communion which have so self-evidently failed us in relation to the North American heterodoxies.
And, while, we're about it, someone is going to have to explain what intensification means beyond its Lambeth Conference context of "meeting in groups and being nicer to each other..."
Posted by: Tim Goodbody
Sunday 7 September 2008 - 08:54pm
Thank you for this Graham (and many others I expect)
It is really refreshing to have a document that gives clear and jargon-free summaries of viewpoints; It has been quite a summer, and now that we can look back and reflect, this is an excellent step forward. Here's hoping those who are "urged" are gracious enough to take the hint!
Posted by: Graham Kings
Sunday 7 September 2008 - 04:50pm
We have just published our 'Fulcrum Response to the Lambeth Conference and to GAFCON'.
Add your comments on the Fulcrum Forum
|
|
The Church of England inquiry into alleged child sex abuse by former Dean of Manchester Cathedral Robert Waddington is expected to crossover with the police inquiry into historical sexual abuse at Chetham's School of Music after it has emerged that Waddington was a governor at the school between 1984 and 1993. Independent 14 May 2013
Posted today
Allowance would avoid time spent pushing fresh legislation through Parliament. Independent 18 May 2013
Posted today
A former Church of England archbishop has denied claims that he covered up allegations of child abuse against a senior clergyman, which were revealed in Friday's Times newspaper. AFT 10 May 2013
17 May 2013
Phil
I've just added (or tried to add at least) a reply to your question on the "Church in all its fullness" thread. It seemed to fit better there, since it has to do with "ring" structures. I've had a look at the Ephesians passage, and managed to convi...
This is really a reply to Phil Almond's latest on the kephale thread, but it's an oblique reply, and probably fits better here. I was thinking about the Ephesians 5:21-33 passage, and wondering whether this, also, might have the "tree-ring" / nested structure. I don&...
Villagers acquainted with the debates surrounding Tom Wright's readings of St Paul may be puzzled by the quotations from Luther and Calvin just below. As Wright reads St Paul, union with Christ entails both "vertical" forgiveness of sin and "horizontal" acceptance into the...
John Martin reviews Andrew Goddard's timely memoire of the Archiepiscopate of Rowan Williams
Andrew Goddard offers a positive assessment of the recent FAOC document
A comment on the most controversial funeral of the century.......
|
