|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
Permalink: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/356
Fulcrum Subjects: Anglicanism, Church of England / Anglicanism, Evangelical Other articles by Stephen Kuhrt are available from this site Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum See the 64 comments on this article Preventing CEEC from becoming a ‘Rump Parliament’
by
prepublished, with permission, from the
For evangelicals in the Church of England, an important current question is whether the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) has been allowed to move in a similar direction. Set up by John Stott and others in 1960 to represent and unite evangelical Anglicans and still claiming to represent a large range of evangelical organisations (www.ceec.info), the current membership of the council indicates that this is no longer the case. Bishop Pete Broadbent recently raised this issue at a CEEC meeting and the current list of its members does suggest an over-weighting in the council of conservative evangelicals and particularly those closely linked to conservative evangelical organisations.
What follows is a list of the current membership of CEEC noting their links and affiliations.
(Abbreviations for organisations: AM = Anglican Mainstream; CS = Church Society, CPAS = Church Pastoral Aid Society, CMS = Church Mission Society; EFAC=Evangelical Fellowship in the Anglican Communion; FWS = Fellowship of Word and Spirit; LT = Latimer Trust; Ref = Reform)
President: Wallace Benn (Bishop of Lewes, Trustee LT, FWS, Ref, AM, Vice President CS)
Chair: Richard Turnbull (Principal Wycliffe Hall, Steering Ctee AM)
Treasurer: Dr Graham Campbell (GS member,
Secretary and Conference Organiser: both vacant
Executive Officer: Canon
Communications: Peter Breckwoldt (Vicar in
Other Member: Richard Bewes (past Chair, now retired, former Rector of All
24 representatives of Diocesan Evangelical Fellowships/Unions who are elected by the Chair and Secretary of the DEF in each diocese in the province or, where there are no such posts, by people in that diocese chosen by the Council.
Canterbury clergy: Julian Henderson (Archdeacon in Guildford Diocese);
Canterbury laity: Nigel Chetwood; Sarah Finch (Trustee LT, AM Steering Cttee); Deirdre Ducker (ex GS member); Ian Dobbie (GS Rochester committed conservative); David Wilson; Stephen Hofmeyr (Guildford-based lawyer who defended Richard Coekin in his case against the Bishop of Southwark); John Challen; vacancy
Reps of evangelical societies and networks: CS and CPAS are automatically represented. Under the recently revised constitution six others are chosen by CEEC. Church Society: David Phillips (Director, Ref Council); CPAS: John Dunnett; Reform: David Banting (Trustee of AM and on AM Steering Cttee); New Wine: John Coles (also Trustee of AM and on AM Steering Cttee); Anglican Mainstream:
Evangelical Group on General Synod (EGGS), 4 reps: Alison Ruoff (prominent conservative evangelical, London); Gerry O’Brien (prominent conservative evangelical, Rochester diocese); Paul Perkin (Ref Council, Council of Wycliffe Hall, and vicar in Southwark dioc); Pete Broadbent (
Other bodies:
Theological Colleges: Mike Ovey (Principal, Oak Hill, Trustee CS, GAFCON Theology Group); George Kovoor (Principal of
Reps for Children’s and Youth work: two vacancies (to be filled by Council).
Scripture
Evangelical
Six Members Co-opted by CEEC Council “in order to increase its expertise and/or representativeness”: John Cook (GS London dioc, Wycliffe Hall Council); Dr Philip Giddings (Vice Chair of House of Laity GS, Archbishop’s Council, Convenor AM Steering Cttee); Steve
Considerable effort has been made to ensure that the details recorded above are as accurate as possible but by any reckoning they appear to indicate a striking imbalance within CEEC of conservative evangelicals against those from more ‘open’ or ‘charismatic’ standpoints.
The electoral base in DEFs/DEUs is a particular problem. Whereas DEFs were once a genuine constituency basis they no longer contain all evangelicals since many are now nourished by alternative networks such as New Wine, Fulcrum, Spring Harvest, blogging and many more. Several DEFs are defunct whilst others, such as London DEF in its last meeting on 1st October, have joined with Reform to achieve viable meetings. The effect of all this upon the composition of CEEC is significant. Even if DEFs are functioning, just two of their number vote members onto CEEC and where there is no DEF, the executive of CEEC simply select two members of that diocese to act as voters. Given that the executive committee is even more dominated by conservatives than the council this is of major concern. Rather than increasing the council’s breadth, the co-opted members of CEEC also largely come from those conservative networks already represented on the council and when evangelical societies and networks were invited to put up representatives for election (by the council), Fulcrum was rejected whilst those representing Reform, FWS, CI and AM were all chosen.
The non involvement in CEEC by the vast majority of evangelical bishops and archdeacons is also a major anomaly. Whilst the Council’s own constitution recommends that the President should be a diocesan bishop, the continued position of the conservative Wallace Benn (Suffragan Bishop of Lewes) in this role suggests a strong priority of agenda over process. Another weakness is the striking absence of those major evangelical scholars who are making such an exciting contribution to the current advance of biblical and theological scholarship.
The imbalance of conservative evangelicals versus the rest is just one issue in the composition of CEEC. The Council’s own report on a recent survey it conducted is candid here indicating a similar imbalance in regard to under 30s, laity and women (click ‘Survey Results’ button for the CEEC’s own account: (www.ceec.info). In fact under 40s and perhaps under 50s are massively underrepresented and it is of particular concern that there are only two ordained women on CEEC and none on the Executive Committee.
The key question, of course, is what should be done in response to these problems. Canon
Encouragingly, CEEC is not unaware of the lack of balance in its representation and the erosion of its DEF constituency. Six vacancies for the Council are currently up for election with the closing date being Friday 19th December (full details on the CEEC website, (www.ceec.info/elections.htm ) and it is clearly important that evangelicals in non-conservative networks take this opportunity seriously. In addition, the evangelical bishops need to organize themselves more effectively so that their influence and input into CEEC becomes more apparent. However we also need to hear directly from CEEC about what its specific plans are to address these issues. Particularly on the eve of its calling of NEAC 2008, which appeared in its initial programme and speakers to lack any real recognition of the breadth in the evangelical constituency, the credibility of CEEC is at stake and the Council itself holds the chief power to address this.
Lacking legitimacy both in its election and representativeness, the ‘Rump Parliament’ eventually became corrupt and little more than a self-perpetuating oligarchy before its eventual dissolution in 1653. CEEC is way too important a body to be allowed to go the same way.
___________________________________________________________________________
The Revd Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum Forum Posts About This Article:Posted by: James Monday 2 February 2009 - 01:15pm It is very interesting that Martin Lloyd-Jones should be on that gallery of photographs. He is the only non-Anglican in the gallery and it was in opposition to his stance that John Stott was moved to be involved in founding CEEC. What is even more interesting is that CEEC's About page should begin with a quotation from MLJ which is part of the foundation of the argument from which MLJ advanced his call to evangelical clergy to leave mixed denominations! Posted by: Pete Broadbent Monday 2 February 2009 - 12:57pm Of course he shouldn't be there (if that's who he is; I don't know what he looks like). He stands for everything that we repudiated by going the way that Stott argued for. If people want congregationalism or government by elders/deacons/presbyters, they've got plenty of other churches to join. And if I had fifty quid for all the church leaders who've come to talk about how poisonous that particular model of church government had become, I'd be very rich by now. Our commitment to the CofE involves a commitment to episcopacy, connexionalism, and mutual recognition. The sectarian non-conformist stuff is something we agreed to leave behind. Doesn't, of course, mean that we are unquestioningly committed to those things - which brings us back to a different thread, on the effectiveness of the covenant and the future of the Communion... Posted by: DavidR Monday 2 February 2009 - 11:57am It is worth reflecting on the significance of the presence of Martyn Lloyd Jones on the photo gallery of the CEEC home page. It is surprising and revealing in equal measure. It was MLJ who, in the mid 1960s issued a challenge to Anglican Evangelicals to leave the Church of England and join the Free Churches. Shortly after this the Keele Congress happened (1967) and John Stott led AEs in the other direction. The congress actualy publically repented of often appearing negative and withdrawn in its relationship to the wider church and committed AEs to offering the riches of their tradition through a full and positive involvement at every level of the wider church. The fruit of this is everywhere apparent and a source of gratitude - for all the present tensions. But to include MLJ on that gallery of Godly Anglican evangelical fame (and it is a profoundly Godly group) is a statement of an ambivalence that runs like a fault line through the psyche of the present AE tradition. To stay or not to stay. To work with or to withdraw from. It remains as an unresolved and perhaps unresolvable question. Any thoughts? Posted by: Tony Monday 2 February 2009 - 10:20am I think the derailment occurred after Ian Paul had mentioned the redoubtable Mrs Beamish in the context of what I took to be a kind of siege mentality -- in relation to CEEC I was hoping for suggestions for a less adversarial and more irenic way ahead. I hope Ian can get back to that issue somewhere; blessed are the peacemakers! Tony Phelan 
Posted by: Graham Kings
Saturday 31 January 2009 - 07:17pm
I agree with Celinda and others that this thread has shifted away from its subject. Could we please comment on the title of the thread or start another thread? Many thanks. Posted by: Celinda Saturday 31 January 2009 - 03:14pm Should have said L Robert, not LA Roberts. Jeremy--I wondered the same thing you did about how the discussion got on this thread, which was addressing another important issue. L Roberts said since we were talking about exclusion (exclusion of evangelicals was the thread topic, I think) we should think how people in his situation feel when excluded in various ways. Posted by: Celinda Saturday 31 January 2009 - 01:16pm About polygamy again: I was forgetting that it is a big issue in the Anglican Communion, since it is a common practice in some African countries and was ingrained there before Christianity arrived. It's official policy in Anglican churches in Africa to slowly stop that practice--no new polygamous arrangements, but humane considerations in situations where there would be serious problems for wives "put away" suddenly in an effort to conform to monogamy as the norm for Christians. I heard it said a few years ago that Africans wondered why homosexuals in the west wouldn't be expected to give up that practice if Africans were expected to give up polygamy. In that case, then, the analogy was made about sexual practices: if one is permitted or denied, then why not others. Posted by: Celinda Saturday 31 January 2009 - 12:46pm Two comments. 1) The whole thrust of the push to have society, and the church, approve of and bless monogamous relationships although same-sex is to encourage monogamy as opposed to promiscuity in those relationships. No wonder L A Roberts reacted in hurt and anger at the "polygamy" comparison, as would any same-sex couples who have been in committed relationships for many years. Nersen, for you and others the issue seems to be simply a change in sexual ethics: if there could be a change in this particular practice, the argument goes, that would open the way to all sorts of changes. There may be some logic to that, but not much. And it completely ignores the actual human beings involved in this issue, treating them as pawns in a chess game, rather than real people. 2) In a completely different direction: there really are people who want polygamy protected and allowed in certain instances--there is a Mormon sect which is pushing for that (it was in the 19th century that mainstream Mormons gave up pushing for protection of polygamy for religious freedom reasons) on the grounds of religious freedom, and a very few "liberal" Episcopalians support the well-known religious freedom group in the US (but I just can't remember its name right now) which is considering--or has--taken up the cause of that Mormon sect. Posted by: Deleted user 1543 Saturday 31 January 2009 - 10:41am is it just me or is anyone else confused as to how this spat between L Roberts and nersen comes to be on this thread? And who is this person whose bishop wouldn't come to their CP but only the reception? Frankly, I couldn't imagine inviting a bishop to wedding CP or anything of that kind unless they were close personal friends - but that may just be my misanthropy! Posted by: James Saturday 31 January 2009 - 07:44am I believe that you did not intend your question to be a provocation, nersen, but the fact that you do not seem to see why it could be received as such is likely to make debate difficult. Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 30 January 2009 - 10:21pm That was a question, not a "provocation", Laurence....and it is not surprising that you don't want to respond as you made an emotional argument which a polygamist can also make.... but emotional arguments are not sufficient to change the "mind of the Communion" that certain behaviour is "incompatible with scripture" ....... getting back to the thread, we need CEEC to be united and effective in order to help keep the CofE committed to scripture despite the various non-scriptural arguments used to get us to give it less importance. I am pleased to see Canon Sugden writing that he sees great basic unity between evangelicals of all types in England (despite the mess of NEAC5).... I hope he gets a positive response from "open" evangelicals given the shared desire for unity amongst evangelicals. http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2009/01/30/differences-divisions-or-diversity/ Posted by: Deleted user 974 Friday 30 January 2009 - 07:40pm I have no intention of replying to your provocations. What a witness... Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 30 January 2009 - 05:50pm L Roberts - a polygamist and his 'partners' might feel very sad indeed that his vicar will not marry him to 3 consenting ladies....should we change the rules so as not upset him? Posted by: Deleted user 974 Friday 30 January 2009 - 04:31pm I note with regret that 'the diocesan' attended the reception but not the Civil Partnership ceremony itself. And you feel badly done by ? As I have remarked before, some people here, have no idea at all, no notion of the slights and worse that same-sex couples have to endure. Simple painless test. Ask yourself 'How would I feel in similar circumstances ?' i.e your wedding ceremony cannot be attended by your bishop or / .../ ..... Posted by: DavidR Wednesday 28 January 2009 - 11:08am Ian Paul refers to some 'hypothetical' dioceses's where there is evidence of exclusion of evangelicals or related issues by the leadership as matter of policy. There is an issue here and there is prejudice and poor behaviour against evangelicals to be found. But I am also aware that evangelicals can behave badly too - and do. We need to be more aware of just how we come over to other traditions and to the institution at times. We need to earn the trust we seek and at times that means repairing damage we have caused. I also know of one (purely hypothetical) diocese not entirely unlike the one that Ian hypothetically refers to actually - and in that case (suppising such a place exists) the facts need more subtle interpretation than straigthtforward 'cleansing' theories. Evangelicals have a certain historic attraction to conspiracy/ persecution theories when sometimes at least the reasons lie elsewhere .... Posted by: Charles Read Tuesday 27 January 2009 - 10:44am This last comment pretty much expresses my view too. I was brought up as a teenager (converted aged 13) to read the Bible for myself and test everythuing by it - even other interpretations of the Bible. Later I discovered this was a key idea in the Reformation. I think this is actually Ian's view too - he protests at people who start with a doctrinal system (even if unacknowledged) and fit the Bible into it. Posted by: Deleted user 974 Monday 26 January 2009 - 08:21pm Roger Hurding, you express my mind too. I wish I had your gift with words. I was a member of the Brethren from age 3 and was nurtured by it an shaped to this day. But I came to find the selective readings and narownesses hard to take as I moved through my teens, and beyond. And it was with the PBs (& SU notes !) that I was encouraged prayerfully to read and interpret the Bible for myself. I have never been prepared from that day to this to surrender this right & gift to any one else, be it pope or 'Experts' - let alone the bishops of the Church of England ! Posted by: Roger Hurding Monday 26 January 2009 - 05:09pm Tony, thank you for your measured counter-balance to Ian’s points. My own Christian journey began in the late 1940s, attending a BCMS-sponsored Evangelical church which had a delightful, godly, Bible-loving vicar who was seen as too ‘liberal’ by the very conservative congregation. In my teen years I found myself vigorously ‘defending’ this vicar against the critical onslaughts of others. At Cambridge I joined the CICCU and was disturbed to see how exclusive many of its student members were towards other Christians who didn’t quite fit the mould. In the last 40 years or so I have become increasingly unhappy with the partisanship within Anglican evangelicalism and often found its approach to the Scriptures problematically selective. Such an approach is often essentially cognitive/behavioural and prescriptive, seemingly ignoring or downplaying the rich range of genre found in the Bible, including poetry, wisdom literature, metaphor, symbol, parable and allegory. As I have declared on several threads I find the particularisation of much evangelical biblical interpretation cheeseparing and dogmatic, even, at times, against the flow of well-argued alternative interpretations. I find this, not least, in the areas of women’s ordination and the debate around faithful, loving gay relationships. Thank you too, Ken Sawyer for your message in a similar vein. Posted by: Ken Sawyer Monday 26 January 2009 - 01:36pm I recognise what Ian Paul wrote about the 50's and into the 60's. As a 32 year old I was elected to the House of Laity of Church Assembly for Coventry Diocese. When I got there and looked around I felt very young! Yes, there was an embattled minority attitude when 'lines' to be followed were discussed at meetings of the evangelical group. It seemed like trench warfare. I was then Head of Religious Education in a C of E Secondary School often working with young teen-agers already alienated from a close relationship with the Church, I was finding the Evangelical discussion of some issues involving worship and headship and their implications difficult to sustain. My teaching syllabus require me to step back and to see the main themes of the whole of Scripture, rather than to be involved in the miniscule scrutiny of selected and not always associated passages. I began to see that there were many issues, which were not as clear-cut as the “received” Conservative Evangelical tradition implied. For me there was the need to examine underlying principles in the light of the whole of Scripture and especially the themes of Creation, the Fall, Incarnation and Redemption. So I was entering into what I later came to know as “hermeneutics”. A progressive interpretive task was going on afresh. There were excellent people, ordained and lay, in the evangelical group but the approach did not seem to me to befriend others in the Assembly. Sometimes I said things for which I had my knuckes wrapped so to speak. Posted by: Tony Monday 26 January 2009 - 10:35am Thanks, Paul. Some of that certainly passed me by. On reflection, I suppose my evangelical parish church was unusual -- neighbouring parishes I thought of as more average. And the anglo-catholic city centre church I discovered in my teens was unusual in a different way! But I didn't sense any of the combative siege mentality I often find here. (My vicar, who had been in Burma with ?BCMS, spent quite a lot of time in confirmation classes on the Holy Shroud of Turin!) It's when everyone has a siege mentality that you get a Northern Ireland scenario. The things you describe as alarming can be matched, surely, on the other side of the fence. A parish boundary crossing church plant about a quarter of a mile from where I sit -- that one next door too an evangelical parish, at that; and elsewhere in the city constant pressure for more plants; evangelical "cathedrals" that suck the life out of outlying parishes into their city centre buildings; rumours of lay presidency and the fact of completely unanglican styles of worship; and so on. Perhaps it is the clergy who suffer most from the kind of petty tit-for-tat you describe: I've always thought it weird that there should be evangelical or liberal catholic dioceses or any other of the schools of thought feeling they have a right to dominate. (The ascendancy seems to have shifted in your favour of late. And presumably liberal/catholic/modernist clergy feel equally uncomfortable in evangelical dioceses. I would in Rochester!) What I have been trying to think about instead is what peacemaking in the church might require of us. I have begun to feel compassion towards the evangelical factions -- not least because I need to feel compassion for my own past. In the world of political strife we often speak of naming the powers that lie behind it. I sympathise, I know, with the 'pro-gay' thinking you disparage; but like you I want people to find faith and to develop in christian formation: what would it take for my recognition of godliness in gay relationships not to be such an affront? What would it take for the view expressed by a member of the fulcrum leadership that gay relationships are inimical to godliness not to destroy hope and integrity for those who feel differently? What would mutual compassion require? Can we name the powers? My surname is Phelan. Thanks -- pax et bonum! Tony Posted by: Deleted user 974 Monday 26 January 2009 - 08:11am All I can say is you are easily shocked. I find it shocking the way young people are attacked, excluded and hurt just for being gay. Sometimes driven to despair, breakdown or suicide. And indeed people of any age can be vulnerable to isolation or attack, to having their identitiy and home life undermined. I was shocked when a Mission for whom I served tried to sack me,and evict myself, my partner and his 99 year old , bed-ridden grandmother from the tied house. They had accepted me and us at interview, but started baulking under pressure from a member of the Mission's committee, who started a campaign against us, on hearing of the presence in our home of Grannie. (Does Godliness and Christian rectitude know of no bounds ?). It all dragged on a bit. In the end, she passed away, and I moved to another post. (I only have so much fight in me). It was very traumatic. You can, perhaps, imagine what it was like for the two of us, in our early thirties, caring for a bed-ridden, increasingly confused and dementing elderly loved one, the disturbed sleep; and dealing with the nastiness we had to face. (Very disillusioning too, after all the liberal rhetoric). Yes, that was shocking in the literal visceral sense. Btw I have found liberals in the C of E have failed me in this kind of way, again and again. They are shocked when they come under fire. Mind you, this was in the early 80s - a nasty, hopeless time, with a godless Governement. It must all be so much better now --mustn't it ? 
Posted by: Ian Paul
Sunday 25 January 2009 - 11:39pm
Tony (I don't know your surname), those I know who lived through the 50s and 60s have often talked to me in terms of battles to be fought, and I think it is generally recognised that evangelicals in the 50s very much viewed themselves as an embattled minority. Shocking realities? Some random (and probably hypothetical, for legal reasons!) examples--being in a diocese where the word 'mission' is systematically eliminated from every meeting or board, or a diocese where senior appointments in a previously evangelical diocese are suddenly all from the liberal catholic college that the diocesan trained at, or one where the annual clergy conference has as main speaker a revisionist pro-gay theologian, the diocesan mocks the chair of the DEF for suggesting there is another view, and attends the party celebrating the Civil Union of the gay precentor of the cathedral--and simply the reality of many clergy chapters, where the commitment to mission and seeing people come to faith is just rather mixed... Posted by: pete hobson Sunday 25 January 2009 - 08:13pm Congratulations Ian, from one not elected to this august body. It will be interesting to see if we can hang onto the word 'evangelical' as having a sufficiently meaningful and also inclusive content to be useful into this century. I hope so. My take on the pictures, by the way, is that they do convey all the images earlier posters have noted, but I wonder if they may possibly picture past presidents, or chairs, or something of CEEC. Certainly those would all have been men in the distant and, it seems, recent past. But maybe someone from CEEC-world can enlighten us as to the reasons for the wallpaper... Posted by: Tony Sunday 25 January 2009 - 05:47pm I grew up in a prayerbook evangelical church from 1953 or so right through to being a postgraduate. I may have been too young to notice the battles you mention in the 60s. But I don't recognize this. And I don't have any idea of the "shocking realities of a mixed-economy church". Could you spell thisout a bit? & I always thought Mrs B was just not in favour of the innovations of the Alternative Service Book!! thanks Tony
Posted by: Ian Paul
Sunday 25 January 2009 - 04:42pm
I think the initial point about the web site by Nick Jones is interesting, and I would like to add some perspective as one newly elected to rejoin this august body. Firstly, yes, I think CEEC *is* often concerned with past glories. Part of the reason for that is that many there fought some tough battles, and a new generation have no idea of that. It would be interesting to reflect on the response of war veterans to the changes of the 1960s as a similar pattern. On the question of recognition, I think that is a really interesting observation--not least because it raises the question 'Who is it who has the problem?' which is, perhaps, the nub of different views as to the way forward. We have been discussing the issue of evangelical identity quite a lot here at St John's over the last three weeks. What I have found is that when I ask anyone in training here in their 20s whether they are evangelical and they seem to say: 1. What is an evangelical? 2. Not sure I want to be like the people I see who call themselves evangelical, and 3. I really don't want to deal in labels. In that sense, we are clearly living in a post-evangelical church, at least to the extent that we are dealing with a post-modern generation. However, when we talk about the centrality of Scripture, which then leads to seeing the importance of grace, the significance of the cross, the need to evangelise at part of a vital commitment to mission, then [almost] everyone nods their head. There is also agreement (amongst the more reflective) about some of the short-comings of the 'emergent' movement, good though other aspects are. They can see not only the short-termism of excitement about novelty, and the reality that many of these things have been quietly and effectively going on for years anyway, but also the real dangers in moving away from clarity on doctrine, even if doctrine is not now the place you would want to start in engagement with the world. So there is a real task of education about evangelical history, of not taking things for granted, of the (sometimes shocking) realities of living and working in a mixed-economy church (eg full of Mrs Beamishes, for those of you who have seen the YouTube video doing the rounds just know) *as well as* the need to re-invent evangelical identity for a new generation. In other words there are two big questions--education about the past, reinvention of evangelical identity for the future. The first is important, but the second is more so. Posted by: Celinda Sunday 25 January 2009 - 01:05am I recognize John Stott's name --he helped start our local seminary in Pittsburgh and I have two books by him--I like him a lot and no doubt should know the others, but I don't (betraying the fact that I'm sort of an intruder on this list, being American--however I am very grateful, I'd like to say at this point, that this discussion group exists). QUESTION: do you think women and people of color were left off intentionally? If so, that's hard to understand. Or was it that there aren't enough slots and people who had achieved a good deal would have been left off if there had been an attempt to make room for people who represented a certain group? If that's the case, wouldn't it be very important to expand the list? Posted by: Deleted user 974 Saturday 24 January 2009 - 09:32pm Well done that man ! (John). i once heard Lloyd-Jones preach for about 1 hour 45 and seemed like no time at all ! Few now can sompare. Posted by: Deleted user 974 Saturday 24 January 2009 - 08:05pm You do see Ricahrd Bewes ! Posted by: John Saturday 24 January 2009 - 07:15pm Is it JC Ryle, DM Lloyd-Jones (surprisingly), T Dudley-Smith, JRW Stott, RC Lucas, R Bewes, W Benn and J Moore? Posted by: Roger Hurding Saturday 24 January 2009 - 09:57am Do I see Richard Bewes? Posted by: James Friday 23 January 2009 - 08:54pm I think one of the is Timothy Dudley Smith. Posted by: Deleted user 974 Friday 23 January 2009 - 07:36pm JC Ryle I think ! Posted by: Horace W Friday 23 January 2009 - 06:08pm Let's hope that one of the new chairman's first actions is to get rid of this appalling photoset as soon as possible. It just confirms that we are talking about the Council of Elderly Evangelical Clergy. Where are the women? Where are the laity? Where are the young people? It reminds us of Hensley Henson's famous dismissal of evangelicals back in the 1930s as a bunch of illiterates generalled by octogenarians. And why are there two photos of All Souls Langham Place there? What about HTB? or the many other evangelical centres of excellence? Posted by: duncan swan Friday 23 January 2009 - 05:51pm I seem to have lost my I-Spy book of elderly leading Evangelicals, so whilst I think I spotted John Stott and Dick Lucas, I was wondering if someone could enlighten me and those others who stopped being sound years ago who the others are on the CEEC website. On a serious note it really does say it all about CEEC and its self-image. There is nothing wrong with being straight, white, male and middle-class, I am myself. The church, however, does include the whole of the human race. Posted by: Charles Read Friday 23 January 2009 - 05:41pm Yes, but Biblical inclusivity is spelt using the words female, black and young. Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 23 January 2009 - 05:12pm Is "ageism" spelt with an 'e'? Posted by: DavidR Friday 23 January 2009 - 03:48pm I felt the same as Nick. Only one face is (just) this side of retirement. It is like a collection of formers vicars you sometimes find in church vestries. Who seriously thinks this highly exclusive, fading family photo album conveys anything more to the watching world than an organisation that is caught up with past glories. Posted by: DavidR Friday 23 January 2009 - 03:37pm I felt the same as Nick. Only one face is (just) this side of retirement. It is like a collection of formers vicars you sometimes find in church vestries. Who seriously thinks this highly exclusive, fading family photo album conveys anything more to the watching world than an organisation that is caught up with past glories. Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 23 January 2009 - 07:29am Nick - where are we told that leadership must be a representative reflection of the demographics of the church? Posted by: Anonymous Thursday 22 January 2009 - 10:36pm I followed the link to the CEEC website as suggested by Tim Goodbody. Oh my goodness! Not so much the news of Michael Lawson's appointment as the truly awful message the line up of elderly male statemen along the top conveys. Not a woman in sight then either in leadership or even simply as an inspirational hero of faith? None of the women who spearheaded the modern missionary movement qualify? It seems not. That, though, is not as bad as possibly the worst ever piece of marketing I have ever seen in my life which is the advert the Church of England Newspaper have placed in the latest edition of the New Wine magazine which arrived today. It's a bit like Sky's advertising for their coverage of the football Premiership only in place of Ronaldo et al, there's the big three peering down at us in close up - the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and, yes you guessed it, the Bishop of Rochester! Truly multi-cultural, but no place for vicars, let alone lay people or women heaven forbid! All about heirarchy then? Truly awful. Does anyone have the contact details for the Advertising Standards Authority? Or is this actually a true representation of where our beloved Church of England is at? Posted by: Darren Moore Thursday 22 January 2009 - 03:39pm Ian, They are good questions. But a bit polarised (I'm sure you're aware) To 'conservatives' I want to ask: 'Why don't you seek to exercise spiritual gifts, since that is what the Bible tells us to do?' who says we don't? At least some of us do. Of course we'd want to be thorough about what these gifts are and how to practice them rather than go with a trend. To 'charismatics' I want to ask: 'Why don't you give the Bible higher priority, since it is Spirit-breathed and the primary way the Spirit exercises ministry?' Yep, know what you mean. But there are some fine Charismatic preachers doing engaging sermons with tight exergeise and not scared of time. Yeah, some just say, The Spirit told me to say of this passage - & not do the hard work. But there are some great Charismatic expositors. To 'opens' I want to ask, 'Why doesn't your attention to issues of interpretation lead you to the same certainty as Paul, who faced the same interpretative challenges?' good question. I guess more than 1 answer. May show some diversity in the movement. 
Posted by: Tim Goodbody
Thursday 22 January 2009 - 12:18pm
This message just arrived in my inbox Comments? Posted by: pete hobson Tuesday 23 December 2008 - 10:52pm This is going to sound like electioneering, but let it stand... Not sure how many of the electorate are frequenter of Fulcrum boards anyway! The deadline for CEEC elections is over and as I am, amongst those standing for the 2 Canterbury clergy places, I have been told who the others are too. We are: Alastair Cutting, Gill Dallow. Pete Hobson, Barry Morrison, Mark Prentice and Andrew Symes. I presume anyone standing for the other categories will have similar information. Ballot papers go out after Christmas to be returned by 21 January. And a happy Christmas to all our readers...
Posted by: Graham Kings
Thursday 20 November 2008 - 07:13am
From the CEEC web site section on Elections: NOTICE OF ELECTION Election of Council members to serve 2009-2012 24 members of CEEC are elected by DEFs to represent the Provinces of Canterbury and York. Canterbury has 16 members (8 clergy, 8 lay) and York 8 members (4 clergy, 4 lay). Members stand for 4 years, and each year a quarter of them stand down. At the end of 2008 the following stand down but are eligible for re-election: Canterbury Clergy: Gill Dallow; Canterbury Laity: Deirdre Ducker and Ian Dobbie; York Laity: Judith Howard. Persons nominated must subscribe to the CEEC Object and Basis of Faith. They may be nominated and seconded by any member of CEEC or of a DEF. The Nomination Form can be downloaded by clicking here. Candidates are asked to furnish a completed Nomination Form and a personal statement (not exceeding 50 words) to: The Executive Officer, 27 Alvanley Rise, Northwich CW9 8AY. The closing date for receiving nominations is Friday 19th December. The Electors are the Chairman and Secretaries of the DEFs, and the election will by conducted by STV (Proportional representation). The result of the election will be posted on the CEEC website early in January and those elected will be eligible to attend the CEEC meeting on Wednesday 11th March 2008, and subsequent meetings up to 31st December 2012. Michael Walters, Executive Officer, 6th October 2008 Posted by: pete hobson Monday 17 November 2008 - 03:31pm Some comments on the NEAC 08 thread are beginning to address these issues as well. Well - mine does, at any rate, and I think it was in a certain flow with predecessors...
Posted by: Ian Paul
Sunday 16 November 2008 - 11:37pm
I think Nick raises some important questions. To 'conservatives' I want to ask: 'Why don't you seek to exercise spiritual gifts, since that is what the Bible tells us to do?' To 'charismatics' I want to ask: 'Why don't you give the Bible higher priority, since it is Spirit-breathed and the primary way the Spirit exercises ministry?' To 'opens' I want to ask, 'Why doesn't your attention to issues of interpretation lead you to the same certainty as Paul, who faced the same interpretative challenges?' I cannot think that anyone called 'evangelical' of whatever 'stream' can avoid these sets of questions--including me!
Posted by: Graham Kings
Thursday 13 November 2008 - 08:52am
Thanks, Nick. Some very fine points. However, I think 'conservative, open and charismatic' descriptions may well still be helpful, but much prefer the metaphor of 'streams' not 'camps' because it is fluid and one can be in more than one at a time. Five years ago, just before NEAC4, in 'Canal, River and Rapids: contemporary Evangelicalism in the Church of England' I wrote: The advantage of the metaphor of the movement of water is fluidity. The river can flow into rapids and can feed the canal. However, we do need to avoid the disadvantages of literalism in our interpretation. As evangelicals it is perfectly possible to be in more than one course at a time and at different times. Many evangelicals are conservative on some issues (e.g. homosexuality, as manifested in the debate concerning Dr John's appointment), open on particular subjects (e.g. the importance of hermeneutics) and charismatic in certain perspectives (e.g. prayer for healing). Some are conservative and charismatic, others open and conservative, and others charismatic and open. As well as attempting to describe the three streams, I considered the vital importance of 'Navigators': In concluding this section of outlines, it may be helpful to mention three significant evangelical Anglican leaders and prolific authors who, like many, navigate more than one watercourse, thus showing again the importance of the fluidity of the metaphor. John Stott[30] is the architect of the postwar renaissance in evangelical Anglicanism. He may be seen as an example of someone who navigates the canal and the river: a conservative evangelical who in the 1970s realized increasingly the importance of the issues of social, political and ecumenical involvement.[31] Michael Green,[32] an evangelist and theologian, was greatly influenced by David Watson and may be seen as an example of someone who navigates the river and the rapids: an open evangelical who saw God's vitality in the contemporary use of the gifts of the Spirit. Alister McGrath,[33] a key focal theologian of the evangelical movement, may also be seen as someone who navigates both the canal and the river: increasingly open to women's issues, his current major publishing project is on the interplay between science and theology and he has publicly welcomed the appointment of Rowan Williams, while still disagreeing with him on the issue of homosexuality.[34] One of my hopes for NEAC 2008 is the development and encouragement of more 'Navigators'. Posted by: Anonymous Wednesday 12 November 2008 - 10:39pm I enjoyed Stephen Kuhrt's article and other contributions on this thread. Three brief responses: - Am I alone in thinking that the conscious division/labelling of ourselves as Evangelicals in three camps is not only unhelpful but also outdated? - Looking at Stephen's list, there's as much a southern bias as there is a conservative one. I think I'm more concerned about that. - Someone like me can't be on CEEC even if we wanted a) because I spend my time ministering with the inner city poor rather than sitting on church bodies that might passport me there and b) because we don't have a DEF in the dark corner of England that is Bradford Diocese and no one would really want one because the Evangelicals here divide themselves between those who are immersed in Diocesan structures and find chapter meetings etc sufficient - the Lord help them! - and those like me who are in similar networks that are cross-denominational. My suspicion that DEF is past its sell by date generally was rather confirmed by Stephen's observations. CEEC may need to be reformed to function effectively across our movement in a post-DEF world. What about some sort of national membership? Posted by: Iconoclast Wednesday 12 November 2008 - 09:17pm Thanks Graham. I have read John' s blog a little further and he makes his meaning clearer in his reply to postings. Posted by: nersenpaul Wednesday 12 November 2008 - 08:02am What is very encouraging from John Richardson is that, not for the first time, he wants the full participation of and good relationships with open evangelicals. Will he get a positive response. As I have said before, it is sad that evangelicals are so divided. It is sad that some "open" people seem keen to attack "conservatives" even if they agree on core issues..... eg it is obvious that Reform can do not right in the eyes of some "open" people. It is sad that "conservatives" find much more willing partners amongst the Anglocatholics but opposition from the "open" in the CofE and AC when it comes to fighting false teaching. Maybe OEs think supporting a liberal-catholic ABC is the best way to reform the CofE and AC.... but there has not been much fruit from that in the last 5 years is there? The LamPal bureaucracy takes the loyalty of OEs but not their advice eg Lambeth invitations being just the latest example. 1 Cor 1-6 is so instructive for us at the moment. Ch 5 and 6 deals with the big AC issues.....but maybe OE and CE in the CofE are guilty of the sort of divisions Paul condemned in Corinth. "I follow Fulcrum!" vs "I follow Reform!" It is all a bit pathetic, sadly. What is lacking is leadership from the senior evangelcals calling for unity - working for unity, putting personal history behind them. I am hoping that we will see progress and people take John Richardson's strong encouragement to get involved. I think we have seen some progress and I think +Broadbent and Andrew Goddard seem to be building bridges with GAFCON supporters - this is encouraging. We have to admit there is a lack of unity amongst evangelicals.... some OEs may even prefer the company of liberals to conservatives and some conservatives may prefer the company of some Anglocatholics to OEs. We need to repent of this failure. We need to build TRUST and FRIENDSHIPS. We all need to repent. I agree that the speaker list this Saturday would be strengthened if it had Tom Wright and Andrew Goddard and also people like Nicky Gumbel...... I wish they were all fullly involved and united with their evangelical brothers and sisters....and working for unity in the gospel.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Wednesday 12 November 2008 - 07:30am
Thanks, Iconoclast. However, I did not compose the sentence you mention. It was written by John Richardson and I was quoting him, hence the indentation of the quote and the lead up to it: 'He agrees that CEEC is 'largely conservative' and is 'rather persuaded' that it is a good thing.' To make this even more clear, I have added the phrase, just before the indented quote, 'John Richardson writes'. Do ask John what he means by his phrase and by putting 'evangelicalism' in italics. Posted by: Iconoclast Tuesday 11 November 2008 - 11:18pm Graham, You wrote "One might rather be forgiven in these turbulent days for suggesting that a largely conservative CEEC is a good thing and an encouraging sign, if what is conserved is evangelicalism." I do not understand what you mean by this statement and the emphasis in italics. Could you explain further please? Can you articulate just what it is about CE's that sticks in OE's craw?
Posted by: Graham Kings
Tuesday 11 November 2008 - 10:39pm
Thanks, Pete. Very helpful. John Richardson has published his own prompt response to Stephen Kuhrt's article, The Ugley Vicar site, 11 November 2008. He agrees that CEEC is 'largely conservative' and is 'rather persuaded' that it is a good thing. John Richardson writes: One might rather be forgiven in these turbulent days for suggesting that a largely conservative CEEC is a good thing and an encouraging sign, if what is conserved is evangelicalism. Posted by: Pete Broadbent Tuesday 11 November 2008 - 09:36pm Stephen Kuhrt was kind enough to allude to the paper I did for CEEC. If I can avoid the flailing Phil Almond for a minute [yes, Phil, it's a basis of faith. Members of CEEC and a large number of other evangelical Anglicans assent to it - that's what you do with bases of faith], I'll post what I said, which I hope might help the discussion a bit: An evangelical bishops vision for CEEC Background: CEEC 1984 1995; 2006 date. We are back to questioning what CEEC is for& Constitutional definition of role of CEEC: 1. Consultation between Anglican Evangelical [Evangelical Anglican] leaders 2. Identification of key issues common mind and concerted action OR mapping 3. relating to DEFs, societies, those working in formal structures 4. EFAC 5. relationships with evangelicals in other churches 6. public statements How does CEEC deal with present situation? " Evangelical as an unpopular label but needs reclaiming " Numbers of evangelical bishops (35 or so); archdeacons (30 plus) " Numbers and deployment of evangelical clergy (e.g. Willesden 38 incumbents, only 7 parishes with evangelical patronage) " Numbers of laity in non-evangelical parishes " Relating goes on through networks (New Wine, Reform, etc.) " Overtaken by blogs and bulletin boards " But still need for distinctive evangelical Anglican voice What might our vision be? But a warning an organisation that spends all its time discussing what it is for may not have a real future! " to be representative of and speak for all who assent to the basis of faith " to find ways of ensuring that people are communicating with each other (might be as agent and catalyst) " to ensure that we pick up on the substantive issues (uniqueness of Christ/pluralism; sustaining of Christianity in the public square in post Christendom; adherence to orthodoxy) " to provide a forum for proper debate on matters where we disagree What might we have to modify? " Is the vision for DEFs in every diocese one we should finally lay down, and concentrate on resourcing those dioceses where there is an obvious need for a DEF? " We probably dont need to gather at CEEC just to hear speakers because, although it might edify the members of CEEC, it doesnt really go anywhere, and takes valuable time " We may need to be more deliberate about setting things up for proper consultation and debate and ensuring that we get key players in attendance (and that raise the question of whom we really represent!) What, in an ideal world, would be my vision for CEEC? " Well established and honest channels of communication and real meeting across the fault-lines " A capacity to disagree and not worry about it " A disciplined and substantial agenda, well prepared and properly informed, when we meet " A good procedure for getting consensus on quick and intelligent responses to major issues Posted by: Celinda Tuesday 11 November 2008 - 08:57pm Well, Phil, I'll give your chess pieces a try. I don't think there is disagreement among us on the quotations from the CEEC Basis of Belief that you quoted (3 and 4). But the "two obvious examples" of what I think you believe to be corollaries of those bases of belief, the ones you say you "keep going on about," do provoke disagreement among us. 1) You ask: "Did God and Christ say, are saying, and will say all the statements attributed to them in the Bible"? An answer: There are many passages in the Bible which are introduced by the phrase "God said" or "Jesus said." Members of the Jesus Seminar dispute some of the "Jesus said" verses as really being said by Jesus, but I don't think many of us go along with the Jesus Seminar on that. On the other hand, there are many more passages in the Bible which are not so introduced--for instance, passages in Leviticus and the epistles of Paul which contain proscriptions against certain behaviors and recommendations for certain gender roles which some say may be culturally conditioned influences on the writer, rather than eternal statements of truth made by God or Christ. I think you believe that those passages are to be thought of as written under the direct inspiration of God even though they are not preceded by "God said" or "Jesus said" since 3 above refers to the canonical books as "the true word of God written." That's obviously a corollary where there is disagreement not only among members of the church at large, but among evangelicals. Were those controversial passages meant by God to apply for all time, or were they--like the parts of the Old Testament which Paul released Christians from following--meant to apply to the given culture and time frame when the particular writer lived? From the New Testament: are women really meant to keep their heads covered in church for all time, and not to teach men, and wait until they get home and ask their husbands if they have a question rather than speak up with it when the congregation is gathered for discussion? 2) You ask: "Is God's wrath towards sinners ever, or never, a punitive wrath which is final with no possibility of it being removed? Did Christ's death propitiate that wrath towards all who repent and believe in Jesus and towards all those lacking, for whatever reason, the faculties to make that personal response but whom nevertheless God decides to save?" I'd a lot rather re-read +Tom Wright on the atonement than those comments of yours with the either/or, ever/never words. I'd a lot rather read the Bible itself on those subjects, as well. There's something in your tone which does not seem biblical, although it certainly could apply to a game of chess. You seem to be using statements in the Bible in order to make intricate arguments, similar to what happens as expert chess players develop winning strategies. Writers of the books of the Bible, like Paul, certainly do use analytical, rhetorical strategies at times to great effect. But that is only part of what Paul and others are doing. It seems to strike a false note in our discussions, although I don't dispute your sincerity and zeal. Above all, I greatly respect your faith in the constructiveness of the type of discussion the internet makes possible (since we can all participate, regardless of where we live, how important we are, etc.) Posted by: pete hobson Tuesday 11 November 2008 - 08:32pm "These are, surely, fundamental questions". The debate must start with the response - 'well, are they?' If, as Phil Almond properly observes, people who can answer them differently can still subscribe to the CEEC basis of faith then that surely tells us something about the way that Basis was constructed. It suggests (and I was there, and know this to be so) that there was a deliberate attempt to get away from those old divisivenesses, and to craft a Basis of Faith that was more inclusive of a wider breadth of evangelicalism. Phil Almond's choice of key fundamental questions offers one way of delineating the doctrinal landscape. |there are others. Posted by: Phil Almond Tuesday 11 November 2008 - 07:43pm Observations on "Preventing CEEC from becoming a 'Rump Parliament'": From CEEC Basis of Belief 3 The Bible as the Revelation of Grace - We receive the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments as the wholly reliable revelation and record of God's grace, given by the Holy Spirit as the true word of God written. The Bible has been given to lead us to salvation, to be the ultimate rule for Christian faith and conduct, and the supreme authority by which the Church must ever reform itself and judge its traditions. 4 The Atonement as the Work of Grace - We believe that Jesus Christ came to save lost sinners. Though sinless, he bore our sins, and their judgement, on the cross, thus accomplishing our salvation. By raising Christ bodily from the dead, God vindicated him as Lord and Saviour and his victory. Salvation is in Christ alone. Are there disagreements among those wishing to be known as evangelicals? Almost certainly. What are those disagreements, how fundamental are they and to what extent are they a conscientious barrier to united witness and fellowship? We do not know without a full, earnest and painfully honest internet debate participated in by leading scholars and open to all. Two obvious examples that I keep going on about. Did God and Christ say, are saying, will say all the statements attributed to them in the Bible? Did God and Christ do, are doing, will do all the actions attributed to them in the Bible? I have not succeeded in getting anyone (Reform, Church Society, New Wine, Oak Hill, Forward in Faith, North West Partnership, Fulcrum) to engage in debate on these two questions. Only Oak Hill have replied to explain it is not their policy to engage in internet debate. Is God’s wrath towards sinners ever, or never, a punitive wrath which is final with no possibility of it being removed? Did Christ’s death propitiate that wrath towards all who repent and believe in Jesus and towards all those lacking, for whatever reason, the faculties to make that personal response but whom nevertheless God decides to save? These, surely, are fundamental questions. Persons giving diametrically opposite answers to these questions may feel able to subscribe with a good conscience to the CEEC Basis of Belief. Phil Almond
Posted by: Graham Kings
Tuesday 11 November 2008 - 05:54pm
We have published today on Fulcrum Stephen Kuhrt, "Preventing CEEC from becoming a 'Rump Parliament'" - as part of our NEAC 2008 coverage. It may be helpful for comments on that article to be posted on this earlier forum thread - last comment over 2 years ago- while comments on Andrew Goddard's article, 'Hopes for NEAC 2008', may be posted on the NEAC 2008 thread. The following two earlier threads may also be of interest: CEEC Questionnaire Reimagine the Diocesan Evangelical Fellowships Celinda posted the following comment on Stephen Kuhrt's article: Posted by: Celinda Tuesday 11 November 2008 - 03:53pm The article on preventing CEEC from becoming a "rump parliament" is clear, well-written, informative, and exciting. I hope the vacancies on the governing board will be filled with people who can give the evangelical voice a broader witness in the church. Would that we had something like it in TEC. Posted by: Karen Springer Friday 20 October 2006 - 12:02am Been pondering upon this observation since this thread was created. I looked at the CEECs Council membership list. Out of 50 or so representatives there are only six women. Why? Are only 6.579% of evangelical anglicans, women? Or is this yet another example of male headship in action? Shall I trust to these men to represent me? Or don't nice (evangelical) girls ask questions like that?!?! :-o Asked with a degree of humour, albeit a small degree. Posted by: Dave Tuesday 10 October 2006 - 05:46pm The CEEC has quite a complex contitution, which is available on their website. The Council is made up of representatives of the Diocean Evangelical Fellowships, Evangeical Group in Synod, and various organisations including, missionary societies, childrens work, theological colleges and other evangelical groups. It is to be noted that Chuch Society, CPAS and EA have permanent representation. Thus this election will not lead to change in the direction of the CEEC. The CEEC is intended to represent all aspects of evangelical life in the Church rather than the three streams. Posted by: Deleted user 974 Tuesday 10 October 2006 - 04:37pm I know you would Karen. And I hope your project bears fruit. I feel sure it will--however, un remarked, by thosw with power. I love the secret path of hidden discipleship and the hidden work of God, in the hearts' secret places. 'Lydia whose heart the Lord opens' fills me with hope......Very best wishes to you, and a kind of praying..... Posted by: Karen Springer Tuesday 10 October 2006 - 03:45pm 974, I would like to see a kinder evangelism across all the churches; an evangelism which looks to Jesus in an holistic way. Only Jesus can reach into peoples lives. Posted by: Deleted user 974 Monday 9 October 2006 - 10:00pm i doubt that these groups are open to guidance. Politics leave little room for prayer and an open heart. Isn't this what Jesus DID give in his message ? (We hear SO much about which he was silent). On white washed sepulchres he was eloquent. The evangelical groups, as they like to think of themselves, must face the pluralism of the Church denomination whose shilling(s) and other benefits they have accpted. Kindness can go a long way
Posted by: Graham Kings
Saturday 7 October 2006 - 02:09pm
Pray for the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) which is currently conducting an important vote about which evangelical organisations should be represented on the Council for the period 2006-10. Under the old constitution Reform and New Wine were each represented. Under the new constitution there are six places and we understand that nine organisations have been nominated: Anglican Mainstream, Awesome, Bible Society, CARE, Christian Institute, Fellowship of Word and Spirit, Fulcrum, New Wine, Reform. Voting closes on 10 October. Pray for wisdom for those who vote and that the blend of organisations chosen will be fully representative of the evangelical constituency. |
LATEST
|
‘Rump’ is a term that originally referred to the hind end of an animal. Since the seventeenth century, however, its use has been expanded to speak of any unrepresentative remnant left in power following the deconstruction of a legitimately elected and representative body. The most famous example of this comes from December 1648 when Colonel Pride forcibly purged the ‘Long Parliament’ of all those MPs hostile to the Army’s intention to try Charles I for treason. Driven by Puritan conviction that the cause was right, the principle of Parliament being legitimately elected and properly representative was jettisoned in favour of a ‘Rump Parliament’ pursuing this and other ‘righteous’ agendas.