|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
Permalink: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/359
Fulcrum Subjects: Anglicanism, Church of England / Anglicanism, Evangelical Other articles by Graham Kings are available from this site Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum See the 193 comments on this article Nourishing Unity? NEAC 2008
by copublished, with permission, from The Church Times,
Unity should be organic, not imposed; founded on the long standing ‘basis of belief’ of the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC), not on controversial new declarations; and fully cognisant of the variety of perspectives of the three streams within our tradition – conservative, open and charismatic – not a uniformity of one or two streams only. As the National Evangelical Anglican Congress (NEAC) opened in Tomorrow, Usually, NEAC meets every 10 years or so over a period of days: 1967 (Keele); 1977 ( Nevertheless, my hopes are fourfold. First, that we may be united in the good news and in our Anglican calling. Second, that people from all three streams will attend and be consulted. Third, that ordained women will be called to contribute to the discussion after the panel – there are, sadly, no ordained women speakers. Fourth, that no vote will be taken officially to back the Jerusalem Declaration and join the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA) based in The first published schedule for the day was criticised in the constituency because the three bishops featured were the three Church of England bishops who did not attend the Lambeth Conference. Wallace Benn (Lewes) was to be the opening speaker, Michael Nazi-Ali ( In the revised agenda, In the afternoon, as first published, there will be a panel of four speakers on the subject ‘How do we move on from here’. It is made up of What has happened since NEAC4 in Anglican Mainstream has pioneered the ‘Federal Conservative’ line, in that it does not accept the warnings in The Windsor Report concerning transprovincial interventions. (See the ‘quadrant’ in my Fulcrum Newsletter for June this year, ‘Reading and Reshaping the Anglican Communion’). With others, it has set up GAFCON, lost faith in the Windsor Process and (with CEEC backing) discouraged Evangelical attendance at the Lambeth Conference. Fulcrum has developed the ‘Communion Conservative’ line, backing the Windsor Process, the Anglican Covenant and encouraging attendance at Lambeth. In the charismatic stream, Alpha and New Wine networks have continued to grow significantly through their courses, summer conferences and leadership training sessions. They are less inclined to be involved in ecclesial discussions, though are conservative on issues of sexuality. The passing of the integrative leadership of John Stott is much lamented. Who would be the internationally-known, iconic leaders of these three streams? Conservatives seem to have chosen Peter Jensen, the ‘Archbishop over the Water’ in Who can bring together for discussion these three streams – eg represented by Reform, Fulcrum and New Wine? This is historically the role of CEEC, but at the moment, for various reasons, that is not happening. Perhaps the Evangelical Bishops’ Group in the House of Bishops, which was not consulted about the date of NEAC 2008, should take the lead in working with CEEC? What is needed is a reform of its constitution, to take into account the development of new groups, leading to elections which are transparent and representation which is authentic. Now that really would be nourishing for unity. ___________________________________________________________ Canon Dr For Fulcrum coverage of NEAC 2008, click here. Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum Forum Posts About This Article:Posted by: Ken Sawyer Tuesday 9 December 2008 - 07:30pm I note from John Richardson's Chelmsford Anglican Mainstream blogspot http://chelmsfordanglicanmainstream.blogspot.com/ that the motion passed at the CEEC Council meeting was proposed by Bishop Pete Broadbent and seconded by Bishop Wallace Benn. An interesting and possibly/probably beneficial twinning. Posted by: Ordinand Monday 8 December 2008 - 06:02pm The change could appear slight, but it does surely match the overall mood of wanting to express strong support for the Anglican Communion as a body and for those on the sharp end of the present troubles. Support for the Jerusalem Declaration is tempered by the recognition of different strategies. This is a far better way of proceeding than, say, attempting to unpick JD to remove the specific points of division. A very Anglican compromise, and I mean that to be understood as a good thing! (c.f. the BCP's dual words of distribution, where we all get to have our cake and eat it, theologically speaking) Posted by: James Monday 8 December 2008 - 05:06pm I think it is highly significant that the motion passed by CEEC has managed to find a way of endorsing the substance of the Jerusalem Declaration, but at the same time not endorsing the GAFCON approach as the only way forward. There is probably more to be said, but CEEC has to this extent remained true to its founding intentions that it has found a formula which tries to hold together the various ways in which evangelical Anglicans are seeking to respond to the issues facing the C of E and the Anglican Communion. I wonder whether "NEAC" would have passed this. If only proper notice had been given, and proper debate had been allowed then. Posted by: QGS Monday 8 December 2008 - 04:06pm For ease of reference, the original motion presented at NEAC: “That this National Evangelical Anglican Consultation, acknowledging that the Church of England professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and bears witness to this truth in her historic formularies (the Book of Common Prayer, the Thirty-nine Articles and the Ordinal) and as set out in Canon A5, Article 6 and the Declaration of Assent and mindful, as members of the Anglican Communion, of our obligations to faithful Anglicans across the globe, (a) express our support for the Jerusalem Declaration and (b) recognising that Evangelical Anglicans will pursue a variety of strategies, support our brothers and sisters in their strategic decisions including those set out in the GAFCON Statement made in Jerusalem on 29th June 2008 at the Global Anglican Future Conference gathering attended by 1148 people, including 291 Bishops of the Anglican Communion” And the motion now passed by the CEEC Council: “CEEC affirms and rejoices that the Church of England professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and its historic formularies (the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons) and set out in Canon A5 and the Declaration of Assent. Further we affirm (1) the CEEC’s own Basis of Belief, (2) Resolution 3.5 of Lambeth 1998 (concerning the authority of Holy Scriptures), (3) Resolution 1.10 of Lambeth 1998 (concerning human sexuality), and (4) the Jerusalem Declaration, and as members of the Anglican Communion, we acknowledge our obligation to stand in prayerful solidarity with faithful Anglicans across the globe. We recognize that evangelical Anglicans will pursue a variety of strategies for dealing with the current crisis in the Communion, and we support those who are seeking to work through the existing Anglican Communion structures, those who are working within the framework set out in the GAFCON Statement, and those supporting both. We call on the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates to recognize the urgency of the situation as it affects parishes and clergy, particularly in the USA, Canada and Brazil, and to give immediate and serious consideration to granting recognition to the new Province in the USA.” Posted by: Madeline Monday 8 December 2008 - 03:09pm I see he is remaining as a member. I suppose the question is whether people would rather he conducted himself robustly (you can read that as a euphemism if you wish) from the floor of the meeting towards the Chair or from the chair of the meeting towards the floor. Posted by: Deleted user 1668 Monday 8 December 2008 - 03:06pm Well, Richard Turnbull appears to have done just what he said he would at NEAC and got CEEC to pass the following (before he resigned, of course!): "Further we affirm...the Jerusalem Declaration, and as members of the Anglican Communion, we acknowledge our obligation to stand in prayerful solidarity with faithful Anglicans across the globe." "We call on the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates to recognize the urgency of the situation as it affects parishes and clergy, particularly in the USA, Canada and Brazil, and to give immediate and serious consideration to granting recognition to the new Province in the USA." So now CEEC officially supports GAFCON and the proposed NA 'province'. 
Posted by: Tim Goodbody
Monday 8 December 2008 - 01:06pm
http://www.ceec.info/ Chairman of CEEC resigns, apologies about NEAC5. that must have been quite a meeting Posted by: Nigel Bourne Monday 1 December 2008 - 06:23pm (Just an ordinary evangelical - generally conservative - with a thought or two about NEAC etc...) Despite the difficulties at the meeting, I am glad that CEEC got us together. Given the outcome of the motion not being put and yet many of us wanting to do something, there is obviously frustration and some probably feel a bit bruised. The danger is that we will get increasingly tetchy with each other - presumably that would be a good outcome from the devil's point of view. Let's try to be positive and gracious with each other. The first half of the meeting was particularly good and probably at least 90% of us agreed with 90% of the motion as worded but it was (I think) just too specific particularly in appearing to underwrite almost any response to the (very real) problems, especially in North America. Surely though, we can unite on the fundamentals. To this end I hope that the leaders of the various groups are continuing to try to find a way of harnessing the wide and deep concern of all evangelicals at the current time. Perhaps it is already happening but I wonder if some face to face meetings would be helpful. Name-calling, blaming etc by supporters on blogs etc is only going to make things worse. A real coming together now would show the reality of our belief in a God who heals relationships and this should lend credence to our statements about the way forward. Personally, I feel that we should as evangelicals: a) reaffirm in a general way our belief in scripture as the prime God-given source of authority available to the church and our general support of those who are resisting a significantly more liberal agenda and b) call upon Bishops and Primates to find a way to allow traditional Anglicans who are being deposed etc within a clearly hostile liberal situation to have a properly constructed (albeit beyond the usual geographical constraints) episcopal oversight. If this does not emerge soon then more the more ad hoc (possibly temporary) solutions may become inevitable and long term and we will need to have some way of showing our support and being in full communion with various break-away movements. However, it seems to me that such solutions will inevitably lead to further unhelpful disintegrations - not least in due course when liberals will find ways of escaping the legitimate discipline of traditionalist bishops. Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 1 December 2008 - 07:44am Whistleblower - perhaps better to pray for Dr Turnbull rather than refer to people's insults against him (eg "daleks")? Posted by: Whistleblower Sunday 30 November 2008 - 12:09pm Let's hope that CEEC respond to the magnitude of the crisis engulfing them by choosing new leaders. The Daily Telegraph tells us that Dr Turnbull, chairman of CEEC, has the "people skills of a dalek". The Daily Mail outed a shockingly naive and pastorally insensitive article by Bishop Wallace Benn, president of CEEC, dealing with the credit crunch. When can we have some competent leaders, please? Daily Telegraph article here Daily Mail article here Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 29 November 2008 - 01:35pm It is very encouraging that people are working to bring reconciliation after the mess at NEAC.... we should all pray for genuine unity and fellowship to emerge in the near future - given someone once prayed exactly for that. We should pray for +Pete and Dr Turnbull and all involved.... Posted by: Pete Broadbent Saturday 29 November 2008 - 12:00pm The motion isn't my property. I've made suggestions as to how the motion presented at NEAC could be improved in order to become more unitive. The CEEC Executive devise the agenda for the meeting, not me. I don't think that the "smoke filled rooms" analogy is particularly helpful - I could wish that CEEC were more publicly accountable, and will continue to argue for that now and in the future (I am very much a minority voice within CEEC). But we are where we are, and if a motion is to be voted on by CEEC, I very much want it to be supportable by those from Anglican Mainstream and Fulcrum and the rest of the spectrum. But I do believe that it's important to stop sniping at each other and to find ways forward that will unite evangelical Anglicans. We have to move on from the debacle at All Souls. Posted by: Madeline Saturday 29 November 2008 - 09:46am ' email conversations going on between members of CEEC' is the electronic equivalent of 'smoke-filled rooms'. It's the Usual Suspects' stitching up a solution that they will foist on the great unwashed, whom they hold in contempt and whom they will manipulate at every opportunity. In the interests of transparency and a genuine desire for wide consultation I invite Pete Broadbent to make public ALL of these e mails, in their complete form. Don't hold your breath, though. Posted by: Pete Broadbent Saturday 29 November 2008 - 08:50am There are email conversations going on between members of CEEC about an amended form of motion which I hope will commend itself more widely than did the original. I believe that the CEEC Executive are hoping to produce a helpful revised version for the meeting of CEEC next week. 
Posted by: Graham Kings
Tuesday 25 November 2008 - 05:27pm
Thanks, Simon. Concerning the motion - considering the signs of the times, I guessed, but did not know for sure, that CEEC would try to push through something about the Jerusalem Declaration at NEAC 2008. I did not know, and really was surprised about, the following: 1. the wording of the motion 2. that it would be put on the chairs before our arrival, 3. that it would not be mentioned from the platform in the morning. 4. that no amendments would be permitted. This guess is not a secret for I wrote about it in my Church Times and Fulcrum article, 'Nourishing Unity? NEAC 2008', published the day before NEAC 2008: Fourth, [I hope] that no vote will be taken officially to back the Jerusalem Declaration and join the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA) based in Sydney, which is the continuation movement of GAFCON. Is it not significant that the Diocese of Sydney, in recently allowing deacons, and (also in principle) lay people, to preside at Holy Communion, has itself broken point 7 of the Jerusalem Declaration, which specifically upholds the 'classic Anglican Ordinal'? Concerning the words spoken to Richard Turnbull - following the passing of the procedural motion that the original motion 'be not put', there were many people who questioned out loud what he said in response: some were conservative evangelicals, others were from Fulcrum. One of the former, a member of St Ebbes’ Oxford, was quoted by Pat Ashworth in her Church Times report. Rodney Curtis, a management consultant who worships at St Ebbe’s, Oxford, likened attending the meeting to “watching a car crash in slow motion” ... “The management of the day was so amateur that I felt embarrassed,” he said. “We were being bounced into supporting GAFCON at the say-so of Richard Turnbull.” He described Dr Turnbull as having been “publicly humiliated”, and GAFCON as having been made to look like “a bullying, manipulative movement”... Mr Curtis called for Dr Turnbull to “do the decent thing and step down”. He described his own position on Tuesday as someone “both conservative and Charismatic”, “a friend of Wycliffe Hall”, and someone who respects the Revd Vaughan Roberts, Rector of St Ebbe’s, Oxford, whose gentle account of the GAFCON meeting he had warmed to. He said: “We were expected to act like clones. When I read ‘no amendments’, I thought: ‘This is a set-up job.’” He had shouted out at one point: “You can’t do this.” Posted by: Simon Morden Tuesday 25 November 2008 - 03:00pm Graham - some things have been said on the Anglican Mainstream forum (the NEAC thread) by one of the Admins - Jill - that you'll probably want to publically refute. Namely, one: that you knew about the GAFCON motion ahead of time, and pretended to be surprised, and two: that Fulcrum 'led the heckling' of Dr Turnbull from the floor. I have to say, that all the other reports of the meeting are at odds with this view, but it's probably worth squashing these rumours before they become Truth. Posted by: Philip Tuesday 25 November 2008 - 02:29pm Jody, thanks for your comment, I in no way want to have a go at such an eloquent and gracious sister for being willing to try and change the male dominated world of intra-Evangelical church politics for the the better. I just seems to me that the fact that most of my friends of 40ish or younger, or who are women, or who are people of colour, are not involved despite like myself training at Ridley Hall and other Evangelical Vicar factories suggests that CEEC, as I see was suggested by Christina Baxter is not long for this world! I am a supporter of Fulcrum for much the same reason (and here is a major confession) that I was, in the last century a member of the SDP. Because the Evangelical party seemed to being represented by extremists who were unrepresentative of what some (most?) of us Evangelical Anglicans believe, and by their media profile were damaging the cause in our country. Preaching on Abram on Sunday, in a series about God's plan being for all nations I talked about the importance of remembering that we are here as Christians for the benefit not of ourselves but our society; we are blessed in order to be a blessing. I hope that people looking in on our internal squabbles on the internet do not write of the message of the Gospel, as people seeing the internal squabbles of the Labour Party wrote off their message for nearly twenty years. Shalom, Salaam, Peace Philip Posted by: Paul Dyson Sunday 23 November 2008 - 05:21pm My comment should not be read as taking sides, nor should the football analogy be pressed too specifically. But there exists a different view from that which usually appears on this forum. Posted by: Birinus Sunday 23 November 2008 - 02:16pm Perhaps he means that Turnbull's chief aim is to score goals against the 'opposition'. Posted by: Whistleblower Sunday 23 November 2008 - 12:11pm Do tell us, Pablo: did Fabio Capello sack members of his team illegally? Or were you trying to make another point? Posted by: Deleted user 974 Saturday 22 November 2008 - 05:13pm Having read Pablo's message, I feel so relieved that Revd Turnbull is fine really, despite all appearances to the contrary. (Puts me in mind of Thomistic eucharistic theology of 'essence' and 'accidents'. Posted by: Hugh Saturday 22 November 2008 - 04:40pm Graham - thanks for advice about getting a proper username. If I have read the original Church Times article from 2004 you link to below correctly, it was not the steering group's paper that made the comment you highlight, but the "second paper" from "a second group of representatives from the Church Society, the fellowship of Word and Spirit, and Reform". Still troubling, maybe, but not the same. If the Church Times has made an error, let's not follow them in it. Posted by: Paul Dyson Saturday 22 November 2008 - 03:27pm Fascinating to read about the reactions to last weekend's NEAC, as one who attended Nottingham long ago and found it at the time inspiring. As far as I can tell the participants in 2008 were mainly male parish clergy, the more "open" half of whom Richard Turnbull's chairmanship didn't impress on account of its heavyhandedness. I hope they go back to their parishes and make sure that they do not act like the OE, charismatic priest-in-charge I experienced, whose dictionary didn't include the word "consultation" and who, when he deigned to cooperate with the secretary to produce church council agendas at all, liked to keep his most controversial items under wraps until AOB. Railroading isn't exclusive to conservatives. I'm far from Wycliffe Hall and can't offer a personal opinion, but "a source close to the college" has told me, in effect, that what Richard Turnbull has done, is doing, will do (sorry, Phil) is analogous to Fabio Capello's impact on the England football team to date, as reported in The Guardian sports section on 20th & 21st November. Of course new demands are often uncomfortable at the time but the eventual results may be worth it. Posted by: Whistleblower Friday 21 November 2008 - 04:32pm It is obvious who should be the new chairman of CEEC. Bishop Keith Sinclair won nothing but plaudits from those present at NEAC5 for his statesmanlike, eirenic and profound analysis of the situation. Time to wrest power away from the bullying bureaucrats, surely?
Posted by: Graham Kings
Friday 21 November 2008 - 12:38am
There are three articles on NEAC 2008 in The Church Times this week, 21 November 2008. 1. Pat Ashworth, 'NEAC5 closes in acrimony after claims of 'set-up', which includes the following paragraph: The meeting echoes concerns raised about the narrow focus of the NEAC4 conference in Blackpool in September 2003. Notes from the steering committee after the event included recommendations that the organising committee for the next conference should consist “only of conservatives”. Future gatherings must “blow out of the water the view that Evangelicalism is made up of three strands: open, mainstream, and Charismatic. Open must be excluded” (News, 9 January 2004). 2. Giles Fraser, 'Evangelicals cannot serve two masters' 3. Leader, 'Church parties within parties' Posted by: nersenpaul Thursday 20 November 2008 - 12:50pm Jody's example of praying for Dr T is one we should all follow...and not just for him but also for the "open" evangelcal leaders who do not have good relationships with him and Chris Sugden et al. I agree, we need some senior people to bring together OE and CE leaders, to say that the lack of relationships and even dislike as well as giving up on each other is not acceptable....to get all repenting and praying together. The trouble last Saturday was that politics (from both sides!) got in the way of spiritual fellowship.....but which of our leaders will take a lead to build unity? I fear all (OE and CE) may be too proud to put each other first, to be honest. Really hope I am wrong.... 
Posted by: Jody
Thursday 20 November 2008 - 11:32am
I begin to wonder who RT turns to for spiritual direction, mentoring, that kind of thing. Is there anyone who has great wisdom who is able to sit down with him and pray, and who he has enough respect for that he would listen to - or are there only those that will fan the flames. This mustn't turn into a scapegoating situation - there are those who knew exactly what this was going to turn into (and tried to warn Richard), and I'm sure that there are those who may have done little to dampen the flames. It may be that no-one can advise him, or help him. It may be that he has to learn the hard way that he cannot control everyone and everything that he comes into contact with - I pray this is not so and that he will take a deep breath and seek God in the silence, for I think a discipline of keeping silent before God would do him the power of good. Posted by: nersenpaul Thursday 20 November 2008 - 09:13am QGS - interesting attitude to Dr T in your post....do you have a little doll into which you are sticking pins? Posted by: QGS Thursday 20 November 2008 - 08:16am With the Inspection at Wycliffe this week, there must be many there (as well as many in CEEC and elsewhere) wondering of Turnbull - "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest (or presbyter)!" Will the Inspectors have the authority or the courage to recommend his removal? Somehow I doubt it. 
Posted by: Ian Paul
Wednesday 19 November 2008 - 08:08pm
Fergus The reason that there was tension and suspicion was because: 1. The motion was not given any notice, even though there was plenty of opportunity 2. The wording, with its prioritisation of GAFCON, appeared to set aside much of the wisdom we had heard in the morning from Keith Sinclair 3. Both Chris Sugden and Mike Ovey said quite explicitly that this was the only way forward, so we should vote for the motion ie a vote for the motion was set up as acknowledgement that GAFCON was the only future, and I am sure that that is how is would have been used by CEEC. 4. There had been a lot of discussion prior to NEAC that the unrepresentative nature of CEEC was felt to be a major issue, and here was an opportunity to address that. Not only did Richard not address it, he positively refused to engage with it. These are all quite strong reasons! And Pete I disagree with you on being able to find a statement most could have agreed with. I think an affirmation of orthodox faith (possibly similar the Jerusalem statement points), support for those under pressure in the US, together with an acknowledgement of different view of the right approaches for the future (GAFCON and Covenant) would have been fine. This is exactly the kind of thing that the CEEC constitution says should have been happening, as others have pointed out. Posted by: duncan swan Wednesday 19 November 2008 - 05:45pm NEAC sounds fascinating. Are the minutes going to be in the public domain? Was it recorded? I have a feeling it may be the date which future historians record as the end of evangelical unity in the Church of England. From looking at the blogs many evangelicals have finally, and somewhat belatedly, realised that CEEC/Turnbull/Sugden/AM want to railroad them down a particular path, much as happened over the covenant for the Church of England. The vote on Saturday shows that has happened I have posted here before that choices are coming for Open evangelicals. Is evangelical unity, even with fundamentalists who deny the ordination of women and are obsessed beyond reason with homosexuality, more important than unity with fellow faithful Anglicans? Posted by: Iconoclast Wednesday 19 November 2008 - 04:37pm Bishop Pete, I always find your contributions on this forum interesting and well measured. I note that in your last post you referred to a third type of evangelical that you call a " Mainline Evo". Is this individual a sort of half-way house between a "ConEvo" and an " OpenEvo" ? Am I correct in assuming this? I have never been one for labels, but I suspect that most "Evos" have bits of "ConEvo's and "OpenEvos" inside them on various issues . Is the MainlineEvo an Evangelical that holds them together internally? Are they a sort of evangelical version of Mr Spock? "Evo's " is a a somwhat adhesive term. Could it be it is the" MainlineEvo's" that are able to stick CE's and OE's together? Posted by: Sean Doherty Wednesday 19 November 2008 - 03:58pm This is from the CEEC constitution (available on the CEEC website): 6.5 The Council shall strongly encourage genuine consultation at its meetings by circulating agenda items in advance, by urging members to prepare contributions with care, and by all other means possible. This does not apply directly to the meeting on Saturday, a consultation of non-Council-members arranged by the Council rather than a meeting of the council itself. But if this is the principle by which the Council is supposed to regulate its own meetings, its violation in relation to a Council-organised meeting is surprising. Richard's attitude that the CEEC should now take a vote on the Jerusalem Declaration anyway is highly frustrating: what he claims he was looking for was a vote with respect to the Jerusalem Declaration to guide the Council's deliberations. And that is what he got: the majority view was that it was better not to vote for or against it. It's difficult to avoid the impression that Richard was not interested in consulting us so much as trying to engineer support for a vote in favour of the Declaration. +Pete and others: what can now be done? How can the council be made more representative (for example, I note that there are only two ordained women on the council)?
Posted by: Jody
Wednesday 19 November 2008 - 11:52am
my response to CEEC, although there could have been much more to say, I thought a shorter letter would have more effect : Dear CEEC having attended NEAC08 last Saturday, I am very encouraged that you have asked for feedback on our experiences there. Although, it will come as no surprise to you, I was very disappointed to be railroaded with a motion that had not been previously circulated, I am extremely encouraged by the responses from those who are part of the constituency, those on the ground, who were present on Saturday. Even though there were those present who would have voted 'yes' for the proposed motion and those who would have voted 'no' - there were a majority who found the process entirely unacceptable, a process which would seemingly knowingly have divided evangelicals from each other. In voting for the proposed motion to be 'not put', it seemed to me that most evangelicals, regardless of their feelings for the Jerusalem Declaration, were letting you know that they desired unity amongst their evangelical brothers and sisters. This is extremely heartening! I also encourage you to take wholly seriously Christina Baxter's plea for self-awareness - a lack of engagement from women, those from other cultures and younger people will ensure the early death of CEEC and a lack of unified voice for all evangelicals. I sincerely hope this is not your desire, although I have to admit to being unsure of this by the time I left on Saturday - it seemed from your Chair's response that he entirely did not want to engage with anyone who had a voice different from his. Thank you for your efforts in organising the event, and in collecting comments afterwards - I earnestly hope they will be taken seriously and I await a response from you. with blessings Jody Stowell
Posted by: Graham Kings
Wednesday 19 November 2008 - 10:51am
It is worth noting some new additions to the CEEC home page re NEAC 2008. 1. There is now a facility 'email your response on NEAC to comments@ceec.info ' - I would encourage people to follow up this opportunity. 2. At last there are links added to the concluding address of the Archbishop of Canterbury at Lambeth (Lambeth web site) and to the Jerusalem Declaration (CEEC web site...). Posted by: Deleted user 974 Wednesday 19 November 2008 - 09:29am 'What astounded me was that the suspicion against CEs and the CEEC leadership was so deep that it overrode compassion and love for our fellow evangelicals who are suffering great stress under the universally-acknowledged agressive liberal agenda of TEC.' You'll need to do better than loving your fellow-evangelicals if you are to go beyond the Scribes and Pharisees -- as encouraged by Jesus' message -you know ! Won't you need to start loving those you have dubbed 'revisionists' and liberals (etc). Or can such be interpreted away ? Then you'll have had practice and can start on the really hard thing (for you) of loving us lesbians and gays ! (That will need advanced spirituality, extra Quiet times ! and maybe 40 day Ignation retreats. Homophobia goes not forth save by prayer and fasting from prjudice. BTW TEC is persecuting no-one --orthodox or otherwise. But gays are being thrown out of your churches and fellowships around the world. (Etc murder judicial or otherwise). Forget statments and motions and start gospel projects on the ground where you are - as lead. Could be a youth group for gay and questioning teens, or a Darby & Darby and Joan & Joan club for lesbian and gay pensioiners -- and so on. Get the idea ! Then I for one would really say to myself"The Lord is among these Evangelicals and I wist it not." 
Posted by: Stephen Kuhrt
Wednesday 19 November 2008 - 08:28am
Fergus old friend (we were partners in mission in Islington many years ago), if any amendment had been permitted on Saturday we could all have happily endorsed a tremendous statement of support for the orthodox churches being persecuted in TEC. However the reason why such an amendment was not allowed was because such a statement of support was not the primary aim of Richard Turnbull and Chris Sugden. Sadly their aim was quite simply to reach a result where evangelical Anglicans were seen to be behind GAFCON so that the next stage of their plans could go forward. If CE's were shocked by the reaction of OE's (and at points some of the reaction to Richard on Saturday had to be shocking to get through to him), then I hope it serves as a wake up call to CE's to realise that there are some in their number who are so convinced that their cause is right that they honestly do not care about the method by which they get to them. I am sure that such people are not the majority of CE's but they do dominate the current leadership of that movement. Simon Butler's article "We have renounced secret ways...or have we" (found in the Fulcrum index under "Anglicanism,Evangelical") written back in November 2006 is as relevant now as it was then. Posted by: Pete Broadbent Wednesday 19 November 2008 - 08:20am Fergus, I think that's a good summary of where the problem lies. It's a bit like two groups doing the "We piped for you, but you would not dance" stuff. For ConEvos, the Jerusalem Declaration has become a shibboleth. "If you can't support the Jerusalem Declaration, you're not supporting our persecuted friends in ECUSA and Canada. And you probably aren't properly evangelical, because it's such an evangelical statement. And supporting it doesn't entail support for GAFCON." For Mainline Evos, the Jerusalem Declaration has become a badge of sectarianism. "If you require us to support the Jeruslaem Declaration, which in itself is mostly unexceptionable, you're requiring us to sign up to GAFCON, to a group which is distancing itself from the Anglican Communion, and to position ourselves outside the Church of England to which we are committed." Those two positions have become more polarised after the events of last Saturday. Part of the reason I attended neither Lambeth nor GAFCON was that I don't want to be impaled on the horns of the Communion asserting/Communion rejecting dilemma. I'm not sure that the ConEvo/Mainline Evo split is mendable - we've been moving apart too far for too long, and have worn each other down by the ways in which we've treated each other and been treated. Hermeneutics, the ordination of women, church planting in evangelical parishes, accusations of liberalism, accusations of bullying - all have taken their toll on our relationships. So NEAC was bound to go off half cock once the motion appeared (without, I think it's fair to say, very much due process). It wouldn't be difficult to draft a motion that Reform, Fulcrum and CEEC could all sign up to in support of the Canadian and American parishes and churches. But we won't get agreement on the Jerusalem Declaration, which has now become totemic for all the wrong reasons. Posted by: Fergus Pearson Tuesday 18 November 2008 - 11:29pm I was at NEAC and was surprised by all the tension and suspicion I saw. It certainly took me by surprise. As a CE I was amazed that many obviously felt - though it was never voiced - that voting for the Jerusalem Declaration must necessarily be a vote for Gafcon. Both at NEAC and in this forum Graham Kings commended the statement from the African Primates on Indaba and their even-handedness on Lambeth vs Gafcon. But he seems not to have picked up the plea in their first reflection, which goes like this: "As we reflected on the two meetings (Gafcon and Lambeth), we realized the danger of: - Defining each other’s spirituality in light of the choices made to attend either of the two meetings." I felt the OEs at NEAC wanted to divide us along exactly those lines. Why else insist (as most who urged us not to accept the motion seemed to do) that voting for the Jerusalem Declaration was tantamount to rejecting Lambeth and jumping on the Gafcon bandwagon? The Jerusalem Declaration is unexceptionable, and the motion in no way committed anyone to declaring on Gafcon's side. I felt this was a golden opportunity for CEs and OEs together to say to the world that we could stand together against the revisionism of TEC irrespective of our view on Gafcon. I felt it was an opportunity squandered to send a message of support to persecuted brothers and sisters in the USA and Canada and Brazil, before we have the (necessary and lengthy) inter-evangelical debates about Gafcon and where it might lead. What astounded me was that the suspicion against CEs and the CEEC leadership was so deep that it overrode compassion and love for our fellow evangelicals who are suffering great stress under the universally-acknowledged agressive liberal agenda of TEC. Posted by: Deleted user 974 Tuesday 18 November 2008 - 08:37pm Thanks Pete, and Celinda for absolving me from my hair-shirt over 'fellows' ! Obliged. I don't know quite why I feel such concern when writing in English, and yet when using Welsh feel no such qualms ! I suppose it must be that in Welsh everything is grammatically 'masculine' or 'feminine', but at the same time this usually unrelated to actual gender in fact. So that when it comes to a gender related word, around say kinds of work, telynor and telynores trip out without a problem -also all those nouns ending in wr/ gwr on one hand (masc); and gwres/wres (fem) on the other. I guess there is no alternative ! So that seems to settle the matter ! I never experience such usages as sexist, myself, whereas in English I would never say them, these days. I just can't use words like conductress or even actress -- and yet athrawes seems completely normal ! (Talk about inconsistent) Just goes to show how languages can never really be translated, but omly rendered, and approximated. I guess we use various dialects (at the least) here and how we render them back and forth must be a real issue. In fact, I do think that many 'theological' differences are often differences of linguistic usage. Paradoxically I think the visual arts with their own languages (seen rather than heard) could help us muchly in the field of theological reflection and endeavour. .... Posted by: nersenpaul Tuesday 18 November 2008 - 08:20pm Good point, Charles Read - perhaps people who are in a position to convene a meeting to repair relationships from last Saturday would think of a good, constructive, representative group. If I could convene the meeting I would do so immediately...but that ability and responsibility lies with others. I am praying people are doing constructive things behind the scenes, really desiring unity and generally striving selflessly to do what our Lord would have us to in this little local difficulty amongst evangelical Anglicans.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Tuesday 18 November 2008 - 04:33pm
Thanks, Hugh. The web page you mention, which has some wise words indeed, is on: http://mpjensen.blogspot.com/2008/11/is-church-politics-possible.html In answer to your two questions concerning using these forums - which lots of people ask: A. To put your name automatically at the top of your comment, replacing your user number: 1. click on top right in the menu 'my account' 2. click on edit name 3. click on forum nickname 4. type in your name - we very much encourage real names rather than nick names... B. To copy a web address of a particular page into your comment there two methods: i) Copying full address 1. click on web address in the panel at very top of a web page 2. highlight and copy that address 3. click on your comment and paste into your comment. ii) Hyperlinking a word into the web address (more fun and neater, see the words 'web page' in the first line of my comment) 1. click on web address in the panel at very top of a web page 2. highlight and copy that address 3. highlight the word in your comment which you wish to carry the hyperlink 4. click on the 'globe/chain link' logo in top line of the comment box, next to the 'justify both margins' logo 5. paste the web address into that box and click OK. We will put these suggestions on the Fulcrum 'faq' page ('frequently asked questions'), which can be brought up from the second line of the home page menu. Posted by: Hugh Tuesday 18 November 2008 - 02:30pm I don't know if it is coincidence, but today there is a helpful reflection on church politics on Michael Jenson's blog (now why is that name familiar?) - The Blogging Parson. Sorry - I don't know how to do the link thing (or how to put my name - Hugh Scriven - at the top of this!)
Posted by: Jody
Tuesday 18 November 2008 - 02:02pm
hi eastonrev i quite often ask myself whether it wouldn't just be better/easier to use the energy to 'just get on with the job'. my heart is for the mission of God, the building of his kingdom on earth as in heaven. the local church, the manifestation of the universal Church, is where mission happens and so that is where my heart is too. so sometimes i question all the 'politics' stuff. however, going to NEAC only served to strengthen my sense that this stuff deeply effects God's mission. Both in that it is only in our love for one another that they will know we are disciples of Christ, and because i have seen the effect of the kind of thing that happened at NEAC with Richard Turnbull, when it happens to a local church. i doubt that many PCCs have the strength to stand up to such behaviour when it is dressed up in 'for the gospel' speak. having said that, i also became heavily aware that this is something God has called me to at this time - it isn't for everyone and i see it as a ministry that is not for everyone. i get slightly frustrated that there can be a snobbery from those who 'are just doing the lord's work' rather that getting involved in 'church politics' which can be seen as slightly unseemly. rather bless each other in the place that God has called us to. the only thing that i would stress is that the big picture always affects the local picture. i'm glad that your local CEs will work with you. it isn't always the case - pray for your other brothers and sisters who have suffered from a different story. blessings, Jody Posted by: Simon Morden Tuesday 18 November 2008 - 01:22pm Much has been said and done over the last couple of days. I think it's clear that we've seen the Emperor without his clothes. The last act of CEEC, if they vote for the motion not put, will be watching whatever authority they believed they posessed slipping through their fingers even as they grasp tighter. Back at the time of the abortive Covenent, I raised the question: who are these people? Why have I never heard of them before? How can they possibly claim to represent me if they've never asked me my opinion? I even emailed Chris Sugden - no reply, unfortunately. I now know who some of these people are. They still can't say they represent me. Can I make a suggestion? I'm getting the increasing feeling that talk of 'leaders' is dangerously idolatrous. We - the broad mass of CofE evangelicals Pete Broadbent mentions - don't want or need another leader or leaders. We're not mindless drones - as NEAC 5 so very clearly showed - in need of a strong, charismatic man (it has to be a man, right?) to be our general. In any event, we look to our bishops and archbishops to be examples of faith, while recognising that not everything they do will be perfect. What we do need is co-ordination and representation: democratic representation at that. It can be as loose and ad-hoc as we like, but something that will at least bring our voices to the table. Posted by: Philip Tuesday 18 November 2008 - 12:57pm As someone who was around at the official"birth" of Fulcrum (in the confines of a bar in Blackpool at NEAC and was unable to get to All Souls for family reasons, just a word from the outside. My experience of working with other Evangelicals is that here in Inner City Bristol the one thing we can do together is Mission, in reaching out to others with the "Evangel" the good news that God in Christ has come that they might know Life, and that he has dealt with the "wages of sin" in his atoning sacrifice on the cross, we have found a basis for Unity. When we talk about the minutae of atonement, personalities such as "the heretic Steve Chalke" women's ministry etc, we would disagree. As someone who would call himself an OE I have found that I have so much more in common with my CE brothers and sisters than I have with my liberal CofE brothers and sisters who are my colleagues here in East Bristol. I am learning again to love my CE Brothers and Sisters as we share in our passion for the Gospel, our love of Scripture, and fundementally in a Multi-faith area, our belief in the Uniqueness of Christ, (although again we would have some disagreement in exactly how we expressed it) Reading the posts about NEAC 2008, it makes me reflect on whether things like CEEC are worth all the time and effort to keep going. In my experience unity that is gained through shared prayer and mission is far deeper than anything that can be found in these organisations. I am happy to describe myself as an Evangelical, especially as we had the priveledge of hosting Joel Edwards in his farewell tour here at Easton Family Centre. It does seem to me that all the hours spent in discussing this stuff might be better spent in "Missional activity" (cf Mike Frost's book Exiles) I am I suppose blessed to be in a Diocese (Bristol) with two "Orthodox" Bishops who are permission giving by nature, rather like another Bishop who has contributed to this thread. Hope this is not to rambling or off topic to be useful. Posted by: Charles Read Tuesday 18 November 2008 - 12:07pm Nersen - the other problem which you inadvertently highlight is that the list of leaders who should pray and confer are all ordained men. This does not reflect evangelical Anglicanism in the CofE! Posted by: Deleted user 1143 Tuesday 18 November 2008 - 11:29am Bishop Pete, I appreciated your talk on Saturday. Your sharp criticism of both the GAFCON and Windsor ways is intriguing, so I'm bound to ask how exactly the GAFCON way offers a 'separate plausibility structure' and what it is about it that worries you. How do you take Bp Nazir Ali's conviction that GAFCON was the beginning of a movement under God? I didn't find Chris Sugden's statement 'chilling', as Graham does, but matter-of-fact. The Communion has given way to three networks which represent three distinct ways of confessing the faith: radical, liturgical/institutional, and 'confessing' by which is meant a priority of creed over communion. On this forum we've never probed the basic difference between the latter two ways. We've tried, but it's gone nowhere, with some of us saying that communion grounds creed, others the other way around. Perhaps your concerns about 'plausibility structure' have something to do with this. Maybe you can help us. At any rate, just as some in North America have had to break all ties with their national church, so too FCA-minded folk here, given the failure of the 'central' way to discipline those churches (for reasons which Bp Michael has made quite clear), acknowledge that their relation with their own national church is tenuous. I had trouble with the manner in which we were asked to affirm the Jerusalem Declaration, but not the substance of it. But if you have insight into a fourth way beyond the three ways of confessing the faith that I've mentioned I'd be most glad to hear it. Thanks for your input at NEAC. The running shoes and collar are a great combination. Posted by: Soapy Sam Tuesday 18 November 2008 - 10:19am For people like us, nersen, there's no such thing as 'signing up' for GAFCON, or for Lambeth: they are both things for bishops. At GAFCON they spoke of setting up a Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans which lay people could join, and clergy who aren't bishops, but recent web searches don't seem to suggest that it's active yet. I don't see that it helps to speculate whether one kind of evangelical or another will ever understand the Church of England. Though I suppose that's what's been done, with people's livelihoods at stake, at Wycliffe Hall. Posted by: nersenpaul Tuesday 18 November 2008 - 10:16am ok, +Pete...but take the example of the Lambeth invitations and the ABC not following Windsor recommendations in that while being fully aware that most of the AC would not, as a result, come to Lambeth - why should CEs trust him? And what has the softer line of OEs achieved, except space and time for TEC in the AC? My main suggestion is below - I really hope peple like you and Dr Turnbull can get together and repair the damage of last Saturday. I agree with you re our party sprit being Corinthian. Posted by: Pete Broadbent Tuesday 18 November 2008 - 08:57am Nerson - I think your response demonstrates why ConEvos will never "get" the CofE - and why it's very hard to find suitable candidates for office in the CofE from the ConEvo constituency. You think of the leadership of the Church as a bureaucracy - it isn't; as "them" - it's not, it's us as well; as the Archbishop of Canterbury as some distant figure, deliberately delaying things for the sake of ECUSA - he isn't, he's the godly, prayerful leader who agonises with his episcopal colleagues about how we hold all this stuff together. You also think that all mainline evangelicals are committed to the Windsor process - some are, some aren't - if you read my posts, you'll see how sceptical I am about it. But while ConEvos remain oppositionalist in mentality, outside the tent and making it wet from that position (!), and unable to work with mainline evangelicals except on their sectarian terms, then we are never going to come together in any kind of alliance. I'm committed to Christ first, but I express that commitment through the CofE. Whereas I'm beginning to think that ConEvos express their commitment through shibboleth-protected ghettos. Posted by: nersenpaul Tuesday 18 November 2008 - 08:47am Just wanted to add that we need to move on from picking over the mistakes of Saturday and do something constructive ASAP.... I would love to see a private meeting for prayer and dialogue aimed at solving the problems caused on Saturday.....and with wide representation eg Dr Turnbull, Graham Kings, Pete Broadbent, Chris Sugden, Andrew Goddard, and John Coles..... if we could get someone from HTB to join, so much the better. It would be so great if our leaders responded really positively to the current mess and got together to pray. Posted by: nersenpaul Tuesday 18 November 2008 - 07:29am I am sure people know why some CEs want us all to sign up to GAFCON - it is because it is felt that the bureaucracy of the church is not trustworthy. This is based on the last 5 years of deliberate inaction which was only in the interests of TEC and it avoiding discipline. Evangelicals are asked for loyalty to the institution but all this has achieved is to give the revisionist agenda space and oxygen to grow and continue to destroy the AC by bringing division and by shrinking churches. Hope I am not "rewriting history" when I say that the ABC has not followed the recommendations of The Windsor Report...has he? In particular, he did not follow the wise advice of the report and people like +Durham re Lambeth invitations - and that was the direct catalyst for GAFCON being planned. It was a response to the actions of the ABC....which were only really in the interests of TEC (even not inviting Gene was great for his book sales and media circus....but there was no integrity in not inviting him but inviting those who "consecrated" him). Sadly, he lost the trust of many with those Lambeth invitations and since then some feel that it is not worth wasting another 5 years talking until the cows come home as this way of doing things is clearly designed primarily to avoid discipline on TEC and to include revisionists in the AC - that is why people are keen to have OEs in GAFCON ....for fear that OEs achieve nothing with the liberal bureaucracy of the AC but end up giving cover to revisionism staying powerful in the AC, through giving loyalty to a church bureacracy that ain't too loyal to OEs ultimately. But, of course, for those who do not want to be involved, there is no compulsion...GAFCON will continue anyway. I guess GAFCON pepole would be more convinced by the OE way if The Windsor Report had not been subverted into a "process" but had been implemented. All this mess could have been avoided... Posted by: Hugh Monday 17 November 2008 - 10:22pm Graham, I think you are being a little ungenerous to CEEC. After all, it was presumably those who planned the day who arranged the panel of four speakers as a part of the afternoon's business - two of whom indicated that they would prefer not to have to vote on the motion before us. All of which makes me still see the later proceedings as inept, rather than a conspiracy. But maybe you will tell me that i am being naive.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Monday 17 November 2008 - 09:51pm
Thanks, Pete. Who, then, can stop CEEC voting on our behalf exactly on that motion? Peter Ould has suggested another motion in his article today - why should not that one be put? Has anyone on CEEC got the strength to put it? Will 'amendments not be permitted' again? You are right, Pete, when you ask: Why do the ConEvos want us to sign up to GAFCON? Is it a kind of doctrinal virility symbol - a way of saying that they want to dissociate evangelical Anglicans from the main Church of England? The answer was given by Chris Sugden on Saturday who spoke just after you. In his panel presentation, he included these chilling key words: We will keep formal administrative links with the formal Church of England, but our real identity is with Global Anglicanism as defined by the Jerusalem statement and declaration. That is the heart of motion which we were being bounced into voting on. The gaff is now blown on what is expected of people who sign up to GAFCON. Not really, only formally, part of the Church of England... Chris Sugden (and Paul Perkin) tried exactly this tactic with the so called 'Covenant for the Church of England'. It was criticised heavily by Fulcrum and by Tom Wright and wonderfully caricatured in one of Dave Walker's best cartoons. Remember this? That attempt did not work. It is being revivified in a new form - carefully not called a 'covenant' but a declaration. But it is still defining, and a shibboleth and a threat to the identity of evangelical Anglicanism. Those words also are trying define the boundaries of Global Anglicanism and could be seen as a threat to those of the Global South Anglican movement who did not back GAFCON. Strange when the Primates' Council of the FCA seemed to be trying to link in the Global South Anglican movement and the FCA movement. Let's discuss this extraordinary statement. What do others think? As to the Covenant, Pete, I still think it will bear fruit... Posted by: Celinda Monday 17 November 2008 - 09:49pm L. Roberts--please, no apologies for "too many fellows." An administrator at a school where I taught told me I couldn't be called a "fellow" in the program for which I'd received a fellowship--but I don't think there's any other term. About evangelicals disagreeing: you're right, we do, and that's one of the things which tears the church apart. It's not just terminology. As far as I can tell, in Cranmer's day "evangelicals" (MacCulloch uses the term) wanted a greater emphasis on scripture in the liturgy and they wanted more churches to actually have copies of scripture in the vernacular. Cranmer thought scripture was a liberating thing, not a restrictive thing. When the term is applied to Calvinists (who came slightly later, and Calvin was pretty much given the reins in Geneva for awhile, saying just how that city was to be governed), however, the restrictions--and the emphasis on damnation, rather than salvation (for Calvinists, salvation doesn't seem to mean much unless you continually contrast it with damnation)--came in full force. Lots of talk about "the soul's health" in Cranmer's writings, but more about dangers to the soul in Calvin's and the modern day Calvinists you quoted. Much more fear, much stronger authority than in Cranmer. Some date the evangelical movement to the 18th century clergyman Charles Simeon. The "fellowship movement"--small groups of Christians talking about the faith--led to the Clapham Sect and the abolition of the slave trade in England. That's the part of evangelicalism where I feel most at home: I like the small-group fellowship, and I like the influence they have had for good on social problems, as well as the development of personal faith. About modern liberals: as you probably know, they are a much stronger voice in the American church than in the English church. They dominate nearly all the seminaries in the US. Perhaps that's why Evangelicals as a whole sound almost desperate to you at times. Evangelicals (myself included) fear that liberals will change the Book of Common Prayer--that they'll relegate the creeds to the historical section of the PB (meaning they don't believe in Jesus' full divinity as well as full humanity) and they'll change the liturgy to be much more humanistic in the sense that all people need is some good ethical teaching in order to be spiritually healthy. Not that there is anything wrong with good ethical teaching--it's just that in the view of evangelicals, it's not enough. For a good statement of problems with Bishop Spong's 12 theses (have you seen them?) see Rowan Williams' response to them--you can find it by Googling. --I personally think the homosexuality issues are not central to what it means to be either a Christian in general or an evangelical in particular; but as you know, people like the two Philips--and Nersen Pillay--have an either-or approach to all of scripture, with which others of us disagree. Posted by: Pete Broadbent Monday 17 November 2008 - 09:45pm L Roberts - I shouldn't worry about the "fellow" stuff - it's a good rhetorical device, using the rule of three! Neat, and not needing an apology. Clare - The point about exclusiveness is that by definition a credal and confessional church excludes some people - or rather, they exclude themselves. For instance, a church which says "we shall no longer be marked out by baptism, because our desire to include those of all faiths and of none means that baptism is a barrier" is a church that has gone outside the givenness of the Christian faith. A church that says that Trinitarianism is no longer an obligatory belief excludes itself from historic Christianity. There are bound to be limits to diversity when scripture and creeds are set aside. The other sort of exclusiveness, which is the one that writes off fellow Christians because they are "of GAFCON" or "not of GAFCON" is the kind of exclusiveness that Paul condemns in the Corinthian Christians for their party-mindedness. That kind of exclusiveness is a particular evangelical speciality, I fear. Posted by: Deleted user 974 Monday 17 November 2008 - 09:07pm This thread has suddenly become thoughtful and civilised. With folk listening to each other and engaging (with the expected exceptions). It gives me hope. But not with Turnbull, Rochester and Lewes at the helm, with their Know-all approach, manipulation and bullying. They give every appearance of not valuing the individual. Thus, turning the incarnation from a living and lived reality in November, 2008, to a dusty olde doctrine marooned in a fusty book, an antique habit of mind. I make special mention of the courageous George Day, whom I have read made a real contribution - standing alone. His witness is encouraging. Yes, when oh when will Accepting Evangelicals be welcomed in from the cold ?.............. AND, who will be left to see it ? PS a not unconnected question ;-- Why do some 'strong' Evangelicals so often neglect the burial of the dead and pastoral care of their bereaved parishoners ? --either leaving it to others, or terrorizing vulnerable families with hell-fire sermons of exquisite insensitivity and arrogance ? They don't sem to have much love in their hearts for individuals .... Posted by: Deleted user 974 Monday 17 November 2008 - 08:55pm Why are Evangelicals have such difficulty communication with each other ? Is it due to a failure to listen ? Or a lack of respect from some toward others ? What about working together? espcially on gospel projects such as those recently alluded to by the presiding bishop of TEC ? Saturday's reports of the Chair of CEEC seems to show very little respect for, or interest in, others (same as at the college). No wonder Evangelicals often fail to communicate with the majority of fellow anglicans, fellow christians and fellow* citizens. Let alone collaborate with us. These words attributed to the suffragan of Lewes, would if true, make clear this failing. To describe fellow christians as an 'infestation' of 'theological waywardness' seems very poor show, indeed. Can it be true that he said this ? If he did, where does this leave you ? It makes me feel like giving up. 'In an official document distributed at the meeting, the Rt Rev Wallace Benn, Bishop of Lewes, said that the modern Church is now "infested with liberal theological waywardness".ument distributed at the meeting, the Rt Rev Wallace Benn, Bishop of Lewes, said that the modern Church is now "infested with liberal theological waywardness". ' Who does he think he is ? Who does he think we are. -- I also refuse to be bullied under the guise of ministry. It is a disgraced and CEEAC would seem to share in his disgraceful behaviour by condoning it. NB *too many fellows ! Couldnt think of the non-sexist alternative -sorry. Posted by: Clare Monday 17 November 2008 - 08:44pm + Pete, you write that evangelicals should 'believe in, and work for, a Communion that isn't exclusive, but does exclude the non-orthodox'. uh? isn't this a bit like saying a communion that isn't liberal, but does exclude the conservative, or a communion that isn't left -wing, but does exclude the right wing, or a communion that isn't vegetarian, but does exclude meat eaters.....etc etc. I just can't see how this any of these could be logically possible. Posted by: Pete Broadbent Monday 17 November 2008 - 06:37pm It's absolutely certain that CEEC will vote on it and pass it. There was a move to do just that at the CEEC Residential back in October, but it was agreed to "consult" the NEAC gathering first. The questions I have about all this (which I began to raise on Saturday) are; 1. Why do the ConEvos want us to sign up to GAFCON? Is it a kind of doctrinal virility symbol - a way of saying that they want to dissociate evangelical Anglicans from the main Church of England? Because that is as sure as eggs are eggs how it will be interpreted - and why I don't want us to do it. It sends a clear message that evangelical Anglicans are no longer interested in what happens to the rest of the CofE. GAFCON carries all the wrong messages for English Anglicans. 2. What is Plan B for the rest of us when the Anglican Covenant fails (as it surely will) - or at least dies the death of a thousand qualifications? The Fulcrum leadership has so heavily backed the Covenant option that there's a real egg on face scenario developing. To continue to believe in, and work for, a Communion that isn't exclusive, but does exclude the non-orthodox, must entail a different sort of alliance, and must find ways of helping GAFCON people neither to exclude themselves nor to be excluded. 3. Given that CEEC is bent on this course of action, what sorts of communication can we put in place that will keep the main body of evangelical Anglicans in touch with, and in dialogue with, the Reform/Anglican Mainstream nexus? If CEEC can no longer claim to speak for everybody (Nerson's rewriting of history is interesting, but ignores the fact that there is a vast body of ordinary non-affiliated evangelical Anglicans who never were part of the ConEvo project, but would eschew the title "liberal" with huge gusto), what can be invented to keep evangelical Anglicans talking to each other? Posted by: Ordinand Monday 17 November 2008 - 06:11pm This is a fascinating report. I'm contemplating the CEEC constitution, and specifically under the heading of "Object," it states: 3.1.2 To seek primarily to identify key issues, to work for the development of a common mind and concerted action on each, and should this not prove possible, to map out the different views held. The conduct of the meeting as reported is extremely hard to square with this. Agence France Press quotes the Chair as saying, "People decided that they didn't actually want to vote on a resolution. The disadvantage of that is you then don't exactly know what people think." One might think that he would realise from the (reported) mood of the meeting that there is as yet no "common mind," at least in respect of the motion put forward as non-amendable. His job is then to find out "what people think." If there is indeed no "common mind," he is charged to "map out the different views held." If he failed to take advantage of Saturday's meeting to progress this constitutional task, the consequences are unfortunate but not disastrous. But should the CEEC choose to proceed in any respect as though the motion had been put before or agreed by the meeting, it may be doing so in violation of its own constitution, and the careful work of decades in building up an effective voice for evangelicalism in all its streams will be put at risk. Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 17 November 2008 - 05:36pm Whistleblower - as I understand it, there is no breach in the rules if CEEC takes a vote..... and comes to a view. NEAC declined to vote (it was given a chance, it could have voted no but it did not want to vote - I have some sympathy with that at this time,actually) - that does not constrain CEEC from voting, does it? As for being "representative", it is impossible to represent all who claim to be evangelical as some hold views which contradict the vast majority of evangelicals even the stated positions of the CofE. Why must we seek to include all who views? That is not a new testament church principle. We just line ourselves up for years of endless talking and further divisions if we continue to live in the dreamland in which we accept and affirm all views which desire to be accepted - even if they are wrong. People with certain innovative views demand inclusion in CEEC and in the AC - part of the reason for the last 5 years of delays, growing divisions and frustration is the unbiblical view that we must include all views that want to be included....a recipe for further disaster and not biblical at all. I am glad to see CE's like Dr T still working with and talking to OEs. Let's not pretend he committed any great crime last Saturday....he did not (but I think he may have made one or two political errors.....) and in fact, the OEs scored a point against him..... not that anyone would be interested in point scoring, of course. Posted by: George Day Monday 17 November 2008 - 05:12pm Clare, I like it! CEEC as "some sort of evangelical magisterium" - that's not a bad description! CEEC is the Church of England Evangelical Council, and as such has a list of members, some elected, some appointed - see the CEEC website for details. It supposedly represents all evangelicals, but that of course is one of the major concerns on this thread - see Stephen Kuhrt's article on this site Preventing CEEC from becoming a ‘Rump Parliament'. It produces a rather motley collection of documents, again see the CEEC website. However, its main function in practice is to organise NEAC. This normally means National Evangelical Anglican Congress, takes place about once every 10 years, and is residential over about 3 days. Some NEACs have been enormously significant, especially the very first one at Keele in 1967 which kept Anglican evangelicals within the CofE when there were loud calls to leave it. This time however the C stood for Consultation, and it was a one-day event, and frankly wasn't what most of would call a consultation! Anybody can pole along to a NEAC - there is no membership list. Posted by: George Day Monday 17 November 2008 - 04:48pm Sorry, Nersen. that's the whole point - Richard Turnbull did not accept the result of the vote. He said, we (CEEC) are going ahead regardless. Hence the cries of outrage! Posted by: Whistleblower Monday 17 November 2008 - 04:34pm Nersen, the issue is that CEEC has ceased to be a body which represents evangelicals and instead tries to regiment them. This was an attempt to impose a viewpoint upon evangelicals which they boldly and bravely rejected. That rejection was an act of defiance which speaks highly of the constituency and very poorly indeed of its leadership. The leadership seems more concerned to impose its own views than to heed those of its members. The outcome is inevitable: a total loss of confidence in the credibility of the leadership of CEEC, and its ability to represent evangelicals as a whole. You may think this is a trivial matter. I think your theological commitments have dulled your judgement on this matter, perhaps through overcontributing to this website. Posted by: Clare Monday 17 November 2008 - 04:33pm poor ignorant liberal needs help understanding this thread. what is the difference between CEEC and NEAC? (I mean de jure not de facto differences - the latter I can surmise for myself!). is CEEC some sort of evangelical magisterium? I honestly don't know the answer to this, I am not trying to score any points, although the thread is slightly amusing to an outsider. (not that we don't have our own in-fighting, of course) Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 17 November 2008 - 04:18pm I know many people love to hate Dr T and it takes little to ignite attacks on him, but should we all just stand back and realise that what actually happened was that Dr T asked for a particular vote, the conference rejected the idea and he accepted that decision...... that's all - not much to get worked up about in reality. Posted by: George Day Monday 17 November 2008 - 03:45pm There has rightly been a lot of comment here about the leadership of Richard Turnbull. The picture that came to my mind after Saturday's NEAC was of King Rehoboam, who at a time of great delicacy for the future of God's people acted in a brutal way that led many to decide there was no future with him, and so produced a split, a tragic split, in the people. And that is what I fear is happening. There are various streams within evangelicalsim. We often don't find it easy to get on with one another, just like Judah and Israel. Actions like the attempted manipulation of the vote at NEAC only make it harder, and so too does RT's apparent failure or refusal to take on baord the increasing concern about the unrepresentative nature of CEEC, just like Rehoboam listening only to the young hotheads. Posted by: pete hobson Monday 17 November 2008 - 03:29pm Well, I didn't make it to NEAC in the end, due to ill-health, but have been following the reports and reactions with interest. And I have to say it feels as though the afternoon, at least, managed both to allay (because numbers of voices spoke) and to substantiate (because of the 'bounced' attempted motion) my advance fears. It does seem to me this highlights the question of the legitimacy of CEEC as being in any meaningful sense what it purports to be- that is a place for all evangelical voices in the CofE to be brought together, both to hear one another, and also to speak clearly on matters where accord is found. And it may be that we have to face the fact that this is no longer a realistic political option in the way it has been in the past 30-40 years. Other with longer memories may correct me but I seem to recall that Church Society travelled the same route - from realistic claim to being a voice all Anglican Evangelicals could recognise to becoming an increasingly factional party. And I realise there can be two accounts of such journeys - one from those who see an inclusive group become ever more inward looking and exclusive, and another from those who insist it is not they who have moved, but the others who have left. Either way, 'ordinary troops' like me have to make decisions where to put our time and energy. I aim to support our DEF but, like many, it no longer really functions in the way the CEEC constitution envisages (this is no criticism of those who work hard to enable it to do what it does) but to vote in the CEEC elections I'd need to be chair or secretary. I might consider standing for CEEC again, but even if elected, do I have the time and energy to make those day long journeys up to London (not to mention the annual residentials) to engage in tasks and debates which appear from here to be rigidly controlled and far removed from gospel concerns? I'm not sure about the value of on-line petitions for votes of no confidence - but I guess I'm not hearing much from NEAC that causes me to have any confidence in CEEC as presently operated. And it doesn't sound as if a few new faces will change that - it feels more systemic than that! Posted by: User 1524 Monday 17 November 2008 - 03:14pm Was the afternoon motion actually supported by the whole CEEC council, or just proposed by the Chair? The afternoon reads to this outsider as an attempt to co-opt another evangelical group onto the GAFCON bandwagon. It's frustrating to see how little time and energy was focused on mission, and the opportunities currently available to mission-minded evangelicals within the CofE at the moment. I'm glad the delegates declined to vote, and I hope the CEEC engage with why this was so. Posted by: Whistleblower Monday 17 November 2008 - 02:12pm Surely this debacle shows that evangelicalism as a whole cannot have confidence in the CEEC or its leadership? All the indications are that the leadership will force through the abortive resolution at their meeting next month and then tell us that they speak for all evangelicals. Anyone willing to organise an online petition for a vote of no confidence in the CEEC leadership? Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 17 November 2008 - 02:11pm Simon - "consideration of an alternative viewpoint anathema" is NOT my position.....if you substitue (may I use that word here?) "alternative" for "contradictory", you would be closer to what I think and say. As a matter of common sense, I do reject the unbiblical approach which wants to keep contradictory positions all at the table (or indaba) talking without resolution....sometimes we have to make decisions and reject what is wrong, as St Paul often taught and did.... we have been fooled into thinking it is somehow Christian to tolerate false teaching and teachers....it just ain't, not if you look at the words and actions of the Lord and his apostles. BTW I am not advocating any special treatment for Dr Turnbull (although nobody has suggested any great sin on his part, even those who have criticised his style). If you read what I say, I was encouraging a godly response from those who were on the receiving end of events at All Souls... Posted by: Simon Morden Monday 17 November 2008 - 01:26pm Two points - and then I really have to do some proper writing... Paul was the first person to admit that he 'saw through a glass darkly'. In that respect, he showed a good deal of the self-examination that seems to be sadly lacking in those for whom absolute certainty is the key virtue, and any whiff of doubt or the consideration of an alternative viewpoint anathema. You have not defended Richard Turnbull, but your tone is concilliatory - he's not a guilty schoolboy, and neither is he a first-time offender. If, as you are suggesting, 1 Cor 5 is the benchmark for church discipline, then why are you not calling for him to stand down? Either it applies equally for all leaders and laity, or you are using a different exegesis because you see some offenses greater than others.
Posted by: Stephen Kuhrt
Monday 17 November 2008 - 01:24pm
QGS - yes one very important aspect of Saturday was the wider evangelical constituency suddenly being able to see for themselves what the situation has been like for those on the receiving end at Wycliffe Hall. Several senior evangelical clergy who had desperately wanted to make charitable assumptions about the problems at the Wycliffe were left speechless by the process they witnessed which seemed to have finally opened their eyes to the reality of the situation there. The inspectors, I believe, go into Wycliffe this week led, I think, by the Rev Ian Bunting and it is to be hoped that the issues at the Hall are finally addressed. The temptation will be just to address those issues of a present nature (and that would be better than nothing) but, as I have said before on the Fulcrum forums, the Clare MacInnes correspondence with +James Jones made some very serious allegations that we have never received a satisfactory response. Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 17 November 2008 - 12:39pm Simon - let me explain the links to you.... Firstly, I have not anywhere defended Dr Turnbull (I am sure he can look after himself), so I was not responding to any criticism of him. Perhaps you could have seen my suggestion that "open" people forgive him as a sign that I think he might have erred? (I think he did, from the reports I have read....) Secondly, you talked of "fruit" - this is what I was responding to, and that's why I mentioned "fruit", in the light of your comment about not being sure where you stand re the innovation George Day wishes evangelicals to accept. I agreed with you that fruit matters...and I agree re all types of sin as is clear in 1Cor5....no sin ought to be justified....not for leaders and not for us ordinary people, as St Paul pointed out repeatedly to the early church. I just do not see that any of us (archbishops or not) have the authority to tell people that while the bible condemns something unequivocally and never talks positively about it, we are now so wise that we are really not sure and therefore think it might be ok after all.....we really don't have the authority to say this as it cannot be convincingly demonstrated from scripture - even my old hero Roy Clements has failed to make a strong case to support this view - so, in the light of your statement, I was reminding you what St Paul said re fruit and also about church discipline because some do call for endless converstation with people who would justifiy behaviour incompatible with scripture but that gets us nowhere except into more confusion and division. St Paul knew what he was talking about..... Posted by: QGS Monday 17 November 2008 - 12:25pm Turnbull's "bullish" leadership style (to try to keep it neutral-ish, rather than the more provocative "bullying" leadership style) will hardly come as a surprise to those who have followed the Wycliffe College situation closely. Isn't that exactly what he has been accused of there? The Wycliffe thread here seems to have gone dead of late. Has the lid finally been replaced on that can of worms? Was Elaine Storkey's case resolved, or will we hear more? Was there any sort of Church of England inquiry or inspection? Posted by: Simon Morden Monday 17 November 2008 - 12:07pm Nersen - your comments don't add up. In one moment, you suggest Graham and Jody forgive Turnbull and work with him. The next you quote a passage which says the church should expel the immoral brother. Unless there is a startling lack of insight on your part, you have to believe that 1 Cor 5 applies to the chair of CEEC as much as it does to Gene Robinson. It is not a passage that applies only to sexual ethics.
Posted by: Jody
Monday 17 November 2008 - 11:56am
Hi two things first, I also wanted to say thank you to George for being very brave. Regardless of my own convictions on matters of sexuality, it is very important that you are able to have a voice too. I have visited the 'accepting evangelical' website that you linked to on a previous post and I found 'Benny's tale' very moving, it would do us all good to have these voices ringing in our ears when we are tempted to talk of moral issues or people groups in an abstract way. secondly, thanks madeline for your concern. with regards to Richard Turnbull's behaviour, from my perspective, whilst what he did expressed itself, without a doubt in my mind, in bullying, blackmail and condemnation, I have to admit that I did not 'feel' such simply because I have been here before with previous people of a similar ilk - it no longer impacts me in the way it once used to because, I hope, i can see it for what it is. I choose to respond by naming it for what it is, I will not take on board his psychological gameplaying, for such is what it is (unfortunately for him, 15months of psychotherapy have put paid to me internalising other people's crappy behaviour) btw I have no concerns about naming abuse, but we only have responsibility for our own response and action. blessings, jody Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 17 November 2008 - 11:16am Simon - indeed, fruit matters so much and not just for leaders.... that is exactly St Paul's pont in 1 Cor 5 Posted by: Madeline Monday 17 November 2008 - 10:53am When will they ever learn? Moderate evangelicals betrayed Elaine Storkey and persuaded her to go to conflict resolution. They did this to avoid scandal and public division. The upshot is, that Turnbull not only got away with his actions at Wycliffe, but he was strengthened on the wider stage. Now, the moderate evangelicals are stuck with him expanding his power base and taking over even more areas of church life. His ability to ignore the decision of the meeting which did not want to motion put, and to take it to CEEC anyway is an indication of why people at Wycliffe found him impossible to work with. Jody says his behaviour left people feeling emotionally blackmailed, bullied and condemned, i.e. all the things the Wycliffe people felt. You can't blame Turnbull. The problem lies with the moderate ones who have saved him at Wycliffe, and who continue to lack the courage to take him on. By not getting rid of him, they sustain him. By sustaining him, they validate his actions. By validating his actions they allow people like Jody to be blackmailed and bullied. Posted by: Roger Hurding Monday 17 November 2008 - 10:23am Thanks Graham for your message. I am sorry if the points I raised have been somewhat at a tangent to the main discussion. Essentially, I was seeking to flag up a viewpoint that should be kept in mind somewhere within the discussions at NEAC 08, ie., that there are a number of Christians with a high view of Scripture who are not completely convinced by the conventional, watertight (those watercourses again?) interpretation of the anti-gay texts. And so thank you, too, George Day for having the courage to speak up on the matter on Saturday. Like you, I would like to see the voice of Accepting Evangelicals, for example, heard and acknowledged at such gatherings as an integral part of taking the Bible seriously as to just what and what it does not say on gay relationships. Posted by: Simon Morden Monday 17 November 2008 - 10:18am Oh dear. There are lots of things that could be said here, but I'll try to be brief. Phil - remember my three points about why I feel a degree of antipathy towards CEs? The co-option of the meaning of 'evangelical', wanting an evangelical-only church, and the tactics thing? Here we have it in spades. Nersen - you talk frequently about the qualities of leadership, and how important it is for leaders to be orthodox. It seems some leaders have entirely forgotten that their praxis (or fruit, if you wish) is how they are known. While those present may certainly forgive Turnbull for his actions, there is no reason at all for them to forget. Seriously - this is mixture of classic Marxist entryism and student union politics circa 1980s. I can't decide whether the CEEC chair is simply and blessedly incompetent at arranging a putsch, whether it was an act of pure hubris, or whether it was cold and calculated dishonesty. Or a mixture of all three. You put far too much emphasis on the position of leaders. You seek a king like Israel did - I'm asking where are our Judges and our prophets? I see no reason - no reason whatsoever - why I should follow Turnbull, Sugden et al over my bishop and Archbishops. Finally, kudos to those who stood up and were counted (you too, George - I have sympathy with your position and am uncertain as to my own). It could be that you've just had your Neil Kinnock moment. Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 17 November 2008 - 07:42am Sorry to hear of the politics on Saturday - wish that had been avoided.....hoping "open" leaders will respond constructively, forgive Dr Turnbull even if he does not ask you for firgiveness (are you willing to do that?) and get involved in CEEC so that sort of error is not made in the future......we (all streams) must not give up on the imperative of unity....someone prayed for us to be united. George Day - as you know, your position is a rare one. Roy Clements agrees with you these days.... but even he, with all his mighty skills of persuasion, failed to convince many in the last decade since his sad departure from evangelical circles (I still hope he will return one day, he was a great teacher and tireless worker as well as a gentleman). The problem is that you are both effectively arguing for one special exemption and there is no support from scripture for giving that exemption. When Roy started writing in favour of your position, I was actually scared and thought we would have to get Don Carson to respond point by point to devastating scriptural justification of his case ...... but I was surprised that even I could pick massive holes in the great man's arguments - it was not his strongest work and even he, with his immense writing and speaking skills, convinced few. I know you will disagree and might claim that most of the church has misunderstood the scriptures in the last 2000 years and you and Roy understand them better these days... but few are convinced, as you know.... not because of any phobia or reluctance but because the case from scripture for your position is not strong, even in the hands of someone as persuasive as Roy. Posted by: Deleted user 1143 Sunday 16 November 2008 - 11:42pm I found NEAC both fascinating and frustrating, and right now I mostly have a lot of questions. To name a few: Why did Dr Turnbull take a slap-shot at the 'open, conservative, charismatic' typology in his closing remarks? Why is there so much animosity between some of Stott's 'nephews and nieces'? Why couldn't we hear from Bp Nazir Ali a bit more, especially as things started to slip into a lose-lose mode? What part of affirming the Jerusalem Declaration and a plurality of orthodox approaches to the crisis (i.e. including GAFCON and 'Communion' ways) presented a problem for those who were eager not to take a vote? Or is it that 'Communion' and GAFCON strategies are mutually exclusive, and it makes no sense to pretend that we can affirm them both? If that's the case, maybe there is some sense to the 'end of an era' remark on the other thread. Anglican Essentials in Canada keeps the two strategies under the same umbrella in principle, but maybe the split between the 'network' and the 'federation' is a sign of what's inevitable in the CEEC here.
Posted by: Ian Paul
Sunday 16 November 2008 - 10:45pm
Jody Thanks for these reflections. I have said something similar about Richard Turnbull on the 'End of an Era' thread in response to Nick Jones. Whether one is encouraged overall I guess is related to what one thought NEAC was *for*. I agree that the input from a number of folk was excellent--I particularly appreciated Keith Sinclair's positive, reflective and very constructive comments. But the purpose was supposed to be 'consultation', and the afternoon was clearly everything but consultative. Previously, a number of us have (for some time, and even whilst on CEEC itself) raised the question of representation, and whether it mattered to CEEC that it was getting narrower and moving to the 'right'. Prior to Saturday, it could have been thought that perhaps the message hadn't got through, or that CEEC were still thinking about it. But the question was put very clearly on Saturday afternoon: 'Does it matter to you that many people here feel excluded and that CEEC does not speak for them. Are you worried about this and do you plan to do anything about it?' Richard gave a resounding 'NO' to both halves of the question. What further worried me was the lack of any kind of theological reflection behind his comments. Is the question of the authority of the Bible an issue? Yes indeed--but at least as big an issue is the question of the *understanding* of the Bible, and yet this did not get a mention. To suggest that what the Bible says is clear as day to all concerned (both within and outside the church), and that the *only* question that matters is, are we going to do what it evidently says, is to fly in the face of pastoral experience, to ignore the pressing apologetic agenda of the contemporary scene, and to turn back 30 years of evangelical reflection on questions of interpretation. The irony of all this is, given that the majority would likely have happily signed up to a less political but equally clear statement of support for evangelicals overseas, CEEC now looks like CECEC. Non-conservatives will turn elsewhere for a voice, and Richard by his action will have strengthened the sense of three streams which he detests so much.
Posted by: Jody
Sunday 16 November 2008 - 10:01pm
Hi i have to say that my own personal sense from the meeting was actually quite positive. of course there was some phenomenally bad behaviour in the sudden appearance of a motion to vote on which carried a 'no ammendments will be permitted' clause (what kind of 'consultation' is this? I asked myself), but Keith Sinclair's balanced description of his experience at both Lambeth and GAFCON, Christina Baxter's contribution (which by far got the loudest longest clap of the day) and the Pete Broadbent's unique 'unboxed' (is that a word? you know what I mean, Pete will resolutely not be labelled and i love that) opinion, were utter gems. one thing that hasn't been mentioned so far is the particularly difficult behaviour of the chair of CEEC, Richard Turnbull, I hesitate to mention it because, knowing that quite a few people will wish for it to 'disappear', I'm sure I will be sideswiped for mentioning it. however, it deserves a mention if only because most people would not have believed it unless they were there. it became clear that the majority of those present did not want the 'motion' to be put, and Philip Lovegrove with one of the best lines ever - 'Richard, from an elder brother, DO AS YOU ARE TOLD' - proposed a procedural motion for the 'motion' to be 'not put (I know it all seems complicated, but it had been made deliberately so - what we really wanted to say was, 'stop bullying us, we don't want to vote on this!', but had to do it as a constitutional body, so 'motions' were the order of the day). anyway, once this was proposed, Richard Turnbull was invited to speak to the motion, he had the opportunity, there and then to withdraw it, in fact he was urged to by many 'elder brothers', but instead chose to behave in such a way that we were left feeling emotionally blackmailed, bullied and condemned. needless to say when the motion to 'not vote' was given, it won. in response to this Richard Turnbull announced that he was taking it to CEEC to vote anyway but as i said my general feeling was very positive, I was heartened by the fact that the majority of those present, albeit a small majority, voted against putting a motion that I believe would both divide evangelicals and which would also cut evangelicals off from our wider CofE brothers and sisters. The Jerusalem Declaration comes with the context in which it was wrought and whilst I wish to stand with those who are in anguish in the AC, the reality is that the political agenda which comes with the JD from the CofE is one which sees Anglican Evangelicals as the 'only true anglicans' (Richard Turnbull) and which defines Evangelical with a very narrow limit. I want to be part of an Evangelical fellowship which will be happy with its distinctives and value that which we can gain from being among those who are 'not like us'. I believe that signing up to the JD in the context of the CofE would be to affirm those things which we as distinctly open evangelicals cannot - opposition of WO, crossing parish boundaries with very little cause, to name only two - not because it explicitly states such (although para 11 and 13 come close), but because based on past behaviour this is what it will be taken to mean. perhaps I am naive but it seemed to me that of those that met, people generally wanted to behave well towards each other, recognising difference, that they did not think that agenda should override strategy, that they did not wish to be split down the middle, but rather be kept together as a body within the whole. these are very good things. Jody Posted by: George Day Sunday 16 November 2008 - 07:51pm A rather belated response to SonofHurd's post of Friday afternoon, now someway back on this prolific thread - at NEAC I stuck my neck out in appealing (a) for people to recognise the fact that there are evangelicals who support gay relationships, (and for clarity I should of course have said "some gay relationships") and (b) that there should not be attempts to cut us out, either by just ignoring us and hoping we would go away, or by more direct action. Since the Jerusalem Declaration in its section on sexual relationships does effectively do that I would have had to vote against it if the motion had been put, even though I can support wholeheartedly about the other 98% of its content. I suggested that if there are attempts to cut out those who do not follow the accepted line of homosexuality it will engender a climate of fear, with people who question the accepted view feeling they have to keep their thoughts secret. This also ties up with what L Roberts has said in a post of earlier today - the question of what we mean by "orthodox". I am personally very concerned that it seems to be rapidly becoming shorthand for holding the right views on sexuality, and thus it excludes those who take an accepting position, even if they are faithfully preaching an evangelical gospel, as I seek to do. (I have also previously raised this same question in regard to Andrew Goddard's pre-NEAC paper). A number of people at NEAC were very gracious after I had spoken, saying that they did not agree with me but thanking me for raising something important. Obviously, I found that encouraging, but what was not so encouraging was that since nobody else spoke out on the same theme I got the impression that there was nobody from such groups as Accepting Evangelicals present - I wonder if this indicates that most members of AE see no future in debates like NEAC, or perhaps are afraid of being seen as holding odd-one-out views. Perhaps some present at NEAC would regard it as a good thing if members of AE keep away; personally I regard it as very concerning.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Sunday 16 November 2008 - 07:33pm
Thanks, Tony. The motion was put on the chairs prior to the beginning of the consultation. Some saw it, others did not. Many chairs on the sides did not have the paper with the motion on it. The fact that there was going to be a major resolution in the late afternoon was not mentioned at all in: the prior publicity on the web the individual emails we received confirming our booking (though the emails pointed to the Jerusalem Declaration) the morning session, from the front It seems that CEEC deliberately kept this key point in the agenda of NEAC from the constituency until the last minute. The following is the exact motion that the Chair of CEEC proposed. In the end it was not 'put' because the procedural motion that 'it be not put' was passed by 123 votes to 104: That this National Evangelical Anglican Consultation, acknowledging that the Church of England professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creed and bears witness to this truth in her historic formularies (the Book of Common Prayer, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion and the Ordinal) and as set out in Canon A5, Article 6 and the Declaration of Assent and mindful, as members of the Anglican Communion, of our obligations to faithful Anglicans across the globe, (a) express our support for the Jerusalem Declaration’ and (b) recognising that Evangelical Anglicans will pursue a variety of strategies, support our brothers and sisters in their strategic decisions including those set out in the GAFCON statement made in Jerusalem on 29th June 2008 at the Global Anglican Future Conference gathering attended by 1148 people, including 291 Bishops of the Anglican Communion. The paper then went on with another heading 'Procedure': For the avoidance of doubt, please note the following: No amendments will be permitted The motion will be voted on in parts (ie (a) and (b) above will be voted on separately) The Chairman of the session, the Revd Canon Michael Walters, has full control over the handing of the session to ensure a clear vote and timely finish and no challenges to his ruling are permitted The vote will take place no later than 3.55pm Philip Lovegrove proposed the procedural motion. What happend after it was passed, and the original motion was 'not put' is described by Wim Houtman in his article 'NEAC 2008: an Evangelical Dutch Report'. Posted by: Mark Bennet Sunday 16 November 2008 - 07:16pm Here is an interesting piece of light relief ... Posted by: User 1450 Sunday 16 November 2008 - 06:09pm I am grateful to the speakers and organisers of yesterday’s NEAC. I had no problem with the motion ‘sprang’ on us – how else would CEEC get a balanced response from a reasonably representative group of evangelicals? The motion to support the Jerusalem Declaration was flagged up on the Fulcrum website a few hours before the meeting, but presumably it was late enough to prevent a lobby on either side packing the meeting. Because we were simply ‘off the street’ ie not representing anyone, our vote would have had no particular authority, but could have helped the representative (?) CEEC make a more informed response to the Jerusalem Declaration. I would be interested in hearing the response of other speakers at the conference, to Bishop Pete’s ‘bones’. They seem as good a way forward as any, and may yet draw together Fulcrum and Anglican Mainstream? Ray Skinner Posted by: Tony Sunday 16 November 2008 - 05:10pm Unless I've missed it somewhere, could one of you spell out the resolution that was voted out on procedural grounds at NEAC. Neither the Dagesblad nor the news agency report actually quote it. I expect Graham Kings will make all plain quite soon, but just in the meantime it would be helpful to know what decision wasn't reached. Thanks. Posted by: nersenpaul Sunday 16 November 2008 - 04:34pm Laurence Roberts - you mention John Stott - as you know, the core of his work is as a bible teacher who encouraged all in the church to work very hard at understanding what the bible says and then to obey it as the word of God. Please have a read of his book called "Issues Facing Christians Today" re the issue which clearly is so important to you...I think you would understand us evangelcals better if you (re)read the relevant bit of that Stott book. Graham - thanks for your reply and strong encouragement not to be a hypocrite. I agree with you, of course. I meant the comment less seriously than you took it and would not really adopt "liberal" style "integrity" re the Jerusalem Declaration, ignoring bits I don't like but signing anyway. I would be happy to sign the JD on the basis that I am in the CofE and can accept that "lay presidency" is not accepted widely even though it is compatible with scripture...so as not to put stumbling blocks in the way of brothers and sisters in the CofE, I would be happy not to push for "lay presidency" - it is not essential to my salvation! As I said, we may well see ++Jensen not give his support for implementation of the Sydney synod's views given he also is mindful of unity, I am sure. However, I cannot accept "lay presidency" (which is compatible with scripture but not Anglican tradition) being put in the same league as condoning behaviour which is incompatible both with scripture and Anglican tradition.... as some are tempted to do because they see a chance to attack Syndey, Reform etc (I do not mean you....but some are clearly tempted that way)
Posted by: Graham Kings
Sunday 16 November 2008 - 04:06pm
Thanks, Ken. We have just published on Fulcrum, 'NEAC 2008: an Evangelical Dutch Report' by Wim Houtman, Religion Editor of Nederlands Dagblad. Posted by: Ken Sawyer Sunday 16 November 2008 - 03:49pm Graham, There are some of us who would like to know what happened yesterday not merely interpreting what happened. Perhaps Nick Jones new thread "End of an Era" really belongs in here. He wrote: It was quite simply foolish to spring a motion onto the "Consultation" unforewarned. What was this motion, who sprung it and what was the procedural motion? Nick clearly preferred to get back to his Bradford parish. I guess that there were/are many evangelicals both ordained and lay who are getting on with their ministry/mission/service where they are. Is the evangelical movement in the C of E badly out of touch with most of the people it claims to represent - people far from the London/south of England areas?
Posted by: Graham Kings
Sunday 16 November 2008 - 03:29pm
Thanks, SonofHurd. However, it may be worth you and Phil moving this particular discussion to the thread 'Defining Evangelical' which has already covered some such issues and which would leave this NEAC 2008 thread to focus on interpreting what happened yesterday. Posted by: Roger Hurding Sunday 16 November 2008 - 11:36am Thank you Phil. You say 'The 'three streams' differ in some fundamental matters about who God and Christ are, etc.'. Do they? I'd be very surprised to find that, on the parameters you cite, there are any truly 'fundamental' differences between the three strands of evangelicalism under discussion. Do give me some examples. Posted by: Deleted user 974 Sunday 16 November 2008 - 01:25am No doubt Pete will want all the isolated lesbian and gay people to be reached out to, and supported --especially in countries where we are hounded, imprisoned or executed. Maybe he'll want a special province for us too ? Does he have a proposal or rescue plan for those being imprisoned or murdered judically or otherwise ? It is amazing that those who departed so far from the Catholic faith use the word 'orthodox' so freely -- and so loosely. Is homophobia now one of the marks of the Church ? I'm sorry to see Evangelicals retreating back into their own little world / ghetto after all the advances of Keele etc (remember that ?!); and all that John Stott worked for, in season and out of season ... Posted by: Pete Broadbent Saturday 15 November 2008 - 11:39pm To help debate, here's the bones of my contribution today: Four propositions 1. That, in relation to Anglican Communion issues, the majority of the leadership of ECUSA and various Canadian dioceses have placed themselves outwith the historic orthodox Christian faith 2. That it is right and proper that they should be offered alternative oversight and structures 3. That there may be circumstances in the future in the Church of England context where parishes find themselves in analogous situations 4. That evangelical Anglicans need to maintain the greatest possible unity among themselves and with other orthodox members of the CofE Four bits of analysis 1. That three of the Instruments of Communion – Primates, Lambeth Conference, ACC – are no longer fit for purpose. Archbishop Rowan still a focus – and I believe he has done his best to hold things together. 2. That the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant is unlikely to deliver, as it neither holds credibility among conservatives nor liberals. It’s a busted flush. What else can be put on the table to replace it? 3. That GAFCON is asking the right questions – about what holds us together – but that the theological and ecclesial answers it provides are not adequate to secure acceptance on the part of all evangelical Anglicans – scripture, creeds, historic formularies.. 4. That the work of holding the Anglican Communion together is all “too little, too late”. Four suggestions for action 1. A better dialogue between GAFCON and the other elements of the Global South, involving the mission agencies and others 2. A strong statement to the isolated in ECUSA and elsewhere that we support them – and a call to +Rowan to recognise a separate ECUSA Province 3. A way of interconnecting evangelical Anglican strategies here in the UK – fissiparousness needs to be avoided 4. A theology of what it means to relate to your friends when they’re in positions of authority - evangelicals can't cope with the challenge of not being in opposition Four questions going forward 1. Can we make CEEC a place where there is proper consultation, networking and discussion on policy? 2. Can we avoid the danger of polarising into pro and anti GAFCON lobbies? 3. Can we find a better way of defining what really matters in terms of theological and mission priorities? 4. Can we hold off from associating CEEC with one particular strand in the continuing Anglican Communion debate – I personally don’t want us to do anything that ties us in to one approach to these matters… which is what voting in favour of the Jerusalem declaration would do. Posted by: Phil Almond Saturday 15 November 2008 - 10:59pm Only God is the fountain of living waters. The ‘three streams’ differ in some fundamental matters about who God and Christ are, what they have said, are saying, will say, have done, are doing, will do, what human beings need saving from, in what that salvation consists and how it may become yours and mine and ours. Phil Almond Posted by: Roger Hurding Saturday 15 November 2008 - 08:27pm Oh Phil! What do a canal, a river and rapids have in common? Yes, you have it! Water! And, switching from metaphor to ultimate truth, life-giving water at that. Posted by: Pete Broadbent Saturday 15 November 2008 - 05:50pm A strange day. Very good contribution from Bishop Keith Sinclair in particular, which would have repaid some reflection and discussion in groups. The other speakers all raised significantly diverse points about the future of the Anglican Communion and about evangelical Anglicanism in England, which again we could have chewed over together. Instead, we were catapulted into a debate on a motion that had been laid on the chairs as we came in, the passing of which would have committed NEAC (whoever NEAC are!) to supporting the Jerusalem declaration (and, by inference, positioning evangelical Anglicans in the GAFCON camp). After debate, the motion was, on a procedural motion, "not put". This was, to my view, an extremely wise decision, though I suspect that CEEC will in any case pass a version of the motion at its next meeting, irrespective of the debate at NEAC. What was difficult for CEEC was the fact that many of the key protagonists for the adoption of the Jerusalem declaration who spoke passionately as if support for GAFCON were the only way forward were defeated by a combination of more mainline evangelicals and those who felt that they had been bounced into a process. It's a habit that CEEC will have to get out of if they are to retain credibility. Good things? 1. Plenty of suggestions to build on going forward if we are prepared to take them 2. Good listening and exchange of ideas 3. Some excellent (and some slightly more eccentric) contributions from the floor - though not enough space for genuine consultation. Posted by: Phil Almond Saturday 15 November 2008 - 12:28pm The problem is: the three streams cannot be all true. It is not a matter of perspectives but of irreconcilable differences in doctrine. Phil Almond Posted by: Roger Hurding Saturday 15 November 2008 - 10:05am Thank you Graham for your helpful response to my message. I shall follow up your references and revisit your original article in Anvil on the 'watercourses' of evangelicalism. I liked your positive note on diversity in unity, affirming those areas in which there is agreement rather than difference of position. Long, though, may the debate continue as we seek discernment in biblical understanding and interpretation. After all, all the best centres have a periphery and, historically, that periphery has been continually redefined as central after all. The list of this continuing reappraisal is well known: issues on slavery, contraception, usury, the Christ and culture debate, the role of women in the Church, lay and ordained, the gifts of the Spirit... I do hope today's consultation will generate light rather than the heat of entrenched name-calling. My prayers are with you all and I trust that the CEEC et al. will be more truly representative of all those richly varied watercourses!
Posted by: Graham Kings
Saturday 15 November 2008 - 08:58am
A very significant article has been published on Covenant yesterday, 14 November 2008, 'A New Province in North America: Neither the Only nor the Right Answer for the Communion', by Ephraim Radner. It is very pertinent to our discussions at NEAC 2008 today. Do remember the whole consultation in your prayers.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Saturday 15 November 2008 - 08:45am
Thanks, Erasmus. Fulcrum's core raison d'etre remains 'renewing the evangelical centre', which is outlined here. As I wrote in the Church Times article yesterday: Unity amongst Evangelicals in the Church of England is urgently needed at this crucial moment in the Anglican Communion. We are committed to the teaching of the Communion on sexuality and opposed to the developments in North America which have caused this crisis. Unity should be organic, not imposed; founded on the long standing ‘basis of belief’ of the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC), not on controversial new declarations; and fully cognisant of the variety of perspectives of the three streams within our tradition – conservative, open and charismatic – not a uniformity of one or two streams only. Posted by: Erasmus Friday 14 November 2008 - 11:38pm Wanting evangelicals to remain part of a broader church is laudable, but I suspect that you are believing liberal propaganda if you think you are the only ones left. And I worry that if you end up just constant sniping, rather than engaging, with other evangelicals, you may find yourselves not renewing the evangelical centre so much as helping to weaken the evangelical voice. Has Fulcrum's core raison d'etre becoming just to oppose other Evangelicals?!
Posted by: Stephen Kuhrt
Friday 14 November 2008 - 08:25pm
Today's Church Times carries a brief report that Richard Turnbull has rejected suggestions that NEAC is not fully representative of the Church's Evangelical wing including a statement that there are no plans to revise the constitution of its organisers, the CEEC. It records him saying, as follows "CEEC revised its constitution three years ago and is as representative as it can be. Every voice is there and every voice is heard. The CEEC is the most representative body we have, bringing together theological colleges, mission agencies, and a wide range of Evangelicals from across the country". The report continues with Richard Turnbull's confirmation that there will be a vote on a motion about the identity of Evangelicals, related to the GAFCON declaration. "I'm sure it will receive support from all strands of Evangelicalism," he said. What I find interesting about this is that Richard Turnbull's response is so different from that of John Richardson, another member of CEEC. John acknowledged that CEEC is not representative and said that it was the fault of Open Evangelicals for opting out of involvement with evangelical structures (despite his knowledge that Fulcrum did apply for one of the six places for evangelical societies on CEEC) whilst Richard Turnbull is making a very different claim that CEEC is fully representative and that there is no case to answer. John is being the more truthful, I believe, and the reason for the difference is almost certainly because of Turnbull and Chris Sugden's desire to present any motion passed tommorrow at NEAC as signifying that evangelical Anglicans are behind them in supporting the GAFCON agenda.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Friday 14 November 2008 - 04:37pm
Apologies for yet another post this afternoon...but NEAC 2008 seems to have been creative for interaction on these forums. Thanks, Son of Hurd for your comment. Some, perhaps, may think that such 'liberal' evangelicals as you describe should be seen and not Hurd... I do think they should be heard and mentioned your position in my article 'Mercedes Benz and Evangelicals in the Church of England', Fulcrum and CEN 22 June 2007. I quote part of it below: The logo could be interpreted as conservative, open and charismatic 'pointers in direction' (rather than 'streams'): CEEC and NEAC should encompass all three. Now, if we move the perimeter circle inwards somewhat - and I realise that 'somewhat' is a loaded word - then we have the 'evangelical centre' ie moderate conservative, open and charismatic evangelical Anglicans. The danger of this adapted logo, of course, is the rigidity of the circle and we have lost the fluidity of the streams, or watercourses, metaphor. Well, at least it is worth a try...and, interestingly, it is at the centre of the logo where the three 'pointers of direction' converge in commonality. With that 'dangerous' caveat, it may be worth pondering that amongst Anglicans, there are some extreme conservative evangelicals who are 'six-day creationists'; there are some extreme open evangelicals who see no problem with gay people who are in sexual relationships being consecrated as bishops; there are some extreme charismatics who downplay the medical profession and see demon possession everywhere. These examples, it seems to me, would not be within the 'evangelical centre'. As David Martin has pointed out, 'the unbounded is soon the empty'. In the end, however, the 'evangelical centre' should be seen more in what it affirms than in what it denies - and for an attempt at that, see the Fulcrum web site. Jacques Maritain wrote a fine book on metaphysics and epistemology Distinguer pour unir (1932). Rowan Williams, in Grace and Necessity (2005), has commented on it and translated its title as 'Distinguishing so as to unite'. We should not be afraid of distinctions based on observation and frequent use. They may indeed help the mapping and unity of our evangelical movement.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Friday 14 November 2008 - 04:27pm
Thanks, Nersen. I would urge you - and I am serious in this - not to be tempted (which is your word and actually is a strong word), as you imply that you are, to sign up to the Jerusalem Declaration even though you now know that your belief in lay presidency means that you should not sign it. Please be fully Evangelical and take words seriously. The 39 articles are serious. The Anglican Ordinal is serious and the Jerusalem Declaration is serious. It really is not a question of crossing your fingers behind your back as you sign up. That is the accusation given by many people who are conservative on sexual issues to liberal members of TEC, including the Presiding Bishop at the Primates' Meeting at Dar es Salaam. You don't need to follow in those footsteps. Let your 'yes be yes' and your 'no be no.' As to breaking bread with lay friends, I would suggest you join in Holy Communion with the local church down the road from your holiday home. That would link you in with other Christians, which is a key part of Holy Communion and of the Ordinal. Thanks for your prayers. I'm arriving at 10.00am tomorrow. Let's meet up for coffee. Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 14 November 2008 - 04:14pm Thanks for your reply Graham Yes, the JD does put me in a bit of a spot! Now, I am tempted to be like those Anglican clergy who just disregard words they want to disregard...... Earlier, re lay presidency, I typed a question to you and then deleted it - not wanting to put you on the spot...but since you seem up for it..... say four Christian friends go on a holiday and they want to break bread together, would you say they must not do that but they can only celebrate the Lord's supper if they get a "priest" in? Would be interested in your view.... Will be praying that you and Chris Sugden and all the others at All Souls tomorrow will have a great day together and will build each other up, renewing and reviving friendships and striving for unity as members of one body.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Friday 14 November 2008 - 04:09pm
It may be worth, also, re-reading the positive responses to the Lambeth Conference by the Evangelical bishops, Mike Hill (Bristol), Jonathan Gledhill (Lichfield) and Nick Baines (Croydon). Posted by: Roger Hurding Friday 14 November 2008 - 03:44pm I greatly appreciate the many papers and articles generated by Fulcrum and, on the whole, find myself agreeing with much of what is said. In this thread I find myself readily in agreement with much of what Simon has to say on CEs and OEs. I feel, though, that there is another position within the sweep of different evangelical stances, be they Anglican Mainstream, Reform, Fulcrum, New Wine, etc. I feel it is a position that many (all?) CEs and perhaps many (most?) OEs see as simply not evangelical and therefore, in many minds, as 'liberal'. I am reminded of this alternative view, Graham, in your excellent piece, 'Nourishing Unity? NEAC 2008' where you say 'Anglican Mainstream (conservative and focused on homosexuality) and Fulcrum ... Though both are conservative on issues of sexuality, they have differed on ecclesiology'. Is then, being 'conservative on issues of sexuality' the acid test for all evangelicals, CEs and OEs alike? Obviously it all depends on how we define 'conservative' with respect to 'issues of sexuality'. Leaving that question hanging in the air, I would like to put forward that there is a third position within the debate on, to be specific, gay sex. It is not simply a matter of a conservative view (CEs; many, if not virtually, all OEs; and conservative catholics), in which Bible and Church tradition are seen as unequivocal on the matter, and a liberal view that sits loose to both Bible and tradition. I would argue a third position: that there is a substantial number of Christians who take the Scriptures very seriously and seek to live faithfully in that light and yet question the classic conservative and traditionalist interpretations of the 'anti-gay' texts. I include amongst these Michael Vasey in his 'Strangers and Friends: a new exploration of homosexuality and the Bible'; Gareth Moore in 'A Question of Truth: Christianity and Homosexuality'; Walter Wink in 'Homosexuality and the Bible' (see http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-walter-wink) and Accepting Evangelicals; Roy Clements' 'Why Evangelicals must think again about Homosexuality' (see http://www.acceptingevangelicals.org/think%20again.htm ) I at least feel that these are voices that should not be completely air-brushed out of the continuing debate on evangelical identity.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Friday 14 November 2008 - 03:44pm
In preparation for NEAC 2008, it is worth reading the statement from the recent meeting of the Primates and Standing Committee members of the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa (CAPA), 3-4 September 2008 in Nairobi. Emmanuel Kolini chaired the meeting in the absence of the chair, Ian Ernest, who was ill. I have created a new forum thread on this significant statement and copied part of it there. It is balanced about the Lambeth Conference - most of the Primates from Africa attended it - and GAFCON and encouraging. It may be read in full on the Global South Anglican site, 7 November 2008,here. In contrast to negative evaluations of the Lambeth Conference by Chris Sugden and also by Vinay Samuel, it is heartening to hear direct from African Primates and let us hope that NEAC 2008 will follow the African Primates lead...
Posted by: Graham Kings
Friday 14 November 2008 - 01:48pm
Thanks, Steve. Yes, I do indeed prefer the word 'organic' to 'imposed'. The CEEC basis of belief was very carefully crafted over a period of time and had a wide range of acceptance. It was not 'imposed'. The Jerusalem Declaration has already been put up on the CEEC website and people attending NEAC 2008 have had an email encouraging them to study it. I have suggested to the organisers that since NEAC 2008 is billed at looking at both the Lambeth Conference and GAFCON, then if the Jerusalem Declaration is put up under the library section of CEEC, then the Concluding Address of the Archbishop of Canterbury at Lambeth 2008 should also be put up. I don't think this has been taken up. To read the address, click here. The FCA are offering The Jerusalem Declaration as part of a strategy package. It has an introductory paragraph giving the context of GAFCON and implies agreement to the GAFCON strategy. The EFAC meeting at Trinity College, Bristol, prior to the Lambeth Conference, deliberately mentioned the 14 points of the Declaration and not the introduction. It may be that CEEC wish to have a 'straw vote' from amongst people who come tomorrow about the Jerusalem Declaration. If this is the plan, then restricting it to the 14 points and excluding the introductory paragraph, would be wiser from their point of view. If CEEC, after the consultation, want to give complete backing to the GAFCON strategy and even join FCA as a body, that would not likely have the backing of huge numbers of Evangelicals in the Church of England. It would elicit large opposition just when unity amongst Evangelicals in the Church of England is vital. CEEC would be in danger of speaking for only part of their constituency - as was the case when they backed the so called 'Covenant for the Church of England', and discouraged Evangelical Bishops in the Church of England from attending the Lambeth Conference. I look forward to meeting you again tomorrow and to the open discussions after the panel presentations.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Friday 14 November 2008 - 01:17pm
Thanks, Nersen. My description of Anglican Mainstream in the article is as follows: Anglican Mainstream (conservative and focused on homosexuality)... Anglican Mainstream has pioneered the ‘Federal Conservative’ line, in that it does not accept the warnings in The Windsor Report concerning transprovincial interventions. (See the ‘quadrant’ in my Fulcrum Newsletter for June this year, ‘Reading and Reshaping the Anglican Communion’). With others, it has set up GAFCON, lost faith in the Windsor Process and (with CEEC backing) discouraged Evangelical attendance at the Lambeth Conference. From considering the AM website postings, its founding in the context of the Reading controversy, and its history since then, I do think the above description, including the elucidation in the second paragraph, is reasonable. It is 'conservative' and surely it would be difficult to argue that there has not been a focus on homosexuality... Christina Baxter is indeed a leading Evangelical and chair of the House of Laity of General Synod. There are, however, no ordained women speakers chosen for NEAC 2008. This is clearly unrepresentative of Evangelical Anglicanism. Fulcrum has regularly questioned binary choices. Questioning GAFCON does not mean 'staying with liberals'. BTW, perhaps it would be unwise of you, believing firmly in lay presidency, to sign up for the Jerusalem Declaration. Words are very important, and paragraph 7 would commit you to the 'classic Anglican ordinal'. I look forward to seeing Chris Sugden again tomorrow and our further discussions in public and in private. Posted by: Deleted user 1143 Friday 14 November 2008 - 10:16am Graham, As you know, I've taken a lively interest in your typology and have found it helpful in making sense of the Evangelical 'dialects' not only here in Britain, but elsewhere. I wonder, though, if the open stream, under your leadership, isn't committing itself at this point to an 'organic' way against its better judgment? Organic of course sounds very nice and wholesome, 'imposed' something nasty that no one cares for, but even a brief CEEC statement of faith is less than 'organic' to someone who was more 'open' at the time. Statements of faith are always in some sense 'imposed' (we need a better word) as those called to discern the mind of Christ offer their (fallible) statements for others to consider and adopt as consistent with the apostolic tradition. As far as I can tell, FCA offers the Jerusalem Declaration in the same spirit, and you discourage its endorsement somewhat out of hand. I notice you say that we're united in what 'the communion' teaches. That's got to be true, but it conceals the fact that we're not of one mind when it comes (a) to the severity of TEC/ACofCanada's error and (b) the urgency of the call for discipline, which came a long time ago, and which the communion has utterly failed to exercise, contributing in its own way to three 'networks' we have today. Lay presidency, unlike SSBs etc., does not even begin to present a threat to basic apostolic Christianity. It's the sort of non-essential that any orthodox Anglican body, no matter where it emerges, has to deal with. We'll need better reasons than that to keep GAFCON at arm's length. I look forward to NEAC tomorrow. As an observer hoping to learn, I trust that discussion will allow the various concerns to be raised, that if you and other open evangelicals feel under-represented you'll be bold to speak, and that discussion will be charitable. Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 14 November 2008 - 07:56am Graham - thanks for a public call to unity. We need more of this edifying work from leaders. I think your description of AM is a bit harsh - focussed on the authority of scripture would be fairer....and more likely to build unity with Canon Sugden, if you desire that. Also, there is a prominent lady on a panel....it is not all male (but is male dominated....but that is no surprise or really a reason to knock the line up.... not the first male-dominated group in church history....it started with 12) Who will fill John Stott's shoes in building evangelcal unity? What worries me is that it does not appear as if the leaders of "conservative", "open" and "charismatic" streams are evev trying very hard to build that unity..... people seem to have given up years ago, to be quite happy to keep each other at a distance, and are defensive rather than putting each other first, repenting and making a genuine effort to build unit amongst evangelicals. WE should pray the big leaders get it before we get some ridiculous results eg CEs in GAFCON with more than half the AC globally and the OEs cutting off their noses to spite CEs and staying with liberals becoming the new hard right in a small, western, declining denomination. I am sure you don't want this and don't think this is likely...but it is possible. We need the big leaders to get their acts together - all of them
Posted by: Graham Kings
Friday 14 November 2008 - 12:08am
We have just published on Fulcrum, with permission, my article for The Church Times, 14 November 2008, 'Nourishing Unity? NEAC 2008'. This is the third of our Fulcrum articles this week in preparation for NEAC 2008 on Saturday. See Fulcrum coverage here. Posted by: Deleted user 1222 Thursday 13 November 2008 - 03:16pm My point is not that the "liberal" element - and it is difficult to talk of liberals before a distinctive ideological formation - wrote the Thirty-nine Articles, but that they were there, on the ground, making theology, picking up the trends as they came along, and thus the Broad Church movement was able to grow. It did not come from nowhere. Think of the Cambridge Latitudinarians, for example. Of course the Enlightenment is important, because it gave the theologies an intellectual boost and cultural anchor and led to a more distinctive identity. So did free trade capitalism and the ideology behind that. What I'll readily accept is that there was no formal documentation that was broad Church or even liberal Church. There is no equivalent of the Racovian Catechism of 1605, but the ideas were vey quickly present. After all the Church of England emerged as just another Catholic Church with Henry VIII as its boss: its Protestantism was added in stages and later its Catholicism was revived. When its Catholicism was revived, its broad Church came to the fore too. Posted by: Celinda Thursday 13 November 2008 - 02:30pm Phil--in his biography of Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556) MacCulloch refers to a "very small minority of English religious rebels who proceeded further towards Continental radicalism," in contrast to evangelicals (p. 2). "(the radicals) had begun thinking for themselves, to make their own reconstruction of Christianity...(some radicals)scrutinized the nature of the supposedly Trinitarian relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: was it one of equality, as had been decided by the leadership of the early Church after four centuries of painful debate, or was this a misreading of divine reality in which there was only the unity of one God and no Trinity?...The subtleties of radical belief rarely interested evangelicals, who were outraged by any challenge to the package of Christian ideas which (as much as Catholic traditionalists) they had inherited from Christian history" (p. 145). People like Gardner (we would call them "AngloCatholics"; MacCulloch calls them "conservatives") and Evangelicals united in "resistance to religious radicalism" (p. 230). "The old heresy laws" were abolished in 1547, which led to "public disputations" about doctrine, but in 1549 the government required that such debates be "behind closed doors...in the presence of those appointed by the king for that purpose" (p. 422) and the king had issued a commission against heresy. There were heresy courts at which Thomas Cranmer presided. In 1550 Joan Bocher was burned at the stake for her views about the divine and human nature of Christ (p. 474). TO CONCLUDE: if you are saying that the doctrinally "liberal" element did not exist in the official Church of England, you are quite right--and perhaps that is what you meant: it was not tolerated. Although an increasing number of English people held "radical" views, like the Anabaptists, they were not part of the accepted Anglican tradition in its early formation. Posted by: Phil Allcock Thursday 13 November 2008 - 11:33am Simon, I will respond quickly: Your reply is gracious and helpful. I will try to find time to comment substantively in the next few days... Posted by: Simon Morden Thursday 13 November 2008 - 11:10am Phil - I appreciate that you won't see this for a bit, but thanks for replying. As David has noted, I'm not suggesting that theology needs to be altered to fit the polling data. What I am saying is that you're ignoring the elephant in the room: that the word evangelical has baggage (precisely in the same way that liberal does, especially in the USA). Do you acknowledge there is a problem? Do you even see it as a problem? A woman can become Professor of Tricky Bible Bits, but can't preach to an evangelical congregation - and society sees this as positively mad. How do you counter this criticism? You ask for dialogue, saying you don't understand why CEs are the target of antipathy, and then refuse to engage with any of the points I raise. I mention Giles Fraser, and you dismiss my whole argument - I found myself in agreement with Anne Atkins this morning, which doesn't happen often - as if you have to either 100% agree with everything someone says or does, or oppose them 100%. I find this binary view immensely frustrating (I'm pretty certain Tearfund do, too). Regarding CoMisson: I welcome their zeal and church planting ethos. It seems that sometimes their zeal leads them to do things that aren't necessarily wise - as can happen, sometimes. The humble acknowledgement that mistakes can be and have been made appears to be lacking (back to that 100% thing again). I am not the enemy, Phil - just pointing out that handing extra ammunition to Giles Fraser when he already has a gun isn't in CoMission's, or the gospel's, best interests. Posted by: Phil Allcock Thursday 13 November 2008 - 09:51am Simon, I agree with Nersen on theology not being done by what is popular with society. A similar poll in 19th century Britain would have told the church that people liked the slave trade. A similar poll in 20th century Germany would have told teh church that Jews should be distrusted and booted out of Germany. A church that decides its theology on the polls is a church without a prophetic voice to society. Besides, when I talk to people on the streets around where I serve, and when I've done so in different contexts around the country, I just don't find that this is an issue. I find that the Bible says uncomfortable things to absolutely everyone - it tends not to affirm any of our lifestyles - as well as offering the glorious comfort of the God of the cross and the resurrection. But I'm signing out now anyway. I've got a very busy week or two, and besides, reading ill-informed side-swipes based on rumour is just going to wind me up: 'highly irregular, boundary-crossing, Reform-backed Co-mission.' Where to start...? You use Reform as if it is an insult. Please don't claim that you are open and inclusive when that's how refer to an organisation of brothers in Christ - as if they are mud to besmirch the name of Co-Mission. And my guess is that you know very little indeed about Co-Mission. I wonder whether you'd really like to know, or whether you'd prefer to hold on to your prejudices...? I'd be delighted to answer any questions you may have about what goes on. I'd be delighted to arrange for you to visit and see what goes on at one of the little church plants. Phil Posted by: Phil Allcock Thursday 13 November 2008 - 09:27am Pluralist, thank you for the historical survey, but I don't find it at all convincing in terms of establishing the place of liberalism within the CofE from the Reformation. Socinianism did not have an influential or important voice within the CofE at this time, and none of the other key movements within the CofE were recognizeable as theological liberalism (Celinda, MacCulloch's treatment of the Radicals makes it clear that they were a mix of Anabaptists, social liberals and some revolutionaries. There is no indication in the book that they were theological liberals - though it is a couple of years since I read it - and misspelled his name in essays...) It is not enough to talk of an individualist streak. There needs to be a demonstrable link between the Enlightenment and nineteenth century German criticism and a Reformation era movement within the CofE. Having read numerous church history books (by no means all Evangelical authors) I just can't see such a link. Rather it seems that liberalism developed from the Enlightenment and the impact of that 'movement' on academic theology. Posted by: nersenpaul Thursday 13 November 2008 - 09:14am David - I was responding to the logic of what Simon said - if people want to suggest that orthodox Christian teaching is in danger of not connecting with modern society (looking at the polling data as Simon says), it is fair to point out that it is the CofE churches which are most out of line with the views of society which are strong and growing as they stick to the bible. In a global context, this stands out....TEC is in line with the views of US society on moral issues but just 0.3% of the US population go to a TEC church (and most of those are over 55) - yet some of them lecture orthodox people about being out of touch with modern society (and imply African bishops are somehow backward....as if TEC attracted lots of young Americans with its liberal theology....it does not) Being small or insolvent is, of course, not necessarily a sign of being in error.... but, in the context of the discussion below, it is fair to point out that those CofE churches which are closest to the views of society on moral issues do not attract many people typically. Clearly, it is not necessarily a sign of failure, sin or compromise to be large.....someone once had thousands of people listening to him on a hillside, as you know. We're not talking about US megachurches here.... I think God has blessed some evangelical churches in the CofE very greatly in the last 50 years as they have stuck to the bible and not followed liberal theologians or society's ilberal views. Thank God for HTB, St Helens, All Souls and the many other faithful evangelical CofE churches we have and may they never worry about what society thinks but carry on sticking to the bible. Posted by: DavidR Thursday 13 November 2008 - 08:26am I welcomed Simon's piece .... Of course polls don't drive our theology, Nersen - and I didn't read Simon suggesting that - but it surely makes sense to seek a discerning awareness of how we are coming over if we want people to pay any attention to us in the first place. Something to do with being stumbling blocks I think. More alarming is your assumption that 'large and successful' is proof of God's blessing/or our 'rightness' and small or empty isn't. Really? Eugene Petersen on the American scene castigates his own evangelical tradition for selling out to consumerist assumptions on precisely these lines and declares that he personally now seeks out smaller churches to join on principle. When, he asks, has the truly faithful church of Christ ever been popular in history? Something about being wary when all speak well of you. For long periods of the last century evangelical Anglican churches were all small and the tradition as a whole was a despised minority - open to precisely the kind of assumptions you make about 'liberal' churches today? Posted by: nersenpaul Thursday 13 November 2008 - 07:36am Simon - polling data on the attitudes of society is clearly NOT to drive our theology....and I notice in England today lots of empy "liberal" churches near large and full evangelical churches which do not bend to the views of society....perhaps we do best to stick to scripture? Adrian (a pluralist) - you have not disproved Phil Allcock's point at all. Clearly, the Reformers were not liberals. The 39 articles do not really invite all and sundry to be Anglican do they? As for "left wing" reformers, if that is an appropriate label, that does make them "liberal" in theology...... I have never voted Tory in my life but that does lead me to have a low view of scripture - in fact, the reason I don't mind paying thousands of pounds of tax every month is that I believe it is right that we have education, health etc available to all people in society according to their need - because the bible tells me I should care about all who are in need and help them (not just through taxes, obviously....). This is an orthodox, conservative evangelical view. Better rush to work another 12 hour day now......so I can continue to pay those taxes and meet my social responsibilities to society! Posted by: Deleted user 1222 Wednesday 12 November 2008 - 10:55pm Phil Allcock stated: What I cannot for the life of me see from the debates of the sixteenth century, is what part liberals had in the birth of the CofE. Let me help. First of all, Ernst Troeltsch (sociologist and theologian) has pointed out that the earliest gospel period contained an individualistic streak, and liberalism picked up on that individualistic streak, no doubt liberated by the Enlightenment. Troeltsch had three categories of religious organisation: Church, Sect and Mysticism, and the latter was a free association of individuals brought about in the Enlightenment after the Church could no longer rely on Christian culture for its anchorage into society. In addition, the Reformation had a left wing from the very beginning. As soon as people were able to read Bibles for themselves, from scholars able to make option to anyone, it became obvious that key doctrines were not explicit in the Bible, the principle one being the doctrine of the Trinity. Now, in some places, and situations, the Socinian view had its own organisation - the Minor Reformed Church in Poland, for example, where the Bible was read literalistically and according to "ordinary comprehension". It was destroyed by the Jesuits and about 1660 the Socinians dispersed, some to the slightly more radical Unitarian Church in Transylvania (that subsequently survived by freezing its catechism) and is only now expanding again, and some to the Netherlands. In England these Socinian ideas over the water and coming here were noted by English Presbyterians, but at this point they were the fierce ejected Calvinists and were quite strident in opposition. So Socinian ideas came into the Church of England, adding to the moderation of the State Church (and the balance of the Elizabethan Settlement) and coming into various proto-liberal movements, such as centred around Cambridge. Then you get the impact in the South West of such as Samuel Clarke over in Exeter, who was the (Reformation style) Arian liturgist, and also Theophilus Lindsey at Catterick, movements and pressure groups which crossed over from Anglicanism into the English Presbyterian stream whose sola scriptura (no articles or creeds, the Bible only) had led to its liberalising but mainly to Arminianism whereas Arianism was located in the Church of England. However, the crossover rejuventated English Presbyterianism into what became the Unitarian movement proper. When the High Church party started to develop, the Broad Church party also developed, and it made use of the Biblical criticism that was developing in German universities, and the Broad Church party was an enthusiast for this. This also became a battleground in Unitarianism between the biblicalist denominationalists, believers in a Unitarian God, miracles, resurrection etc. and the broader biblical criticism people who shifted the focus to a more synthesising historical view of Christian origins, and who saw that a subjective reading was individualist and shifted the focus from the book to the individual conscience. The history of the Unitarian/ Church of England area of co-operation by both sets of liberals also had the characteristic that only a trickle of people crossed over from the Church of England into the Unitarians. The liberal party, if you like, stayed where it was. There were notable individuals crossing in both directions, but the bulk stayed where they were. One may not realise it today, but using the terms Father, Son and Holy Spirit do not themselves establish trinitarian doctrines. A great deal today that passes for trinitarian explanation would baffle our forebears for its inadequacy. It is only in recent times that the Thirty-nine Articles have been demoted within the Church of England to historic formularies, partly also thanks to the High Church party, but despite creeds and articles most liberals adopted a symbolic attitude to liturgical spirituality and now, of course, postmodernism has blown any literalism wide open. The liberal stance, as ideological, had to develop, but that which allowed it was present in the State Church from the beginning, its ideas were in the Reformation from the beginning, and its individualist basis is in the Gospel origins. Posted by: Simon Morden Wednesday 12 November 2008 - 10:27pm Phil - I'm disappointed that you see my comments that way, because it doesn't matter what I think of CEs. What matters is what people - church people, non-church people, whoever - think of when they hear the word evangelical. Both of us would want them to think of a humble, prayerful bringer of Good News. Both of us would be deceiving ourselves if we thought that was true - which is what I said, and you have chosen to either misread or ignore. Survey after survey shows this to be the perception. Even the polling data from within the evangelical community itself tells us that the majority of our children and young people do not see a problem with women in positions of real authority within the church, and have a much more relaxed attitude to homosexuals and homosexuality. Rather than 'going off on one', as they say, why not apply yourself to what you're going to do about the suspicion, ridicule and hostility that has collected around 'evangelical'. As to Giles - I don't know him. I've never seen him in the flesh. But if the Lord can use an ass to speak the words of truth, I have no problems with him using the Vicar of Putney... By 'his attempts', I take it you mean the highly irregular, boundary-crossing, Reform-backed Co-mission? Again, not acknowledging that there might be another side to the story, or that the other side might actually have a point - is another reason (or perhaps a symptom) why I'm not a CE. Posted by: Phil Allcock Wednesday 12 November 2008 - 09:14pm Simon, I'll be honest, Posts like that are precisely what puts CEs off Fulcrum. The insinuation/accusation that CE theology is homophobic and misogynist is disgraceful. Again and again there are liberal or OE posts that lambast CEs as narrow minded bigots, while at the same time refusing to allow that anyone who doesn't hold a liberal/open position on women's ministry or gay sex is a hater of gays and women. There is absolutely no possibility of dialogue while one side maintains that any attempt to disagree with them amounts to misogyny or homophobia. Finally, you'll have to do better than Giles Fraser if we're looking for an example of gracious behaviour. His Machiavellian attempts to prevent a friend's church plant (supported by the bishop and the receiving parish) in a neighbouring diocese because he didn't like the theological colour of the plant were a disgrace. And then there was the Gene Robinson invitation... Posted by: Simon Morden Wednesday 12 November 2008 - 07:56pm What follows is entirely a personal view, but it might go some way to explain why there is a degree of antipathy towards CEs (I'm going to stick with conservative evangelicals, thanks) here. Firstly, it's to do with the word evangelical. Evangelical is not a set of defined doctrines, social, political or theological. It's a process - a way of reading the Bible. If I want to own the word 'evangelical', and have it mean something other than 'narrow-minded, gay-hating, woman-hating, sex-obsessed killjoy' - which is how not just the wider world but large parts of the church understand it, I have to explain that I can be thoroughly evangelical and not automatically subscribe to those doctrines. Secondly, it's to do with the recognition that evangelicals are part, and just a part of the church. They are not the whole of the church, and the truth does not soley reside in them. I believe that evangelicals without the high church catholics, the MOTR parishes, the hands-down-for-coffee charismatics and yes, the liberals too, are less than they could be. I do not want them marginalised, I do not want them thrown out. Their witness as part of the body of Christ is as valuable as mine. Probably more so. Thirdly, it's to do with tactics. Giles Fraser's Thought for the Day was apposite. We should care less what we do, how we are seen, who we are seen with. We change things not by opposing them. We change them by loving them. So when I look at the goings on in Jerusalem, in Oxford, in Pittsburgh, I see Christians behaving more like Machiavelli's Prince than the Incarnate God. Fulcrum is the last chance for me to be an evangelical - openly acknowledging the name - rather than abandoning it as hopelessly compromised. Posted by: Stuart Wednesday 12 November 2008 - 07:46pm Why would Old Etonian views dominate Fulcrum? Oh, I get it.... Posted by: Iconoclast Wednesday 12 November 2008 - 06:56pm Phil Allcock (correct spelling ) You wrote: "Article after article, post after post reveals that too many of those who are significant players in Fulcrum operate within a paradigm where Conservative Evangelicals (hereafter CE - I prefer the term classical, but the Conservative mud seems to have stuck) are the great enemy of a renewed church and witness in this country; where the worst of motives are attributed to any political movements or statements associated with CEs. where any council, college or church moving in a CE direction is greeted with horror and foreboding. What irks me is the refusal to admit that what lies underneath these responses is a deep dislike for CE theology." As an occassional contributor to Fulcrum myself, I think that is a very accurate description of the underlying attitude towards CE's on Fulcrum and I share many of your sentiments. I am at a loss to understand why CEs have such consistent antipathy directed towards them. I think that some of this may be due to perceived heavy handedness of some CE's that has been part of some people's experience - witness the long postings to do with Wyclliffe Hall. However I don't think this explains all of it. Yet I think you are absolutely correct in asserting that at the heart of the problem is CE theology. It's insistence of being certain about theological issues is clearly one aspect of this, but many CE's that I come into contact with, will readily acknowledge uncertainty in certain areas. However flashpoints such as uality , penal substitution and womens ordination are issues where CE's have generally clear ideas as to what they believe. They do not see the need to accomodate alternative viewpoints within their own theology although they (in the case of women bishops ), will live and let live whin the Anglican structure. In the case of homosexual issues then they see them as being unambiguosly sinful and will not accomodate them at all. There is a spectrum within CE's of course. At one end is what Canon Michael Saward (who was intstrumental in setting up NEAC), in his autobiography descibed as the "small -mindedness" of some evangelical clergy although I have not found this to be true generally of CE's although I have certainly met some like this. Most of them to me, seem much more articulate and reasoned such as John Richardson who in my view, maintains a very high standard of debate on his blog and is courteous with it. What concerns me more , is what I can only describe as the theological m of liberals. My experience of liberals is that they will drive out any view that does not fit their liberal agenda or equate with their notions of equality -witness the recent vote on women Bishops in Synod. They are the true excluders. As Michael Saward also states in his autobiography "there is nothing more illiberal as a threatened liberal". I think this is very true. We can see it happening in TEC at the moment. In my view Fulcrum, is far too charitable to liberals and does not challenge them to the same degee as it does CE's I gain the impression from Fulcrum that although both OE' s and CE's share the word 'Evangelical ' CE's are the bogeymen that OE's like to throw stones at. BTW, I like your term 'Classical Evangelical'. I think it is a much less emotive and a more accurate description as to what conservative evangelicals are about. Posted by: Celinda Wednesday 12 November 2008 - 05:57pm Phil Allcock--thanks for answering. Diarmaid McCulloch (talk about spelling difficulties, I think I spell that name differently time every time I write it) uses the word "radical" in his Cranmer biography to refer to what we call "liberal" today. In my opinion, the three threads have been mingled in the C of E, and then the TEC, since the beginning: Anglo-Catholic (McC uses the word "conservative," because it was the traditional voice then), Evangelical (McC uses the word to refer to the strongest influence on Cranmer, which was a reclaiming of the Bible with all that entails: making it available to churches in the vernacular, basing the liturgy more firmly on it, thinking of it as "good news" to be taught, etc.), and liberal (which McC calls "radical"). Throughout the history of the Diocese of Pittsburgh--the part of the church I know best--there have been shifting alliances among the three groups, and it seems as though that's been true throughout the history of the American church and of the C of E. --In the US, we don't have a defined split between evangelicals--CEs and OEs--although that split seems to be with us in reality. In any event, do you think the CO and CE differences can be aired without a sense that one group is attacking the other? Posted by: George Day Wednesday 12 November 2008 - 05:09pm Responding to Phil Allcock's post (the one beginning "No misspelling"), I think you make important points here, and what you say is in a sense much the same as I have said in my post that comes two after yours on this thread, albeit from the opposite end of the evangelical spectrum. What we all need to avoid is saying our bit of the spectrum is the only right bit, or saying that other bits aren't acceptable, or saying that our bit must dominate. A danger in Fulcrum is of OE views dominating to the exclusion of other views, just as the danger in CEEC is of CE views dominating to the exclusion of OE. Both have the effect of making people of other viewpoints think it isn't worth taking part, and the inevitable result then is polarisation as we all drift further and further apart. Posted by: Phil Allcock Wednesday 12 November 2008 - 03:25pm George, that brings in another question, which appears every so often on this forum: Who defines what an evangelical is... There must be some agreed set of beliefs, otherwise we end up with the absurdity of an evangelical simply being anyone who wants to claim that they are an evangelical, even if they worship Buddha and think that it's ok to be racist. Surely that cannot be right. And if so, then we must accept that some who would want to claim the label, aren't evangelical. At that point people get rather agitated, so I won't say more. Posted by: George Day Wednesday 12 November 2008 - 12:16pm Thanks, Andrew, for your very helpful analysis and article. However, I would like to press you a bit further on what you mean by (and perhaps also what other people would mean by) "the full spectrum of (Anglican) evangelicals". I imagine it would be right to say that you mainly have in mind conservative and open and charismatic as some of the main colours of that spectrum. But are you (are others) willing to also include those evangelicals (like myself) who support gay relationships? It may well be that you do, even if possibly with some hesitations, but I guess many on the more conservative side would not accept us. This links with another word that you use several times in your article, mostly in relation to North America and to TEC, namely "orthodox". What exactly do you (and others) mean by this frequently-used word? It is an important word with clearly some very positive connotations, but it can also be used very negatively and unhelpfully as one of those words or concepts that becomes very divisive and self-righteous - you know the sort of thing I mean, "We're orthodox, you're not. Go away! We want nothing to do with you." So the question is, what constitutes being orthodox? Perhaps within CEEC it ought to mean: able to sign the basis of faith. But we all acknoweldge that in the section on the BIble there is the need for interpretation, and some of us would argue that a true interpretation of the texts on homosexual relationships does not rule out committed gay relationships - e.g. the section in Romans which is about the rejection of God and the subsequent lust as he "gave them over" to the effects of "the sinful desires of their hearts" (Romans 1:24 NIV) has little or no relevance to the sort of relationships that are involved in the current debates within the church. Now, I am not asking that those of other viewpoints agree with that. What I am asking for is that there should be a (growing?) recognition that there are evangelicals holding such views who should be validly seen as part of the spectrum, and that we do in fact have something very positive to offer, (just as, to pursue the spectrum metaphor further) you cannot make white light by combining the colours of the spectrum if you have excised one of those colours. We are all needed, from the red end of the spectrum (should that end be seen as Reform, etc?) right through to the violet end (Accepting Evangelicals etc?) Posted by: Phil Allcock Wednesday 12 November 2008 - 11:57am PS Celinda, I don't think history supports the supposition that evangelicals were never part of the Anglican church. Every Reformation history I have read supports the existence of a strong and growing Evangelicalism within both clergy and laity during the English Reformation. Furthermore, the very basis of English Anglicanism, the BCP, had strong Evangelical influence. Cranmer sent his drafts to Calvin in Geneva for comment and amendment. It seems to me that history shows that both Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics were always meant to be included within the breadth of the CofE. What I cannot for the life of me see from the debates of the sixteenth century, is what part liberals had in the birth of the CofE. It strikes me that liberalism is the cuckoo in the nest. But when I have raised this with liberals I have encountered indignation, denial and dismissal, but no substantive arguments or evidence... A debate for another day :-) Posted by: Phil Allcock Wednesday 12 November 2008 - 11:51am No misspelling, I've had to suffer this surname in it's full glory for years... I'm afraid I'm not in for a long session, but let me explain what was behind my post. I confess that it was deliberately, if mildly provocative. This was for a serious reason. As a casual poster who dips in and out of Fulcrum I find that there is a consistent feature to the articles and discussions that prevents me from ever joining Fulcrum or coming to a conference: Article after article, post after post reveals that too many of those who are significant players in Fulcrum operate within a paradigm where Conservative Evangelicals (hereafter CE - I prefer the term classical, but the Conservative mud seems to have stuck) are the great enemy of a renewed church and witness in this country; where the worst of motives are attributed to any political movements or statements associated with CEs. where any council, college or church moving in a CE direction is greeted with horror and foreboding. What irks me is the refusal to admit that what lies underneath these responses is a deep dislike for CE theology. Instead, it's dressed up in language of not liking the methods or motives. But such reservations are never applied when the reverse happens. Indeed some of those who've written articles fulminating against CE takeovers have themselves led churches and organisations away from CE roots and to OE positions. Those moves are always seen as positive, and their motives are never questioned. Fulcrum can never have a voice to CEs while it operates this paradigm. I have spoken to numerous CE ministers and theologians who cite this as the reason for them no longer bothering to read Fulcrum or to contribute to the discussions. That's why I posted what I did. The day that Fulcrum is as outraged at the betrayal of conservatives in Synod over the women's bishop vote (not that the vote went against us, but that in direct contradiction of previous promises, no legal safeguard was provided) as it is over the CEEC looking more Conservative than the Fulcrum board like; the day that Fulcrum writers are as worried about formerly CE colleges becoming OE as they are about more OE colleges going CE - that is the day on which I'll take more seriously the stated intentions of Fulcrum. Guys, I really think lots of the issues that are dealt with here matter and should be debated. The problem is I keep being told Fulcrum is a discussion point to bring Evangelicals together, and yet the articles and the Forum operate from the assumption that OE has it all right, and that CEs are to be mistrusted and resisted, and that if a church, college, or council becomes dominated by CEs, that is a disaster. Do you guys really think that...? Yours in Christ, Phil Posted by: Celinda Tuesday 11 November 2008 - 11:16pm I was afraid I'd misspelled Phil's last name and didn't have the patience to go back to his post and check. Sorry for the confusion. Posted by: pete hobson Tuesday 11 November 2008 - 08:46pm Phil Allcock (I think we should presume he knows how to spell his own name, Celinda) suggests by SK's analysis the House of Bishops and perhaps the General Synod as a whole qualify as 'rump parliaments'. Of course the first response would be to say that whether that is so or not, it doesn't absolve CEEC from considering the force of the argument as it applies to itself. However let's consider the analogy in itself. The original 'rump parliament' became so because its membership ceased to be renewed by proper electoral processes, and diminished in both number and vitality until it became simply an instrument of bodies and individuals stronger than itself. It took a revolution, civil war and restoration to reverse that particular process! I hope the same isn't needed for CEEC but I think there are some obvious points of comparison. The House of Bishops is not created by any electoral process, and the means whereby people get there, appropriate or otherwise, are not been subject to particular neglect in recent years, so to argue that because a particular group (CEs) are less well represented there it is ipso facto a 'rump parliament' carries little conviction. Similarly the electoral processes that create the other two houses of General Synod continue in force, and if you don't like the outcome then I guess it's the electorate you have to take issue with. But for my money GS and the HoB have as much (or little) legitimacy and significance as they ever did - and are legitimate places for testing and discerning the mind of the church on particular issues. I may not always agree with them - even as a member of one such House - but then I don't always agree with lots posted on the websites and forums I frequent. That doesn't prevent me from playing my part. Posted by: Celinda Tuesday 11 November 2008 - 06:43pm I just read Phil Alcock's (sp?) comment, and then other posts he's written. I guess "OE" means "open evangelical" and "CE" means "conservative evangelical"--please correct me if I'm wrong--and CE's are strongly opposed to women bishops, basing their opposition on how they interpret scripture (again, please correct me if I'm wrong). Interpretation of scripture seems to be at the core of many painful divisions in the church, with those on either side accusing the other of denying the authority of scripture. This is painful for all evangelicals, since making scripture available to all and a source of comfort and guidance for all in life and doctrine has been a goal of evangelicalism since the days of Thomas Cranmer and the English Reformation. Since CEs are now so much in the minority (especially those who oppose the ordination of women) both in the C of E and in TEC, the CEEC seems to be the one place where they can have a strong voice: this is what Phil seems to be saying. However, OEs are also fast becoming a minority; the author of a recent book reviewed on amazon.com claims that evangelicalism never really existed in the Anglican Church as an essential element; it was never more than a foreign import. Obviously the author doesn't have any historical justification for making such a claim. Nevertheless, there are many in TEC and in the C of E who seem to think that. Or to wish that Evangelicals would simply go away, open or not. So that brings us to FULCRUM and "renewing the evangelical centre." If evangelicals could "agree to disagree" for a time on present day hot issues, and speak eloquently to the church together on where they agree, it seems obvious to me that much could be gained. 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: Phil Allcock Tuesday 11 November 2008 - 03:17pm I have just read SK's article Preventing CEEC becoming a Rump Parliament. Does he not realise that precisely the same arguments apply, with considerably more force, to the lack of Conservative Evangelical representation within the House of Bishops - a far more powerful body? Does he likewise consider them a Rump Parliament? Is he similarly appalled when Synod cynically votes for utterly unrepresentative legislation - such as the recent decision to deny any legal safeguards to those whose consciences mean that they cannot accept the oversight of women bishops...? Posted by: Celinda Tuesday 11 November 2008 - 03:02pm I strongly agree with Phil Almond's comments above, especially in the third and fourth paragraphs. The urge to minimize disagreements can be harmful to any organization when the minimizing leads to silencing. It is one of the things which led to decisions made by the financial sector which were at least part of the cause of our current economic disaster. There is a time, of course, when minimizing disagreements is indeed important. In the church, we need a united front in following Jesus' commands to feed the hungry, and so on; MDG would be an example today of a place where we can all work together. There are many such examples in the church. However, to silence discussion of doctrine--which TEC leadership is attempting to do right now--does not strengthen the church, it weakens it. It stunts thought, curbs leadership, and and it promotes hypocrisy when those whose opinions differ from others are forced to keep silent. It certainly stunts scholarship, in that only one set of views is presented. I am grateful to Fulcrum for providing a forum in which this discussion can take place.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Tuesday 11 November 2008 - 02:28pm
Fulcrum has three articles being published specifically on NEAC 2008 this week. 1. We have published Andrew Goddard’s article today ‘Hopes for NEAC 2008: a personal reflection’ 2. Also published today is Stephen Kuhrt’s article ‘Preventing CEEC becoming a ‘Rump Parliament’. This is pre-published, with permission, from the Church of England Newspaper, Thursday 13 November 2008. 3. My article, ‘Nourishing Unity? NEAC 2008’ will be published in The Church Times on Friday 14 November 2008 and will also be published on Fulcrum that morning.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Sunday 9 November 2008 - 10:47pm
We have just published 'Fulcrum Coverage of NEAC 2008', with a link into it from our home page. I would encourage people to register, even at this late stage, for I gather there are places available for this Day Consultation at All Souls Langham Place, London, organised by the Church of England Evangelical Council, next Saturday 15 November from 10.00am - 4.30pm. The theme of the day consultation is, 'Shaping the Future: Anglican Evangelicalism post Lambeth and GAFCON'. If you are interested, why not register, turn up and speak from the floor during the panel session in the afternoon?
Posted by: Tim Goodbody
Thursday 6 November 2008 - 03:50pm
I have an extra ticket if anyone would like it - email me through here for details Tim Posted by: Phil Almond Friday 31 October 2008 - 09:25pm There have always been disagreements among those who consider themselves Christians, overlaid with disagreements about whether these disagreements are primary or secondary. And of course disagreements among those who consider themselves evangelicals are a subset of those wider disagreements. As NEAC2008 approaches, a few (some repeated) observations: The enemies of the Christians are always the same: the world, the flesh and the devil. But the terrain on which the spiritual struggle takes place changes from time to time. The key features of the terrain just now are the ascendancy (and success in its own proper sphere) of the analytical and experiment-led approach to understanding reality; a revived and masterly Catholic apologetic in Ut Unum Sint, the Gift of Authority and Vatican II; and the resurgence of Islam Process is important as well as substance. A major disagreement last century was between non-conformist evangelicals (Martyn Lloyd-Jones) and Anglican evangelicals (John Stott). The rights and wrongs of the substance of that disagreement are still strongly debated. But I suspect that few on either side would regard as satisfactory the process whereby the disagreement arose and was subsequently handled. The most important questions are who God and Christ are, what they are like, what they have said/done etc., what human beings need saving from, in what that salvation consists and how it may become mine and ours. Questions about organisations and groupings and bishops have their place, but are secondary in comparison. What the ordinary Christian like me, who regards these issues as vital and practical, needs, like a chess player trying to decide if the Marshall Attack is sound, are the strongest arguments from all sides. These arguments can only satisfactorily arise from an internet debate which is earnest, sustained, contributed to by leading scholars and open to all. In the light of Christ’s prayer the urge to minimise disagreements and gain agreement is very strong. That urge needs to be resisted. Our path of humble obedience to bring about the unity for which Christ prayed is first of all to be honest and conscientious – with God and with each other. Just as God, as Warfield pointed out, is honest and conscientious – with himself and with us. Phil Almond Posted by: nersenpaul Wednesday 8 October 2008 - 08:59am Thanks for your reply, Pete. I am pleased to hear that you are going to participate. (I hear your concerns) My prayer is for genuine unity amongst "open" and "conservative" evangelicals. I think it is a sad failure, a human failure, that there is division.....hoping for much better relations. Seems the "open" / "conservative" divide is one of the toughest to bridge in the CofE.....a family feud, I guess, but we must get over ourselves, and value each other, for the sake of the gospel. The great thing about GAFCON is that it is not just Reform in the desert.....but Anglocatholics, charismatics and others, all fully involved. It is broad and global and while people do not agree on everything 100%, they recognise each other as faithful people......very Anglican! But, I really want to see the "open" evangelicals united with truly "natural" partners in the CofE and AC, too. We have so much in common and are divided by so little (mainly our personalities, I think) Personally, I have the greatest of respect for people from various traditions, some quite different to me eg +Nazir-Ali, +Jensen, +Durham - none of these are clones of each other theologically, but I would be more than happy to have any of them as my bishop - so, I pray they will have genuine unity between them in the gospel as we combat the false teaching which is causing division in the AC..... but us lesser mortals also need to desire unity on the ground (which I am sure you do, from what you write) Posted by: pete hobson Tuesday 7 October 2008 - 12:29am My concerns, Nersen, were about process, not content as such. I will be going to participate - but in the confines of one day, with such a lot of input from speakers, I'm concerned there may be little opportunity for meaningful participation, and the published programme hasn't reassured me on that point. Then at the end it is possible (it has happened before!) that someone will tell us what NEA~C08 has 'decided'. That's what I meant. But I'm going, open to what may happen... Listening is good, too! Posted by: Clare Monday 6 October 2008 - 09:55pm Nersen, as a TEC/Canada/Wales sympathiser - do I really need kicking out? am I really that much of a contaminant? I know you and I disagree over much, but does that really mean that I can't be in your church anymore? I don't want to be in a church made up of people just like me, I want the challenge that comes from tensions. So don't forget me and my ilk when you make your resolutions - we are people not an infections disease after all! Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 4 October 2008 - 11:32am Pete says " I guess we go to listen - but not, hopefully, to be conscripted into anybody's agenda, unseen." I would encourage you, Pete, to go to participate, to build relationships with all evangelical Anglicans and get rid of suspicions, to shape the agenda......I would encourage you to think the best of all there given the group is one in which you can trust the basic theological position of those attending (ie there are not likely to be people with that rare ability to "interpret" the bible to mean whatever they want, even when it says the opposite) As for being "conscripted into anybody's agenda", I agree....but I am sure you are aware that others also have an agenda - to keep the AC together and still include heterodox beliefs at all levels....that is a more destructive agenda by far, one which I hope "open" evangelicals do not end up supporting because they don't like Reform! (I am not a member of that group, by the way) I think the most important thing at the moment is that all evangelicals put in the past all personal, strategic, political and style differences and unite in that which we have always been united, despite style differences- i.e. the faith and the authority of the bible (as strongly affirmed by "reason" and "tradition", of course!) The "agenda" we must all back is that of the gospel. The "agenda" we must all fight is that which seeks to undermine the bible and preaches another gospel. Some TEC bishops are preaching another gospel (Bennisson said, "The church wrote the bible,the church can re-write the bible" and K Schori cannot even say that what Jesus Christ says in John 14:6 is right) ...... this agenda in the AC is what we must unite to face down and kick out (that is how Paul would have dealt with false teachers eg 1 Cor), even if Rowan Williams would prefer that we all swept differences under the carpet and pretended we were all united . Tough though it is, "open" evangelicals are going to have to make a choice: stay in an institution with heterodox TEC/Canada/Wales etc or unite with most Anglicans in the world - that huge majority af Anglicans which has not been subverted by liberal "theology" and single-issue campaigning groups with a very clear agenda. Posted by: pete hobson Saturday 4 October 2008 - 12:32am New information for NEAC5 has just goner out, and onto the CEEC website. Keith Sinclair (Bishop of Birkenhead) has been added into the programme, with the title "I was there" (by implication, at both GAFCON and Lambeth), which is good. Otherwise at first sight it looks much the same, still seeming very 'input heavy', although we will need to see how the afternoon session pans out. It's called Shaping the Future, and its billed as a 'consultation' but it's not clear to me, as a would-be consultee what its purpose might be, nor what force or mandate it might claim for anything that may emerge. I guess we go to listen - but not, hopefully, to be conscripted into anybody's agenda, unseen.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Saturday 6 September 2008 - 08:18am
Thanks, Charles. I gather that the next planning meeting for NEAC5 is this Wednesday. See my comment of 14 August. Let us pray. Posted by: Charles Read Friday 5 September 2008 - 12:13pm Notice of NEAC 5 has gone out to my DEF (Norwich) so I guess the event is in the public domain - one of my concerns is that the planning and publicity have been left so late - a sign of the event being for those in the know, who were told ages ago? I spoke recently to two senior and respected evengelical Anglicans, neither of whom had heard NEAC 5 was happening. And as for changing the speaker line-up - here we go again with Blackpool! The planners may be meeting (when exactly?) but they have a programme advertised on the CEEC site - how changeable is it in fact? No women clergy again and only one woman at all... Posted by: Clare Thursday 14 August 2008 - 08:41pm yes Phil, once again we are diverting a thread from its proper course - start a new thread and I (and others perhaps) will play ball. Clare
Posted by: Graham Kings
Thursday 14 August 2008 - 08:19pm
Thanks, Pete (Hobson). I returned from holiday yesterday and so have only just seen George Day's comment, which you mention, of 2 August. He wrote: Graham, I understand that you are being consulted re this NEAC. Do you feel that open evangelicals are getting an adequate chance to give input, so that it really reflects the whole breadth of "Anglican Evangelicals post Lambeth and Gafcon"? Well, Toby Hole (curate at St Mary Islington) and I had an interesting two hour meeting with two members of the NEAC5 steering group this morning. Amongst other things, the concerns expressed on this thread were discussed. They will report back to a meeting of their group at the beginning of September. More cannot be said at this stage. But we can pray and pray... PS please could we keep comments on this NEAC 2008 thread to subjects relating to NEAC 2008 and not divert this thread - as has become the habit of some... Posted by: pete hobson Thursday 14 August 2008 - 07:03pm Moderator.. 1 any chance we can put all this fascinating but for osme of us well-worn stuff about predestination and judgement onto a thread of its own? 2. any chance Graham Kings (or if he's on holiday someone else?) can respond to the second post on this thread - has there been any specific Fulcrum input to NEAC 2008 (other than Pete B being a named person there)? Posted by: Phil Almond Thursday 14 August 2008 - 03:47pm To Clare I invite you to respond to the point I have put to you before: which of the following are part of the ‘authentic Christ event’ as you see it, and which are not? Rev 6:12-17 Rev 14: 4-20 Rev 19:11-21 Luke 17: 20-37 (The OT portrays these events as acts of God’s judgment. I agree that Jesus does not explicitly confirm that they are. But he does not deny that they are either. The position that Jesus’ said these words but in Jesus’ view they were not the acts of God, or in Jesus’ view they were the acts of God but were immoral, is incredible to me. It is a reasonable assumption, although I agree we are not explicitly told, that children were among those destroyed by the flood and among those destroyed in the overthrow of Sodom). Luke 13:1-5 Luke 19:27 Matthew 13:36-43 Matthew 7:21-23 Matthew 25:40-46 Matthew 15:4 Also: ‘And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?’ Did Paul write these words? Are they true? Perhaps to put it in a nutshell: I believe that the following three statements are simultaneously true: God foreordains all that comes to pass. God is not the author of evil. Men and angels are responsible and guilty for the sins they commit. We cannot reconcile these three truths by human reason. How they can all be simultaneously true ‘is God’s secret’. To David H A few points: Yes, I was using part of the language of Article 9. I suppose I should have put it in quotes. Sorry. I assumed readers of this thread would pick up the reference. I don’t understand why you say ‘please do not impose your very specific doctrinal formulations on us’. I am not imposing any thing. I have stated a view and am hoping to explore the extent to which that view is shared by those wishing to be known as evangelicals. I agree that ‘In the end we are inviting people to know an individual rather than to accept a metaphysics or world view’. You seem to me to be mixing up the objective truth about God and man and salvation (which is what I am on about here) with the question of how that salvation becomes subjectively ours. You say: ‘I would assume that all evangelicals accept Rm 1:18, Rm 3:23 and Rm 6:23 which imply or assume most of what you say’. It is the extent to which your assumption is true, and whether, if it is true, it means that all evangelicals agree with the view I have stated, that I would like to explore. You say ‘most’. Which parts of the view I have stated are not implied or assumed if all evangelicals accept the Romans passages you give? I plan to read all Tom Wright’s work. So, what I am about to say may be quite wrong and I would welcome correction on this. What I am picking up from what I know of the debate Tom Wright v. Oak Hill (so to speak) is that Tom Wright does not agree with my statement ‘And that propitiation, because it meets a need infinitely more important than any other need, is the fundamental significance of Christ’s work (which is not to deny or minimise other significances of Christ’s work)’. I am not clear to what extent Tom Wright’s view on the ‘Cross and the caricatures’ as he would say, is shared by Fulcrum leadership as a whole. Phil Almond Posted by: Deleted user 1222 Thursday 14 August 2008 - 02:45pm It's not just abhorrent but of another thought form, a lost world. I don't even know with whom it is supposed to communicate, other than some sectarians. Of course I do not wish to be known as evangelical, and so fall outside of Phil's demand. Posted by: Clare Wednesday 13 August 2008 - 11:13pm A creator who creates creatures in full knowledge that they will go to hell is pure evil. There is no possible moral justification for this, even were the creator to be God. Ergo, God does not and cannot create creatures wo deserve to go to hell by virtue of being born. Phil, this is abhorrent, abhorrent stuff and as you are evidently not a person consumed by hate I beg you stop confusing the God of love with this wicked monster. btw, as a non evo, the things evos (at their best) do well and I find attractive and a welcome relief from liberal (anglo) catholicism (at its worst) are assume lay people are the basic building block of the church with clergy there to assist them rather than vice versa assume lay people capable of taking responsibility for their own spiritual development and capable of rational thought really know the bible well are passionate about spreading the good news about Jesus and are therefore willing to adapt how the church does things to meet people where they are rather than expecting people just to come to us the expectation that we can all have a vibrant and exciting relationship with God the expectation that Christian belief involves active commitment the shadow side to this is an adolescent anti authoritariansm. (actually, this is hardly the problem with evangelicals at the moment- rather the reverse) believing in 'the bible' (or rather a particular way of interpreting this) at the expense of believing in God passionate about spreading the bad news -'you are all going to hell unless you believe exactly what I do', God is a God of punishment and wrath etc. over-emphasis on the personal to the detriment of the social and corporate tendency to degenerate into a purity cult it is a privilege to read postings (on any number of threads) from evangelicals who embody the first list while avoding the perils of the second (the bishop of Croydon springs to mind but many others of you to) Clare Posted by: Dave Wednesday 13 August 2008 - 10:25pm Phil, Is that a quote by any chance? Yor comment "by the fact of being born" needs some explanation such as "as a descendant of Adam, the first sinner" but original sin is a difficult subject. I would assume that all evangelicals accept Rm 1:18, Rm 3:23 and Rm 6:23 which imply or assume most of what you say but please do not impose your very specific doctrinal formulations on us. There are many formulations of the gospel which do not have all the bells and whistles of a fully developed theology. In the end we are inviting people to know an individual rather than to accept a metaphysics or world view. David Incidentally I have just come across an interesting article by J I Packer called "A stunted ecclesiology ?" which gives his analysis of the essance of evangelicalism and points out some deficiencies in the American scene. http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=15-10-037-f Posted by: Phil Almond Wednesday 13 August 2008 - 09:08pm As I see it, an important issue is the view that, as an objective fact: All human beings are guilty before God and deserve his wrath and condemnation merely by the fact of being born. The need to have our sins forgiven, to be delivered from that wrath and condemnation and to be brought into a living relationship with God is the supreme need of all of us, infinitely more important than all other needs (which is not to make light of or minimise all other needs, many of them harrowing). Such forgiveness and deliverance is only possible through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, in which he propitiated God for all those who God has ever or will ever save. And that propitiation, because it meets a need infinitely more important than any other need, is the fundamental significance of Christ’s work (which is not to deny or minimise other significances of Christ’s work). Among those who want to be known as evangelicals, who believes this diagnosis and remedy, this threat and way of deliverance? All? Most? Few? Phil Almond Posted by: Dave Wednesday 13 August 2008 - 07:25pm Jody, I think Reform would say that they are doing nothing more than afirming the doctrinal position of the 39 articles and they do have a point. XVII. Of Predestination and Election. Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity. As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation. Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God. David
Posted by: Jody
Wednesday 13 August 2008 - 03:31pm
hi my previous vicar, who was part of Reform, used Malachi (Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated) to tell us in his sermon that God hated some (those who aren't Christians) and loved others (us lucky lot) Reform also have this document as part of their Truth Matters series, which according to their website is 'an occasional series of leaflets published by Reform addressing issues of importance for the understanding of the church today.' this document tells us that: Even before creating the world, God chose those He would save. He did this not because they deserved it, but out of His own free love and mercy, and for His own glory. This means that our salvation is not our doing. It is God’s work from beginning to end. and this: Every time he sends someone to hell, it is exactly what their sin deserves: it is perfectly just. My only hope is that God doesn’t treat me as my sins deserve, that He acts in undeserved mercy and love towards me. In this way we can see that God’s choice to save some and reject others is not symmetrical. His decision to bypass some is based purely on justice; His decision to choose others is based on free grace. CEs that I come across tend to believe in predestination in these terms. Whether this is about being conservative or about being ultra conservative I don't know - I'm not sure that anyone else makes that distinction too much, most I know have begun to see the term Conservative Evangelical as synonymous with the things that Pete B has suggested are signs of 'ultra' conservatives. Jody Posted by: Pete Broadbent Wednesday 13 August 2008 - 02:37pm I don't think that it is characteristic of evangelical Anglicanism to take sides on the issue of Calvinism. Stott (and Simeon before him) always took the line that it was an antimony. To be evangelical is by definition to be reformed, and to offer Christ to all. It may well be the case that some ultra-conservatives tend more towards the reformed end of the spectrum.
Posted by: Tim Goodbody
Wednesday 13 August 2008 - 12:15pm
thanks +Pete what about TULIP? There used to be a pamphlet by Martyn Lloyd Jones called "what is an evangelical?" which I was handed at college. It threw me a bit because I am an evangelical but I never knew that meant half the thngs MLJ sad it did! Posted by: Dave Wednesday 13 August 2008 - 11:08am Pete, That is an interesting list of characteristics. I wonder if this can be boiled down to: 1. a view of word centered worship. Preaching, the right prayer book, no charismata. 2. A conservative view of the moral order. You mention the role of women but also the nature of the family, respect for authority 3. An attitude of suspicion to the rest of the church. The chuch sociey analysis of the House of Bishops is interesting in this regard http://www.churchsociety.org/issues_new/church/national/iss_church_national_bishoplist.asp 4. A privatised, spiritualised view of the christian life and hence misson. I think that much of this, in a moderate form is a necessary corrective to failings in other sections of the chuch today. Erastianism, how does that work out in the chuch today oter than letting the secular state authorities dictate what our moraliry should be if we have not just followed what modern society regards as the best in itself? David Posted by: Stottyfan Wednesday 13 August 2008 - 09:17am Pete B is surely right in much of what he says here. He could add another characteristic of ultra conservatives - their persistent vilification of Tom Wright. It is so bad now that even some ultra conservatives are expressing alarm about the persistent line of argument in Sydney circles which goes like this. 'NT Wright says this, so it must be wrong'. Have a look at this blog. http://solapanel.org/article/how_new_will_the_new_creation_be/ But back to CEEC itself. The real problem is that CEEC was founded by John Stott to be representative of evangelicalism within the Church of England. It now seems to be trying to control what form evangelicalism should take. Surely Richard Turnbull is not a good choice of for chairman given what has happened at Wycliffe Hall. My big concern is that we need our bishops to tell us what they make of what happened at Lambeth. Yet CEEC is not allowing a single evangelical bishop who was present at Lambeth to give us their views. The whole discussion will be biased from the outset. Arent we mature enough to hear different perspectives on this instead of being forced to hear only one? Posted by: Pete Broadbent Wednesday 13 August 2008 - 07:39am I use the word "ultra-conservative" as a descriptor because I'm not prepared to relinquish the term "conservative" in relation to scripture. Stott, I think, was the author of the "conservative on scripture and radical on everything else" phrase, and it's my view that that is what defines the place where evangelical Anglicans can be united (and always were in the past). In the days of the Keele and Nottingham Congresses, when we committed ourselves to working within the Church of England, and to a proper understanding of being reformed catholics, there were only a few voices which were raised against. Church Society was one - expressing the Erastian approach to preserving evangelicalism as a Protestant State religion. There have been numerous bust-ups over the years - the sacking of the editor of Churchman which led to the foundation of Anvil in 1984 was a parallel precursor of the Fulcrum split more recently. It's not easy to produce a typology of ultra-conservative evangelical Anglicanism, because it's more a mind-set thing, rather than one particular tribe. Those I would characterise as ultra-conservative would be identified by any one of a number of indicators (not all of which overlap), including: Erastianism Adherence to the BCP as the only properly reformed liturgy Opposition to the presbyteral leadership of women (and episcopal...) - and a refusal to allow them to preach/teach except to other women Emphasis on the primacy of preaching, to the detriment of the rest of the service, whether liturgy, sung worship or the sacraments A suspicion that no (or few) other parishes preach the true gospel A predisposition to suspect that most bishops are liberals (!) A cessationist view of charismata An understanding of mission that sees social action as a mere adjunct to, and mechanism for, evangelism A spiritual-only (quasi Johannine) understanding of the Kingdom of God There are others, but these are some of the issues over which we have argued over the past 30 years. They're not positions that I own as authentic evangelical Anglicanism, and I don't believe that a refusal to accept any of them makes me a liberal. But they have become the fault lines that separate some of the different tribes of evangelical Anglicanism.
Posted by: Jody
Tuesday 12 August 2008 - 08:12pm
hi, just as something to note, fulcrum are (and have been) interested in being involved with CEEC (contrary to John Richardson's assumption, which is actually a serious misrepresentation), I and a few others will attend NEAC in November. blessings Jody Posted by: Bob Marsden Tuesday 12 August 2008 - 07:32pm Pete, thanks for your contribution. Please could you help me by describing what an 'ultra-conservative' evangelical is. And how that contrasts with you who are 'conservative on scripture and radical on everything else' (whatever the everything else is?). Thanks in anticipation, Bob Marsden Posted by: Pete Broadbent Tuesday 12 August 2008 - 03:35pm CEEC has a long history. It was formed in 1960, I think, by John Stott. It was always meant to be a forum in which evangelicals from across the whole spectrum met together. It probably lost its way in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and many of the folk who would consider themselves as heirs of Keele left at that stage. As John Richardson's blog post rightly suggests, this has meant that it has become pretty much, though, not exclusively, a meeting place for those of an ultra-conservative persuasion. Many of us had other things to do, but it's our own fault for not being there. But it is the most obviously quasi-representative body that exists, and it does have the remit to speak for evangelical Anglicans in a way that Church Society (who often claim to do so!) does not. I left it because I was bored with it as a talking shop in 1995, but rejoined in 2006, precisely because the voice that I heard from it didn't represent the evangelical Anglicanism to which I am committed (conservative on scripture and radical on everything else - which I believe to be where evangelicals in the CofE have always stood. In theory, it has a federal base - the Diocesan Evangelical Fellowships - but these vary enormously in their attendance levels and energy, and the sparkiness of them depends very much on a few organisers and whether they perceive that a distinctive evangelical voice is needed in the diocese. (David Jenkins served as a strong recruiting agent for the North Eastern DEF when he was Bishop of Durham!) There is the additional problem for DEFs that both New Wine and Reform provide much more pragmatically useful networks for those who incline towards them. I have been to a couple of DEFs recently, and where they work well, they do facilitate a meeting across the "tribes" and a place of conversation about current issues. CEEC is a part-elected, part-nominated body. Since the majority of the membership is from the ultra-conservative wing, it's inevitable that those who are nominated by them tend to come from that wing as well. It's also the case that the "recognised societies" that are invited to send representatives tend to be conservative, and don't include Fulcrum.
Posted by: Tim Goodbody
Tuesday 12 August 2008 - 01:40pm
John Richardson has commented on his blog about the opinions expressed in this thread. I have left him a little billet doux, and would encourage others to help out too Posted by: Simon Morden Tuesday 12 August 2008 - 11:19am At the risk of starting an unhelpful tangent, the question that needs to be asked before assessing the impact of NEAC2008 is - who are they? How did CEEC come into being, and how credible is their claim to represent evangelicals within the CofE? I'm guessing that the majority of CofE evangelicals won't have heard of either NEAC or CEEC, and wouldn't know where either sat within the structure of the church. I certainly hadn't until their abortive Covenant, and am still unsure as to their authority as a council? It was another Benn - Tony - who said the litmus test for a democratic institution was 'how can I get rid of you?' If I don't know the answer to that question, then their claim to represent me is severely flawed, whether or not I agree with their conclusions. Posted by: George Day Tuesday 12 August 2008 - 10:52am Yes, indeed, John, it will be a credibility test. But I am concerned that those of us who count ourselves as open evangelicals could sit back, see what happens, and then afterwards declare CEEC has lost its credibility. Is there anything the Fulcrum leadership can do before the conference to influence the way this is handled, or is it already too late to see any semblance of balance? Posted by: John Martin Monday 11 August 2008 - 09:23pm This NEAC will be a credibility test for the CEEC. Will it be an evangelical meeting place where all the shades of evangelicalism are welcome, or will it be dominated by people who want to exclude large swathes of the Constituency? Posted by: Ken Petrie Monday 11 August 2008 - 09:07pm Well, I wouldn't consider going if there's no opportunity to interact. It's bad enough having to listen to sermons I only partly agree with, without having a whole day of them and no comeback. What a shame, though. I always thought of NEAC as the powerhouse of evangelical breadth and innovation. Seems some Evangelicals have got scared of these things, and are spoiling it for the rest of us. Posted by: George Day Monday 11 August 2008 - 08:01pm I wonder if we could get this NEAC thread back on to the subject of NEAC! It is interesting that nobody has commented on the questions raised about the proposed conference - does that mean most Fulcrum posters regard it as irrelevant, or as a hopeless cause? or are they content with what is proposed? or is it just that many people have gone on holiday? Posted by: Celinda Sunday 10 August 2008 - 07:03pm About keeping discussion on-topic and serious but also open: not easy, but possible from what I've seen on another listserv. One of the most serious and well-qualified contributors on that list left for two years because of the reasons Ken Petrie (I think) mentioned: people with axes to grind, people who got seriously off-topic, people who didn't really research the topic. That person just yesterday returned to the list. Right away a couple of people who had irritated him in the past tried to swing the discussion onto their own topics, but two others immediately supported the returning scholar. Then a third kindly and tactfully brought the difficult contributors back into the discussion, two well-qualified ones added materially to the discussion, and the scholar who'd taken the two years off (in the meantime getting a couple of books published) got back in and led us further into the path of real discussion. I agree with Phil (I think it's Phil, wish I could simply scroll up and see) that the internet is an excellent opportunity for discussion among people who are deeply concerned about certain issues, although their skills and attitudes may vary. Posted by: Deleted user 1222 Sunday 10 August 2008 - 05:17pm Further to this, there are more than evangelicals in the Church of England, so I don't understand what would be the product of such a forum of debate assuming you can police its boundaries. The boundaries of the Church of England go far wider than evangelicalism. Posted by: Dave Sunday 10 August 2008 - 10:14am Phil, I am still not sure what you want. Is this some vision of the big debate which will bring unity? I don't see this working simply because it has never worked in the past. The debates are going on throughout the church. The same issues are raised at theological college as are raised in home groups and are the subjects of seminars at Spring Harvest. At present the debates seem to progress by a sort of white paper method. An organisation gathers together experts who produce a report and invite comments.In addition to the Winsor Report, the church has porduce for example Issues in Human Sexuality, a report on the inner city and a bishops report on international relations, the EA has a report on church and society etc. But I guess you have more fundamental issues in mind. Until recently evangelical orthodoxity could in practice be defined by the writings a of a few authors whose standing was widely accepted. This has been challenged under such names as post evangelical. Such challenges have been dicussed in Christianity and Renewal and the blogshere. Offical reposes have been made by the E A. There is a range of active theological discussion in Britain. A common forum does not exist which brings this together and would be unworkable. These discussions are all inter connected. They should exert influence uo though the synods and DEFs David Posted by: Ken Petrie Saturday 9 August 2008 - 10:25pm Phil, At risk of taking this thread too far off topic, I would tend to agree with you in principle. I too would like to take part in serious debate and in the age of the Internet this seems possible. But the problem is that the same openness which allows you and me to take part also allows less serious people in, or people with particular axes to grind rather than a desire to work the issues through or even, dare i say it, people who will post in the wrong threads just to get their opinion read. Debates rarely remain serious because someone superficial will post a facetious comment and reduce it to a slanging match. Until that problem is overcome we can't get what you and I would want. At least, not on an open forum. Posted by: Phil Almond Saturday 9 August 2008 - 07:46pm There is no reason why discussion and debate on the internet should be ‘fairly superficial’. It could be as profound and searching as debate by other methods. And, as a vehicle for ongoing debate, the internet has the following advantages. It is faster than articles and books. It enables direct interaction, challenge and response. It is slower than verbal debate, allowing time for reflection. Arguments can be withdrawn and improved. It can be directly in the public domain. Very importantly, it allows participation by all serious parties, not just scholars and theologians. I agree that there has long been disagreement among those wishing to be known as evangelicals on certain topics. But now there may be (but until there is an earnest debate we don’t know) fundamental disagreement on who God and Christ are, what they are like, what they have said and done, are saying and doing, will say and do, what humanity needs to be saved from, and in what that salvation consists. I urge Reform, Anglican Mainstream, Fulcrum, North-West Partnership, Forward in Faith, New Wine, Fellowship of Word and Spirit, Church Society, the Theological Colleges etc. to reconsider their positions on this: which are (apparently) not to devote the time to such an earnest open to all internet debate. Phil Almond Posted by: George Day Saturday 9 August 2008 - 05:07pm Thanks, David, for drawing attention to the fact that the agenda is now on the CEEC website. I see that the speakers include 3 bishops - the 3 English bishops who did not attend Lambeth. Hardly the best way to consider Anglican evangelicalism post Lambeth and Gafcon! Why on earth have they not got one of the evangelicals who was there, perhaps one who like Nick Baines has been keeping us informed of what has been going on? (I suspect this answers my question earlier on this thread). A different question about the CEEC website - it is still inviting nominations for an election for council members where nominations are supposed to have closed last December, and still showing council members whose term of service ended in 2006 and in 2007. I have tried drawing this to the attention of the Executive Officer, but this has not been corrected. Perhaps it is simply total website inefficiency, but it is not good, and hardly gives a feeling of a body that is in anyway democratically answereable to its constituency. Posted by: pete hobson Saturday 9 August 2008 - 03:57pm You can see the speakers and agenda on this link http://www.ceec.info/neac2008booking.htm The list of 8 named contributors contains three bishops, none of whom were at Lambeth (for their various reasons) but two of whom were at GAFCON. I'd have said two of them could be called 'open' evangelicals, five are definitely on the conservative side and the last is Michael Nazir-Ali. Oh yes, and one woman to seven men. Over half of the time (not allowing for registration and lunch break) is set piece items, including a hour and a half of being 'addressed'. The opportunity to 'take counsel' comes in a 2 hour plenary session in the afternoon which names four speakers who will make 'contributions', so it's not at all clear to me to what degree this will involve any sense of 'taking soundings' from the rest of those who attend, or whether it will be more of a 'rallying the troops', or at least 'sounding the call'. And if CEEC is serious about representing all shades of evangelical opinion, to return to George Day's query to Graham earlier in this thread - I wonder to what extent will there be space for open (or indeed any other sort of) evangelicals who are not 'big names' to share views and have input? It all seems a far cry from the NEACs of Keele, Nottingham, and Caister, or even Blackpool. Or even the indabas of Lambeth. But then perhaps that's the idea. We do, of course, live in different times.... Posted by: Dave Saturday 9 August 2008 - 12:55pm There is an agenda on the CEEC site which details the speakers. I would say that three quarters are decidely conservative whilst the reamainder are more moderate. so the question is likely to be how can evangelicals help each other out when their ministry is hampered or compromised by the wider church. Is this the question you want to discuss or the current sate of belief in the church. The later is better addressed by opinion polls. There are just too many issued on which evangelicals disagree. There are already threads on evolution, hell and dispenationalism for example. There are issues on which evangelicals have never agreed such as bishops, baptism, the eucharist, the nature of saving grace etc. David Posted by: James Friday 8 August 2008 - 09:37am I know you want to do this, Phil, because it's what you do on every thread you contribute to at the slightest opportunity. I do not think, however, that the internet is an adequate forum for such a debate. Maybe it is something that could be tackled at NEAC, I don't know. The danger of this kind of discussion at the fairly superficial level that the internet and internet fora allow is that instead of a process of growing understanding it simply becomes a process of boundary marking. Posted by: Phil Almond Thursday 7 August 2008 - 07:09pm A better idea would be to explore the extent to which there is agreement and the extent to which there is disagreement, on fundamental questions, amongst those wishing to be known as evangelicals. This can only be properly done by an internet debate to which heavyweight scholars contribute and which is also open to all. Phil Almond Posted by: George Day Monday 4 August 2008 - 11:39pm Graham, I understand that you are being consulted re this NEAC. Do you feel that open evangelicals are getting an adequate chance to give input, so that it really reflects the whole breadth of "Anglican Evangelicals post Lambeth and Gafcon"? Posted by: Alastair Cutting Wednesday 2 July 2008 - 12:17am The CEEC website is showing preliminary details for the 2008 National Evangelical Anglican Consultation, under the auspices of the Church of England Evangelical Council. It is to be at All Souls, Langham Place, on Saturday 15 November 2008, 11am-4pm. Flyers for NEAC were available at the post-GAFCon conference at All Souls on 1 July. Cost is £15. The conference is entitled:Shaping The Future - Anglican Evangelicalism post Lambeth and GAFCON |
LATEST
|
Unity amongst Evangelicals in the Church of England is urgently needed at this crucial moment in the Anglican Communion. We are committed to the teaching of the Communion on sexuality and opposed to the developments in