|
|
|||
|
Permalink: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/361
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 7 comments on this article The Restoration of Evangelicalism: Differences without Division copublished with The Guardian Comment is Free site, by Too often, in the past and today, the word ‘evangelical’ has been besmirched. It needs restoring as ‘good news’ in all its generous influence and call to authentic living, in following the way of Jesus of Nazareth. Charles Simeon (1759-1836), the vicar of Holy Trinity Cambridge for 54 years, is seen by many evangelicals in the Church of England as one of the key founders of our tradition. He recognized that evangelical identity was broader than strict Calvinism; stressed the importance of liturgy and of Holy Communion (having been converted during a service of Holy Communion at King’s College, Cambridge); and opposed sectarianism by encouraging evangelicals to stay within the Church of England, when many were tempted to join Methodism. Simeon and the Clapham Sect (John Venn, William Wilberforce, Charles Grant and others) founded the Church Missionary Society in 1799, which ever since has been involved in holistic mission, campaigning for the abolition of slavery and spreading the gospel throughout the world. The Clapham Sect also founded The Christian Observer in 1802, which was wide ranging in its interests and influence. The more conservative, shrill and narrow Christian Record was founded in 1828. Some see lineaments of these lineages on the web today. With prudent procedure in Parliament, William Wilberforce pioneered the campaign against the Atlantic slave trade and later the seventh Earl of Shaftesbury (1801-85) piloted through the ground breaking factory acts, and mental health acts. Last The title of the consultation was ‘Shaping the Future: Anglican Evangelicalism post Lambeth and GAFCON’. The Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), held in As the previous NEAC opened in A view from another perspective can often be perceptive, though sometimes is unwelcome. A woman once entered a committee room where people had been smoking for many hours and said: 'It's smoky in here'. She was asked: 'how do you know, you've only just come in?' “This morning was good: an atmosphere of reflection and unity. But this afternoon things went wrong.” Bishop Keith Sinclair of The chair of CEEC, Richard Turnbull, is the Principal of Wycliffe Hall, He proposed a motion in the afternoon which was not on the agenda published beforehand, but merely put on the chairs prior to the beginning of the consultation, with the added note that ‘no amendments will be permitted.’ Some saw the motion, others did not. It was not mentioned at all from the front in the morning. The motion, in effect, backed the GAFCON movement (which is about to set up a separate ‘Province’ in North America) while ignoring the process urged by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lambeth Conference, which is supported by many evangelical Anglicans. This pursues, with patience and urgency, the Covenant for the Anglican Communion and a Pastoral Forum for conservatives in At the consultation, our unity was clear in that we are committed to the teaching of the Communion on sexuality and opposed to the developments in The consultation objected and passed a procedural motion (by 123 votes to 104) that the original motion ‘be not put’. A short amended motion – had one been permitted - summarising our unity concerning the Communion’s teaching on sexuality and offering support for conservative Anglicans in “If you don’t want a vote, fine”, said Turnbull from the chair. “In that case the Church of England Evangelical Council will take its own decision.” From the audience: “Then why consult us?” Turnbull: “I would appreciate if you did not interrupt me.” Someone else in the audience: “Depends what you say.” This was very different from the wisdom of Simeon and the prudent, parliamentary procedures of Wilberforce and Shaftesbury. It is to be hoped that CEEC as a whole will reflect on the consultation and work for a solution which unifies the evangelical constituency, allowing differences without fostering division. A failure to do so would provide more evidence that CEEC needs to be reformed, to prevent it becoming a ‘Rump Parliament’ and the word ‘evangelical’ from being further besmirched. Canon Dr Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum Forum Posts About This Article:Posted by: Philip Wainwright Tuesday 18 November 2008 - 08:55pm Graham's article made the 'differences' pretty clear, but I didn't spot much hope for the 'without division' part. Has the CEEC leadership accepted that not everyone is ready to go where they want to lead? Are they willing to slow down a bit, at least? If not, division seems to be a fact. I would advise caution about any support, even reluctant support, for border-crossings and alternative provinces and the like. There are a good number of Evangelicals in the American church that don't see alternative episcopal oversight as a solution to the moral and theological drift of that church, and who wouldn't leave PECUSA to join a new province even if it were recognised by a wider group than the global south. Posted by: Deleted user 974 Monday 17 November 2008 - 09:35pm Peter Oulds doesnt want 'liberals' to get the benefits of conservatives. (see below) but what is sauce for the evo goose must be so for the 'liberal' gander ! Cake and eating, having also spring to mind But there is one more problem with the motion (as was highlighted on the day) in that it edges English evangelicals towards a border crossing solution for issues here. I believe personally that such a move would be a massive mistake, because whilst I am not prepared to accept the ministry of a Bishop who openly denies the creeds, that is not the situation in the Church of England. Here we have bishops we disagree with, but we disagree with them mainly on moral issues, not issues of basic orthodoxy. By allowing English parishes to dissent and leave on a matter of moral disagreement we open up the church to all kinds of problems. For example, what about a liberal parish that wants to leave because they want to bless same-sex unions and their bishop won’t let them? Should they be allowed to find alternative oversight?' sigh Laurence Posted by: Springnuts Monday 17 November 2008 - 06:32pm Graham, Your comment that ... A short amended motion – had one been permitted - summarising our unity concerning the Communion’s teaching on sexuality and offering support for conservative Anglicans in North America would have been passed. is most important, and I hope that it is heard - and believed - by both CEEC and those (of all theologies) who were not at the 'consultation'. It should also be noted that the events of the day caused huge pain particularly to those proposing and supporting the motion. Unnecessary pain perhaps, but real. Nobody rejoiced at the outcome - this was damage limitation, saving CEEC from itself and leading to the least-bad result. Continued graciousness is utterly essential. The final memory I have is of the long sustained applause after Christina Baxter's contribution. Simon Springett. The Guardian Comment is Free (Belief) site has just published 'What would Wilberforce do?' by Graham Kings, which is a slightly edited down version of my 'The Restoration of Evangelicalism: Differences without Divisions' on this site. If people have time to keep an eye on the comments on the Guardian article - and reply positively if they wish - that may help... Thanks for your comment Peter and also for your own fine article. I've put it on Fulcrum newswatch. Posted by: Peter Ould Monday 17 November 2008 - 03:37pm That's a very good piece Graham. FWIW, can I offer this piece of my own? We have just copublished on the Fulcrum site, with The Guardian Comment is Free site, my article 'The Restoration of Evangelicalism: Differences without Division'. It reflects on what happened at NEAC 2008 on Saturday. |
LATEST
|