That is a very powerful letter. I copied this for the detail: “You go, in forensic detail, into the process undertaken by TEC and the JSC, challenging both the method and the validity of their conclusions. But you seem to accept, without question, the validity and status of Lambeth 1.10, the Windsor Report, the Dromantine Communique and the Dar-Es-Salaam Communique – in spite of the fact that the processes involved in each of these were at least as flawed and in many cases far worse than anything which happened in New Orleans or within the Joint Standing Committee.” But actually… Read more »
I think Giles response is excellent. From noting that the contents of the first letters and the dialogue that follows has been shunted aside to the concerns about quarantining. That is one of the core strategies we have been fighting. Some deny that GLBTs are God’s children, or that they may enter into loving relationships. Some deny there is any theology to justify tolerance or compassion towards GLBTs or their sympathisers. Some keep souls isolated and discouraged, so they never get together to go through the bible and find the passages that would affirm the outcastes. One common phrase is… Read more »
NP
17 years ago
Pluralist says “It does look like the wheels are coming off the conservative evangelical wagon” Evidence please? -The ABC’s letter to +Howe? -TWR still being the template…with Lambeth 1.10 not being challenged by the ABC? -The Covenant process being led by ++Gomez? – ++Akinola demanding to get +Minns invited to Lambeth with the carrot for the ABC that all the Nigerians may come if he is….. quite attractive to the ABC, I suspect…. Pluralist…..a more generous tone than you hear from Reform will definitely come out in the end….but Lambeth 1.10 will stand unless the ABC is willing to see… Read more »
Erika Baker
17 years ago
“As long as this controversy is seen as a debate, there will be a perception of victory and a perception of victimhood, and both of those contain grave spiritual dangers.”
We should all have this sentence as our screensavers!
ettu
17 years ago
There is a link to the 1959 Ph.D. dissertation evaluating the political structure of TEC (then PECUSA) that strongly supports the hierarchical strucure of TEC on the basis of its historical origins. It is found on Jakes Place – I have not linked directly to it out of regard for TA but do feel it may be a critical document for all of us –and certainly for the lawyers!
First of all the letter from the Archbishop to Bishop Howe was written from a Catholic viewpoint and has nothing to do with the evangelical wagon. Gomez is hardly a leader of the Covenant – he is deeply compromised by his actions regarding looking both ways on the Windsor Process. The Archbishop of Canterbury does not want to reopen the Lambeth 1:10 debate, because it would just be a bog in which everyone would be stuck. But he also makes clear that there will be nothing similar decided, no back up – thus the objection made by the Nigerians that… Read more »
ettu
I was about to link to that article anyway, thanks.
NP
17 years ago
I thought TA liked “open” evos like Fulcrum’s Dr Goddard…..or is that only when they criticise “conservatives” eg Coekin etc?
Pluralist…..evos are not divided on whether Lambeth 1.10 is right that certain acts are “incompatible with scripture” – this is what matters because the issue is very important (i.e. the authority of scripture)
Can Fulcrum, Reform, AM and Network people live together in communion with genuine unity…..absolutely.
Will Fulcrum choose to be in a grouping with TEC HOB and VGR rather than Reform….. ultimately, of course not (however much they may not agree with Reform sometimes on certain peripheral issues)
Ford Elms
17 years ago
“Can Fulcrum, Reform, AM and Network people live together in communion with genuine unity…..absolutely.” Sit down and make a list of the different non-conformists in England. Each of them is some group or another that didn’t agree with something the CofE was doing, who KNEW they knew the mind of God. They have not managed to get together. Indeed, many of them, after breaking with “the mother church” promptly set about dividing themselves up over finer and finer points of doctrine. I don’t really think there’s much evidence that the current crop of fundamentalists convinced of the rightness of their… Read more »
NP
17 years ago
Ford – Fulcrum, Reform, AM and Network people ain’t non-conformists ……. like it or not, these groups between them represent most Anglicans in England …..sure they have differences but those cannot be exploited to justify some condoning behaviour “incompatible with scripture” AS I have said before, the problems and divisions in the AC are not being caused by Fulcrum, Reform, AM and Network people. They did not ignore ALL the AC Primates and deliberately “tear the fabric of the Communion” – did they? Trying to split these faithful Anglicans in order to keep in the AC those who did knowingly… Read more »
Assuming all evangelicals agree on Lambeth 1:10 (and some may see it as inappropriate) it does not describe the means of authority for scripture nor the level or form of interpretation. The issue for Anglicans in England is first and foremost how they get on in England (before anyone starts going overseas) and it is by no means clear that some Open Evangelicals would prefer to be in a fellowship with Reform instead of broad Church people. Indeed, the point is that the dividing line runs through the Open Evangelicals. Though they may have roughly the central position, they are… Read more »
NP
17 years ago
Pluralist – you have been on TA hoping for evo splits for ages! You say “Fulcrum are just a version of evangelicalism, disagreeing with Reform and Anglican Mainstream and disagreeing with liberals” So, you really want to claim that Reform and Fulcrum and AM cannot live together in the CofE? I am sure they can…because they do. Tp prove my point, +Durham preached at Oak Hill just recently…..seems there is friendliness between evangelicals to me and disputes are not on core matters (like the authority of scripture). Anyway, as you know, it is miliant “liberals” who unite evos….TECUSA’s 2003 actions… Read more »
Martin Reynolds
17 years ago
I too find the imbalance in the forensic evaluation worrying – and the “posturing” deeply irritating. Somewhere along the line the ACI types seem to have lost touch with reality. It has not been helped as their style developed from carefully analytical to firmly directive! At times almost hectoring and bullying. There were so many assumptions underpinning the work of the Windsor Report, assumptions about order and authority – how the Anglican Communion worked – processes of reception etc etc – important things that needed to be teased out and that in the long run would have important consequences for… Read more »
You don’t disappoint. It is disappointing that they do not unite, that the moderation that is there in Fulcrum is being compromised by a pressure to have some relationship with other evangelicals, but any reading of the Fulcrum website and the others show that they do not agree, and not even on the methods of using scripture never mind their complete disagreement on the way ahead. Read it: claims that Reform and friends are pushing out Open Evangelicals from various institutions, that Fulcrum was launched precisely to have its definition of evangelicalism get its proper place. Liberals clearly have not… Read more »
NP
17 years ago
Martin – you do not want the AC run by the ACI……so, I am sure you can understand that most of us in the AC run to please the small no of people in CA/Integrity etc. The question now is whether the ABC and his bureaucrats can convince many the experience of the last 4 years is worth continuing….that we should maintain the “house divided” which is the AC or say (maybe in a covenant) that the AC stands for certain things and those who do not like it are welcome to join churches which they do not have to… Read more »
Ford Elms
17 years ago
“most of us in the AC run to please the small no of people in CA/Integrity etc.” i assume this means that you do not believe the Church should dance to CA’s tune. neither do I. I do believe it shows a remarkable lack of Christianity that you are also unwilling to even consider the suffering the Church has caused, in this instance to gay people, over the centuries. People have been damaged and hurt, not helped, by the Church’s behaviour. They still are. But you seem blithely uncaring. You actually think you do God service by ignoring the suffering… Read more »
Erika Baker
17 years ago
Ford “i assume this means that you do not believe the Church should dance to CA’s tune. neither do I.” What do you mean by “dance to CA’s tune”? CA is an organisation calling for the full integration of LGBT people into the church. Do you not wish that to happen too? The strength of CA is that its members are firmly determined to remain in the church and to follow Christ’s call for them. They don’t shout, they don’t slander their opponents, they don’t wish those who don’t agree with them out of the church. Would it be so… Read more »
NP
17 years ago
Ford says “You actually think you do God service by ignoring the suffering of your fellow human beings”
No, Ford….but I know those who tell people that suddenly God does not mind some sins even though they are “incompatible with scripture” are not doing God or the people they talk to any service at all
Ford Elms
17 years ago
Erika, NP has the attitude that groups like CA are trying to call the shots and dictate to everyone else how we should behave. This gets in the way of his ability to do the same thing, so he gets angry. I was trying to put things into his terms. None of us would want one particular lobby group, of any stripe, to call the shots for everybody, and I was expressing that when he implies that we do, he is being untruthful. As to what I wish, well, first and foremost, I am very much opposed to any kind… Read more »
Erika Baker
17 years ago
Ford, let’s not get hung about about validating relationships. We disagree on that but I don’t see that as a particular problem. Full inclusion means much more than that. It means ACPMs no longer having special meetings to discuss whether a gay person can sit on the PCC. Full inclusion means that everyone can freely admit to being gay and partnered. Full inclusion means that no part of church life is closed to a person because they’re gay. If we genuinely believe that God doesn’t exclude, then we cannot accept that his church should. Whether we join a lobby group,… Read more »
NP
17 years ago
Ford says “NP has the attitude that groups like CA are trying to call the shots and dictate to everyone else how we should behave. This gets in the way of his ability to do the same thing, so he gets angry.” Ford……(once again) no, I object to groups like CA arguing for the acceptance of behaviour which the bishops of the AC have consistently said is “incompatible with scripture”. Got it? I object to people telling others that God’s word is wrong or does not mean what the bishops of the AC (and most Christians through the ages and… Read more »
” … compatible with your v i e w of scripture” NP.
I hope you realize the substantial difference.
O, and by the way… it’s wholly unnecessary and gratuitious (not to mention impolite) to add “Got it?” and “Hope this is clear, Ford.”
Ford Elms
17 years ago
Erika, I agree on pretty much everything else you said, with a couple of exceptions: “Whether we join a lobby group… is only a question of degree.” Praying is seeking God’s will be done, lobbying is demanding our will be done. Just because we think it God’s will is immaterial. “that is no reason to give them the impression that there is any section in the church that will condone a lesser status” No, indeed, but the way we go about giving that impression might cause problems. Take the example of your bishop. If he is forced to make you… Read more »
Ford Elms
17 years ago
“it’s wholly unnecessary and gratuitious (not to mention impolite) to add “Got it?” and “Hope this is clear, Ford.””
Goran, shhhh! If he wants to fly his colours proudly from the mast, why stop him? The contrast with his constant protestations of holiness are quite striking. He has been given quite enough rope, he will not be prevented from hanging himself, so the only thing you can do is sit back and watch.
That is a very powerful letter. I copied this for the detail: “You go, in forensic detail, into the process undertaken by TEC and the JSC, challenging both the method and the validity of their conclusions. But you seem to accept, without question, the validity and status of Lambeth 1.10, the Windsor Report, the Dromantine Communique and the Dar-Es-Salaam Communique – in spite of the fact that the processes involved in each of these were at least as flawed and in many cases far worse than anything which happened in New Orleans or within the Joint Standing Committee.” But actually… Read more »
I think Giles response is excellent. From noting that the contents of the first letters and the dialogue that follows has been shunted aside to the concerns about quarantining. That is one of the core strategies we have been fighting. Some deny that GLBTs are God’s children, or that they may enter into loving relationships. Some deny there is any theology to justify tolerance or compassion towards GLBTs or their sympathisers. Some keep souls isolated and discouraged, so they never get together to go through the bible and find the passages that would affirm the outcastes. One common phrase is… Read more »
Pluralist says “It does look like the wheels are coming off the conservative evangelical wagon” Evidence please? -The ABC’s letter to +Howe? -TWR still being the template…with Lambeth 1.10 not being challenged by the ABC? -The Covenant process being led by ++Gomez? – ++Akinola demanding to get +Minns invited to Lambeth with the carrot for the ABC that all the Nigerians may come if he is….. quite attractive to the ABC, I suspect…. Pluralist…..a more generous tone than you hear from Reform will definitely come out in the end….but Lambeth 1.10 will stand unless the ABC is willing to see… Read more »
“As long as this controversy is seen as a debate, there will be a perception of victory and a perception of victimhood, and both of those contain grave spiritual dangers.”
We should all have this sentence as our screensavers!
There is a link to the 1959 Ph.D. dissertation evaluating the political structure of TEC (then PECUSA) that strongly supports the hierarchical strucure of TEC on the basis of its historical origins. It is found on Jakes Place – I have not linked directly to it out of regard for TA but do feel it may be a critical document for all of us –and certainly for the lawyers!
First of all the letter from the Archbishop to Bishop Howe was written from a Catholic viewpoint and has nothing to do with the evangelical wagon. Gomez is hardly a leader of the Covenant – he is deeply compromised by his actions regarding looking both ways on the Windsor Process. The Archbishop of Canterbury does not want to reopen the Lambeth 1:10 debate, because it would just be a bog in which everyone would be stuck. But he also makes clear that there will be nothing similar decided, no back up – thus the objection made by the Nigerians that… Read more »
ettu
I was about to link to that article anyway, thanks.
I thought TA liked “open” evos like Fulcrum’s Dr Goddard…..or is that only when they criticise “conservatives” eg Coekin etc?
Pluralist…..evos are not divided on whether Lambeth 1.10 is right that certain acts are “incompatible with scripture” – this is what matters because the issue is very important (i.e. the authority of scripture)
Can Fulcrum, Reform, AM and Network people live together in communion with genuine unity…..absolutely.
Will Fulcrum choose to be in a grouping with TEC HOB and VGR rather than Reform….. ultimately, of course not (however much they may not agree with Reform sometimes on certain peripheral issues)
“Can Fulcrum, Reform, AM and Network people live together in communion with genuine unity…..absolutely.” Sit down and make a list of the different non-conformists in England. Each of them is some group or another that didn’t agree with something the CofE was doing, who KNEW they knew the mind of God. They have not managed to get together. Indeed, many of them, after breaking with “the mother church” promptly set about dividing themselves up over finer and finer points of doctrine. I don’t really think there’s much evidence that the current crop of fundamentalists convinced of the rightness of their… Read more »
Ford – Fulcrum, Reform, AM and Network people ain’t non-conformists ……. like it or not, these groups between them represent most Anglicans in England …..sure they have differences but those cannot be exploited to justify some condoning behaviour “incompatible with scripture” AS I have said before, the problems and divisions in the AC are not being caused by Fulcrum, Reform, AM and Network people. They did not ignore ALL the AC Primates and deliberately “tear the fabric of the Communion” – did they? Trying to split these faithful Anglicans in order to keep in the AC those who did knowingly… Read more »
Assuming all evangelicals agree on Lambeth 1:10 (and some may see it as inappropriate) it does not describe the means of authority for scripture nor the level or form of interpretation. The issue for Anglicans in England is first and foremost how they get on in England (before anyone starts going overseas) and it is by no means clear that some Open Evangelicals would prefer to be in a fellowship with Reform instead of broad Church people. Indeed, the point is that the dividing line runs through the Open Evangelicals. Though they may have roughly the central position, they are… Read more »
Pluralist – you have been on TA hoping for evo splits for ages! You say “Fulcrum are just a version of evangelicalism, disagreeing with Reform and Anglican Mainstream and disagreeing with liberals” So, you really want to claim that Reform and Fulcrum and AM cannot live together in the CofE? I am sure they can…because they do. Tp prove my point, +Durham preached at Oak Hill just recently…..seems there is friendliness between evangelicals to me and disputes are not on core matters (like the authority of scripture). Anyway, as you know, it is miliant “liberals” who unite evos….TECUSA’s 2003 actions… Read more »
I too find the imbalance in the forensic evaluation worrying – and the “posturing” deeply irritating. Somewhere along the line the ACI types seem to have lost touch with reality. It has not been helped as their style developed from carefully analytical to firmly directive! At times almost hectoring and bullying. There were so many assumptions underpinning the work of the Windsor Report, assumptions about order and authority – how the Anglican Communion worked – processes of reception etc etc – important things that needed to be teased out and that in the long run would have important consequences for… Read more »
You don’t disappoint. It is disappointing that they do not unite, that the moderation that is there in Fulcrum is being compromised by a pressure to have some relationship with other evangelicals, but any reading of the Fulcrum website and the others show that they do not agree, and not even on the methods of using scripture never mind their complete disagreement on the way ahead. Read it: claims that Reform and friends are pushing out Open Evangelicals from various institutions, that Fulcrum was launched precisely to have its definition of evangelicalism get its proper place. Liberals clearly have not… Read more »
Martin – you do not want the AC run by the ACI……so, I am sure you can understand that most of us in the AC run to please the small no of people in CA/Integrity etc. The question now is whether the ABC and his bureaucrats can convince many the experience of the last 4 years is worth continuing….that we should maintain the “house divided” which is the AC or say (maybe in a covenant) that the AC stands for certain things and those who do not like it are welcome to join churches which they do not have to… Read more »
“most of us in the AC run to please the small no of people in CA/Integrity etc.” i assume this means that you do not believe the Church should dance to CA’s tune. neither do I. I do believe it shows a remarkable lack of Christianity that you are also unwilling to even consider the suffering the Church has caused, in this instance to gay people, over the centuries. People have been damaged and hurt, not helped, by the Church’s behaviour. They still are. But you seem blithely uncaring. You actually think you do God service by ignoring the suffering… Read more »
Ford “i assume this means that you do not believe the Church should dance to CA’s tune. neither do I.” What do you mean by “dance to CA’s tune”? CA is an organisation calling for the full integration of LGBT people into the church. Do you not wish that to happen too? The strength of CA is that its members are firmly determined to remain in the church and to follow Christ’s call for them. They don’t shout, they don’t slander their opponents, they don’t wish those who don’t agree with them out of the church. Would it be so… Read more »
Ford says “You actually think you do God service by ignoring the suffering of your fellow human beings”
No, Ford….but I know those who tell people that suddenly God does not mind some sins even though they are “incompatible with scripture” are not doing God or the people they talk to any service at all
Erika, NP has the attitude that groups like CA are trying to call the shots and dictate to everyone else how we should behave. This gets in the way of his ability to do the same thing, so he gets angry. I was trying to put things into his terms. None of us would want one particular lobby group, of any stripe, to call the shots for everybody, and I was expressing that when he implies that we do, he is being untruthful. As to what I wish, well, first and foremost, I am very much opposed to any kind… Read more »
Ford, let’s not get hung about about validating relationships. We disagree on that but I don’t see that as a particular problem. Full inclusion means much more than that. It means ACPMs no longer having special meetings to discuss whether a gay person can sit on the PCC. Full inclusion means that everyone can freely admit to being gay and partnered. Full inclusion means that no part of church life is closed to a person because they’re gay. If we genuinely believe that God doesn’t exclude, then we cannot accept that his church should. Whether we join a lobby group,… Read more »
Ford says “NP has the attitude that groups like CA are trying to call the shots and dictate to everyone else how we should behave. This gets in the way of his ability to do the same thing, so he gets angry.” Ford……(once again) no, I object to groups like CA arguing for the acceptance of behaviour which the bishops of the AC have consistently said is “incompatible with scripture”. Got it? I object to people telling others that God’s word is wrong or does not mean what the bishops of the AC (and most Christians through the ages and… Read more »
” … compatible with your v i e w of scripture” NP.
I hope you realize the substantial difference.
O, and by the way… it’s wholly unnecessary and gratuitious (not to mention impolite) to add “Got it?” and “Hope this is clear, Ford.”
Erika, I agree on pretty much everything else you said, with a couple of exceptions: “Whether we join a lobby group… is only a question of degree.” Praying is seeking God’s will be done, lobbying is demanding our will be done. Just because we think it God’s will is immaterial. “that is no reason to give them the impression that there is any section in the church that will condone a lesser status” No, indeed, but the way we go about giving that impression might cause problems. Take the example of your bishop. If he is forced to make you… Read more »
“it’s wholly unnecessary and gratuitious (not to mention impolite) to add “Got it?” and “Hope this is clear, Ford.””
Goran, shhhh! If he wants to fly his colours proudly from the mast, why stop him? The contrast with his constant protestations of holiness are quite striking. He has been given quite enough rope, he will not be prevented from hanging himself, so the only thing you can do is sit back and watch.
Sorry, but I am not used to either language or the behaviour.