Anglican Mainstream has published a Signatories to A Covenant for the Church of England, and a Questions that may be asked document. Both can be read here.
These are preceded by the following comment (which itself raises an unanswered question):
The signatories to “A Covenant for the Church of England” are now being made public together with some background explanation. Although it was our original intention to publish the list of signatories and the “Questions that may be Asked” at the same time as the Covenant, we have withheld them for one week at the request of Lambeth Palace. We are publishing them now in the hope that they will help people to understand the full context in which these conversations have been begun.
Of these thirty-one signatories, two of them are female, and two others are non-clerics. That leaves twenty-seven male ordained ministers.
Quite a representation of God’s creation. Makes sense to me.
And there appeared to be very few outside the ‘usual suspects’ of conservative evangelicalism.
So – the need to set up separate oversight for the ‘right thinking’ will result from the fact that some in the Church of England might show support for TEC should they end up outside the Anglican Communion. Right thinking congregation would be put in ‘an impossible situation’ by the fact of this support. Any Evangelical with an ounce of historical sense will know that the Evangelical Wing has at various times positively thrived in the presence of Bishops with whom they disagreed and with neighbouring parish church having a different slant on things but the same name board tacked… Read more »
How very festive. I shall have to now pen a letter to my vicar to inform him that:
“We speak on behalf of the many Anglicans, (from among Evangelical, Charismatic and Anglo-Catholic traditions) who want to remain faithful to the biblical faith as the Church of England has received it…”
doesn’t apply to me. Faithful, yes. Hijacked by this clique who presume me to be an unthinking drone, no.
I’ve said it before MM and I’ll say it again – this “Covenant” might be flawed in some parts, but with names like John Coles and Mark Stibbe signing it, it *can’t* be attributed to just “the usual suspects” and therefore ignored.
But its more than clear that their organisations have not been fully consulted .
In any case, many charismatics are also theologically conservative – in my short time as a conservative, I was part of a charismatic church.
So what we have here are conservative evangelicals and a couple of charismatic conservative evangelicals….
Thats breadth for you.
John Stott’s signature is pretty significant, since the Grand Old Man has usually stayed ‘above the fray’ and is certainly no separatist. Richard Turnbull joining with David Peterson is worthy of note, too. Of course you won’t get bishops signing – this is a direct challenge to their existing franchises.
The HTB ‘family’ (apart from Paul Perkin in his GS role) have also stayed out of church politics, and Richard Chartres has wisely kept them on side, but for how much longer? Can Sandy Millar keep them in line?
Peter Ould
I cannot but help think that you are one of the usual suspects supporting the usual suspects. You join the Anglican Church in 199?, get ordained and begin to serve your title within the evangelical ghetto and then presume to tell how we should be Anglicans. Are there not more important things for you to be doing (apart from making pathetic vidoes about Church leaders)than knocking and dismissing Christians of many years commitment who happen not to share your views or fit within your narrow definitions.
Quote. We rejoice in the fellowship of believers across the cultural, social, ethnic and age groups, and we are committed to the inclusive, multi-faceted diversity of Christ’s body. However, we recognise that our fellowship with believers of other churches, networks and denominations may be more real than an artificial connection with those with whom we have profound differences within our own denomination. Unquote. Decode Draft: Everybody else is strongly invited to always include us, in everything they do. Because we are still the Anglican real deal. We are sort of the Elizabethan Settlement, walking around on two feet in modern… Read more »
Or have John Coles and Mark Stibbe joined the suspects?
“urppp..” Excuse me for leaving the table for a moment…the Pepto should kick in any minute. I see several huge flaws and gaps in the Mainstream Anglican statements. For example; ‘we encourage emails of support to the signatories’. My understanding of Anglican history is that we have always been the group seeking the grey zone, both sides of the issue rather than only those of one view. Martin Luther brought us freedom from exclusive ordained access to Christ. If Anglican Mainstream wants hold up a forefather of the faith , better for their souls to tell the truth of King… Read more »
Graham Kings made the following comments on the Fulcrum forum http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/forum/thread.cfm?thread=2015 – which is well worth following: Concerning the list of original signatories of the so called ‘Covenant’, published this morning on the Anglican Mainstream site, http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=1059 it is worth noting the first signatories are the President and Chair of the Church of England Evangelical Council. The chair of CEEC claimed that: ‘We believe the process of consultation with all parties concerned has been thorough and transparent.’ http://www.ceec.info/library/positional/Covenant.htm This has been seriously disputed by at least two senior members of CEEC and by a member of another body closely involved… Read more »
There is a very interesting, positive and encouraging disussion going on, on the Fulcrum website, too.
Ah, I recall attending a harrowing and saddening service at one of the listed churches some years ago when the Jeffrey John incident was doing the rounds. The bastardization of a “sermon” there caused me severe distress and, after much cogitation, I actually emailed an official complaint. It was either that or make the preacher a gift of the first stone(TM) for later use.
I would have hoped for better but it’s not really surprising that one of their number is in this puritanical camp.
“For those for whom the Church Visible is not terribly important schism is not a sin”
I would rather say; for those who equate the Church Invisible and the Church Visible…
… meaning their precious selves.
Simon asks: “how come Christ Church Plano didn’t get similar coverage?”
A: Because Truro and Falls Church are next to Washington, DC where there have to be more reporters per square foot than any other place on the planet. And Plano is in, well, Plano.
laurence said: “There is a very interesting, positive and encouraging disussion going on, on the Fulcrum website, too.”
“too”??!! I do not see a lot positive above your post, laurence.
Simon. I am so glad that you have been given a gift for Christmas. May God’s spirit imbue with literary brilliance and may you find a suitable forum to share your fruit. God knows, we could all do with some Christmas cheer. Puritans come and go, sects sheer off. It is the nature of puritans. Coming from the South, the continent of Antartica exists even if all the ice melts away (unlike our Northern Hemisphere pole). So that land continues, we’ll just see how much ice is lost. I do hope the puritans choose to embrace honesty and as many… Read more »
I wish they could spell ‘credal’ correctly….
31 signatories. 12 Reform, 6 New Wine. Several (but no means a majority) CEEC members. A strong Dick Lucas link to several more names.
But of more intriguing note: 22 names on the Reform Council. Less than half have signed the CCE. 52 names on the CEEC council. 13 have signed. I haven’t gone through the New Wine leadership.
I’m rather assuming that Reform made the CCE available to its council members before release. Ditto, CEEC, since both have been signed up en masse by their Chairs. So why aren’t there more actual signatures?
True RO and False Church.
I represent you, you keep your mouth shut?
Simon
Just to put your mind at rest. It was agreed back at the Reform National Conference in October that David Banting would sign the covenant on behalf of the Reform network. Hope this helps. Bob Marsden
“I represent you, you keep your mouth shut?”
Goran, I don’t understand your comment. Please tell us about the Church of Sweden (Svenska Kyrkan), which I believe you represent. How is it doing? Is it growing and bringing modern Sweden’s very diverse, multi-cultural society to the Gospel of Christ? An update from you would be very helpful.
Bob – thanks for replying. Two questions: 1) If it was agreed in October that David Banting would sign the CCE, does this mean that the CCE was extant at that time and circulated at the conference, so people could give their informed consent? If not, the agreement is suspect, if not worthless. 2) If it was agreed in October that David Banting would sign the CCE, why then have Wallace Benn, Richard Turnbull, David Phillips, Simon Vibert, Jonathan Fletcher, David Holloway, Angus Macleay, Rob Munro, Paul Perkin, Vaughan Roberts and William Taylor, all of whom I believe I can… Read more »
Andy perhaps mine was a ‘too’ too far !
But do look in on the aforementioned Fulcrum discussion.
Habemus papam !
Nomen Davidicus Banting.
No, sorry — one ‘pope’ is quite enough thanks !
I am sorry you had to be subjected to that, Tim.
Bob thanks for putting Simon’s mind at ease. It’s useful to know the covenant was being discussed as a “who is going to sign it” back in October. Obviously a lot of listening with the intention of understanding was going on since? Rather, I think the strategy was “We’ll see if we can call their bluff and get them to back down. If they don’t then we’ll roll out a covenant to make them back down, or make it that they are not behaving properly and can now be “disciplined”.” It makes one think that the point of this document… Read more »
DrDanFee,
It doesn’t help the dialogue when you have decided what a text means, regardless of what it says. Your interpretation bore no relstion to the text whatsover.
The text there was quite simply saying what many of us none C of E Evangelicals needed desperately to hear -that Anglican Evangelicals recognise their close relationship with non Anglican Evangelicals who beleive the same things they do.
John Stott does nothing without a background of thought, reflection and prayer. But for those of us without memories stretching back to 1966, some context is in order here. In 1966, Martyn Lloyd-Jones issued a ‘Come out of her, my people’ rallying call to evangelical anglicans – not an unnatural step in the days of John Robinson whose published writings and bon mots include the veneration of adultery (1960 Chatterley trial) among other similar things. John Stott quietly but firmly rebutted Lloyd-Jones on this point – and won the day – for the time being. His perspective was correct: John… Read more »
The most important point is the reference to the primates meeting. At that meeting what is already the current state will become clear to everyone: **no diocesan CoE bishops are in good standing with the rest of the Anglican communion** read the Tanzania statement: no bishop who licenses homosexuals or their supports to any leadership position can be in the communion, and the Global South Bishops have already said they will not attend Lambeth if such bishops are appointed. The signatories of this covenant, John Stott prominemt amongst them, realise that this situation now appears critically to the CoE. If… Read more »
Sinner, I must presume that is a threat. Are you actually saying that all the English diocesan bishops do not meet Christian standards?
What do you know about their morality?
Actually the parishes themselves cannot leave the C of E for other oversight. People can, but church property and territory less!
John Stott has been very unwell since a fall, in August, and needs our prayers.
Simon 1. From what I remember of the Conference the principle of a covenant was discussed and approved but certainly no actual wording. Most Reform members share common concerns about the Church of England and current problems. So most of us are happy to support one another when we take principled action, even if it is at times irregular. 2. As to why further Reform signatories were required in addition to David Banting, I am not sure. Perhaps to allay fears that David Banting did not represent the Reform network? Incidentally consulting my Reform Members handbook I cant find Richard… Read more »
“If they and their parishes wish to remain connected to the vibrant “World Christianity” of the African Anglican church, they cannot remain in any kind of communion with Bishops who do not meet Christian standards.”
Retract this, please. All our bishops meet Christian standards. You mean conservative evangelical standards. I am sick to the stomach of fundamentalists attempting to deChristianise those with whom they disagree. David Banting and his gang do not get to decide who is, and who is not, a Christian.
I would have thought that the very last thing the CofE should do is have any connection at all to Akinola and his mob.
The encouraging thing is that Reform know they do not have majority support for this position. Its clearly a precursor to a split. Its coming, folks – time for something new and exciting.Lets make the most of it, not keep trying to keep alive what needs to be allowed to die a very welcome death.
RIP Anglican Communion.
The discussion on the Fulcrum Forum is helpful in clearing up some of these questions: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/forum/thread.cfm?thread=1900 According to participants, Chris Sugden of Anglican Mainstream has been pushing very hard for a split in the Church of England. On the other hand, the November Fulcrum Newsletter and the majority of the discussants at the Forum reject splits or schisms as solutions to current difficulties. It does seem to me that the majority of British Evangelicals are unwilling to create a schism in the Church of England and so do not support the recent schism in Virginia. They would prefer to be… Read more »
http://www.faithspace.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=7846&pid=129760&st=0&#entry129760
A little bit of graphic amusement from me in a parallel discussion.
Steve Watson wrote: “Göran, I don’t understand your comment.”
Try the plain sense!
Steve Watson continued (somehwat of topic): “Please tell us about the Church of Sweden (Svenska Kyrkan), which I believe you represent. How is it doing? Is it growing and bringing modern Sweden’s very diverse, multi-cultural society to the Gospel of Christ? An update from you would be very helpful.”
Your free to contact me off list anytime, just click on my name! It’s for real.
Perhaps the signaturies should ‘cast out into the deep’ and leave the Church of England. If they are confident that their stance is popular they should be confident that many would follow them. I suspect, however, that they are uncertain. Perhaps the time has come for the vast majority of Anglicans to unite in asking them to leave. They want a fight and they ought to be prepared to lose it. Also this must now be the time for Oak Hill Thelogical College to be struck off from the list of Approved Anglican thelogical colleges. It has been anomolous for… Read more »
Well, Goran: ‘the plain sense’ as in ‘the plain sense of Scripture’? My curiosity is aroused by your intense interest, as a Swedish Lutheran, in the Church of England scene, and the practical difficulties of understanding another country and its religion – including the dangers of seeing things through our own perspective. I read numerous pieces from Lutheran clergy in Sweden about the religious state of your country, the Erastian church polity, and the party-politicization of churches. Most Swedes seem to the rest of us to be deeply secular people (3% church attendance?), even if the majority are (still) notionally… Read more »
The essential point is that there is a choice between mainstream international anglicanism and national anglicanism which is over-affected by the surrounding society and insufficiently aware (to the point of solipsism) that they are not the default option. Michael Green, ‘Asian Tigers for Christ’ is one source for reading about vibrant international anglicanism.
Bob – again, thanks for the clarifications, and apologies for being wordy. Both 1 and 2 bother me. Not to the point where I cry out “Is outrage!”, but it disturbs me that intelligent men and women can give their absolute consent to a document that has neither been seen or discussed. I woke up one morning to find out – from the radio – that I was in ‘impared communion’ with my bishop. The reason my vicar used to explain why the media had the news first, as opposed to the congregation in whose name it was released, was… Read more »
If Stott, author of ‘why I am still an anglican’, has signed, then maybe that’s an indication that the covenanters don’t actually want a split.
The African Pentecostal churches are growing purely because of African migration.
If Christianity is going to become the religion purely of a migrant minority, with very different cultural backgrounds, then it just shows how little it has to say to contemporary 21st century Britons.
Some Christmas fun – thanks to the authors
http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=533
Merseymike – the strong growth in ANGLICAN evangelical churches (conservative and charismatic, maybe not “open”) is not driven by African migration – do go to HTB if you are in London one day as this may shatter some illusions and prejudices too
“The Catholic churches are growing purely because of Irish migration [to Liverpool, Glasgow, London etc].
If Catholicism is going to become the religion purely of a migrant minority, with very different cultural backgrounds, then it just shows how little it has to say to contemporary 19th century Britons.”
/there, fixed it! 🙂
Ah, but NP, what IS driving the groqwth of Evangelicalism within the Anglican Church? Given that the vast majority of people are abandoning christianity or have already done so, how significant is that growth? I’ve said before, just because your numbers are growing has nothing to do with whether or not your message is true.