Tuesday, 26 June 2007

GS: another briefing on the Anglican Covenant

Fulcrum has published an article by Andrew Goddard The Anglican Covenant - A Briefing Paper for the Evangelical Group on General Synod.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 at 11:34pm BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: General Synod
Comments

Very reasonable and well thought-out statement from Dr Goddard

- these OPEN evangelicals like Dr Goddard are not that different to me, you know! Sorry for those hoping to divide us and conquer the CofE!

And for those who try to dismiss others for being African or "pagan-rooted" or want to question the "education" of conservatives from the GS, I hope Dr Goddard's credentials are good enough for you (just as the GS Primates' academic credentials are superior to those on TA who would question their theology)

Posted by: NP on Wednesday, 27 June 2007 at 7:32am BST

"These OPEN evangelicals like Dr Goddard are not that different to me, you know!"

Have you checked out Goddard's 2006 "Fulcrum" piece on homophobia?

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2006/docs.cfm?fname=20060524goddard&format=pdf&option=inline

Posted by: Lapinbizarre on Wednesday, 27 June 2007 at 1:05pm BST

My response to Andrew Goddard's statement is on Fulcrum itself, here:

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/forum/thread.cfm?thread=3711

And the debate continues here:

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/forum/thread.cfm?thread=2937

Simply events keep moving on, and the perceived need for a Covenant is disappearing quickly, never mind its divisive nature even in its preparation.

Posted by: Pluralist on Wednesday, 27 June 2007 at 1:40pm BST

Yes, Lapin....completely agree with Dr G on that too unless you describe this "phobia" as diagreeing with you!

(I employ people regardless of orientation....just would not ordain them!)

Posted by: NP on Thursday, 28 June 2007 at 12:02pm BST

It was not a dismissal of the "pagan-rooted" but an observation about African spirituality. I did not question the education of anyone - that was raised by you, NP. You know, I think your strategy is to bang on about something so often that it becomes the reality. Often people who do this are doing it to convince themselves. It certainly does not convince me. The broken record technique is well known, and it is also a source of distortion.

Posted by: Pluralist on Friday, 29 June 2007 at 1:45pm BST

Pluralist...I am not too worried about convincing myself -

I see Dromantine, TWR, the Tanzania Communique, the upcoming covenant....and hundreds of people in my church 5 out of 7 days per week.......I see more than enough evidence not to be nervous of my position.

Note, when TEC or Dr Giles Fraser say something with which you might agree, I don't start questioning their education of thought framework etc....I don't need to undermine them in this way in order to point out what I see as fallacious in certain arguments made

Posted by: NP on Monday, 2 July 2007 at 5:08pm BST

"I see more than enough evidence not to be nervous of my position."

What an odd thing to say! You think the "left" has reason to be nervous of its position? Why? What's to be nervous about? Would you be nervous if the majority of the ever shrinking group of Englishmen who go to church at all didn't go to Evo churches? Would that actually cause you to doubt?

And explain how it can be called success to be popular with an ever shrinking group of people. The math is simple: fewer Englishmen go to church than ever, that number is growing. Even if they all went to Evo churches, you would still only be getting a shrinking number of people, so how can you call this success? And how can you judge God's truth based on how full your churches are and then accuse your opponents of seeking the approval of the world? Or is it some modern interpretation of the old Calvinist "I'm rich because God loves me, if God loved you, you'd be rich too"?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 at 3:04pm BST

Ford - if you read what Pluralist said, you will see why I respond talking about nerves.

And, maybe a shrinking no of Brits come along because of all the damage done by people who have made up a wishy-washy, powerless message over decades? Not many people want to hear a made up message, however nice and inclusive the people teaching it are, I am afraid.

And maybe the growth we have seen in evo circles in the last 50 years is a sign that even the English (including the young English) will come along if there is a clear presentation of the gospel? Maybe....just maybe?

It is a total fallacy that watering down scriptures to be more "inclusive" brings more people in...it has not done so for a century....which is why I see liberals in my synod so irritated by the large nos coming to the evo churches in the group and the Bishop of London issuing a "challenge" for growth to all - given it is clearly possible

Posted by: NP on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 at 3:54pm BST

"It is a total fallacy that watering down scriptures for a century.......which is why I see liberals in my synod so irritated"

I think there's a lot about the EVos that irritates liberals, NP, you must have learned some of those things by now. And who's "watering down" scripture? A desire to remain faithful to the Gospel Tradition is not watering it down, NP, any more than your legalism is.

"even the English (including the young English) will come along if there is a clear presentation of the gospel?"

What planet are you on? First, every Liberal I have ever spoken to has had a very clear understanding of the Gospel. It wasn't your understanding, but it was quite clear. Second, I know no-one who goes to church, and when they describe the Christianity they hate, it bears a striking resemblance to what you preach and how you behave. If you haven't run into this yet, you are either very young or very sheltered. BTW, does NP refer to something in theoretical mathematics?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 at 4:24pm BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.