Saturday, 13 October 2007

CEEC on the Americans

Updated
See here.

The Church of England Evangelical Council has published a Statement on The Episcopal Church’s Response to the Primates and the Lambeth Conference.

You can read that here.

To understand who the members of the CEEC are, read this page. To understand how members get to become members, see over here.

The Daily Telegraph has reported this in C of E faces boycott over gay priests row by Jonathan Petre.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Saturday, 13 October 2007 at 8:34am BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Church of England
Comments

"The Church of England Evangelical Council" - it sounds so impressive. It sounds like it is a respectable and official Church of England agency. But, of course, it's not. It's just another pressure group, like Affirming Catholicism or The Inclusive Church, but, unlike other groups, with an obvious willingness to pretend to be something it is not.

It should have a warning on all its products - CAUTION, THIS ORGANISATION CONTAINS PHILIP GIDDINGS.

Posted by: MadPriest on Saturday, 13 October 2007 at 9:58am BST

madpriest - lots of organisations give themselves presumptuous names eg "THE Episcopal Church".....

Dr Giddings is a charming man - you met him?

Posted by: NP on Saturday, 13 October 2007 at 3:20pm BST

Madpriest observed>
CAUTION, THIS ORGANISATION CONTAINS PHILIP GIDDINGS

PG once interviewed me for a chaplaincy. Not surprising I didn't get it, even taking into account my ineptitude!!!

Posted by: Mynsterpreost (=David Rowett) on Saturday, 13 October 2007 at 3:53pm BST

Don't be fooled into thinking this bunch speak for all or even most evangelicals. CEEc was taken over by Reform years ago because open evangelicals did not spot the entryism going on.

CEEC is chaired by Richard Turnbull, the well known personnel and management guru, and includes Wally Benn and Philip Giddings.

Posted by: Frozenchristian on Saturday, 13 October 2007 at 4:52pm BST

Do not the survey results from the Barna youth poll recently published clearly report that the youth are accurately catching on to just these sorts of self-tagged orthodoxists, aka evangelical conservative leaders/believers?

Is it time for the royals and Parliament to step in, supporting Rowan Williams in keeping CoE together without making special, doctrinally distorted and tinted con-evo (or New Puritan?) windows into human souls?

Re Dr. Giddings and others. I care little how nice they are personally. I do hope they are as nice as they can or may be. That is off the larger moral point, which involves power and their attempted uses of power to unfairly bear false witness against me and otherwise negatively target me as a queer person in particular. If they preach that I must be denied citizen resources and citizen opportunities - that I would otherwise automatically expect as a straight person - then we will strongly disagree. That doesn't mean I want to kick them off the planet, just that I don't want them running my social life or my church life or - goodness sakes - my couple/family life.

Their antigay message is never going to stick among educated and wise citizens in the modern worlds of democratic national citizenship; but their partisan split message is taking root like all holier than thou church life division takes root, and catches fire until it burns itself out, having burned up all the green field's available live growth. Fresh fodder, then, always needed to feed upon as this iteration of realignment campaigning unfolds. Today queer folks, tomorrow? England?

Posted by: drdanfee on Saturday, 13 October 2007 at 5:34pm BST

David

Sometimes the biggest compliment someone can give you is to reject you and refuse to associate with you.

I often go "Phew! I won't have to deal with that one!" A bit like when the cantakerous aunt refuses to come to the wedding as she doesn't approve of some of the guests.

Jesus wedding parable also comes to mind. The rich and powerful refused to come so the halls were filled with the poor from the streets :-)

Posted by: Cheryl Va. Clough on Saturday, 13 October 2007 at 11:51pm BST

Do we see here the nucleus of a future " Confessing Evangelical Anglican free province " which will emerge in the wake of women bishops, and use homosexuality controversy as its catalyst to win over more moderate evangelicals?

Are Forward in faith keeping silent on the issue so they will be rewarded by a free diocese?

Posted by: Robert Ian Williams on Sunday, 14 October 2007 at 7:32am BST

I find the Episcopal Church of USA a very honest statement of what it claims to be: I do find The Church of England to be a much more presumptuous title. As names for a province of the Anglican Church I much prefer the quote from the creed used in various provinces in Asia eg Nippon Sei Ko Kai.

Posted by: John Berg on Sunday, 14 October 2007 at 7:20pm BST

Goodness, this reads like a roll call of consevos: +Wallace Benn, Turnbull/Vibert of Wycliffe Hall fame, David Banting, Philip Giddings, Chris Sugden, Paul Perkin, Angus MacLeay... I note that Bishop Pete Broadbent, who often helpfully posts on TA, is on the council, though it looks as if his measured standpoint is in a distinct minority.

'We support the intentions of the Common Cause Council and those bishops invited to give pastoral care for congregations in the United States.'

Support for meddling intervention in foreign provinces. I wonder how long before similar principles are applied here?

'We support those Bishops who have said that under the present arrangements they cannot attend the Lambeth Conference.'

Presumably this message is addressed to the Church of England. Who else apart from +Rochester has said that they are unlikely to attend?

Posted by: Matthew B on Sunday, 14 October 2007 at 11:20pm BST

"a charming man"

Read Genesis. Not only men can be charming. "Beguiled" means much the same as "charmed", NP. Frankly, when I stand before the Throne, I don't want to have to say something like "The Conservative Evangelical beguiled me, and I did eat."

Posted by: Ford Elms on Monday, 15 October 2007 at 2:08pm BST

Dear Ford.... I was just trying to prevent any "reviling" of PG - I know you hate to see that (unless it is focussed on Akinola or Jensen or even the insignificant NP?)

Robert - nice to see the old, hoped-for "open" vs "conservative" evo split mentioned again...Pluralist used to very keen on this.

I thought Fulcrum's responses to TEC HOB NO statements had shown everyone that the "open" evos were not fooled by doublespeak...... not really worth hoping to split Reform and the so-called "open" evos as the issue always comes down to the authority of scripture and, as a result, there ain't much difference between the two on the presenting issues in the AC.

Posted by: NP on Monday, 15 October 2007 at 5:39pm BST

'not really worth hoping to split Reform and the so-called "open" evos'

Too late. We've seen at Wycliffe where the neo-Puritan cultural and theological maxims of Reform are leading - the ruthless elimination of dissent. The chief difference in between the evangelical groups lies in they way they handle disagreement: you seem to have forgotten why Fulcrum and similar organisations were founded...

Drdanfree makes the point nicely. We should recall where Puritan power play led in the Civil War. When the Puritan Party got the upper hand in England, they demonstrated their love for the authority of Scripture by executing clergy and statesmen, dissolving the Church, boring John Naylor's tongue through with a red-hot iron for daring to be a Quaker; abolishing the great festivals of the Church calendar - Christmas, Easter, and the like; making Sunday recreation penal, and generally promoting that type of religion which leads a revolted country into something not very far from atheism. The Barna youth poll should be instructive in this context.

If they cannot bear the catholic and latitudinarian traditions of the C of E, the real position of integrity would be to leave.

Posted by: Matthew B on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 at 2:37am BST

Matthew B - have I missed some mythical Reform report which shows they plan to execute their opponents and seize power in England???

All that Reform and Fulcrum both want (that is conservatives and open evos) is for vicars and bishops to stick to the scriptures....

If CofE leaders cannot stick to the scriptures or dispute their meaning, they should at least stick to the agreed positions of the CofE....that would show some integrity, would it not?

Posted by: NP on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 at 11:48am BST

Matthew B --

Quite -- that has been the pattern so far -- they always leave when they can't achieve power -- this time they are hoping to win (but of course they will self destruct as the insufficiently pure must be expelled, etc., etc.).

Posted by: Prior Aelred on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 at 2:43pm BST

NP - don't you remember that meeting after the Blackpool evangelical conference when Reform said that next time no open evangelicals should be allowed and that they should be 'blown out of the water'?

Posted by: Frozenchristian on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 at 10:01pm BST

Frozenchristian - no, I do not remember what you say....pls provide a link to show the quote behind your recollection

Posted by: NP on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 at 9:42am BST

Try this link:
http://tinyurl.com/ynmgor

Posted by: Simon Sarmiento on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 at 1:26pm BST

Thanks for the link, Simon.....it shows that Frozen's quotation is not quite accurate, does it not?

Your link says somebody said the idea that evangelicalism consists of 3 strands (open, charismatic and mainstream) should be blown out of the water.....Frozen alleged that it was said that "they (open evos) should be 'blown out of the water'" Slight difference in linkng the quote with the people rather than what it was actually about.

Anyway - are evos split (as some hope)?
-I see Fulcrum & Reform agree on whether VGR is qualified to be a bishop (accoring to the bible, not TEC polity).
--I also see Fulcrum, Reform, AM, the ACI and CEEC agree on TEC HOB NO statement being less than adequate..... "open" and "conservative" do not agree on everything but they are both firmly working hard to stay faithful to scriptures and both find themselves opposing innovations "incompatible with scripture".
Don't think "open" and conservative" evos have been successfully split....even if many hoped that could be pulled off. +Durham signing the recent ACI statement on TEC HOB NO statement showed there is more unity amongst evos than some might hope....as I have said before, if Fulcum are the "open" evos, maybe I should be labelled "open" too.

I am "conservative" (obviously) but I value "open" evos on Fulcrum massively and would happily sit under the leadership of +Durham, Dr Goddard, Bishop Broadbent et al.......and I am very grateful to them as the most powerful published academic work in current AC debates has come from so-called 'open" evos on the Fulcrum site. Thank God for their hard work and faithfulness.

Posted by: NP on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 at 2:24pm BST

"Don't think "open" and conservative" evos have been successfully split....even if many hoped that could be pulled off"

The split will happen when Reform walks out of the Church of England. The "battle" isn't open vs. conservative, or even catholic vs. evangelical - it is centre vs. extreme and discussion vs. dogma. Many open evangelicals will stay within the CofE because talking is better than walking.

Posted by: Stephen Roberts on Friday, 19 October 2007 at 3:48pm 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.