Friday, 14 November 2008


Tomorrow, there is a meeting, the National Evangelical Anglican Consultation 2008, organised by the Church of England Evangelical Council. There are a number of articles about this already published.

The programme is here.

This week’s Church of England Newspaper has Preventing CEEC from becoming a ‘Rump Parliament’ by Stephen Kuhrt.

John Richardson has responded here to that article.

This week’s Church Times has Is NEAC5 really representative? by Graham Kings, currently subscription-only, but another copy is available here at Fulcrum.

Also, Andrew Goddard wrote Hopes for NEAC 2008: A Personal Reflection.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Friday, 14 November 2008 at 4:05pm GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Church of England

One notes the amount of infighting regarding representation and definitions and the Conservative Evangelical questioning of the commitment of the Open Evangelicals as to with whom they wish to gather. For myself, I pulled myself from commenting, but with my web name quoted once I was sucked back into defending the legitimacy of the liberal view against NP (we should all remember him) and Phil Allcock. NP is posting at Fulcrum in quantity, recognising the divisions but pushing for evangelical unity on his terms. The immediate matter is the apparent unrepresentative nature of the evangelical party body that is meeting.

Posted by: Pluralist on Friday, 14 November 2008 at 4:52pm GMT

"NP is posting at Fulcrum in quantity, recognising the divisions but pushing for evangelical unity on his terms"

And you've not been tempted to search the TA archives for all his confident sneers that evangelical disunity was liberal propaganda that would be revealed as a lie once the ABC had used TWR to deal with TEC? QED.

The interesting thing would be to hear the general response on Fulcrum.

Posted by: Erika Baker on Friday, 14 November 2008 at 8:10pm GMT

Here at the CEEC you have the rump of a Confessing Reformed Anglican church which will be set up within the Church of England and the weak leadership of the Bench of Bishops will do nothing to take it on.

Just as Bishop Wright has done nothing about the Jesmond plant in his diocese.

Or the Bishop of Newcstle has done nothing to assert his authority over Jesmond Parish church...which does not allow him to confirm.

Just ignore it the TEC lesadeship did, and look what has happened there.

Posted by: Robert Ian Williams on Friday, 14 November 2008 at 8:37pm GMT

I will be off on a tangent here but taking this and his other latest post, about the new supernatural series 'Apparitions', that has Martin Shaw playing an avuncular exorcist, and seeing where in the world he lives and breathes, I am guessing that John Richardson does not get it at all. What was interesting about 'Apparitions' was the fact it centered on child abuse - in the week of coverage on the Baby P. case. Richardson is being innocently jocular about the fear of 'higher ups' who are concerned that renewed interest in the supernatural may have a pronounced impact, particularly on 'the vulnerable'. However, it's not the supernatural that holds out the most evil prospects for the vulnerable. Ugley is situated in a very wealthy part of East Anglia, parts of Haringey comprise the most deprived areas of the UK.

On the other hand, Richardson's evident pride about his own victimhood ("And if you don’t share the ‘heat and burden of the day’ — the brickbats in Synod, the scorn of the world, the attitude of the hierarchy towards the ‘awkward squad’") is astounding.

This is not an ad hominem attack on Richardson, and I know that a lot of my own anguish at the death of Baby P. colours all this but all the things here are simply and straightforwardly covered by the Gospel. There's no need to fight for this or that alliance, there's no need to mock the concern about tangible evil, or amusingly debate how or whether demons are cast out, or to doubt the emphasis placed on the healing of the sick and vulnerable:

Matthew 12:22-32

Luke 17

Matthew 19

I sense there is a general backlash against Mammon these days - I pray that it will lead to the way of the Gospel, and not to proponents of the Law.

God forgive me my accusations.

Posted by: orfanum on Saturday, 15 November 2008 at 7:52am GMT


"How do we move on from here?" -
Canon Dr Christina Baxter, Principal of St John's;
the Rt Revd Pete Broadbent, Bishop of Willesdon;
the Revd Mike Ovey, Principal of Oak Hill College, and the Revd Doktor Canon Chris Sugden, Anglican Mainstream set out their perspectives on 'Shaping The Future.' - CEEC Council Meeting -

The venue - All Souls, Langham Place - not too surprising, there. Also present Bishop Nazir-Ali, no suroprise there, either. Oh, and Mr Sugden. Now that will have been be quite a party.

"Where do we go from here?" - Well, there are some suggestions: All Saints, Margaret Street, for a start, for Mass on Sunday - might just be a good idea. Whatever is decided, one supposes that they will forge some sort of link with the Province of Southern Cone, and perhaps its latest recruit, former Bishop Bob Duncan of Southern Cone in the USA and places North.

BUT, how will they view the shenannigans going on in the Sydney Diocese, with women deacons presiding at the Eucharist? Not to mention the
ultra-montane activities of certain dissidents in the town of CANA?

I thoguht GAFCON had already 'shaped the future' for world-wide Anglicans. What sort of shape is CEEC looking to fashion for us all?

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Saturday, 15 November 2008 at 9:57am GMT

"Despite these differences in strategy, I believe the overwhelming majority of evangelicals in the CofE would: recognise as Anglicans in good standing those who have been received in good standing by other provinces of the Communion because they have been unable to remain within or have been removed from office by their former province."

This statement by Andrew Goddard presumes rather too much in its expectation of a united front among Evangelicals on the situation of border-crossings by GAFCON primates into the ecclesial territory of TEC and the A.C.of C.

Many Evangelicals are, in fact, wanting to affirm the moratorium against such inter-provincial acts of usurpation within the Communion, and would not be pleased to give their approval to such actions. To say otherwise is to proclaim their alliance with the GAFCON cabal ruled from Sydney.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Saturday, 15 November 2008 at 10:25am GMT

I feel sorry for Christina Baxter as there are forces brewing there who would like to see her and women ministers erased from the Church of England. You have to admire her , for showing her face.

Posted by: Robert Ian Williams on Monday, 17 November 2008 at 8:19pm GMT

"I feel sorry for Christina Baxter as there are forces brewing there who would like to see her and women ministers erased from the Church of England."

I'm not so much sorry for female clergy in the GAFCON camp as I am confused by them. Can they not see what's coming? And how is it possible to maintain any kind of respect or credibility when your argument essentially is "Well, it was right to overturn 2000 years of Christian Teaching so that I could get ordained, but not possible to apply the exact same process of Scriptural interpretation so that you can get married?"

Posted by: Ford Elms on Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 11:40am GMT


Have you not realised that, in the main, the Dissidents prefer not to argue on the basis of common logic? Theirs is a culture of 'What do we consider to be 'de rigeur' on matters of faith and (especially) morals - first, in the O.T., secondly, in the N.T. and thirdly, in the statements of Archbishops Mzimbi, Akinola and Jensen.

For a female clergy-person to champion the cause of FOCA or GAFCON is not seen to be oxymoronic in the climate of eqivocation common to such purists in the Church. It is a little like closet gay priests or bishops who take the same position.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 9:39pm GMT

"'What do we consider to be 'de rigeur' on matters of faith and (especially) morals"

Of course, and this attitude continues in ever finer and finer points. It is fallen human nature, clearly shown in the multitude of Christian groups and the minor little points they declared each other heretics about. So, once they have managed to form their Church of the pure, where they have purged anyone who is nice to someone who has anything other than heterosexual sex within marriage, and anyone who understands Scriptural authority differently, or who wants to ordain women, or who wants to call God "You", not "Thou", or has a labyrinth in their Church, or whatever it is that they have decided the "others" are going to Hell over, where do you think the energy will go? Not into the service of God, that's for sure, though I'm sure they would consider this "semper purificanda" attitude to be exactly that. So, now it's gays and Librulls. But when they're successfuly purged, it'll be the uppity women. What stands out is that these women seem unable to see something that is so basic a part of our human nature. It makes you wonder, are they all that bright at all, or is this just "simple trust like theirs who heard beside the Syrian Sea"? In which case, they're in for a hard life lesson.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Wednesday, 19 November 2008 at 7:44pm GMT
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.