Friday, 28 November 2008

GAFCON/FCA and the new province

Over at Fulcrum Graham Kings has highlighted a recent comment made here at Thinking Anglicans in response to the article Church Times on NEAC.

See Rallying Point of Jerusalem Declaration, Diocesan Funds and FCA.

Today, the Church Times has an article on the proposed new province, see Province plan to be unveiled by Pat Ashworth.

The site described as “the new Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA) web site set up by Anglican Mainstream South Africa” can be found here.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Friday, 28 November 2008 at 12:07pm GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Anglican Communion | Church of England

I would respectfully suggest the proper terminology would be to only use the term "proposed new Province.." -until any such new Province receives approval. Confusion otherwise enters into the discussion. Otherwise, thanks for hosting one of, if not the only, calm and balanced sites.

Posted by: ettu on Friday, 28 November 2008 at 1:15pm GMT

I agree with you. It's sometimes difficult to create headlines which are short enough...

Posted by: Simon Sarmiento on Friday, 28 November 2008 at 2:37pm GMT

Until it is recognized (ir that happens) as a Province of the Anglican Communion, at present it is best to describe it as a Fellowship. One assumes that word was chosen with care, and in the knowledge that that is how the Anglican Communion describes itself. So, it seems to me, preparations are already afoot, should a "Province" not be recognized, to form a new Communion altogether. And I think perhaps some, even of the most separatist leaning may wish to maintain a foothold in both Communions. Or am I misreading the tea-leaves.

Posted by: Tobias Haller on Friday, 28 November 2008 at 3:15pm GMT

Thanks, Simon. How about the use of inverted commas, which do not add much to headlines? ie New 'Province'.

Posted by: Graham Kings on Friday, 28 November 2008 at 4:25pm GMT

All this should be a surprise to no one, but then again people are so usually charitable.

Posted by: Pluralist on Friday, 28 November 2008 at 4:37pm GMT

Does this end the little credibility that Ruth Gledhill had left as a serious journalist?

Posted by: poppy tupper on Friday, 28 November 2008 at 5:36pm GMT

Still no list on the FCA of signatories to the Declaration. Web site hosted in South it CPSA or CESA?

Posted by: Robert Ian williams on Friday, 28 November 2008 at 10:08pm GMT

'If the Primates agree on action against the Southern Cone, conservatives are saying, then full-blown schism is inevitable. A conservative source says: ‘Martyn Minns, David Anderson, Bob Duncan and Greg Venables are not separating from the Anglican Communion. They have never said they are and are doing all they can to remain with the Anglican Communion despite all that TEC are doing which is unchecked by the Anglican Communion leadership.’ - Ruth Gledhill's blog - The Times.

"Conservatives are saying.." - I guess Gledhill herself, being one of those 'conservatives', has to keep her sources close to the chest. However,
what she says here on her blog is somewhat contradictory to say the least, double-speak? In one breath, she speaks of 'full blown schism' being inevitable and in the next, that the re-Asserters are not leaving the Anglican Communion.

How does she manage to contend, then, that they will be forming another 'Anglican Communion - unless that means they are bypassing traditional Anglicanism - under the leadership of Canterbury, and forming a sodality which sets itself up as a new 'Anglican Communion' under false colours?

I don't know whether there is such a thing as a Patents Committee in the world of Church, but if not, the Joint Standing Committee, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates, would surely have to dissociate ther real Anglican Communion form the activities of the Rebel Group.

This new province can be nothing more than an association of like-minded fundamentalists who have concocted a new basis of ecclesiology and puritanical theology who have a need to distance themselves from the historical Anglican ethos of Scripture, Tradition and Reason. How, then can they calim to be 'Anglican' under any banner?

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Saturday, 29 November 2008 at 4:33am 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.