one of those

i've been engaging in an interesting discussion with @vickybeeching on twitter, which made me think again about what we do with the seemingly unending plethora of labels we have for people of the christian faith. it began because vicky asked the question what an 'open evangelical' was - she had never heard the term before. @peterspurs soon added his blog to the mix, and i pitched in with some of my ideas of what it is to be an open evo, along with pointing people to this fulcrum article, which has long been around and seen as a way of articulating particularly the distinctivness that there is between hues of evangelicalism.

it seemed amazing to me that the open evo term was not in common usage by now - i've been using it for the last five years - but actually when i think about it, i'm not that suprised. i remember being in a DEF (diocesan evangelical fellowship - frankly *yawn* but anyway....) and listening to the 'Charismatic' or 'New Wine' guy, chatting with the 'Conservative' or Reform man and whilst they were happy with acknowledging each other's label as part of the evangelical spectrum, when it came to including open evangelicals in the meeting they were arranging, they turned to another guy (yes they were all men *sigh*) and said 'well you're the other one aren't you?', and after a bit of giggling, we established that the 'other one' was 'open'.

it was a little bit like being part of 'the organisation that must not be named' to be honest. for surely the organisation most linked with open evangelicalism must be Fulcrum. however, i do find that there is still a game afoot to paint us off as wishy washy liberals. (which just won't do boys, but that's for another blogpost)

but back to labels....

in our conversation on twitter, it wasn't long before i realised, not only that 'open evangelical' was not in as much common usage as i'd assumed, but that pretty soon people begin to say 'what about just being a christian.'

and i agree with them. but....

a bit of my own story impacts on this for me. because as much as i want to say 'ditch the labels', i just don't feel that's either realistic or kind in the christian world that we are in. there are so many labels, and sometimes it just, frankly, sucks, but it's the pool we swim in. i became a christian in the traditional evangelical 'pray the prayer' kind of way when i was 14, and in the traditional catholic 'baptised' kind of way when i was 6 months - so take your pick. but the point is that i found i was in a world where i was told i was just 'a christian'. denominations were mere matters of fact, but did not make a difference, because we were all 'just christians'. in terms of labels there were 'christians' and there were other people called 'liberals' (and they weren't really christians, but, for some reason, still went to church every sunday - i didn't get it, because i can tell you that i wouldn't have been going to church unless i was a christian....)

so these labels worked for a while. and then i met a liberal. she was a teenager who became part of our youth group, because we had more teenagers at our church. she loved Jesus. oh crap. i found i needed a label switch.

and then i began to realise that i was something called an 'evangelical'. ok. but then i met evangelicals who seemed to think i was a liberal! more label switching needed (although it's crap not getting to define your own label...) they studied books about what it meant to be 'evangelical' rather than christian and although i didn't want to be part of this exclusion agenda, in the end i found that i needed my own label. a place to belong. this process was a lot longer than this you understand, and i've written about it a number of years ago on this blog (part i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi - editors note - because of the new look on the blog these links don't seem to work, if you'd like to read this story then look at my archive, september 2007 and look for 'tales from the outside' series starting with the 'death of a pastor' post), although there has been much travelling in between then and now, i still am formed by those experiences.

on finding myself pushed outside the evangelical label by others, and in some ways, forced to question whether i was a christian at all, i heard the term 'open evangelical'. so i did what all modern women do when faced with a term they don't understand - i googled it.

at first i found myself linked to an article which denounced open evangelicals as liberal. 'well', i thought, 'i may be on the right track'. from this article i was pointed to fulcrum. and whilst i have often still wrestled with my evangelical label, (i have found that the 'open' appellation is probably the only thing that keeps me within the evangelical tradition) i am now at the point where i am pretty clear that because i am an evangelical, then i get to be part of defining what that means.

my gratefulness at finding fulcrum and eventually becoming the editor of the site cannot be overstated, because the last thing that i wanted was to become a rather bitter ex-evangelical. my friends on the fulcrum team helped to prevent that, although it was sometimes a close call, particularly over the last two years at ridley, where i became thoroughly sick of the label. nevertheless i did retain it, at least for myself. (although some will notice that i ditched it as the name of this blog, moving from radical evangelical to radical disciple - and i'm glad i did for reasons i'm about to explain)

the thing with labels, with being 'one of those', is that we can't escape them. yes, of course i want to shout from the rooftops that i'm 'just a christian!'. i'm generation x, we're not very good with being boxed in (that's why i'm a radical disciple). but i also know what it's like to be labelled from the outside. unaware of the reasons why people are responding to you the way they are. the labels are there, so find out about them, and choose - it may be that you choose not to. fair enough, but that's still a choice.

as an anglican, i don't see these labels as a bad thing - they represent the glorious diversity of the creative God. at their best, they give us a picture of God that we wouldn't be able to see unless we were sat at the feet of Jesus together with others who are different from us, which is what i see the anglican communion to be about. open evangelicals as part of their DNA are open to the other traditions within anglicanism and the christian faith as a whole, seeing what is to be affirmed and what might even be practiced faithfully within the evangelical tradition. sometimes i might look very like a modern catholic - i'm fine with that. but i'm still an evangelical. i'm a sacramental christian. but i'm still an evangelical. i'm an ordained woman. but i'm still an evangelical. i'm politically a leftie. but i'm still an evangelical. i'm ********* when it comes to sexuality. but i'm still an evangelical.

for those who don't like that....i'm still an evangelical.

collecting stories

WATCH is collecting the stories of women in leadership, asking them to talk about the way that they lead, what that looks like to them.

there will be new stories from now until next july, charting the course to that moment in the history of the church of england and its story with women bishops.

here is the link to my own contribution, please take a look, and also at the stories of other women in leadership as they work to be obedient to their calling, serve the people of God and remain faithful even in the face of prejudice, ambivalence and, sometimes, just plain rudeness.........

'have you understood all this?'

i've just published an article on fulcrum, go have a look.........

meet the fca: part II

‘satan is alive and well and resides in church house’ according to +broadhurst

together with general synod, which apparently has a huge dose of satan too, as it has failed on the issues of marriage discipline, liturgical language (quoting also ‘creator redeemer sustainer’ language), language in worship songs.

he then lambasts Lambeth 1998, calling it a bureaucracy seeking to suppress the gospel and commenting that people are believing the ‘system’ and not in the gospel. he calls the new province (ACNA) ‘authentically anglican’.

at this point i admit to a smile being raised as i watched paul perkin cross the platform and encourage +broadhurst off the stage. certainly quite revealing.

__________________________________________

+duncan also comments on the seeming incongruity of these two traditions working together. how has it happened? because God changed hearts and they agreed to bless each other. they had a common focus: mission, and he comments that when we focus on each other and the party, this is where the temptation is to pick each other apart.

he says that he is asked ‘are the new churches growing?’. to which he answers that there has been terrible splitting and that people have their difficulties in separating from their buildings and the places and things that they have worshipped with, but that when they see those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, that they are encouraged that God is faithful.

he asks ‘what are the qualities of a leader?’. he says that leaders must stop worrying about who gets the credit, and that leadership is about serving. that leaders must speak the truth in love and that we must face the things that would divide us.

(you will begin to notice that there is a huge weighting difference between the time allowed to anglo-catholics compared with evangelical voices, with the evangelical voices more prominent)

_________________________________________

after a short video interview with j i packer, done by richard bewes, +jensen approaches the platform.

he speaks of ‘ominous and foreboding words’ that have been ‘used against’ the FCA. but that this shouldn’t be the case because all FCA wish to do is to keep anglicanism united, to keep orthodox Anglicans within the fold. he asks ‘will you join us?’.

he tells us that we are fighting an ideological war, that the fate of culture and the eternal fate of souls is at stake and that unless we pass the test in the UK then the ‘culture will swallow you alive’. it is a question of the structural unity of the institutional church over the gospel and that whilst in the UK we have the disposition not to ‘panic’ (‘don’t panic mr mainwaring), that this is not a time for drift, that there is little time left and if you don’t do something then the younger generations will be lost. some treat the institutional church as the unassailable temple of the LORD. listening as the false prophets say ‘peace peace’, +jensen says ‘there is no peace’.

the biggest clap of the morning goes to his next statement which is about the place in the church for those whose integrity doesn’t allow them to affirm women bishops. this tells me the constituency i am amongst, even if FCA claims that this is a second order issue, for everyone on the platform and the majority of those there, this is the issue at hand. this is the thread that appears to run through, joining them together. it may run under the surface, but it is there.

he finishes by saying that the conflict is over jesus’ authority, over theological education, over hermeneutics and that ‘they’ (liberals) are ahead of the game. he honours those who remain inside and who are going with the covenant, but he also honours greg venables and the jerusalem declaration is a good document that affirms the biblical gospel, that it is a holy spirit gospel, and it affirms the uniqueness of christ.

________________________________________________

so we turn to the afternoon now, where we are told that we are going to explore the shape of regional expressions of FCA.

vaughan roberts, st ebbe’s, oxford, introduces his ‘nightmare’ and his ‘dream’. his nightmare is that there will be a gradual drift towards apostasy, that there will be a time when the orthodox will not be ordained. that this will come because of people’s naivety, good people will fail to notice the ‘salami tactics’, where slice by slice we find ourselves unorthodox. or that through compromise, where good people don’t want to engage with the issues. or through divisions amongst the tribes. his nightmare is that this will end in sectarianism, where we have such things as ‘church of england (reform)’ or ‘church of england (FIF), or ‘church of england (new wine)

his dream is that FCA becomes a strong united renewal movement of orthodox anglicans. people committed to the truth and that it is not a pragmatic alliance of those united in what they are against. that this would be a group who are committed to breadth: culturally, racially, liturgically, and committed to grace and prayer. a group who would continue to exist within the structures if possible, but if necessary, on the edge.

_____________________________________________

i have to apologise that I didn’t take any notes of vinay samuel’s talk on the anglican communion, catholic and local – by this time my brain needed a slight breather!

_____________________________________________

we had a brief unpacking of fellowship from philippians, summarised in the five following signs:

1. common partaking or experience of the grace of God.
2. concern to defend and proclaim the gospel (accused some of being ‘sniffy and iffy’ at FCA even though this is all they want to do)
3. pray for and covet prayer from brothers and sisters
4. stand firm – military metaphor of ‘locking shields’
5. giving and receiving finances

fellowship must contain all five

___________________________________________

the main part of the afternoon was taken up by focusing on FCA as a mission movement and this too was split into five sections:

1. mission: we must go, sometimes to places we are not allowed to go
2. ministry: we will appoint, within the structures, sometimes outside
3. stewardship: we will fund, some things we cannot fund
4. fellowship: we will associate, but sometimes we cannot associate
5. oversight: seek oversight within the structures, and sometimes outside

my subtitles are a paraphrase as i didn’t copy them exactly.

the format of this part of the afternoon was to use videos of some with a positive spin on, for example, church plants, and some who had been ‘forced’ to go against the bishop and plant anyway, where they deemed their bishop to be working against the gospel by stopping them plant. then two people were invited onto the platform to be interviewed about their experience – overwhelmingly these people were negative. this format was followed for all five sections and became more and more wearing as the afternoon went on.

the people involved in the videos and interviews were overwhelmingly if not 100% against the ordination of women. when the section on ministry followed those being trained outside cofe structures, these training courses were either cornhill or training courses like the one currently running at st ebbe’s oxford – neither of which could be said to encourage women in an ordained calling to priesthood. one vicar complained when a member of his congregation failed to get through his BAP and proceeded to denounce the ‘hoops’ that he had been made to jump through by his DDO, which (oh horror) included having to work in a church with a woman incumbent – he actually admitted that she had given his candidate a ‘glowing report’, so i’m not sure the worth of mentioning it, apart from putting the fear on others who would find this a similarly distasteful exercise.

richard coekin of the co-mission effort made a plea for the FCA bishops to give him oversight as the archbishop of canterbury wouldn’t provide him with appropriate support.

in effect, in all these areas the message seemed to be – support us, or don’t support us, we’ll do exactly what we want anyway.

_______________________________________

i stayed for the communion afterwards, i wanted to be clear that fundamental disagreement had no effect on the grace of God to me in the sacrament. but be of no doubt that to stay came at a cost.

pray for us

so this week is definitely 'church politics' week in my diary.

tomorrow i go to the launch of the 'fellowship of confessing anglicans' in the uk, and then on wednesday and thursday i travel to durham for our ref group meeting for fulcrum.

it's been an interesting time of it - we (fulcrum) seem to have been getting a bit of flack for trying to tackle some of the sticky questions that surround the fcauk, but i won't say too much about that because we've already replied.

but i would certainly appreciate your prayers as i go into this week - whatever you might think of politics in the church - for wisdom, discernment, patience, courage, love.

seeing

so today i was at the fulcrum conference. the idea for this day formed really out of our responses to the neac last november. it's no secret that that particular meeting did not go well. the divisions that define us in really unhelpful ways were crystal clear there. excruciatingly so.

so today was about saying 'no' to that. saying 'no' to the division that tears us apart, and 'yes' to facing each other.

so i have to tell you about hugh palmer. hugh is on the council of reform. he's the rector of all souls', langham place. if you're into 'tick box' christianity, then he ticks every box of the conservative evangelical and pushes all the buttons in me that most would do well not to push.

and today i saw him. really saw him, i mean, and he blessed my heart.

it's easy not to see those we disagree with, especially if we've never met them. if we know that they belong to this or that group. we assign mental labels, or raise shields that stop us from getting hurt, but also stop us from being able to see past them, to see that who we are hiding from isn't who we thought after all.

we tried not to paper over the cracks, you know. there's no point in saying the divisions are not really all that bad. to not acknowledge the very real pain that has been, that there still is. but we did begin a conversation.

i learnt again today that i still have hope and that grace abounds.

go graham, go graham, go graham

the anglican church has some really good bishops (for all the grumbling) - and i'm absolutely brimming with joy that they have appointed another one; go graham, go graham, go graham.

learning how to be friends

i've mentioned before that i have a good friend in stephen khurt who i met through being involved with fulcrum - he's quite good at listening to me when i'm having a rant and generally is a cheeky bugger and a right laugh, all things i like in my friends.

but yesterday something struck me as we were talking on the phone about the vagaries of life and in particular the life of the female ordinand. he's not just a good friend, he's good at being a friend.

over on fulcrum we're discussing what it means to really look at structures that militate against women flourishing in their training and lives as priests, hopefully there will be some seeds sown for future health in this area from these discussions. but ultimately, it's about learning to be friends with each other - something that is easier for some than others, and perhaps there is some mileage in those who are not so good at it learning from those who are.

'women will change the church forever'

so says my lovely friend stephen in this article

stephen is one of the most prominent voices that i've come across in his advocacy of women in ministry - he puts his money where his mouth is in a way that i am constantly blessed by his consistency in this arena, he just doesn't let up, or let things slide, when even i might run out of energy.

so, thanks stephen, you're a star :-)

neac, bad behaviour and contrary to popular opinion, some united evangelicals

so neac was quite interesting

fulcrum has a forum thread going on, on which i've said most of what i really want to say, so i'll copy some of my thoughts from there and perhaps say more over the next day or so when other accounts start appearing..........

you need to know that the 'motion' mentioned was one that was sprung on us at the beginning of the meeting with no forewarning in publicity and seemed a deliberate attempt to steamroller us all into accepting GAFCON, and the Jerusalem Declaration that came out of it, uncritically. the exact wording can be found on fulcrum (see graham kings comment, 16th november, 7.33pm). it should also be mentioned that the motion came with a 'no ammendments will be permitted' clause.

________________________________________

have to say that my own personal sense from the meeting was actually quite positive. of course there was some phenomenally bad behaviour in the sudden appearance of a motion to vote on which carried a 'no ammendments will be permitted' clause (what kind of 'consultation' is this? I asked myself), but Keith Sinclair's balanced description of his experience at both Lambeth and GAFCON, Christina Baxter's contribution (which by far got the loudest longest clap of the day) and the Pete Broadbent's unique 'unboxed' (is that a word? you know what I mean, Pete will resolutely not be labelled and i love that) opinion, were utter gems.

one thing that hasn't been mentioned so far is the particularly difficult behaviour of the chair of CEEC, Richard Turnbull, I hesitate to mention it because, knowing that quite a few people will wish for it to 'disappear', I'm sure I will be sideswiped for mentioning it. however, it deserves a mention if only because most people would not have believed it unless they were there. it became clear that the majority of those present did not want the 'motion' to be put, and Philip Lovegrove with one of the best lines ever - 'Richard, from an elder brother, DO AS YOU ARE TOLD' - proposed a procedural motion for the previous controversial 'motion' to be 'not put' (I know it all seems complicated, but it had been made deliberately so - what we really wanted to say was, 'stop bullying us, we don't want to vote on this!', but had to do it as a constitutional body, so 'motions' were the order of the day). anyway, once this was proposed, Richard Turnbull was invited to speak to the motion, he had the opportunity, there and then to withdraw it, in fact he was urged to by many 'elder brothers', but instead chose to behave in such a way that we were left feeling emotionally blackmailed, bullied and condemned.

needless to say when the motion to 'not vote' was given, it won. in response to this Richard Turnbull announced that he was taking it to CEEC to vote anyway!

but as i said my general feeling was very positive, I was heartened by the fact that the majority of those present, albeit a small majority, voted against putting a motion that I believe would both divide evangelicals and which would also cut evangelicals off from our wider CofE brothers and sisters. The Jerusalem Declaration comes with the context in which it was wrought and whilst I wish to stand with those who are in anguish in the AC, the reality is that the political agenda which comes with the JD from the CofE is one which sees Anglican Evangelicals as the 'only true anglicans' (Richard Turnbull) and which defines Evangelical with a very narrow limit.

I want to be part of an Evangelical fellowship which will be happy with its distinctives and value that which we can gain from being among those who are 'not like us'. I believe that signing up to the JD in the context of the CofE would be to affirm those things which we as distinctly open evangelicals cannot - opposition of WO, crossing parish boundaries with very little cause, to name only two - not because it explicitly states such (although para 11 and 13 come close), but because based on past behaviour this is what it will be taken to mean.

perhaps I am naive but it seemed to me that of those that met, people generally wanted to behave well towards each other, recognising difference, that they did not think that agenda should override strategy, that they did not wish to be split down the middle, but rather be kept together as a body within the whole.

these are very good things.

NEAC 2008

i'm going along to all souls on saturday to join in the consultation that is being offered to all those of evangelical persuasion.

there's stuff on fulcrum

there's stuff on ugleyvicar

personally i am going because if CEEC is going to make pronouncements on behalf of evangelicals then i'd kinda like to be involved in the conversation. however if it continues to be the 'rump parliament' that stephen worries it might become, then i suspect it will simply become more of a 'joke' than anything else - a bit like the 'covenant for the CofE' that was produced a few years ago and then died a death because it blatantly didn't represent those whom it claimed to.

besides, when ugleyvicar asks me the question 'Have they [open evos] understood Evangelicalism as (to paraphrase Gavin Reed from memory) the 'best expression' of Christianity available to us (certainly us within the Church of England)? And have they therefore been willing to stand up and say that if Evangelicalism is that 'best expression', then other, non-Evangelical expressions of Christian faith are not as good?'

i answer erm no i'm not willing to do that john. my evangelicalism is who i am, i was brought up an evangelical and cherish the good things it has done for my faith and spirituality, is it better than our mission-minded anglo-catholic church down the road, nope.

people are drawing cartoons of me now......

thanks adrian!

adrian has written a riposte to my mission-shaped church article on fulcrum - he is also a cartoonist, in fact i think that a few other fulcrum team have been at the end of his brush, fab.

of course i disagree with him in his discussion about the place of the trinity in the mission dialogue, but to be honest, i don't think this is anything remarkable, adrian being liberal in his theology and me being, well not.

the christian tradition understands God as revealing something of himself to us and so what we say about him as trinity is not simply guesswork, nor just our own projections from what we see of God as human beings, but rather is understood to have been graciously revealed to us by the God who chooses to move towards the other for the flourishing of that other; mission.

of course we do view God from our own perspective, that is true, and from this perspective we try to use language which gives some explanation to what it is that we see. but mostly we have to admit that our language is a ragged equation with the reality we are trying to describe - even augustine struggled with the 'persons' analogy, and in the end says something like 'well we had to use some word, so persons had to do - better that than use nothing'.

but that is not the same as saying that we are only doing that. we believe that God reveals himself as One who is for the world, for his creation, active and present within it, holding it together, and who ultimately reveals himself in the person of Christ. of course, as adrian says, the trinity also tells us something of what it means to be defined by relationship, but this is not 'yet another metaphor' attached to the trinity; it is better to say that we can say that 'God is mission' rather than 'God does mission' because the ontological place of mission in the trinity is an expression of the ontological principle of relationship.

but anyway, enough high falutin' talk, i'm enjoying my cartoon adrian :-)

turn or burn

we have couple of bishops who agreed to be 'lambeth bloggers' for fulcrum, which is fab and means that we can have their perspective on lambeth and not just ruth's and jonathan's.

so nick baines (bish of croydon) and mike hill (bish of bristol) have been giving us their thoughts on the story so far.

and I have been struck by something that nick wrote in his recent post, it's a paraphrase of something rowan said in one of his addresses:

people change/repent when they see the Kingdom of God - not when they are shouted at to repent

it seems that the in-breaking, growing, kingdom of God is loud enough.

it may just be that we have been given rowan williams 'for such a time as this'

craig uffman is co-founder of the covenant site and on the fulcrum leadership team and he has written a very insightful piece about the place of ++rowan in our current 'embarrassing moment'. I think it is fantastic, so I copy it in full here

___________________________________________________________

Much has been said from all bearings about Rowan Williams, laying blame at his feet for our humiliation as a particular part of the people of God at this particular time. “If only he would have _____…..”

Perhaps the GAFCON movement is indeed the working of the Spirit the way its leaders claim in their declaration. Many voices have weighed in on that question and it is not my purpose to consider that question now.

There are the those who have declared Rowan Williams irrelevant, in words remarkably similar to the refrains that have ever mocked authority in the euphoric moments at the barricades of history. My concern here is to observe that his detractors on all bearings continue to underestimate and misunderstand Rowan.

A key to understanding Rowan is his understanding of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah, and the gospel entrusted to us: God has acted toward humankind and God’s Word to humankind is that God chooses from eternity to be in relation to us in spite of our rejection of grace. In other words, God is the One whose relation to us is utterly undetermined by our own actions: God chooses to love so that we might be.

Rowan’s understanding of Christian ethics is derived from this. In response to that Word, following Christ means being that presence to others whose relation to them is utterly undetermined by them so that they might be, and in being, become part of God’s way of blessing humankind richly.

Therefore one cannot expect Rowan to allow his relation to others to be determined by their actions, for he has resolved in advance to remain in a relation of Christ-centered fellowship to them no matter how much their actions testify to the Fall rather than to Grace. And when a brother sins, he goes to Matt 18:15-18 in order to help them see what Christian fellowship demands, but with the understanding that we are called always to provide sanctuary even for the brother who rejects our fellowship through his volition as reflected in his refusal to repent.

The notion that Rowan will choose to turn his back on either TEC or GAFCON does not take account of Rowan’s theology of what it means to be a resurrection community. He acts consistently, I think, according to that theology. It is maddening to those of us who want things resolved in a timely manner, or in line with a particular result (cast out the sinners, now! said the crowd in a frenzy). For these calls for a primatial separation of the sheep from the goats is exactly that: our own prideful reversion to the ways of the world.

I quote below from his Christ on Trial:How the Gospel Unsettles Our Judgement (p. 9):

Mark’s trial narrative passes sentence on our understanding of power and significance. Without this strange moment at the heart of the trial, we might be left with a false clarity about God and how God is recognized in Jesus: God becomes the illustration of what is highest or strongest for us. This applies not only to the crude identification of God with success or domination, and the resulting belief that failure in the world’s terms somehow indicates God’s absence; it applies also to the identification of God with what seems to us wisest or holiest, most spiritually impressive….It may be that we hear God most clearly in such moments of obstinate detachment from results and successes. People at times make gestures and stands, not for the sake of dramatizing their beliefs or for the sake of any result that might be guaranteed, but because there is simply nothing else that can be done with honesty.

Rowan regularly writes of “the ‘obstinate uselessness’ of witness to God’s truth.” Later in this chapter:

How very tempting…to turn our emotional energy and imagination towards a ‘better’ Church, away from the embarrassing present moment. Nonetheless, it is here, in Jesus crucified and in the struggling and failing community, that the coming of the Human One in glory is made visible to the world.

I am deeply thankful that the Lord has given us Rowan as Cantaur at this time. What extraordinary moral courage it must take for him to resist the demands of those who would have us turn away from our embarrassing moment and place our trust in the power of a confessional plumbline. My prayers are with and for him.

oh that's alright then

ugleyvicar is reporting on the meeting today at all souls where all 'true' anglicans have been invited to discuss GAFCON (fulcrum team didn't manage to get tickets...)

here is a quote from Greg Venables' talk (I assume some paraphrase from uv)

GAFCON is not a breaking away from the Communion — we are the Anglican Communion

you can see the full notes here for context

more on gafcon

I copy in full below Rowan Williams' response to the jerusalem declaration - he continues to astound me with his patience and love.....
__________________________________________________________

Archbishop responds to GAFCON statement

Monday 30 June 2008

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has responded to the final declaration of the Global Anglican Future Conference with the following statement:

The Final Statement from the GAFCON meeting in Jordan and Jerusalem contains much that is positive and encouraging about the priorities of those who met for prayer and pilgrimage in the last week. The 'tenets of orthodoxy' spelled out in the document will be acceptable to and shared by the vast majority of Anglicans in every province, even if there may be differences of emphasis and perspective on some issues. I agree that the Communion needs to be united in its commitments on these matters, and I have no doubt that the Lambeth Conference will wish to affirm all these positive aspects of GAFCON's deliberations. Despite the claims of some, the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion.

However, GAFCON's proposals for the way ahead are problematic in all sorts of ways, and I urge those who have outlined these to think very carefully about the risks entailed.

A 'Primates' Council' which consists only of a self-selected group from among the Primates of the Communion will not pass the test of legitimacy for all in the Communion. And any claim to be free to operate across provincial boundaries is fraught with difficulties, both theological and practical – theological because of our historic commitments to mutual recognition of ministries in the Communion, practical because of the obvious strain of responsibly exercising episcopal or primatial authority across enormous geographical and cultural divides.

Two questions arise at once about what has been proposed. By what authority are Primates deemed acceptable or unacceptable members of any new primatial council? And how is effective discipline to be maintained in a situation of overlapping and competing jurisdictions?

No-one should for a moment impute selfish or malicious motives to those who have offered pastoral oversight to congregations in other provinces; these actions, however we judge them, arise from pastoral and spiritual concern. But one question has repeatedly been raised which is now becoming very serious: how is a bishop or primate in another continent able to discriminate effectively between a genuine crisis of pastoral relationship and theological integrity, and a situation where there are underlying non-theological motivations at work? We have seen instances of intervention in dioceses whose leadership is unquestionably orthodox simply because of local difficulties of a personal and administrative nature. We have also seen instances of clergy disciplined for scandalous behaviour in one jurisdiction accepted in another, apparently without due process. Some other Christian churches have unhappy experience of this problem and it needs to be addressed honestly.

It is not enough to dismiss the existing structures of the Communion. If they are not working effectively, the challenge is to renew them rather than to improvise solutions that may seem to be effective for some in the short term but will continue to create more problems than they solve. This challenge is one of the most significant focuses for the forthcoming Lambeth Conference. One of its major stated aims is to restore and deepen confidence in our Anglican identity. And this task will require all who care as deeply as the authors of the statement say they do about the future of Anglicanism to play their part.

The language of 'colonialism' has been freely used of existing patterns. No-one is likely to look back with complacency to the colonial legacy. But emerging from the legacy of colonialism must mean a new co-operation of equals, not a simple reversal of power. If those who speak for GAFCON are willing to share in a genuine renewal of all our patterns of reflection and decision-making in the Communion, they are welcome, especially in the shaping of an effective Covenant for our future together.

I believe that it is wrong to assume we are now so far apart that all those outside the GAFCON network are simply proclaiming another gospel. This is not the case; it is not the experience of millions of faithful and biblically focused Anglicans in every province. What is true is that, on all sides of our controversies, slogans, misrepresentations and caricatures abound. And they need to be challenged in the name of the respect and patience we owe to each other in Jesus Christ.
I have in the past quoted to some in the Communion who would call themselves radical the words of the Apostle in I Cor.11.33: 'wait for one another'. I would say the same to those in whose name this statement has been issued. An impatience at all costs to clear the Lord's field of the weeds that may appear among the shoots of true life (Matt.13.29) will put at risk our clarity and effectiveness in communicating just those evangelical and catholic truths which the GAFCON statement presents.

© Rowan Williams

gafcon

some will have expected me to make some kind of comment about gafcon - the 'it's not an alternative to lambeth, it's not, it's not, it's not' conference that has just been held in Jerusalem.

whilst I, of course have my views about this, I think it best to have a 'discernment process' going on. the jerusalem declaration that has come out of it seems to say lots of things that I would sign up to, but there is much rumbling under the surface which makes me ever so slightly jittery.

I also acknowledge my immaturity in grasping some of the more complex politics - actually I see this as one of my strengths as well as a weakness, I am only ever involved in church politics because it affects the local church and its worship of Jesus, and this must always be about Jesus.

so I point anyone who wishes to find out about the ins and outs of gafcon and the conservative agenda to fulcrum which has all you need to know about who's saying what on this issue and where my friends and I will be posting and discussing gafcon quite a lot over the next few days......

cliques, comfort zones and dialogue

over the last few years I have been on somewhat of a journey with discovering who I am within the world of christianity - seeking identity amongst God's people.

there are many hues and contours; through evangelicalism to liberal and everything in between.

and then there's the scope within evangelicalism itself. evangelicalism which is still my 'home' has the fundamentalists, the conservatives, the opens, the charismatics, the emergents and I'm sure there are many more, and of course all these labels themselves do not represent a monolithic body of people - I am a self-confessed 'open', but I'm also charismatic and emergent and, on some things, extremely conservative.

my concern as I journey on this road, meandering along the way sometimes with conservatives til we have to part company, sometimes with charismatics...you get the idea...my concern is that what I observe is some very discrete groups of people. we're aware of each other, and for some things we might even agree! but continuing and ongoing dialogue?

the breach is even easier to see in cyberworld. you just have to look at the links on the side of most people's blogs and you will see that there are a set of similar people all in dialogue with each other - but where are the friendships across the boundaries? are we all so caught up in our own comfort zones that there is little breadth in our conversation? or any conversation that is done, is done over the parapet?

emergent church defines itself as a 'conversation', something which I identify with, but where is it? and who is it with? how does anyone join it? is it of any use to the local church?

these are serious questions. questions that we need to keep asking ourselves if there is to be authentic kingdom light in the diversity of who we are as God's people.

some randomness

in this last week:

I was temporarily driven insane by my children - they were off for half term and allied carpets forced me to stay in for 3 days whilst they may or may not eventually turn up and fit our kitchen floor.

I joined the fulcrum leadership team.

I had a lot of late nights.

I began to worry that the 'emergent church' thing was going to become just one more clique, if it hasn't already.

in the coming week:

I am still trying to entertain children, as someone in their wisdom has tagged on two inset days to the half term - I am also still waiting in for allied carpets.

I am going to go to bed very early tonight.

I am having an interview at trinity college in bristol - hmmm.