The spiritual battle for the soul of Anglicanism

Update: Bishop of Rochester Dr Michael Nazir-Ali a 'Jeremiah' whose message serves neither church  nor nation, says leader in The Times.

Greg Venables, primate of the Southern Cone, has just spelled out the issues at stake in the launch at Central Hall of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans. See our report on Monday  and the latest today, Tuesday. 'In North America and here, true orthodoxy is being outlawed' warned Bishop Greg who has taken many congregations and even a diocese or two fleeing liberal episcopalianism under his conservative wing. 'We must remember we are not fighting flesh and blood. This is about principalities and powers.'

Central Hall is packed with more than 1000 clergy and laity. 'Orthodoxy proclaims one truth at a time when that is unacceptable in western culture,' said Bishop Greg. 'Truth has become relative. 'To believe in one truth which excludes others is to be intolerant, bigoted and dangerous.' He also said there was a 'false view of institutional loyalty.' 'And sadly there is a great fear of being marginalised and blackballed.' Speaking of the different responses to what FoCA is preaching, he said, 'To the one we are the fragrance of death. To the other, the fragrance of life.' He predicted that the structures of the Anglican Communion will seek to accommodate incompatible and antithetical traditions, but 'if the system is given its head it will push the liberal agenda forward.'

Baroness Caroline Cox spoke movingly about the plight of persecuted Christians in Sudan who she said could not receive some forms of aid, such as medical help, without concerting to Islam.

And the Anglo-Catholic bishop Keith Ackerman has had a little go at the media. 'If you write that this is about homosexuality and the ordination of women, I will want to meet with you afterwards. What a misrepresentation. This is not a coalition of affirming catholics who are neither affirming nor catholic, nor liberal evangelicals who seem to be uncertain about just how certain is the gospel of Christ.' John Broadhurst Bishop of Fulham is now on the platform, about to introduce Archbishop Bob Duncan, pictured left.

Broadhurst said he did not believe in the devil when he was first ordained. 'I now believe Satan is alive and well and he resides at Church House.'

Anglican Mainstream has texts of the welcome messages, speeches and the programme for the day.

There is this from the Supreme Governor of the Church of England:

Her Majesty the Queen

After the Jerusalem conference we wrote to her Majesty the Queen expressing our concerns for the Anglican Communion, our loyalty to her as the Supreme Governor of the CofE, and the pressing need for the Anglican Church to remain faithful to the biblical gospel. She replied that she 

‘understands the commitment to the Anglican Church that prompted you and your brethren to write as you did’. She sent us another message last week, expressing her encouragement for our meeting today, and her (quote) ‘good wishes to all concerned for a successful and memorable event’.

The Most Reverend Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury:

‘I shall be glad to hold all of you in my prayers for the occasion’.

Which prompted this from gay campaigner Peter Tatchell today:

"The Queen has made a serious error of judgement. Her letter of support for the breakaway anti-gay faction of the Church of England is collusion with prejudice. She has insulted lesbian and gay people and breached royal protocol by embroiling herself in an issue of religious and political controversy.

"It is very alarming to see the Queen endorse a homophobic grouping within the Church of England. She is taking sides, against gay equality," added Mr Tatchell.

"Her Majesty is aligning herself with a Christian fundamentalist grouping that is founded almost entirely on its opposition to gay priests and gay human rights. Homophobic prejudice and discrimination is central to its religious ethos.

"Many leading members of FCA believe the civil and criminal law should discriminate against gay people. They do not believe that we are entitled to equal rights.

"That is why they opposed the gay law reforms of the last decade, including an equal age of consent, civil partnerships, protection against discrimination, the repeal of Section 28, fostering and adoption by same-sex couples, and access to fertility treatment for lesbian partners."

The speeches including a rousing call to Christian arms by the Archbishop of Sydney Dr Peter Jensen, who seemed slightly astonished to find himself sharing a platform with some of Britain and the US's most eminent Anglo-Catholics.

He said: 'In this country, the Christian foundations have been shaken. In this and the next generation there will be fought what may amount to the last battle for the soul of the nation. It will be an ideological war, a war of ideas. But great issues will hang upon the outcome: the fate of a culture and the eternal fate of souls. Many look to you for guidance and resource and inspiration. Can we do so any longer?

'How can we test your resolve to evangelize your people? Unless you develop a deep confidence in the gospel of the saving work of God through Jesus Christ, a willingness to work together for Christ, and a determination to submit to the teaching of scripture, it will not be done. The culture will swallow you alive.

'With persuasive power, the culture of the West has adopted and promulgated anti-Christian belief and practice. It confronts every Christian with the choice of submission or harassment. It pretends to be the true heir of the Christian faith, that it now possesses all that was worthwhile of Christianity, and that the entire structure of Christian thought can disappear into the receding past.'

Pics by Dave Bebber of The Times.

Comments

[Malcolm+]

Appreciate it. Don't appreciate it. It really is no skin off my nose.

The fact remains that the so-called Global South bishops are in absolute conformity with the overwhelming majorities in their societies.

Whether or not one agrees with the liberal bishops in North America (and the UK, BTW), no honest person can deny that they are out of step with much if not most of their societies.

If insisting that our discussions means a demand that they be rooted in reality instead of rhetorical jiggery-pokery constitutes "anger" and "incivility," the so be it.

[pmy008]

Still sounding angry Malcolm, not really appreciating it at the moment.

As to your comment about "redefining", please reread my previous posts to see where and how I did it.

Regarding your "facts" about the USA's opinions on stuff, I think you are doing what you claim others are doing.

[Malcolm+]

How convenient, PMY. Just redefine the terms.

The fact (and I'm dreadfully sorry to keep bringing facts into it) is that while North American and European society are more tolerant of homosexuality than most of the so-called Global South, there is still substantial opposition to gay rights in the United States - enough that the extremist wing of the Republican Party use the "threat" of gay marriage in order to win elections. Society isn't just the educated elite.

Thus the North American bishops are not conformed to society since society is divided on the issue.

Contrast this with the so-called Global South, where the bishops are in absolute lockstep with their society.

Now, conforming with society is not, ipso facto to be out of step with Christian mores. For example, society is appalled by the sexual exploitation of children, and the Church rightly conforms (or should).

But you original claim - that the North American bishops are conformed to society and the so-called Global South bishops are not - is simply false on the face of it.

[pmy008]

No offence Malcolm, but your response is coming across as rather angry (whilst we may not agree, surely civility is possible) and also misinformed.

If you look I have defined what I meant by society (i.e. "western society") and also been more precise about how it presents itself (i.e. "the people representing society") and if we go by that then we see that the vast majority of "western" countries governments are actually being very pro-homosexuality.

You say these aren't facts? Look at how the law has changed in the last 10 years, you now have civil partnerships and it is harder and harder to express an opinion that homosexuality is wrong (regardless of the reasoning behind the comment) without the possibility of criminal prosecution. Add in the situation with the catholic adoption agencies in the UK that have had to close because of new legislation that said that you can't discriminate over who can adopt based on sexuality.
Everywhere you look around you there are bits of society changing to be more pro gay (and I'm not saying that all are bad by any means), and then you see what's going on with TEC and they are conforming to that same shift in society.

Some more facts for you:
Paul said that church leaders should be above reproach (one of the letters to Timothy I think).
Old Testament Law said that homosexuality was against God's will.
Paul also said that all scripture is breathed/inspired (however you read it) by God and as such should be followed.
Jesus said that he didn't come to abolish the Law but to fulfil it.

All those facts there suggest that there is something very wrong with TEC's current direction of thought.

Finally, let's simply look at the fact that members of TEC 's leadership have openly stated that they do not think that Jesus is the only way to God. If ever there was an example of not following the Bible's teachings, there you have it!

[H.A.]

Back to the semantics of Zero!

'I did not say that you said “our business” and I did not mention you in the post.' TD

What an ingenuous boy! Yawn .....

[Theo Dexter]

“In that context.
Some accuracy please.
I did not say 'our business'.
I said: 'not my business'.”

I did not say that you said “our business” and I did not mention you in the post.

It was a rhetorical question Ha.

[H.A.]

Now, now TD no feet-stamping!

Three separate 'last words'! Hurrah!

Jolly good. But still nonsensical.

Still no definition of 'the soul of Anglicanism'.

In that context.
Some accuracy please.
I did not say 'our business'.

I said: 'not my business'.

Good to see you paying attention to ER's eminently sane and lucid perceptions.

Last word?

Yawn.....

[Theo Dexter]

“One can only try!” Ha

Agreed.

[Theo Dexter]

'Soul of Anglicanism'. Not our business?

Consider the words of ER

“The Church does not operate in isolation. It is not autonomous. Its very public pronouncements, values, attitudes and policies are integrated within and form part of society. It is therefore perfectly legitimate to discuss and debate its effects.”ER

[Theo Dexter]

Ha.

You mean the person who wrote:-

“Systematic rules of grammar are part of a tacit understanding that allows speakers of a language to communicate. Speakers of English, could not communicate if the choice of whether to put modifiers before nouns or after them were completely haphazard; in many cases, it would be impossible to identify the relationship between the two elements.” Grammaticus

Similar to:-

“Systematic rules are part of a tacit understanding that allows speakers of a language to communicate. Speakers of English, for example, couldn't communicate if the choice of whether to put modifiers before nouns or after them were completely haphazard; in many cases, it would be impossible to identify the relationship between the two elements” http://www.utexas.edu/courses/langling/e360k/syllabus_sched/faq.html.

I say.

[Malcolm+]

Your claim, PMY, was that the American bishops were conforming to society while the African bishops were not.

In fact, it is the other way about.

Facts, PMY, not reinterpretations to suit presuppositions. Facts.

While American society is MORE open to the recognition and acceptance of same sex unions than many other places in the world, the FACT is that there is also significant opposition to according such unions ANY recognition. Witness the various permutations of the so-called "defence of Marriage Act. Witness the fact that ANY legal recognition of same sex unions is banned in more than a dozen states.

I know these FACTS get in the way of your presuppositions, PMY, but is does not make them any the less FACTS.

Your claim that the American bishops are conforming to society and the African bishops are not is simply false.

You are entitles to your own opinions, PMY. You are not entitled to your own facts.

[H.A.]

Rhetorical question TD
Do you understand the word obtuse?

I did NOT post on the 'soul of Anglicanism'.
The 'soul of Anglicanism' is none of my business.

I do not know what it means.
Neither, obviously, do you.

I posted in response to your repetitively insignificant comments because, like the old chap on 'British Muslims' thread and other literate readers, it pains me to see linguistic context mangled.

One can only try!

[pmy008]

Sorry, I still can't agree with you. You only have to look at the political stuff going on at the moment in the UK to see that society (or maybe I should be more precise and say that it's the people representing society) is leaning heavily in favour of homosexuality.

Also, I should point out that whilst the African bishops ARE going along with what the societal norms are for their area, they have the added factor of Biblical authority on their side.

Bible>society every time.

[Malcolm+]

"I'm afraid I don't see it. As far as I can make out, with societal norms (as defined by Western culture) being pro-homosexuality I'd say that puts TEC firmly with society. Granted, Western culture is not World culture, but it's still what people aspire to and what the West is trying to put upon the rest of the world."

If you can't see it, PMY, then you aren't paying attention.

While there is more support in the West for affirming same sex relationships, there is also considerable opposition. The political dynamics of the US - ie, the Republican use of gays as a wedge issue, the so-called "Defence of Marriage Act," the failure of the Obamaa adminstraation to address the idiotic "don't ask, don't tell" - demonstrates that the socital view in the US is still slightly opposed to gay unions. Therefore the Episcopal Church's leadership find themselves in conflict with, at the very least, a substantial minority or more likely an actual majority of US society.

The so-called Global South bishops like Akinola, Orombi, Kolini et al, by contrast, are marching in absolute lockstep with what is unquestionably the dominant view of their society's.

Thus to suggest that the Episcopal Church is conforming to the surrounding culture while the reactionary provinces are not is, to put it kindly, pure bunkum.

[Theo Dexter]

“Why do I bother!” Ha

Yes why do you bother?

“None of my business.” Ha

Then why do you post?

[H.A.]

"... got to do with The spiritual battle for the soul of Anglicanism? TD

Why do I bother!

No idea!
Neither (it seems) have you.

The point in this instance,

Where TD (yet again) inserts his own ego-centric headspace.

Is to correct a demonstrably crass inability to comprehend plain English within the context of a debate.

Anglican soul?
None of my business.
Not an Anglican.
Are you?

[Theo Dexter]

What has

“About inane literalism.
Ironic allusion?
Context old boy?
No?
Worry not.
It's never too late ...”Ha

got to do with The spiritual battle for the soul of Anglicanism?

“Nothing. Except in the deluded mind space of he who MUST at all times stick in his irrelevant 'oar'.”Ha

Mote and beam.

[pmy008]

"Actually, in most of the world, including most of the United States, the position the liberals are taking still puts them at odds with society. In fact, it is the so-called Global South bishops who are most conformist to societal norms."

I'm afraid I don't see it. As far as I can make out, with societal norms (as defined by Western culture) being pro-homosexuality I'd say that puts TEC firmly with society. Granted, Western culture is not World culture, but it's still what people aspire to and what the West is trying to put upon the rest of the world.

[H.A.]

Sorry TD. Forgot.

About inane literalism.

Ironic allusion?
Context old boy?
No?

Worry not.

It's never too late ...

[Theo Dexter]

“God spoke to Moses through a burning bush (Exodus)” Ha.

You are most kind in seeking to explain things Ha. However I think most of us knew that he was talking about the “burning bush”.

The rhetorical question was “What has the “chatty self-immolatory[sic] bushes” (Macsmithy)( the burning bush) got to do with “The spiritual battle for the soul of Anglicanism”?”.

Adam blamed Eve. Eve blamed the snake. And the snake didn’t have a leg to stand on.

And yes the belief that there is no God is absurd in my opinion.

“Maybe you don't read the OT.” Ha

Maybe I read the FT.

[Malcolm+]

I grant, PMY008, that you have tried to be fair. However, you've missed the mark slightly, despite your good intentions.

"The liberals seem to be pushing the boundaries to breaking point in the search for acceptance for all, that the church might becomes more like society."

Actually, in most of the world, including most of the United States, the position the liberals are taking still puts them at odds with society. In fact, it is the so-called Global South bishops who are most conformist to societal norms.

"God's love may be unconditional, but that does not mean that we can do what we want all the time."

No indeed. But then, no one has ever argued that "we can do what we want all the time." It's a nice little straw man that some conservatives stand up so they can knock it down.

But thank you for making the effort to be fair.

[H.A.]

Obama’s faith is not a delusion in my opinion. TD

So? The argument is entirely with yourself.

Nobody here mentioned Obama - except you.

"Iain mentioned “the US founding fathers”
Did you miss that?" TD

No. What's the big deal?
He was responding to your insertion of Obama.

“chatty self-immolatory[sic] bushes” (Macsmithy)

Oh dear.
How blind are those who do not wish to see.
Quick get out the dictionary of quotations.

It's called allusion TD. A reference made to illustrate a point e.g. the absurdity of some people's beliefs.

Allusions are made on an assumption by the author that his reader will know the body of information to which he refers e.g. the bible.

Satan spoke to Eve in the guise of a snake (Genesis)

God spoke to Moses through a burning bush (Exodus)

God told Abraham told to kill his only son Isaac (Genesis)

Not too difficult surely, for one who prattles on about knowing Christ?

Maybe you don't read the OT.

[pmy008]

"What is the “The spiritual battle for the soul of Anglicanism” if it seen unfortunately as church politics?"

If I understand the question correctly, you are asking what the actual battle is when you strip away the political aspect of it.

My answer would be that it is a battle between the liberal and traditional+evangelical wings of the church. The liberals seem to be pushing the boundaries to breaking point in the search for acceptance for all, that the church might becomes more like society. The focus is all about a God that loves everyone.

Meanwhile, the traditionalists and evangelicals are trying to stick to traditional teachings on areas of life that have changed in society over recent years and to point out that God's love may be unconditional, but that does not mean that we can do what we want all the time.

I've tried to be as objective as possible, though my leaning is evangelical. I hope I succeeded.

[Theo Dexter]

Clarification

What is the “The spiritual battle for the soul of Anglicanism” if it seen unfortunately as church politics?

[Theo Dexter]

There is a difference between thinking and saying.

Obama’s faith is not a delusion in my opinion.

Iain mentioned “the US founding fathers” Did you miss that?

What is “The spiritual battle for the soul of Anglicanism?

And what has “chatty self-immolatory[sic] bushes” (Macsmithy) got to do with it.

[H.A.]

"So Iain Rae you do think that President Obama is deluded because he has faith." TD

Again the semantics of Zero.

Once more into the Void of insignificance.

Iain Rae has said no such thing.
Nor has Macsmithy.

Two posters: misrepresented and rebuked for WHAT they have NOT SAID.

What in hell has Obama or the American Declaration of Independence got to do with The spiritual battle for the soul of Anglicanism?

Nothing. Except in the deluded mind space of he who MUST at all times stick in his irrelevant 'oar'.

[pmy008]

"No, PMY. Your theology transmits contempt and is inherently homophobic - that's why I am no longer a Christian."

That's just silly! Based on that then anyone who disagrees with something a person does has an inherent contempt for them! The whole point of things like freedom of speech (not to mention freedom of thought!!!) is that people can disagree and still get along. People don't always get along, that's life. But to take every disagreement as personally is just a nonsense.

[Theo Dexter]

Nice try IR.

So Iain Rae you do think that President Obama is deluded because he has faith.

I don’t think he is.

BTW Have a look at the Declaration of Independence, an American dollar bill. And listen to President Obama’s Presidential Oath.

[Merseymike]

No, PMY. Your theology transmits contempt and is inherently homophobic - that's why I am no longer a Christian.

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Robert (09/07/09 - 22:00:31). Thank you for your very interesting "bullet point" presentation of your own interpretation of the Elizabethan Settlement.

I would ask you to read the summary of what the results of the Elizabethan Settlement had done and not done in respect to its maintenance of the Catholic heritage of the C of E, as given in pages 130 - 132 of Bp. Stephen Neill's "Anglicanism" (Penquin Books Ltd., 3rd. edition, 1965).

The concluding part of Bp. Neill's text is particularly helpful, since it quotes textually from a letter written by Queen Elizabeth in 1563 to the Emperor Frederick, as follows: "We and our subjects, God be praised, are not following any new or foreign religions, but that very religion which Christ commands, which the primitive and Catholic Church sanctions, with the mind and voice of the most ancient Fathers with one consent approve". The C of E in a nutshell, Robert, and as expressed by the very same person after whom the Elizabethan Settlement itself is named. It doesn't sound or smell very "Protestant" to me !.

Best wishes.

Andrew, Venezuela

[iain rae]

Theo , Thankfully President Obama ,in the tradition of the U.S. founding fathers, keeps religion separate from the state. He supports people of all faiths and none .

[pmy008]

"Christians don't just "disagree" with homosexuality, do they? They always take it one step further - demonising, stigmatising, taking action to prevent homosexuals from being treated as equal participants within society."

Whilst I would agree that some do go that far (and I completely disagree with going that far) the vast majority of Christians (and yes, that includes evangelicals too) do not have a problem with the individuals themselves. From my point of view, it is all about the actions and nothing to do with the individuals.

However, these actions do mean that they are excluded from certain aspects of life. Not because they are being stigmatised, but because all choices lead to people being excluded from certain things. You wouldn't, for example, find a trade union welcoming in a Thatcherite Tory to help guide the direction that unions take, they are incompatible. Likewise, with the issue with homosexual priests and bishops, when a church holds a particular view (and the Anglican Communion does currently hold the official view that homosexual acts are not compatible with Biblical teachings) and people hold differing views then they are unsuitable for holding those positions. This is nothing to do with fear or contempt, it is a disagreement on theology.

[alan]

Hilarious what grown men - and the odd woman - can get all upset about.

[Malcolm+]

Very nice of you, Bill, to send me to a link that advises me I'm not authorized to see the page. How very odd you faux-orthodox are.

The fact remains that, despite all their whinging and pi$$ing and moaning and bizarre conspiracy theories, the hard right cannot point to a single case anywhere in North America where a single cleric or layperson has faced canonical sanction for holding a conservative view on sexuality.

On the other hand, there are some 200+ conservative clerics who have faced the consequences of defying canon law.

The "persecution" of the "orthodox" is a complete fabrication.

[David Palmer]

Dear Oliver,

(If I may be so presumptuous)

Thank you for your gracious post.

I personally didn't object to 'colonial', though it is better than 'foreign" - many of us colonials are anglophiles, being 1st, 2nd 3rd generation and proud of English and Scottish, Welsh, Irish roots. And goodness me Peter Jensen must love Brits - he spends so much time over with you.

My point is that sorrow that is real sorrow is not so much about sorrow at offending another but sorrow stemming from reflection over one own inappropriate words or actions.

Last year the Australian PM apologised to our indigenous people over the 'stolen generation' saga. It was an MT gesture, though many thought it a very fine thing to do.

On the PM's part there was a firm resolution that other than words there would be no financial compensation or any other compensation apart from the words "I'm sorry" which I might add he very solemnly repeated 3 times. There was no requirement or suggestion that the indigenous people should accept the apology or utter those magical words, "we forgive you", after which we could all cry a little and embrace.

No, whilst the PM was enormously pleased with himself, it was just frippery, meaningless puffery, and it certainly didn't fool the indigenous people, or at least the more thoughtful ones.

By the way, here's hoping our (wild) colonial cricketers give your lot a walloping this summer and I certainly won't be saying, ‘sorry’ if they do.

[Kate]

"It is indeed because of the tone of many of the comments made by other Christians here that I have ceased in recent months to make contributions on this blog, and I shall now resume that silence." (Oliver Nicholson)

That is a great pity. Christians of a gentle faith, compassion and true scholarship are in short supply.

Too many erudite and humane contributors have disappeared over the past few years. Today, I find myself rationally empathetic (not a contradiction in terms!) with agnostic, atheist, and humanist contributors. How disturbing that a majority of self-professed Christians should present as vindictive, legalistic and unselfconsciously ego-centric.

Many thanks for drawing my attention to Canterbury's inspiring sermon:

"we are glorious because God has made us through Jesus Christ fully alive..... Not just that we have our faces turned towards the light and glory shines from our faces by reflection, but that somehow in our relations with God, and one another that love impels us beyond our boundaries, beyond our comfort zones, beyond our safety and defences, to be there, for others as totally as can be."

This indeed is the Anglicanism in which I was reared, loved and sought to emulate in my personal and professional life.

Long ago an old clergyman remarked that too many professing Christ were indistinguishable from the 'dead alive': "I would not know they were blessed by the Spirit if they had not told me so"!

[Robert Ian Williams]

Andrew the Elizabethan settlement was thoroughly Protestant.

Infrequent communion services tagged on to Matins

No reseravtion of the communion elements.

All stone altars destroyed and no cross or crucifix.

No sacrament of the sick.

No consecrated religious life

No prayers for the dead and to the Saints.

Isn't that Protestant enough for you....

[J Pearce]

"Homophobia is a fear of homosexuals, disagreeing with homosexual actions is freedom of speech. This is misuse is getting rather tiresome!"

Definition of Homophobia:

1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.

[http://www.thefreedictionary.com/homophobia]

Christians don't just "disagree" with homosexuality, do they? They always take it one step further - demonising, stigmatising, taking action to prevent homosexuals from being treated as equal participants within society.

That’s what I call contempt. Ergo, homophobia.

This prevarication in the light of the truth is getting rather tiresome!

[Oliver Nicholson]

Dear Mr. Palmer,
I am, as I say, sorry to have given offence. I was actually trying to avoid the word 'foreign', and slipped into an old-fashioned expression without thinking. You are right that I know nothing about Australia and I have no particular conviction to promote on one side or the other of Anglican internal politics (indeed that is the perspective I was trying to promote by contributing in the first place). I do indeed apologise unreservedly for giving offence. It is indeed because of the tone of many of the comments made by other Christians here that I have ceased in recent months to make contributions on this blog, and I shall now resume that silence.
OPN

[Theo Dexter]

Iain Rae and Macsmithy

Are you saying President Obama is deluded?

I don’t think so.

Perhaps it’s you.

[PererB]

Iain Rae
"The Christian Church has had hundreds of splits. One more will make little difference to the basic oddity of believing in the supernatural with no evidence"

Since you represent that tiny and deviant fraction of humanity that disbelieves in the transcendent, I am afraid that it is you yourself who are the basic oddity.

[Mark]

Here's to the forthcoming split in the C of E, which can only help hasten disestablishment, and remove any claim these stupid old fools have to offer "moral guidance".

[pmy008]

"One also feels pity for those who get swept up in organised religion's control and actually think that Rome or Lambeth have a vital role to play in wider society"

And one feels pity for someone that has no true explanation for the origin of everything. But this is about our foibles and not yours so let's get back to focussing on us shall we? :-p

As to the comment by Peter Tatchell, when are people like him going to stop misusing the English language? Homophobia is a fear of homosexuals, disagreeing with homosexual actions is freedom of speech. This is misuse is getting rather tiresome!

[macsmithy]

"The Christian Church has had hundreds of splits. One more will make little difference to the basic oddity of believing in the supernatural with no evidence."

Well said, Iain Rae. One has to feel nothing but pity for all those here who cling to this delusion that they have an invisible friend in the sky who communicates with us all through talking snakes, chatty self-immolatory bushes and the bizarre sacrifice of his only child.

One also feels pity for those who get swept up in organised religion's control and actually think that Rome or Lambeth have a vital role to play in wider society

[Arthur]

First point: in the US about 200 orthodox episcopal clergy have been deposed since Schori became PB, and 9 or so episcopal bishops removed.

Q: Why is the adverse treatment of orthodox clergy in the US a myth?

A from TEC: Because they all deserved it!

Second point: Watch out that the response to FCA is not "they are secretly schismatic - we must throw them out before they cause a schism and leave". This is, incidentally, already promoted by the TEC Diocese of Washington, DC on its website:

http://www.episcopalcafe.com/daily/anglican_communion/by_adrian_worsfold_on_saturday.php

[iain rae]

The Christian Church has had hundreds of splits. One more will make little difference to the basic oddity of believing in the supernatural with no evidence.

[David Palmer]

I don't think it is a matter of saying

"I am sorry if I have offended Hapax - or indeed anyone else"

it is really about acknowledging the rudeness, inappropriateness of writing Peter Jensen off as a colonial, whether or not someone was offended.

If you knew anything of Sydney Diocese, you might think those colonial boys might teach you a thing or two - and you wouldn't be wrong.

There are a lot of spiteful posts on this thread.

I too have my doubts about Anglo Catholics and Evangelicals getting along together. I suppose the fact that they are attempting to do so is a sign of their assessment of how far the Church has drifted from an identifiably orthodox profession, to say nothing of zeal for the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

As a Presbyterian and a colonial I wish FCA every successd.

[Oliver Nicholson]

Thank you, Mr. Brocklehurst, for confirming the impression I had gleaned from elsewhere.
OPN

[Bill Channon]

Mr. Malcolm,

Regarding persecution in England. I'm sorry about my ignorance in providing a proper link but copy and past and give this a shot:

jacklewis.net/weblog/.../religious_persecution_in_engla.php -

[Inquisitor]

Perkin runs a long term Holy Trinity Brompton plant in deepest sloane / yuppie Battersea. So what is the view of the worldwide Alpha Course HTB on this matter, most particularly the Reverend Nicky Gumbel and his Churchwardens – Lazard London’s chief Ken Costa and steadfast US housewife Jo Glen, active patron of a very evangelical private school in deepest Wandsworth?

And then there’s the Bishop for Mission in London, former HTB chief priest, Ugandan Bishop Sandy Millar

Remember that Millar was consecrated bishop in Uganda by his former protégée Archbishop Henry Orombi of GAFCON / FoCA – the new inappropriate term in a liberal's vocabulary...!

[drdanfee]

I find FCA unpersuasive, no matter how many people sat fascinated listening to their own pre-existing beliefs writ large, large, large.

How odd that Canterbury will fulsomly visit the most rabid flat earth conservative believer conferences - despite having said publicly that no Anglican believes in unintelligent readings of the scriptures? Yet gingerly dances about when it comes to meeting with others in the global big tent that currently is Anglicanism - including the repeated target groups, queer folks, VGR? - anybody who bothers to read modern sciences or hermeneutics (sorry, sadly that will now exclude the FCA leadership, in total so far as I have heard them issue nasty proclamations).

The enemy target lists are the only open thing about FCA.

So, for the moment at least, FCA denials that their conservative agenda is a split campaign ring completely false. Spin doctoring from FCA is lying. Lying while you pretend to make people better is hardly a gospel practice, then?

Auditor caveo.

Through nearly endless and constant urging of faked either/ors upon Anglican believers, FCA and the entire Anglican right is pushing for a wrong-headed rush to judgment, calling the fakery orthodoxy or biblical believerhood or gospel.

Hanging our believer hats in a most solemn and self-serving Anglican manner, upon flat earth readings of the scriptures (about queer folks or women or modern best practices or anything else that might matter) is as false a deity as any other ancient near eastern or Constantinian or pre-Protestant Reformation or post-Reformation or any modernist idol which dares to loudly clamor for our worship or attention.

Nobody in FCA likes to be characterized or be (mis-) treated as FCA feels bound to characterize or treat queer folks, women, unbelievers, TEC-USA, or any number of their favorite targets.

Again I say, the only open thing about them so far is their enemies list. This is essentially Anglican? Alas. Lord have mercy.

[David Cohen]

As one of those attending the FCA meeting, I can only say that it is evident that many of those making adverse comments simply have no idea what they are talking about, having not been there.

It was nothing less than an inspirational gathering of people committed, across a wide spectrum of churchmanship, to the mission of the Church, which takes priority over everything else.

There are of course people who would like to silence any opposition to the political agenda, and the comments they have been making suggest that the FCA meeting was both timely and successful.

[Bill Channon]

merseymike,

If the 'orthodox' are refusing to modernize or otherwise change to suit the present culture, how can they be 'causing the split'?

Mr. Malcolm -read the newspapers.

[Stuart Brocklehurst]

I was at the Exeter gathering, and would gladly pass on a brief report, if you should so wish. The final numbers were apparently 7,000 for the morning Eucharist, 5,000 for the evening 'Songs of Praise', 1,000 turned up for the Archbishop's theology seminar and the previous evening 1,000 teenagers had attended another event which promised the enticing combination of Rowan Williams and sumo wrestling. Perhaps that may provide the way forward for the Church of England ;)

The Eucharist was a deeply moving and involving occasion - at the end I found I'd been standing for 2 1/2 hours, I hadn't noticed - and the Archbishop preached brilliantly, with no notes. I noticed passers by with shopping bags stopping to listen.

It's not so newsworthy, of course - which is meant genuinely, not in sarcasm. But it was an amazing public evocation of the Christian faith.

[Oliver Nicholson]

I am sorry if I have offended Hapax - or indeed anyone else.
OPN

[Merseymike]

Well, Bill, you and your allies are the ones causing the split

[Oliver Nicholson]

Alas, Ruth, I also missed the Exeter gathering (having a previous engagement to take two charabancs full of Polish migrant workers on an outing to Cheddar Gorge). My teenage daughter happened upon the Archbishop and his 5000 auditors while taking a short cut past the Cathedral and was considerably impressed. I therefore read the sermon (on the Archbishop's web-site at http://archbishopofcanterbury.org/2472) - a remarkable statement of the only method by which Christian unity can be achieved - and was hoping to find an account from you that would convey felicitously the atmosphere of the occasion. It certainly seems to have testified to the good health of the Church of England in Devon (and the presence of a similar number at the parallel event for Bath-and-Wells last week suggests that this is not an isolated instance).

[Emily H]

What is most interesting in the response to opening day from those who watched or tried to attend. These folks were predisposed to support its premise and speakers. However, if the comments of Anglican TV are any measure, they were not pleased. I was surprised at the issues they addressed: 1. Dissatisfaction at how negative the presentations were. 2. The price of admission and the failure of conference organizers to properly disclose the cost or make proper provision for those who wished to atte3nmd but couldn't afford it. The point in all this, will FOCA win over any new converts or is it addressing the choir? If it can not attract those predisposed to its view, what is its leadership doing wrong and will its pleas that it is not schismatic be viewed with the same lens as the US Network which claimed and claimed, even in US courts that it wasn't, and of course, was?

[Hapax]

Oliver Nicholson (6 Jul 2009 19:47:15): Your reference to a "colonial" bishop is arrogant and offensive.

[Pageantmaster]

Sorry that should be listen to the concerns at 3. above, not 4.

[J Pearce]

"They would rather pick and choose bits that suit their own preference, thus, in a sense, making up a brand new religious ideology."

Has it not struck Mr Wolfgang that this is precisely what EVERY Christian does? The Bible - being the bronze age collection of historical recollection, myth and opinion that it actually is - is not and never will be, a definitve, unifying whole?

To believe otherwise is delusion beyond sanity. Or, more pertinently, colossal, ego-fuelled religious arrogance. Not much of that going on round here, obviously...

(cough)

[Julie (Juliet Pain)]

Meh.

[blue peter]

Self righteous anti-gays bashing self righteous gays

It's the Pinkie and Perkin Show

[Kevin]

Is it more than coincidence that Ruth's immediately previous news item was about J H Newman?

160 years ago he saw the heroic futility of maintaining the pushme-pullyou nature of Anglicanism.

The Church of England's very comprehensiveness has ensured survival. Until now.

One either follows the Gospel according to Peter Tatchell or according to Paul of Tarsus.

You can't do both.

[Jamie MacNab]

Just looking forward five-hundred years or so, I wonder what people will think of a church that tore itself apart over something as risible homosexuality?

What happened to the 'vision thing' in Anglicanism?

[Wolfgang]

I find it so sadly humorous that those who support the sinful homosexual practice can only always quote, "Jesus said to love others" etc. This just clearly shows that they have no idea about all the other things he said about repentance and the judgement to come. They would rather pick and choose bits that suit their own preference, thus, in a sense, making up a brand new religious ideology. They don't worship the God of love, their god IS 'love' itself!
The most loving thing a person can do is lovingly warn them about the judgement to come and urge them to repent so that they might be saved - whether they be a practising homosexual or any other sinner.

[Jonathan]

The "church" of England is a filthy, rotting corpse.

[Giles Pinnock]

Perhaps the impressions of one who was there might be helpful - http://onetimothyfour.blogspot.com.

[Bill Channon]

Oliver Nicholson:

I would like to comment that, while the ABC preached to 'five times the number' in Exeter, The FCA meeting in the Great Hall seated no more that 1000 and was jam-packed full.

I further know that about another dozen or two churches in various locations in and around London were also packed.

Why are the progressives so preoccupied with sexual issues when the truth is that the conflict has far more to do about fundamental doctrine and belief, and how far the progressives are moving away from the words of Jesus and the Great Commission articulated by Jesus when he said to Peter "and I shall make you fishers of men" -one example of many made by Jesus and by His disciples and Apostles and the early church.

Having said that, I am very sorry that I suspect that the comment by Merseymike will come to pass.

[penwatch]

Westminster Hall holds a lot of people but it doesn't look particularly full in your first photograph. Even in the enlarged version screwing my eyes up to get a clear view the 'congregation' also looks surprisingly elderly.

[brad evans]

When this "battle for the soul" of a rapidly declining and irrelevant institution is over, do be sure and tell us the name of the next captain of the "Titanic".
So glad to get important news updates like these!

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Drew_Mac (06/07/09 - 17:42:34). Yours is a very honest and tolerant post on the present topic.

As you mentioned, Walter Travers, in his principal opus published in 1574, wrote in support of a Presbyterian form of church government, a postulate which had a great influence on the Puritans at the time. Richard Hooker made a solid and well-reasoned defence of the historical episcopacy (among other things) of the C of E, again at that time.

What has come to be known as the Elizabethan Settlement was, basically, a compromise which enabled the terms of the Second BCP of Edward VI (1559) to be modified in such a way as to not be offensive to RCs or to Puritans, members of both persuasions being Her Majesty's subjects, again at that time. It was a major tolerant step in a remarkedly intolerant age when, in the popular mind, the terms "Catholic" and "Protestant" were so often used as insulting epithets by one group against the other. How nice it would be if the terms "conservative" and "liberal" were not to suffer a similar such ecclesiastical fate by having their real meaning totally downgraded by what is going on all over the place nowadays !.

I do think that most Churches and denominations could benefit greatly from having their own present-day Hookers (no pun intended !), to put their cases in a more tolerant manner to others. It is a sad state of affairs to see so many denominations (even the older ones, without exception) affected by internal disputes which may often result in dissent and open secession, and where minuscule groups are so often at loggerheads with each other and with everyone else.

Tolerance is a virtue, indeed, and should be appreciated and valued by all, whatever their personal religious "affiliation" may happen to be.

Thank you once again for such a useful post.

Regards.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Malcolm+]

More false witness from the usual suspects.

The charge that the "orthodox" are being "persecuted" is pure bunkum.

If Mssrs Venables, Jensen, Duncan et al claim they want to maintain biblical truth, I refer them to Exodus 20:16 and Deuteronomy 5:20, and I ask them to stop [snip].

[Drew_Mac]

".... once the conservatives no longer took (Hooker) as a reference point, they became Catholics."

Hmmm. That only applies to the catholic conservatives. At least half, if not more, of this (unholy?) alliance are evangelicals who would totally reject Catholicism. I think both sides are involved in pragmatism that's being less than honest.

As for the more MOR (silent majority!) Anglicans, including the more tolerant liberals and 'open' (ie Fulcrum) evangelicals - I notice a renewed interest, and honouring of Hooker's legacy.

[Oliver Nicholson]

A colonial bishop addresses a meeting allegedly comprising 1000 people in London; this is news. Ten days earlier the Archbishop of Canterbury preaches a glorious sermon to around five times that number of people on the Cathedral Green in Exeter to celebrate the 1100th anniversary of the episcopal see in Devon (first in Crediton, then in Exeter, birthplace, for what it's worth, of Dr. R. Hooker). This, to judge from your 'blog', is not news. Is the explanation that such positive celebrations provide no opportunity for Mr. Robert Ian Williams to make graceless, spiteful and remarkably ignorant remarks concerning the Church of his Baptism.

(ruth gledhill writes: Oliver we are honoured to have you here. Unfortunately I was not able to travel to Exeter, indeed had no idea it was even happening. You are most welcome to do me a guest blog about how wonderful Exeter was as you were clearly there, provide some pics, if poss, and I will happily post it.)

[James Warren]

Horrible. I thought we were all supposed to love another and in that way all would know that we were disciples of Jesus Christ. Who wants anything to do with a church, however traditional, where the emphasis is on demonizing (literally) those with different traditions?

[Ernest]

I just think it is sad that those who wish to disagree, make such a public song and dance of things.

I joined the CofE because I felt called to be there. My Parish is my Centre, where love prevails and all are tolerant of others beliefs, and traditions.

Surely this is the Church we seek, not those who wish to provoke schism, from whatever direction or for whatever personal agenda they might have.

This is men's freewill being expressed in a way that is not God's way.

[Merseymike]

I simply cannot see how this is going to end in anything other than a split.

[Chris Gillibrand]

"The soul of Anglicanism owes as much to Richard Hooker as anyone else. If his tolerant and irenic approach to dispute is lost then indeed the soul will be gone."

Totally agree- once the liberals in the Church of England no longer took him as the theological reference point, the game was up. And once the conservatives no longer took him as a reference point, they became Catholics.

[Drew_Mac]

The soul of Anglicanism owes as much to Richard Hooker as anyone else. If his tolerant and irenic approach to dispute is lost then indeed the soul will be gone. His dialogue in Travers-Hooker controversy could teach both sides in this 'battle' a great deal.

"So our own words also when we extol the complete sufficiency of the whole entire body of the scripture, must in like sort be understood with this caution, that the benefit of nature's light be not thought excluded as unnecessary, because the necessity of a diviner light is magnified.(Laws I:14:4)"

Hooker's Anglicanism is open, tolerant and inclusive - so much so that he was berated by the Puritans for suggesting that Romanists might even get to heaven! We sadly need to rediscover that spirit for our modern disputes.

[Fr Jamie Hawkey]

A (sadly) typically disgusting and absurd thing for the Bishop of Fulham to say. The irony of John Broadhurst and Peter Jensen sharing a platform whilst talking about a need for more intense eccesial communion is as ridiculous as it is absurd. Is this stupidity or dishonesty? It has about as much to do with building communion as a hole in the head.

[Robert Ian Williams]

This is a totally false alliance. I purchased last week a booklet by Evangelicals ( who are at the Conference ) about how they can take over an anglo-Catholic parish and get rid of the crucifix and the reserved sacrament.

The two groupings know this and talk of orthodoxy and Biblical Christianity, and strict adherence to the 39 articleas are all meaningless.

[peter wood]

Reading the comments quoted by Ruth and especially those from the Bishop of Fulham I cannot see any humane or intellectual substance, any evocation of Anglican tradition, anything that could command full-hearted allegiance. The Fellowship does not understand that tradition involves making things new, otherwise there is indeed fragmentation and decay as Chris points out.

[Chris Gillibrand]

The soul is the form of the body. Once the soul is gone, there is only fragmentation and decay in the body. All the empirical evidence is that this battle is about something that is no longer there, if it ever was.