Urban Pastor: Evangelicals in the Church of England & Fanatics

The Urban Pastor, a Church of England cleric, brings a few notes about the situation in the Church of England.  We do endorse the idea that old Prayer Book Churchmanship puts a clamp on enthusiasts, fanatics and wild-eyed revivalists so common to the United States.  See:  http://theurbanpastor.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/economical-with-the-truth/.  Here's Urban Pastor:


"Interesting article from the Economist here. It’s about the alleged rise of evangelicalism in the Church of England. It doesn’t really analyse the increased marginalization of class or ‘conservative’ evangelicals, but you wouldn’t expect them to be aware of the complexity of the situation in the Church of England. I’m not sure I am! Or anyone is. But evangelicalism has increasingly come to be understood as an umbrella term covering over all manner of, let’s say, positions.

"If what Peter Brierley and his statisticians say is right, then the future of Anglicanism in this country is of declining numbers of Anglicans but an increased proportion of both clergy and laity who would describe themselves as evangelical. Whether that leads to increased influence in the denomination, brought about by sheer weight of numbers or perhaps by financial clout, remains to be seen. I’m not holding my breath. The trajectory of the Church of England is unmistakably clear. It would take a complete change of direction if evangelicalism was to be regarded as mainstream. God can do it, if He wants. And so there’s hope. But humanly speaking, the writing’s been on the wall for a while now. We press on (at the margins) in CCB. But others are more involved and will stay until they’re ejected. They wouldn’t be the first good guys to be excluded from the established church.
But despite that, you’ve got to love an article that begins with the following paragraph; not so much for the accuracy of the observation but the beauty of expression!

EVER since the 18th century, England’s established church has harboured a suspicion of religious enthusiasm. Anglicanism’s cosy ubiquity as a reassuring, if vestigial, presence in every English suburb and village is regarded as a defence against the sort of fanaticism that leads to social or ethnic conflict. But every so often in English church history, compromise and emollience have triggered a countervailing reaction: an upsurge in faith of a more passionate kind. Such a change may be under way now."

 For Urban Pastor's less cheerful conclusion, see the rest at:
http://theurbanpastor.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/economical-with-the-truth/

BBC Reports on Anglican Mission in England

http://anglicanmissioninengland.org/bbc-news-website-report-amie

Discontented Anglicans confident of global backing

By Trevor Timpson BBC News

Gafcon was founded at a conference in Jerusalem in 2008

Related Stories

• Church unity plan a step closer
• CofE 'could back rebel US Church'
• Gay row 'may cause Church split'

The worldwide split in Anglicanism over gay issues has become linked to the concerns of some Church of England members concerned at the prospect of women bishops.

The Anglican Mission in England (AMIE), which was set up this year, shares some global Anglican leaders' concerns over the gay question, but is also keen to help Anglicans who cannot accept women bishops.

And if it cannot reach agreement with the C of E, AMIE says members will look to the worldwide Anglican movement Gafcon for leadership.

Set up in 2008, Gafcon says promoting "a variety of sexual preferences" and blessing same-sex unions are part of a "false gospel".

Its leaders, mostly from Africa but including senior Anglicans from other parts of the world, hold their own meetings separate from the long-established Lambeth conference, and say they represent most of the world's active Anglican churchgoers.

AMIE insists that it is determined to remain Anglican. But it has its own panel of bishops, ready to provide alternative episcopal supervision to parishes which disagree with their diocesan bishop.

Paul Perkin: "We're providing the means whereby communication and support can be networked"

One, Michael Nazir-Ali, former bishop of Rochester, has said: "Only a few will need such oversight at the moment.

"There may be others if bishops... teach that same-sex relations are equivalent to marriage or are in same-sex civil partnerships themselves, and if no provision is made for those who in conscience cannot accept women bishops."

The Reverend Paul Perkin, vicar of St Mark's Church, Battersea Rise in south London, chairs AMIE's steering group.

He describes AMIE as "not a driving co-ordinating institution - we're simply providing the means whereby communication and support can be networked in a fellowship across the country. But it has become a little bit more structured."

He points to the support for AMIE from Gafcon leaders worldwide.

'Problematic'

"They have said, 'We affirm your resolve to ensure adequate provision for churches, parishes... and individuals, ministers who need adequate oversight, and if it is not provided within the structure we are committed to providing it ourselves.'

"AMIE has a very significant part of the global Anglican communion pledged to ensure that we remain Anglican," he insists.

Canon Chris Sugden is one of the founders of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, the movement set up to further the aims of Gafcon. He is also secretary of the AMIE steering group.

He believes AMIE "has... crucially been supported and encouraged by the GAFCON Primates Council," and is saying to the Church establishment: "We will find a way of being faithfully Anglican which does not depend on you."

"There is genuine disagreement" about the role of women in ministry, says Chris Sugden

At the conference in June when AMiE was set up, three English clergy who had been ordained in Kenya for "ministry in the wider Anglican Communion" with the support of Gafcon were "welcomed and prayed with".

The Archbishop of Canterbury's office has expressed concern. A statement by Lambeth Palace said: "It is not at all clear how the proposed panel of bishops relate to the proper oversight of the diocesan bishops of the Church of England," and described the Kenyan ordinations of men with a view to service in England as "problematic".

Paul Perkin says discussions on securing acceptable supervision and paths to priesthood for those who have problems with the Church establishment have been going on for years and no-one should be surprised at what has happened.

But how does Gafcon - a body largely concerned with the gay issue - come to be involved in Britain in a controversy it has shown little concern about, that of women bishops?

Underlying disputes

Paul Perkin admits he sees the principle of women bishops as a secondary issue. But he is insistent that "provision should be made for those for whom it will be a breaking point.

"If some of our most active ministers in the Church feel they've got to leave then the mission of the Church is seriously undermined."

Chris Sugden says the gay and women bishops issues are "part of the same agenda to ensure that the Church of England is 'culturally relevant'".

But he adds: "There is genuine disagreement among people who accept the authority of Biblical teaching about the role of women in leadership in ministry, and neither group would regard the view of the other as sinful practice."

Those in dispute with their bishop "would have to look elsewhere", Rod Thomas says

The legislation now being considered by the Church on women bishops includes provision for those who cannot accept them to be supervised by a stand-in bishop.

But many opponents want the stand-in bishop's authority to be independent, not deriving from appointment by the diocesan bishop (who may be a woman).

If that does not happen, says the Reverend Rod Thomas, chairman of the conservative evangelical group Reform, parishes under a woman diocesan bishop would have to decide what to do.

If the parish regarded itself as being "in impaired communion" with its bishop, he says, "whenever they needed the oversight of a bishop they would have to look elsewhere for it."

The setting up of AMIE has led to mixed reactions from the rest of the Church.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

I just do not believe that the right response is sabre-rattling and creating of separate structures.”  End Quote Reverend Stephen Kuhrt

The Reverend Stephen Kuhrt chairs another evangelical group, Fulcrum, which views the setting up of AMIE with concern.

"I can see why conservative evangelicals are frustrated," he says. "What they suspect is that while the conversation's going on about it, the ground is shifting to a position of basically accepting gay clergy.

"But I just do not believe that the right response is sabre-rattling and creating of separate structures. I just don't think you can do that and remain with integrity part of the Church of England."

Canon Giles Fraser is the founder of Inclusive Church, the best-known group campaigning for the full recognition of gay lifestyles in the Church.

He says the AMIE project is "a complete irrelevance, actually".

"There really isn't any traction here, even amongst people who perhaps have more conservative views," he says.

"There's a deep loyalty to the Church of England and people are committed to the Church of England - as the original Big Tent philosophy."

More on This Story

Related Stories

• Church unity plan a step closer 26 NOVEMBER 2010, UK
• CofE 'could back rebel US Church' 14 JULY 2009, UK
• Gay row 'may cause Church split' 04 JULY 2009, UK
• Women bishops scale latest hurdle 02 OCTOBER 2011, U

Update 6: Anglican Mission in England

http://theurbanpastor.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/amie-update-6/

AMiE Update 6

July 15, 2011 by theurbanpastor

Richard Coekin, the Senior Pastor at Dundonald Church and the Director of Co-Mission (the network of churches to which CCB belongs), has recently published an article explaing the rationale for and emergence of the Anglican Mission in England (AMiE). You can find it here.

AMiE: Robin's Jordan's Take on AMiE

By Robin G. Jordan

The Book of Common Prayer of 1662 is, with the Articles of Religion of 1571 and the Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons of 1661, the long-recognized doctrinal standard of Anglicanism. In Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today A Commentary on the Jerusalem Declaration, the GAFCON Theological Resource Group draw to our attention that the Jerusalem Declaration calls the Anglican Church back to the Thirty-Nine Articles as being a faithful testimony to the teaching of Scripture, which excludes erroneous beliefs and practices and gives a distinctive shape to Anglican Christianity. The Jerusalem Declaration also affirms the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

As the late Peter Toon observed, the Anglican Church does not need a Magisterium. The Anglican Church has its venerable formularies—the Thirty-Nine Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and 1661 Ordinal. They are the Magisterium of the Anglican Church.

The 1662 Book of Common Prayer is substantially the 1552 Book of Common Prayer, which reflects Archbishop Cranmer’s mature thinking on eucharistic sacrifice and eucharistic presence. It is his legacy to the Anglican Church. It is for his rejection of the Medieval Catholic doctrines of the Sacrifice of the Mass and Transubstantiation that Cranmer suffered martyrdom in the reign of Edward VI’s older sister Mary.

In the transitional 1549 Prayer Book Cranmer did away with the oblation of the bread and wine in the Offertory—the Minor Oblation—and the oblation of the bread and wine in the Canon—the Major Oblation. He had also placed a rubric prohibiting any elevation of the elements or showing of the elements to the people before the anamnesis and the oblation of the Church in the Canon. In the 1552 Prayer Book Cranmer took the further step of removing the oblation of the Church from the Prayer of Consecration and placing it after the distribution of Communion, after the Lord’s Prayer, where the Church’s oblation of thanksgiving and praise and self could not be misunderstood to be anything else other than the Church’s response to Christ’s sacrifice on the cross at Cavalry and the benefits of his death that Christ offers to those who trust in him for their salvation, the same benefits that Christ gives to faithful who gather in humble obedience to his command to celebrate the Lord’s Supper as the memorial of his death and passion.

While the Caroline divines and John and Charles Wesley may have entertained the unscriptural notion of the church’s pleading Christ’s death for the remission of our own and others’ sins in union with Christ as he supposedly pleads his earthly sacrifice before God’s throne, they did not incorporate this notion into the liturgy when they had an opportunity to do so—the Laudians at the Restoration and John Wesley in his abbreviation of the 1662 Prayer Book for American Methodists. The 1662 Prayer Book rejects as not consonant with Scripture any notion of the Lord’s Supper as a reiteration or representation of Christ’s sacrifice or a participation in the ongoing sacrificial activity of Christ. The only sacrifices to which the 1662 Prayer Book refers are Christ’s sacrifice on the cross at Calvary and the Church’s sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise and self in response to that sacrifice. This is the doctrinal position of historic Anglicanism as articulated by the 1662 Prayer Book.

For more see:
http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2011/07/is-anglican-mission-needed-in-united.html

AMiE: Lambeth Palace Expresses "Concern" about AMiE

http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/005060.html

The Anglican Mission in England: Lambeth Palace statement

A statement from Lambeth Palace
Tuesday 5th July 2011

The announcement of the creation an ‘Anglican Mission in England’ prompts concern for a number of reasons. New mission initiatives are, as such, always good news; and the declared intention of the spokesmen for this new initiative to remain faithful to the structures of the Church of England is welcome.

However, it is not at all clear how the proposed panel of bishops relate to the proper oversight of the diocesan bishops of the Church of England. Nor is there any definition of the issues which AMiE think might justify appeal to such a panel rather than the use of normal procedures. Furthermore, the ordination of three English candidates to the diaconate in Kenya with a view to service in England is problematic. It is not clear what process of recognised scrutiny and formation has taken place and how, in the absence of Letters Dimissory (the relevant formal letters from the sponsoring bishop), they have come to be recommended as candidates for ordination by the authorities of another province.

The issue is one of episcopal collegiality. There needs to be some further discussion of this development between those involved and the diocesan bishops of the Church of England. The Archbishop of Canterbury has had the opportunity to speak with the Archbishop of Kenya about the situation: the good faith and fraternal good intentions of our Kenyan colleagues are not at all in question, but it seems that there were misunderstandings of the precise requirements of English Canon Law and good practice as regards the recommendation of candidates for ordination and deployment in mission. It is hoped that an early opportunity will be found to clarify what this new initiative seeks to achieve if it is truly to serve God’s mission in the most effective and collaborative way.

AMiE: Urban Pastor's Take on AMiE

AMiE

June 29, 2011 by theurbanpastor

Last Thursday, the Fellowship of the Confessing Anglicans in the United Kingdom (FCA) announced the formation of a new mission society, the Anglican Mission in England (AMiE). You can find the story here. Charles Raven has already commented on it here in a terrific article.

The press release gave a brief outline of some of the salient details but didn’t give much away. It’s therefore unsurprising that this significant move in the Church of England did not receive the press coverage that it might otherwise have done. Perhaps that’s what the people behind AMiE wanted. Maybe they’re not interested in making a big splash and would prefer the news to filter out under the radar. Me; I’d want to make a noise. But that’s why I’m not involved in these delicate negotiations! But I’m sure that there are faithful Anglicans, especially in this country, who would rejoice that after three years of apparent inactivity the FCA has finally done something more substantial than run a conference.

To get to grips with what AMiE is and why it’s important you could just look at Charles’ article. But this is the summary of what I said in an e-mail to CCB.

What is it?

AMiE has been established as a society within the Church of England. Apparently there are lots of them. It’s a bit like a non-geographical Diocese. Dedicated to the conversion of England and biblical church planting, it’s also an attempt to ensure that Anglican Evangelicals can remain within the Church of England without compromising their convictions. It’s a society that will allow Anglican Evangelicals to express their confessional loyalty to the doctrine of 39 Articles without necessarily needing to maintain an institutional loyalty to a theologically wayward Diocese. The press release says, ‘The desire of those who identify with the society is to have an effective structure which enables them to remain in the Church of England and work as closely as possible with its institutions.

Churches or individuals may join or affiliate themselves with the AMIE for a variety of reasons. Some may be churches in impaired communion with their diocesan bishop who require oversight. Others may be in good relations with their bishop but wish to identify with and support others’.

At CCB we’ve been in temporarily impaired communion with the previous Bishop of Southwark, the Right Reverend Tom Butler for nearly six years. We now have a new Bishop, The Right Reverend Christopher Chessun, formerly Bishop of Woolwich. It’s taken a while to meet him, which is a shame.

But he’s a busy man and dealing with the ‘renegades’ wouldn’t be top of my list either! Sadly Bishop Christopher’s appointment has not signified a new direction in the theological convictions and trajectory of Southwark’s Episcopal oversight. In other words, on the presenting issue of homosexual activity, the Bishop has not been able to reassure us that he believes and will teach that the only God approved context for sexual activity is within heterosexual marriage. To ask a Bishop such a thing might, to some, appear impertinent. Not to me. Not in the current context. And anyway, if I asked a Head Teacher of my kids’ school whether they believed and taught that two plus two was four, I imagine they’d tolerate my impertinence and answer ‘of course I do you muppet, that’s essential mathematics and we do all we can to teach the basics here at St Snodgrass Establishment for Delinquents’. Or words to that effect. I have some sympathy for the Bishop. He’s in a politically impossible position. He’s got to alienate someone; either it’s the liberal revisionists pushing for their agenda or it’s conservative evangelicals who want to maintain biblical fidelity. He’s got to alienate someone. He’s chosen us. But he’s not a politician. He’s a Bishop and he has a responsibility to uphold biblical truth as it is summarised in the 39 Articles. At his consecration, when the Archbishop asked him this question, ‘Are you ready to banish and drive away all wrong and strange doctrine that is contrary to God’s Word and will you both in public and private urge and encourage others to do the same?’ I imagine Bishop Chrisopher responded ‘I will, with the Lord’s help’. I imagine he both said and meant those words. But it’s apparent that he won’t. So what are we to do?

What this means for those Anglicans congregations within Co-Mission south of the river, is that the situation of temporarily impaired communion remains unchanged. We do not and must not recognise his spiritual authority over us. The Bishop is supposed to drive away erroneous doctrines and call sin for what it is; sin. He’s not supposed to sanctify it and call it what it’s not; holiness. Co-Mission, and presumably others like us, are left in the situation of appealing to the GAFCON Primates for the provision of alternative Episcopal oversight (AEO). This is something that we can now have through AMiE.

For more, see:
http://theurbanpastor.wordpress.com/

AMiE: Comments on the Tanks of Canterbury's Lawn

Comments posted at "Thinking Anglicans" re: FULCRUM and Anglican Mission in England (AMiE)

http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/005049.html#comments

Who could ever have predicted....
I savor the sweet naiveté of the folks at Fulcrum. Me! - a humble blogger from the southern US, who knows much less than I need to know to comment at all on the Church of England scene - I have warned that the CofE's time for invasion was coming. How could anyone have thought that the invaders would not go for the prize of Anglicanism, the Church of England?
Posted by: Grandmère Mimi on Monday, 27 June 2011 at 7:00pm BST

"secret ordinations in Kenya?"

If AMIE is associated with Mr. Martyn Minns, be careful ... very very careful. Bury your silver in the back yard, put lawyers, forensic accountants, and locksmiths on your speed dial.

Posted by: Cynthia Gilliatt on Monday, 27 June 2011 at 8:41pm BST

 

Just like many desperate con artists, pick pockets/grabbers and everyday thieves these not-so-attractive-gents, and they are mostly male, will take ¨it¨ any way they can get ¨it¨...I wouldn´t be expecting any ¨nicesties¨ in ¨jolly ol/dear ol´d England¨ as these boys are trained mudwrestlers-- surely you´ve noticed their tracks/facts in the Americas and beyond?
Just what does it take to get your ATTENTION?
Posted by: Leonardo Ricardo on Monday, 27 June 2011 at 8:43pm BST

Is this intervention compatible with the Covenant?
Posted by: Alan T Perry on Monday, 27 June 2011 at 10:48pm BST

Allan Perry, whatever gave you the idea that the Covenant is also about diocese poaching, cross-border intervention?
The Covenant is solely about punishing those provinces who dare to think that maybe women and gay people are qualified for priesthood and the episcopate. Making symbolic threats over cross-border intervention is window dressing.
Posted by: peterpi - Peter Gross on Monday, 27 June 2011 at 11:13pm BST

It seems to me to be an exciting development, but the protagonists will have to be respectful of the evangelicals who feel unable to part of this new movement. They must be absolutely open about ordinations, but I think if they are sensible they will aim to win support unexpected places. They have demonstrated courage.
Posted by: David Gibson on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 at 12:21am BST

If I may be permitted to expand on what just I just wrote:
Some of the very provinces that want a covenant-style Anglican Communion, a top-down, rigidly doctrinaire, orthodox structure with disciplinary ability against malefactors, back-sliders, heretics -- even if those provinces don't like the present proposed Covenant -- are also the very provinces that seriously engage in cross-border intervention.
I am dubious of any covenant. I am especially dubious of the proposed Covenant that, while on paper may be against cross-border intervention, is an effort to meet the demands of provinces that engage in cross-border intervention.
That's why I answered the way I did.
Posted by: Peterpi - Peter Gross on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 at 12:26am BST

I guess NT Wright telling the GafCon folks that while the US deserved what they did, English evangelicals should not be treated in the same way. I hope he now knows that his permission to plunder The Episcopal Church, along with the ++ABC's total neglect of their behaviors in the US simply emboldened them to come and steal your people, churches and assets with the same string of lying maneuvers they used here.
Get ready, The Evangelical Fagin is afoot!
Posted by: Michael Russell on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 at 1:31am BST

Fulcrum are right to be concerned -- because it is they who are most threatened by this.
Why settle for watered-down C of E evangelicalism, when you can have the real thing?
Posted by: Jeremy on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 at 3:50am BST

If no disciplinary action is taken, what is to stop the liberals starting a similar grouping advocating the changes they want...particularly if women bishops is lost in Synod. Should General Synod members be dismissed if they are linked to AMIE?
Posted by: Robert ian Williams on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 at 7:25am BST

A couple of points here folks:
a. The GAFCON folk have specifically rejected the Covenant. This action simply underlines their rejection of (and further undermines the value of) ++Rowan's beloved Covenant.
b. For the benefit of US commentators, the legal battles over buildings and their ownership etc won't happen here in the UK because the Elizabethan Settlement means that Congregations/Vestries/PCCs don't own their buildings. They exist for ALL those who live in the geographical parish and not simply for those who worship in the buildings. What is more likely to result is legal disputes over the discipline and inhibition of clergy may result but there's no doubt about who owns the real estate.
Posted by: Simon B on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 at 12:22pm BST

I think you are making too much of the cross boarder aspect. As Fulcrum point out this is an evolution of the existing home grown dissent. The main leaders are Messrs Perkin, Sugden, Benn and Nazir-Ali familiar to us all I am sure. I think the others are retired overseas bishops who are already in the UK and probably acting as assistant bishops but my quick googling was not conclusive.
Posted by: Dave on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 at 1:13pm BST

Thanks for the reminder about the very different situation of church buildings in England. I would still advise caution in dealing with these people; they are manipulative, stubborn, and intelligent. Don't underestimate them.
Posted by: Cynthia Gilliatt on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 at 1:37pm BST

I doubt very much that these people will make much progress in the broader Church. It is, however, impossible not to laugh at the predicament of Fulcrum, like - on the other side -the predicament of Father Hunwicke. People who live by the sword, etc.
Posted by: John on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 at 1:43pm BST

Simon B, for your benefit, US law in most places says the same. That doesn't prevent attempted "alienation of property." With a very very few exceptions, Episcopal congregations, vestries etc. do not "own" their property, but hold it in trust. This is, in fact, based on the same Elizabethan law. There is, as case after case demonstrates, no doubt about who has ultimate custody of the real estate.
But law does not prevent attempts to circumvent it. If there is a difference in England it must lie in some other aspect of the law, perhaps in the enforcement mechanisms. Perhaps what becomes a civil matter in the US is immediately treated as criminal in England. But I do not doubt that some souls, filled with the sense of their own righteousness, will not attempt to claim a parish or two as "theirs."
Posted by: Tobias Haller on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 at 1:55pm BST

@Simon B., Tobias Haller is quite right. A settled body of case law on church property issues has existed for decades in the United States. It demonstrates quite clearly that congregations cannot legally claim church buildings, etc. as their property if they choose to break away from the Episcopal Church and join another organization.
This settled body of case law was disregarded by the leaders of what became ACNA For some reason, they thought it was not going to apply to them. Why, I can't possibly tell you, except that it seems a classic case of groupthink. This has led to multiple, years-long lawsuits between breakaway groups and the Episcopal Church.
I contended from the beginning that no reasonable and knowledgeable person could think that any one of those lawsuits could be won by a breakaway congregation, given the state of the law on the subject. So did others, including a number of conservative leaders in the US. In the event not one breakaway group has won a lawsuit with the Episcopal Church in the US, though several still continue.
Of course, the breakaway groups have cast the Episcopal Church as the villain in all of this. My understanding is that the majority of you Brits believe them. Certainly the majority of your senior bishops have believed them and abetted them in their plans to destroy the Episcopal Church and replace it with their own. A few of those who led your church in open hostilities toward ours have since retired, but the push to recognize ACNA in place of the Episcopal Church continues.
So don't be surprised if the same stealth breakaway movements, and the same lawsuits over church property, start cropping up in the Church of England. You are simply reaping what you have sown.
Posted by: Charlotte on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 at 5:22pm BST

"They must be absolutely open about ordinations"
David G, could you clarify? And *who* (in your opinion) has shown courage? AMIE or Fulcrum?
Posted by: JCF on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 at 8:45pm BST

Simon B, or someone
Please clarify "the Elizabethan Settlement means that Congregations/Vestries/PCCs don't own their buildings".
Who does?
Posted by: Cheryl Va. on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 at 9:40pm BST

I think Fulcrum have got a cheek.
They and their ACI mates have fostered discontent and fed schism.
Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 at 11:57pm BST

I think the strategy of Minns ( the lord high conspirator) and CANA and everyone else is the establishment of an alternate Communion. They have literally no interest in the Covenant anymore, they are attempting to outflank the Communion and claim its place. Delusions, and all, but Minn et all are aimed in that direction. Arguing about the Covenant is indeed like closing the barn doors after all the horses have escaped, with those who it is meant to placate are long gone.
Posted by: Roger on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 at 12:02am BST

Dave wrote, "I think you are making too much of the cross boarder aspect. As Fulcrum point out this is an evolution of the existing home grown dissent. The main leaders are Messrs Perkin, Sugden, Benn and Nazir-Ali familiar to us all I am sure."
Perhaps it would be better to say that there is little evidence of border crossing - yet. The main leaders of AMiA and ACNA (I note them separately because they first arose separately; and even now their connections are voluntary, and not structural) were all known Episcopalians - until they sought foreign support and validation. Nor did we call then "schismatic" until they sought foreign support and validation. There is a place for loyal opposition. What Episcopalians would caution is that there is only a place as long as the opposition is loyal within. The leaders in AMiA and ACNA tried to claim they were loyal opposition within for some time after they started behaving as if they were outside.
Posted by: Marshall Scott on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 at 3:13am BST

Locally, the congregation that broke away and wanted the building had a deed/title which declared the property to belong to the vestry of the parish, not the diocese, TEC, etc. I assume deeds etc. are more specific towards the property belonging to the CoE or crown...?
The article and comments in the post above about the diocese voting for women bishops and against the amendment made me wonder if in this instance liberals and AMIE aren't hoping for the same thing--women bishops approved,followed by or including a provision for gays/lesbians with no amendment for the conservatives. I can just see the leaders of AMIE saying," The CoE is throwing the conservatives under the bus and we'll be there to pick up the pieces."
Posted by: Chris H. on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 at 3:20am BST

"They and their ACI mates have fostered discontent and fed schism." - Martin Reynolds
Good for them! Things desperately need shaking up, don't they?
Posted by: A J Barford on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 at 7:36am BST

In 1829 as a condition of Catholic emancipation the Catholic Church had to give up all claims to property taken from her in the sixteenth century.the Church of England holds the property absolutely, except in the case of a handful of proprietary chapels.
Posted by: Robert ian Willaims on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 at 8:06am BST

To anoint Martyn Minns "lord high conspirator" is to sell Canon Dr Rev'd Sugden a wee bit short, isn't it?
Posted by: Lapinbizarre on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 at 10:56am BST

In the US, parishes have what amounts to "usufruct" rather than outright ownership of property, even when they hold the deed. An Episcopal Parish cannot sell (or even lease for more than five years) any of its real property without the permission of the Bishop, and in states like NY, the Supreme Court. And if by chance a parish should dissolve, and the property be sold, it does not accrue to the last incumbent parish council or vestry, but to the diocese. This is not just a matter of case law, but of canon and civil law (hence the confusion in Virginia over the US Civil War era statute.)
Posted by: Tobias Haller on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 at 2:50pm BST

The real test is how much support will these people have from the laity esp if their parochial leaders begin to get stroppy with their bishop and diocesan authorities. How many did Charles Raven take with him into his independent Anglican" set up in the Wyre Forest?
Posted by: Perry Butler on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 at 3:21pm BST

"They and their ACI mates have fostered discontent and fed schism." - Martin Reynolds
Good for them! Things desperately need shaking up, don't they?
Posted by: A J Barford on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 at 7:36am BST
So some sincerely believe, Mr Barford. Not me.
Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 at 8:03pm BST

"So some sincerely believe" - Mr Reynolds
I suppose it depends whether or not one relies on the Church for one's livelihood...
Posted by: A J Barford on Thursday, 30 June 2011 at 9:10am BST

Talk about reaping the whirlwind - Fulcrum, having been one of the most active proponents of evangelical puritanism with the Church of England, is now seemingly afraid that its own territory within the C.of E. is under threat from the very people they formerly sought to embrace!
Perhaps this will afford some of the opponents of the openness of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada something of the frustrating experience of these Churches in North America that have had to deal with the aggressive tactics of incursion from Provinces of GAFCON into their own areas of Anglican mission!
With people like Canon Sugden wanting to take over the territory of the Church of England - under franchise from the 'Global South' - things look like being very different from what Fulcrum had hoped for.
Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Thursday, 30 June 2011 at 12:46pm BST

Some confusion here over Fulcrum I think.
Fulcrum has consistently supported women bishops (and no sell outs to the opponents) and has consistently opposed REFORM, GAFCON, ACNA et al.
Yes, they have supported the covenant and taken a conservative line on same sex partnerships - but look at the discussion boards on their website to see they are hosting open debates amongst evangelicals bon these matters and you will see too many Fulcrum supporters dissenting from the Fulcrum leadership on these two matters. Meanwhile, no debate allowed at Anglican Mainstream...
Posted by: Frozenchristian on Friday, 1 July 2011 at 11:43am BST