Fulcrum is therefore wrong to criticise AMiE for conflating what it snidely calls a 'conservative evangelical political agenda' with concerns about mission and church planting.
Guarding the apostolic gospel is essential to mission, as the Apostle Paul taught in 2 Timothy, a letter concerned with ensuring that Christ's mission can proceed without being undermined by false teaching.
Paul exhorts Timothy whom he had put in pastoral charge of the false-teaching-riddled church at Ephesus to
follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us (1v13-14 -RSV)>.
A so-called gospel that denies the nature of the sin from which we are redeemed may fill churches (in the Church of England's case it isn't particularly), but it will not save people. Fulcrum is quite wrong to dismiss real spiritual concerns about upholding biblical integrity in our denomination for the sake of gospel proclamation as 'political'.
But Fulcrum has landed a bit of a punch over the secrecy surrounding the identity of the three English clergy ordained in Kenya. The GAFCON news release mentions that they were welcomed at the evangelical ministers' conference in the City of London where AMiE was launched last week but does not give their names.
Surely the point of ordaining them in Anglican orders is to give them wider accreditation beyond the London church planting network in which they are beginning their public ministries. Indeed GAFCON explicitly states that they were ordained for 'ministry in the wider Anglican Communion'.
Even if one accepts the argument that the unusual circumstances surrounding the ordinations of these men necessitated discretion beforehand, in its announcement after the event GAFCON should have given their names and explained why they were ordained in Kenya.
Openness strengthens the case for AMiE; secrecy undermines it.
The Revd Charles Raven's excellent analysis of the theological rationale for AMiE is a must read for any member of the youth group wanting to get on the end of this significant development.
One does not wish to make more of this than it deserves, but the fact that the Clergy Discipline Measure has popped into one liberal Anglican blogger's mind as a way of countering AMiE is surely a precursor to the institutional hostility it is likely to face.
The Church Mouse is calling upon the Archbishop of Canterbury publicly to threaten the use of the CDM against licensed supporters of AMiE.
It would be downright unjust to use the CDM against orthodox Anglicans taking action for the sake of biblical truth and the canonical theology of the Church of England.
What would add to that injustice is the sad reality that licensed clergy who deny cardinal doctrines of Christ's gospel or who are engaged in immoral relationships outside of heterosexual marriage or who have been witnessed behaving in other ways unbecoming for a clerk in holy orders have had no action taken against them under the CDM.
Of course, one should expect persecution and opposition as a Bible-believing Christian and this is very tame compared to what many of our orthodox Anglican brothers and sisters around the world are experiencing. But the hypocrisy of such a threat in our current Church of England context is particularly disgraceful, compounded by the anonymiceness of the individual invoking it.
Are the names 'secret'? I presume those who appeared at the launch in London didn't wear bags on their heads, so quite a lot of people must know who they are.
ReplyDeleteThank you John - as a minister in the north of England who has to ration the number of southern evangelical conferences I go to I don't know who they are. Besides which, the argument for secrecy prior to the ordinations is not altogether convincing given that they were ordained for 'ministry in the wider Anglican Communion.
ReplyDeleteCan we have the names then please, and explanations why they weren't ordained in England? Or is there something to hide after-all?
ReplyDeleteOK, time for a bit of detective work to find out who was ordained in Kenya:
ReplyDeleteRichrd Perkins of Christ Church Balham says they are all Co-Mission staff (check his blog)
Stafford Carson gives their names as Pete, Phil, and Matt (check his blog)
Based on these clues, I checked out all the Co-Mission churches.
Pete Woodcock is pastor of Cornerstone Church Kingston and he leads the church.
Pete Matthew is minister of Christ Church Balham but they have Rev Richard Perkins (aformentioned blogger) as their senior minister.
Phil Allcock is minister of Clapham Central Church. Whilst they list Rev Richard Coekin as their senior minister, he's based at Dundonald. So I suspect Phil is the effective leader of the church.
Matt Fuller is senior minister of Christ Church Mayfair. He leads the church, but there's a reference to someone of the same name from St Helen's Bishopsgate being priested in 2006 - that's probably him.
Matt Searles is minister at Dundonald Church but they do have have Rev Richard Coekin as their senior minister. I found one online reference to Rev Matt Searles (on the Dundonald web site) but I suspect that's an error.
I can't find any other people called Pete, Phil, or Matt listed as on staff at the Co-Mission churches. Other than as given above, I can't find any references to them being ordained or using the title rev or reverend.
This is complete speculation and I may be wrong, but I'm going to put money on it. If the clues are correct but I am wrong, I'll donate £5 to charity for each person ordained who isn't on the above list!
To narrow it down, I'll eliminate Pete Matthew as (1) Pete Woodcock would be a higher priority for ordination and (2) I don't think Richard Perkins would have blogged in the way he did if it had been Pete Matthew. The Matt is a bit harder but it's probably Matt Searles.
So I reckon Pete Woodcock, Phil Allcock, and Matt Searles.
And if I am right, remember - you read it here first, from me.
Next question - why?
ReplyDeletePeter, I'm not really an expert on the machinations of anglican politics, but here goes...
ReplyDeleteCo-Mission, a conservative evangelical anglican church planting group, is based in the Southwark diocese, which is very liberal. So they won't get on well with the diocesan hierarchy, especially as I believe they plant evangelical churches across parish boundaries.
Richard Coekin, head of Co-Mission, was behind the previous irregular ordinations in 2005. Two of the three ordinands then were also Co-Mission church leaders. The reasons given for those ordinations were the reluctance of the then Bishop of Southwark (Tom Butler) to perform them, and the Bishop's views on sexuality. Co-Mission said that they are in a state of "impaired communion" with the Bishop.
This situation has continued with the new Bishop, Christopher Chessun, who also apparently has liberal views on sexuality.
Now, I cannot help but notice that the General Synod meeting in York is imminent. I wonder if AMiE is planning some sort of event to coincide with this, at which the three mystery ordinands will be paraded before the world. The timing will have been designed for maximum effect, hence all the secrecy so far.
It's an excellent opportunity for FCA and GAFCON to launch AMiE with a bang. They are saying that they have had enough, they will not accept the episcopal oversight of liberal diocesan bishops, and they are prepared to do something about it by setting up their own alternative structures. Conservative evangelicals have made threats along these lines before.
I would not be surprised if we hear something around the middle of next week, the idea being that the whole synod will be talking about it as they meet in York on Friday. It will put a lot of pressure on everyone, from Rowan Williams down.
I don't think it will happen after Synod has gathered, as once they're all effectively banged up in the university they'll be slightly isolated from the outside world. So I reckon all will be revealed by this time next week.
Again, I may be wrong, but if not, remember who first suggested this. I don’t want my analysis plagiarised.
This doesn't sound like a very likely scenario to be honest. AMiE has already lbeen launched and the three were made known at the Evangelical Ministry Assembly in London. It's just that if you weren't at the EMA you don't know who are they are.
ReplyDeleteIan S - would you mind giving your full name and location on future comments please?
I forgot to say (in both my comments) that I have no insider knowledge whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteJulian, why don't you contact someone from Co-Mission or FCA to try to find out what's happening...
Julian, valid point, but why are their names nowhere on the internet? Was everyone at EMA told to keep it under wraps? Why the reluctance to show their hand? I don't get all the secrecy. And the EMA is a small event that the secular media won't pick up on, whereas Synod normally gets some coverage.
ReplyDeleteBut even if nothing is planned in the run-up to Synod, I'm sure they've done this to show the rest of the CofE that they are serious.
I value my privacy and would rather not give my full name, but I do live in England.
I find the secrecy very disturbing. Did Chessun refuse to ordain then? Is he really liberal on the issue? Is that a good enough reason anyway to refuse to have him ordain (given Article 26)?
ReplyDeleteOf course, if you don't consider ordination "sacramental"...
ReplyDelete;-)
Ian S: it does seem a little ironic that you are suspicious of AMiE and Co-mission for not revealing the names of these three when you won't reveal your name! Perhaps they value their privacy too?
ReplyDeleteI doubt if there is any grand conspiracy. From what I know of the people associated with this, they're not that Machiavellian. But I do agree that there has been far too much secrecy around this. Maybe someone who was at the EMA should whistle blow?
More important is what this probably reveals about the purpose AMiE. When the "Society" was mooted at the Reform conference last year, it's purpose was to provide oversight for those who can't accept the authority of women bishops. That now seems to have been lost sight of, and its purpose has morphed into providing oversight for Co-mission. Which is an excellent thing to do- I'm glad Co-mission have what they need. But it's not what the rest of us were hoping for, and I don't think we can expect much from AMiE.
Stephen Walton
Marbury
Peter,
ReplyDeleteSorry, when I said the situation has continued with Christopher Chessun, I simply meant the impaired communion with Co-Mission. This was based on Richard Perkins' blog at:
http://theurbanpastor.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/amie/
"...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
...
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."
[Perkins incidentally was one of those ordained by Martin Morrison in 2005 - the irregular ordinations]
There's nothing to suggest that Chessun has refused to ordain anyone, but given what Perkins said, I suspect it's more the case that the ordinands would refuse to be ordained by him and so they didn't even ask him.
At least one other blogger has suggested that AMiE is planning to be a "church within a church" and it seems clear that the Co-Mission churches are their first troops on the ground.
I use a military analogy deliberately as it seems the current approach is a slightly beligerent one.
Stephen,
I am not a church leader or in any public role. I am a nobody and seek to stay that way. That's a completely different situation to the mystery three.
My personal view is that I have long been dismayed by the liberalism within the CofE. However I have the same concerns about AMiE as I have about conservative evangelicalism in general - they see themselves as having the right to define evangelicalism to the exclusion of all others. They have no time for people like myself who don't relate to Calvinist theology and view women's ordination as a positive and Biblical development.
Amendment to my predictions!
ReplyDeleteI didn't spot a Matt Lloyd, who is assistant minister at Christ Church Mayfair. But there's a record of him being priested in 2009, so he's not a candidate for the mystery three.
It's very interesting, by the way, that their people don't refer to themselves as priests or vicars, or put Rev before their names. I did also wonder if they would call someone a minister who hasn't been ordained.
Stephen makes an important point. It would be unfortunate if AMiE was only owned by the southern church planting networks and the larger churches.
ReplyDeleteIt would be good if a group of us ministering in smaller northern churches, in what might call the Celtic fringe and in UPA's could meet the AMiE leadership to impress upon them the particular issues facing us and to listen to them. Some of us are in relatively happy relationships with our diocesans, others are not so fortunate.
But it would be good to talk with the AMiE leaders.
I'm reading this as a 'liberal' Anglican priest, funnily enough working in Southwark Diocese.
ReplyDeleteWhatever the convictions of all involved, doesn't anyone else notice how bizarre this feels?
What exactly is being done for the Kingdom of God whilst we all muse about the identity of three people who may or may not be happy to be categorised as priests in the Church of England, after what may or may not be an ordination?
Okay, that's a cheap shot. But to me, it comes across as a rather masonic level of secrecy.
And, as so often, it seems that people are transfixed on homosexuality as the primary descriptor of sin: I drive my car too much when I could cycle; I am selfish when I should be selfless; I have too much of an ego; I don't sympathise enough with parishioners...
There are plenty of sins in my life before one even considers the sexual ones.
Anyway, I'm rather saddened by the development and I don't believe it helps the cause of Jesus Christ at all.
But I could be wrong.
Thank you Sir for this comment. What I'm afraid many liberals fail to appreciate is that underlying the division about homosexual practice in the Church of England and the Anglican Communion more widely is the issue of biblical authority. The supreme authority of God's Word written is a vitally important issue for the cause of Jesus Christ in the Church and in the world. We as orthodox confessing Anglicans are convinced that those within the Church who accept practising homosexuality are being driven by an attitude to the Bible that is profoundly Christ-dishonouring.
ReplyDeleteI would add that as a Christian disciple it is vitally important that I accept the Bible's definition of the sin from which I am redeemed and of which I need to be repenting in my daily walk.
ReplyDeleteSo, the question of biblical authority is a very practical one for daily discipleship.
Julian, I hold what you would regard as orthodox views regarding sexuality. However, it is worth noting that the opposing camp is not exclusively liberal. There are some homosexuals who seek, in their view, to interpret the Bible in a way that honours God. Roy Clements is the obvious name that springs to mind, and he has (or had!) impeccable evangelical credentials - here's a couple of his articles:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.courage.org.uk/articles/article.asp?id=136
http://www.courage.org.uk/articles/article.asp?id=147
Do not take this as an endorsement of or agreement with his views. I simply feel that we mustn't misrepresent people. Clements would say that he is an evangelical who is totally committed to Biblical authority. We should at least acknowledge that even if we regard him as misguided and outside the umbrella of orthodox belief.
Having read carefully both the articles linked to above, I have come to the conclusion that I am an Evangelical with a strong fundamentalist tendency!! I have to say that "modern psychological ideas about mental illness MAY be wrong".
ReplyDeleteScripture is the innerant word of God and we need to take great care before accepting any 'modern' view which contradicts that Word.
With regard to the main thrust of Julian's article and the above comments, I would say that the ministry of evangelicals 'on the fringe' does feel somewhat 'semi-detached'. It is difficult to travel to meetings and conferences when living and working 150 miles from the centre (Oxbridge?). The basic cost of full fees for a conference more than once a year are beyond the means of many. I have noticed over the years that Bristol seems to be the centre of the West Country as no doubt Watford Gap is seen as the North!
Although we can keep up to date with the news, there is a definite lack when face to face meetings do not take place. Interpersonal relationships are important and evangelical trend-setting needs to take into account those of us on 'the celtic fringe'.
Terry
(If you want to know who I am click on the pic!)
Julian, thanks for publishing this. Your analysis is quite clever and thought-provoking, as witnessed by the many comments.
ReplyDeleteYou are probably aware by now that Richard Coekin has published an article on this that discloses a lot more information.
You wrote:
"One does not wish to make more of this than it deserves, but the fact that the Clergy Discipline Measure has popped into one liberal Anglican blogger's mind as a way of countering AMiE is surely a precursor to the institutional hostility it is likely to face."
He's not the only liberal to think of this. But really, is it likely? The Bishop of Worcester's attack on Charles Raven backfired badly, when he and his congregation walked out. They can now evangelise as and where they please, and no longer have to contribute funds to keep small and struggling liberal congregations going; instead, they can devote their funds entirely to new church plants. Since then, no-one has been silly enough to follow in +Worcester's footsteps.
A Church Times article indicates that Primate of Kenya has asked ABC to licence these three under the Overseas Clergy Act. That would seem to be the real story - they aren't giving ++Williams the option of just quietly ignoring these three, as he has done for the Southwark ordinations. I wonder what he will do?
MichaelA:
ReplyDeleteAlthough I'm a Church Times reader, I didn't spot the article you mention. However, I'm not quite sure where the Primate of Kenya could fit in - if it's a matter of licensing the three, they would have to be licensed to a particular ministry under the auspices of the C of E, and that would mean (among other things) taking the oath of canonical obedience to whichever C of E diocesan bishop their ministry was under; if it's a question of allowing them to officiate as sort of itinerant priests, I think it's for the particular congregation who wishes to invite them to officiate to make application (I'm assuming you're thinking of taking services, presiding at the Eucharist etc. - they can preach anyway, under the Ecumenical Canon if all else fails).
As far as ++Rowan having the option of "just quietly ignoring" the Southwark ordinations is concerned, he didn't have an option - he had to stay out of it. The Southwark ordinations were carried out by a bishop from outside the Anglican Communion, and unless those who were ordained wish to be received into the C of E they are nothing whatsoever to do with him (or, for that matter, with the Bishop of Southwark).
(And although I am opposed to the ordination of practising homosexuals on the same grounds, broadly speaking, as cc et al., I still don't understand why if a bishop agrees with it it's necessary to deny his oversight altogether, whereas bishops who believe in the sacrifice of the Mass are not so denied....)
Steve, Wolverhampton
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI don't know the details of whatever discussions Primate of Kenya may or may not have had with ABC, so I regret I can't take it any further.
Re the implicit question in your last sentence, I think your terminology highlights the difference between that situation and that in Southwark - 'sacrifice of the mass' can mean a lot of things. As an evangelical, I am not perturbed by much anglo-catholic belief, particularly when on closer examination it turns out to be little different to the teaching of Calvin or Hooker anyway. I agree with you that I would have a problem if a bishop publicly declared he believed in the medieval doctrine of transubstantion, because he thereby publicly repudiates a part of the 1662 BCP (Article XXVIII).
I understand this to be Richard Coekin's issue - not what +Southwark personally believed, but whether he was prepared to distance himself from his predecessor's public denial of Anglican teachings. I am thinking of this part of Coekin's explanation: "Sadly, when I asked the new Bishop repeatedly if he believes and will teach that homosexual practice is a sin, the presenting issue over which our relationship with the Diocese had been impaired, he offered no such assurance."
However, I understand that some would draw the line at a different point, and they still remain faithful to scripture and the traditions of the church.