The movement which has begun ACNA is now doing the same in the United Kingdom with what is called the FCA. Of course this is going to be the forerunner of a schismatic entity in Great Britain. What's hilarious is that the movement says they are going to do these things, they then do them, and all the while they also have their own advocates and spin doctors simultaneously denying that they are doing anything of the sort. I am reminded of the old joke about how the Germans invaded France by walking in backwards and saying they were leaving. On the one hand this movement -- which exists on both sides of the Atlantic, with its roots in former members of The Church of England as with The Episcopal Church and Church of Canada -- says that TEC, CofC and CofE are essentially apostate, heretical and even Satanic, and on the other hand they say they would never say such a thing.
Anyhow, here is a piece by Toby Cohen for the UK website Religious Intelligence:
Over 1,600 people turned up at Methodist Central Hall in Westminster, including leaders from around the Communion, to celebrate the fellowship which currently describes itself as a movement rather than an organization. However, Archbishop Bob Duncan, of the new Anglican Church in North America, made clear that FCA UK could follow the route of the North Americans in forming a new Church if they saw the Church of England stray too far from its traditional roots.
A new power in the Church of England is waiting to take control if the current leadership permit any further liberalization, warned the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA) UK at its launch in London today.
He said: “The American Church and the Canadian Church are radical churches. They are revolutionary Churches. Our hope is that that’s not what the Church of England will be. It really depends on- the ability for the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans to be a force within the Church of England depends on- the attitude of the leadership of the Church of England.”
That leadership was criticized in no uncertain terms by the Bishop of Fulham, the Rt Rev John Broadhurst, the Chairman of Forward in Faith International, who said: “Satan is alive and well and he’s residing in Church House.”
Consecrating women as bishops in the Church of England without proper provision for those opposed to the move would prompt FCA UK to challenge the current Church leadership. The Bishop of Lewes, the Rt Rev Wallace Benn, maintained that the fellowship was hopeful that this would not be necessary.
He said: “I think we are hopeful that the Church of England will see sense and provide properly for loyal Anglicans of both integrities. The Lambeth Conference talked about both integrities being loyal Anglicans and for a Church to want to push out one or the other is very unfortunate and should not be a Church dividing issue if proper action is taken. I think most of us are optimistic that some sort of solution will come out of that.
“If the Church of England was to be foolish and to drive people out of a conscientious issue then we would need to look for help and support from elsewhere. At the moment we’re not pessimistic.”
Archbishop Gregory Venables, Primate of the Southern Cone, underlined how serious the theological distance was between FCA and other parts of the Church, he said: “This is about the essentials of theology, and that’s where the division is coming. Those who say there is only one way; Jesus Christ, stand with us, stand with him, and those who say there are a lot of ways, Jesus is one of them. That is what this division is about and it’s not schism, it is real separation over Gospel truth.”
While speculation surrounded the retiring Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, as to whether he would be taking a leading role with FCA, he said: “I’m just a foot-soldier.”
8 comments:
May this awake Rowan out of his Chamberlain-like slumber. There is no negotiating with this fifth column. They are not conservatives. They are radical ideologues.
If Rowan hasn't figured these people out by now, he isn't going to . . . ever. I'm just waiting for the Venables to swoop in and take parishes and dioceses in England under his "protection." Even then I feel that Rowan will try to find some way to maintain peace in our time.
Gentleman, I agree with you completely about the GAFCONaire. But, I think the question of Anglican comprehensiveness, and the need for covenant, has nothing really to do with them, and more to do with those of us who still wish to walk together while preserving a degree of breadth -- that includes real-live conservatives as well.
I would be happy to include any genuine conservatives. I have good pastoral relationships with such in my parish.
FJ, I agree with you about unity, of course, but the inevitable end of the fundamentalist's means is the absolute elimination of the other. This is the exact opposite intention of those of us interested in unity.
It seems to me that these types should band together and go back under the their bridges with the other trolls who don't like or want anyone else at the dinner table.
Bill, I'm sure you do, I was thinking more about what is meant about the sense of how your comment bears on Rowan Williams. I am of the opinion that Rowan is not at all a Neville Chamberlain figure, but rather one who holds a more Michael Ramsey-like vision of the Gospel and the Catholic Church, which of necessity seeks to create means by which diversity in communion may be upheld as well as limited. It continues to be my wish that The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion do just that. I certainly agree with you in that I don't believe the GAFCONAIRE are in favor of that vision of comprehensiveness.
Archbishop Williams just might hold a Ramsey-esque view of the church, but the problem is that his desire for comprehensiveness (in itself a good thing) and his aversion to schism just might be blinding him to the very real danger that these GAFCONites pose to that comprehensiveness and that they will bring about schism he seeks to avoid. We've been saying for a long time that eventually they'd set up shop in England, and now it's happened. Will Rowan do anything other than try to appease them? So far his past actions don't look promising.
I think Rowan's intent is Ramsey-like. What he does not seem to appreciate is the depth of the problem. When he sees the schismatics first hand within the C of E, he may come to appreciate that there are some cancers that require radical surgery. He has always admitted this in principle. His stance has been too irenic. And he has wrongly privileged radical ideologues' point of view.
In my view the John decision was the start down a long slippery slope. He needs to recover some theological integrity.
Post a Comment