Over 900 Anglicans have already registered for ”˜Be Faithful’. They will consider the situation of the global Communion, and express their solidarity and support for Anglicans under pressure and persecution, both in North America and in the Sudan. They will address challenges to maintaining biblically faithful witness and ministry in the Church of England today.
The FCA is not another organization. It is not seeking to create another church. It is a spiritual movement and fellowship for renewal, reformation and mission ”“ uniquely bringing together those whose key shaping and commitment, but not exclusive identity, has been through the Anglo-Catholic, conservative evangelical, and charismatic expressions of Anglicanism.
The FCA movement can do this because it is defined by its centre in the Christian faith as currently embraced in the Jerusalem Declaration and Statement. Vinay Samuel, a speaker on July 6 writes: “Gafcon is defined by its centre and not by any boundaries. It is a fellowship of people who affirm the centre of orthodox faith as expressed in the Jerusalem Statement. Some who are uncertain whether they are in or out might be finding boundaries which were never intended by those who have taken the initiative to launch this fellowship.
But for as long as this movement recognises women’s ordination it carries the cancer of non-biblical innovation with it. It merely becomes a group against gays and not much else. That really IS unpleasant.
However if orthodoxy really IS THE KEY here. It will and must reject this innovation too and it would become a very exciting vehicle that could relate to the wider churches and return Anglicanism to what it once was. Sadly though I doubt they will have the wisdom to see this and, in the end, Anglicanism will prove itself unable to really grasp orthodoxy in any conceivable way.
Rugby, with respect, the reformation yearned for better doctrine and left open the possibility that the faith once received would develop as our understanding of Scripture deepened to the point of innovation. Women’s ordination is an open question but clearly not a “cancer of non-biblical innovation”. You can disagree with the biblical arguements for WO, but to place them in the same category as same sex relationships is unreasonable and one might suggest histrionic.
I’m inclined to agree with rugby playing priest (hello Ed!). Changing the tradition of the church on the question of women’s ordination – at least to the episcopate, and probably the priesthood as well – involves the same kind of theological imagination as lies behind the ‘reappraisal’ line on human sexuality. Where I disagree with him is that I’m not sure such theological imagination is a terrible thing. The tradition has always evolved. The question is, how do you make sure it stays fundamentally the same tradition?
So what if we said – the fundamentals of orthodoxy are in the Creed. If it isn’t the clear sense of the Creed, it isn’t a fundamental.
That way you have a clear rationale for firing priests who also want to be Muslims or Buddhists …. but discussions about sexuality and women’s ordination, while they might be very important, needn’t be church-dividing.
Perhaps a very simplistic post – but aren’t we Anglicans meant to be very careful about multiplying dogmas?
Ed Mcneill….with respect every single Diocese and Church that has embraced Women’s ordination has failed to maintain an orthodox faith. And with respect there was a reason why Gene Robinson, in encouraging Roman Catholic priests fighting for gay rights, told them to start with women’s ordination.
Once you have ushered in an innovation with no scriptural precedent and no precedent in the history of the church….then you open up Pandora’s box…..anything that is ‘a voice from the Spirit’ becomes possible.
Ultimately the desire to ordain women was not born of faithfulness to holy scripture but to a feminist ideology. And feminism is sadly a philosophy of faith not of family. So I would oppose feminism- and push instead for the biblical teaching of equality in complimentarity and difference, as opposed to equality through sameness and the battle of the sexes.
penultimate line should read ‘feminism = philosophy of the SELF not faith!!!
Evangelicals please take note!!! It really is THAT important