Contrary to their claims, the Anglican Communion is traditionally one that embraces difference and respects diversity. Since the reign of Henry VIII the Church of England has sought to encompass a range of opinions because it recognized that no one group has special access to truth. Therefore engagement with those with whom you disagree is essential in pursuit of truth.
The formation of FOCA is nothing less than a pre-emptive first strike by those who are determined to have their own way come what may. Their abandonment of serious theological discussion and debate is a betrayal of the ethos of Anglicanism.
Jonathan Clatworthy, General Secretary of the MCU said: “They tried to take over, using homosexuality as a rallying-cry and threatening to split the Anglican Communion. Finding their more extreme demands rejected they have finally decided to go their own way. This will be an opportunity for the Anglican Communion to reaffirm its traditional openness and diversity, recognizing that nobody has all the answers”.
Though founded over a century ago,[b][i] MCU has just 750 members.[/i][/b] There are quite a few more than that worshipping each Sunday at our orthodox Anglican church.
Sounds like a real popular organisation you’ve got going there, folks. Astro-Turf, not grass roots.
Except us.
“Since the reign of Henry VIII the Church of England has sought to encompass a range of opinions because it recognized that no one group has special access to truth.”
Has this silly person read history? The C of E encompassed a range of opinions to preserve order and a civil society. But there were always limits to the range of opinions. What does the writer think would have happened to a subject of Elizabeth I who had expressed the theological opinions of a KJS? Actually, does he think Elizabeth would have ever accepted WO, let alone women’s bishops. What does he think happened to Quakers during the reigns of the Stuarts? What does he think about the open and affirming nature of the C of E during the Interregnum? Why does he think the Pilgrims of Plymouth Colony and the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay emigrated? Might it not have been because the C of E had problems tolerating a certain range of opinions, and because those groups and the established church each felt they had a better claim on the truth?
What do you bet that the theology behind this utterly fatuous statement is about as valid as the history?
It’s as valid as smoke: It dissipates!
Just a random thought, but I wonder what the MCU’s 1908 membership would have thought about two male priests at the altar of St. Barts getting “married.”
[blockquote]The formation of FOCA is nothing less than a pre-emptive first strike by those who are determined to have their own way come what may.[/blockquote]
Pre-emptive first strike??? Who are they kidding? Orthodox have allowed the revisionistas a first strike, a second strike, a 77th strike. After more and more and more revisionist actions, the orthodox have finally acted.
What is FOCA?
Good question, Brien. Did I miss something. Anglicanism has been generating anagrams faster than the US Army —
What does FOCA stand for, anybody?
I think its “Federation Of Confessing Anglicans”,
But I could be wrong, considering I’m just a Grannie
Gloria in SC
Although I must admit to feeling awkward commenting on Britons’ statements about the Tudors, this particular remark is too delicious not to do so. Henry VIII’s church sought to encompass a variety of opinions…??? Hahahahahahaha, is that evidenced by the destruction of the abbeys and shrines? Or the beheadings of anyone who deigned not to do Henry’s bidding, whether they actually could or not?
Lest they invoke Elizabeth I next, it should be pointed out that Elizabeth reportedly savored her role of matchmaking in the court (courtiers had to receive the monarch’s permission to marry) and was outraged when she learned of courtiers whose inclinations lay with the same sex. She ordered them into marriages anyway. I can imagine her rolling over in her grave to know that her Church was seeking to be on the forefront for same-sex unions. This liberal group doesn’t read straightforward histories, do they?!
This made me LOL:
[blockquote]Next week’s MCU Conference, “Saving the Soul of Anglicanism†reflects more authentically the true ethos of Anglicanism. It will provide a proper context for listening and theological debate. The conference will be chaired by Archbishop of Wales Dr Barry Morgan and speakers represent the diversity of Anglicanism including Bishop Gene Robinson and Bishop Trevor Mwamba, bishop of Botswana and Dean of the Province of Central Africa.[/blockquote]
So, diversity is represented by +Wales, +NH and a bloke who just happens to be African but who, if I’m not mistaken, has taken up for TEC in the past? And they’re keen on saving our souls? Hahahahahahahaha
thank you, teatime, I’m laughing with you. Well stated!
#3, Franz,
I agree with much of what you wrote but I am curious why you say you don’t think Elizabeth I would be in favor of WO? Frankly, I believe quite the contrary as her life was much taken up by machinations to avoid marriage and, thus, reign by herself. She was quite the feminist, but in a healthy sense, and I think she would have been supportive of female clergy and bishops if it were truly possible at that time.
Thanks, #11 Columcil! I’d feel badly about laughing at the thoughts of sincere Christians but, honestly, what this group issued is so bizarre that you can’t help it! It just doesn’t seem real, God help us.
#7, #8, #9:
I’d guess it means “Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans,” presumably based on the GAFCON statement:
Whether “FOCA” is more or less euphonious than “GAFCON” is a judgment call.
It would appear to me that each liberal fringe group is made up of a small number of members, including Integrity, but when one combines the total number of members from each group, you get a rather large number. However, with 3/4 of the Anglican membership living in the traditional/orthodox teaching African provinces, the number of “liberal” theological adherents is rather insignificant.
It is only because the Western Church has money and an anti-religious press that the liberals can get away with false and foolish statements like: “…the Anglican Communion is traditionally one that embraces difference and respects diversity. Since the reign of Henry VIII the Church of England has sought to encompass a range of opinions because it recognized that no one group has special access to truth. …” Anyone familiar with English history knows this very well. Apparently, MCU doesn’t.
H
FOCA appears to be the acronymn of choice for the Guardian in the UK, standing apparently for Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans. The Guardian even produced a FOCA FAQ page — with answers just made up out of the blue, nothing official by anyone who was at GAFCON.
Liberal UK Anglicans (such as at Thinking Anglicans blog) have picked up on the acronym and making rude comments about the pronunciation.
To my knowledge NO ONE at GAFCON actually used this acronym. There was no new acronym or name created. That is all still the subject of much debate, it seems.
–elfgirl
As much as I sometimes disagree with the GAFCON folks, I understand their theological languages, their histories, their rationale. Folks like the MCU I hardly know where to begin the conversation. I simply can’t understand how they are reasoning theologically. Their narratives of Anglican history seems laughably ludicrous. Their usage of Scripture ridiculous. Are they some variety of performance art or an intellectual satire? Being in the MCU now rather reminds me of being in the [url=http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Pledge_Union]Peace Pledge Union[/url] in 1941.
This is, of course, the ethos of the MCU, not that of the Anglican Communion.
I can’t express how sick I am of listening to liberal secularists talking about the “broadness” and “diversity” of Anglicanism. Anglicanism is, first of all, a _Christian_ religion, not a freewheeling philosophical debating society. Within Anglicanism, there are myriad philosophical assumptions that are accepted beyond debate…they are part of the lay of the land. Examples include,the idea that there is a God who is active in history; that the basic nature of God is good; that humans can, and should, seek communion with God; etc. In our country, which has a secular government, everyone has the right to question, or flat-out deny, these doctrines, but he or she cannot do so and still be an Anglican, much less a Christian.
When you profess to be a Christian, or an Anglican, you are expressing belief in and affirming certain principles, not firing up the bong and making up your own religion. Nor are you simply rubber stamping the prevailing zeitgeist of your surrouding society.
Every major metropolitan area, and a lot of “minor” ones, have organizations called “Ethical Societies.” These meeting-houses are populated by people who are atheists, but are socially bound to the idea that respectable people have to go to meetings on Sunday mornings. Most liberal Episcopalians would fit in fine in these edifices,as well as in Universalist/Unitarian meeting-houses, or, for that matter, UCC “churches.” Please, leave the Christian churches to the Christians. I’m beggin’ ya.
Franz #3 makes some excellent historical points about the historical theological diversity of Anglicanism. John Wesley? George Fox? (the Quaker, not Eliot Spitzer on the down-low).
Someone has said that Anglican theology and doctrine is a mile wide and an inch deep.
Further to #16 – Stephen Noll inserted a helpful comment on a StandFirm thread to caution that in the Declaration, ‘fellowship of confessing’ Anglicans was never capitalized, intentionally.
Thus it wasn’t fair game for making an acronym, as the Guardian did.
Anglicism’s has limits to theological inclusion. It withdrew from Roman Catholicism for a reason and could not support all of the ideas of the Free Church moment.
So while the Elizabethan settlement is broad it does have boundaries.
The same is true today.
“It will provide a proper context for listening and theological debate.”
Listening.
*sigh* Theres that word again…
[i]Since the reign of Henry VIII the Church of England has sought to encompass a range of opinions because it recognized that no one group has special access to truth.[/i]
The mind boggles at this juvenile and self-centered reading of history. I’m sure St. Thomas More was thinking the very same thing in 1535 as his head rolled across the grounds of the Tower of London, free of the burden of resting upon its shoulders. Oh, and the English monks I’m sure were contemplating the depth and breadth of “special access to truth” while their monasteries were being dismantled around them.
There are no kind words to use about this statement. It’s simply stupid.
Could we please, [i]please[/i] have someone with a sense of poetry come up with the official acronym once something is rolling? GAFCON? FOCA? Not to mention CAPA, FACA, etc…[i]sheesh…[/i] CANA is about the only name out there with some euphony. I know it’s piddling compared to the real issues, but still…let Martyn Minns come up with the new name, or at least let it come from his computer.
Interesting. MCU, however, would be more in line with the theology of most brits – not just churchgoing ones.
The tradition it espouses is one of latitudinarianism, which was a pretty strong movement in both England and the US. For better or worse.
Orthodox Anglican Fellowship? Nope.
Confessing Orthodox Fellowship? Nope
Global Orthodox Anglican Team? Nope
Global Anglican Subcommunion? Nope
Confessing and Conciliar Anglicans (CaCA)? Nope
Fellowship of Orthodox Evangelicals? Nope
How about “[i]The[/i] Anglican Communion”?
Wow, Robroy–you outdid yourself! 🙂
Hahahaha, robroy! I especially like FOE, sounds so intimidating, LOL.
It just dawned on me that I belong to DONT — Diocese of Northwest Texas. I’m not sure how to interpret that!
teatime–I used to belong to the Diocese of Oklahoma…DOO
heh heh heh
All the FOCA comments and I’m glad I clicked on the computer when I couldn’t sleep. Some good laughs from RobRoy. I had a friend with Exxon when they devised that name. Esso was a problem in S. America. He told me about Chevy Nova not selling. No va=it won’t go.
I guess this isn’t the blog to start a naming thread. Maybe another venue.
Oh my, Jason! That is the pits! LOL!
Must try sleep again. But, in case you don’t get it about FOCA, Thinking Anglicans links to an angry piece in the Guardian called “Meet the Focas.”
Nice, 0hKay.
I’ve got a name: Episcopal Missionaries In Training.
Jason, it works out as “E M Tee…..empty.”
Anglican Renewal Fellowship=ARF
(;-D)
I’m in Atlanta…the unfortunate acronym is DOA.
“Global Orthodox Anglican Team” GOAT!!!
I know the sheep will be separated from the goats, but I’m not sure this is what was intended.
[i]Since the reign of Henry VIII the Church of England has sought to encompass a range of opinions because it recognized that no one group has special access to truth. [/i]
Ask St. Sir Thomas More if he thinks Henry VIII tolerated a wide range of opinions in his church.
oops, I should have read a bit further, as Bernini wrote the same in post #24.
Oh, well, great minds and all that! What?
Jim Elliott <><