Following a report in the Daily Telegraph last week, I posted an explanatory blog here in which I tried to clarify matters. Judging by the rather eclectic responses, it obviously didn’t work. Several responses – apart from being somewhat patronising – seem still to be responding to the Telegraph headline which was not only wrong, but bore no relation to what I actually said and believe. However, it seems to suit some people to assume the headline is accurate and not to bother going further. (I have given up complaining about sub-editors not reading the articles for which they provide – often arresting but misleading – headlines.) So, here goes with a number of responses to the responses.
First, the Telegraph headline was not only wrong, but it could not be derived from the article that followed. (The article itself elided two completely separate General Synod debates that were not linked at all – as anyone there will tell you.) I did not say that Christians can learn from Muslims how to be a minority. (And why did the headline put the word ‘minority’ in inverted commas? What was that about?) I said that, just as Muslims are having to learn what it is to be a minority in the West, so Christians who find themselves in a minority here in England have to ask serious questions about what it means to be a church in this context. It is the phenomenon of learning afresh that was the point – which I thought was obvious.
Second, I was not implying and did not make any comparison with Christian minorities in Muslim countries. I was specifically speaking about the challenge of being a Christian church in Bradford (and one or two other English cities), not Iraq, Iran, Egypt or Saudi Arabia. I am not responsible for a dodgy headline on an odd newspaper article that then gets re-shaped as it gets transmitted around the internet, ending up as a story almost totally unrelated to the original fact. Those who rather uncritically told me to wise up might just take a moment to consider this: in the global interfaith work I do (representing the Archbishop of Canterbury) I consistently raise the question of these Christian minorities. I neither fear nor favour, and have never hesitated to ask these questions. Occasionally I have met resistance, but often it has given an opportunity for forthright conversation. The plight of Christian minorities in Muslim countries is serious and one to whcih I give serious attention. To suggest that I am ignorant, fearful or stupid is itself absurd.
Third, my argument would have stood without reference to Muslims. The reality here in Bradford is that entire communities are now Asian. That is fact. Those who don’t like that fact can moan all they like about Muslim threats, but that doesn’t help one iota address the challenge of what it means to be a church right here. Outsiders can scream all they like about ‘segregation’, but they often do so from a distance and never venture to offer a strategy for addressing it. So far, not one respondent has offered anything constructive. Which leads me to the fourth (linked) point…
Fourth, what I said in my Synod speech was that the challenge this provokes is one the church should grasp and not simply cower away in fear. I was precisely encouraging the church to stand firm, maintain Christian witness, not abandon these areas; but, they have to engage with being Christian churches in these areas in new ways. They are admirable because they bring committed Christians into these areas precisely in order to be present and engaged. Or would the respondents prefer us to run away and hide?
Fifth, I would love to know how many of these respondents have the first idea about Bradford. Which of them lives here? Or has even visited the place? Andrew Carey in the Church of England Newspaper admonishes me for my encouragement of Christians to rise to the challenge – yet I wonder what he knows of Bradford. When was he last here? Before I came to Bradford as bishop I refrained from commenting on interfaith matters here (despite having read alot and heard alot) on the grounds that the grassroots reality is always different. I thought it would be arrogant to comment on what I didn’t know from experience, and had only read about. I am amazed at how people who don’t live here are kind enough to offer me their patronising advice. (A charge I am not aiming at Andrew Carey, but some of the commenters on the blog.)
Finally, Bradford is probably unique in some elements of its population make-up and this presents real challenges. Shouting about Islamism isn’t likely to help anyone address these. Seeing ourselves as victims isn’t likely to do much either. I want to encourage our Christian churches to stay stuck into all our parishes – regardless of their ethnic complexions – and being confident, resourceful and joyful. My job is to support them in doing so and to put my back (as well as my prayers) into developing Chistian presence and witness in all these areas. No fear. No favour. No running away. And no wasting time pandering to the ignorance of those who shout advice from outside a place they do not know.
That’s it. From now I will turn to blogging about other things of interest.
July 17, 2011 at 5:39 pm
I grew up in Manningham, which like many areas close to City Centres has changed enormously in the last 50+ years. Once there were seven parishes, several of them operating mission churches. Now I think there are two – it’s some time since I knew the area first-hand, though I ministered not far away throughout the nineties. Even if the population were not largely Muslim, the whole area would need a different kind of ministry from that which it enjoyed half a century ago. The fact that there has been a root and branch change in the local culture makes it an utter no-brainer.
I don’t have a magic bullet, but I do believe that when we Anglicans are seen as people whose faith is taken and lived seriously on a day to day basis – in prayer and worship, in community action, in engaging with others of different faiths – then we might begin to be regarded as less of an irrelevance. Two Muslim members of a local SACRE impressed me some years ago when they said their evening prayers at the back of the room as the rest of us were drinking coffee and scoffing free biscuits. They were being true to the title-deeds of their faith. If being prepared to think and act as a minority involves such things (and I think it does), then the church in the city which nurtured my faith has a huge and vital gift to offer the rest of the nation.
July 17, 2011 at 7:06 pm
Well said!
And good luck with the challenges you face.
(I like John’s thoughts above too…)
July 18, 2011 at 12:31 am
…There’s nothing to beat an angry Scouser letting off steam!! You sound like I have the past few days reading, listening and responding to some of the rubbish being spouted about the rest of us “liberal, inferior gospel”" evangelical Anglicans by the AMiE head honchos! Different topic I know, but evoking similar emotions I sense.
I was a touch disappointed to hear you say that there had been “not one respondent who has offered anything constructive” there were a few of us who were supportive of your stance, but I guess you may have been referring to the fact that those who were more critical (as they are entitled to be), were destructive rather than constructive in their critical approach.
There is a huge part of me that is thrilled that there is a Bishop with such passion in the ranks who wears his heart on his sleeve (I’m sure there are others, but they tend not to opine so refreshingly openly), There is a much smaller part of me that was slightly…only slightly I add…concerned that if I was to criticise something, albeit constructively, you had said or written I might be in danger of getting a flea in my ear! I am guessing that as long as I am constructive I will be OK, and I guess you have probably had a skinful following the Daily Mail article.
So far, I think we have though along similar lines…although we may disagree on certain things…such as the constant need to bend over backwards to keep people within the Anglican church so long as it is on their terms..If I hear one more Bishop or senior cleric urge us to desperately try and find a solution to the ordination of women Bishops so that we can keep everyone on board, ( as if the Anglican church is somehow similar to the Holy Trinity and should forever retain its form as was, is, and shall be for ever..Amen) no matter how unreasonable they are being.. I’ll scream!!.. but then again that’s a bit of a different topic!
I see that you have had your Diocesan discussion on the subject over the weekend so you may come back at me on the profound merits of discussion, listening, bending over backwards to understand and accomodate each other etc but I just feel that occasionally you can have too much of a good thing…like 3 or 4 years too much…
Hope the week ahead is less stressful and more enjoyable than the past week has been!
July 18, 2011 at 8:47 am
Phil, I wasn’t actually angry. But, I do think we let critics get away with murder. I frequently think of giving up this blog, but it still remains the only way of putting right what gets misreported or misrepresented. The only way to challenge the criticisms of (for example) journalists is to have a medium for putting the record right. What offends me about this sort of stuff is the blatant ignoring of the ninth Commandment. Bishops usually wince and bear the stuff thrown at us; I don’t think we should. There is a time for keeping silent, but on the matter in hand I decided that response was required. (The lack of a constructive strategy for dealing with ‘being a minority’ is a charge I lay at the feet of ignorant outsiders who apply their judgements from elsewhere – usually generalised – to this particular place. Some of us Christians are better at moaning about what we don’t like than we are at proposing – or doing anything about it – constructive strategies. That was my point.
The women bishop issue is frustrating. However, there are two elements that make the process important: (a) there are people involved, and these people believe the matter is deeply important for biblical, theological, ecclesiological and other reasons; these have to be given time – especially as time often reveals better arguments; (b) the legal process does mean that the whole business has been thoroughly looked at from every perspective and decisions made with full cognisance of the implications. That’s probably better in the long run than getting a result (one way or the other) before the debate has been fully had.
Keep contributing!
July 18, 2011 at 10:54 am
Nick.
Thanks for your response. I was afraid I might have overstepped the mark a bit…but thanks for your encouragement to keep contributing to the discussion. I am a lay member of my local Deanery Synod and a member of the Deanery Mission and Pastoral Committee so I can contibute in a small way. I was also at one time considered a possible candidate for the Lay Chair of Deanery Synod which had become vacant, but at the time that was not possible for various practical reasons.
We are having our Deanery discussion and vote in September and our Diocesan Synod vote is one of the last Dioceses to vote in November. Our Deanery Synod is likely to vote overwhelmingly in favour of the motion to admit women to the Episcopate, which is great, but the downside is that we will not be able to discuss openly and honestly with staunch opponents of the measure. We don’t have any strongly conservative evangelical chruches in our Deanery though there a large number of evangelical parishes and we do have one very well known Catholic parish which Robert Runcie was associated with as a child, but they already have a female ordained priest on their team, and the Rector there is part of the Fresh Expressions initiatives in the sacramental tradition, who I think are doing some fantastic stuff within the sacramental/catholic tradition. It would be really good to discuss the issue with those who disagree with me, but the opportunity will be a bit limited I am afraid.
I fully understand your point that there are people involved in all of this, but what I am really encouraged about is that the first 10 Diocesan Synod votes are in and they are all, bar one, (the Diocese of Europe, (where the Bishops voted against, the clergy are split exactly 50:50, and the laity voted exactly two thirds in favour) hugely in favour in all three houses, including the House of Clergy. What is interesting is that amendments to the motions put forward in several Synods, seeking to obtain further concessions for opponents of the measure ,are being overwhelmingly defeated it would appear, which I think is encouraging because it is following due legal process according to correct Synodical procedure.
Just as you encouraged me to keep contrbuting, please can I issue a heartfelt plea for you to keep on blogging! Please don’t give up. I can understand the temptation to pack it in, but it is so important for people, both inside and outsice the church, to see and know hat there are Bishops and church leaders who are easily accessible, and willing to engage relevantly with contemporary culture/issues via social networking sites etc. I remember reading about a very well known, effective church leader who was asked how often he felt like giving up…he stopped for a moment to think..and then replied..”about once every two weeks”…but somehow he kept going. I’m sure you feel similarly about your blog but please keep blogging….it is greatly appreciated by some even, though it might not feel like it, especially at the moment.
Finally I am going to say something pretty controversial and surprising coming from someone on the evangelical wing, but as an inner city evangelical, I will miss more the staunch Anglo Catholic Anglicans who have already gone, or who are likely to depart to the Ordinariate in the near future than I will some of the conservative evangelcial fraternity.. I differ from many people in that I feel that Pope Benedict did us a favour by creating the Ordinariate as it provided a welcoming place for disaffected Anglo Catholics to call home, and I am grateful to him for it. But the loss of many committed, hard working Anglo Catholic priests and their Bishops will leave a huge vacuum in inner city areas which have been faithfully served by Anglo Catholic parishes for many years. I think many conservative evangelicals will also be missed should they choose to leave in the future, but for different reasons, and by a different constituency. Part of the problem has been that they have nowhere to “go to”or “stay within”,hence some of the the actions taken by the likes of Charles Raven and the Co-Mission group in Southwark Diocese. I still do not understand why there are three Anglo Catholic PEV Bishops but no conservative evangelcial ones. I think that has been a big mistake which should be owned up to, as it does appear to be an unfair decision, lacking in objectivity and hugely favouring only one wing of those in opposition, although it could have been that the Anglo Catholics were more gracious in their approach. I also think that the creation of a “Third Anglican Province” within in the UK for conservative evangelicals and staunch Anglo Catholics to settle in and call “home”, with all male Bishops and clergy could have had some mileage but obviously I am in a minority on that one.
The deeply gracious letter that the five Anglo Catholic Bishops wrote explainig their decision to depart to the Ordinariate almost moved me to tears and I for one genuinely wish them every blessing and growth in their future ministry there. They will be missed more than they realise. I only wish that some of the harsher elements within the conservative evangelical fraternity could adopt a simiar approach but I guess theie frustration is growing by the day, especially as they see the momentum growing in favour of admitting women to the Episcopate.
July 18, 2011 at 11:29 am
“Andrew Carey in the Church of England Newspaper admonishes me for my encouragement of Christians to rise to the challenge – yet I wonder what he knows of Bradford.”
Er, no… That’s not what I said at all. You based your defence on the fact that you were merely describing reality – I simply pointed out that the reality you describe is far from problem-free. And in fact, it badly needs saying that there are problems.
As you know because this has come up before, I entirely disagree with your apparent contention that no viewpoint is valid until I have sweated blood and tears on the subject in hand.
July 18, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Thanks for that Nick
As a former resident of Bradford and someone who has worked in the vicinity, I think it hits the right note
I wonder though about Andrew’s final comment, however put, and understand to a degree the frustration expressed but it is a product of something which we need to question more acutely. What is the meaning of Speech when we are unknown, faceless and not breaking bread around a common table (to use a handy metaphor)
The whole world of national and global mass media – blogging and various forms of journalism included – invites comments from out of context and most of what is written in this sphere is spoken into contexts of which the author often has no direct experience, yet papers must be filled and bloggers (myself included) feel a Need to write.
When we step down to the local level, things have to be better nuanced. The local ‘newspaper’ is written by folk in the community and as a result much of what is said is far more guarded and often bland, anaemic – for it is written in context and writers may be more readily held to account in a way that asks far more of them than any delocalised medium.
Words spoken out of context are in a very real sense Out of Relationship, out of the context of shared lives – and thus are I think questionable.
I think that as Christians we perhaps need to reflect more on the dis-embodied, decontextualised writing that passes for ‘dialogue’ in our culture. What does it mean to be in dialogue about ideas etc. when your interlocutor is only known through ‘words’ and not face to face.
Eric
PS I like your blog and wish you well in Bradford
July 18, 2011 at 12:19 pm
Andrew.
Of course you are entitled to your viewpoint, but that is precisely all it is, merely your viewpoint and it is only as equally as valid as anybody else’s.
However, Nick is right to listen more readily to people who choose to live, work, serve and minister day in and day out in these tough, challenging communities. The emphasis on inner “biblical” church planting in inner city/UPA areas etc, which AMiE are claiming they are all about is only an extremely recent phenomonen amongst Anglican conservative evangelicals. As a respected journalist you must know that surely!?
The FIEC, Pentecostal, Methodist and some Bretheren conservative evangelicals amongst others have served, evangelised and ministered really well in these areas alongside the more open evangelical/charismatic Anglicans and Anglo Catholics, in contrast to the Anglican conservative evangelical fraternity who have appeared to virtually abandon inner city areas such as Bradford and Liverpool until recently.
Also Bradford as a city is far more intensely concentrated in its Muslim communities than a larger, cosmpolitan capital city such as London is, which is what I think Nick was trying to get across.
I don’t see much evidence of biblical church planting in the inner city by conservative evangelicals outside London, despite their extravagant claims to the contrary. In general, they appear confined to the London area, in general and the Southwark Diocese in particular. Wouldn’t you agree. If not, perhaps you could enlighten me.
July 18, 2011 at 1:06 pm
Andrew, then you must be prepared to be told you don’t know what you are talking about. Never have I said that the reality here is problem-free; I said that being a minority in a particular parish is not a problem, but also creates the stimulus for that church to think seriously about what sort of a community it is, how it should live and so on. Do you seriously think that I would be stupid enough to say that there are no problems? However, my appreciation of those problems might be different from yours – mine being rooted in real local experience and yours in something else.
July 18, 2011 at 2:12 pm
Your dismissal would carry more weight had I pretended to be especially knowledgeable about Bradford (though I do have direct and relevant experience and expertise). In fact, you have put words in my mouth rather than actually addressing me.
My point directly was about separatism and indirectly about learning lessons from Muslim communities in which the picture is very mixed about the experience of living as a minority. I said that the positive thing about Bradford diocese’s experience was the very considerable and gracious outreach to the Muslim communities. The negative thing is the brushing under the carpet of problems.
Perhaps, in your view I’m wrong. A better reaction might be to say why.
July 18, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Bishop Baines
Thank you for answering the comments made in the previous article.
It is unfortunate that you consider some of the comments in reply were patronising, and eclectic. I also could not understand why you chose to differentiate between Asians and Muslims. There are Christians among the Asian communities, but to leave the Muslim issue out of the discussion is to ignore the wider picture – most “Asians” are in fact Muslim.The problem Christians and other faiths besides Islam face in Bradford, in Tower Hamlets, in Burnley and other areas is by its very nature eclectic – but one “theme” is repeated everywhere – whenever their numbers reach “critical mass” Muslim communities are not content to live and let live but actively demand special treatment and that everybody should do things their way.
You seem to believe that people who do not live in Bradford should not comment on the demographic dangers posed by Islamisation. You fail to realise that what is happening in Bradford is happening on the other side of the Pennines, too, and in cities like Birmingham,Luton, and in Manchester Cheetham Hill, where I live. Bradford is not alone.
The point here is that your attitude of “laissez faire” will not solve anything. Whether the thrust of the newspaper article was correct or not, the fact remains that it is people like you who must be vocal at every opportunity. Bishop Nazir Ali spoke out very courageously. He did a great service to Christians by not acquiescing to the demands of people who never seem to realise that they are no more important in the scheme of things than others. Although I do not doubt you have made representations to your “higher ups” about the marginalisation of Christians and what is happening to them in other countries – but who knows about this? You have a blog, Bishop Baines. Use it to put your opinions out there. Surely it is against your vocation to only be concerned about what happens on your doorstep. Are you not required to look after Christians everywhere? Now is your chance to do it and be taken notice of.
July 18, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Sorry Nick to double-post on your blog. Phil Green addressed a couple of points to me. I can’t really answer them because I wouldn’t describe myself as a conservative evangelical and I have my own criticisms of the AMiE approach.
July 18, 2011 at 5:35 pm
Phil, thank you for your gracious comments about the position of Anglo-Catholics who are faced with a real dilemma in the forthcoming discussions/debate/votes on women in the Episcopate.
I write as a layman of Catholic persuasion worshipping in a small rural parish with a strong sacramental tradition. For me, Forward in Faith have got it wrong in that they have never moved on from their (I paraphrase but only slightly) no women priests, no way, not ever stance – when the CofE presumably with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and after much careful prayer decided nearly 20 years ago that women could be ordained as priests. On this basis, the issue is not around the consecration of women as Bishops – to impose a “glass ceiling” not only lacks integrity it is also probably bordering on the edge of legality in equality terms.
The issue is far more about how those parishes and congregations who have, in good faith, decided that they are unable to accept the ministry of a woman can have their position respected. If the motion before Diocesan Synods becomes the final position after the General Synod debate then all the legal safeguards currently in place will be dismantled and these parishes will be left at the mercy of a Code of Practice which will require a female Bishop to respond to requests from parishes who wish to receive a ministry which fulfils their desire for sacramental assurance i.e from a male priest ordained by a male bishop. To see why what is currently proposed simply will not do we need look no further than that other well known Code of Practice – the Highway Code. We all know how highly regarded and slavishly followed that is!
However there are some signs of hope – the emergence of the Society of Ss Wilfird and Hilda led by some very fine Bishops and developing good links and the recent consecration of two new PEVs for the Archdiocese of Canterbury. For these actions Deo Gratias.
July 18, 2011 at 5:51 pm
We’ve got areas of Birmingham which are very strongly Muslim; I’ve been married to one for sixteen years. Obviously, we have a lot of Muslim friends and relations. The only serious ‘problem’ I’ve seen has been the attitudes of some white people. Obviously, there are a few Muslim extremists, as there are extremists in any religion, but lets not start inventing a ‘Muslim problem’ which isn’t there. Keep up the good work!
July 18, 2011 at 6:13 pm
Andrew, I do not believe for one moment that ‘problems’ are being brushed under the carpet. Since coming here I have had very robust conversations with all sorts of people who speak very plainly and hold no brush. That’s why I think that to make judgements from afar ignores the complexity of what is actually going on on the ground with people who understand better the issues and how to address them. And, as you mention putting words into mouths, I didn’t suggest learning lessons from Muslims – how many times do I have to point that out?
July 18, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Andrew, there is no problem double or triple posting, so please do not apologise.
July 18, 2011 at 7:15 pm
I have looked back at the relevant quote and I can now see your intention more clearly. The quote which I,and a number of other reporters, misinterpreted was: “We often ask Muslims to learn what it is to be a Muslim as a minority culture. Maybe we could benefit from learning some of the same lessons in some of our cities.”
I apologise for misreading this as an invitation to learn from the Muslim communities. I will also make the same apology in my column this week.
For the record, I did not criticise you for encouraging Christians to rise to the challenge.
As for the stuff about brushing under the carpet. I really look forward to seeing some of this straight-talking you have mentioned in the public domain, rather than just in private conversation. When did the Church of England (and not just Bradford diocese) ever say anything publicly about matters of widespread concern: ‘Islamisation’ of some communities, honour killings, first cousin marriages, apostasy etc? I’m not asking for grandstanding but merely for some public acknowledgement of specific problems.
July 18, 2011 at 7:23 pm
Andrew
Thanks for you comment.
I am encouraged to hear that you have some concerns about the AMiE approach, however I confess to being disappointed at your reluctance to answer them on the grounds that you are “not a conservative evangelcial”
You would not need to be a card carrying conservative evangelccal to have an oppinion on the questions I posed. As a highly respected journalist for a newspaper covering the wide spectrum of Church of England life and ministry I would have hoped that you could have shared your thoughts on the subject, as AMiE’s methods and approach will affect the whole of the Anglican church and not just the conservative evangelcial wing,
The article written by Julian Mann about the “Southernisation” of AMiE’s approach in this week’s CEN appears to support what I was attempting to say. In the opinion of Roger Carswell and Julian Mann, both faiirly conservative evangelicals, there are clear issues which AMiE need to take a hard look at.
It was fascinating that Roger Carswell commented on the difficulty of recuriting students from the elite universities such as OICCU and CICCU to undertake a mission at…wait for it…Bradford University, because of the unique challenges that it presented. Does this not back up Nick’s comments about the reality of the challenge in places such as Bradford?
Paul G – Thanks also for your kind comments. I shall share my thoughts on your considered comments a bit later.
July 18, 2011 at 7:35 pm
Andrew, thank you. I think straight talking has to be done in ways that guarantee a hearing. This is going on here all the time, but it isn’t necessarily helpful (for a host of reasons) to broadcast everything. I will be happy to invite you here and introduce you to key people, projects and parishes.
July 18, 2011 at 10:18 pm
Nick/Andrew
This sounds good. I think that straight talking around a number of key issues needs to be done in ways that guarantee a hearing, and where each side is respectfully listened to even we don’t necessarily agree with them. This was the key essence of Fulcrum’s statement in response to the formation of AMiE.
What has not taken place recently is some straight talking between the more conservatively minded evangelicals and others who consider themselves to be just as evangelical but differ on key issues, although as I have said these issues involve all “wings” of the Anglican church.
Andrew..I am with you on the need for Nick and others to address the honour killings, first cousin marriage issues etc..although I am not sure what the blanket term “Islamisation of communities” actually means, and Robert I really liked what you said spoken out of very personal experience.
I think the attitude of some members of the “white” community can sometimes be the most frightening but we have to ask what it is that makes them feel that way and try to discuss it honestly.
July 19, 2011 at 12:06 pm
Hi Nick, thanks for the invitation. A visit to Bradford is long overdue – I have friends there – so I’ll get back to you.
Hi Phil, on the AMiE thing, I have commented on this in my CEN column – deploring the multiplication of acronyms and following up Fulcrum’s call for bridge-building. But don’t forget a small group of people have been responsible for setting up a number of organisations which have all run out of steam – this one I suspect will go the same way. I’m a bit out of touch with evangelical politics. But I agree with you on the need for straight-talking. That’s why I do what I do because I believe that public debate is the way to change things.
July 19, 2011 at 4:48 pm
Reference the press coverage you received – Sadly what one says is often not what another hears. As George Bernard Shaw wrote, “The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.” I know it’s hard when your words are misrepresented or misunderstood, but please don’t be disheartened. Bradford is not an easy place but having heard you preach I’m pretty sure you have what it takes to make a huge difference. Kia kaha (Be strong and fearless) as the Maori say.
July 19, 2011 at 11:26 pm
Hi Andrew
Thanks for your comments. Confession is good for the soul and all that…I used to be quite an avid reader of the CEN but haven’t for quite a while now…or the Church Times for that matter. I have dipped into the free bit of both sites (shocking I know) of the online version but haven’t fully subscribed..there that’s the formal confession bit over!
If you could let me know which week(s) of your CEN column your thoughts on AMiE are contained in, I may well do the dutiful thing and pay up and subscribe to catch up. However, what I would say is that I we very much see eye to eye on the mulitplicity of acronyms/organisations that now abound. It is only since researching about AMiE and via the Fulcruim website that I discovered just how many there are. I knew about GAFCON, Reform, the Prayer Book Society, The Church Society and Fulcrum.
However, I had no idea St Augustine’s Society, (the acronym for which surely must be SAS – an organisation for stealthily hunting out dangerous opponents maybe!) As for SPREAD, well a mental image of an advert with the slogan “I can’t believe it’s not Anglican…” springs to mind every time I see that acronym! I have to hang my head in shame at not being aware of Anglican Mainstream…which manages to be Anglo Catholic, Charismatic, Evangelical and Orthodox…but of course we mustn’t mention the “L” Word!!
Also I am with you totally re the plethora of organisations that have run of steam. The fact that the SAS was only founded in 2010 and needed drastically rebranding just 12 months later speaks volumes methinks…although I have a feeling it might be just a tad longer before AMiE disappears off the radar. However one look at the dreadful AMiE website is enough to tell you that if they don’t do something drastic soon it will definitely be dead in the water before long, not that the Fulcrum website, although more edifying material wise I find, is much better aesthetically.
Compare this with the extremely contemporary, engaging Co-Mission website and I think you will see what I mean! Talking of which, in the spirit of fair play, and the fact that they seem to be the only people who will least attempt to tell you more about AMiE and what they are about ., I have been chatting with Richard Perkins (Senior Minister) and Pete Matthew (Minister) from the more urban edge” of Co-Mission atChrist Church Balham on Richard Perkins ‘”The Urban Pastor” blog, and we have engaged in some fairly robust, straight talking but pretty fruitful dialogue I feel.
It has helped me get a bit of a handle on the bigger picture from all sides and I do have one question which just won’t go away. If, sometime over the last 3-4 years at least one conservative evangelical PEV had been appointed by Rowan Williams, given that there are no less than three Anglo Catholic PEVs do you not think that at least some of the present furore re the creation of AMiE could have been avoided?
I hope you do get the chance to pop up to Bradford to visit Nick soon. I look forward to reading about it in the not too distant future,…provided that the miserly Northener in me has done the decent thing and paid my subscription to CEN!
July 21, 2011 at 11:42 am
Hi Phil,
No I don’t think that a PEV for conservative evangelicals will have made a difference. The problem was always that only a handful of evangelical parishes ever passed Resolution C petitioning for extended episcopal oversight. A flying bishop could not have been appointed for such a small number. In any case the future of the flying bishopric is highly uncertain when legislation to ordain women bishops is passed.
Yours,
Andrew
July 23, 2011 at 10:29 pm
[...] to this the abuse that has come my way following the Telegraph headline a couple of weeks ago. What I have learned from this is that those who write or email me should (a) [...]