Should evangelicals be embarrassed by Newcastle?
There have been some foreign goings on amid evangelical Anglicans in Newcastle in recent days. Peter Carrell, who is Director at Theology House and Director of Education in the Anglican Diocese of Christchurch, New Zealand, offered this succinct summary, together with his reaction to the events, which I reproduce here with permission.
In the last few days Anglican news has taken an unexpected twist and turn. About a calendar week ago the GAFCON Primates announced that they were thinking of ordaining a bishop for the British Isles. Cue wondering who that might be, which country they might come from, where their support would exist and whether or not they would in some way be recognised by the powers that be.
But a couple of days ago information technology was announced that a senior priest/presbyter in the Jesmond Parish (Diocese of Newcastle, England), Jonathan Pryke, has been ordained a bishop by bishops of the Reformed Evangelical Anglican Church of South Africa [REACH SA] (formerly known as the Church building of England in South Africa [CESA]). This church, for the record, has orders recognised by the CofE.
At this betoken, because you will be bursting with episcopathological fervour to know more (sometimes besides known as epistemology), I need to point you lot to some articles and printing releases and what have you, because "why" Jonathan has been ordained a bishop, "where" his territory (or even only his focus) volition exist, "what" his human relationship with his licensing bishop (as a priest/presbyter) will be, and "to whom" he will be accountable equally a bishop, to say cipher of "whether" he will be disciplined and "past whom" is quite across this bear of minor brain.
Endeavor here, here, hither and hither. Also, fascinatingly, here for the human relationship of REACH SA, CPSA and the CofE. Note also this study which suggests that despite advert hoc action(south) taking at present or proposed now, a larger plan is being worked out. Also Andrew Brown on the case here.
Merely here is what I do get about this situation, as an evangelical Anglican I am embarrassed that:
- Other evangelical Anglicans have taken unilateral action ordaining a bishop without transparently informing proper authorities (the Bishop of Newcastle, the Archbishop of York) of intention to practise so. Does not basic courtesy and commitment to living in the light require that?
- When GAFCON and its English partner, AMiE, had another plan, this activeness is unilaterally taken against that plan. What is information technology about fraternity and coherency that these English and other evangelicals do not become?
- Also, in terms of walking in the light, how could Jonathan Pryke, on the executive of AMiE, not inform his beau executive members of what was going to happen? Are they non on the same side? Why hide things? In what way does such way of doing things raise the reputation of evangelical Anglicans?
It is non unknown for evangelicals to operate factionally rather than coherently, it is a bug in the characteristic of the Reformational DNA which spawned evangelicalism!
I call up in this situation at that place are also significant episcopathological questions near what we Anglican evangelicals understand ecclesiology is. I will leave that for another post, save for this teaser: Is information technology not strangely "Catholic" rather than "Anglican" when we get outside our national church boundaries to secure the ordaining hands of another bishop in order to take a bishop "of our own"?
Peter Carrell's comments above say almost everything that I would desire to near the event itself. Merely there are some wider issues that information technology is also worth reflecting on.
Kickoff, I get the impression that those supportive of a GAFCON move to consecrate a bishop in England from within the Anglican Communion expect on the events with a mixture of disdain, frustration and probably some acrimony. Whereas they had a considered plan which operated within the Communion as a whole, this move has jumped the gun without proper consideration or consultation. And I suspect that GAFCON supporters hope that everyone can see the difference betwixt the two initiatives. But they won't. Virtually of those within the Church of England volition non exist able to tell the departure, and the same volition be truthful of all of those exterior the Church. Both initiatives will appear to all just the best informed (and about highly motivated) to be piffling, fracturing and unhelpful interference from people outside the Church of England. (I am not claiming that this view is correct—just that this will be the widespread perception.)
Secondly, it is becoming abundantly clear that this sort of approach to dealing with the perceived drift in the doctrine and teaching in the Church is singularly unhelpful. For i affair, no new line has been crossed: catechism law has not been revised; the liturgy has not been inverse; zilch formal has changed in the Church'due south teaching. If some are unhappy with the drifting practise of the Church, then they should probably take left the C of E in the 1960s, when, if anything, both practice and teaching were more than heterodox than they are at present. But the bigger question for evangelicals in the Church of England is: Why adopt a strategy of institutional separation rather than keep to engage and antechamber from inside? If evangelicals believe that they are the ones who are being true-blue to the actual, historic didactics of the Church building, why simply hand that to others by engaging in this ecclesial jiggery-pokery? The engagement of Rod Thomas every bit Bishop of Maidstone looked to many like a significant concession to conservative evangelical views, and these other episcopal moves look very much like evangelicals wanted to have their ecclesial cake and eating it—in another venue of their own choosing. You but have to expect at the mess that is TEC in the United States to see that this strategy is not the way to become.
Just, thirdly, I think the Diocese of Newcastle and its bishop need to think very carefully almost what action to take in response. At i level, annihilation less than a serious move, such as removing Jonathan Pryke's license, could be seen equally an institutional failure. The problem is that this will and then play directly into the easily of those who want to come across more splintering. If the Church building fails to remove the licences of those who teach contrary to cadre doctrines of the Church building (such as members of the Body of water of Faith movement, who don't believe God is 'real') or those who are living in contravention of the teaching of the Church on marriage and sexuality, so it proves to those in Newcastle and their supporters that the Church building is more than concerned near ecclesial form than doctrinal substance.
To all involved here: handle with care.
Follow me on Twitter @psephizo.Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is washed on a freelance basis. If you have valued this mail service, would you considerdonating £1.20 a month to back up the production of this blog?
If y'all enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you accept valued this postal service, you lot can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Good comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful debate, can add existent value. Seek commencement to sympathize, and then to be understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view contend as a conflict to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/should-evangelicals-be-embarrassed-by-newcastle/
0 Response to "Should evangelicals be embarrassed by Newcastle?"
Post a Comment