Chris Sugden of Anglican Mainstream writes this week about how the Kings' three streams theory fails adequately to illustrate what being evangelical means, since there is overlap. I don't think Stephen Kuhrt ever denied that there wasn't overlap and I think the Kings' Mercedes benz image that I drew your attention to this week, captured the 'centre'.
Chris Sugden wonders if there are members of Fulcrum who have common ground with the Modern Churchpeople's Union, and I'm sure they do agree with them on many things, (we all stand more united than divided , surely) but Chris Sugden describes the modern Churchpeople's Union thus 'the modern Churchpeople's Union which that same month hosted Gene Robinson as a speaker' - so what is he implying here? Surely that there are some members of Fulcrum who, to push his implication to its extreme, support the consecration of those in same-sex partnerships. Now Chris has asked us earlier in his article to look up various folks groups on the internet so that we might more fully understand what they hold to. He would know, if he looked up Fulcrum's statement of faith that this is how they feel on issues of human sexuality:
In the much-contested area of sexual ethics this means that the proper context for sexual expression is the union of a man and a woman in marriage. We will participate in debates on issues in sexual ethics arising today in the life of the Church and we identify as key references the CofE document Issues in Human Sexuality and Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference and True Union (a document shared with the Anglican Primates' Meeting, Brazil 2003).
He asks 'Does Fulcrum want to have a foot in many camps?' I don't think it does, to me it seems pretty distinct and orthodox. There are a number of reasons as to why it is hesitant about signing up to the JD, as I perceive it, very much as an outsider at present, and I don't think Chris Sugden wants to dwell particularly on what these are.