...for how to continue the conversation this week...
Reading the church newspapers has been interesting of late, for amongst other things, the responses to NEAC. Fulcrum and Anglican Mainstream should perhaps pick up the phone to each other or get together over a pint instead of having a very long-drawn out conversation where, as readers, we are having to wait an entire week for the next retort. And so this week Dr Graham Kings defends his three streams in an echo of some of the things that I thought regarding Chris Sugden's article last week. Dr Kings says 'From the response of others to his article in discussions on the web this 'guilt by accociation' was tried and found wanting'. Indeed. I pointed out how:
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?
I also agreed with Kings that yes, Sugden did seem to take the whole 'three streams' image rather too literally. Kings explains that where Sugden assumes its rigid, it is of course a metaphor and about fluidity. He points Sugden to the Mercedes Benz metaphor, which I thought would have been a good idea too.
Kings explains carefully in the CEN article why the JD causes some evangelicals some problems - not many but some and suggests that we need more gatherings (like neac, or perhaps that should be unlike Neac) so that evangelicals can stop polarising each other (and perhaps stop taking up all of the newspaper space with their converations back and forth)!