NEAC 5 next Saturday - I hope these things get really covered

Chris Sugden, Richard Turnbull and Mike Ovey, and phew! Pete Broadbent and Christina Baxter.

This is the Fulcrum response to what is being discussed. I will look into the follow up - there should be some information coming out of the CEEC site

Fulcrum coverage of items relating to these two conferences:
Lambeth Conference GAFCON
1. Lambeth Conference
we appreciate:
• the vision of the Communion 'intensifying' its current relationships ie
that those who do not wish to continue on that 'intensifying' trajectory
may remain where they are, while the centre of the Communion
moves on and the clear implication that no group can veto this
movement forward.
• the authority of the Conference to proceed with an Anglican Covenant
and the clear sign, in the first Presidential Address that not all are
likely to agree to the Covenant. Its content would not be just bland –
there would be ‘teeth’ - and eventually a ‘two tier’ Communion would
be likely to emerge, of those in the centre who will sign, and of those
on the edge who will not.
• the reiterated vital importance of the three moratoria: on public same-
sex blessings, on the consecration of bishops in same-sex unions and
on cross provincial interventions.
• the announcement of the Pastoral Forum, ‘strengthened by
arrangements like the suggested Communion Partners initiative in the
USA’.
• the learning about different provinces and memorable, poignant
stories from multicoloured contexts around the world during the
presentations at evening worship and the indaba groups
• the encouragement in the Archbishop’s final words concerning inviting
‘those absent from Lambeth to be involved in these next stages’ and of
looking for ‘the best ways of building bridges’ with GAFCON.
• the ministry of the organisers, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the
Windsor Continuation Group
we question:
• whether some bishops, who are not willing to work with the Windsor
Report and the Anglican Covenant, should have been present
we urge:
• a prompt announcement of the chair of the Pastoral Forum and its
membership
• the bridge building with GAFCON to begin as soon as possible
• the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA) to co-operate with the
Pastoral Forum
2. GAFCON
we appreciate concerning GAFCON in Jerusalem:
• no schism in the Anglican Communion, but plans to work within the
Communion
• the tone of the communiqué being serious
• the positive points of the Jerusalem Declaration and its setting the
controversies in a wide context
we appreciate concerning the GAFCON Primates’ Council in London:
• the decision not to recognise immediately a new province in North
America, though that is still a ‘possibility’
• the mention of the Anglican Covenant - even if it is in somewhat
dismissive tones - a move forward from the Jerusalem communique
• the door being left open on the Pastoral Forum, even if it is
also mentioned in dismissive tones
• the hint from Greg Venables, in the report of The Living Church, that
the FCA Primates will attend the Anglican Communion Primates'
Meeting in early 2009
• the polite reference to the Global South Anglican leaders who were
not present at GAFCON.
• the clarification that if people who are conservative on sexual issues do
not join the FCA, they are not thereby going to be considered
‘unorthodox’
we question:
• the substantial authority that the FCA Primates' Council claims for
itself to define who is authentically Anglican - it specifically excludes
the Archbishop of Canterbury from such a role
• whether the FCA is in fact a 'church within a church' - or even 'a
church in fellowship's clothing'. How can you have a province of the
FCA, if the FCA is not a 'church' or a 'communion'? A ‘fellowship’ does
not have ‘provinces’. A ‘communion’ or a ‘church’ does.
• whether an FCA province in North America is needed now that the
Pastoral Forum is being set up.
• the meaning of becoming members of the Fellowship of Confessing
Anglicans’? Is this a blank cheque? Does membership imply agreement
to the FCA strategy as set out in the ‘Jerusalem Declaration and
Statement on the Global Anglican Future’?
• whether it would be at all helpful to have interventions in England from
the FCA Primates' Council, even if so invited by some evangelical
leaders in England.
we urge:
• the FCA Primates’ Council to respond positively to the Pastoral Forum
and to the building bridges initiative of the Archbishop of Canterbury
• those in FCA in North America to join the Pastoral Forum