Thursday 27 November 2008

American Republicans supporting Anglican Mainstream

That, at least, is what is being suggested on the Fulcrum forum here, by posters 556 and 1880.

So if these allegations turn out to be true, remember you read the headline first here!

What I would like to know, though, is whether such hostility to Anglican Mainstream has anything to do with the floor reaction at NEAC 5 and atttidues to GAFCON and the Jerusalem Declaration.

John Richardson 

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

9 comments:

  1. Wow that's interesting! I had no idea.
    -Daniel Lee, Jr.
    http://rationalpundit.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  2. Michael Roberts Michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk

    Well I took my information from the Anglican Taliban website:)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi John,
    While being more inclined to support fulcrum, I do think it is a shame that it's come to this "handbags at dawn" situation. I agree with Rachel (http://hrht-revisingreform.blogspot.com/2008/11/ding-ding-ding-round-three-to-dr-graham.html)
    that AM & Fulcrum should sit down together for a pint to avoid the sparring in the press and blogosphere.

    Of course, like many forums (hmm, Latin plural, not sure ...) both AM and Fulcrum are subject to posters more extreme than the moderators; hence those who are really concerned about the funding of AM are currently having a good old go on Fulcrum, and indeed I think it's fair to say that elements of the AM forum threads are subject to posters who are aggressively opposed to Fulcrum and consider them to be way too liberal (which is of course rubbish; the leadership of Fulcrum are actually generally conservative on (e.g.) sexual morality; they just facilitate debate and discussion across the traditions, while AM tends to just be conservatives posting - that's my limited impression anyway.
    cheers
    Tim

    ReplyDelete
  4. Michael, I don't know any Anglican Taliban website. Tim, I think you need to talk to Michael, who has left his e-mail address above.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think Michael must mean Anglican Mainstream, see for example
    http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/000074.html where Colin Slee apologises for referring to those who opposed the appointment of Jeffrey John as bishop of reading as "The Anglican Taliban".
    that'd be AM then.
    If Michael is the same Michael as posted the stuff about funding on Fulcrum, then he will also have read some of my Grenfellesque "Don't do that George" posts/blogs in recent days.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks Tim, but to be accurate, "those who opposed the appointment of Jeffrey John" could not be categorized as 'Anglican Mainstream', firstly because not all opponents would be in that camp (indeed, in the end it included the Archbishop of Canterbury). But secondly, as far as I am aware, AM arose out of the putative appointment (though I am open to correction on this).

    ReplyDelete
  7. As the Kids say, "Whatever"!

    I still think it's sad that our energies are consumed in this kind of conflict instead of in mission.

    cheers
    Tim

    ReplyDelete
  8. Here we go again on Fulcrum
    Rallying Point of Jerusalem Declaration, Diocesan Funds and FCA
    .

    I think what is troubling about this is the suggestion that Julian Mann (who I find to be 'an Israelite without guile) is being disingenuous because his letter to the Church Times doesn't say things.

    Has Graham Kings copied this to Julian, I wonder? (I doubt.)

    ReplyDelete
  9. My goodness Graham gets his knickers in a twist doesn't he? I thought he was supposed to be calmly floating down his river (he is a 'river' evangelical after all)...

    ReplyDelete