Saturday, March 24, 2007


Graeme Kings has a new article about the Anglicanism on the fulcrum website.

The traditional phrase used to describe the Church of England is 'Catholic and Reformed'. Too often the middle word 'and' passes unnoticed. Connecting words are crucial, humble and worth contemplating. They introduce links between polarities by contributing 'threeness' to 'duality'. Try replacing 'and' with the word 'or' and you will see its significance. Maybe we could capitalize on the word 'and' by giving it a capital letter 'And'? But that would detract from its humility and deflect its distinction.

Perhaps we have three patron saints of this little word 'and' in the Church of England. Thomas Cranmer, in The Book of Common Prayer, reshaped patristic prayers in the light of renewed evangelical theology; Richard Hooker, in his Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie, countered both Roman and Puritan demands with God's layered wisdom; and George Herbert, in his temperate prose and allusive poetry, expressed profound spirituality in subtle rhetoric. All three, it seems to me, were more than evangelical but not less. Maybe that is the calling of the Church of England...


michael jensen said...

Yeah, thought this was a silly article actually...
The guy LOVES bishops. And his only enemy is conservative evangelicals.

Moffitt the Prophet said...

I thought so, thanks MPJ.

What is his story? And fulcrum's too for that matter?

And how is fulcrum viewed in the old country?

PS Thanks for the "Williams on Arius post"!

michael jensen said...

Fulcrum was begun a few years back after or at the National Evangelical Anglican Conference (NEAC). I think they were reacting mainly to the political negativity of the conservative evangelicals, the Reform group especially, who aren't known for their subtlety or their love of the church hierarchy. Fulcrum people would be in favour of full equality in women's ministry; think that working in with liberals and Anglo-Catholics is fun; and so on. There are a couple of interesting currents behind it all: I think there is a real difference in hermeneutical approach between the groups. NT Wright is a key figure for Fulcrum: but he is seen by the Reform group and many others as having wandered far from the evangelical path in terms of his churchmanship and his theology. Fulcrum would argue - why fight the system when there are 30+ evangelical bishops? Reform would say - these so-called evangelical bishops are some of the worst persecutors of evangelicals!
Fulcrum's real enemy is Reform: so almost anything you read from Fulcrum has Reform in its sights. It rarely critiques the system; has an almost naive faith in the Windsor report to maintain Anglican unity; and maintains a posture of intellectual superiority over its rivals.