It isn't April 1st, is it?

[tree_and_leaf]

Remember we were talking about Frankly Unfriendly Catholics and their rather undergraduate acronym? (Though my particular vices are more along the Affirming Laudianism line. Canonize Percy Dearmer now!)

Some "conservative" (see discussion below) evangelical Anglicans have founded a schismatic network called, wait for it, the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans.

FOCA. Or possibly, Foca.

Oh dear.

Mind you, what really annoys me about this - apart from the fact that this makes schism more likely, which is saddening - is my suspicion that the 'Confessing' bit is intended as a reference to the Confessing Church. Rowan Williams, whether or not you like him, pretty clearly =/= Adolf Hitler, and self-consecrated martyrs are somewhat suspicious.

... Still, maybe in this I'm being unfair to them. I do hope so.

Comments

[wellinghall.livejournal.com]

The first link seems to be broken.

And if there's one thing the Anglicans are good at, it's schism!

[tree_and_leaf]

Fixed now!

Actually, the Presbyterians are much better at schism. What the Anglicans are good at is sniping and being poisonous, she said bitterly. (The progressive side hasn't been behaving entirely well either, alas).

[wellinghall.livejournal.com]

You are - sadly - right.

[sammee42.livejournal.com]

Quite right about the Presbyterians! I am the music director at a PC(USA) church (the liberal branch), and they are all tut-tutting about how there will probably be another split over homosexuality soon. They [the denomination] are meeting to discuss it this summer.

[tree_and_leaf]

Presbyterians - and say this with a great respect for the strengths of the Presbyterian tradition, which is my birth one - can start a schism in an empty room. Cf the joke about the Scotsman on the desert island....

[sangerin.livejournal.com]

No, you're not being unfair. Our own brand of crazies also use Bonhoeffer/the Confessing Church, calling themselves the "Assembly of Confessing Congregations" (which is also egregious from a polity point of view but I won't get into that.)

[tree_and_leaf]

*Beats them over the head with Letters and Papers From Prison, and then throws volumes of Church Dogmatics at them*

Er, that definitely isn't in the spirit of Christian charity, is it? But that's infuriating.

[sacred-sarcasm.livejournal.com]

Did you read Ann Atkins' article in the Guardian today (I think today - it's online anyway) about Gafcon. It's one of the funniest things I've read in a long time. She seems to think it's something between Soul Survivor/Greenbelt/Spring Harvest and the Second Coming. And nothing to do with schisms, doctrinal differences, or teh gayz. Right.

I do get her point that talking about differences does nothing to make Christianity itself look good, but I think it's stretching the point to claim Gafcom was only about the gospel. Well, of course, in the sense that everything Christians do should be about the gospel, but still.

Foca sounds like a bad idea, frankly. I'm more an affirming laudianism type personally (actually I'm a 'can we just sort it out now, I'm bored' type, but I don't have a society to join)

[tree_and_leaf]

*headdesk*

I hadn't until now, because it was quite well hidden, but - oh, the fluffy bunnyishness of it all!

I'm more an affirming laudianism type personally (actually I'm a 'can we just sort it out now, I'm bored' type, but I don't have a society to join)

IAWT. Except when it's more 'I'm angry/ upset by this nonsense...'

[sacred-sarcasm.livejournal.com]

I do get angry/upset, but I'm at the stage where I just wish someone would make a decisive move (of course, the GAFCON lot may have done just that) and split. It would be painful, but this interminable wrangling is far worse. Some things we can hold together even though we disagree (Percy Dearmer being one of them, I think) and some things you just can't in all conscience have within one church (women should lead at all/women are priests, what are priests-bishops, lay presidency/apostolic sucession and sacramental priesthood)

There's an interesting thread on Ship of Fools somewhere, where people are trying to pin down what it is about homosexuality that makes it such a splitting issue (as opposed to, say, remarriage of divorcees). Quite a bit of squirming going on, afaics. Can't remember what it was called now - will provide link if/when I find out.

ETA: An AA has a huge amount of fluffy bunnyness. Either she's naive to the point of imbecility, or she's being deliberately fluffy bunnyish.

[tree_and_leaf]

Yeah - I don't want a schism to happen, but I'm coming to fear it might be the least bad solution. A bit like divorce, really.

[sacred-sarcasm.livejournal.com]

Have you seen the SoF's thread on Foca? It's entitled Meet the Focas and has moments of genius. (Is Jensen going to be Head Foca? Well, he'll have to be, because they don't allow Mother Focas, etc.)

The Times has a front page story today about bishops and clergy who're going to leave over the OOW. *sigh*

[sammee42.livejournal.com]

I am not sure I get the confessing bit, but I do think you need to be worried. I am quite worried about a schism. Silly evangelical anglicans. :(

[tree_and_leaf]

It's not just the evangelical, unfortunately; there's a parallel Anglo-Catholic tendency (and probably middle of the road, too...), though the A-C Neanderthals tend to get more vocally upset about girls at the altar than boys in bed. There is an obvious reason for this, I suppose.

I'd be deeply saddened if there were a schism, but I'm reluctantly coming to think it might be for the best if they just go.