Here is a summary of the main identifiers:
- The intrinsic dynamic of God's life in Trinity
- Good works are a "thank you" rather than a "please" ...offered to God in gratitude for the salvation already freely provided for us
- Jesus died in our place and rose into new embodied life as our pioneer
- Assurance of our sins being forgiven
- An open relationship with God in prayer via conversation with God, through written prayers, and in the study of the Bible
- Worth sharing with others
This would cover well more than Evangelicals, though it doesn't stretch to the kind of liberal approach I hold. So what is Evangelical? As part of the fourth point on prayer he just adds in this:
The scriptures are not set on a level with "reason" and "tradition" but above them and interpreted contextually by them.
I would suggest that this is all that makes him distinctively Evangelical according to this presentation. He would differ here from some Anglo-Catholics, for example, as well as those liberals who do not give priority to the scriptures.
Meanwhile Fulcrum has responded to the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) vote (after NEAC 5 had a failure to vote and the CEEC said it would anyway). There was also a statement.
It likes the CEEC apology regarding NEAC 5 voting procedure, about taking counsel from across Evangelicals, the use of C of E Canon A5, the CEEC basis of faith, Lambeth 1998 3:5 and 1:10, support for faithful Anglicans, that there is more than one strategy and that Brazil and Canada should be included.
Yet the section on Canon A5 etc. included the Jerusalem Declaration in the package, and it cannot be broken up in this manner, and this statement about faithful Anglicans includes the assumption that there are faithless Anglicans from whom the faithful need support.
Then Fulcrum questions (rather than rejects) in the CEEC vote: the Jerusalem Declaration as a whole, because it is GAFCON action based; the we rejecting the authority of unorthodox leaders because 'we' is too blunt - a we, now including CEEC, cannot give judgment on whole Churches and unspecified leaders; asking the Archbishop of Canterbury to immediately and seriously consider granting recognition to the breakaways of North America, when Fulcrum gives support to Anglican Essentials Federation in Canada and Communion Partners in the USA that would stay in their Churches, that the breakaways should follow due process and relate to the Covenant.
This seems to me to undermine not support the vote taken by CEEC, yet Fulcrum would see the Council and Executive strengthened.
If a resolution says half the things you want and half you don't want (more like one third you want and two thirds you don't), you either get to amend it (and it is not; it was formed in part by prior emails) or you end up saying it has to be rejected. Questioning it Fulcrum might, but it passes into intention and potential action aspects that Fulcrum cannot support. Perhaps everyone is feeling a bit too sore and delicate for the use of plain and clear language.