George Conger reports on Religious Intelligence Gafcon conference ‘rearranged’:
The Gafcon organizing committee, which is arranging an alternative to the Anglican Lambeth Conference, has announced that the dates and venue of the Jerusalem conference have been changed.
Following consultations with the Bishop in Jerusalem, the Rt Rev Suheil Dawani, the conference will now be broken into two parts: a consultation for church leaders in Jordan from June 18-22 and a pilgrimage to Jerusalem from June 22-29.
“We are very grateful for the feedback that we have received on the many complex issues that confront us,” the Archbishop of Sydney, Dr Peter Jensen (pictured) said on Feb 19…
For the details, see the GAFCON website: Jerusalem Pilgrimage plans for the Global Anglican Future Conference and the Pilgrimage Brochure is a PDF file here (265K).
After consultation with a number of church leaders in Jerusalem, and around the world, the pilgrimage of the Global Anglican Future Conference will now take place from June 22nd through June 29th. An important Consultation in Jordan from 18-22 June will include the conference leadership, theological resource group, those bishops serving in majority Islamic settings and other key leaders. The Jerusalem pilgrimage will focus on worship, prayer, discussions and Bible Study, shaped by the context of the Holy Land.
“We are very grateful for the feedback that we have received on the many complex issues that confront us,” said Archbishop Peter Jensen, Archbishop of Sydney and a member of the leadership team. “The emphasis of our time together will be our future in the Anglican Communion and the reformation and renewal of our common life rooted in the Holy Scriptures and our common faith in Jesus Christ.”
Participants will include bishops and their wives, key clergy and laity.
Update The Nigerian website describes this change as “GAFCON repackaged”.
11 days. And I thought that the Global South objected to the cost of attending Lambeth….oh, but of course, they’re not paying for this one!
I was under the distinct impression that Jordan had also categorically rejected hosting GAFCON, from the royal family downwards. Have they actually got a venue booked?
Also, is it really true that there won’t be any bishops’ husbands present?
Merseymike — I thought the same thing – who is footing the bill on this thing? Transportation costs alone must be enormous!
MerseyMike…they objected to Lambeth because they didn’t want to pay for a conference that doesn’t DO anything ..like discipline TEC and pass enforcement resolutions. But then again, in the minutes recorded of +Akinola’s meeting with +Jerusalem, when accused of planning GAFCON with a political agenda, +Abuja said no. But of course it is poltical and has always been so, if not, whynot just skip Jordan complely and just have the pilgrimage? Jordan, Part 1…invite only the right “orthodox” …the party faithful the “leadership”…Strategy and planning for Lambeth, maybe a new communion? ..2. The pilgrimage?, an opportunity to evangelize the sheep… Read more »
“Participants will include bishops and their wives, key clergy and laity.”
This sentence alone says so much.
Too many generals and no guarantee of any large armies that will follow this rump into the Rumpdom!
EPfizh, you beat me to it. As soon as I saw it, the thought that went through my mind is that the Jordan component is going to have a very tightly controlled guest list (and probably a communique that is already in the process of being drafted by an even smaller cabal).
The question is whether GAFCON shifting into Jordan meets Dawani’s objection – he said, “Go to Cyprus.” It is probably the minimum move to develop again some sort of relationship with the rest of the Global South.
http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2008/02/is-it-far-away-enough.html
As Pluralist says how Dawani will respond to GAFCON simply moving a part of the meeting to another part of his diocese we may soon discover. I must say I am surprised they have all the logistics in place for this complex set of meetings – am I correct in thinking they are expecting something near 1000 people in Jerusalem? It sounds more like a “jamboree” than a pilgrimage, with three days given over to “sightseeing” – but perhaps its just a misunderstanding and “sightseeing” just means all are to be taken to visit the sacred places for prayer and… Read more »
Merseymike and Prior Aelred as who is footing the bill.
As if we didn’t know.
Ahmanson et al.
Participants are paying for their own travel and accommodation. Not in the lordly style of TEC bishops, but as pilgrims visiting Jerusalem.
“Participants are paying for their own travel and accommodation. Not in the lordly style of TEC bishops, but as pilgrims visiting Jerusalem.”
We’re still talking about, what, about $1000 in airfare, another $1000 in hotels, maybe $500 in ground transportation per person from Africa? For primates of nations where the average daily wage is under $5?
John posted: “Participants are paying for their own travel and accommodation. Not in the lordly style of TEC bishops, but as pilgrims visiting Jerusalem.” Oh, of course, the GAFCON crew are paying for it. Well, yes, for perhaps a few, but for most I’d suggest if is more like the following scenario: Ultra right wing and ultra rich “X” says to me, why not create an anti-Lambeth, and gather all of the ultra “orthodox” (i.e., Puritan fundamentalists) in Jerusalem (or Jordan, or Bournmouth), and here’s the check to cover your costs. So. I deposit that check in my account, and… Read more »
Even travelling in the modest style of pilgrims, I’m quite sure my Lord of Abuja has outspent the total travel budget of a dozen Episcopal Church bishops several times over.
Or rather, I’m sure that Ahmonson has paid that amount out on Akinola’s behalf.
“..travelling in the modest style of pilgrims”
Only First Class for Abuja “He is the only one!” a fellow Primate tells me
1. You can’t say they aren’t fast learners.
2. Are they paying the bills, or their diocese, or behind-the-scenes funders?
A trawl of bankstatements with insies and outsies recorded might leave an interesting audit trail. Some souls’ ability to travel so extensively on their “modest” income is laudable. Their wives must be real whizzes at managing the family budget to keep a roof over their heads, and their chidlren clothed and fed.
Today’s Church Times advises us that GAFCON will end on 29 June with a “keynote speech”. As it is the feast of St Peter and St Paul, I wonder who will be acclaimed as the Peter on whom the Lord will build his purged church. Will is be +Peter Abuja or +Peter Sydney?
I wonder if Paddy Power is offering odds?
Some revealing responses. You are certainly accustomed to judge others by your own standards, conspiracy theories – and methods.
For the record, the invitation to Gafcon is just that. No blank cheques, no hidden subsidy from Trinity Wall Street. I will be paying for myself.
You are one of the invited, John?
Question 2
Is the pilgrimage in Israel a pilgrimage or a conference?
Question 1 was whether Jordan is far enough away to satisfy Bishop Suheil Dawani.
Yes, wholly unsubsidised and at my own expense. There is no 815, TEC, or rich US diocese to sponsor me.
Shocking, huh?!
Congratulations John. Good to hear. You are not all the participants and your good deeds do not absolve others of their responsibilities. Ezekiel 18:4 The Lord says “every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son—both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die.” Ezekiel 18:20-25 “The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him… Yet you… Read more »
John, The conservatives in this started by making it about “the gay thing”. Now, at least here in Canada, the Network is saying it is about a more general trend to distort and deform Christianity into some postmodern liberal construct. I appreciate that, I once felt the same way about reforms in the Church, and didn’t go anywhere for 18 years, because I felt the Church was too liberal! So I appreciate the firmness of your convictions. My question is: how comfortable are you with the actions of the GS leaders? I mean, all blog mud-slinging aside, there is a… Read more »
John, it is a bit much, really. The “conservatives” routinely go Karl Rove all over anyone – and especially any honest conservative – who dares dissent from their arrogant absolutism. Dr. Poon should shut up and remember his place. Bp Wright is a racist. Bp Dawani has been bought. But dare anyone question the moral purity of this gang of bigotted bullies, then the real rage starts. Jahn, have a little integrity. Present me with evidence that the Episcopal Church in the US or the Anglican Church of Canada have EVER used their financial support to sister churches to enforce… Read more »
Ford, I don’t often visit this web site precisely because of the vitriol level I find here. To attempt some answers, 1) The “gay thing” as you call it is an innovation within the life of Anglicanism to which those whom you characterise as conservatives are responding, rather than leading. 2) Such an innovation is not consistent with Anglican moral teaching as understood hitherto but has been permitted in N America by the church authorities, who have sought to justify it on secular grounds. 3) Evangelicals perceive this as rejection of the authority of scripture, which explicitly forbids sexual expression… Read more »
“4) Catholic Anglicans (and Roman Catholics, and Orthodox) also point to the tradition of the church both past and present which rules out such an innovation without the general consent of the church. This has not been forthcoming even within the Anglican Communion. In fact the authorities within the Anglican Communion, such as they exist, have not only not consented, but have asked the N American churches to withdraw from this innovation.” Let me point out that the Anglican Communion is NOT a church, but rather a brotherly/sisterly grouping of autonomous churches with a common history. As such, the election… Read more »
Pat, it all depends where you lay the stress: on “autonomy” or on a “common” life.
And I would ask whether the Summary of the Law is an invitation to dispense with either the first Commandment – with its expectation of conformity to the will of God – or with any part of the Law.
If you have already dispensed with the concept of sin, then the question becomes redundant.
Vitriol here?
Of course, Virtue and the rest of those slander-sites are all sweetness and purity I suppose.
“Pat, it all depends where you lay the stress: on “autonomy” or on a “common” life.” Our common life is in the belief of Jesus as savior and baptism as entry into his kingdom. The rest is just details. “And I would ask whether the Summary of the Law is an invitation to dispense with either the first Commandment – with its expectation of conformity to the will of God – or with any part of the Law.” Well, I thought Jesus rescued us from the Law, and that our salvation was through faith, not adherence to some code of… Read more »
Perhaps I was being over-optimistic in hoping for a reasonable discussion.
“The “gay thing” as you call it is an innovation within the life of Anglicanism” So was the acceptance of divorce. Why one and not the other? “sought to justify it on secular grounds” Really? I have heard many arguments, but secular considerations have been way down the list. Show me where the major justification is secular, and not an attempt, perhaps misguided, to understand the issue from the mind of Scripture. “Evangelicals perceive this as rejection of the authority of scripture” And they are wrong. I perceive Evangelicalism as slavish legalism. “Some N American leaders and theologians have explicitly… Read more »
“Perhaps I was being over-optimistic in hoping for a reasonable discussion.”
Is that a reaction to my last response to you? I fail to see what was unreasonable in my words.
Pat, thank you for your reply. For a Communion to exist there does need to be a common life, and it seems the differences in underatanding what that means have become irreconcilable. For example, Jesus provided two sacraments, not just baptism. I could not dismiss Holy Communion as a detail. I used to think as you do about law and grace until I really got down to studying Romans, which opened up a whole new perspective for me. For example, Jesus calls for repentance as a precondition of entering the kingdom. If there is no Law and therefore no sin,… Read more »
“Perhaps I was being over-optimistic in hoping for a reasonable discussion.”
In what way has this discussion not been reasonable?
“For example, Jesus provided two sacraments, not just baptism. I could not dismiss Holy Communion as a detail.” Nor could I. But the Eucharist is not required for entry to the kingdom. It is a blessing, a gift to use from Christ…but receiving communion is not a requirement for salvation. “For example, Jesus calls for repentance as a precondition of entering the kingdom. If there is no Law and therefore no sin, metanoia becomes a rather vestigial concept.” Law is not required for there to be sin. Sin is a separation from God…and one need not transgress some specific code… Read more »
Ford, I was responding to someone who wanted to drag in the Virtue website and others. I am glad to see tonight that his is a lonely voice.
Pat, neither of the two dominical sacraments is “required” for salvation in the kind of framework which you posit. But the Catechism (which is part of the English Formularies) regards both as being “generally necessary to salvation” and I prefer the soteriological framework set out there. The great value of Romans lies in making for Christians the connection between OT and NT and the transition from law to grace. It is not possible to have the NT without the first Testament which provides the grammar for Christian believing. Sin does exist apart from the Law (and apart from law) as… Read more »
Ford, I took the time to give some answers to your question about why I will be attending Gafcon, but you respond by saying: “You have not addressed their behaviour in responding to these issues. you have not addressed the name calling, the salnder, the untruth and half truth, the scheming, the spin, the creation of a persecution myth. It is profoundly hypocritical to claim adherence to the Gospel, and in the next breath call your fellow Christians animals, worse than dogs, and faithless.” Such accusations bear no relation to reality amongst those with whom I live and work and… Read more »
Some of us take a back seat and look at what “repentance” means and who is forgiven for what. When they set the precedent of what they will forgive for their peers, they set the precedent for what can be forgiven in others. It’s no use crying about opportunism or incomplete repentence amongst non-priests, non-Christians, non-humans. The “pure” Christian priests have shown they are just as greedy, opportunistic, hypocritical, deceitful, aggressive and accusatory as those they wish to denounce. Failing to be without sin themselves they are in no position to cast stones at others, nor are they in any… Read more »
“Sin does exist apart from the Law (and apart from law) as you point out but that does not mean to say that for Christians there is no moral law, or that the scriptures have nothing to teach us. All of this illustrates what I was saying at the beginning, that a great gulf has grown up between those who hold to a classical understanding of Anglicanism, and those who have moved away from it. If the OT has no authority any longer, if Paul’s work can be dismissed effectively as unchristian, this leaves little ground on which to stand,… Read more »
“Such accusations bear no relation to reality amongst those with whom I live and work and pray. They are part of the mythology which exists unfortunately on websites such as this.” Actually, John, they exist as documented comments from Archbishop Akinola and others. And the only mythology I’ve seen at play is the persecution myth trumpeted by a handful of “conservatives.” BTW, John, I am no lonely voice. You posted a fatuous comment about the level of discussion here and I challenged it. You have subsequently conceded to Ford that, overall, the discussion here has been generally reasonable (excepting only… Read more »
Actually, Malcolm, I was responding to your intervention. You do seem to have something of a difficulty with what appears on other websites. I am interested in discussing Gafcon with Ford Elms and Pat O’Neill. But I wholly disagree with your estimate of “the genius of Anglicanism” and the Elizabethan Settlement. Elizabeth shared the religious conservatism of her father and sister, but took a principled decision, for the peace of the realm, to set limits to the Reformation at both ends of the spectrum, and she lived to see the settlement enforced. Neither the Marian bishops nor the Puritans were… Read more »
Pat I agree with what you wrote here “I never suggested the OT has no authority, only that its authority must be examined in light of Jesus’ life and words. I will admit to not caring much for a lot of Paul’s work, because I find him… to be a man entirely of his time and place”. Can I also say that without a good grounding in the OT much of the symbolism from either Jesus or Paul escapes the readers’ notice. For example Hebrews 9:5 “Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But… Read more »
Apologies, John, for not taking serveral pages to post a nuanced view of the Elizabethan settlement, but the fact remains that the settlement did provide – and did for centuries thereafter provide – room for Anglicans to hold a range of opinions. Conformity was to the authorized liturgy, not to som e particular party line on biblical interpretation. I notice, however, that you have decided to ignore the other salient points: especially that the outrageous comments and actions of Akinola are documented parts of the public record and not “mythology.” If you choose not to engage with me because I… Read more »
Malcolm, most of what you wrote was unworthy of comment. And the terms of the Elizabethan Settlement did not and do not allow for what is happening in parts of the Anglican Communion at present. It is anything other than a blank cheque. “It is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written” Article XX – part of the Settlement and still part of the Church of England’s formularies. For examp[le, the actions of TEC in consenting to the election of Gene Robinson and in consecrating him fall within that proscription, in… Read more »