'Preparing for a future' certainly seems to suggest they expect a future in a very different sort of 'Anglican' communion to the one which now exists....

Notice that it refers again to a conference in Jerusalem. The Trotskyist analogy still holds: under pressure they did some fancy footwork, but now sidelined they have gone back to using the language they want.

The Communion clearly is no longer a communion. We have members that are in communion with some, not with others and impaired communion with yet others. Thus, it is a federation.

One of the commentators stated that he expects a formation of a communion within the federation coming out of GAFCon. Should be interesting. Might even have a a covenant that is more than "Do what your heart tells you to." The communion will have the majority of members and the growing parts. The extra-communion federation members will shrink away to insignificance.

The realigned future vision of the current conservative GAFCON Anglican campaign is surely a golden-hued (glowing if not burning) look at the idealized apostolic past through which the GAFCON leaders/organizers lay claim to being more like Paul or Peter or John, and much less like anybody else, including their former Anglican selves who were related as members of that other Anglican body of Christ to the rest of the non-conservative Anglican believers in worldwide communion.

So far as I can tell, they are determined on one of two things. They will simply conform all others to their understandings. Barring that for any number of reasons, they will do everything they can to bring down the house - walls, windows, doors, lintels, and roof.

The tough question for more moderate conservatives like Graham Kings is whether or not he will moderate his policing/punishment of others' alleged errors in not policing/punishing that whole raft of believers like VGR (who is hardly, at all, globally, as alone or singular as his critics so fondly love to paint him - a singular error never before seen or heard or embodied in person before?).

Do not hold your breath waiting for moderations.

Policing and punishment are the high order of the realigned conservative Anglican day, no matter what other fancy dress talk gets written into the rest of whatever new Anglican Covenant could possibly be passed. After all, if a conservative church cannot openly and proudly police and punish queer folks who have the sheer gall to say they are committed in love to one another (as well as to their children, at least in USA and Canada and elsewhere against all religious odds?), what good is it?

If you liberals were really "wise as serpents" you could scupper GAFCON, by insisting they come clean on the following question.

Do you as self designated "orthodox" Christians support direct mission to Jews and Muslims?

If they are asserting the original Gospel ( which I do not believe they are and I actually believe they need the authentic Gospel as much as persons of other faiths), surely that it is " to the Jew first and then to the Gentiles."

After all there have been several articles published on the web on Nigerian conversion of Muslims.

Indeed Sydney Diocese even targets Roman Catholics.

Another interesting point is that over a third of the bishops attending have never been recognised by the Anglican Communion.

They include divorced and re-married bishops..in direct contradiction of St Pauls injunction " that the bishop should be once married."

Bishops attending who believe that Our Lord becomes present in the Eucharist and others like Sydney who believe this is idolatry.

Bishops like Nazir-Ali supporting female headship and ordination, and the impossibilists of the numerous tiny US Anglo-Catholic continuing sects.

Furthermore will GAFCON come clean on lay presidency?

GAFCON is by the standards of the historic Christian mainstream a thoroughly hetereodox assortment, and its morality ( 75 years ago) would have been found questionable.

Have you seen David Ould's latest offering
(posted on Anglican Mainstream)about boycotting Lambeth. He condemns associating with the sexually immoral"...when his own Sydney diocese supports divorce and re-marriage and contraception isn't even an issue. Beams and motes theology.

During the 1980s, a group of moderates split with the UK Labour Party and formed the Social Democratic Party. The SDP formed an electoral alliance with the Liberal Party, which eventually morphed into one, united Liberal-Democratic Party.

During the heady days of the Liberal-SDP Alliance, they were leading in national polls. Alliance candidates at one event were told (by Liberal leader David Steel, IIRC, now Lord Steel of Aikwood) to "go home and prepare for government."

The Lib-Dems have yet to form a UK government in any configuration. But the two Davids had spent too much time reading their own news releases.

Seems to me the GAFFEPRONE will meet a similar fate.

Robroy:

Yes, but which will have the people who are right with God?

I have a difficult time believing that Christianity is the ultra exclusive club that the gafconians seem to think that it is. I've always looked at "the church" as being the entity that "gathered" folks into its fold. The church's job is not to "sort" folks, just to gather them. God does the sorting...and in God's time not ours.

Thanks Bruce G beautifully put. Bravo.

I think the description of the numbers as 'church going Anglicans' makes it quite clear that this group identifies first and second class Anglicans. It may simply be a variation on 'Bible believing Christians', which really translates as REAL Christians and identifies the rest as non-Christian. But as other contributors have said it appears that even those who choose to describe themselves as 'Bible Believingl also choose which parts of the Bible carry enough weight for them to deem essential. We are all prone to pick and choose. Some may do it on the basis of textual criticism, some may do so on the basis of societal or personal context, and yet others on the basis of whether or not it accords with their experience of a living relationship with Jesus Christ.

Please note such a 'living relationship' can be present within any tradition of the Christian Faith.

Graham Kings' Church of England Newsletter article perfectly illustrates the ecclesial incoherence into which the so-called Open Evangelicals have now fallen.

Evidently Graham Kings would prefer that the Episcopal Church in the USA set a novel precedent in the Anglican Communion, by permitting CANA, Southern Cone, and the what-not to form multiple, overlapping jurisdictions, under the authority of extra-territorial primates, within its own bishoprics, but without the permission of the bishop. He would also like to see these novel organizations laying successful claim to the church buildings and property.

Graham Kings must therefore admit that he would like to see the Church of England carved up in similar fashion by extraterritorial primates. As indeed it would be by the GAFCON group, once disestablishment becomes a reality (and it is close).

Already the Anglican Church of Canada is being carved up in the same way. Very soon, the non-Canterbury-centered Communion formed at GAFCON will be able to lay claim to the Dioceses of (say) Durham, Winchester and Rochester, with all the buildings and moveables thereof. A majority vote in each congregation is all it will take. New signs will go up, and hey presto, Winchester Cathedral will be in Southern Cone, while Rochester, it may be, will be somewhere else, perhaps Uganda, and the Venerable Bede's tomb will be re-located to some third province, perhaps Nigeria, perhaps Kenya.

How did this situation come about? How have today's so-called Open Evangelicals managed to so comprehensively wreck the Church of England? Well, that will be a question for Church historians, I presume.

Robroy: "One of the commentators stated that he expects a formation of a communion within the federation coming out of GAFCon. Should be interesting. Might even have a a covenant that is more than "Do what your heart tells you to." The communion will have the majority of members and the growing parts. The extra-communion federation members will shrink away to insignificance.

Bold prediction. Not unlike, "The Iraqi people will greet us with open arms."

Does Dr. Akinola have his flight suit and "Mission Accomplished" banner ready?

Malcom+, I am unclear about what part of my statement that you are having difficulty with. That the communion has degenerated to a federation? Many provinces have declared themselves to either out of communion or in a state impaired communion with the TEC. Thus, by definition, the Anglican Communion isn't. That a core communion can be formed? Actually these provinces are already in communion, so all it will take is formalizing the present reality. That a true covenant (rather than covenant-lite) can come out of GAFCon? Actually the formalizing of the core communion can be done in the form of a covenant. Easy!

That the rump remnant of liberal northerners will quickly vanish? I would think a member of the ACoC should understand that.

Charlotte, who was forewarned and now is responsible for the tearing of the fabric of the communion?

"The extra-communion federation members will shrink away to insignificance." Posted by robroy

I'm sure you pray to your god robroy this will be so.

However, those of us non-GAFCONians, who are sticking w/ the Nazarean Carpenter, recall how His staying-dead-death was prematurely predicted as well! ;-)

"Charlotte, who was forewarned and now is responsible for the tearing of the fabric of the communion?"

Listen to the claims of the bully!

"who was forewarned and now is responsible for the tearing of the fabric of the communion"

As in: If you this, I'll have a tantrum and throw all my toys out of the playpen, and it will be your fault?

Charlotte, you seem confused about Open Evangelicals. Kings and Wright have been arguing at length for the communion to stay together, even though they don't agree with or approve of some things TEC has done.

There is no way that Tom Wright is going to look to Nigeria or wherever - he constantly and publicly supports Rowan.

"Might even have a a covenant that is more than "Do what your heart tells you to." "

Not sure why anyone would need a covenant to say this. After all, despite the spin of the Right, the only people who think like this are conservatives, and they only think it of those they consider to be unrighteous and not true Christians. I know, the Poor Persecuted Orthodox need to believe this, and they've been whipped into a frenzy at the false claim that this is what "liberal northerners" want, but it ain't true. Just like a lot of other things they believe. So, if people want to go off and formally separate themselves from a non-existent enemy, what can the rest of us do except watch in confusion as they vehemently separate themselves from people who do not even exist? I certainly don't believe this. I don't know anyone who does. Yet I am saddled with this anyway. Well, I can't fight other people's paranoid deluasions, I have enough of my own to worry about.

Hate to mention it, robroy, but as you well know - I've seen you around on the various blogs - TEC has good and rational arguments for its positions. It's your side that doesn't; you only have a "Tradition" that's become "traditionalism" - and that is now too afraid to even listen to what we have to say.

That's because our arguments are better. If this weren't true, why else would Peter Akinola be trying to put his gay (and gay-friendly) foes in jail, instead of using persuasion? Why the violence, if it's so crystal-clear what the Gospel requires? Why can't he and others convince the world of the rightness of their position on the matter?

It's really unfortunate that so many Anglicans (and Christians in general) seem to care so little for their fellow Christians. But it doesn't matter, really: gay Christians will continue to be Christian whether you want us to or not - and in the end, the Gospel will triumph in any case. If the Anglican Communion mutates into something unrecognizable from what it's been, a replacement for it will start up again, because it's needed in the world.

We're not going anywhere.

"Do what your heart tells you to." "

What could be 'more' than this ? This is the holy grail.

This what Albert Schweitzer said in his 'Message to the Youth of the World'.

Anything less, is well less, and always comes across as less.

Do what your heart tells you...

Please

What is amusing, robroy, is your fatuous prediction that all the nasty liberals will simply whither away and die.

The restored Roman heirarchy in England confidently predicted that if Leo XIII simply declared Anglican orders invalid there would be a flood of conversions. The Church of England continued just fine, and the Anglican Communion grew.

Wee Dodie Robertson (later Lord Robertson of Port Ellen) confidently declared that devolution would kill the Scottish National Party "stone dead." Alex Salmond is not First Minister of Scotland and the SNP forms the government in Holyrood.

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld proclaimed that American troops would be greeted as liberators, and Bush famously donned his flight suit (and conpiece) to proclaim the mission accomplished. Yet American (and other) soldiers die every week in the face of an intractable intifada.

Here in Canada, the Anglican Church survived the deliberate efforts of the previus Liberal government to drive us into bankrupcy. If we can survive a scheming operator like Jean Chretien, we can easily survive the pumped up egoists calling for "realignment" - and their far right financial backers.

Unlike those who variously call a plague on each other’s houses, I rather hope GAFCON goes from strength to strength, even if the only issue that presently unites them is a certainty that my family is based on a soul destroying love.

Any movement that can unite Forward in Faith types with the Jensenites of Sydney deserves to be watched with awe and prayed over sincerely, and the organisers are quite right to point to the diversity of those attending, for GAFCON establishes an orthodoxy that sees all the present divisions within Anglicanism (including women bishops and lay celebration) as adiaphora and within the acceptable bounds of theological difference – you can in fact be orthodox as long as you don’t believe homosexuality is acceptable.

This is a significant move forward for Anglican polity and I believe its breadth needs to be acknowledged by all. Only a matter of months ago I could have never imagined Archbishop Jensen would be willing to acknowledge that Anglo-catholic claims came within the limits of acceptable theological difference and recognise the likes of Drexel Gomes as a spiritual soul mate. Lambeth should and MUST pick up on this amazing unanimity and amplify the positive aspects so loudly proclaimed by the presence of such diverse theologies at GAFCON.

My only problem is the very real possibility that those on the very edge of Anglicanism – the “lunatic fringe” as it were, might “do” for the GAFCON experience entirely. I once remonstrated with a celebrated conservative blogger that some of those who saw themselves as part of the conservative “mainstream” were in fact completely “off the wall” – he responded laconically “It comes with the territory!”. But some of these will be there in Jordan and Jerusalem and it is clear that they intend to make bold and unequivocal claims for Christ in the midst of their Moslem and Jewish hosts. If the tracts I have seen in draft form end up in the hands of Jordanians and Israelis I would be surprised if GAFCON makes it past the opening prayer.

"TEC has good and rational arguments for its positions."

Actually, as with women's ordination, rational theological discussion has been assiduously avoided. Kendall Harmon was almost crucified for even trying to bring up theology at GC03. It was all feel good, sloganeering ("Ask me about Gene" buttons) and politicking. Objections by Prof Robert Gagnon are ignored. Who was surprised when Gene Robinson backed out of the APA forum? If I hear the silly shellfish argument again, I will throw up.

Malcolm+, there are also many historical examples where the demise of a certain organization or structure was predicted...and it came about. So your point is?

The Episcopal denomination was the fastest declining one in the U.S., last year. This year with the exiting of San Joaquin, (and probable dioceses of) Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, and Quincy with all the bad press generated by the kabillion dollar lawsuits and ubiquitous depositions, the denomination will be reeling.

The ACoC has been in severe systemic without any help from the Anglican Network decline for the past 40 years, now estimated to be loosing 13,000 per year. Of course, they don't keep official tallies on how bad things are. There has been no real membership census since 2001 (see http://tinyurl.com/55yaor). They found that membership had dropped by 53% in the past 40 years and that the rate of decline was accelerating, "Membership fell by 13 per cent from 1981-1991, and by a further 20 per cent from 1991-2001."

Frozenchristian, here's what Graham Kings says in his Church of England Newsletter article about the Episcopal Church. You can see from it whether I'm confused about Open Evangelicals or not:

"The splits in The Episcopal Church of the USA are in danger of becoming a cycle of vengeance and spiraling outwards. Currently, The Episcopal Church and the churches of the ‘Common Cause Partnership’, who are splitting away from it, have got themselves into a crazy situation of suing and counter-suing. This litigation is appalling.

"The communiqué from the Primates’ Meeting in Dar es Salaam (February 2007) spoke, in particular, against litigation and yet the Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts-Schori, and others who read it and knew the mind of the Primates, still went ahead with it."

Plain meaning: according to Graham Kings, the Episcopal Church must permit itself to be robbed and dismembered by extraterritorial bishops, on the pretext (as Robroy says) that it has "torn at the fabric of the Communion." No resistance may be offered.

The same sentiments have been repeatedly voiced on the American blog Covenant, to which Graham Kings is a contributor. Many on that blog want to bring a presentment against the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church because she is attempting to defend it against these depredations.

As I see it, the Open Evangelicals are no less punitive and no less hostile to the Episcopal Church than the group about to gather at GAFCON. They have simply played "good cop" to the GAFCON group's "bad cop." The Open Evangelicals have allowed the GAFCON extremists to bully and dismember the Episcopal Church, in hopes of thoroughly frightening us. They expect us to turn to them. Once we do, the Opens will graciously say that they will allow the Episcopal Church to remain in the Anglican Communion, on condition that all its liberal clergy are ejected, all women put firmly under male "headship," and it receives a complete theological makeover in their image.

Anyone who knows the Episcopal Church would recognize this scenario as utter fantasy, of course -- it's on a par with the Cuban exiles in Florida spending years on plans to redecorate their old mansions. But the Opens believe that ordinary Episcopalians are just waiting to be rescued by them, just as the Cuban exiles believe they will walk right back into their old mansions once Castro falls.

Unfortunately, the extremists lost their heads, started believing their own propaganda, and are taking steps to form a separate, non-Canterbury-centered Communion. Without their bad cops, the Opens have little bargaining power. Thus Graham Kings now deplores GAFCON, as well he might.

"If the tracts I have seen in draft form" Martin Reynolds.

Spill the beans! Or do you want them to use them (by keeping behind wraps) so they don't get past the opening prayer?

Come on, tell us the angle at which they are fishing!

"That the rump remnant of liberal northerners will quickly vanish? "

You wish.

Some of us have forgotten more tradition than you'll ever know. Some of us were raised in an environment of learning about God and discerning what is meant by what we are told, read and experienced. And as much as I hate change, this is something anybody who is on a Christian journey should well deal with.

Tradition? Please don't confuse the real traditionalists from the "wannabee Johnny-come-latelys".

Robroy:

Here we go with numbers again. If being big meant being right, we'd all still be Roman Catholics, right?

Well if you want to play the numbers game, robroy, let us consider the assorted "conservative" departures in North America over the last 100+ years.

The only one of these "continuing Anglican" entities that has been any more than a minuscule remnant has been the Reformed Episcopal Church - and they are hardly thriving. I'll take my chances.

And btw, if one added all the populations of all the assorted remnants to the Anglican or Episcopal numbers, it makes hardly a dent in the decline. Fact is that all religious affiliation in North America is declining - and that the Anglican remnant numbers aren't particularly different from anyone else's.

Of course, the fact that we have a small minority of North American Anglicans breathing hellfire and hate against the majority and against modernity has been a very effective impediment to mission.

If it was all about numbers, then PT Barnum and Goebels would be the greatest evangelists in history.

"There's a sucker born every minute."

"Objections by Prof Robert Gagnon are ignored."

As they darned well ought to be! I was appalled to find that his writings were comnsidered in the formation of Issues in Human Sexuality. It is not apropriate for bishops of the Christian Church to give credence to the use of Scripture to back up propaganda and bigotry. Next thing you'll be quoting Paul Cameron or Nicolosi!

No indication who these 280 alleged bishops are.

I wonder how many of them are "Common Cause Partners" who have never been part of the Anglican Communion.

To me Gagnon is an example of the absolute fall in standards with regard to exegetics and the church generally during the 20th century.

The increasing social isolation of the churches, becoming a refuge from Modernity for various extremist.

Reading his magnum opus "The Bible and Homosexual Practice" one is constantly amazed how he butchers his quotes. Saying that other authors support his claims who don't, and saying that others are his adversaries, who are not. It’s actually difficult to see (or believe) that he has read and understood Bailey, Boswell and others. The conclusions he draws seem entirely beside the point.

The same goes for his readings of Ancient Assyrian law, the Bible, Cameron and whatever.

His line is Dogmatic, reading everything through his (late) dogmatic tradition, just as the Mormons read the Bible through their prior reading of the Book of the Pearl and the Book of Mormon.

Some distortion, for his Dogmatic reading is very late (late modern) and very sketchy.

Malcolm+, you were the one who used the term "fatuous prediction." So, I bring out what should be very disturbing statistics and you dismiss them. Again, you show a penchant for bringing up the irrelevant. How some offshoot of PECUSA did or didn't do doesn't mitigate the disaster of the present state of the denomination.

"the Anglican remnant numbers aren't particularly different from anyone else's." Except for the fact that it was the worst and it will be much worse still.

Yet another sign: in the fourth month in a row, a fourth seminary is reporting that it is doing major curtailing, in this case selling all its buildings to McGill U. One of the commentator at T19 added that Vancouver Theological Seminary has no students in its M. Div. program!

These show my predictions are hardly fatuous. But the TEC and ACoC will be so much more intimate! Try to spin the numbers however you like, but you should be concerned, very concerned.

The statistics about the Anglican churches in North America are a matter of great concern. IT is your attempt to misuse them that is fatuous.

There is no evidence to suggest that the numbers are caused by the decamping of "conservative" schismatics. Indeed, the departures of the last few years are a drop in the bucket.

The present schismatical departures in the US are not "the worst ever." Responding to your statistical points would be simpler if you didn't simply make things up. As a proportion, the RE departure in the late 1800s was far more significant.

There is an amusing tendency among "conservatives" to engage in "crative" (or is it simply dishonest) statistical games in order to advance their dubious claims.

The Canadian and American numbers reflect a broad trend of secularization in those cultures, as well as a difficulty most mainline churches have had in shifting from a maintenance mode which worked during Christendom to a mission outlook that is appropriate in a post-Christendom context.

There is, in other words, NO evidence to support your fond hope that this is entirely driven by the sexuality issue. In fact, the only significance of sex to this decline is that the present pi$$ing match is distracting both liberals and conservatives from getting on with the business of mission and with shifting from the maintenance model.

So far, there is no particular evidence that the schismatics are doing any better. What growth those congregations have had, limited as it is, has principally been driven by a trickle of conservative decampers from other parishes.

YOu see, robroy, apart from the "conservatives," there are lots of people who aren't obsessed with sex.

"Try to spin the numbers however you like, but you should be concerned, very concerned."

Why? One of two things will happen: either TEC will rebound, or in some way become a stronger, more effective witness to the Gospel, which doesn't at all equate with numbers, or it will cease to be. Now, you seem to think the latter is something to fear. If what TEC is doing is from God, then it will not die. Do you seriously think God will just let His Church die? If it is not from God, what does it matter if it withers away? It'd be a good thing. So, what is there to worry about? I find it interesting that the only ones who quote membership numbers as a sign of anything are the very people who condemn TEC for "seeking the approval of the world". If it's wrong to seek the approval of the world, why do you seem to think that number of people who approve "your", position as opposed to those who "approve" TEC's position is something to gloat over? Essentially, you are saying "You are only doing this to be popular, but we're more popular than you, so there!" And, if you seriously think that anything in this world can destroy witness to the Gospel, well, you need to read the Bible. I know, I'm only a pagan liberal who doesn't really believe anything, but I found Psalm 46 to be a good read. Since you actually BELIEVE the Bible, you might find it even more helpful.

Malcom + is spot on. In America the advocates of the Anglican Use confidently predicted 250,000 Anglo-catholics coming over to Rome. In fact considerably less than a thousand did and now most attenders at the handful of Use churches are cradle Catholics, who like the " English connection."

The Reformed Episcopal Church has less than 10,000 adherents, and is undergoing an internal schism..with evanhgelical members disturbed by High Church refugees from TEC.

What amused me was that at the launch of Canada (Southern Cone) there were more bishops present than parishes!

Note how GAFCON are not qualifying the number of Bishops...that is because over a third have never been recognised by the Anglican Communion.
Some of the Common Cause bishops are divorced and re-married.

As most of the GAFCON conference is being held in Jordan should they not come clean on the view of Islam, the Koran and Muslim Evangelizaton?

GAFCON.."where the gospel is not compromised."

Sydney believes in the real absence wants lay presidency, Fort Worth has High Mass and worships the eucharistic elements.

Sydney believes being born again has NOTHING to do with water baptism.... but thats what the Anglo-catholics believe.

Some Gafconians believe re-marriage after divorce is a sin...some are living in that sin.

Some believe in women priests , some in deacons and some are impossibilists.Onlly the latter are true to Lambeth 1948.

All the bishops spouses are on the pill ( you bet) which flies in the face of Lambeth resolutions made in 1908 and 1920.

The uncompromising element is the gay issue.

"Sydney believes in the real absence wants lay presidency"

Far more disturbing to me than what a bishop does in the bedroom.

"Sydney believes being born again has NOTHING to do with water baptism"

So what's the point of it? Also, what's the point of claiming to follow the words of Scripture when Jesus clearly refers to being born again "of water and the Holy Spirit"? How is it one is born again, in their eyes? I guess that's why they can have the odd position, as I have seen among Evanglicals, of praying for the "baptism of the Spirit". What do they think baptism actually IS?

"The uncompromising element is the gay issue."

Not for long. Once they have "purified" the Church of us heathens, it won't take them long to find other heathens. If the ACs in that group think they're going to be safe from the Evos, they have a huge surprise coming.

"Any movement that can unite Forward in Faith types with the Jensenites of Sydney deserves to be watched with awe and prayed over sincerely"

Watch with awe and prayer by all means - but don't think for a moment that they won't be tearing at each other's throats once nobody's watching and this first flush of excitement has worn off. Each party has for too long idententified themselves in purely negative terms "We are not like the (insert pariah of choice), nor do we believe what the (ditto) claim. We alone are the standard bearers of Biblical/Historical/Orthodox Anglicanism" to ever be at peace with the other for long.

My money says the current romance lasts for about as long as it takes +Akinola to unpack his chasuble; or until +Jensen forgets himself and lets the currently forbidden expression "lay presidency" slip. ("Who us? No; it must be somebody else who wanted that")