"representing about 35 million active followers"

So the GAFCON organizers *claim*.

"Temple steps where it is believed the first Pentecostal, Apostle Peter, preached…"

First Pentecostal?! Say wha? [Or perhaps that's just a typo, for "the first Pentecost"---which would, itself, be questionable, for it wasn't the first *Jewish* feast of Pentecost, of course. Just the first where the Holy Spirit did Her flamey, tongue'd thing!]

"The Rev. Canon Aaron Mwesigye said the upcoming conference will reinforce the faith and remove growing anxiety over the homosexuality and same-sex marriage debate . . . “The Anglicans in Uganda want to remain steadfast in faith [but] when they begin to hear about things like homosexuality penetrating the Anglican Communion, they get worried"

Phooey. It's just the GAFCON organizers who are worried, w/ "growing anxiety". Their faithful couldn't care LESS about who the Bishop of New Hampshire is married to, but GAFCONeheads want them to go from blissful ignorance, to oppressive paranoia. It helps keep 'em in line, that way.

Lord have mercy!

But what about the Gafcon liberals split on divorce, womens ordination and the very meaning of the Gospel?

Hmm, it seems actually difficult to say what real word global critical steps GAFCONers think will be taken - since they intentionally are leaving out two of the large groups that are supposed to be powerfully affected, all over the planet, by whatever steps GAFCON thinks it is taking.

The two groups intentionally left out are: (1)anybody round the planet who is not already a dyed in the wool religious conservative as GAFCON defines those limited terms, plus (2)the target groups whose daily lives are supposed to be most negatively affected by whatever negative things GAFCON manages to proclaim about them.

GAFCON Hammers=GAFCON Gospel.

Hard to get through to these GAFCON folks, for anybody who is already defined outsider by their strict rubrics. Nevertheless, the GAFCON preachments will hardly have daily life impact so much as they might hope. As a citizen in a democracy, I am protected from unlawful slander and violence, and guaranteed freedom of person and of religion in USA. That can be overturned by strictures from the likes of GAFCON initiatives, but it will not be quick and it will not necessarily be easeful for the new conservative campaigners who wish so many of the rest of us, so very ill.

Koinonia. The unity of purpose derived from targeting others cannot long survive without new enemies, new targets, new outsiders upon which weaponized doctrines and creeds can hungrily feed. When your understandings only comprehend God as a hammer, everybody looks like nails.

"... homosexuality penetrating the Anglican Communion"?

“… will reinforce the faith…” ???!!!

“… and remove growing anxiety over the homosexuality and same-sex marriage debate that has pitted the liberal wing of the church against the conservative one”.

Surely it’s the other way around: “that has pitted the conservative wing of the church against the liberal one”? GAFfe CON is a traditionalist, not a “librul” take-over.

I know, JCF, the "first pentecostal" thing took me aback as well. Is it a typo? I don't know, but I have to say I doubt it. Nigerian Anglicanism is very Evangelical, after all, and we have even had on this list someone purporting to be from Nigeria claiming quite vociferously that s/he had far more in common with the Pentecostals than with the rest of us. That might be isolated, but it is a feeling that IS out there. My attitude towards that is "No wonder we're in the state we're in." It also gives me a lot to reflect on. This person was quite proud of his Pentecostalist tendencies, yet, for me, such leanings instill mistrust, and even fear. It is a comment on how far apart we are.

Apparently we now have an agenda to this very much a conference in Jerusalem:

http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2008/05/gafcon-agenda-conference.html

And that led me to speculate on the coming future:

http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2008/05/so-whats-latest-betting.html

which I had done before too, based on other material coming along about numbers:

http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2008/05/crystal-ball.html

The daftest thing, however, is the recent argument for a Covenant from the ACI - that instead of a division coming to the Communion, there should be a Covenant that organises - because so many Churches reject it - division, so that there are those who accept the Covenant and those who don't.

http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2008/05/covenants-new-purpose-division.html

Well...

Good luck, is all I say ; = )

“...when [Anglicans in Uganda] begin to hear about...homosexuality penetrating the Anglican Communion, they get worried ..."

Canon Mwesigye's (unintentionally?) amusing comment probably does reveal a lot about what is involved here for many on a psychosexual level.

I too had a puerile giggle at the use of the word 'penetrating', Christopher, but look at what it reveals about their attitudes towards gay people. We are not IN the Church, we are forcing our way in, as though the thousands of faithful gay Anglicans, even millions, simply do not exist. They have the image of the Church of the pure being attacked by outside forces. Look at how often here conservatives display this idea that the Church is under attack by the gays and the faithless. If they acknowledge the presence of gays in the Church, and that those who are advocating gay inclusion are actually acting from a position of faith, the whole persecution myth becomes less tenable, and since they need to see themselves as valiant defenders of the faith against the assaults of the heathen, they simply cannot do that. That's why it isn't enough to say simply "We believe homosexuals are called to celebacy" which would be a perfectly good argument. They also have to say "and they choose to be that way, and they are pedophiles, and they die younger than straight people, and social science that disagrees with these things is merely political correctness, though propaganda can be called science as long as it confirms conservative prejudice." They need to demonize the enemy. But, point out that this kind of behaviour shows what's in their hearts, and they get all offended. Everything about their actions is geared to maintaining the myth. Disagree with them? PERSECUTION! Discipline them for bad behaviour? PERSECUTION! Try to keep them from stealing buildings when they go into schism? PERSECUTION! Anything other than allowing them to do what they like and force other people to obey them is persecution.