"Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria, and Archbishop Drexel Gomez of the West Indies, were denied visas…"

That's interesting. A poster at Fr Jakes said that +Gomez also travels on a diplomatic passport, from the Bahamian government.

The title of Bob Duncan’s opening address at the Pre-GAFCON meeting in Amman is, ‘Anglicanism Come of Age: A Post-Colonial and Global Communion for the 21st Century’, Anglican Communion Network site, 19 June 2008.

George Conger wrote an article on 5 September 2007 which gives a decidedly 'colonial' impression of American involvement in the Province of Rwanda from the Anglican Mission in America.

There are, now, 16 bishops in the House of Bishops of Rwanda: 9 are Rwandan and 7 are American.

George Conger’s article is as follows:

Rwanda appoints more bishops for USA
Wednesday, 5th September 2007. 6:40pm

By: George Conger.

Almost half of the Church of Rwanda’s bishops will be former priests of the American Episcopal Church by the year’s end, the church announced today.

Three more American bishops will be added to the roster of the Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMIA), the Church of Rwanda announced on Sept 5; increasing the size of the Rwanda House of Bishops to 16: seven missionary American bishops and nine Rwandan diocesan bishops.

The House of Bishops of the Province of the Episcopal Church of Rwanda (PEER) on Sept 4 elected the Rev Terrell Glenn, the Rev Philip Jones and the Rev John Miller as missionary bishops to the United States under the jurisdiction of Rwandan Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini.

The election of the three comes as a result of the “the significant growth of the missionary outreach initiated” by the Rwandan church in the United States, a statement released by the Church’s provincial secretary read.

The three former Episcopal priests will be consecrated on Jan 26 in Dallas, TX, during the AMiA’s annual winter conference.

A former member of the standing committee of the Diocese of Central Florida, the Rev John Miller, III was rector of St John’s Episcopal Church in Melbourne, before seceding with a portion of his congregation to form Prince of Peace Anglican Church in 2004. The Rev Terrell L. Glenn, Jr., a one-time deputy to General Convention from South Carolina and former rector of St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church in Mt Pleasant, has served as rector of the AMiA’s flagship congregation, All Saints, Pawleys Island, since 2005. The Rev Philip Jones has served as rector of St Andrew’s Anglican Church in Little Rock since 2005 after serving seven years as Dean of St Clement’s Episcopal pro-cathedral Church in El Paso, Texas.

http://www.religiousintelligence.com/news/?NewsID=971

The whole passport/visa thing is very curious.

1. If +Akinola was using a regular passport:-

Some nationalities may get a visa at the border on entry to Jordan. Nigeria is not one of them. All Nigerians must apply for a visa in Nigeria first. Presumably the other Nigerians got theirs as they gained entry. Therefore it is not correct to report that +Akinola was denied a visa by the Jordanians at the border. Such a denial would have come from the embassy in Nigeria initially.

2. If, as reported, +Akinola was using a diplomatic passport:-

When travelling on a diplomatic passport, it is almost always the case that one must apply for a visa first in one's country of origin. This is the case for Nigerians travelling to Jordan. If +Akinola regularly uses such a passport then he undoubtedly knew this. The application for such a visa from e.g. US citizens, must include a letter from the sending department or agency, explaining the purpose of travel and dates of the intended visit. Presumably the same applies to Nigeria. +Akinola would therefore have been granted or denied such a diplomatic visa before he left Nigeria.

One can only assume therefore that

- Either +Akinola's visa application (regular or diplomatic) was initially approved by the embassy in Nigeria, only for the Jordanian authorities to later decide (perhaps on information received) that that was a mistake.

- Or +Akinola's diplomatic visa was correct but there was some other permission he'd forgotten to get. However, I can't see what that would be, especially since +Akinola has presumably travelled on one before and he would have been informed on his initial visa application of all requirements.

- Or +Akinola turned up at the border with no visa, either unaware he needed one first (highly unlikely) or knowing he would be turned back to Jerusalem (and amazingly rooms appeared for 100 people when they needed them!)

According to David Virtue, +Drexel Gomez is not at GAFCON nor was he planning to be.

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8455

I was surpised at the BBC on the midnight news last night reporting that 350 ARCHbishops are attending! I thought it was a mistake with the headline writers...but no, it was repeated by the clearly well informed BBC religious affairs correspondent!
Or maybe he was prescient and there will be imminent subdivisions amongst the ever so charitable Gaff cons?

Well of course they're laughing; the point all along was to be in - and focus on - Jerusalem. Of course, they will be sharing the city with the annual Gay Pride event, which is bound to bring a smile to a few faces outside GAFCON as well. Maybe even a little chuckle. No doubt the GAFCON PR team will - if they address this at all - say they intended all along to bear witness in the face of "depravity" or some such nonsense. They'll be lucky if that sort of thing is even heard above the techno music, and I doubt it will ruin the party. Of course, they might even see that with good humor, too. Then everyone will be happy.

The GAFCON gang's claim to represent 75 percent of all Anglicans is curious, though. With all the GAFCON talk of power, one is left wondering whether and/or how this ostensible 75 percent asked GAFCON to represent them. Or does it matter to them whether they were asked to represent anyone's views or not? As duly appointed bishops, duly married bishops' wives and others lay claim to representing so many people, have those many people had any say in the matter whatsoever? Or do the GAFCON people get to tell everyone else back home what their views are? That, too, reflects a particular understanding of power - and a particular use of power - at GAFCON, and that's certainly no laughing matter.

If there was any doubt as to who is funding GAFCON, here is a clue. A letter from +John Guernsey (of the US Church of Uganda congregations), printed in the June 10th newsletter of Good Shepherd Church, Louisville, KY:

"Thank you to all who have so faithfully and generously given to help with the enormous costs of the Church of Uganda bishops and their wives to the Global Anglican Future Conference in Jordan and Jerusalem.

The Church of Uganda churches and individuals in the U.S. have given just over $90,000 to date! This is an extraordinary expression of generosity and loving partnership. Thank you for your amazing support and please pass on my appreciation to your Vestry and people.

Archbishop Orombi’s office has told me that they are still about $40,000 short of the total needed for the entire Church of Uganda delegation. Please join me in praying for the Lord to meet this need. If you or someone you know is able to make a further contribution, checks should be sent to my parish, made payable to “All Saints’ Church,” marked “GAFCON-Uganda” (and with the name of any bishop in whose benefit the gift is made)..."

www.goodshepherdanglican.com/.../newsletter/Good%20Shepherd%20June%2010%202008%20Volume%208%20Number%201.pdf

So it appears that US congragations have pretty much funded the entire Ugandan delegation to GAFCON.

The GAFCON website has changed the title from "Still laughing despite GAFCON trials" to "Smiles all around as GAFCON gathers..."

Someone felt, I guess, that the first was a bit over the top.

BBC's 1 O'CLock News featured Henry Orombi interviewed, and the GAFCON document. Robert Piggott said to the newsreader that this document gives all Anglican conservatives a different focus and its effect with come to Britain. He didn't use any discrimination, e.g. that several leaders of even southern Anglicanism have decided not to go.

Another broadcast was on Pat Robertson's 700 Club (the CBN that is a mimic of CNN but from the far right wing) and it said The Episcopalian Church was "consigned to the ash heap of history" and it was its own fault. This included an interview with Robert Duncan, and if I'd seen such a moving picture before I would cartooned him with a small round face and square chin and eagle like eyebrows.

If the Renaissance Hotel is in Jerusalem then the Hilton Hotel Heathrow is in London.

Neither is true.

The Renaissance Hotel is a self contained international (Marriott) hotel on the outskirts of Jerusalem with no connect whatsoever with the Old City. It seems like a strange choice.

'Could not his have been spent on the poor ?'

The Telegraph is a broad church these days: it has to cater for a very diverse readership, from Norman Tebbitt, Ann Widdecombe and the Bishop of Winchester, to David Cameron's pro-gay bright young trendies in the Shadow Cabinet. Indeed, it did a lovely feature a while back on Alan Duncan - MP for Melton and Rutland, in the heart of true-blue rural England and one of Mrs Thatcher's blue-eyed boys - and his boyfriend, on the announcement of their civil partnership this summer. And it has an openly gay assistant editor, Andrew Pierce.

The paper has called the shots all week, and everyone has fallen for it hook, line and sinker. Though it could do with improving its lexicon to describe the various positions Anglicans take: to restrict the chasm to the "orthodox" versus the "ultra-liberal" is to over-simply things. For instance, the Bishop of Winchester is "orthodox" on gays, but "ultra-liberal" on women's ministry and divorce. You could be a "traditionalist" on liturgy but an "ultra-liberal" on gays, and so on.

The Telegraph's reporting of GAFCON, juxtaposed as it is with a Telegraph TV interview with Gene Robinson and constant reminders of next week's gay pride in Jerusalem, cannot be the kind of coverage hapless organisers of the event would have hoped for.

The cost of Uganda, kenya and Rwanda on board means the GAFCON book does not tackle the issue of womens ordination. The Presiding Bishop is criticised for her liberalism and not for her sex. GAFCON is not as conservative as you initially think.... they have gathered from all five continebnts and yet there is no mention in the GAFCON HANDBOOK of Our Blessed lords teaching on marriage!

"Another broadcast was on Pat Robertson's 700 Club (the CBN that is a mimic of CNN but from the far right wing) and it said The Episcopalian Church was "consigned to the ash heap of history" and it was its own fault."

This is the same Pat Robertson, I would point out, who blamed the 9/11 attacks on US support for abortion and gay rights, and Hurricane Katrina's devastation of New Orleans as God's vengeance on that city.

OK then: Gay Pride and GAFCON together at last - smiles all around!

We'll always have...er...Jerusalem!

I'm sure some of the Gafcon people will enjoy gay pride jerusalem--even if on the q t.

Human beings are just not that monolithic. It's our saving grace.

Bishop Duncan's tunnel vision continues to amaze me, though I should long ago have grown accustomed to this scotoma in his carefully crafted conservative hermeneutics.

In simple - probably too simple yet indicative - terms: We can rethink all manner of biblical-traditional things -
flat earth,
Ptolemaic cosmology,
usurious interest on bank loans of all sorts,
permitting or prohibiting anatomy dissections of the human body,
adopting the anesthesias which initially occasioned great guffaws at the mention of Lister,
women with equal access and training and power in any number of competency-based occupations or other endeavors (including military?),
Jews of many different belief stripes living right down the street,
straight folks getting divorced and remarried,
.... well the list of changes we have sustained does go on a bit over the centuries, it would seem ...

BUT we must not, ever, accept what we really know about queer citizens, i.e., that their not being straight in no way interferes with their ethical or other human competencies (and so can no longer be psychiatrically described as a mental illness of any sort), along with the beginning glimmers of sound alternative facts - the biological bases of sexual orientation variance, the ways that good overflows in daily life as our queer neighbors pursue truth telling and care and service.

Poor Bishop Duncan, he may already be living retirement and just does not know it yet.

I wouldn't count the big tent Anglicans out, just yet, dear Bob. They have pulled through before, in the face of much worse and much stronger challenges to believers worshipping together in that tattered old big Anglican tent, the communion as it now exists, a gift from God in Jesus of Nazareth not a law of Calvin handed down through Bob.

You’re correct drdanfee.

Big tent Anglicans will continue. Big Tent prophets have been rolling out God's plans for millenia. Consider Jesus' understanding and affirmation of Elijah aka John the Baptist e.g. Matthew 11:12 "From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing" or 17:11-12 "Elijah comes and will restore all things (as ordained e.g. Malachi 4:5-6). But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him" And when Jesus spoke of John the Baptist in Luke 7:18-35 "All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus’ words, acknowledged that God’s way was right, because they had been baptized by John. But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God’s purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John."

So too for this generation. The priests who justify and promote violence, deceit, oppression, accusations, elitism, greed, and complacency are the same priests who refuse to hear the gospel of grace and refuse to see the God of compassion and mercy. They misrepresent Eve and her choice to taste the bitter fruits of knowledge that would enable her to guard, protect and guide this planet's occupants' evolution. They accuse God of being a sinner for creating an unwanted biosphere and humanity within it.

Thus in their process of justifying their elitist and "solo" correct scriptures they have reduced Jesus to an idol outside of the context of the Trinity and heavenly occupants. They have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that they are in breach of everlasting covenants including to eunuchs, Levi and the Daughter of Zion. Worse they have insulted God by inferring that God is less than what God is, that God is without love or compassion, and that God is without justice or mercy.

Consider this, such priests. Who is the sinner? God who warns you what conduct will make the pleasant lands desolate? Or the priests who promote those behaviours and selectively read the texts to excuse their behaviour and apportion their blame onto others?

John the Baptist went to the wilderness and souls came to him. So too for this generation, Holy Spirit waits for souls to come to God. Holy Spirit does not impose itself where it is not wanted. Holy Spirit is the penultimate Broad Tent theologian whose males and females forcefully advance God's dominion over ALL Creation.

I have said before and I reiterate:

“How people will laugh in 50 years!”And cry.

In 50 years people will know everything people thought and said today, in a way that is not possible about the “issues” of 50 years ago. Many un-fortunate will hide their head in shame and change their names, which today isn’t needed...

The difference is the Internet.

All will be preserved, all will be there… Many will point their fingers and whisper, like they do after Franco in Spain today, like we did many years after WW2.

“The Rev. Arne Fjeldstad told the Jordan Times that Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria was not denied entry into Jordan on June 18, but that Archbishop Akinola gave up and returned to Jerusalem after remaining in bureaucratic limbo for several hours at the border.

“They claimed that, as a diplomatic passport holder, he had to give advance warning that he was coming,” Fr. Fjeldstad said, as quoted by Reuters.

Because of the densely-packed agenda, leaders decided not to delay the start of the meeting until all participants were cleared to enter Jordan, but decided to move the planning meeting to Jerusalem after they learned that additional rooms had become available there.”

Spin, spin, spin ; = )

As far as I understand the thing with diplomatic passports is that they be used for “business”, not private trips.