So Nazir-Ali wanted Lambeth to have been conciliar?
His real wish, I think is for Anglicanism to be centralised and ruled by diktat - his diktat, and those of primates.
Anglicanism in England is synodical, and so was CMS.
'I am not having members telling me what to do' is my favourite quote of his.
All rather sad and totally misunderstanding the nature of Anglicanism if you ask me.

Blimey. I just read the akinola-on-gafcon-and-lambeth article and cannot believe the lies. The only thing Lambeth and ++Rowan have *done* is seek to accommodate all parties, and the only change there recently was wrongly not inviting +VGR to the party this year. And somehow that's portrayed as "betraying" *his* band of cronies?
Truly, a different universe is formed.

What do folks here make of this ?

http://www.dontthrowstones.info/index.cfm

This is outrageous and only goes to show that this is purely about power and nothing to do with 'protecting' conservatives in liberal dioceses. The Diocese in Europe and +Rowell could in no way be characterised as 'revisionist':

"Delegates at the revolutionary Global Anglican Futures Conference (GAFCON) being held in Jerusalem learnt this week that for the first time in history, three senior church leaders agreed to give official oversight to an independent Anglican church, which is based in the Algarve.

In a statement sent to The Portugal News from the ‘Holy City’, where more than 1,200 delegates from around the world had gathered, it was revealed that a Concordat had been signed at the seven-day conference allowing the All Saints Anglican Church Algarve to be looked over by three bishops...

...In a radical break with tradition, three church leaders, The Most Rev. Emmanuel Mbona Kolini, Archbishop of the Province of the Anglican Church of Rwanda and Bishop of Kigali, The Most Rev’d Dr. Justice Ofei Akrofi, Archbishop of the Church of the Province of West Africa and Bishop of Accra and The Rt. Rev. Frank Retief, Presiding Bishop of the Church of England in South Africa signed the Concordat in Jerusalem, the document of acceptance which brings All Saints Anglican Church into their care."

http://www.the-news.net/cgi-bin/google.pl?id=965-35

Tim,

True, you are here in another universe. Attend to the record: 1)statement on sexuality out of lambeth'98, 2)Windsor report (recognition that unilateral action in US is a betrayal of understanding and agreement - a break that must be dealt with), 3)Primates meeting and expectation that issue will be recognized in US and addressed in run-up to Lambeth '08. What is not to understand?

It is not simply a matter of one individual (you can trivialize this if you want to but that only digs a deeper hole) - it is keeping faith with the process and with one another!

Ben W

As one of the ‘Gafcon 8’ I have a particular interest in George Conger’s report yesterday about the sheet produced for the security guards naming and picturing eight persons he believed might seek entrance to the conference. He calls it a volunteer gaffe in the context of tight security at the conference.

The story raises further questions. Why was the selection and training of volunteers at this conference so badly handled. This volunteer was specifically working in security. What training did these security specialists received? Andrew Carey in today’s Church Times thinks the Gafcon team would have been better organisers of the Lambeth Conference. Not on this evidence they wouldn’t, except they might have been better at excluding all LGBT people, including supportive bishops, from Lambeth.

If the gaffe-prone Gafcon volunteer really exists, I would like to know why he thought these 8 people were major security threats. Who provided him or her with details about Davis and myself and enabled the person to find our picture online?
George Conger also writes that Peter Akinola and Michael Nazir-Ali have been given bodyguards in light of threats by Islamic militants and gay activists. Are the Gafcon leaders really so paranoid about other Anglicans that they think leaders of Changing Attitude pose a dangerous security threat? The fear is far more than concern that we might simply turn up – or is that sufficient threat in itself?
If this account and explanation is true, then an apology would be appropriate to Davis and myself, amongst others. We have both met Bishop Martyn and Angela, and have professed mutual respect for each other. We have both met Archbishop Akinola and other Gafcon leaders and been present at Anglican Mainstream meetings. I have met Bishop Michael Nazir Ali, and I look forward to meeting him at General Synod in two week’s time – unless he feels the need to protect himself from me by engaging security guards – or am I not a threat in York?

"...In a radical break with tradition, three church leaders, The Most Rev. Emmanuel Mbona Kolini, Archbishop of the Province of the Anglican Church of Rwanda and Bishop of Kigali, The Most Rev’d Dr. Justice Ofei Akrofi, Archbishop of the Church of the Province of West Africa and Bishop of Accra and The Rt. Rev. Frank Retief, Presiding Bishop of the Church of England in South Africa signed the Concordat in Jerusalem, the document of acceptance which brings All Saints Anglican Church into their care."

Oh the irony... especially since the Priest-in-Charge at All Saints is a member of Accepting Evangelicals!

Ben W's parallel universe is one in which wishful thinking and fantasy prevail over the reality of what has been happening in the Anglican Communion, the nature of power and authority, the roles and powers of the variuous instruments of Communion, and the nature of human sexuality.

No-one keeps faith with the process and many fail to keep faith with one another.

All of us ignore one clause or another from Lambeth 1.10, according to the outcome we hope and pray for. It is impossible for anyone to keep faith with Lambeth 1.10 because it makes mutually exclusive commitments.

There have been the most appalling acts of betrayal this week against the integrity and role of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Some have suggested he resign and allow Michael Nazir Ali to replace him. Why hasn't Bishop Michael Nazir Ali immediately repudiated these calls? He betrays his own Primate by failing to state categorically that he has no such thought in his mind.

After all the threats and tactics from the conservatives, it comes to this - a conference which wants to usurp the role and spiritual and moral authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The world of God as inhabited by Ben W and others is a fantasy and not the real, divine, holy world of complex demands and challenges in which I live.

Oh, and whatever Gafcon says, LGBT Anglicans are not going away, not in New Hampshire, not in deepest Wiltshire, not in Abuja, not anywhere. Changing Attitude and other LGBT Christian groups are working for the full inclusion of LGBT people in the Anglican Communion and we will never cease working towards the transformation of the Communion.

Well said, Colin.

Colin,

If I wanted to take extremist tidbits from here and there and paste them on you that would be an easy way to dismiss you (well he is just in fantasy land you know!)I could do that but that might say more about me than you.

I guess neither of us is completely out of it, we both seem to recognize that those who walked away from Lambeth '98.1.10 acted in betrayal of others - your words: "No-one keeps faith with the process and many fail to keep faith with one another." After that it is hard to know what to do, how do you relate to someone who makes it clear they can not and will not be counted on? I would agree that makes things very difficult and mistakes have been made on all sides.

I have not thought that gay people would or should simply go away (that is your "fantasy" projected on evangelicals). After all you are one of the great "asserters," and if it does not make sense just assert more loudly. Neither have I thought that scripture or historic Christian teaching will be transfigured to say what it has never said to this point(though the revisionists are hard at work). Nor have I thought that you can simply dismiss those now meeting in Jerusalem as a bunch of dummies - they represent the great majority of Anglicans in the world!

Ben W

"The Church of England in South Africa?" What are they doing at GAFCON?

Ben W,
I feel there has been offence on both sides, but who do you see as exhibiting Christian behaviour for the most part? I cannot find much that is Christian in the behaviour of most of the leaders of the Right. Pharisaically defending Law when Christianity is about practicing the spirit of the Law and being free from the letter of that Law isn't very Christian. Christians are called to love, and not just the nice people, we are called to love those who we feel most deserve our judgement, the ones no-one feels deserve love. Do you actually see this in the behaviour of the Right? I can't see any love in their behaviour, let alone the kind of difficult selfsacrificing love expected of Christians. It is not loving to oppress people, nor is it loving to revile others, nor to lie, nor to concoct a myth that others are persecuting you, nor to take this warlike attitude supported by overblown rhetoric. Can you really see them as paragons of Christianity, and men like Gene Robinson to be faithless heathens, which is the persecution myth? Seriously, I have been open about my doubts about gay inclusive theology, but I am no theologian. So, I take as my guide "by their fruits shall you know them". Well, I simply cannot see the fruits of the Gospel in the Right. So, uncomfortable as I may be with gay inclusive theology, I have no choice to side with liberals, since they are the ones in whom the light of the Gospel shines. Frankly, I am flabbergasted that anyone could see the Gospel in the actions of the GAFCONites and Essentialists. Please, I'm not arguing here, where is "Love God, Love your neighbour" in their behaviour? +Akinola says you should love gay people better than to allow their souls to be lost by condoning their sin, yet then wants to jail them. Can you honestly call that loving gay people, and if you can't, how can you listen to the teachings of someone who appears to define 5 years in jail as a loving act? Seriously.

"Nor have I thought that you can simply dismiss those now meeting in Jerusalem as a bunch of dummies - they represent the great majority of Anglicans in the world!"

Since they were not, for the most part, elected by the laity of their dioceses, they represent only those who elected or appointed them. I can claim to represent my parish, but if the parish did not choose me, I represent only myself.

"I have not thought that gay people would or should simply go away (that is your "fantasy" projected on evangelicals)."

So you're saying, Ben W, that you welcome us---WITH OUR SAME-SEX PARTNERS---to The Lord's Table, both communing AND presiding?

That, and THAT ALONE, is THE alternative that would disprove my deluded "fantasy"! (and not some meaningless blather about "welcoming but not including" or "including you but not your sin" etc. etc. ad nauseum)

Lord have mercy!

Methinks Ben W is talking "numbers" again!

;=)

Ben W

Another false assertion, my friend. Those now meeting in Jerusalem do not 'represent' the vast majority of Anglicans in the world. They represent themselves.

The opinions they are expressing do not even represent the opinion of all those present in Jerusalem. Some of them are reported to have wanted to go to Lambeth but have been prevented by their own Primates. I only have news reports to rely on for this statement, of course.

As you rightly say, none of us is completely out of it. We have all been drawn, by God, into this challenging and complex period in which the church is being invited to reconsider ideas about human sexuality and attitudes towards lesbian and gay people.

Those who are being faithful to God are, for me, those who stay faithful to the commitment to listen and to the open-ended stance taken by the Windsor Report into exploring how the church responds to her LGBT members.

Those who are unfaithful to God and the resolutions and reports of the church are those who want to walk away from an open process, or indeed, don't want a process at all.

They want to reassert a Biblical fundamentalism about homosexuality. I believe that those who refuse to allow the church to resolve this quickly and simplistically are more faithfully following the divine call.

Well played Colin

Those who are unfaithful are those who refuse to provide hospitality to the "least of these" (See Matthew 5:19 or 25:34-46).

In refusing to acknowledge, minister or protect those who would be in communion with them, such souls can not prove that they would provide for those who are "not like" them e.g. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, humanists or atheists.

Thus they prove they are not part of fulfilling Jesus' divine missives to be the Counsellor, Comforter or Prince of Peace to all the peopleS of all the nationS (Isaiah 9:6). Thus they are in breach of the covenant of peace (Isaiah 54 and 55:3). Thus their staffs of Favour and Union are broken (Zechariah 11) and they can no longer claim special privileges or divine authority.

God's missives for Jesus (e.g. Isaiah 11) and for this planet to be inhabited (Isaiah 45:18) remain unchanged. The issue is who can credibly claim to be fulfilling those missives and satisfying those everlasting covenants.

Those who fantasize about the obliteration of all non-suitable and/or non-Christians can hardly purport to be emissaries of peace.

As has been noted here before, Ben W., it was the "great majority" who "cried out all at once, saying, 'Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas'"

This whole new structure thang is disingenuous at best. It aims to build on realignment, and yet balloons into momentary shapes when pressured, and upon close detailed scrutiny as a reformation movement often proves to be markedly mean-spirited, miserly and ungenerous in its tone of voice, and above all, fearful about an endless list of picky scruples that it believes/preaches will unduly compromise the witness to Jesus of Nazareth in the modern world.

Surely any such new structures must be aimed at collapsing the current worldwide Anglican big tent into something other, smaller, more highly conformed in doctrines, and more consistently weaponized in doctrines?

And the bugaboo of funding, say, Ahmanson's?

If IRD? - Institute for Religion and Democracy founded and funded mainly in USA by Ahmanson and others similar - is any example?: The money to sustain a new structure will not just flow endlessly and bottomly forever. Ahmanson wants results. At the least, specific parishes - the fantasy is whole dioceses? - must continue to be peeled off the existing North American structures which we now call provincial churches, i.e., USA and Canada. But of course, doing the same thing with England is tricky, as royals and parliament may have some say, to interfere? The most so far that can be threatened against England is that, say, African bishops will just ignore England, except when it pleases them to invade or trash talk?

In talk and behavior, the leading Africans are nearly as ready to diss the Asian believers and some others around the planet, as easily and unthinkingly as they diss USA and Canada.

Can a whole new conservative structure be sustained, solely by its constant needs to target, trash talk, and defame the people outside of itself? For a time, perhaps. IRD has this sort of weaponizing as its central mission, nicely narrated in talk of reform and purity of heart, even talk of its love for the people (if not also the structures sustaining those same people?) it so vigorously demeans and targets.

Colin,

I appreciate the fact that you climbed down from your earlier position of mocking dismissal toward me and other evangelicals.

About whether the bishops in Africa represent their people or not, we have been around this before. (Do you want to say the only way people can represent anybody else is if they have been "elected" according to our rules, and which, British or American?? Our system in which perhaps 25% to 50% of the people will vote and then split that vote, that is the only way to do things? Especially in the case of leaders in the church we can do without gospel discernment as long as we have followed these rules!?).

I agree with you that this is a "challenging and complex period" for the church still under God's direction. And I agree with the Windsor report in the patience called for in this process. We do live in a challenging period but much of this is because in society we have lost our moral bearings. There is much conflict going on, I don't think that means we stop affirming the Gospel of peace and overlook the resources in Christ for reconciliation! in the same way there are other moral challenges that call for Christian discernment, and patience with people living in very diverse situations (often in deprived and distorted settings!).

I don't "want to walk away from an open process," that is what Lambeth '98.1.10 called for and who walked away? It was sheer arrogance in walking away and so dismissing in "colonial" fashion those who counted on the communion for faith and faithfulness (I am not surprised at the anger and alienation, and the feeling that we can now only go on our own in this).

Ben W

Ford,

I am with you in the call to love. It is a challenge in all areas of life, whether it is race or economics etc, not just when it comes to this one - and it is something much more than making nice.

In dealing with homosexuality liberals by conviction would have an affinity here (the greater challenge in this case is for the evangelical - disagreeing strongly will he respond with care?). You ask whether we see this in the Right. (I could ask, do you know all evangelcals so that you can speak for them all?), I have seen examples of self-giving love in personal and wider ways. Look for insance into the work of World Vision in some of the most difficult places in the world (founded and run by evangelicals).

True, love takes initiative in caring, but it is not blind. It is not against or in contrast to God's will revealed in the law. Note the words of the apostle: Rom 13:8-10.

Ben W

Ben

“I don't think that means we stop affirming the Gospel of peace”

You have of course read the transcript of the LGCM interview with +Orombi, ++Akinola and Jensen TA linked to. And you are aware that the only out gay Nigerian Christian is currently living in exile in another country fearing for his life.

And there is the matter of the Ugandan lesbian woman who was raped and beaten and who is now seeking asylum in Britain, yet +Orombi did not condemn any violence against lgbts in his country.

And you have read Ford’s attempts, for a couple of weeks now, to get one contributor to explain what a suitable punishment for homosexuality would be, if 5 years in jail are “a good compromise”.

And you also remember that a few months ago I wrote an open letter to GAFCON, asking everyone on TA to join me in affirming the Gospel of peace and to denounce violence - and that I got a lot of criticism for this from the conservatives on TA, and that not a single one has signed it.

And you do remember that, following criticism from you, I offered to email you the letter so you could judge whether it was partisan or whether it really only affirmed a Christian commitment to peace, but that you never responded to my invitation, although you had affirmed “non violence” in a vague and general way a little earlier in our conversation.

So, do tell me: Who is affirming the Gospel of Peace, and just, precisely, are they doing that, in word and action?

Colin,

I appreciate the fact that you climbed down from your earlier position of mocking dismissal toward me and other evangelicals.' ('Ben W')

Very very unpleasant posts these. Heaven help those upon whom he turns his invective. And all under cover of anonymity while poor Colin speaks for himsef, and as himself !
And this is Witness?

I of course speak from the (comparative) safety of middle earth !

"...In a radical break with tradition, three church leaders, The Most Rev. Emmanuel Mbona Kolini, Archbishop of the Province of the Anglican Church of Rwanda and Bishop of Kigali, The Most Rev’d Dr. Justice Ofei Akrofi, Archbishop of the Church of the Province of West Africa and Bishop of Accra and The Rt. Rev. Frank Retief, Presiding Bishop of the Church of England in South Africa signed the Concordat in Jerusalem, the document of acceptance which brings All Saints Anglican Church into their care."

Oh the irony... especially since the Priest-in-Charge at All Saints is a member of Accepting Evangelicals!

Posted by: Wierdfish on Friday, 27 June 2008 at 4:53pm BST

Well, well !

I am surprised we don't hear more of Accepting Evangelicals here; and of Wednesday's book Launch in London ...

This world family of Anglican churches is suffering from the Gafcon group
saying they wish to have a different diet. This has happened over the
centuries and if they feel the present Archbishop is pushing the boundaries
a little far, they should bear in mind that even he cannot last for ever.
"Blessed are the peacemakers" This is the duty of Gafcon, and if they
proceed on their present course they should not be allowed to stay in the
same church, and under the roofs that they now use. If they do remain with
the rest of us another ruse
will be aroused and the arguments will commence again.. And this is solely
because of the way they are playing this "game". We are meant to be
"one body" and we pray for this but GAFCON seems to be praying for something
else.They
are threatening, and similar to Henry VIII, hoping to keep all the present
facilities.
GRAHAM PALMER

"About whether the bishops in Africa represent their people or not, we have been around this before. (Do you want to say the only way people can represent anybody else is if they have been "elected" according to our rules, and which, British or American?? Our system in which perhaps 25% to 50% of the people will vote and then split that vote, that is the only way to do things? Especially in the case of leaders in the church we can do without gospel discernment as long as we have followed these rules!?)."

I certainly want something more than an appointment by other bishops before anyone can claim to be representing an entire population. That way lies aristocracy...does the Earl of Kent represent the people of Kent?

I've been pondering Ben W's comment about me since he posted it yesterday afternoon:

"Colin. I appreciate the fact that you climbed down from your earlier position of mocking dismissal toward me and other evangelicals."

I wasn't aware that I had climbed down. 'Climbed down' implies that I have done something that I don't think I have. I try and acknowledge the integrity of those who hold radically different opinions from myself when I write. Sometimes I don't get it right, and my tone changes. But has my tone ever been one of 'mocking dismissal'? If it has, I apologise.

But I feel as if I have been congratulated for doing something I haven't done, which puts me on the back foot and implies that I have changed my mind about conservative attitudes to homosexuality. I haven't.

Unfortunately Erika, I think some souls idea of peace is that all those that don't agree with them shut up and put up. Preferably while cleaning, maintaining and cooking their meals and lives for them. Of course, with a smile on their faces so that their oppressors can claim that they are happy and have no grievances.

Fortunately God looks beyond appearances to what is really happening.

Colin,

Thanks for the spirit of your response.

I was responding to your first note in which you talked "about" me rather than to me and said: "Ben W's parallel universe is one in which wishful thinking and fantasy prevail over the reality of what has been happening in the Anglican Communion . . ."

I did not think or intend to imply that you had "changed [your] mind about conservative attitudes to homosexuality ..." Actually, would that be so bad,if we want to advance the conversation would not some change at times be good news?(or what is this conversation about?). We have had a lot of response, as up above from another to me, "unless you think as I do and simply accept me on my terms forget it." Then people will go on to talk about others and "fundamentalism" but what represents it more precisely than this? Just fundamentalism on a different matter!

Ben W

Ben W,

"do you know all evangelcals so that you can speak for them all?"

Of course not. There is a lovely site called Ship of Fools where my anti-Evangelical bigotry is brought to light and I am shamed by it. Not here, though. See Erika's response to you. When I refer to "the Right" I am referring to things like GAFCON/CANA/Essentials/the Network. It is difficult to keep in mind that not all Evangelicals are among their number, or that not all GAFCONITES are Evangelicals. Yet, it is true the the loudest voices within that movement are Evangelical. It is disturbing that, while you "affirm" your disapproval of the hateful comments of people like +Akinola, you don't seem to be so challenged by them as to think that perhaps the attitudes revealed by these statements, among others, might actually cast doubt on the rest of what the man says. Do you really believe, for instance, that there is some sort of left wing faithless opposition that is persecuting the 'orthodox'? Do you believe that Evangelical Christianity, whatever else it is, is "orthodox"? See my response to the GAFCON final statement. You won't, likely, agree with all of what I say, and that's OK, but I'd be interested to see what you would agree with. I try to keep in mind that, when I call myself a Christian, there are many out there who consider this to mean that I believe the same kinds of things as Pat Robertson and John Haggee, and that this is what I am doing on a smaller scale to Anglican Evangelicals. It is wrong of me to generalize this kind of unChristian hatred and fearmongering to all Evangelicals, but you can't deny that the loudest voices expressing these beliefs are Evangelicals.

If you are anti-evangelical, Ford...I think you are FAR too soft on them!

For me its not about mocking dismissal, but simply that I find their ideas and their god loathsome.

"I find their ideas and their god loathsome."

So do I, Mike, and that's a sin for me. We ought not to loathe any of our fellow humans, regardless. Yet, I still feel that doesn't negate the need to continually refute their claims to True traditional Christianity, nor the increasingly glaring distortions of logic and history they must resort to to justify their claims. I keep saying, Evangelicalism might well be right, I'm not qualified to say, but it ain't Tradition, it ain't the "faith once and for all delivered to the saints", and it darned well ain't 'orthodox', whatever else it might be.

Ford,

I see the Gafcon statement and key items listed.

As I said above you can think about this abstractly and say they are acting out of order, and I have encouraged patience while working with Ab Rowan Williams and those with him, but there has been deep alienation (people seem not to get it - what is the meaning of unilateral acts in walking away from an agreed process!?) Having lost hope after three tries and much time they will act to take steps not to be simply co-opted. I don't find that impossible to understand!

I think the African bishops are working in particular context, in some cases with Sharia law hanging over them and trying to develop a wider code of law, we cannot simply see this through our lenses ( if they ask how me how I think about this I can say but so far they have not and I do not expect them to!). If we want to discount people simply because we have strong disagreements we can certainly do that with many on all sides (if you are married you soon end up not talking to your partner!).

I do not want to get into old dead ends raised by Erica. I said then no need get on that list to show they do not condone violence and people do hav e their own concerns and ways of acting for peace without parading it. For people who actually want to see what the record is there are the list archives. I think there is more to be said in key items of the Gafcon list but I do recognize it as a good beginning. What specifically do you find objectionable?

Ben W

Ford
"We ought not to loathe any of our fellow humans, regardless"

No, but we can find their IDEAS loathsome, which is what MM has suggested they are.
I agree with him and I make absolutely no apologies for that.

Is this one of the first instances of a liberal "hate the sin love the sinner"?

Ben, my comments on the Jerusalem statement can be found here:

http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/003192.html#comments

It's the thread entitled GAFCON: Sunday lunchtime and my comments are the fourth post. For a start, how about the lie that TEC has invented a new Gospel? You excuse African bishops as acting in a particular context. I understand they are acting in the presence, in some instances, of a militant Islam, and that their traditional cultures have an abhorrance of homosexuality, but what cultural context makes it appropriate to repeatedly rape and beat some one who is a lesbian, to jail gay people for 5 years, and to refuse even to publically denounce these things? Aren't we specifically called as Christians to oppose these kinds of things in any culture? And you CANNOT show that they do not condone violence. They essentially say "We do not condone violence against these people, but they are sick perverts who molest children, die thirty years before their time, and are wicked rebels against God who could change if they wanted to and deserve 5 years in jail." You have to recognize how the first part of that statement is negated by the rest. Their words contribute to an environment where anti-gay violence is accepted. They refuse to retract those words, but defend their right to use them. Even when confronted at GAFCON, it fell to Jensen to state what they would not, making it very clear that they actually condone, or at best do not care, what violence their words bring down on gay people in their own countries. Perhaps it is because you have never felt the fear of such violence that you do not understand. I cannot believe that any Christian would not react with dismay that GAFCON includes Ahminson, who has publically advocated the stoning of gay people, much less the fact that such a person is a major source of their funding. But, see the above link, you will find my objections to this strident, hateful, and inaccurate document that you call a "good beginning".

"What specifically do you find objectionable?"

Well, just for starters:

*4. We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.*

Here's Article XXI: "General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes....."

I'm a US citizen; I do not need the approval of a "Prince" (or a government) to meet with my co-religionists. In fact, to require the same is a direct violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Similarly, Articles XXXVI and XXXVII (in the original) make references to the power of the English monarch which clearly have no bearing on a church (ANY church) in the United States. They were significantly revised when adopted by the US church in 1801...and TEC long ago decided to treat even those revised articles as "historic documents" without theological authority.

That's just off the top of my head.

Ford,

GAFCON is not expecting to declare "the whole gospel" on this occasion but affirming it, in the context of the early church and of strong statements in more recent Anglican history (no inclination "just to make it up"). The aim is to address the current situation in light of the gospel.

I try to hear the statement for what it says rather than for what it does not say, recognizing there are some gaps to which in some cases you point, that will need to be elucidated in the future. One can easily dismiss the threats of "secularism" etc and the dilution and even loss of the gospel (if history and what has happened is not allowed to instruct us what will? Does the shrinking of the "mainline" - certainly TEC and ACC - churches in some cases to less than half within a generation say nothing to us?).

Ben W

Ben, I take exception to the following:

"the acceptance...of a different ‘gospel’"
This is a blatant lie intended to inflame the sentiments of those who need to feel themselves some oppressed remnant valiantly standing for the Truth against the world. It is reviling in the interests of vainglory, nothing more.

"four Ecumenical Councils"
This is huge. If they reject the final three, are they Nestorians, Monophysites, or Monothelites? Some non-Anglican Evangelicals reject some or all of the Seven outright, their Anglican brethren would seem to do like wise. If they repeatedly claim to be orthodox, they are either lying or irredeemably ignorant. We actually ARE two Churches.

"Thirty-nine Articles..... authoritative"
They aren't, even in those colonies who know you can't make tea with salt water. This reflects their desire for a strong authority. We Anglicans have never had that.

"the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as... authoritative standard of worship and prayer"
No it isn't, never was, arguably was never intended to be. It was an attempt to return to the practices of the early Church, about which we now know much more. 1662 is defective in several places.

"We repent of our failures to maintain this standard(of marriage)"
Another lie, since if they did, many of them would abandon their second spouses and return to their first.

"our responsibility to uphold and advocate justice in society"
Given +Akinola's actions in Nigeria, this is false on it's face. They have no desire to do so, it's obvious, so why try to perpetuate this sham?

"We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed."
No they don't. They have made common cause with churches that, by their radical Protestantism, have denied the orthodox faith. They are proud of their own denials of that faith. Again, they can delude themselves with this, not others. I am amazed that Anglicatholics would sign on to this blatantly radical Protestant heterodoxy. And this is only a partial list.

"Does the shrinking of the "mainline" - certainly TEC and ACC - churches in some cases to less than half within a generation say nothing to us?)."

Ben, it says an awful lot. Do you have any idea of the image of Christianity held by those who do not attend church, who count themselves atheists, or who hold us in scorn? Any idea why Christianity is "a despicable religion"? Look at the stereotype. It is of an authoritarian, lawbound, judgmental, power hungry, hypocritical, ignorant organization stamping it's foot like a little child at not being able to force everyone else to do what it wants. In short, it very much resembles GAFCON. This is not what the Gospel is, yet it seems very much what GAFCON wants the Gospel to be. If I can so easily point out the hypocrisies, distortions, and general lack of Christian charity in the GAFCON statement, don't you think the rest of the world can too? It is not about being popular with the world, it is about not looking like a bunch of hate driven hypocrites. Christians are not called to be that, yet it is very much the image of Christianity put out there by people who can't even publically acknowledge that it is a sin to repeatedly rape and beat someone just because she is a lesbian! Dear God, doesn't it hit you in the face what's wrong with that simple fact?

Ford,

There is assumption piled on assumption here - most of this I am not going to answer because I think you know better - take the last one about the rape of the woman, do you have to ask? (your question has the character of "have you stopped beating your wife yet," it assumes what has never been the case!). There are a thousand dreadful things going on most days in the world that are despicable and which I do not all have to disaffirm because I would not for a moment cuntenance them!

Ben W