Under the former Bishop, Riah Abu el-Assal, the diocese was closely linked to Fatah and the late PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, and was a champion of the Palestinian cause. Anglican Palestinians have played a disproportionally prominent role in Palestinian life and are found in the professional classes, as well as in politics and civil society and include the late Columbia University Professor Edward Said, politician Hanan Ashrawi and Canon Naim Ateek, the president of the Sabeel Ecumenical Centre.
One consequence of this activist stance was that it partially protected Palestinian Anglicans from the predations at the hands of Islamist or political activists.
Bishop Darwani has quietly moved away from some of the rejectionist policies espoused by Bishop Riah, and was instrumental in setting up the Archbishop of Canterbury’s dialogue commission with the chief rabbinate of Israel.
However, public identification as a pro-Israel church is a worrisome development for the small Arab Anglican community in the Palestinian Authority territories, and could have baleful consequences its leaders tell ReligiousIntelligence.com.
The leadership team of GAFCON contacted ReligiousIntelligence.Com to say that a letter was sent to Bishop Suheil Dawani on December 24, two days prior to the press announcement. Two of the leadership team, Archbishop Peter Akinola and Archbishop Peter Jensen, had already reqested a meeting with him to discuss his concerns with him in the next two weeks.
George Conger comes through again. He is working his way toward being the most respected print journalist on the Anglican scene.
The more I read of this, the more I am convinced that this meeting must be moved to a different venue. On SF I suggested Los Angeles because it is very easy to reach. Additionally, there are some very significant political issues which have arisen through all of this. I think that it is very important that as a church we avoid getting involved with the politics of the region like a hot potato, and focus on preaching and spreading the Gospel.
There are many less bullet-riddled venues than Jerusalem. How about Newark, San Francisco, or Seattle? A thorn under the saddle of the ultra-liberals for the season. As I suggested elsewhere, a “Secret Straight” eucharist would be mad fun in any such location.
I think GAFCON ought to be held in Alexandria — Egypt not Virginia –with the support and involvement of Abp Anis and held directly after Lambeth. I am a fedcon but I am leaning more and more toward full participation of all at Lambeth as long as VGR is not invited to attend.
Seems to me that Abuja would be the most logical place for GAFCON. Whether this conference is an “alternate Lambeth” or not, it does represent a move towards an African-centered world-wide Communion, and Nigeria has been the flagship province in that shift.
ARGH.
Please. Repeat. After. Me.
There is no such thing as a “Palestinian,” if that term implies a separate nation, which it always is in articles such as these. It has no more meaning, historicity, or validity for national aspiration purposes than the term “New Yorker,” “Southerner,” or “Hoosier.”
Jordan. Is. Palestine.
I’ve read and thought about this for several days. I am pretty well established as a ComCon, so this is not surprising, but…
this is a very, very bad idea.
Randall
One of my posts from SF –
[i]remember that the idea is to meet in a potential alternate see with biblical roots.[/i]
Rome perhaps?
My tongue-in-cheek recommendation is non-biblical but certainly historic – Avignon –
maybe with period dress, circa 1378
Peace,
New P.S. Ok. How about Philadelphia? And ordain 11 orthodox clergy while everyone is there.
Location is unimportant, but it should be held prior to Lambeth to organize and prevent any attempts at manipulation.
#6, So what would you rather call them?
Is there any explanation as to why Jerusalem was chosen as the site of this meeting?
#6 … Really? Do the Palestinians know that?
#8, nice historical zinger. I was thinking Nicaea. The Turks wouldn’t mind and I hear Iznik is lovely that time of year.
If it’s biblical irony you want, they could have the conference at Masra, Israel, only a stone’s throw from the possible site of ancient Sodom.
#11, yes there is a reason for holding it in the Holy Land:
[blockquote] [url=http://www.gafcon.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6&Itemid=6] The event[/url] , which was agreed at a meeting of Primates in Nairobi last week, will be in the form of a pilgrimage back to the roots of the Church’s faith. The Holy Land is the planned venue. From 15-22 June 2008, Anglicans from both the Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic wings of the church will make pilgrimage to the Holy Land, where Christ was born, ministered, died, rose again, ascended into heaven, sent his Holy Spirit, and where the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out, to strengthen them for what they believe will be difficult days ahead [/blockquote]
Quite simply – the Holy Land is a wonderful place. Its the land where Jesus walked. You can walk where He walked. If you have not been there yet, you should go.
And I fail to see how having an Anglican conference in the Holy Land in any way shows support for either the Palistinians or the Israelis? Sounds like the writer of this press release is just looking for an excuse to say no.
Finally, it seems the Bishop of Jerusalem was in fact [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/8870/] informed [/url] and has said Jerusalem is for ALL Anglicans. So did this press release even come from him?
Why so many suggestions of a US location? Expensive and distant from most delegates I would have thought.LA would be cpnvenient for Susan RFussell, though (Joke).
[blockquote]George Conger comes through again. He is working his way toward being the most respected print journalist on the Anglican scene.[/blockquote]
My brother Rabbit (#1): but Katherine Jefferts Schori testified in a court of law, under oath, that George Conger is not trustworthy and strays from the truth.
[i]Just for the record, actually it wasn’t Goerge Conger that KJS testified against, but Living Church editor/reporter Steve Waring. [url=http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/2007/11/day-three-update-from-courthouse.html]Here’s the link[/url][/i]
Oh but of course, robroy, we should take heed of she who was both a party to the unanimous assent at Dar es Salaam but yet never agreed to the Communique!
#11 Sorry if I’m getting a bit off topic here, but…
If you ever go to the Holy Land, visit this [url=http://www.sacred-destinations.com/israel/jerusalem-dominus-flevit-church.htm] church:[/url] on the mount of olives.
I have been 4 separate times, and I don’t know what it is, but every time I go, I sit in the front row of this church, and gaze out that window, and get this overwhelming sense of God’s presence. (When I left, on all of those occasions, a priest suddenly appeared on the way out the door and met up with me in the garden- I don’t know if they are hiding and continually praying for those who visit that church, but for me it holds a really special place in my heart, as one of the closest places I have been to heaven…
#16, I suggested LA mainly because it is a nonstop flight from many destinations, including Australia, from where Jensen is coming. Also, the US dollar has fallen relative to many of the world’s currencies. I like also the idea of Nigeria, really anyplace but Jerusalem at present. I heartily agree that a pilgrimage to the Holy Land would make a wonderful trip, and at some point I would like to do this myself. But I can think of lots of reasons not to hold this particular meeting there, more than I can reasonably put onto the thread. The meeting itself is a grand idea, and I agree should be held prior to Lambeth.
[blockquote]There are many less bullet-riddled venues than Jerusalem. How about Newark[/blockquote]
I trust it you haven’t been to Newark. 🙂
#6. They are Palestinians as much as we are Americans.
A good beginning for all of us who are interested in the region, is T.E. Lawrence’s (Lawrence of Arabia) “Seven Pillars of Wisdom†which paints a picture of post WW1 when the Palestinian territory was set up. What upset the apple cart was the post WW2 desire in Europe and the U.S. to set up a Jewish state to compensate the many, many Jews who were so terribly treated by the Nazis. The problem, of course, was that the lands for these poor people had to come from land already owned and farmed by Palestinians who had been living there for centuries. There is no right or wrong in Palestine and Israel. One side or the other will always trample on the rights of the other side.
To the point of the contentious debate raised by the Bishop of Jerusalem, knowing the politics of the region, I would say that the good Bishop is playing politics, which is a pretty good bet, since everything there is constant jockeying for power.
My feeling is that the meeting should go on. The Archbishops will certainly, by there presence in Jerusalem, give hope to the downtrodden Christians and Palestinians who have few to love them….but only if they don’t interject themselves into regional politics and be true Pilgrims.
They sent a letter two days before a public announcement? Assuming this is correct, unless they mailed it from down the street in Jerusalem, how did they expect it to get to the good bishop before it was announced? I assume the organizers didn’t expect a response before the announcement.
This just goes to show that there are layers upon layers of concerns in the Communion. More and more I am convinced that Archbishop Williams is correct in that if the Anglican Communion splits it won’t be into two factions, or even three, but it will be shattered into tiny fragments the world over and those who suffer the most will be the people who have much more immediate concerns to worry about–like whether Islamist gunmen interrupt a worship service with something more than a theological disagreement.
Re: # 12 by Susan Russell:
If the “Palestinians” conveniently don’t recall that they had a homeland created already (decades ago) it’s because somebody keeps old deceptions alive. Many would rather believe the deception simply because they have been drowned in it for decades. Sounds like some tactics used in TEC: tell alternative “truth” long enough and then make people feel guilty if they don’t believe you. Worked on the playground in elementary school. Works at the U.N.. Works in TEC. America is heading towards a similar reality with the daily illegal immigration of thousands of Hispanics in selected pockets of the US. Already many in the American Southwest are awakening to the call for the region to be reconstituted as another culture and allegiance. I’m sure that TEC agitators will be near the front telling them to forge ahead with the new “truth”.
[i] Let’s not stray off topic, please. [/i]
Does nobody detect the irony of holding a conference to protest the efforts of Westerners to impose their notions of propriety (concerning sexuality) on the rest of the Anglican world… and holding it under circumstances that will seem to impose Western notions of propriety (concerning the Palestinian question) on the local Anglican province? Anglicans in the region fear the injection of this issue into their local missionary situation as much as other Anglicans fear the injection of homosexuality into their situation.
I’m sorry to tell y’all, but people who live in Palestine call themselves Palestinian (unless they identify with the polity that calls itself the Jewish State). That means that the Anglican Province of Jerusalem and the Middle East (and even more so the Diocese in Jerusalem) is largely composed of Palestinians, some of whom are Israeli citizens, some of whom are citizens of Arab states, and some of whom are stateless persons living in the areas occupied by Israel since 1967. Hardly any of those good Christian people (much less the non-Christians who might respond to the call of Christ through the province’s efforts) support the policies of the State of Israel, despite the sentiments common among American Christian conservatives. I think that local Anglicans are entitled to hold those views and to minister to their people without outside interference, whether from people who uncritically support homosexuality or those who uncritically support Israel.
The Bishop in Jerusalem and his primate have made it clear that they do not welcome this conference in this place at this time because it will adversely impact their ministry. If Anglicans really take mutual responsibility and interdependence in the Body of Christ seriously, they should honor local wishes.
#23. I go along with Jody+. This GAFCON move is all a part of the Anglican Communion shattering like a fallen Christmas decoration on our tree outside into several pieces. There was a strong cold wind during the night.
The Bishop in Jerusalem is fully correct in making his feelings known. There are more than enough problems in the Holy Land already without compounding them.
Matt, add to your scenario that the wife then moves in with another man, after he has specifically told her to stay away because it will disrupt his household. Is that an act of grace and love on her part?
Dale…
Perhaps a less sexual metaphor might do. If one person drops a hive full of agitated bees into a cocktail party, would you not expect the others to leave, seek aid, etc.?
Metaphor is good illustration and bad argument.
Reminds me of the article in the Weekly Standard a couple of years back on Argument by Metaphor which said:
“Unfortunately, Hinton’s piece is symptomatic of a disturbing trend in leftist thinking. For a while now, the left has been fond of argument by creative metaphor–Zionism equals racism; pornography equals sex discrimination or even rape; and, more recently, Bush equals Hitler. In this way, a controversial phenomenon is equated with one that everyone agrees is bad. Leftists in the academy particularly favor this show-stopper approach, since they are used to having their theories evaluated not for their objective validity (a hopelessly passé concept), but rather for their creativity.”
The reason for this meeting to be in Jerusalem is because Jerusalem is very important for African Protestants as Makka is important for the Muslims, specially in West and East Africa. Many Africans after going to Jerusalem use JP(Jerusalem Pilgrim) after their names. The Africans Evangelicals(including the Anglicans, except Southern Africa) are almost totally pro Israel, And Akinola is right don’t listen to the Anglican liberal Bishop of the Jerusalem, his diocese is a virtual diocese, like TEC dioceses in Latin America, the number of Anglican Palestinians is 600(in the Palestinians Territories) and 450 in Israel(many are not Arab-Israeli), The Diocese Anglican of Jerusalem just survive thanks to TEC money. There are 4.018.332 Palestinians living in the Territories under the PA administration, so 600 don’t represent nothing. The diocese of Jerusalem is just a tool that TEC and Lambeth Palace(ACC) use to help the Palestinians in their fight against Israel. Elves, please edite my post if it is too is not following the Blog rules.
The Episcopal Diocese of Jerusalem ministers to 7,000 Anglicans. It has 35 service institutions, 29 parishes, 1500 employees 200 hospital beds and 6000 students.
I have come across Christian Arabs all over the Middle East and I, for one, respect them. They are subject to a lot of pressure, being a tiny minority of Arabs. They too are part of the worldwide Anglican Communion.
#32, casting the question as one of “almost totally pro Israel” African Evangelicals against an “Anglican liberal Bishop of Jerusalem” taking “TEC money” for Palestinians who “don’t represent nothing” seems to confirm the worst fears expressed by the Bishop in his press release about importing trouble and strife into a region and a city which, to the shame of all religions and churches, already has more than enough to cope with.
#5.950 live in Jordan, syria and Lebanon, and they survive thanks to the TEC money
#32,
Evidently it’s not just the “liberal bishop of Jerusalem” (whether he really is or not, I don’t know) that has some issues with the location of the conference, but also Bishop Anis of Egypt. Hardly a (theological) liberal.
Regardless of one’s feelings about whether or not this conference should be held, it is serving the terrible purpose of highlighting exactly how far gone the relationships in the communion are, even amongst the orthodox, and I have a hard time not seeing a huge helping of pride and ego involved in many of these decisions and statements–and it just keeps piling up.
We Anglican reasserters and reapparaisers deserve each other–we certainly act like two sides of the same coin in our vices as well as our (mostly sidelined) virtues.
#36 there iare different kinds of Anglican Conservatives, We Akinolites follow, you know who. Akinola was very clear for the people of the Anglican Communion Network at one Conference (the first) in Pittsburgh, “YOU MUST CHOOSE WHERE YOU STAND”.
Re #36: Apparently, you feel that Anglicans must stand against Middle Eastern Anglicans, even if standing against them puts their lives and livelihoods in danger. Obviously, you must be right, since the UK has the divine right to boss the colonials around. Being Arabs, they are nobodies.
To further kick Shumanbean’s bee hive; wasn’t the proposed establishment of an Anglican Jerusalem bishopric one of the things that contributed to Newman’s disillusionment with Anglicanism?
Seriously though, this article exposes two motives for not wanting the conference to take place in Jerusalem. The official line seems to be that it might have “serious consequences for our on-going ministry of reconciliation in this divided land,†by causing “public identification as a pro-Israel church.†I’m not really sure how this is going to happen when previously “the diocese was closely linked to Fatah†and the only press-releases I’ve ever heard coming out of TEC and the C of England are pro-Palestinian. If Paulo is correct in his assertion that “The Africans Evangelicals… are almost totally pro Israel,†how are the extremists going to find out about it? I think that this news coverage does more to create a problem than the conference itself. After all the wackos only started shooting nuns over the Pope’s quotation of a Byzantine emperor after the media started it’s out of context coverage.
The second motive for not wanting the conference, as given by “Jerusalem clergy,†is the financial ramifications. “Highlighting the diocese’s traditionalist stance within the Anglican Communion at this time could have immediate financial consequences,†because the diocese is “strongly opposed to the notion of gay or women clergy,†but also “has strong financial links with a number of American dioceses that are at the forefront of the progressive agenda.â€
If a bunch of conservative Anglican Primates want to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem then they should be able to do that. If they also want to have some meetings while there then they are free to book a conference room. There is nothing about the intent of the meeting that should be offensive to extremists so how is it any different then the thousands of other pilgrimages to the Holy Land? Most things are not completely black & white so there may be some legitimate concern that the conference will “inflame sectarian tensions.†However, I think the objection has more to do with TEC’s Mammon than Mohammed’s followers.
James G
The bishop of Jerusalem, when he accepts cavorts with Bruno and takes his money, more endangers the Arab Anglicans by identifying them with the libertine west.
Will this second article in the Jerusalem Post by George Conger concerning GAFCON be linked into on the Anglican Mainstream site and the GAFCON site?
His first article in the Jerusalem Post on this conference, 31 December 2007, was entitled ‘Anglicans Choose Jerusalem for Key June Conference’:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1198517248310
It was headlined on Anglican Mainstream as ‘Jerusalem Post Welcomes GAFCON’:
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/index.php/2007/12/30/jerusalem-post-welcomes-gafcon/#more-2635
and as ‘Jerusalem Post on GAFCON’ on the GAFCON site:
http://www.gafcon.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=1
This second article is a severe embarrasment to GAFCON and it will be interesting to see if it is linked.
Graham, instead of trying to embarass the leaders of GAFCON, why isn’t Fulcrum supporting GAFCON? Its becoming clear a significant part of the conservative/evangelical wing of the Anglican communion is thinking of walking away. One of the last links that part of the communion has is with fellow conservatives like yourselves who are staying. Why isn’t Fulcrum trying to unite with them but instead is trying to embarass them on every blog? Is your aim to isolate them completely so they sever what remaining links remain?
If you carry on with your current policy:
– they will leave
– the power base in the communion will fall into liberal hands
Which means you ain’t seen nothing yet in terms of new innovative teaching, and the whole communion is going to end up like TEC. Which leaves you in a dying church with no future. If you try and unite with those thinking of leaving, you are in a much more powerful position. If you unite with them you may even be able to get what the church needs – which is some discipline, which brings those thinking of leaving back on board, and means the communion has a future.
Instead, you have gone on an all out attack against your fellow conservatives. Sorry, but its a dumb stategy. Read some of what ++Venables has been saying the in the last week.
41. Graham Kings is merely pointing up an inconvenient truth, that the JP has completely about faced its original article. He is also pointing up that the organisers have an unfortunate history on their own blogs of failing to notice things that are (ahem) inconvenient to them. As far as Fulcrum is concerned we have not yet responded to the announcement of GAFCON, but have noticed the serious fallout its announcement has caused within the Global South movement which has been seriously troubled by it. For ++Akinola to be overiding ++Anis appeal to move it elsewhere in a pretty high handed way will do even less to further its prospects. It seems to me to be a project flawed in its conception, and now rapidly unraveling, which is a pity when a preLambeth gathering to work out prayerfully a position to protect the orthodoxy of the communion prior to turning out in force at Lambeth to ensure it might have been a useful exercise. The idea of encouraging a break away now rather than protect the whole (which Lambeth 98 proved could be done) shows a smallness of vision that will bedevil any separating conservative group from its outset.
#42 appears to have its own internal spin which flavors its conclusions. Is there a parliamentary process by which Akinola is riding over Anis’s opposition? Or is this simply a process by which personal positions of certain provinces’ leaders are illuminated prior to any pre Lambeth meeting? If the latter, which I find much more plausible, then Akinola isn’t overiding anybody, despite his dominant role in any ad hoc group process. To over ride someone, you force a group conclusion which that person opposes. Anis in this case has the simple option of withdrawl from the group.
But the last line is also internally inconsistent: a separatist group’s vision is essentially ‘smaller’ than that of a group seeking to remain within the whole, on an organizational basis. But the smallness being cited is not organizational, apparently, as the ‘larger vision’ is implicitly tied to “Lambeth 98 proved [protecting the whole] could be done”. This logically presumes that Lambeth 98 protected anything at all. Practically here in the US, that presumption is empty. So perhaps doing something in a smaller group might serve a larger end after all. #42 just assumes that isn’t the case.
43. gives an interesting view which I rather feel proves my point. I note the final sentence of the first paragraph: “Anis in this case has the simple option of withdrawal from the group.” In other words affirming the ++Akinola negotiating position as “my way or the highway.” Whilst this is becoming clear it is no way to negotiate in the present Anglican climate, and will do untold damage to even the Conservative position. The evidence of this is clear on Matt Kennedy’s blog where there is very considerable reservation about the location and timing of GAFCON. All that GAFCON will now serve to do is split what would otherwise be the dominant position. The Liberals will love it, and defeat may be snatched from the jaws of victory by the ineptitude of CANA’s diplomacy.
Secondly the last paragraph displays all to well the North American tendency to suggest that the world outside doesn’t matter. Lambeth 98 1.10 is the world view outside TEC and Canada. That was an extraordinary achievement for orthodox Christians. If, as the writer implies GAFCON is really to help the orthodox in TEC, well hold it in the USA, as it is clearly from there that it is being run. To fail to consult the leadership of half the Global South Anglican steering group, and to overrule the primate of the province in which it is to be held is unbelieveably high handed, and will almost certainly alienate many who might have been considering attendence.
GAFCON is a sideshow. The main business must take place at Lambeth. No show, no vote.
Simon, the point you seem to be missing is that even ++Venables doesn’t think he can persuade the conservatives to attend Lambeth. I wonder why you think publicly mocking them is going to in any way encourage them to come along to Lambeth and vote in a bloc with you? If they don’t come, your organisation will be one of the primary losers.
Have you ever played chess?
Try and work out a strategy. “If I do this, that will be the probable response”.
If I mock my allies are they going to to stand up for the positions I care about?
If I mock the GAFCON folk (who are supposed to be my conservative allies) who are already seriously fed up with the whole communion for whitewashing the discipline issue, are they likely to want to be united with my organisation, or are they likely to hasten their exit?
If my goal is unity, does mocking those I want to be united with encourage or hinder that unity?
Or have I got it wrong, and you actually want all the GAFCON folks to get out of the communion as soon as possible so that the liberals can take over?