The House of Bishops received the briefing by our Primate, The Most Revd Peter J. Akinola, CON, on the forthcoming Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) in Jerusalem with great enthusiasm, commending his unrelenting efforts and tenacity of purpose in the Anglican cause. We are firmly resolved to seek inspiration from the biblical roots of our faith.
We reaffirm our endorsement of all the steps taken by our Primate to broker a peaceful resolution of the Lambeth Conference 2008 impasse which unfortunately has met with subtle inflexibility. Believing the time has come for us to explore other options, we stand with all like-minded Primates, Bishops and leaders of our communion who are organizing a Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) in a pilgrimage setting in the Holy Land (Jerusalem), in June 2008 with the stated goal of informing and inspiring the invited leaders to shape this future, and to reform the church and transform persons, ommunities and societies through the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Our Anglican Liturgy is a dramatization of The Bible and should therefore be held sacred without casual departures at the discretion of individuals. Our liturgy promotes fellowship, teaching, mission, and relevant spirituality. We should therefore rediscover the treasures of our liturgical heritage and make it lively.
IMHO it is rather discourteous to have announced GAFCON in a Diocese/Province which has not extended an invitation to do so.
Padre Wayne
So you won’t be going Padre?
One of the things I have come to appreciate from ++Akinola et al. is the positive content and vision embodied in these messages, i.e., the communiques articulate what the authors want to see happening and/or what they believe, in this case, e.g., “…to reform the church and transform persons, communities and societies through the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Contrast this to #1’s comment above.
[i] Now, let’s get on to addressing the post. [/i]
-Elf Lady
#1 actually makes an important point that is relevant to the post.
This GAFCON meeting seems to have been announced as taking place in a diocese that not only has not extended the invitation for it but has stated that holding it there could cause a whole host of other problems. Whether or not you agree with the purpose of the conference, I hope that people can recognize this troubling aspect. It would be as if someone announced a meeting in your house without notifying you beforehand, without any sort of invitation from you, and despite your expressed wishes not to have the meeting take place in your home.
I think that 1 and 5 miss an important point though. They are correct, in so far as they are concerned solely with ettiquette. But two additional considerations bear on this historical situation.
1. Jerusalem is a bigger symbol than can be hedged about by the Anglican diocese of that name. Considerations of ettiquette don’t address that symbolic role. This doesn’t mean that the local diocesan and primate doesn’t have worthy opinions on these subjects, but as such, they are just opinions like any other diocesan’s or primate’s.
2. The analogy with a meeting of strangers in one’s house is flawed. If analogies had to be used, it would be better to compare this situation with distant cousins calling to say their arrival was imminent and were in desparate logistical trouble (car break down, or something similar). The analogy offerred in 5 implies that the meeting’s participants could not care less about the house’s inhabitants. I don’t think that is the case.
#6, if someone raises a particular point, another person should not confuse that as being the sole concern.
re: Jerusalem’s symbolic role. Yes, Jerusalem’s role is larger than the just the Anglican diocese that includes it. However, GAFCON is intended as a supposedly Anglican meeting. Is it merely a business meeting with no type of worship taking place during it? However, if they intend to have some sort of worship service, particularly the Eucharist, does that not raise ecclesiological problems if it is to be done without the permission of the local bishop? (Of course, Nigeria hasn’t shown much concern for that in the past, or does Akinola now consider the diocese there outside the “orthodox” fold?)
re: the distant cousins. I certainly hope Akinola sees the Anglican bishop in Jerusalem as more than a “distant cousin.” Nevertheless, the analogy you present still falls flat. The conveners of GAFCON could have chosen anywhere to have it, but they chose Jersualem without consulting anyone who was already there. Their arrival is several months away and by no means imminent, nor are they in any desperate logistical trouble. That particular part of the analogy could only apply if the meeting had been held some place close by but had been denied the permission to meet shortly before it was to take place.
Even if your analogy held, would those distant cousins be in the right to barge into the house when the owners have explicitly stated that they are neither willing nor able to accommodate them? Both Bishop Dawani of Jerusalem and Presiding Bishop Anis of Jerusalem and the Middle East have stated that they were not consulted beforehand and that they do not believe that it would be wise given the situation in the area to hold such a meeting in Jerusalem at this time.
So lets skip either analogy, as evidently neither works in this case in order to be generally appealing.
I’m unsure what your first line refers to, but I suspect it relates to several of the issues you raise in the second paragraph. Those are indeed of ecclesiatical concern, and should be settled prior to the meeting, which as you point out is months away. They are, however, secondary in importance to choosing a site. In resolving this logistical issue set of where and what will be the worship agenda, the principals will have to take local sensibilities and perogatives into account. After all, wars and crusades have been fought concerning this particular set of questions, so even the Israeli government will be interested in knowing whether to issue visas to quarreling clerics of a minor sect.
But your extrapolation that ++Nigeria will run roughshod over the local diocese or province seems to answered by your own logistical questions, which have superficially only one answer: ++Nigeria cannot do so. I read your commentary as a naked extrapolation from “++Nigeria wants to” to “++Nigeria will do so”, without any factual basis for making such an assertion. It is coupled with the extrapolation that whatever local opposition exists to such a visit is and will be invariant. All we know now is that signficant issues exist which are unanswered in the open press, nothing more.
I’m just happy to see one of the principal leaders of the orthodox within the communion speak out on the importance of honoring and adhering to our liturgy. Too often, it is tinkered with and extemporized in this unsettled period in which we reasserter former Episcopalians find ourselves.
My #9 was meant for the previous post. Don’t know how it ended up here.