The would-be Anglican rebels gathered with storm clouds brewing around them. But now, even though the conservative Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFcon) has not concluded its meeting in Jerusalem, the secession it threatened to bring to the 78 million-member Anglican Communion looks like a confused bust.
Well, that’s a shocker…but not. Most of my contacts who were going to GAFCON were not these blood thirsty schismatics that all these people were wringing their hands over.
What a pity! Thoughtful, faithful Christians are not in a rush to sunder a church simply to advance old-line American media story-lines. “If it bleeds, it leads.” The media wanted schism, and when it appears they shan’t get it, we have stories like this.
We must wait and see how the spirit leads the GAFCON gathering before jumping to conclusions like TIME magazine. But we pray for the reformation of Anglicanism, especially in North America.
http://www.pwcweb.com/ecw
Kendall,
Is this an accurate assessment of what you said to Time magazine? Are you “rueful,” or is the reporter being creative?
This TIME article has the earmarks of having been written by Liberals for Conservative readers; throwing cold water on a hot-button issue. While the TIME writer may have implied that the issue has “fizzled,” I don’t think it necessarily has; it may have subsided some, but it is still there…..and viable.
We shall see……after Lambeth.
And why are we reading or do we care about an article about GAFCON written by someone who was not in Jerusalem, and used as his sources people who were not at the conference, and drew final conclusions about an event not yet finished?
I think this reveals far more about Time Magazine and the drive by media than it does GAFCON.
Jim Naughton is such an authority on all things orthodox.
[blockquote]The clerics at GAFcon were really supposed to sit out the Communion’s once-a-decade Lambeth Conference in July.[/blockquote]
And the source of this statement is what?
I thought Archbishop Akinola was rather clear in his opening statement that the schism HAD ALREADY OCCURRED. “Those who failed to admit that by the unilateral actions they took in defiance of the Communion have literally torn the very fabric of our common life….Similarly, those who fail, for whatever reason to come to terms with the painful reality that the Communion is in a state of brokenness….”.
The Global South have been very clear we don’t want to be part of TEC and their apostacy. They are suing us! How much more broken does this writer want?
Still, I fear this left wing writer has the truth. I suspect GAFCON will not match action to its words. But we will see. L
There has been what looks like a coordinated attack by the mainline press on Gafcon. Look at Gledhill’s venomous, unprofessional stories. Look at this kind of poison about ++Akinola from the TIME article that purports to be about Gafcon:
“Meanwhile, allegations in The Atlantic magazine that participants in an anti-Muslim massacre in Nigeria had worn tags with the initials of a Christian organization run at the time by Akinola contributed to the devaluation of his leadership. That loss of stature was further accelerated this week by the unwillingness of both Akinola and his Ugandan ally Archbishop Henry Orombi to condemn the alleged rape and torture of gays in their countries.”
Such charges, as I recall, were trumped up on both counts by some of the same forces that seem to be behind these stories.
But I must say that I don’t think some of us orthodox are much better at characterizing a conference that is not even over. (It was only a failure if people expected what the press pre-proclaimed and the Gafcon leaders have disowned for a very long time–that open schism was on the agenda. It’s absurd to read that Gafcon is a failure because the press is disappointed not to have its most hateful predictions fulfilled.) We should wait to see what may be forthcoming.
I just ducked over to Peters “Age to come” blog. He had something pertinent to say regarding all this GAFCON bashing going on in the liberal media.
“What I’m finding interesting following GAFCON from afar is the level of vitriol from the MSM. I wouldn’t have expected anything in the way of support, but the level of scorn is usually masked better than it is at present. Examples here, here and here. This I find encouraging, for you do not bother to attack what you do not consider a threat. The fact that the ‘world’ is so resolutely hating this has to be a hopeful sign. I say that cautiously, for I don’t support persecution complexes, however in this case I think it sticks.”
I was just reading these words of Christ from the Gospel of John, and when we read all this jeering & vitriol directed against the servants of God at GAFCON, we might do well to consider them: “If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.
If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.
Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master ‘ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also.
But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me. (John 15:18-21)
The beloved apostle adds, ” Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you. ” (1 John 3:13).
Conversely, I think that I would be worried if the media spoke well of GAFCON. I’d be wondering what they were doing wrong. “Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! For so did their fathers to the false prophets.”
If schism does occur I fear for us forgotten heroes – the Anglo-Catholics. The evangelicals would offer us no home due to their rejecting of homsoexuality but bizarre ability to embrace the other non-scriptural innovation of women priests. The liberal faction will clearly offer no home either…..we would be left to fall down the middle.
Captain Yips wrote a poem for the mainstream media vultures who came to see bloodshed and mayhem and are frustrated that things are not ‘going down’ as they had predicted:
Silence absolute
crazes reporters, drives them
to fiction: GAFCON
There are other good words here: http://captainyips.typepad.com/
My thoughts exactly No. 13 and how aptly expressed as “bizarre.”
#15- its bizarre until you remember that many evangelicals- whilst superb on scriptural issues- have next to no idea of ecclisiology…which could ultimately prove their undoing. ALAS- for if they broke away whilst keeping hold of the preyer book society middle roaders and the anglocatholics- with a properly preserved three fold ministry- then they could truly claim a historic Anglican identity- foricng the liberals onto the back foot. But such a move requires preyerful sacrifice and the admission that ‘they’ son’t hold all the answers theologically- and such humility has never been the strongest weapon in the evangelical armoury!
I ask this as a serious question. I’m not trying to “bait” anyone. So here goes…When will those of you who are looking for a strong stand against the ++Rowan, TEC and ACoC say “Enough!”?
++Venables, ++Jensen and ++Akinola have all made statements that imply that there will be no compromise and in the end, they are right where they were before-staying in communion with the CoE which remains in communion with TEC and ACoC. Literally millions of your dollars (and much more of Howard Ahmanson’s) have been spent on meetings, organizing, leaving without recognition from the See of Canterbury, articles, books, etc. and each time the result is the same “Here I stand! I can do no other. Right where I was in 1996, 1998, 2003, 2005, 2007 and now 2008. To quote Bon Jovi: “It’s all the same, only the names have changed.”
Now for those who think I am being facetious, I promise you that I am not. I simply don’t know how long I could stay in a series of organizations that promises change and delivers martyrdom (i.e. lawsuits) along with the status quo.
When all the feathers have fluttered to the floor, it is still true that nothing befits an Anglican like Stoicism. Both liberal and faithful do nothing.