The Mosy Cynical Thing You Will Read Today: One Take on GAFCON III

[Shane R]

I know a lot of ACNA folk who think GAFCON is the future of Anglicanism. For them, no matter what happened at the conference last week, it was going to be an awesome move of the Spirit (well, unless an important bishop came out of the closet as gay). I'll make a few bullet points:

* They got more warm bodies to attend than will probably be at Lambeth 2020.
* Abp. Okoh's observation that AngloCatholics were not represented was telling of something, perhaps many things (to which all 22 AngloCatholics that actually attended immediately objected - yes, that was a bit sarcastic).
* Nothing of great significance happened doctrinally or liturgically.
* The most important thing to come of this was for ++Foley Beach to be appointed as ++Nicholas Okoh's successor and some of the deputies, especially +Andy Lines, to be selected from groups that are not recognized by Canterbury. Then, the call in the final communique for these individuals to be invited to and seated at Lambeth 2020 or some sort of boycott ensues.

And now, a bit of commentary on that last point. By the time of the next GAFCON, some of the Africans who had been the major players in that body will be whining about how 'Westernized' it has become. But, they never do anything about it because they still don't have any money and are still largely bank-rolled by the West. As for a Lambeth boycott, there are always bishops who break the boycott, primarily because of the money issue.

And, as an aside, for all of their posturing about Lambeth 1.10, there are African bishops who don't have any objection to polygamy and even occasional rumors about African bishops who are polygamous. Until they can police themselves, they shouldn't expect the West to pay them much heed for all of their incessant vitriol over homosexuals. And then there is the rampant progress of the 'prosperity gospel' in their ranks - but that is too big of an issue to tackle here. I guess you can tell that my opinion of the bulk of GAFCON's leadership is that they are a bunch of jokers, or possibly charlatans, who never look in a mirror.

 

[Philip_B]

I know a lot of ACNA folk who think GAFCON is the future of Anglicanism. For them, no matter what happened at the conference last week, it was going to be an awesome move of the Spirit (well, unless an important bishop came out of the closet as gay). I'll make a few bullet points:

* They got more warm bodies to attend than will probably be at Lambeth 2020.
* Abp. Okoh's observation that AngloCatholics were not represented was telling of something, perhaps many things (to which all 22 AngloCatholics that actually attended immediately objected - yes, that was a bit sarcastic).
* Nothing of great significance happened doctrinally or liturgically.
* The most important thing to come of this was for ++Foley Beach to be appointed as ++Nicholas Okoh's successor and some of the deputies, especially +Andy Lines, to be selected from groups that are not recognized by Canterbury. Then, the call in the final communique for these individuals to be invited to and seated at Lambeth 2020 or some sort of boycott ensues.

And now, a bit of commentary on that last point. By the time of the next GAFCON, some of the Africans who had been the major players in that body will be whining about how 'Westernized' it has become. But, they never do anything about it because they still don't have any money and are still largely bank-rolled by the West. As for a Lambeth boycott, there are always bishops who break the boycott, primarily because of the money issue.

And, as an aside, for all of their posturing about Lambeth 1.10, there are African bishops who don't have any objection to polygamy and even occasional rumors about African bishops who are polygamous. Until they can police themselves, they shouldn't expect the West to pay them much heed for all of their incessant vitriol over homosexuals. And then there is the rampant progress of the 'prosperity gospel' in their ranks - but that is too big of an issue to tackle here. I guess you can tell that my opinion of the bulk of GAFCON is that they are a bunch of jokers, or possibly charlatans, who never look in a mirror.

Thank you for a candid overview. We all have a long way to go.

 

[Episaw]

I know a lot of ACNA folk who think GAFCON is the future of Anglicanism. For them, no matter what happened at the conference last week, it was going to be an awesome move of the Spirit (well, unless an important bishop came out of the closet as gay). I'll make a few bullet points:

* They got more warm bodies to attend than will probably be at Lambeth 2020.
* Abp. Okoh's observation that AngloCatholics were not represented was telling of something, perhaps many things (to which all 22 AngloCatholics that actually attended immediately objected - yes, that was a bit sarcastic).
* Nothing of great significance happened doctrinally or liturgically.
* The most important thing to come of this was for ++Foley Beach to be appointed as ++Nicholas Okoh's successor and some of the deputies, especially +Andy Lines, to be selected from groups that are not recognized by Canterbury. Then, the call in the final communique for these individuals to be invited to and seated at Lambeth 2020 or some sort of boycott ensues.

And now, a bit of commentary on that last point. By the time of the next GAFCON, some of the Africans who had been the major players in that body will be whining about how 'Westernized' it has become. But, they never do anything about it because they still don't have any money and are still largely bank-rolled by the West. As for a Lambeth boycott, there are always bishops who break the boycott, primarily because of the money issue.

And, as an aside, for all of their posturing about Lambeth 1.10, there are African bishops who don't have any objection to polygamy and even occasional rumors about African bishops who are polygamous. Until they can police themselves, they shouldn't expect the West to pay them much heed for all of their incessant vitriol over homosexuals. And then there is the rampant progress of the 'prosperity gospel' in their ranks - but that is too big of an issue to tackle here. I guess you can tell that my opinion of the bulk of GAFCON's leadership is that they are a bunch of jokers, or possibly charlatans, who never look in a mirror.

Any move of God is criticised by those who are going to have their nose put out of joint by the move.

 

[Paidiske]

I don't view leaders or participants in GAFCON as having integrity on this matter. You don't commit yourself to one church body and then work to undermine that body.

I got very grumpy when it was being promoted at a clergy conference here recently. Made some undiplomatic comments about how inappropriate it was to come to a diocesan event and promote schism.

It might be useful to have a bigger discussion about the issues driving it; some of my conversations with my Sudanese colleagues have helped me appreciate the difficulties from their perspective. But it's finding the space and willingness to do that in a genuinely mutually respectful way that I find difficult; given that GAFCON leaning folks tend not to deal well with women, for a start...

 

[Albion]

I know a lot of ACNA folk who think GAFCON is the future of Anglicanism...By the time of the next GAFCON, some of the Africans who had been the major players in that body will be whining about how 'Westernized' it has become. But, they never do anything about it because they still don't have any money and are still largely bank-rolled by the West. As for a Lambeth boycott, there are always bishops who break the boycott, primarily because of the money issue.

And, as an aside, for all of their posturing about Lambeth 1.10, there are African bishops who don't have any objection to polygamy and even occasional rumors about African bishops who are polygamous. Until they can police themselves, they shouldn't expect the West to pay them much heed for all of their incessant vitriol over homosexuals. And then there is the rampant progress of the 'prosperity gospel' in their ranks - but that is too big of an issue to tackle here. I guess you can tell that my opinion of the bulk of GAFCON's leadership is that they are a bunch of jokers, or possibly charlatans, who never look in a mirror.

Good reporting, Shane. The highlighted part summarizes the story of GAFCON as it stands in my humble opinion, although anyone who has hoped for something positive to come from the organization needs also to be aware of the particular failings you referred to.

 

[Paidiske]

Episaw, this is the Anglican forum, and you are not Anglican. This is not the place for you to make an issue of the Anglican practice of the ordination of women, or to take sides in an Anglican internal disagreement.

I refer you to this part of the SOP for this forum: "if you are not a member of this faith group, you may not debate issues."

 

[Episaw]

Episaw, this is the Anglican forum, and you are not Anglican. This is not the place for you to make an issue of the Anglican practice of the ordination of women, or to take sides in an Anglican internal disagreement.

I refer you to this part of the SOP for this forum: "if you are not a member of this faith group, you may not debate issues."

I am not debating any issues. I am merely stating facts. And you have no idea what faith group I am a member of unless you have ESP.

 

[Paidiske]

You've told me before that you lead a house church. Or am I remembering incorrectly?

But yes, coming in here and accusing ordained women of not being interested in what Scripture says is debating. I pointed this out to you in a friendly way in case you didn't realise which forum you are in.

 

[Philip_B]

Then again, one might consider that GAFCON has dealt with the subject of women in a biblical way that doesn't sit well with women who are not interested in what the scripture says about women in leadership.

On reading some of the GAFCON material - and clearly I am not a member - it seems that it may not as clear cut as I initially thought. Whilst ACNA does not ordain women to the Episcopate it seems more ambivalent on the ordination of women to other ministries, and that seems to have cause come issues for the Global Anglican South, and I also read "Furthermore, the Primate of South Sudan secretly ordained women contrary to his own constitution and canons in direct defiance of the moratorium by GAFCON and kept it secret for two years. Women's ordination is not the only problem with ACNA."

My view is that some of the achilles heal of Anglicanism - that we love to call unity in diversity - is some of the baggage that GAFCON will carry with it. They will struggle to deal with that dimension as does the whole Anglican Communion, in communion and out.

In the article on the GAFCON website they say:

People have asked if we are meeting in Jerusalem to declare a break with Canterbury. The answer is emphatically “No.” That would be declaring an unnecessary war. Right now, many of the leaders in the developed industrial Provinces in the Anglican Communion have abandoned Gospel ministry in favor of falling in step with the surrounding culture. That decision cannot bear fruit. In GAFCON, we have the Gospel, and the Gospel is life. Rather than declaring war, we need to build the structures and relational networks that can move Gospel ministry forward to do evangelism, discipleship, church planting, and business as mission.​

I trust that means that the GAFCON Bishops will be front and centre at Lambeth 2020. I believe they need to be heard, but not in the manner of a my way or the highway - but rather in the manner of how do we with integrity make this work. We have so much to treasure that we ought not trash, and in a way I think that ACNA website kind of makes that point where it says

To be an Anglican, then, is not to embrace a distinct version of Christianity, but a distinct way of being a "Mere Christian," at the same time evangelical, apostolic, catholic, reformed, and Spirit-filled​

 

[Episaw]

You've told me before that you lead a house church. Or am I remembering incorrectly?

But yes, coming in here and accusing ordained women of not being interested in what Scripture says is debating. I pointed this out to you in a friendly way in case you didn't realise which forum you are in.

I may have led a house group but that does not mean it is not an Anglican group as all sorts of churches have house groups.

I did not accuse ORDAINED women. I pointed out that some women have a problem with what the scripture says about women and leadership. That is a fact having followed Muriel Porter's attempts to overthrow scripture so she could be ordained.

 

[Philip_B]

Muriel Porter's

I am glad you have followed such a good and holy woman.

 

[Episaw]

I am glad you have followed such a good and holy woman.

I haven't followed her.

 

[Paidiske]

You know, I know Muriel a bit (she worships in a neighbouring parish to where I am), and she's not sought ordination for herself, but championed the vocations of other women. For which I am very grateful, as a direct beneficiary of her efforts.

 

[Episaw]

On reading some of the GAFCON material - and clearly I am not a member - it seems that it may not as clear cut as I initially thought. Whilst ACNA does not ordain women to the Episcopate it seems more ambivalent on the ordination of women to other ministries, and that seems to have cause come issues for the Global Anglican South, and I also read "Furthermore, the Primate of South Sudan secretly ordained women contrary to his own constitution and canons in direct defiance of the moratorium by GAFCON and kept it secret for two years. Women's ordination is not the only problem with ACNA."

My view is that some of the achilles heal of Anglicanism - that we love to call unity in diversity - is some of the baggage that GAFCON will carry with it. They will struggle to deal with that dimension as does the whole Anglican Communion, in communion and out.

In the article on the GAFCON website they say:

People have asked if we are meeting in Jerusalem to declare a break with Canterbury. The answer is emphatically “No.” That would be declaring an unnecessary war. Right now, many of the leaders in the developed industrial Provinces in the Anglican Communion have abandoned Gospel ministry in favor of falling in step with the surrounding culture. That decision cannot bear fruit. In GAFCON, we have the Gospel, and the Gospel is life. Rather than declaring war, we need to build the structures and relational networks that can move Gospel ministry forward to do evangelism, discipleship, church planting, and business as mission.​

I trust that means that the GAFCON Bishops will be front and centre at Lambeth 2020. I believe they need to be heard, but not in the manner of a my way or the highway - but rather in the manner of how do we with integrity make this work. We have so much to treasure that we ought not trash, and in a way I think that ACNA website kind of makes that point where it says

To be an Anglican, then, is not to embrace a distinct version of Christianity, but a distinct way of being a "Mere Christian," at the same time evangelical, apostolic, catholic, reformed, and Spirit-filled​

I was living in the Uk in the 60s when the charismatic renewal visited us. The main recipients of this move of God were the Brethren and the Anglicans. Some Anglican ministers were at the forefront of what God was doing and wrote books about it. Michael Harper comes to mind and he was respected by many of the other denominations.

These ministers started baptising adults by immersion. I have no doubt that large swathes of Anglicanism would look askance at such an activity. Whether it was right or wrong, not everything they did was right and not everything they did was wrong. We looked at the whole picture and the fruit and I can tell you now that I loved being with these charismatic Anglicans as they brought their churches alive.

GAFCON is fighting for what it believes is the truth and is central to the Anglican faith. Until it is proved otherwise, with all its faults and failings which no doubt will be ironed out as they go along, they have my vote.

I happen to know one of the main motivators behind it and his life is squeaky clean and something to be emulated.

 

[Shane R]

charismatic Anglicans as they brought their churches alive.

A telling clause there. Who brought the churches alive? Is the charismatic renewal a work of the Spirit or an anthropocentric movement? I tend to think the latter because the language coming from so many of the practitioners comes around to a prideful presentation of MY gift.

 

[Paidiske]

My first parish was very charismatic, and I didn't encounter quite that attitude.

But what I did see was that it was very leader-dependent. And what happened to the parish I was in, was that instead of building up a healthy Anglican parish which could survive transition to a new vicar with different gifts and strengths, the charismatic vicar built a group of people with no particular sense of being Anglican; and when he left, so did they, leaving the Anglican parish a hollowed-out shell of community with only a few stalwarts.

It wasn't a good pattern, and one of the things it taught me is that in ministry, you shouldn't start things you can't hand over to others.

 

[Shane R]

My first parish was very charismatic, and I didn't encounter quite that attitude.

But what I did see was that it was very leader-dependent. And what happened to the parish I was in, was that instead of building up a healthy Anglican parish which could survive transition to a new vicar with different gifts and strengths, the charismatic vicar built a group of people with no particular sense of being Anglican; and when he left, so did they, leaving the Anglican parish a hollowed-out shell of community with only a few stalwarts.

It wasn't a good pattern, and one of the things it taught me is that in ministry, you shouldn't start things you can't hand over to others.

There was a near-by ACNA plant with a very similar story. I don't know all the details but when their rector was challenged, the parishioners dispersed to the four winds and very few ended up in Anglican churches. Those who did tended to be a thorn in the side of the church they entered. One of his people greatly contributed to killing the Sunday school program at my own parish by constantly harping on the 'baptism of the Holy Spirit' and looking on non-Charismatics as second class Christians.

 

[Paidiske]

The Anglican Communion News Service reported on it here:

Gafcon communiqué urges restrictions on Lambeth Conference invites

 

[Episaw]

A telling clause there. Who brought the churches alive? Is the charismatic renewal a work of the Spirit or an anthropocentric movement? I tend to think the latter because the language coming from so many of the practitioners comes around to a prideful presentation of MY gift.

That has not been my experience over 10 years of mixing with them.