Latest Anglican News                                                                      Volume 2, Number 3, 21 February 2008

 After consultation with a number of church leaders in Jerusalem, and around the world, the planning for the GAFCON meeting now appears to be complete.  There will be two meetings.  The first, in Amman, Jordan from 18-22 June which will include the conference leadership, the theological resource group, those bishops serving in majority Islamic settings and other key leaders.  From 22-29 June the Jerusalem pilgrimage will be held and it will focus on worship, prayer, discussions and Bible Study, shaped by the context of the Holy Land. The emphasis will be our future in the Anglican Communion and the reformation and renewal of our common life rooted in the Holy Scriptures and our common faith in Jesus Christ.  Participants will include bishops and their wives, key clergy and laity.  REC Presiding Bishop Leonard Riches, who visited CHC on 27 January, will probably be invited to both the meeting in Amman and the pilgrimage to Jerusalem.  Bishop Sutton will be going to Jerusalem.  Attendance at both meetings is by invitation only.

An unknown blogger, only identifying himself as Ken, has offered the clearest reasoning this writer has seen as to why GAFCON has become necessary.  His remarks are excerpted as follows:

“All the analyzing of the reasons offered by the GAFCON Primates… for refusing to go to Lambeth 08 might be good exercise for TV talking heads on political and social issues; but this is about the Church that should be a vehicle for the proper husbanding and tending of our spiritual lives; a vehicle believers think is relevant to preparing and helping direct their souls while we are yet mortals.  And so, I have just two observations…

First is that schism is not around the corner, it is here; it arrived nearly 10 years ago.  It first pried the door when the First Promise movement and concerned bishops of the American Anglican Council sounded the alarm to Anglican Primates and their representatives in Kampala in 1999, asking for their intervention, but only 2 Archbishops (Emmanuel Kolini of Rwanda and Moses Tay of SE Asia) recognized the danger and the need for urgent action. Schism then kicked the door in when ECUSA consecrated its gay bishop in 2003 and turned its back on the Windsor Report of 2004, and Canterbury chose to concentrate on the dollar sign without lifting a finger.  

Second is whether the reasons and arguments for boycotting Lambeth need to be stronger.  If Lambeth were that important or significant, Canterbury would not allow ECUSA's arbitrary nullification of the Lambeth 1998 decisions on human sexuality without consequence, but would have stood for Lambeth on principle.  Like any other instrumentality of Anglicanism, Lambeth should stand faithfully and strongly in defense of the Anglican Faith which it represents.  For that matter what good is Anglicanism if it acquiesces to ECUSA's sustained bastardization of the Scripture through homosexualization of the Church?   Religion, more than any other institution, should stand for something, and stand for it faithfully and firmly.  As the custodian of Lambeth and Anglicanism, Canterbury failed in its duty of trust and must accept full responsibility for the schism it has helped through affirmative conduct or willful indifference to bring about.”

---ooo000ooo---

Five Anglican Primates, and one supposes all of their bishops, have confirmed they will not attend Lambeth 2008 next July in England.  They are Archbishops Peter Akinola (Nigeria), Emmanuel Kolini (Rwanda), Benjamin Nzimbi (Kenya), Henry Orombi (Uganda) and Gregory Venables (Southern Cone).  This was stated in a letter which was distributed widely on the internet 15 February.  These Primates are the leaders of a little more than half of the world’s Anglicans.

---ooo000ooo---

The uproar over the Archbishop of Canterbury’s (ABC’s) remarks about the need to recognize some parts of Islamic Shariah law in Britain continued with a wide range of sources calling for his resignation, or at least an apology for what was said.  The ABC refused to take back his remarks, and stated that there was massive misinterpretation of what he had said and meant.  The media has calmed down by today, but it is believed he has permanently lost the confidence of many, within and without the Anglican Communion.

Sage commentary from our favorite blogger, former CHC Rector David Edman:

”With regard to the sharia controversy, one is left to wonder if the Archbishop of Canterbury's major problem is a tendency to intellectualize issues rather than take a stand yea or nay.  Such seems to be the preferred persona of the academic.  Differing points of view can be reconciled by learned discussion.  Is homosexual conduct sanctioned by Scriptures?  Well, yes and no.  Can the chasm that divides orthodox Christians from revisionists be bridged?  Let's listen to one another.  Is Jesus the only means to salvation?  It all depends on how you look at it.

Such an approach merely leaves one in the limbo of relativism.

One must feel compassion over the pain Rowan Williams must experience from the flaming arrows being shot at him from all directions.  But vacillation disguised as wisdom won't do, given the enormity of the issues being faced by the Anglican Communion today. One looks to the ABC for leadership, but receives little more than academic mumbo-jumbo.  It is as Clemenceau said of Poincare, he "knows everything and understands nothing."

Rudy Schenken, REC Lay Representative to Common Cause Partners