Hard-line Anglican bishops make a mess of it in the Holy Land

[DeepModem Mom]

UK Telegraph: Hard-line bishops make a mess of it in the Holy Land
By George Pitcher
20/06/2008

....The Global Anglican Future Conference, or GAFCON as it is appropriately abbreviated, has so far been a shambles. Over 100 bishops, principally from the theologically conservative reaches of Africa and the United States, who believe that they understand the mind of God with sufficient intimacy to dictate terms to the rest of the Communion, were meant to gather in Jordan to do their business before transferring this weekend for a week’s pilgrimage in Jerusalem. As it turns out, the team’s cheerleader, the belligerent Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria, was denied entry to Jordan and the conference is having to transfer precipitately to Jerusalem, with its spokespeople stammering about hotel bookings becoming unexpectedly available there. The Anglican Church in Jerusalem, headed by Bishop Suheil Dawani, is a reluctant host to these schismatics, which is why their preliminary meeting was in Jordan in the first place....

On Thursday, it published its theological tract, predictably and proprietarily entitled The Way, The Truth and the Life. Bishop Akinola intones: “There is no longer any hope…for a unified Communion.” Further down the line, we can expect renewed calls for the head of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, and more demands for the disciplining of the Episcopal Church in America for consecrating the openly homosexual bishop Gene Robinson. The threat will be secession of the churches of the Global South, of the provinces in what we used to call the Third World, from the Anglican Communion. The long-vaunted schism in Anglicanism is at last a reality.

All that would stack up if GAFCON really did represent Anglicanism in the developing economies of the southern hemisphere. But it doesn’t....

This maverick mission was always intended as an alternative gathering of Anglican Primates ahead of next month’s ten-yearly Lambeth Conference, the traditional gathering of the Communion for prayerful reflection, out of which it is hoped emerges refreshment for churches’ pastoral and ecclesiological missions worldwide. The issue of homosexuality has been the flashpoint for the alternative conference. But much as “gay weddings” have grabbed the headlines, the extreme conservative secessionists do not principally represent a challenge to lax post-modern sexual mores. They are challenging Anglican authority, in a bid to seize it. To his critics, Dr Williams wears his authority all too lightly.

But, prima inter pares, the cross he has chosen to bear is to maintain some form of unity among the disparate and incompatible provinces of global Anglicanism. This means endeavouring to keep the conservative Christians of, say, Uganda, in dialogue with the sassy progressives of the east coast of the US over the nature of biblical authority. And, in doing so, he must ask those who feel discriminated against for their sexuality patiently to bear a painful burden in the process. Some liberal voices might say that such patience is pusillanimous and that Dr Williams should not allow scripture to be read only through the prism of conservative evangelicalism. William Wilberforce didn’t wait patiently for slave traders to come round to his way of thinking. Dr Williams will be aware of this moral compromise; if it were just down to him, he could be expected to fight the traditionalists, but as Archbishop of Canterbury he must bear the weight of unity....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/20/do2006.xml

[Kutjara]

1. A note for non-UK English speakers.

A "gaffe" is a commonly used synonym for a screw-up in Britain, so calling this meeting GAFCON is unintentionally funny. Well, it is to me, at least.

[DeepModem Mom]

2. Funny! I'm going to have to ponder all he's written here...

but I love the 'tude with which he wrote it. He seems to think the primary issue is not our gay Bishop, but power. I feel like the heart of the matter for U.S. Episcopalians who are splitting off, and placing their churches under Bishops in faraway Africa, is that they don't want gay people (or maybe even women) in Anglican ecclesiastical positions.

[Kutjara]

3. The Anglican church certainly has got itself into a tizzy.

As the UK population has become increasingly secularized (less than 6% of UK "Christians" attend church), the foreign members of the Anglican Communion have gained power. Much like England invented soccer, cricket and rugby, and then promptly got thrashed by the very people they taught it to, the Anglican Church is increasingly being controlled by the very "colonials" onto whom the Brits foisted their faith during the days of Empire. Well, turnabout is fair play, as they say. All those zealous missionaries, who tried to "enlighten" Africa in the 19th Century must be turning in their graves now. It would serve them right, if not for the fact that it's introduced a far-right authoritarian streak into what was a very laid-back church (how holier-than-thou can a religion be, when it's chief reason for existing was so that Henry VIII could get a divorce. I mean, really).

[DeepModem Mom]

5. That's fascinating, Kutjara. It's amazing how the effects of that little island's Empire...

resonate again and again in the present day -- often, of course, not for the good. That said, I lived there a few years, not so long ago, and England will always have a place in my heart. And I watch with interest the profound changes happening over there.

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. The primary issue IS power

Bishop Robinson is only an excuse for hypocritical outrage. Akinola wants to be pope, and his brand of revivalist Talibangelicalism is merely a tool by which he means to become pope.

[DeepModem Mom]

6. Then, in a sense, he's using the Americans and their prejudices...

in pursuit of power for himself? And also, I assume, their money would be helpful.

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. That is my take on the matter, yes. n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

12. Oh yes, he very much likes their money.

He's got a lifestyle to maintain, after all.

[Kutjara]

9. Well, Archbishop of Cantebury, not Pope.

Anglicans don't hold with that papist stuff, dontcha know. ;)

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. Akinola seems to hold to papist stuff

If he had any respect at all for Anglican traditions, he would stop poaching diocese from the United States and he would end his efforts to supplant the Anglican Communion with a church that places him as the Pontiff.

[JerseygirlCT]

14. Completely agree. nt

[JerseygirlCT]

13. Actually, I think he'd prefer Pope.

But that job's taken already.

I suspect ABC would be too democratic for the likes of Akinola. He's only interested in being THE boss.

[Kutjara]

16. I see your point. Perhaps he might like to call himself...

...the Anti-Pope, although, admittedly, that title does come with some unfortunate baggage.

[JerseygirlCT]

17. LOL

I suspect he and Ratzinger would get along rather well. Until push came to shove, that is, and Peter Akinola realized he wasn't getting the old guy's job. But they're both such authoritarians.

[JerseygirlCT]

11. Yes, but under that is a question of power.

They don't like women or gays, and yet, they haven't got the power to enforce their bigotry on the entire Episcopal church. So they've thrown in with a truly evil lot, who are definitely using their own bigotry as a tool for an overthrow of the Anglican communion. I think Akinola in particular has a thirst for being the head of an entire church. Archbishop just isn't enough for him.

[knitter4democracy]

7. I don't see why they don't just join with another church.

They can take their ball and go home. They're a lot closer to the RCC than most Anglicans, so why not petition Rome? I'm sure the Patriarch of Rome would take them in. They've talked of joining the Orthodox, but honestly, I don't want them. We already have enough bigots, thanks.

[JerseygirlCT]

15. Because they want the buildings, and the silver and

the endowments.

They are absolutely free to leave at any time. Problem is that according to the rules of the Episcopal church, that property belongs to the church (the Episcopal church) not any individual parish or even diocese.

They don't want a different church; they just want to be the ones in charge of the church they have. They want everyone else - the vast majority - to bow to their twisted understanding.

There was one parish here in CT who actually did things the right way, if such a thing can happen. They disagreed with our bishop, they left - for real. Left the building, left the church. They've set up shop somewhere else in their town. The others are in different stages of fighting it out in courts now - both ecclesiastic and civil.