The GAFCON Threat level is Blue!

Doesn’t GAFCON refer to the likelihood that Jim Gaffigan will be attending their church?

GAFCON is sort of an alternative to the Lambeth conference. Lambeth, a gathering of all anglican bishops, happens every ten years. But you probably knew that already.
What we’re seeing with the fractures in the renewal wing of the Anglican communion is what we also see in renewal wings in mainline Protestant churches — PCUSA, ELCA, UMC. Basically, a significant chunk of the denomination gets fed up with the liberal denominational leadership. Initially there is a lot of passion and anger and activity in response to some major event (such as the ordination of Gene Robinson or the Lutheran-Episcopalian agreement in the ELCA), but then the hard long slog begins. And then that chunk fractures: some people want to leave the denomination yesterday, others want to stay and work from within, others want simply to be loyal opposition. It’s the same story in all these denominations.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
An historic gathering of conservative Anglican leaders took place February 26, 2008 in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Heads of 29 different Anglican bodies signed the concordat forming the Anglican/Episcopal Initiative for Orthodox Unity. Points of agreement included rejection of women’s ordination and repudiation of polyester chasubles.
The new Initiative represents 442 bishops, 137 priests, and 14 lay members. The organization, abbreviated AEIOU(y), is known colloquially as “the Vowel Movement”.

You people don’t know anything.
GAFCON=
Global Anglican Force Combating Our Neighbors
or, wait. Maybe that was,
Gay Action Front Confabulating Over NewTestament
or, wait…
Oh, never mind.

“because it’s finally dawning on me that there isn’t a united front on the “reasserter” side of the coin and so now, besides the basic divide I have to try understand the divisions within the divisions?”
The divisions are happening because disenchantment in the aftermath of mindless groupthink is now setting in. And, the revenge of thwarted ecclesiastical ambition is coming out, now that everyone wants to be a bishop and have their own tiny dioceses and fiefdoms. And also because the old churchmanship disputes never really quite went away – which is why the reasserter vs. reappraiser dichotomy was always bogus and will always be. The reasserters will eat their own, even as their enemies on “the other side” are, for all intents and purposes, imposing loyalty oaths in blood on their lay and clerical leadership in TEC. Amy, put Aidan Nichols, “Panther and the Hind” on your reading list to begin understand Anglicanism – though it focuses on the English side of things rather than the American.
GAFCON is a risibly horrible acronym. Who came up with it? And the fact that the evangelicals wanted to hold the meeting in Jerusalem was an act of gross irresponsibility. Mix arguments over gays with Israeli/Palestinian quarrel with rudely anti-Islamic proselytizing evangelical types, and you have a potentially dangerous situation. They moved some of the meetings to Jordan, but sheesh! what are these people thinking? Perhaps these people have nihilistic/total-war death wishes, since that is what the acronym “GAFCON” and the location of the conference seems to imply. I’m glad they aren’t in charge of American nuclear warfare strategy.

Not that it matters in the slightest because this lifelong Episcopalian is just about at the end of his patience with the “Christian tradition” of his birth but it means Global Anglican Future Conference. We shall see if it ends up meaning anything. For what it’s worth, I’m not putting any money down.

I think the idea behind Gafcon, sadly, is the “Let’s go back to the beginning and invent a new church” one.
Conservative (they like to call themselves orthodox, but I won’t call them that, although I admit that compared to TEC Episcopalians, they are a whole lot closer) evangelical Anglicans now realize that they are going to have to cut their ties to Canterbury. But, even though not Catholic in any sense, they do realize that Canterbury was their connection with a wider church, with the historic church. So what do they replace Canterbury with? If not Canterbury, where?
Well, where else? Jerusalem. The first “council of the church” was the “council of Jerusalem” described in the Book of Acts. So this is conceived of as a second council of Jerusalem. This idea was conceived of by those living, I think, more in a Biblical world than in the modern world. Therefore they didn’t realize the political implications related to the position of the few Christians still living there, or related to the Jewish/Muslin issues. The Anglican bishop of that area, (name something like Mounis Amir) who has supported the conservatives in the past, and done so in very lucid and trenchant writing, was not consulted about this plan and understandably objected to it, and this created a split among conservative Anglicans. There was already a split between those who wanted to go to Lambeth and fight and those who have already given up on Lambeth.
That is all I know about it. Does it help any?
Susan Peterson

Susan et al,
The Gafcon bishops and primates are not exactly evangelical. There are as many who think of themselves as Anglo-Catholic as there are who think of themselves as evangelical.

Thanks, Matt. I see this movement through too narrow a lens, apparently. I thought it was something of a Catholic idea to feel that one needed a connection to a historical place, a historical Christian see. I know that down in Texas there is a very Anglo Catholic diocese, but didn’t know if they were involved in Gafcon. Even though I read Stand Firm, I am not so thoroughly engaged as to remember all the details. Since you are reading here, which I am glad of, maybe you could be the one to write the clarifying posts, since your knowledge of these issues is so much greater than mine, and so much more from the standpoint of someone intimately involved.
The primate’s name-I just read it on Stand Firm , is Mouneer Anis. You should have corrected me on that, also. It isn’t good so to mangle someone’s name. But at the time I wrote the post I was running out of lunch hour and didn’t have time to look it up.
Did I get the rest of it generally correct?
Susan Peterson

PS….
Matt:
Rereading what I wrote:
I guess you wouldn’t be happy with my remark in passing about the use of the word “orthodox”. Of course people will disagree about what that means, and whether it can have any general meaning outside of a very specific ecclesiatical context. However, some people at Stand Firm have used the expression ‘Nicene orthodoxy.’ Now I do believe that there is a very great difference between the position of those you would call orthodox evangelical Anglicans, and those people in the Episcopal church a(and other mainline Protestand denominations, and perhaps a few people also who call themselves Catholics) who do not believe the Jesus was the unique Son of God, the incarnation of the second person of the trinity, who do not believe in an actual physical resurrection etc etc. So I understand what you are trying to express when you use the phrase “Nicene orthodoxy.” You mean real “mere Christianity.”
Now, you know the sorts of issues we disagree on. I meant to say this to you face to face if a proper occasion ever arose ie not in a hurry after church and not in front of your parishioners when you are teaching them, but at a time when I could say it in the right spirit and you had time to respond. Now it seems to have arisen here. So this is it: I don’t think your position on Baptism really fits what is meant in the Nicene creed by “one baptism for the remission of sins.”
And I don’t think “once saved always saved” was the belief of anyone at Nicea. I am guessing one might find expressions of hope in the promises of the Lord and trust that He will not abandon us, that someone reading through the filter of that belief could read that way. But the whole development of penance, the way the church delt with the question of whether there was any salvation for those who sinned seriously after baptism, leaves one in no doubt that they believed those who did so could certainly be damned. Also, certain sins always were considered as serious enough to break one’s union with the church, which meant, ones union with the community of the saved, with those who belonged to God. Other sins were not looked upon that way, were not treated that way practically. I know what passages from Paul (at least I know some of them) you can cite against this. I would decide what Paul could have meant and could not have meant, in the light of the practice of the church in the next few hundred years. If I had to believe the church could be so fundamentally wrong so early, for me this would be a real threat to faith itself.
My lunch hour is again over so I cannot come to a proper conclusion of this post, but will have to stop here.
Susan Peterson

Dear Susan,
Thank you. I am not at all surprised that you think I am doctrinally off kilter. I’m a reformed evangelical. You are a Roman Catholic. If I agreed with your position on Baptism and justification in general I would be a Roman Catholic. If you agreed with me, you would have to leave your Church. Please do not at all feel as if you would offend me by disagreeing with my positions. I do not get offended at all by that.
I do hope you can see how an argument from tradition is not going to sway me if I am persuaded that the scriptures alone are infallible and that, with regard to these particular doctrines, the tradition conflicts with scripture.

I was afraid “orthodox ” was a touchword and therefore was afraid you might be offended. I felt bad, also, about writing here what Ihad not quite gotten around to saying to you in person in so many words.
As for seeing how you see it, I can say the words you say and say I understand that you believe that, but I don’t “see” it in deeper sense. For me the scriptures are something the church presents to me, a pre-eminently priviledged part of her written tradition, but not something that can be understood outside of that tradition.
At one point, you know, you had said to me that at the time of Nicea, if we could go back to that time, you would have been part of the Catholic Church as it was then understood. I have pondered this a lot. I am seriously wondering if this is true. specifically with respect to how you talk about baptism. And, should this be true, I wonder how you can stand the thought of not being able to stand with the council fathers of Nicea. For that matter, you stand and say their creed now. Are you convinced that you are saying it and meaning what they understood by it, in terms of the meaning of ” I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins.”?
I know that ultimately you want to stand with God and you believe He teaches you in the scriptures and you have to believe those even over and against the church of the first 4 or 5 centuries, if that should prove necessary. But if there is more than one way the scripture can be understood on a point, wouldn’t it have some weight with you, how those Christians who came first after the apostles, and those who came next after them, understood it?
Long way from Gafcon. But maybe no one is reading this but us. Peace!
Susan

Susan,
I believe you have expressed these sentiments to me before on a number of other issues, not necessarily these in particular. When I said that tradition is not going to sway me in this matter when I think it opposed to scripture, I was not saying that tradition is irrelevant or unimportant to me. In fact, what I’ve said from the pulpit regarding Baptism and justification is not something I made up it is part and parcel of the teaching tradition of reformed Anglicanism and reformed theology in general stretching back hundreds of years. I certainly think tradition is authoritative. I simply think that the bible is the only infallible source of revelation. Tradition then must be tested in light of biblical revelation not vice versa.
In any case, I do not believe that the Nicene fathers had in mind precisely what Rome teaches either. I am probably as hesitant to engage you in a discussion of the fathers as you are to engage me in a discussion of scripture. Nevertheless, I understand that the first systematic articulation of the sacramental system currently embraced by Rome was given by St. Gregory the Great and based on his reading of St. Augustine. Tradition is a living thing. You will not find a fully articulated theology of baptismal regeneration or transubstantiation in scripture or the early fathers. These things developed over time. the Reformed contention is that the development, while authoritative, is not infallible.

Just call it the Jerusalem Council
That’s what it is: a new church council to refound Anglicanism.
And so that’s what it should be called!
Of course, much more important than what the Jerusalem Council is called is who’s going: are you?
The point – of course – is that both evangelicals, anglo-catholics, and roman-catholics are orthodox Christians. We will all be together with Christ one day!
ECUSAns are not orthodox, not Christians, and will not be with us nor with Christ!

I believe that the “very Anglo Catholic” diocese to which you are referring, Susan, is the Diocese of Fort Worth. And, yes, our bishop will be attending GAFCON.

Too bad Jesus didn’t found a church when He were here. It would have made this Church structure thing so much easier to deal with.
(Ducks.)
Yes, I converted from Anglo-Catholic to Rome a couple of years back. It is a fine solution to the ecclesial problem.
PS: Rome is still taking new members.

As the Anglican commenters have demonstrated in their comments here, they have for 500 years forced the term “Roman” on Catholicism, because after all they consider themselves to be real Catholics.
It is just a matter of time now before they force the Orthodox to call themselves “Constantinopolitan” Orthodox or some such thing because the Anglicans have suddenly found themselves to be “orthodox.”
Anglicans are notoriously pro-choice, they can pick and choose what they think of the Eucharist or other “Romish” practices, and famously argue about the necessity or believability of the creeds and scripture, not to mention Women’s Ordination, gay bishops etc. etc. Yes, all very “orthodox.”
For some Anglican perspectives on the Creed:
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/81834_95179_ENG_HTM.htm

#18, Joey, I almost choked when I saw you quoting something from the Episcopal Church website to try and explain an Anglican perspective ! TEC no longer believes in anything Anglican, which is why they can enjoy these little exercises about “what do you believe”. It is no longer a church that has particular beliefs or doctrine, but rather a pat-yourself-on-the-back whatever you believe is fine social club. And they wonder why they’re shrinking… you can’t possibly grow if you have no faith to share with the world !

Joey, I am assuming that all Christians believe that they are “the real Catholics” if by that term you mean the congruence between scripture and tradition that was universally agreed upon by the undivided church in the first three centuries. I have American Protestant separatist dispensational fundamentalist [a name they would claim] friends who firmly believe the same thing and people of every denomination or church believe that they “believe the most truth” of any.
Otherwise if, for instance, all Christians actually believed that the Roman Catholic church’s teaching was the pure Gospel, then they would convert promptly to the Roman Catholic church, if they were people of integrity. Instead — rightly or wrongly [and we certainly cannot all be right] — they believe that their particular group holds the pure Gospel.
I also do not see that Anglicans have somehow “forced the term “Roman” on Catholicism” — that is generally a term used to communicate internally amongst Christians. If we all — every church or denomination — called ourselves “Catholic” then it would be very confusing.
As we see, Roman Catholics do not have to use that term about themselves — and properly so, since as Roman Catholics, they believe that their church is the one, true, and real church — hence they rightly refer to themselves as “Catholic”.
Like Matt, were I to suddenly believe that the Roman Catholic church actually is the one, true, and real church and that all of its doctrines were truth, then I would convert — it would be an act of integrity. Also like Matt, it does not trouble me for people to say that Anglicans are not “orthodox” or “catholic” — there is no offense taken, even if offense may or may not be meant. For it is intrinsic to Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism for those terms to be defined by those churches — that is what they believe about who they are. If I believed the same thing — that the Orthodox church, for instance, is also the only and true orthodox church, or if the Roman Catholic church is the only and true catholic church, then I would be a convert to either, I hope.
I personally refer to myself in general as a traditional or conservative Anglican, and define that further if I am among various groups of such Anglicans.
I say the above only to share a personal perspective — not to inflame or convince you otherwise.

Do I have to belong to a “group” (read “denomination”) to be a Christian? Does that group define my faith, my belief?
Why can’t I preach the gospel at all times and occasionally use words, as St. Francis said – and then go to any church on a Sunday, that meets my need for just-plain-worship-teaching-liturgy?
Would this make me a gadfly? Or worse, a sinner, by somebody’s standards (don’t remind me: I’m already one by God’s)?
Rhetorical questions, at this point, but ones that are haunting me more and more these days.
Help! I’m starting to enjoy all these Vowel Movements and need a dictionary of updated acronyms.

Beth,
Would this make me a gadfly?
No, it would make you a Protestant, that’s all.

Susan #8:

I think the idea behind Gafcon, sadly, is the “Let’s go back to the beginning and invent a new church” one.

No, I’m sorry, you’re confusing it with General Convention.

Sarah # 20
With the very greatest respect, I have to say that I do find it offensive to be described as a Roman Catholic rather than a Catholic.
For me this is because it is a matter of self-identification, and because there is a small but important difference between self-identifying terms on the one hand, and descriptive terms on the other.
We call ourselves (as the Catechism of the Catholic Church says throughout) the Catholic Church.
You call yourselves (for example) the Anglican Communion.
In both cases this is a matter of self-identification.
You might also describe yourselves as ‘the Anglican Communion, which is a catholic body ‘ – or in the Catholic tradition, or whatever.
But you don’t call yourselves (for example) the Anglican Catholic Communion.
I think common courtesy – and perhaps even political correctness! – says we have the right to our own self-identification. We shouldn’t have to be called by a certain name just because you prefer it!
If we call you the Anglican Communion, as you call yourselves, then you should call us the Catholic Church, as we call ourselves.
Pax et Bono!

Ioannes,
The Creed of St. Athanasius states “… And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. …” By this definition, I’m Catholic, or at least hold the Catholic Faith.
The Creed of St. Athanasius is part of the Liturgy of the Anglican Communion. So, you see we too self Identify as Catholic.
Rome doesn’t get to redefine ‘Catholic’ as only those who hold the Catholic Faith who are also in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

TO Bo Register (April 1, 2009 11:48 P.M.):
But you do not call yourselves that, you are the Anglican Communion, when all religions meet, like when they do in inter-religious dialogue conferences or etc. or any other meeting of faiths, you guys do not come as the Catholic Church. Only the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church in Rome is called the Catholic Church in full legal-terms, In official documents written up with Lutherans, Orthodox, and Anglicans, it is the Bishop of Rome who signs for Catholic Church the other being the other Church who split away. Only one person represents this Catholic Church seen throughout the ages of human history – The Bishop of Rome.

TO SARAH (March 9, 2008 4:03 PM):
Sorry to say The Catholic Church at Rome or if you would be more comfortable to call it the Roman Catholic Church (which just means that Catholic Church headed at Rome) is THE TRUE CHURCH that Jesus Christ established on earth.
So suffice it to say that those people who might not know this as they are in the jungles of the amazon are more blessed than those who see this, are confronted with it, and are informed of it – and still do not convert.
History is always on the side of the Catholic Church headed by the Bishop of Rome the succesor to St. Peter who was promised “18And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18 Matthew 16:18 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.). Remember, the GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT.
Also there were no Anglicans, Lutherans or Protestants for that matter in 76 A.D. but there was already the Succesor to Peter, the very first Pope St. Linus (67-79). After ihim would be Pope St. Anacletus (79-88), after which we have Pope Saint Clement I, and in recent history we have the the 264th Pope Benedict the Great and now the current 265th Pope Benedict 16. No other religious Christian institution can trace such a lineage to an apostle, no other than the Prince of Apostles at that. That alone is a miracle and proof (of the myriad miracles given to the Catholic Church) of its authenticity as the Holy Apostolic and Roman Catholic Church.

EDIT my last post 264th Pope is Pope John Paul II. Thanks and sorry for the mix up