Whilst I have every sympathy with those going to GAFCON, I cannot believe that it will produce a witness for an “uncompromised Gospel. “ For instance the compromise with Anglo-Catholicism. I do not believe that Bishop Iker’s understanding of the Gospel is the same as Archbishop Jensen. Whilst i do not doubt the integrity of either, I believe the conference has made a mistake by being too inclusive. The Gospel according to Anglo-Catholoicism is in effect borrowed Roman Catholic practices and doctrines illegally brought into Anglicanism in the nineteenth century. By their very nature these doctrines and practices are at odds with the Evangelical understanding of truth and Gospel integrity.

Presumably at GAFCON the 39 articles will be re-affirmed and yet go to Bishop Iker’s diocesan website and you will find a Cathedral Rosary group, Masses advertised and in some of the parishes worship of the Holy Communion elements at benediction.

Won’t any affirmation of the Articles be hollow? And what’s more, Bishop Iker is moderte compared with some of the common cause participants.

Some of the common cause bishops are re-married divorcees and surely this contradicts the qualifcation of a bishop which is to be only once married.

I feel that the Conference should have been restricted to those who remain steadfast to the understanding of classical Anglicanism as given at the Reformation. However to bridge the lay presidency of Sydney with the bells and smells of a Fort Worth High Mass will involve some compromise.

The actual root of the authority problem within Anglicanism comes from nineteenth century Oxford, and not twenty first century New Hampshire.

A Roman Catholic observer

[moderator edit: change title to remove capital letters; words unaltered.]

“A Roman catholic observer...”

Was that a signature or the start of a new paragraph? I’m assuming the latter…

Yes, I would be intereseted to hear from our GAFCON contingent how they view their fellowship with those who seem to be on the anglo-catholic side of things. Why has the fellowship line been drawn where it has? I imagine that for many of our contingent, anglo-catholic worship practices could be seen as another way to deny the gospel. I feel this might need some clarification, especially if we are to be clear that GAFCON “isn’t about homosexuality” but “is about the gospel”.

On a slight tangent, is there a publicly available list of the 60 or so Australian delegates to GAFCON? I know there are folk going from Sydney and Melbourne but I’d be particularly interested in hearing about people from other Dioceses.

Cheers,

Mark.

Martin Kemp - 16 June 2008 12:55 AM

“A Roman catholic observer...”

Was that a signature or the start of a new paragraph? I’m assuming the latter…

Hi Martin,

AFAIK your assumption is incorrect.

Robert Ian Williams has identified himself as a Roman Catholic (convert) on some earlier topics on these forums.

From what I recall Robert has tried to stir the pot several times on these forums about the range of attendees at GAFCON. 8-)

Unmerited favour & peace,
Terry

By the same token Mr Williams, your church encompasses, amongst other disparate schools, Molinists and Neo-Thomists.  Before taking the splinter out of our eyes, I dare say you ought to remove the beam from yours.

An Anglo-Catholic observer.

On a slight tangent, is there a publicly available list of the 60 or so Australian delegates to GAFCON? I know there are folk going from Sydney and Melbourne but I’d be particularly interested in hearing about people from other Dioceses.

My understanding is that 60 places were allocated to Australia and New Zealand. So there are some Kiwis on the list plus some South East Asians have been sponsored to go by Sydney Diocese.

I don’t think the list has been published anywhere.

Stirring the pot?

Not at all. Just asking a legitimate question, which goes to the very heart of authority and the meaning of the Gospel.

Yes there is divergence amongst individual Catholics, but on the core understanding of the Gospel, and the meaning of the sacraments there is definitive definition.

My point about GAFCON is that evanngelical Anglicans are conceding the point that Anglo-catholicism is a legitimate tradition within Anglicanism, and not a nineteenth century abberation.

TC Hammmond and classical Evamngelical Sydney Anglicans would have never conceded this point.