Gafcon 'disastrous' for Holy Land says local bishop

Thinking Anglicans, the Guardian and I have been leaked (and posted almost simultaneously!) a copy of the minutes of two recent meetings that took place in Jerusalem between Bishop Suheil Dawani, Archbishop Peter Akinola and Archbishop Peter Jensen. The other attendees are listed below. You can read my news story on our online faith page. (See also Libby's latest blog on Britain's first Jedi church.) Bishop Suheil did not mince his words. Gafcon would be 'disastrous' for his ministry in the Holy Land. The minutes are self-explanatory. It rather fits with what Rowan Williams was saying yesterday at Lambeth. If any of you want a reminder of what Lambeth was like last time, and what Rowan Williams might be trying to avoid by turning it into something approaching a university seminar, read Andrew Brown's long essay which he's dug out of his archives for me. Meanwhile, Bishop of Buckingham Alan Wilson has dreamed up Ten Rules for Cooking up a Schism. Quite amusing. See below for the Gafcon-Jerusalem minutes in full.

Minutes

On Meeting of Bishop Suheil Dawani, Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem, with

Archbishop Dr Peter F. Jensen, Archbishop of Sydney
Archbishop Peter Jasper Akinola, Archbishop of Nigeria

by Janina Zang
Acting PA to the bishop
12 January 2008 and 15 January 2008

Purpose:

To discuss Bishop Suheil’s concerns about the Global Anglican Future Conference in Holy Land (GAFCON), following his press release dated 2 January 2008.

Bishop Suheil has not been consulted about this planned conference. He first learned of it through a press release. He is deeply troubled that this meeting, of which we had no prior knowledge, will import inter-Anglican conflict into his diocese – the Episcopal Diocese of Jerusalem, which seeks to be a place of welcome for all Anglicans.

Bishop Suheil: “It could also have serious consequences for our ongoing ministry of reconciliation in this divided land. Indeed, it could further inflame tensions here. We who minister here know only too well what happens when two sides cease talking to each other. We do not want to see any further dividing walls!

The Primate of the Province of Jerusalem and the Middle East, Dr. Mouneer Hanna Anis, is also concerned about this event. His advice to the organizers that this was not the right time or place for such a meeting was ignored.

Minutes of Meeting with Archbishop of Sydney, Dr Peter F. Jensen, on 12 January 2008:

Participants:     The Rt Rev’d Suheil Dawani, Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem
    Archbishop Dr Peter F. Jensen, Archbishop of Sydney
    The Rev’d Canon Dr Chris Sugden, Executive Secretary

After mutual words of welcome and thanks, Archbishop Jensen informed Bishop Suheil that the idea of holding such a conference was only developed in December 2007, which was probably the reason for the problems that have arisen. He invited Bishop Suheil to share his concerns about the conference and he apologized for having rushed into organizing this conference without Bishop Suheil’s approval.

Bishop Suheil was then inquiring about the general idea of the conference. Archbishop Jensen responded that some bishops have come to the conclusion that they cannot attend Lambeth Conference. He said that he respected those who have different opinions, but he was concerned about what the future was going to be like. He said that he felt a deep sadness about the terrible situation the Anglican Communion finds itself in and found it important to gather at this conference to discuss how the future will unfold. He said that there have been a number of possible venues, but when someone suggested the Biblical Land, he immediately felt that this was the right venue.

Bishop Suheil then began to share his concerns, saying that we are the body of Christ and thus have to listen and pray for each other. He emphasized that as the heart of the Anglican Communion, Jerusalem was a place of welcome for all.

He continued that Christians in the Holy Land are diminishing and that there was a real need to sustain dialogue and unity among the traditional churches. Bishop Suheil said that he was concerned about any issues that may appear to threaten unity and dialogue. The language that was used in the GAFCON press release was very concerning to him and to all the Heads of Churches in Jerusalem. The Orthodox churches did not welcome this language.

Bishop Suheil then went on to say that Christians in the Holy Land, including the Diocese of Jerusalem, were struggling with their own issues and that issues of peace and dialogue between the different faith communities of the Holy Land were far more important at this time than issues of homosexuality. Bishop Suheil said that as traditional churches they were deeply rooted in the bible and that he agreed that these issues needed to be discussed, but he felt that the venue was not right at this sensitive time.

Bishop Suheil said that he was happy to welcome the bishops as pilgrims. However, he repeated that at this critical time, political and other leaders would exploit such a conference. It would be misunderstood by many, and would threaten ecumenism and interfaith dialogue. Bishop Suheil felt that this conference would be disastrous for his ministry in the Holy Land.

Bishop Suheil explained that the international world has largely ignored the local Christians of the Holy Land in the past, and has continued to do so to some extent until today (holding the conference in the Holy Land would be one example). Bishop Suheil said that the Anglican Christians in the Holy Land are trying to be simple and humble and that their contribution is reconciliation. Anglicans are very much respected in the Holy Land, but their reputation would suffer as a divided Church if such a conference was to be held in the Holy Land.
Bishop Suheil concluded by saying that he would prefer that all Anglicans came together at Lambeth Conference to discuss their concerns there together.

Archbishop Jensen responded by saying that he would do his best to present Bishop Suheil’s point of view to the leadership, but that he could not promise that this matter would change. Admitting that it would be wrong to come to the Holy Land without acknowledging the local Christians, Archbishop Jensen said that his hope was that Bishop Suheil would be able to contribute something to the conference.

Minutes of Meeting with Archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Jasper Akinola, on 15 January 2008:

Participants:     The Rt Rev’d Suheil Dawani, Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem
    Archbishop Peter Jasper Akinola, Archbishop of Nigeria
    The Rev’d Canon Dr Chris Sugden, Executive Secretary
The Very Rev’d Michael Sellors, Coordinator to the Heads of Churches in Jerusalem
The Rev’d Canon Hosam Naoum, Acting Dean, St. George’s Cathedral

After a few words of welcome by Bishop Suheil, Archbishop Akinola thanked Bishop Suheil for receiving him in Jerusalem. He acknowledged receiving the minutes for the above meeting.

Archbishop Akinola explained that in the beginning of the matter he had called for a consultation in Nairobi, which led to the idea of holding the conference in Jerusalem.  He explained that he had led many pilgrimages but had been in Jerusalem and at St. George’s Cathedral only once. He said that this pilgrimage would be different from previous ones, since it included primates, bishops, clergy, and laity from 20 countries around the world. The conference would have a great impact on all taking part and their communities.

Archbishop Akinola apologized for sending his letter to Bishop Suheil at a very inconvenient time (at Christmas) and at such short notice, but he said that he could not see how this conference could become a “political problem”. He stressed that liberty was important for Africa and that he could not allow anyone to tell his community what to do and to say. He repeated that his interests were not political, and that his major concern was about how to grow and how to be strengthened and exchange experiences.

Responding to the question of unity within the Anglican Communion, Archbishop Akinola said that in 2003 there had already been a huge eruption leading to the divide within the Anglican Communion. 
He went on to say that coming together in the Holy Land would help them to find the road map. He also stressed that there would be more conferences of this kind in the future all around the world.

Bishop Suheil responded by saying that he wished he had been consulted beforehand. In his eyes, the conference would raise many issues, politically, ecumenically, and in the area of interfaith dialogue. He said that Jerusalem is a place of reconciliation and that on an ecumenical level and in his efforts to maintain his diocese that covers five countries with different cultures and traditions, it was very important to keep the balance.

Bishop Suheil also emphasized that the issues to be raised at the conference should be discussed internally, because they are internal matters. Outsiders should not be involved in the problems of the Anglican Communion. He stressed that it was very important for Archbishop Akinola to understand that Christian leaders of the Holy Land are working very hard to maintain indigenous Christian presence in the Holy Land.

Bishop Suheil underlined that for all Anglicans Lambeth is the place and the time to have such a conference.

The Rev’d Canon Hosam referred to his studies in Africa, saying that he got a good idea of what Africa and Africans have gone through in the past. Yet, he wished to stress that the indigenous Christians of the Holy Land also did not want to see themselves being told what to do and what to say. They did not want to be forced to deal with issues that are not on their agenda yet and that could create serious disputes on the level of the local churches in general and the Diocese of Jerusalem in particular, as well as ecumenically, theologically, and socially. He stressed that Christians in the Holy Land still had their own problems to deal with.

The Rev’d Canon Dr Chris Sugden then posed the question in what way the conference was imposing on the diocese?

The Rev’d Canon Hosam answered that the conference was imposing the issue of homosexuality on the diocese.

The Rev’d Canon Dr Chris Sugden responded by saying that this conference was not about homosexuality.

The Rev’d Canon Hosam replied by reminding Archbishop Akinola that he had referred to the split of the Anglican Communion in 2003.

Archbishop Akinola refrained from answering. Instead, he said that he could not understand how this conference would have all these impacts on the diocese.

The Very Rev’d Michael Sellors highlighted that this could not be fully understood unless you lived in the Holy Land and experienced the sensitivity. He stressed that the Holy Land was a fishy ground for the media and for those who wanted to destroy or distract the peace process and the role that the Christian Church in general and the Anglican Church in particular plays in it.

Archbishop Akinola then said, that this was a pilgrimage and wondered what the difference was to other pilgrimages.

The Rev’d Canon Hosam responded by saying that this was not only a pilgrimage, since the Archbishop himself was talking about a conference with an agenda. 

Archbishop Akinola replied that he would be happy to change the terminology and refrain from calling it a conference, in which case he would call it a pilgrimage.

Bishop Suheil closed the discussion by saying that for the sake of making progress in this discussion he would like to suggest that Archbishop Akinola either reconsiders the venue and time for the conference, or divides his program into two parts: to have the conference in Cyprus, and to have a pure pilgrimage in the Holy Land.

Should Archbishop Akinola be ready to accept this suggestion, Bishop Suheil would warmly welcome him and his pilgrims.

Jerusalem
16 January 2008

NB this video shows part of yesterday's press conference.

Comments

[Alice C. Linsley]

Bishop Suheil will attend the GAFCON group as they visit the parishes and shrines. “It’s happening, they are coming,” said Bishop Suheil Dawani during a visit to Australia in February. “I will be there. I cannot ignore such a gathering. But I’ll give them our message of unity, of how the church must also be united, and of the importance of our ministry in Jerusalem and all over the world.”
(Source: Anglican Mianstream, March 3, 2008)

[An American Observer]

Anyone who thinks that there were never any gay priests or even bishops in the churches of the Anglican Communion before Gene Robinson is being willfully blind. Ironically, some of the most liturgically and theologically conservative parishes I know of, dating back thirty or more years, have had gay clergy and a large percentage of gay and lesbian members.

I have a great deal of respect for the gay and lesbian Episcopalians I have met over the years. They tend to be some of the most genuinely spiritual, loving, and charitable people in the typical parish.

Akinola has plenty of problems in his own country, including interfaith violence, and he would do well to concern himself with the health of his own church instead of meddling in ours.

By the way, I agree with one of the contributors above that Akinola is being funded by American foundations that are attempting to infiltrate mainstream churches and turn them into fifth columns for ultra-conservative politics, much as they have covertly funded the building of the massive suburban evangelical and fundamentalist "megachurches" that spring up seemingly overnight in American suburbs.

[John]

Gene Robinson is not the problem. The problem is that a province of the Anglican Communion has consented to the election of someone who is disqualified from holding office as a priest, let alone a bishop. TEC is the problem and it has certainly let everyone know about it.

[Malcolm+]

God does indeed bring all deeds done in darkness into his light.

As he has done in this case with Dr. Akinola's arrogance and contempt.

The "homosexulaists" (whatever the hell that is) have acted fairly openly. The election of Gene Robinson, for good or ill, was done in the open sunlight.

And the reason the bigots so hate this man is that he will not lie about who he is.

[Alice C. Linsley]

The good news is that God brings all deeds done in darkness to His light, as He has done in the case of this unprecedented attack on the Body of Christ and its apostolic leaders.

You seek to destroy Anglican leaders who will not agree to the homosexualist, one-world-religion, realpolitic approach of TEC and UK radicals, but God will uphold them.

[Robert Ian Williams]

The Anglican Church in Israel consuits of two schools.

1)The Palestinian radical Church, maiinly composed of ex Catholics and Greek orthodox. From whence comes the Bishop and leadership.

2)Outposts of the Anglican Evangelical ministry to to the Jewish people. There has been tension wbetween these two, as the Evangelicals do not like the Bishops politics and theology.
Its my guess that the Evangelical component will be the hosts for GAFCON.

[Stephen Roberts]

Apparently Ruth, the Jerusalem minutes you received were fiction - at least +Anderson of the AAC would have us believe:-

http://innocentdoves.blogspot.com/2008/01/aac-weekly-update-by-bishop-anderson.html

I do find it strange that he only challenges the "apparent" author's objectivity, rather than whether it is an accurate report. If the bishop has proof of the author (and their supposed bias), he should name them - without the use of school yard innuendo.

If +Anderson has proof that the meeting accounts are false, he should share it let we believe a (very plausible) "lie".

[Malcolm+]

You are very selective in your use of facts, Alice.

FACT: The "orthodox" self-appointed leaders who decided to have this conference in Jerusalem did so without consulting either the local bishop or the local primate, even though both of them are, from the "orthodox" position, solid on the besetting issue.

FACT: Although they claim to have sent a letter to Bishop Dawani in advance f their announcement, anyone who claims to believe that a letter mailed internationally on Christmas Eve will arrive on or before December 26 is either a fool or a liar. (I do not believe that Akinola is a fool.)

FACT: The response of Archbishop Akinola to Bishop Dawani;s concerns has been consistently high-handed and dismissive.

FACT: The response of the "orthodox" hardliners has been viscious towards anyone who has questioned the wisdom of this conference in this location - no mater how "orthodox" the questioner. Witness the viscious attacks on StandFirm etc., first on Dr. Poon and now on Bishop Wright of Durham. Witness also your consistent insinuations that Bishop Dawani's concerns had less to do with the delicate situation in the middle east and more to do with American money.

Given, dear Alice, that it is your side which is being financed under the table by American money from secretive neo-conservative and extremist groups, your pretendy purity really has little credibility.

[Alice]

I was not suggesting that he is either corrupt or "bought". I expressly stated above that he is NOT corrupt. Bishop Suheil has, in fact, made suggestions to the GAFCON team about which churches he would like to have them use when in Israel. Now the Team is considering all the arrangements, takng the good Bishop's requests into consideration. Sorry if this news displeases you, but facts are facts.

[Malcolm+]

That's rich, Alice. Bishop Dawanis isn't corrupt, he's just been bought.

No evidence, of course. But then, evidence isn't really a consideration with many "conservatives."

But it is interesting to watch the usual "conservative" approach. If anyone dares to dissent, offer up every accusation, slander and lie. Fling all the mud you can in the hopes that some will stick.

I thank God for "conservatives" like you and Peter Akinola. I really do. Your slanders and his arrogant bullying do far more damage to your cause than anything anyone who opposes you could possibly accomplish.

[Peter Kirk]

Depending where exactly in South London the conference might be moved to, the bishop to be pissed off might not be Southwark, but Rochester, who probably would not be, or even Canterbury, who certainly would be! Come to think of it, if GAFCON were held in the real Lambeth (at least part of which is in Canterbury diocese) it would have an interesting claim to be more the real thing than the Lambeth Conference in Canterbury. The problem is, this particular inner city area may not be well provided with conference centres. But perhaps they could use part of the old County Hall, or the redundant Eurostar terminal at Waterloo station, or even take over the London Eye!

[Alice C. Linsley]

Also, my sources tell me that these leaked minutes were "doctored." They do not reflect all that was said during that meeting.

Michael, I am not casting aspersions on retired TEC Bishop Swing. I'm simply asking about the significance of his being in Jerusalem at the time of these meetings. That he was in Jerusalem is well documented.

[pendennis88]

Fortunately, we will all have a gaffe-free and pleasant Lambeth jamboree to hold up in comparison.

[Dr. J.A. Works]

I am surprised that Primate, Metropolitan, and Oba of All Selfrighteously Thinking Anglicans has not proposed a pilgrimage to Lagos as an alternate venue for GAFCON. I am certain that it would be a conference to remember. After 10 days in Lagos maybe even the growing CANA missionary episcopate would consider changing their Nigerian mitres for Bolivian Bowlers

[Alice C. Linsley]

Follow the money is always a good rule, but I don't think we should be too cynical about this. Money can do much good and Palestianian Christians are in need. The Church should assist them, but not as a way to buy loyalty to TEC's agenda. That is not to say that Bishop Suheil is corrupt, but certainly the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem has come to rely on funds from TEC, some of which are probably funneled through Bishop Swing's United Religions Initiative.

[observer]

TEC money is too important in the AC....he who pays the (bearded) piper naturally wants to call the tune.....and so we see the Windsor Report saying the consecrators of VGR should not be AC councils but somehow the ABC invites them all to Lambeth 08..... the piper has been paid.

Makes sense for GAFCON to be in London and just before Lambeth.......better for the environment and even better if it is in Southwark....Tom Butler, if asked, may even pop round for a drink with Akinola

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

My thoughts on this and wider matters:

http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/01/why-spiritualit.html

[joe]

The other day an Anglican vicar was telling me that she'd been 'given' another adjacent parish. Her church wardens had been informed, the other church wardens had been informed (and as it happens, both were happy with the arrangement) but she had received no official word from the diocese whatsoever.

Maybe this is the way things are done in the Anglican church - you just arrange things and expect all participants to move into place. I just call it rude.

[stephen clark]

I admire Bishop Suheil's steadfastness is dealing with obfuscation and fudging of the issues.
This whole "pilgrimage" v. "conference" business is such a facade.
I agree with the ecological side track, even more so... why not find some poor people to give the money to that would be wasted on the vanity of these prelates.

[Kate]

This megalomania cleric is out of control. Akinola stands guilty of fomenting more division and discord in the Anglican Communion than any other ordained minister in the history of the Church.

I have written elsewhere here about the African tribal tradition of the 'Big Man' which manifests in Akinola as a personal obsession with territorial expansionism.

I am in agreement with Andrew Holden - Akinola is attempting to re-invent Anglicanism. Whatever it is he purports to be he is certainly NOT recognisable in the Anglican tradition.

Alice Lisnley's paranoid aspersions on retired TEC bishop, William Swing tells us all we need to know about her 'hero's' brand of Christianity.

[Michael Stevens]

Having just spent Christmas in Jerusalem and Bethlehem and having had the chance to meet and hear both Bishop Suheil and Canon Housam,I can only say how impressed I was both of them, for their dignity, their charity and their warmth.They have to minister in a particularly difficult and sensitive environment, things which Akinola and jensen do not appear to have considered.

The arrogance of Akinola and Jensen in not even bothering to contact the Jerusalem diocese properly before going ahead is shameful, but typical of how they both operate.

They should take the message they are getting to heart and understand the seriousness with which the Jerusalem Diocese views the strife they are bringing with them.

Not to do so is an act of un-Christian arrogance. They are really, it seems to me, acting as if the wishes and views of the Anglicans in the Holy land don't matter at all. Both these prelates behave with the same sort of condescension that typified colonisation, they know best and who cares what the locals think.

[Ian Welch]

The minutes confirm that GAFCON was hastily conceived and the sensitivities and circumstances of others not adequately considered.

Politics is involved in everything we do as human beings. Anglicanism is itself a direct product of English Tudor-era politics.

All Anglican bishops, whatever their views, are involved in church and social politics every day, it is part of the job as it is for all people in positions of authority and leadership.

It is a nonsense to say that Abp Akinola is not involved in politics. He is, and on a scale unprecedented in Anglican history. I am sorry that Abp Jensen, a genuinely caring and courteous person, has allowed zeal to overcome his previous public caution in the complex discussions within the Anglican Communion.

I am even sorrier that Palestinian Christians, who have suffered more than enough over the past fifty years, have been ignored by the GAFCON organisers. It is certainly not too late to change the venue for GAFCON.

Ian Welch, Canberra

[Malcolm+]

I don't have much use for Jensen of Sydney. Never have.

But at least Jensen of Sydney knows not to behave like a total jackass all the time.

Akinola of Abuja, by contrast, shows himself to be every bit as odious as his worst critic would paint him. He is blatantly dishonest in his dissembling claim that he can't see how this hatemongering rantfest could possibly cause any sort to disruption in Jerusalem.

I believe the Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem knows more about the sensitivities in Jerusalem than the pumped up pretendy pope from Abuja.

But Abuja doesn't care. All that matters to him is that he be given free reign to preach hate.

If it causes controversy in Jerusalem, no matter. If it causes other extremists with other agendas to take advantage of the controversy for their own mischief, no cause for concern. And if the end result is violence and a few dead Arab Christians, that's just fine with Pretendy Pope Peter.

[Alice C. Lisnley]

Interesting that these minutes, in which Bishop Suheil calls GAFCON "disastrous", should be leaked at the same time the Archbishop of Canterbury was to make an announcement about Lambeth 2008. Who would have leaked these, I wonder? And is it a coincidence that retired TEC bishop, William Swing, founder of The United Religions Initiative, was in Jerusalem at the time of the meeting?

[David Cohen]

Exactly, St Anonymous! "Follow the money...."

[st. anonymous]

"He emphasized that as the heart of the Anglican Communion, Jerusalem was a place of welcome for all."

Didn't he just completely contradict that by making the orthodox conference feel unwelcome?

I suspect there's a political agenda at play here. Dawani's diocese receives a *lot* of donations from TEC. He literally can't afford to alienate them.

[Prior Aelred]

One might be suspicious that the reason the organizers of the conference transformed into a pilgrimage neglected to consult with the "host" bishop was because they knew he would refuse. And the we see the difficulties when the self-styled "orthodox" for the first time come into contact with the universally acknowledged "Orthodox" -- in spite of an agreement on homosexuality, it is not the time or place to discuss it -- if it is not about homosexuality, then what is it about? The authority of Scripture? The Orthodox are not going to accept a literal Protestant reading of Scripture (of course, Protestants don't either, everyone picks & chooses -- I remember a fascinating sermon on the ends times where the preacher explained that everything in the book of Revelation was to be taken literally -- except the use of incense!).

[Andrew Holden]

These minutes clearly demonstrate the blatant disregard of the GAFCON organisers for the traditional formalities of Anglican affairs. Even parish clergy know that you don't operate in someone else's parish without the agreement of the appropriate incumbent. I suppose the history of CANA meddling in the US shows us what Akinola and his episcopal collegues think of such territorial integrities and this conference demonstrates their intention to re-invent Anglicanism along sectarian lines.

Its scandalous and shameful and GAFCON should be called off immediately.

[Paul Eddy]

Readers of the minutes above might csre to visit the GAFCON wesite which openly outlines the vision andreasons behind the conference in the Middle East this year.
Full details can be found at www.gafcon.org
Paul Eddy
GAFCON UK Press Officer

[Bill Channon]

Oliver, I absolutely agree with you. Both Gafcom and Lambeth would demonstrate their concern for a clean environment by video conferencing each event. This would be impressive. In the same light of conservation the the environment, I would ask the British whether they should seriously reconsider any travel plans they might have made by air for vacations due to the massive carbon pollution which would be generated by so much travel. In fact the entire tourist industry in every country in the world ought to restrict holiday travel to bus and train travel within their own country, since each country has their own local attractions to enjoy.

Bill C

[Stephen Marsden]

The solution is simple. GAFCON should be re-located to somewhere in South London. Numerous advantages would accrue:

1] The Bishop of Jerusalem would no longer feel pissed off.

2] The Bishop of Southwark would be pissed off instead.

3] If it was moved to a week or two before the Lambeth Conference, those bishops who wish to attend both events would be able to do with just the one return flight covered by the Lambeth Conference's carbon offsetting plans.

4] Certain key journalists would be able to cover it without having to persuade their impecunious employers to stump up for anything more expensive than the odd one-day London Underground Travelcard.

[Oliver Nicholson]

Dear rg, Thanks much. Yrs., OPN

[Oliver Nicholson]

"primates, bishops, clergy, and laity from 20 countries around the world"
One wonders idly whether provision has been made to offset the carbon pollution generated by all this travel, along the lines of the provision that has been made for the Lambeth Conference.
(rg writes: yes it has, see previous blog
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2008/01/the-importance.html)

[joe]

Well said Bishop Suheil.