The 'gnostic gospel' of Gafcon

Michael Poon's recent article on the Global South reveals a possible divergence between South East Asia and the African provinces. But it also contains this remarkable assertion: 'Gafcon holds before the Communion a new and unfamiliar utopia that is post-modern to its core. Webmasters and web bloggers render synodical processes irrelevant. They preside over web blogs in the virtual worlds of their own fabrication. Its power in shaping public opinion on ecclesiastical authorities simply cannot be ignored. A communion that is no longer dependent on patient face-to-face encounters and governed by geographical proximity: it is a Gnostic gospel that renders the Cross in vain.' 

Gafcon 'gnostic'? Incredible. As this blogger says, the crisis in Anglicanism appears to be deepening on a daily basis. It has got to the point where my newsdesk has little understanding of what is going on, and has even less interest. The layers of schism, counter-schism, suit and counter-suit seem unending. In that sense, perhaps, the sense of having many 'spheres' of knowledge is gnostic, as is the need to be an 'initiate' to get a handle on it.

Chris Sugden's response to Poon's essay was understandably sniffy.'Canon Dr Michael Poon appears not to know what the GAFCON Pilgrimage really is, and has exercised a creative imagination on this. His view therefore gives no basis for a reasonable comment,' he told me. Meanwhile, Chris has sent out letter appealing for funds to help bishops and their wives travel to Gafcon, as Thinking Anglicans reports.

The gnostics wrote little down and passed on their 'gnosis' or knowledge by word of mouth. No doubt, in today's world, they would all indeed be bloggers. So Poon perhaps has a point. But in the overall scheme of things, it is a small point. Whatever their sins, I really think it a little unfair to level this ancient heresy at the modern-day 'orthodox'.

Having said that, the gnostic circle pictured here does have some symmetry with the Compass Rose.

One thing is for sure. The whole thing is a 'mystery', a religious mystery if not a mystery religion. However did we all end up in this miserable state?

Comments

[Rev Charles Raven]

The irony of Michael Poon's essay is that in describing GAFCON as 'post-modernist to the core' he is using the term 'post-modern', not to mention 'Gnostic', in a strikingly post-modern way! This suggests that the real engine of post-modernism in the Anglican Communion is likely to be the Lambeth Conference and its supporters as I argue in a recent article for VirtueOnline
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7914

[Malcolm+]

Far more precise, Alan.

That said, there is still much to criticize about the Reformation.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

The English Reformation was not Calvinist. Some Elizabethan puritans were, but they lost the argument along with the plot.

Reformed Catholicism was what Henry VIII intended, and that, by and large, is what we have today in the Church of England.

[Malcolm+]

I bring up the race suggestion because I have observed a pattern. The white drivers of the GAFFEPRONE Grandstand don't seem to treat "uppity" critics with quite the same civility as they treat those who comply with the schismatic agenda. To my read, the contemptuous dismissal of one of the intellectual giants of the Global South stank of racism.

By the way, there was much to criticize about the Reformation. MOST Anglicans are NOT uncritical Calvinists.

[Rick Beekman]

Ruth;

Has anybody on here noticed over the last several years; The Gnostics beleifs have taken the forefront?

First we had "The Da Vinci Code" then one about suggesting Jesus and Mary Magdalene Got married and had Children Etc.
Now This. These people (as far as I know) no longer exist yet The Spiritually Blinded World we live in eats these ridiculous assertions up like candy.

The Bible already tells us what has happned from Day #1 why trust in second guessing and perverted and twisted beleifs?

Just my thoughts...It is also my understanding that the "Gnostics" were the intellegencia from Alexandria Egypt back in the 3rd or 4th Century. Maybe your more educated Historians can fill us in on this...

[Bill Channon]

1. Change the century, change the names, and comments by individuals such as Mike and Malcolm+ would just as well be criticizing the Reformation.

2. Why does Malcolm+ keep bringing up Chris Sudgen and the 'race' suggestion? It is my clear understanding that Chris is primarily working with, as Malcolm+ puts it, 'people of colour' in preparing for Gafcon.

[Malcolm+]

I believe Ian Welch has misunderstood my point. My reference to Dr. Poon as a person of colour was in no way intended to denigrate him.

However, I find the dismissive comments of Canon Sugden (and other North American and English GAFFEPRONErs in other places) to have a hint of racism about them.

My criticism is of white commentators who have dismissed Dr. Poon's comments and concerns, not of Dr. Poon.

[MRG]

I'm not sure quite what Chris Sugden thinks he preaches, but I'm pretty sure "good and wholesome morals" don't enter into it. But there's no need to be quite to touchy, Gledhill me old china. Heaven forbid anyone should impugn the editorial balance of the Times' religious correspondents. Calm down, woman.

It's amusing to see Poon crying 'Heresy!' against Gafcon, given that it's usually the so-called liberals who are spuriously labelled heretics (Gnostics, Arians, Pelagians, Modernists, etc.). Let us take a moment, however, in the spirit of Christian charity, to remember that we are all adherents of the Anglican heresy, praise God. And what we should really be doing is joining together to burn Presbyterians.

[EPH]

Again, Ms. Gledhill. Can you ask Canon Sugden exactly what the purpose of Parts I and 2 are? Since you have included his comments that Poon doesn't know what they are, it would be good to have him set the record straight rather than simply state that Poon has it wrong

[EPH]

From Ruth Gledhill: "Chris Sugden's response to Poon's essay was understandably sniffy.'Canon Dr Michael Poon appears not to know what the GAFCON Pilgrimage really is, and has exercised a creative imagination on this. His view therefore gives no basis for a reasonable comment,' he told me."
Ruth has particular access to conservative, and in particular, GAFCON sources. (Chris Sugden's daughter Joanna works for Ruth Gledhill) What is sadly missing here is Sugden's explanation of the meaning of GAFCON. When +Akinola was challenged by +Jerusalem for bringing essentially a divisive conference to Jerusalem, and, in accordance with the minutes of their discussion, conference organizers denied its political purpose, Sugden offered to change the name to "pilgrimage". Clearly that was not enough as +Jerusalem asked that the conference be held elsewhere. The compromise?, the political part in Jordan and the "pilgrimage" in Jerusalem. (I suggest that this is a compromise but we do not know if it was simply +Jerusalem's concession that it was going to happen whether he liked it or not) So, since Sugden+ has stated that Poon is not aware of the purpose of GAFCON, parts 1 and 2, and, as one of its primary organizers and one who is asking, in particular for financial support of the African bishops and their wives to attend the Jerusalem "pilgrimage" portion, Sugden+ needs to inform Poon (and everyone else) exactly, what the purposes are, are for Jordan and Jerusalem.

(rg notes: fyi of readers, I have never once discussed Gafcon or anything remotely related to it with Jo Sugden and I wouldn't be surprised at all if comments such as this one persuaded her to change her surname before too long. People on this blog complain at the media treatment of the children of bishops and other clebs but have no compunction in subjecting other people's offspring to equally contemptible assumptions. Jo is here because she is a good journalist with great potential. We discuss mainly news, the quality of tea available at The Times (abysmal), the air condition in which we suffocate daily (in contravention I am sure of all HSE regs) and of course our very exciting multi-media project that you can view here.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3364146.ece

Now, let me get my breath back in this airless office and carry on working - and you lot - leave Jo alone! She can't help who her dad is. As a vicar's child myself, I was bullied at school because of what my dear departed dad preached in the pulpit, ie good and wholesome morals, and when I see others bullying clergy children it arouses in me nothing but contempt and disgust.)

[observer]

RG: "However did we all end up in this miserable state?"

As you know, in 2003, all the Primates of the AC begged ECUSA not to go ahead the consecration of a bishop who by his life and teaching condones behaviour which is "incompatible with scripture" according to Lambeth 1.10..... ECUSA went ahead and we have got into the current mess because the ABC has spent the last FIVE years trying to avoid any discipline on ECUSA/TEC despite their actions.

Now the ABC is accused of victimising Gene Robinson by not inviting him to Lambeth and it does seem churlish when many TEC bishops who hold the same views as him (i.e. condoning what is "incompatible with scripture") are invited....the mess deepens as the ABC still tries to keep in the AC both those who condone and those who condemn certain behaviour. Clearly, those who "consecrated" Gene Robinson should not be invited.

GAFCON has around 200 bishops. Lambeth has about 600 bishops ...but this larger number of bishops represents only 20-30% of the Anglicans in the world....and the 20-30% which is shrinking year on year despite being ever so "inclusive". So, Lambeth is being sacrificed for the sake of an unrepentant minority who reject the teaching and discipline of the church.....does this make any sense?

We need a Churchill not a Chamberlain.....we need leadership, not fudge. We need someone to throw over the tables of the money changers (even if the ACO cannot run without TEC money!)

[Steve Hayes]

Has electronic communication at last come of age?

Twenty years ago I was trying to persuade church leaders that communicating through electronic forums before and after face to face conferences could save time at the meetings and make follow-up more effective. There were lots of very expensive meetings that bore no fruit because people forgot what had happened until the next time they met.

No one took the bait, and now the bait has come back to bite them -- on-line forums are now more influential than their very expensive gatherings.

[Mike]

It is my understanding that the mind of mind of Christ should not be sought in isolation, yet that seems to be the point of GAFCON. I believe that "gnostic" becomes an appropriate descriptor when one group (any group) claims precise ownership of the truth and excludes those who don't agree. Lambeth would seem to be the appropriate venue for discussing communion, but one must assume that is not the goal of GAFCON.

[Ian Welch]

I deeply resent the reference to Michael Poon as a 'person of colour'. I think Malcolm+ should immediately retract this grossly offensive error of language that, whatever was intended, denigrates the contribution of one of the most experienced and able Anglican clergyman of this generation.

Ian Welch, Canberra

[Dr Alan Marsh]

We ended up in this miserable state because certain elements of the church, mostly but not all in N America, decided to create a "gospel" of their own, not by reference to the church's scriptures or by agreement with the rest of the Anglican Communion, but in order to conform to the spirit of the secular age which is, by definition, godless.

To adopt an alternative "gospel" is to emulate the gnostics quite closely, for they claimed to have access to things which were denied to the rest of us.

The rest of us would say that we are glad to have the scriptures for our guide, for they are the word of God, not the syllogisms of the rights campaigners on so many an American campus.

It is perfectly legitimate to opt out of a religion and choose a godless philosophy instead. What is not legitimate is to subvert the gospel with a godless philosophy and to proclaim it to be some new revelation unknown to anyone else. That is gnosticism.

[Michael Stevens]

I know this is not exactly the right space but, not having your email I thought I'd try here assuming you'll filter it:
have you seen this article and the charges levelled against Akinola about supporting violence in Nigeria?
http://365gay.com/opinion/besen/besen.htm

Do you have any idea how accurate this is?

(rg writes: I decided to let the commentators here answer this one.)

[robroy]

Poon writes "Doctrinal matters are not central to GAFCON." Yeah right, tell me another.

"It would be reconfigured by the geopolitics of globalisation and of the “global South”. Transnational alliances – with the aim in expanding interests through border crossing – replace geographical dioceses and historic ties as the building blocks of the Communion, and with the same stroke dethrone Canterbury as the focus of unity." As if Rowan Williams is dethroning himself??? The ABC subverted our last, best hope for unity by early invitations, denial of the Sept 30th deadline, and the evaluation of the HoB response scheme which was so (intentionally) convoluted that a full 1/3 of primates and 2/3 of ACC members refused to play. RW is now an instrument of disunity, and the GS primates are trying to move around this obstacle.

[Malcolm+]

I don't see why one self-identified orthodox Anglican can't accuse some other self-identified orthodox Anglicans of this particular heresy. Several of the self-identified orthodox Anglicans in question are quite happy to cast about accusations quite promiscuously.

What we are seeing here is the collapse of the schismatic movement as the real conservatives reject the divisive and viscious tactics of the "conservative" schismatics.

Chris Sugden's superscillious sniff is hardly surprising. After all, this jumped up person of colour isn't following the play book laid down by Sugden, Minns and Ahmonson.