Gafcon: 'The Banned'

The eight men and women pictured here are on the official list of those to be denied entry to Gafcon should they try to show up. 'Not allowed in' it says at the top of the page, given to security officials at the conference. 'The Gafcon 8' as they have been christened, they are Colorado Bishop Robert O'Neill, Nigerian gay activist Davis MacIyalla being embraced by the Church of England's Rev Colin Coward, Louie Crew, Susan Russell, Scott Gunn and Deborah and Robert Edmunds. Bishop O'Neill is staying with Jerusalem primate, Bishop Suheil Dawani, who never wanted the conference here in the first place. Father Edmunds is Bishop Suheil's new chaplain, meaning, as Jim Naughton comments on Thinking Anglicans, that an Anglican meeting is banning entry of the bishop's chaplain in the bishop's own diocese.

Should these or any other activists attempt to breach the security around the conference at the Renaissance Hotel in west Jerusalem the 1,100 delegates have been instructed to start singing the hymn: 'All hail the power of Jesus' name.' In reality though security is extremely tight. Ex-military men from Israel are guarding all the doors, with two assigned purely to guard the Archbishop of Nigeria, Dr Peter Akinola, for the entire week.

Update: A Facebook group, I want to be banned by Gafcon too! has been started by Episcopalians and Anglicans upset to have been left off the list of the banned and within minutes it has acquired more than 50 members and is still growing. As of Tuesday morning it has 229 members. There's a chance I'll be the first one to be on my way to achieving its objective, as I've now been attacked by David Virtue for my reporting on this issue.

The Episcopal Cafe has some interesting comment on all this and more. I think it was this site that came up with Gafcon 8 name for the group, but can't find precise reference. And Susan Russell has an interesting analysis on her blog, asking Who Would Jesus Ban? Susan has accepted my friendship request on Facebook, so in a strange kind of way, Gafcon is bringing certain people together in unexpected ways. Funny how God works sometimes.

Comments

[Christopher]

George, Rick doesn't seem to think he is speaking on behalf of sinners because he is a sinner no more. In answer to J Pearce he said "They were sinners Mr. Pearce..I've already been forgiven for my sorry past life and now serve God." By this he seems to be implying he is no longer a sinner, so no longer does a mean act, no longer harbours unkind or impure thoughts? If so then he is perfect... There have been very few human beings who have attained a state of perfection. Buddhists call it enlightenment, that is awakening from primordial ignorance, so if we measure the sayings of one Rick Beekman against those of the Sakyamuni Buddha we find a chasm of difference. The Buddha's sayings are always benign and uplifting; Rick's on the other hand are too often malign and self-referential to be spoken by an enlightened person: his half understood dictums from one source bound between black rexene covers cobbled together with homespun advice is handed round like cucumber sandwiches. Before he was "saved" I imagine he went round telling people "What you want to do is..." whether they wanted to or not. Now, with a "divine mandate" folk had better sit up and listen to him, however boring or irrelevant they may think his advice.

[George Parr]

Rick, you have an ability to thumb your way relentlessly through the Bible. It remains pointless quoting texts from it in any argument with those who regard much of what it contains as either dubious or totally unlikely. What you are doing is preaching via a repetitive system based on volume, not argument. Outside of the rote-learnt dire warnings, gloomy predictions, colourful rhetoric and deeply offensive commentary, you have nothing to offer.

A personal take on biblical texts is not an excuse for the audacious practice of painting other people as unworthy sinners, or publicly criticising them. You are hiding behind your own absolutist notions to place yourself outside of human rights legislation, accepted codes of behaviour, levels of decorum and human decency. On whose behalf are your speaking exactly - all unworthy sinners', God's or your own?

Even if your life is informed by the straightjacket of fundamental Christianity, what gives you the right to heap it on other people in such a presumptuous manner?

I would discuss the pursuance of forms of identity, achieved by provoking a reaction in others to achieve a personal value relative to an otherwise colourless self-image, but I fear it might be lost on someone for whom Satan is a daily reality.

[Rick Beekman]

J. Pearce;
You made some accusations I'd like you to back up your claims;

(1) about me "casting the first stone" Jesus did tell the Religious hypocrites that wanted to stone to death the woman caught committing adultery. They were sinners Mr. Pearce..I've already been forgiven for my sorry past life and now serve God. How about you Mr. Pearce are you "too good" to humble yourself before your creator and repent?
Jesus said; Luke 13 v 5; "I tell you nay; but except you repent ye shall all likewise perish". So Mr. Pearce I'm Not casting stones rather doing the Lord's work by giving you his word.
(2)you stated; "Are you so egotistically arrogant that you can imagine your version is the right version?"
Mr. Pearce I follow the word of God that's what all people claiming to be christians are supposed to do. "My Version" is the same "Version" taught by Jesus and his Original Apostles.

(3) you stated; "...and flatly contradicting the myriad of Biblical rules."
What exactly have I contradicted. Let's give facts Mr. Pearce Not false accusations shall we?

(4)You stated; "....God gave you a free will he will be most disappointed when he finds out you haven't used it".

Mr. Pearce; First God Knows The end from the beginning there is no such thing as "when HE finds out".
Secondly I pray God is pleased i'm sharing His Word on here with Beleivers..Unbeleivers..an assortment of various individuals.
Jesus told His Apostles (Matthew 28 v 18) "Go ye therefore and teach ALL NATIONS....."
correct me if I am in error..Great Britain is a "Nation" is it not? So I am doing His Will with My Free Will!! Anyway I have no animosity toward you or anyone Mr. Pearce.
Let me leave you with this little tid-bit.

Apostle Paul Once persecuted Christians e en having them sent to death as a Jewish Pharisee. One fine day on the road to Damascus he was blinded by a great white light from heaven. God Spoke to Paul; "Saul Saul why persecutest me"? "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest; it is hard to kick against the pricks" Paul "saw the light" and got converted Mr. Pearce and Became one of The Greatest servants of Jesus.

How about you Mr. Pearce? how long will you continue to defend sinful behavior and then Persecute those of us who try and warn sinners of the consequences?
Are you "tougher" then Apostle Paul?...Don't think so..have a great week anyway!

[Uche sylva]

i begin to wonder the way things are going. and then i asked myself this question? Is this the answer to what is on ground? by placing a ban on others? will our lord Jesus say Yes, a job well done on the last day?
We have a lot of thinking to do before we make decision, so we dont go out of the way.
i beleive this is not the right way.

[Simon Perkins]

So what does GAFCON stand for again - Group of Anglican Fundamentalists Causing Official Nuisance?

[J Pearce]

Mr. Beekman,

I'm not the only one who likes to "rant and rave" about "his perception" of Christianity. I note that you are only to happy to do precisely the same. Isn't their some injunction about "casting the first stone"…?

And have you ever considered that you too have your own "perception" of Christianity? Or, like Mr Channon before you, are you so egotistically arrogant that you can only imagine "your" version is the "right" version? How are you going to explain that one at the Pearly Gates?

By the way, I have no qualms about facing the Big G - if indeed, that ever actually happens (see - I have an open mind on these things. The horror!). I know I'm a flawed but basically decent human being who happens to see through the façade of that ideology you worship so much. Don't fancy your chances much though, matey…not if you keep on thoughtlessly repeating the same old schtick ad nauseam…and flatly contradicting the myriad Biblical rules you seem so keen to foist upon other people.

Remember Rick, God gave you free will. He will be most disappointed when He finds out you haven't used it.

[Rick Beekman]

Bill Channon;
I admire you for your comments regarding this subject. Keep standing up against all the adversity we Christians face daily sir.

J. Pearce Likes to rant and rave about his perception of Christianity. You may as well be talking to a brick wall when talking to J.Pearce.
Mr. Pearce will (Like all of us believe it or not) must stand one day in front of Our Creator who created himself in a Fleshly Body to become everyone's atonement for our sins. I want to see J. Pearce and other self-righteous Know-it-alls Talk their way out of the fate that awaits them. They have a choice while still breathing..Stay in darkness...or come to the light and true knowledge of truth....

[J Pearce]

Nice to see Mr. Channon completely avoid the difficult questions.

A very Christian trait, it appears.

Gafcon is an exercise in coward-facist backslapping. When confronted with really problematic ideologies (ie. Islam), you can bet the mouthy-but-gutless Christians will go running to Mama.

Leave it to secularists to clean up the mess. As usual.

[william rowland]

It is amazing that John does not get it or apparently someone has stuck words in his mouth which violate Christ's Teachings in the copying of the texts down through the ages. We know that they texts are not pure texts and have been manipulated by varous people and translators to uphold thier agendas.

[Malcolm+]

You seem to judge the "anger and frustration" of either side by different standards. Perhaps you have not noticed that the language f many "conservatives" is rich in "anger, contempt, lack of respect and derogatory language." Indeed, many "conservatives" start there.

I don't claim to be a saint (in the popular sense). If, however, you believe that there are no "conservatives" here who are at least as guilty of "anger, contempt, lack of respect and derogatory language (some quite childish)" then ou haven't been paying attention.

[Bill Channon]

Malcolm, There is and has been anger and frustration expressed on both sides.

I was referring to the anger, contempt, lack of respect and derogatory language (some quite childish) that I see in your comments.

Bill Channon

[David Cohen]

Monologistos is quite right. I have trawled through endless reports by the assembled press corps in Jerusalem, and most of it seems to be heavily manufactured stories about those who are on the periphery - about other reporters, mostly, and their various hang-ups.

Friends who are there tell me (using that amazing piece of technology, the telephone) that the reporting bears no resemblance to what is actually being said and done at Gafcon, which is about biblical authority in Anglicanism - rather than the gay issue with which the press seem entirely obsessed.

So far the only real information I have gleaned about Gafcon has come down the telephone line. None of it appears in the press.

[J Pearce]

"As a Christian, I don't believe that folk who engage in homosexual activity should be ordained priests let alone consecrated to be bishops. Why? Because in doing so and making the vows that are required, they cannot do so with integrity."

And that, Mr. Channon, sums up entirely the prejudices you have brainwashed with. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that homosexuals cannot do jobs that heterosexuals can, with equal integrity, application and aptitude.

Except, of course, the evidence that exists in your head.

See what I mean? No, you probably don't.

Anyway, I've given you thre requisite references asked for already in regards to the Akinola quotes. If they can be proved false, I will retract. And I'd still like to know which "interpretaions" of Christianity you consider "perverse" and which ones are acceptable. Or is that yet another value judgement which exists solely inside your head?

[Bill Channon]

Mr. Pearce:

RE: "If it were Muslims locking up - or violently abusing - Christians for the "crime" of their religious persuasion, people like yourself would be apoplectic with rage at the maltreatment of your fellow religionists. But because these are homosexuals we are talking about - and because you hold them in such contempt because you have been brainwashed by Christian ideology - you are prepared to accept that what happens to those innocents in Nigeria is of little or no concern."

Muslims do persecute christians. Punish, put to death, torure. Look at the demographics of Christian populations in muslims countries. Palestine, Iraq, Iran Sudan, Northern Nigeria, Indonesia, Malaysia all have records of severe mistreatment of christians. It is a capital offense for a Muslim to convert to Christianity. Examples of that in England as well as predominantly Muslim countries. How many Christian churches are tolerated in Saudi Arabia. I don't loath Muslims but I do loath their religion.
I have no contempt for homosexuals whatsoever. I have homosexual friends. We know who we are and what we stand for. We argue and laugh at the same time. They know I believe that homosexual behaviour is sinful. I know tht they don't (some struggle with it). I know that I have sin in my life. A few are Christians, some are not. They know me well.
As a Christian, I don't believe that folk who engage in homosexual activity should be ordained priests let alone consecrated to be bishops. Why? Because in doing so and making the vows that are required, they cannot do so with integrity. But then plenty of heterosexual priests and bishops have no business being in their positions for the same reasons Lack of integrity and belief.

"Akinola would like to add another five years for belonging to gay
organisations..."

I'd like to see the sources for the above

[Mary Sue]

One of my favorite hymns! I want to be banned, just so I can walk in and sing along.

[Smurf]

I didn't get an official ban from GAFcon. I'm jealous.

[monologistos]

Judging by all the gnashing of teeth and wailing from the mentally disturbed narcissist camp, one would think that the existence of Christians anywhere in the world is the uttermost insult and threat to their existence. How about some actual reporting on the event and less of the peanut gallery drama?

[Malcolm+]

And Mr. Channon, I note your double standard. Any slander by these pretendy conservatives (who seek not to conserve but to destroy) is acceptable. Any response challenging them on their serial slanders is vitriol.

Riiight.

[Malcolm+]

Were the assorted scismatics merely going to Jerusalem for a quick look about, Stephen's desperate excuse might wash.

However, they were holding ecclesiastical meetings and performing ecclesiastical functions - things they should not be doing without the consent of the bishop with jurisdiction.

Having bullied the said bishop ito accepting his homecrashers, he is now subjected to further indignities.

You are entitled to your own opinios, Stephen. You are not entitled to your own facts.

[J Pearce]

No apologies necessary, Mr Channon. I refer you to a quote on another thread referring to this matter:

"Across that swathe of Africa, homosexuality remains taboo. In northern Nigeria where Sharia law prevails, homosexuals are stoned to death. In the rest of the country they face 14 years in prison, to which Akinola would like to add another five years for belonging to gay organisations, advocating gay marriage or watching gay movies. "Homosexuality seeks to destroy marriage as we know it," he told The Christian Science Monitor last year. "When God created man, he saw man was alone and added a female mate for him. Why didn't he pick one of the baboons, one of the lions to make his partner...?"

If we are to believe the facts in this report are true (the reporter is David Marr of the Sydney Morning Herald), then Akinola promotes locking up innocent people for the "crime" of their sexual persuasion. I have no doubt as to the horrors they might have to endure in a Nigerian prison. This is dehumanisation - pure and simple. Are you prepared to argue that it is not?

If it were Muslims locking up - or violently abusing - Christians for the "crime" of their religious persuasion, people like yourself would be apoplectic with rage at the maltreatment of your fellow religionists. But because these are homosexuals we are talking about - and because you hold them in such contempt because you have been brainwashed by Christian ideology - you are prepared to accept that what happens to those innocents in Nigeria is of little or no concern.

Because they are "sinners" and no doubt, get whats coming to them, right?

Simply put, there is no moral difference between your position and that of the Islamists. It simply comes down to the degree of dehumanisation each religion is prepared to mete out.

Note also that Akinola also equates homosexual relations to bestial ones (along with painting them as a threat to society). This is another, not-so-subtle use of metaphor as a means of dehumanising people who are homosexual. "Gay equals animal" is the message. Which makes it easier to morally justify treating them as such. This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that the Nazi propoganda machine used in the 1930's. Hence I have no qualms in labelling Akinola a "Christofascist".

Furthermore:

"Jensen has distanced himself once or twice from Akinola's abuse, but he has no theological quarrel with the man. The Sydney archbishop commends those Global South Christians who stand shoulder to shoulder with Islam in absolute hostility to homosexuality."

So, your mate Jensen is guilty by association.

By the way, how many "perverse" interpretations of Christianity exist, Mr Channon? And why is yours, or Akinola's, reasonable in comparison?

[Bill Channon]

Mr. Spencer, my apologies! Rereading your entries I realize that I made the false assumption that you were a Christian and therefore understood the basic tenets of what you call 'fairy stories' and those who believe in 'them'.
If it is of interest to you, read, or better yet, listen to the speeches given by 'crunchy nut Akinola' and his fellow speakers. If you understood these people, you would know that they do not dehumanize gays, let alone imprison them (the government does that) or put them to death (the Muslims do that). If by dehumanizing gays you mean that they believe that homosexual activity is a sin, then that is quite true ... as is adultery, divorce, etc.

As for using these 'fairy stories' to justify committing acts of inhuman cruelty, then I completely agree with you, and there have been many, many terrible instances of that over the years ... but those have been acts indicative of their own perverse interpretation of Christianity.
Anyway, once again, my apologies. I mistook you for what you are clearly not.

Bill Channon

[J Pearce]

Mr Channon,

The particular nuances of whichever fairy stories you religious folk wish to choose to believe or ignore, are of nothing more than vague bemusement to myself.

However, when you use these fairy stories to justify real acts of inhumane cruelty against innocent people, that’s when it gets serious. Your fellow crunchy nut, Akinola, actively pursues a policy of dehumanising homosexuals. Jensen stands foursquare behind him. There is nothing to separate them from the way that Islamists treat gays. Fact.

Gafcon is a gathering of what I am now referring to as "Christofascists", a schismatic sect of Christianity which clearly see's its role as equalling or usurping the puritanical zealotry of fundamentalist Islam. I'm pretty certain the Nazi party didn't let Jews into their rallies; the same mindset clearly lies behind the Gafcon bannings.

[Malcolm+]

By what authority, O Nameless Slanderer, do yo proclaim that the Bishop in Jerusalem is not allowed to appoint an American as his chaplain?

And why, O Slandermonger, do you insist on perpetuating the lie that any action by any person in the Global South which rejects the destructive and scismatic agenda of the GAFFEPRONE must therefore have been bought, or otherwise controlled by TEC?

Perhaps you would do well to reflect on the ninth commandment.

[Bill Channon]

To Mr. Pearce:

RE: "Furthermore, what now makes them any different to the various branches of fundamentalist Islam?"

Gafcon folk believe that Jesus is the only way, the only truth and the only life. And, as Jesus said ...no man comes to the Father except by me.
I know that Muslims would take great exception to that.

Furthermore, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church does not believe that Jesus is the only way -probably the single greatest problem that traditional Christians have with +Schori and the Episcopal Church.

RE: "I hope all those vociferous commentators on this blog who belittle liberal Anglicanism, in favour of those who follow the Gafcon path, now understand exactly the kind of people they are allied with."

I am a traditional Christian and I am a child of God through Jesus' atonement on the cross where I accepted forgiveness for my sins. He is the Lord of my life -and whether you agree with them or not, so are those invited to Gafcon.

RE: "After all, why ban fellow Christians from a Christian event - unless you have something deeply unpleasant to hide..?"

That is one of the silliest comments on this thread of comments. Read their speeches.

>>merseymike Homfray: good to see you here. Isn't Gafcon the beginning of everything you've hoped for: the splitting of the WWAC into two?

>>Malcolm: are you really a priest? I've never known one who writes such bile and vitriol on a public blog.

[Stephen Marsden]

Malcolm writes: '. . . foisted themselves on the Anglican Church in Jerusalem . . .'

Simply.

Not.

True.

I went for a pint in London this lunchtime, and failed to mention my excursion to the Bishop of London before I set out. Not because I didn't want to distract him from sticking well-deserved pins into a model of Fr Dudley, but because it was none of his business.

Just like it's none of +Jerusalem's business where +Akinola et al spend their summer hols.

So, really, the proper analogy is this:

"A bit like giving a dinner party in a holiday home you've rented, inviting lots of your friends, and then not welcoming all the local gate crashers who drop round and who happen not - by any stretch of the imagination - to be your friends."

[st. anonymous]

"Bishop's own chaplain"? Edmunds is an American who was recently parachuted into the Jerusalem diocese by TEC. Why on earth would GAFCON want a hostile mole at their pilgrimage/conference?

[Malcolm+]

Well Milton, do you have any evidencde t suggest that any of these idividuals proposed to disrupt proceedigs? Since at least two of them made no effort even to go to Jerusalem, it seems a bit of a stretch.

Bishop O'Neill was asked to observe. Why are these "fearless" frauds so afraid to let this observer in the room? What is the root of this "conservative" cowardice?

It is an interesting contrast that conservatives were not banned from attending the consecration of Bishop Robinson. Indeed, they were given the formal opportunity to raise their objection to the proceedings.

It seems the liberals are not so timid and feart as the "conservatives."

[J Pearce]

Ah, I see Saint, only Christians who just happen to conform to your own personal interpretations of Christianity and bizarre prejudices, are allowed to be classed as "true" Christians - whereas, all the millions of others who fall outside of that hallowed category happen to be apostate?

That doesn't sound at all like the ramblings of a deluded, arrogant worshipper at the altar of his own ego. Oh no.

I mean, why not go the whole hog and set up your own branch of Christianity? There are plenty of precedents. Your mate Akinola is giving it a good go!

Or why not just call yourself Islamic? It sounds so much more you.

I am truly amazed (Ok, actually, I'm not in the slightest bit surprised) at the apologists for Gafcon, creeping out of the woodwork like some unpleasant fungal growth, trying to justify what is essentially sectarianism, by calling it "a private party".

By the way, could somebody explain to me how, on the one hand, you have Biblical commands such as 2 John 9-11 (summary: "if you're not a Christian, bog off you evil scum") - used here to justify the very existence of Gafcon - and on the other, we are constantly being told how Christians "love" everyone else (including non-Christians) and how that they have a "mission" to proselytise through persuasion?

I mean, how are you supposed to persuade a person to become a Christian, when you are commanded to slam the door in their faces?

[Father Christian Troll]

Since humanity has been waiting almost 2,000 years for God to finally separate the sheep from the goats who can blame Archbishop Akinola and his fellow pilgrims for deciding to get the ball rolling themselves?
It’s just disappointing to see that the list of those condemned to the outer darkness (where there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth) comprises a mere eight names – I’d have expected the pilgrims to be far less liberal in this regard.

[Bruce]

My mouth dropped when I saw the Edmunds mentioned in the same breath with RalphM's comment "Those on the "banned list" have demonstrated their intent to disrupt gatherings of those whith whom they disagree." As Rev Edmunds has been the Rector of my small parish in Edgartown for the past 15 years, I find this statement ludicrous. Bob and I have disagreed many times over the years (he's far more conservative compared than I!!) and, yet he has never disrupted any gathering I've been at with him! Whoever added them to this elite list obviously knows nothing of them, other than that they are Americans...behavior and action that seems the antithesis of Christian faith and constructive dialogue.

[Milton]

Well, Scott+, you seem to be milking this for all it's worth and then some. Frankly, I think there should be observer seating for any reasonable number of folks of liberal or conservative persuasion (space and security limitations only) as long as they only observed and did not disrupt. At any rate, no one can really pretend the procedings are being hidden, unless they fear reading anything that disagrees with their own views too much to go to T19 or SFIF for their coverage including videos, or to Google the various MSM reports.

By the way, all and sundry, just why, other than to observe quietly, would you be interested in going to GAFCON?

[RalphH]

It should be made clear that conservatives would argue that bishops and others who support homosexual practice have separated themselves from the body of Christ and should not have been invited to Lambeth. By inviting them, by NOT inviting all conservative bishops, and by refusing to confront the crisis head-on, the Archbishop of Canterbury has placed himself into the ranks of the worst Christian leaders in history.

One may accuse the conservatives of "malicious dishonesty". Go ahead; call us names. We would see it as being honest before God, in advocating the full exclusion of self-avowed, practicing, and unrepentant sinners who would furthermore teach (while in Holy Orders) that homosexual practice is not sinful.

Thank heaven that there is a Gafcon 8! No more useless dialogue. It's time for action.

[Harold]

What does sexual orientation have to do with sexual behavior? Can anyone remember here remember the day they chose their sexual orientation? Does anyone here believe that the writers of Leviticus knew more about human sexuality than the medical community does today, in the 21st century? Should 200 years of biblical scholarship and 100 years of human sexuality research be ignored so that the uninformed won't be made to feel uncomfortable in church?

[Malcolm+]

RalphM's slanders havig been effectively dealt with, I note that Stephen Marsden attempts a similar analogy.

"A bit like giving a dinner party in your own home really."

Stephen is to be commended for NOT using the same slanders as Relph. However, the analogy is still problematical.

The GAFFEPRONE leadership foisted themselves on the Anglican Church in Jerusalem, announcing their meetings there with no advanced consultation and effectively telling Bishop Dawani to get stuffed when he objected.

Now, among the banned, they have included a Bishop of the Anglican Communion who is Bishop Dawani's guest, and they have also included Bishop Dawani's chaplain.

So, really, the proper analogy is this:

"A bit like giving a dinner party in somebody else's home, really - and restricting the movements of the homeowners family and friends."

[Lawrence L. Graham]

Congratulations to the banned Grafton Eight. It is a high honour to have been chosen as those most hated for sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ among the Samarians.

[Robert]

Jesus Christ transforms our life, which includes our sexual behaviour. 'All hail power of Jesus' name' is what the Church needs to sing to all the world as we become more dis-orientated from Christ and one another. Thank God for Gafcon with their heart for healing. Sing out!

[Colin Coward]

RalphM posted 23 Jun 2008 12:56:33:
"Those on the "banned list" have demonstrated their intent to disrupt gatherings of those whith whom they disagree. A host has the right to bar the non-invited."

Speaking as one of the banned, I have never disrupted a meeting nor have I planned to disrupt Gafcon. As can be seen, the leaders of Gafcon are doing so themselves, very successfully. They don't need Davis or Louie or Scott or myself.

Ralph's post demonstrates yet again the malicious dishonesty of those who object to the full inclusion of LGBT people. I rejoice that our holy endeavour is being given such publicity by the Gafcon leaders.

[saint]

There you go, Ruth's next post is about a "dialogue" with the official representative of the LGCM... who's not even Anglican. LOL.

[Albion]

Giles, only actual troublemakers are excluded. You're not on the list because the odd court jester would be mildly amusing. Still, you could always show up for the Parade, provided you haven't trashed the Jews too much recently.

[Stephen Marsden]

I guess that Dr Fraser can't be as much of a key player as he thinks he is!

[fs]

There is a difference between "not invited" and "not allowed" or "banned."

In civilized (you know: grown up) circles, the latter are not normally used.

[Giles Fraser]

I feel so insulted that I'm not on the list.

[Malcolm+]

Personally, I'm a bit hurt not to have been included.

Now, had any of these people said "I'm going to GAFFEPRONE in order to disrupt the proceedings," I could see it. But to my knowledge the only ones intending to be in the vicinity, Bishop O'Neill and Fr. Edmunds, have never indicated such an intention.

Apparently the GAFFEPRONE leadership are afraid to let the rest of the world see what they do there. That says it all, really.

And BTW, the bizarre parallel to Bishop Robinsin is, like much of "conservative" apologia, a load of bovine excrement. Bishop Robinson has not indicated any intentio of forcing his way into any private or in camera sessions. He was invited to set up shop like a sideshow freak - an insulting invitation he rightly turned down. He will wander about the fringes, attending public postios of the events.

Your "conservative" case is not enhanced when it uses blatant falsehoods.

[Dr. Mike Homfray]

The point is that those they have banned remain Anglican whether the GASCONites like it or not. I just wonder why they wish to remain in an organisation which contains people who they don't even regard as being of the same religion. They must surely know that the chances of a (liberal) third of the CofE being expelled is moonshine

[Rev Rowland Jide Macaulay]

I am not surprise at the extent in which people will go to bar the opportunity to have dialogues that will bring meaningful change to the world we live in. The actions of Archbishop Akinola and his contemporaries are creating chaos in Nigeria and the rest of the world. Is anyone surprise that he is being provided more body guards, what are they afraid of?. Many gay and lesbian Christians are further discriminated against in Nigeria because of this man's single action of stubbornness. By naming and displaying pictures of these noble eight men and women of God shows the lack of honor, respect and love. I think people should go back to basics and read their bible, ref Romans 12:9-21, 1 John 4:7-21. What these eight people stand for is the love of God for all people and the inclusiveness of the gospel of the love of Jesus, perseverance in difficult times. After al I am certain that the government officials have not denied any of these people entry to the country, I feel strong that those who intend to attend should be encouraged to attend and other activists who feel led should assemble. Friends, keep your eyes on the prize and not the task. You are all in my thoughts and prayers. Rev Jide

(rg writes: just to note, the pictures were not publicly displayed, they were merely held by some people here trying to police the conference.)

[Stephen Marsden]

'Besides, what do the attendees of Gafcon have to fear from an observer for the Presiding Bishop of TEC witnessing what they are doing?' asks Caoilin.

Good question. Perhaps Bishop Schofield, or Bishop Cox, or Bishop MacBurney will drop by and answer it!

[saint]

You make a mistake J Pearce, in claiming they are fellow Christians. Indeed, based on your comments on this blog, I doubt that you are in a position to judge.

In any case, some people's double standards are showing: this is a gathering by invitation, like Lambeth.

Bishop Suheil Dawani does not own Israel, nor Jerusalem. He has no authority -moral, civil or otherwise to stop other Anglicans, Catholics, Christians of any tradition, Jews, gays or whoever from gathering any place they like in Jerusalem for peaceful purposes.

The GAFCON organisers tried to accommodate his concerns (and they were concerns not a directive, even Dawani is not that dumb) by holding part of the gathering in Jordan until events forced a change of plan. One need not agree with the GAFCON gathering to concede that they made an effort.

And it is not he who is banned, but the chaplain "donated" and planted by the ECUSA

The idea that some are to be denied entry should they show up, is no doubt because of some people's track record.

Gay activists are not exactly noted for their tact - and are sometimes criticized by their fellow activists. Recall, for example, our Canadian gay militia gatecrashers (and imagine how the Israelis would respond to any such stunt on their turf). Or our little Rainbow crowds who rock up with sashes at Catholic masses demanding communion (always with the media suitably forewarned). Or the dishonest media tarting by some GLBT groups.

Imagine if Akinola led a contingent to gatecrash a GLCM gathering. You'd be hearing the luvvies howls on the moon.

[Aaron]

The Canadian hymnal, Common Praise, lists two tunes for "All Hail the Power of Jesus' Name". Imagine the confusion...did they pass out a copy of the music? Might one version indicate enemy sighting on the perimeter and the other actual penetration into the meeting itself? Is there a back-up hymn in case the intruder cannot be removed within six verses, or do they repeat as needed?

So many technical questions left unanswered.

[Jay]

How incredibly pathetic! It's unfortunate that hot heads on btoh sides don't seem to want to make things better - is this how the shepherds of the body of Christ are supposed to act?

[Caoilin]

According to the article, Bishop O'Neill was invited to Jerusalem by the Bishop of Jerusalem, the host of Gafcon, who was himself not consulted about whether or not it was okay to have the conference in his diocese. This hardly qualifies as gate crashing to me!

Besides, what do the attendees of Gafcon have to fear from an observer for the Presiding Bishop of TEC witnessing what they are doing?

[David Cohen]

Perfectly reasonable behaviour.

These are potential troublemakers whose only reason for attempting to gatecrash the conference would be to cause disruption.

[joe]

Hahahahaha.

I'm sorry, that is excellent.

[the Reverend boy]

How can I get on the list?

[Timothy Fountain]

Dr. Homfray: because the "other Anglicans" are by and large the lobbyists of a single-issue faction, so insistent on their its own satisfactions that it has "torn the fabric" of the communion.

Guests who would burn down your house.

[J Pearce]

Fair comment from Dr. Mike.

In light of this behaviour, what else can Gafcon be described as, except a gathering of a Christian sect, dedicated to excluding all others who do not follow their fundamentalist ideology?

Furthermore, what now makes them any different to the various branches of fundamentalist Islam?

I hope all those vociferous commentators on this blog who belittle liberal Anglicanism, in favour of those who follow the Gafcon path, now understand exactly the kind of people they are allied with.

After all, why ban fellow Christians from a Christian event - unless you have something deeply unpleasant to hide..?

[Michael Ryan]

They claim to be Anglican, but wish to ban others who also have that claim because the GAFCON attendees believe that ECUSA, the Anglican Church of Canada and large elements of the Church of England are Apostate.

[Scott Gunn]

Thanks for sharing this. I am honored to be in such company. To foil the plans of GAFCON's organizers, I'm going to walk around humming "All hail the power of Jesus' name" back home here in Rhode Island.

[robroy]

Gene Robinson is not invited to Lambeth, but he is going anyway. O'Neill is not invited to GAFCon, but he goes anyway. We have a pattern developing.

I particularly like the choice of the hymn to be sung if Rob O'Neill or other intruders shows up.

[Stephen Marsden]

Bizarre? Oh, come on! You organise a meeting, you invite who you want to be there and you tell anyone else who turns up uninvited to go away. A bit like giving a dinner party in your own home really. (Unless, of course, where Dr H comes from, it's considered good manners to gatecrash private events.)

[Margaret]

RE: "How can they seriously claim to be part of the Anglican church when they wish to ban other Anglicans from their meetings?"

Ah, come come -- they are all -- both banned and non-banned -- a part of Anglican Communion provinces and the vast vast vast majority recognized by Lambeth. That's how.

Otherwise we'd have to ask this question: "How can "the banned" seriously claim to be Anglican when they're not even recognized by 70% of the Anglican Communion as Christians?"

And I'm sure we wouldn't wish to ask *that* question, now would we?

[robroy]

Unanglican, Mr Humphrey? I believe that Lambeth also requires an invitation.

Unchristian? Hardly. "I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber."

O'Neill (et al) certainly knew they were not invited and not welcome.

[Nigel Cundy]

Not bizarre, just an application of 2 John 9-11

9 Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.
10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting,
11 for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

[RalphM]

GAFCON is by invitation only. If I were to host a gathering and send out invitations, would I be expected to admit everyone who showed up at the door?

Those on the "banned list" have demonstrated their intent to disrupt gatherings of those whith whom they disagree. A host has the right to bar the non-invited.

[David Palmer]

Well, its an excellent choice of hymn....

[Dr. Mike Homfray]

What bizarre behaviour

How can they seriously claim to be part of the Anglican church when they wish to ban other Anglicans from their meetings?