What a thoughtful and speedy, primatial response. And given with such generosity and grace.

http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/

I don't agree. The response fails to see that the ideology and the structures are part of the same package. It is like Kinnock calling Militant "good socialists" and then criticising their organisational system.

Sadly, the ABC still does not seem to be able to see, perhaps admit, that his choices DIRECTLY led to GAFCON.

The ABC had (maybe still has) one effective means of discipline i.e. Lambeth invitations. He knew that the GAFCON leaders (including +Rochester, not just ++Akinola!) would not be coming to Lambeth if he invited those who knowingly tore the "fabric of the Communion" in 2003...but he did it anyway....ignoring Fulcrum and the ACI, perhaps because of their slavish loyaly to him desipte his actions.

So, GAFCON gets 300+ bishops, the leaders of the vast majority of the Anglicans in the world who actually pitch up on Sundays  (let's not pretend TEC get 2m and the CofE 26m....), and the ABC talks of legitimacy..............he should have thought about that in relation to those TEC bishops and his Lambeth invitation list.

We are where we are because the ABC has done everything he can to please TEC despite its deliberate tearing of "the fabric of the Communion"........and GAFCON leaders are asked to come to "indabas" which will result in no decisions, no progress, no resolution.........laughable.

Take some responsibilty for the mess you have created, ABC..... big mistake with the Lambeth invitation list..... does the ABC really think Lambeth will be the best it can be for the AC with the unrepentant, heterodox Schori, Ingham and Bruno participating fully, pushing their "liberal" agenda, at the cost of not having the positive contribution of +Rochester, ++Orombi and ++Jensen????

Why does the ABC lack moral authority in most of the AC today?  Put it this way, if he had listened to Fulcrum, the ACI and +Durham, GAFCON would never have happened.....but he has given TEC's leaders much more support than they deserve given their unilateral, arrogant and sinful actions in 2003

One of the problems I have with what is written here by Nersen is that for some reason he does not use his actual name for some reason. Contributions to this forum, whatever their tone, I read more readily if people write under their name. Please!

Eh, Ken......I trust that is your name.....just to help you with one "problem" you mention you have with me, my real name is.......guess what....Nersen.

Would you like to check my passport and birth certificate?

Some of the GAFCON press conference from today's event at All Souls, langham Place can be heard here.

http://www.premier.org.uk/news/current/gafcon%20leaders%20head%20to%20london.aspx

Features Archbishops Orombi, Venables and Jensen

The Press conference from the Gafcon meeting is available here, along with the perspective of Graham Kings:

http://www.premier.org.uk/news/current/gafcon%20leaders%20head%20to%20london.aspx

Thanks Nersen for your reply. I apologise for any offence. Nersen is possibly Danish or Norwegian - or even Turkish.

Ken(neth) is on my birth, baptismal and various other certificates and has been for 80 years.

My presumption is that you write from the point of view of someone directly affected by the TEC viewpoint - but not orthodox theology.

My viewpoint or hope is/was what was written in the Windsor Report. Much depends now on what happens at Canterbury.

In the meantime parishes get on with ministering the Gospel in the situation in which they are set. Many people in congregation will never have heard of Gafcon, the Lambeth Conference or whatever. They have a constant source of direction!

I have listened to Graham Kings calm and considered response to the Gafcon statement and would recommend it as essential listening.(See Newswatch for link to Premier Radio)

I would take issue with him on a fundamental point he makes,which is "by what authority is all this being done" - Graham, forgive the paraphrase.

Is not the ultimate steward of the Gospel the people of God rather than an inherited ecclesiastical structure ? If these developments are a work of the Holy Spirit, then His Church will respond to them. If men with feet of clay are behind it all, surely it will go nowhere. 

It is incidentally a real tonic to hear a Fulcrum commentary which is entirely devoid of rancour. It is obvious that Graham would be willing to conduct a civil conversation with  Peter Jensen and others if the need arose.

Would that such a calm and mature spirit could be found across this forum

Peter H 

Peter,

You ask "is not the ultimate steward of the Gospel the people of God rather than an inherited ecclesiastical structure?"

Indeed it is. But it isn't some of the People of God. It's the whole people of God, the community of the baptised. And for the whole people of God to come to some conclusion about what is or is not a legitimate expression of the Gospel, does it not require some form of historical and tried ecclesial structure to enable that discerning and reception to occur?

No offence taken, Ken.   I realise my name is not common.

Sounds like we share similar views and hopes

Sad thing is that The Windsor Report is being talked into the long grass in order to keep TEC happy....for example, if Windsor recommendations had been taken, GAFCON would not have happened as TEC bishops would not have been invited to Lambeth. 

Given his decisions in the last 5 years, I am really not sure why you hope anything positive will come out of a Lambeth conference specifically designed to avoid any decisions....just indabas or talking...... but, I must not be negative and we must all pray for people like Tom Wright and Greg Venables as they work for the gospel in difficult circumstances (and certainly against the LamPal bureaucracy).  I sympathise with GAFCON but I also wish they were all turning up to Lambeth to work with +Durham and others. All is not lost:  Prov 3:5-7