There are two new documents on the website of the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches:
The full list of those attending is copied here below the fold. It includes three active clergy of the Church of England, John Dunnett (Chelmsford diocese), Richard Moy (London diocese), and Nicky Gumbel (London diocese).
Participating Primates
The Most Revd Dr Justin Badi, Province of the Episcopal Church of South Sudan
The Most Revd Tito Zavala, The Anglican Church of Chile
The Most Revd Titre Ande, Province of the Anglican Church of Congo (via Zoom)
The Most Revd James Wong, The Anglican Church of the Indian Ocean
The Most Revd Stephen Than, The Church of the Province of Myanmar (via Zoom)
The Most Revd Foley Beach, The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA)
The Most Revd Stephen Kaziimba, the Church of the Province of Uganda
The Most Revd Ezekiel Kondo, Province of the Episcopal Church of Sudan
The Most Revd Miguel Uchoa Cavalcanti, Anglican Church in Brazil
The Most Revd Dr Samy Shehata, The Episcopal / Anglican Province of Alexandria
The Most Revd Albert Chama, The Church of the Province of Central Africa
The Most Revd Henry Ndukuba, The Church of Nigeria
The Most Revd Laurent Mbanda, The Anglican Church of Rwanda
The Most Rev Dr Mouneer Anis, Archbishop Emeritus, Anglican Province of Alexandria
Observers
The Most Revd Azad Marshall, Moderator of the Church of Pakistan
Revd Canon John Dunnett, Church of England Evangelical Council
Bishop Malcolm Richards, Diocese of Sydney
Bishop Fraser Lawton, Communion Partners, USA
Revd Nicky Gumbel, Alliance, UK
Revd Richard Moy, Sharing of Ministries Abroad, UK
Revd Canon Charles Raven, The Relay Trust
Mr. Stewart Wicker, SAMS, USA
Bishop Tim Davies, Anglican Mission in England
Revd Philip de-Gray Warter, Anglican Convocation in Europe
It is not as if the Nicene Creed is being disputed. What’s all this about “Orthodoxy”? It comes across as hugging the term, and denying it to others. Quite risible if it wasn’t so sad.
They call themselves “Orthodox” because “the only real Christians” is too many letters.
Yeah, it’s a bit of a PR move. I mean, a smart PR move – being called ‘conservatives’ risks seeming too explicitly partisan – at least insofar as that it’s attempting to signal something internally to other Christians. I’m not sure it means very much to non-Christians, but then I’m not sure that’s the point.
There’s a tendency to enrobe themselves with the term ‘orthodox’, because it makes them sound important, like the preservers of our most important and noble framework.
But as you say this is about one relatively secondary issue, that Jesus himself never mentioned in the three years he spent teaching about salvation.
So it’s not a core bit of doctrine. One wonders then why then are they so very worked up about it? The answer that comes to mind is depressing.
As one with no iron in the fire and for whom the situation is settled, I think the claim given by the GFSA follows the argument: 1) the practice of homosexual sex is sinful; 2) what is sinful is not holy; 3) attempting to bless what is sinful is not holy; 4) giving licence to bless what is sinful is not holy; 5) the CofE seeks to give licence to bless what is sinful; 6) therefore the CofE is not holy. 7) the Nicene Creed says that the Church is Holy; 8) therefore the CofE is not part of the… Read more »
Except the CofE is not even close to blessing same-sex relationships. Besides which they’d have a much stronger argument if they’d drawn the line at the remarriage of divorcees, yet another area where the various members diverge, but somehow that isn’t sufficient to set about dividing sheep from goats.
Of course you’re right here, Jo. I suspect that the Synod vote earlier this year somehow (don’t ask me how) signalled an intention to bless SSM and this was enough for the argument to work its way out. I have no idea how they square it with Divorce and Remarriage. Let them find their own consistency.
You are mistaken in your analysis. The issue is the authority of the bible, not membership (or lack of membership) of a Church/denomination.
I would be grateful if I could be spared a general tirade. I am just pointing out a fact.
You’ll get no tirade from me. It’s your fight, not mine. I’m glad for the correction as it helps me understand the situation very clearly.
‘I am just pointing out a fact.’
No, you’re not. I believe in the authority of the Bible as strongly as you do.
Tim, please, be fair.
I was making the point it is about the bible and not about belong to a denomination, as was implied in the logic cascade produced by Warwickenesis.
That is all.
One of the C of E observers Richard Moy has blogged his reflections on the Cairo meetings at some length here https://yournameislikehoney.com/2023/10/20/4234/
What’s all this about “Generals”? Sounds more like a meeting of The Salvation Army (though I have respect for them).
“Generals” doesn’t jibe with “servant leader” as they insist they are. I notice that Andy Lines is referred to as “lead bishop”; he’s currently officially titled “Presiding Bishop”, which is a bit more grand. I’m also intrigued by “prayer shed.”
Didn’t John Smyth QC run a “prayer shed”?
The term gives me the shivers. Have they tried praying in church? Also reminds me of American tele-evangelist, Oral Roberts, who for a generous donation naturally, would ascend his “prayer tower”. What a load of dangerous twaddle.
Nicky Gumbel says he wants everyone around the table, but he obviously does not.
I’d have thought observers would just be observers – but Gumbel appears to be more than that (from Moy’s description). I thought Charles Raven didn’t have a CofE post – if so how can he be a canon (or do I not understand these things?!)
I’ve looked up Raven’s entry in Crockford’s. As you say he no longer has a licence or PTO in the CofE. But he is an honorary canon of both All Saints Cathedral, Nairobi, Kenya and St Anselm’s Cathedral, Sunyani, Ghana.
A double – barreled canon.
Sad to see at least one old friend on that list.
Dear Tim, I’m genuinely curious as to what is “sad.” This is a major bloc of Christian leaders from the Global South who are observing the disorganization and dysfunction of the Anglican Communion as presently in place. Is that disputed? From these pages at TA the constant drone of dissatisfaction and concern is now a hallmark. Be it the ABC, the AB of York, the Bishops themselves, safeguarding, the treatment of Deans, the severely dropping attendance figures, treatment of women clergy (on one side) or Anglo-Catholics wishing to guard their historical teaching. What one might find odd is the patience… Read more »
If there were no LGBTQ people there would be no need for this “major bloc of Christian leaders”.
I know this is a central topic for you. “When all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail.” The catholicism of a ‘covenant concept’ as proposed by Rowan Williams, was a view of anglicanism a lot of the Communion believed in already, and wanted to affirm. Others didn’t. The GSFA wants a conciliar form of Communion. Others don’t. I fail to see why both shouldn’t get their way. Surely this is more productive than insisting everyone get on board with a late modern account in which LGBTQ+ issues predominate. You are welcome to that and the ecclesiology it… Read more »
LGBTQ+ issues predominate in the Global South which gave birth to an anti-gay movement whose members vilify other Christians. The “modern account of LGBTQ issues” is the sole reason the “conservatives” have a hammer with which to nail gay people. That is why Gafcon was established. Why can’t you simply dissociate yourself from this homophobic organisation?
Anglican Priest sets out an analysis and his own “via media” sentiments. That is all.
I have no idea what he thinks about Gafcon and he is under no obligation to say what he thinks
Why on earth should he be required to disassociate himself from them ?
This is the language of ideology in which we must condemn anything and anybody on demand
It’s sad because the only common thread linking these Anglicans (and separating them from others) is their hatred of LGBT people. There are evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics, pro-ordination of women and anti-, but the one thing they agree on is continuing cruelty to gay people. Oh, some of them dress it up in theological clothing but if they’re more willing to sit alongside bishops who want LGBT people murdered than they are those who accept them it’s fairly obvious where their priorities lie.
You are not listening to what Anglican Priest is actually saying
No, I just think he’s wrong, or at least incomplete, in his analysis. The desire to be able to bind communion members to particular rules via the Anglican Covenant or similar measures is inextricably linked to the desire to punish those who diverge from its proponents on the treatment of LGBT people. Its origin in the Windsor report makes this abundantly clear.
My daughter is in a same sex marriage. Many of my closest friends are LGBTQI+ Christians. As FrDavidH has said, this group would not exist if it had not been for the desire to underline their belief that my daughter’s sex life is an abomination. I don’t think it takes a Doctorate in Divinity to figure out why I’m sad that one of my old friends would participate.
They seem to have pulled the wool over your eyes and convinced you that they are somehow a bunch of reasonable people wanting to find a reasonable comprise with the Anglican communion.
They are people that hate alternative sexualities and want to exclude people from the Anglican church in that basis. They are using the word “orthodox” to hide the fact that they are prepared to be schismatics.
Trust action, not words here.
There are anglicans–believe it or not–that feel the LGBT issue is subsidiary to issues of ecclesiology and historical Christian faith. I am one of them. I believe we are watching the full collapse of so-called progressive Christianity. My last book was on Catholicity and Canon. I don’t have to sign onto the GSFA to know they are correct that the present Anglican Communion must reconfigure or it will collapse. I find that position unassailable, and those who don’t see it, have wool pulled over their eyes. My comment had to do with a divorce already in place, so progressives can… Read more »
All that talk of ‘here come the generals’ and ‘spiritual battle both within the church and with the world that is hostile to God’s reign.’
Are lesbian and gay peeps their enemies?
I mean no one would ever say that
There are some fairly questionable views held by a number of these primates. Henry Ndukuba called homosexuality a virus which needs to be expunged; Stephen Kaziimba supported the recent anti-gay bill in Uganda which included calls for the death penalty in some cases. But no mention of that by Richard Moy in his blog. Better, it seems, to associate with people who want to criminalise (or even kill) gay people, than people who want to bless them. The former represent ‘orthodox’ christianity; the latter will result in (apparently, according to Nicky Gumbel) ‘the death of the Church of England’. Killing… Read more »
I read the Moy blog, & was amazed that such a jejeune piece could be produced by an experienced priest in his 40s.
I read the Moy piece last night and decided to sleep on it first! Having just reread it, I’d make the foillowing comments. It’s entitled ‘Letters to the charismatic churches’, as though there are other which aren’t. As I understand it, if you’re born of God’s spirit you are charismatic in the true, simplest meaning of the word. Why use the word as a distinctive, as if trying to imply a sense of sperateness (or possible superiority)? For the record, yes, I believe in the baptism of the spirit, who comes at conversion, and have ministered in the gifts as… Read more »
Richard Moy was elected to the General Synod for Lichfield in 2005, while a curate. I rather liked him, despite the evident naivety, which he would have admitted. He was poleaxed at what he found. I tried to help him navigate. Unfortunately he got a taste for Church of England politics.
If the only thing bringing these men together is their hatred of LGBTIQ people, and their desire, in some cases, to jail or eradicate them altogether, they are welcome to each others company. If that is what it means to be ‘orthodox’ I am pleased that I’m probably not. These views are very similar to those which have led to mass killings of those perceived to be ‘other’ in many countries represented in this list. Why let a few nasty details get in the way when it is allegedly bringing hope and unity, whatever that means, in this context. Have… Read more »
Why do you talk of ‘hatred’ of gay people? There is no hatred, but there is sadness about something which is condemned in scripture. Where else can we find what the LORD wants us to do? Truth is not only epistemological, it is also moral.
Life imprisonment for “purporting to contract a marriage with another person of the same sex”, as prescribed by the Ugandan Anti-homosexuality Act of 2014, with the full support of the Anglican Archbishop of Uganda at the time, is pretty harsh. I think you could reasonably describe it as hatred. What do you consider it to be? Loving? . And genuinely, these are your allies? You prefer to be in fellowship with Christians who support the death penalty for gay people (because at least they are following the Lord’s will?), rather than those like me who want to offer them blessings?… Read more »
We talk about ‘hatred’ as that is what has been directed at LGBT people. It’s what we have experienced
The anti-gay bill in Uganda called for the death penalty and was supported by the Archbishop of Uganda. He has since said he does not support the death penalty, but regards homosexuality as criminal behavior. More than sadness.
Trevor, Maris talks of hatred of gay people because there is hatred of gay people, in this country and in other parts of the Anglican Communion. Supporting legislation that criminalises LGBTQIA+ people as Anglican Archbishops, bishops and Provinces have done and refusing at accept that our lives and loves are equal to heterosexuals is hateful and hating. Your comment that there is not hatred but sadness about something condemned in scripture reveals an attitude that creates space for and fuels hatred.
I am straight, but I have experienced a degree of bile for supporting the right of LGBTI+ people to attend church (let alone anything else). This included me being called ‘less than a Christian’ and ‘worse than an atheist’ – and this in a typical English market town where I provided pastoral support to a family where one member was transitioning. Earlier in my ministry, I was told that I shouldn’t be a Christian minister because I concluded in a sermon based on the parable of the wheat and the tares that judgement was better given to God than exercised… Read more »
I talk about hatred because that is what is driving much of this. When we deny that someone is made in God’s image and likeness, when we ‘Other ‘ them to the point of justifying their imprisonment and death for no other reason than their sexuality, it is not coming from sadness, love or compassion or the Scriptures. Scapegoating any group of people to deflect attention from what is really wrong in our societies or churches or wherever, is not coming from a healthy, moral or balanced place. Scripture condemns many things and does not condemn others. Sometimes we use… Read more »
A lot of testosterone in this group. No women obvs. Ironic that most are styled as Most Revd, given their unpleasant views.
I am talking about UK Christians. Of course it is wrong to punish homosexuals for their chosen lifestyles, But I and many other UK evangelicals do not hate these people; in fact I have helped many whom I know and who would not claim to be Christians. In fact the only “hatred” I have seen comes from some homosexuals who deliberately try to make life difficult for bible-believing Christians.
What precise form did your ‘help’ for homosexuals take? Showing them the error of their ways? The fact that you do not mention the other groups is telling – above all else it is homosexuals who seem to draw the most prurient Conservative Christian fire. Worse still you go on to play the victim card & blame them for whipping up opposition to ‘bible-believing Christians’. By the way, I am not quite sure how you can be a Christian without believing in the bible. I suspect that what you mean is that the rest of us read it totally wrong,… Read more »
“In fact the only “hatred” I have seen comes from some homosexuals who deliberately try to make life difficult for bible-believing Christians.”
Really? And how is it they have done this? Have they refused to serve them in a store or restaurant? Have they spat on them in the street? Have they pursued them with catcalls?
Because that is the behavior gay people regularly experience from “bible-believing Chrstians”.
You have seen bible-believing christians, in England, spitting at people in the street on the basis of their sexual preferences ?
Pat, are you absolutely sure you have actually seen this happen with your own eyes ?
Where is that happening? The mainstream media in the US would be all over it. Please provide evidence for ‘bible believing Christians’ spitting on LGBT people on the street. Or refusing to serve them? The lawsuits would be fast and furious. Fast and furious. The NYT would move from claiming Israel bombed a hospital and in a nana second report such conduct. You are frankly trading on tired cliches.
Bible-believing Benjamin Phelps of Westbro Baptist Church was charged with spitting in the face of a passer-by during an anti-gay picket . This is not as bad as Israel bombing a hospital, however. I’m surprised you equate the two.
Are you unaware of the case of a baker in (I believe) Colorado who refused to make a wedding-cake for a gay couple? That case went all the way to the Supreme Court
They could buy any cake they wanted. The Supreme Court ruled as you say, when it came to being asked to design a gay-themed cake. The baker cannot be forced to do that. We are a land of laws. But of course that is not what you said. As for spitting on people, it appears now to be an acceptable form of protest widely practiced in the US. Our culture has descended to grotesque depths. One case that the FrD speaks of is, well, one case. A drop in the evenly distributed spitting bucket of left wing conduct, and of… Read more »
Channel 4 have evidence that point in a (literally) different direction. Of course Israel have bombed many hospitals, including that one, they just may not have bombed that specific hospital on that specific occasion.
The news coverage that needs to be foregrounded would include pictures of beheadings, burned corpses, rapes, blindfolded hostages, the elderly in tunnels without their medication, the rapturous joy of Hamas murderers, a la Ted Bundy. All else flows from these hideous facts, directed by millionaire Hamas leadership ensconced in mansions in Dohar. They have destroyed their own people. More cash for tunnels and military installations than hospitals and water treatment plants for the poor citizens of Gaza.
If I saw the amended reports correctly, the hospital was next to the parking lot. A subtle difference, but one which I doubt the people who were killed and injured would appreciate, whoever threw the missile.
Whoever ‘threw the missile’ — what does this mean.
No, a direct hit on a hospital would have killed many many more people. How callous is your comment.
The people killed and injured were killed and injured by those in charge of the Gaza Strip. Who are brutalizing them, using them to protect their military.
The Al Jazeera interview of the billionaire head of Hamas in Doha is searing. The tenacious female reporter took Khaled Maashal down a very tough road. I doubt he’ll let that happen again.
We did actually have a similar case regarding a cake in Northern Ireland which, similarly went to our Supreme Court. So Colorado most certainly wasn’t an isolated incident.
The Northern Ireland case went to the Supreme Court and the bakers were vindicated. It was the exact opposite of what is being insinuated. Far from the bakers being homophobic, they were the victims of judicial harassment.
Their refusal to bake a cake had nothing to do with the sexuality of the customer. They refused to print a specific message on a cake as is their entitlement.
Why is there this unrelenting mis representation of the facts
I don’t think it’s right to describe an adverse judgment as ‘judicial harassment’. It’s a fundamental right in UK law to appeal a judgment with which you may disagree: the very existence of appeal courts and their purpose are self-evident. In this case the adverse judgments were in Northern Ireland. To their credit (I suggest) Ashers’ persisted and took the case to the UK Supreme Court (which uniquely sat in Belfast) to hear the appeal which was allowed unanimously. Lady Hale gave the lead judgment, also unanimous, dealing with the discrimination issue. In a nutshell, it was held there was… Read more »
On reflection, I realise you might have meant harassment using the courts as a means of harassment rather than harassment by the judiciary, which is how I first read your comment. It wasn’t the best choice of words, I respectfully suggest.
Judicial is an adjective and means pertaining to a court of law.
Judiciary is the the term being used as a noun relating to Judges.
Nouns and adjectives are not the same. I am perfectly entitled to treat the distinction as material.
Peter, you might surely accept that having spent 44 years employed in ‘the law’, I well know the meanings of judicial and judiciary. Actually, ‘judicial’ has a far wider meaning than you attribute to it. But I thought you would have realised from my second comment what I thought you intended to say. Not for the first time I’m regretting having commented at all, and won’t say any more on this subject.
It was not my intention to offend you, Rowland.
I think judicial harassment is a growing and genuine threat to free speech. I think free speech is our best defence against totalitarianism.
I wish you well Rowland. Your contributions are a tonic and a relief in the midst of too much emotionalism.
At least under US law, their entitlement to refuse such a request depends entirely on their reasons for refusing. Under US law, you cannot refuse to serve a customer based on his religion, race, gender, or ethnicity (and, in some jurisdictions, sexuality).
You are just not actually listening to what is said. The bakers did not refuse anything based on a customer’s religion, race, gender, ethnicity, hair colour, taste in music, or any other single characteristic – protected or otherwise. That did not happen. Please listen to what was said. The judicial action was about compelled speech. A person (it could have been literally anybody) attempted to use a court to compel a baker to print a specific message. Societies which are subject to the rule of law do not compel speech. That is why the action failed. The action would also… Read more »
Pat ONeill: Notwithstanding its length, I think this will be the most reliable account of what happened in the UK Supreme Court and the reasons for the Court’s decision given in the judgment of Lady Hale (mentioned in my earlier comment).
Courtesy of Law & Religion UK:
https://lawandreligionuk.com/page/5/s=Supreme+Court+&submit=Search
I have to admit that I have not studied the very lengthy judgment in the US Supreme Court, and so cannot comment further on that.
You have just inadvertently shown your hatred of gay people by suggesting their “lifestyle” is a moral choice. Presumably you are “straight”. When did you decide to become heterosexual?
Bible believing Christians are often coy on the remarriage of divorcees. Bible believing Christians have a pick n mix approach to Scripture.
Some of them aren’t so very coy about it, Father. The late David Pawson, who had, and may still have a very profound influence on people, most certainly opposed remarriage after divorce in a very forceful and negative manner. Indeed, I’ve seen people making similar comments of regret that the church ever allowed that – on here, in reports and comments!
But not taking to the barricades on the issue.
Chosen lifestyles? Chosen?….or just being the way God made them?
The term ‘homosexual’ is a pseudo medical term that is no longer commonly used in public discourse. LGBTQ+ is the preferred term nowadays.
English conservatives do not agree with or condone at any level the extreme harshness of language or judicial practice inflicted on people who experience same sex attraction who live in other parts of the world.
Please can we be absolutely clear on that point.
But they support–with financial contributions, by attending their conferences, by promoting their statements–those who do so. By their fruits you shall know them.
There are priests within the Church of England who won’t accept ordination from a male bishop because he has ordained women in the past. That is officially supported as mutual flourishing. At the same time lesbian and gay people aren’t supposed to object if priests meet to discuss homosexuality with bishops who want to imprison and execute gay people and do so without condemning them. Such are the double standards in the modern Church of England. One could possibly argue for either but not both at the same time so one or other has obviously to be unacceptable and the… Read more »
But you, Peter, Trevor (CEEC, conservatives more generally) are happy to be in fellowship or communion with people who advocate these policies. But not with someone like me, who blesses gay relationships. Because it is worse (more unchristian? more unacceptable? more objectionable?) to bless gay relationships than it is to lock gay people up for life? You disagree with both – but you can live with the latter, just not with for former. That is the moral/theological judgement you are making, surely. Is it really justifiable?
Charles,
The leading voice in the English conservative evangelical constituency is Revd Vaughan Roberts. He experiences same sex attraction.
I condemm the judicial harassment of anybody on the basis of their particular experience of sexuality. Anywhere it happens.
I thought a person who “experiences same- sex attraction ” is called by most people as homosexual. It seems a word conservative evangelicals dislike using and have created a term only they seem to use.
I think conservatives reserve “homosexual” to those who are actively engaging in same-sex relationships, hence the rather wordy term.
They seem to define their identity as being “in Christ” rather than attaching themselves to the perjorative term “gay” which is regarded as an immoral choice. Sexuality doesn’t define them . Being happy-clappy does.
They do nothing of the sort.
I can only judge by what they say and write. I stand by my evaluation.
Sexual attraction is not an identity. The only category that matters is to be a christian. The rest is of secondary importance
I wonder what a doctor /psychiatrist/ social worker etc would make of that
When the term “same sex attracted” was first coined it was usually prefaced by the word “unwanted”, but that seems to have been dropped
Maybe if they dared to tell their fellow travellers that rather than staying silent while LGBT people are threatened with execution or imprisonment while Anglican bishops cheer on their governments that point might be made a lot more clearly. As it is there has to be suspicion that the same groups that opposed every single step towards legal equality for LGBT people, including decriminalisation, and continue to oppose outlawing conversion “therapy”, want those same judicial threats reimposed here.
I can only repeat what I said to Charles Clapham.
I condemn without reservation or qualification the judicial harassment of anybody, anywhere at any time on the basis of their experience of sexuality.
I could not be clearer.
You could, actually. You could make it clear that you expect the civil law to treat same sex relationships in the same way it treats opposite sex ones, regardless of your views on whether such relationships are morally right or marriages in the Christian understanding of the term. As it is your statement appears to say it’s fine to be gay but leaves the door open to making it illegal for a man to have sex with another man.
You want to set me a test, after which it is absolutely certain you would set me another test and then another. It is an entirely fallacious form of reasoning.
Your premise is that you are, in effect, conducting a cross-examination. There is simply no basis on which you are entitled to assume such a stance.
My premise is that you’re allying yourself with people who want to murder gay people and distancing yourself from people who want to accept them for who they are. It’s reasonable to conclude your objections to the former are minimal compared with the latter unless you clearly state otherwise.
No-one can force you to answer, of course, but equally no-one can prevent those reading from drawing their own conclusions.
You are assuming a stance of moral superiority to which you are not entitled.
Your characterisation of my position is grotesque and offensive.
Nobody needs to or should “answer” such outrageous defamation.
English conservatives in general may not condone these things, but observing a GSFA meeting attended by people that *do* support such language and judicial practice, and then blogging enthusiastically about the meeting, as Richard Moy has, certainly has an air of condonation about it.
Laurence,
You are entirely correct and you would obviously be entitled to express yourself in much stronger terms.
It is like standing in a secure unit surrounded by the deranged, and I am not addressing myself specifically at Moy.
We still have to somehow find a way to drag something from the wreckage
I’ve given reading the GSFA material a pass. Just more extreme fundamentalism. I notice that ACNA and CEEC are tagging along. It is basically a figleaf fashion show. As with most fashion shows, it is more about sex than the clothes–or lack thereof.