Now it is clear: GAFCON was thrown out of Jordan, Akinola denied entry.

GAFCON made a point at first of saying that Archbishop Akinola simply gave up on Jordanian border bureaucracy. Later the Archbishop came closer to saying that he was deliberately denied entry. And finally he is reported to have said, "No matter the humiliation I suffered, I took it as a body lotion, rubbed it all over my body, so that I can shine for Christ, "Akinola said in an interview with News Agency of Nigeria (NAN). The GAFCON folk simply said that since Archbishop Akinola and several Sudanese participants could not get entry permission, the preliminary conference was moved to Jerusalem. At no time was there any hint that they might have been bounced.

Now however, thanks to Thinking Anglicans, we have a report that Chris Sugden has stated that (i) Akinola was indeed denied entry, flat out, and more interestingly (ii) that GAFCON was shut down and the meetings not allowed to take place after the first day.

Here is Thinking Anglicans

According to Chris Sugden writing in Evangelicals Now August 2008 edition

Gafcon takes off….
…A preparatory Conference for 140 was held in Jordan from June 17. However on June 18 the Jordanian authorities announced that sufficient high level permission had not been granted for the conference to take place. the conference hall was shut and no meeting allowed. At the same time Archbishop Akinola, travelling on his diplomatic passport was denied entry. So on June 19, the 140 people relocated early to Jerusalem. the hotels concerned, in the chain, transferred the costs. A miracle…

Essentially this makes GAFCON's telling of the tale a misrepresentation. The relocation followed being shut down and Archbishop Akinola was denied entry.

This is what GAFCON said about leaving Jordan:

"The pre-GAFCON preparatory consultation in Jordan wound up early, and the participants moved to Jerusalem on Thursday, 19th June. Hotel and meeting rooms previously unavailable in Jerusalem became available at the same time GAFCON leaders learned that previously granted permission for the Jordan consultation was deemed insufficient."

In a post on June 18 I remarked, "The phrase, "GAFCON leaders learned that previously granted permission for the Jordan consultation was deemed insufficient," is most intriguing. This suggests that something about the consultation itself involved permission being granted by Jordan and that that permission was deemed insufficient. It could be no more than there having been a supposed understanding with the government that GAFCON leadership would be admitted to Jordan, it could be about the conference itself. Either way, it would appear that GAFCON leadership blew it."

It appears that they did indeed.

GAFCON slid the information in by suggestion, not by the statement of fact. "Deemed insufficient is diplomatic, but as with many diplomatic statements it is a bit of a weasel out. It is not that that their permissions were insufficient. They were shut down.

And the Archbishop was flat out denied entry. No bureaucratic bumbling here. Denied is the word.

There it is.


  1. Of course King Abdullah didn't want anyone blowing up anything else in his corner of the world..attempting to destroy the Anglican Communion comes under the heading of spiritual/religious terrorism...His Royal Highness had those kinda visitors before and will have none of it again...NO MORE allowing instigators with bad reputations through his frontier doors.

  2. Not sure if this matters.....not in the light of more than 300 bishops meeting in Jerusalem....representing very many more Anglicans than the 650 meeting at Lambeth, sadly.

  3. anonymous--FWIW, One does wonder how many were there out of sufferance and how many are not now at Lambeth by the same sufferance.

    And I would believe that those at Lambeth represent a larger geographical territory. Our witness is to the world.

  4. Mr (or Ms) Anonymous.

    These Bishops represent no one other than themselves. What they do with all those millions who attend the Anglican parishes within their jusrisdictions, is lead them and guide them in the faith of Christ and the Ressurection. Judging from their apparently unchristlike activities I would say they are leading them astray at best and directly to hell at worst.

  5. False witness from the GAFFEPRONE apologists? Surely not!

    I note it is now confirmed that at least one of the signatories to the latest GAFFEPRONE poisoned pen missive was not consulted about the use of his name. I expect that Greg of Southern Cone isn't the only one whose name was used without permission. It seems this is a standard trick for Minns and Akinola.

    Of course, if their position, their strength and (dare I say it) their faith were stronger, they wouldn't feel the need to misrepresent, dissemble and outright fib so often.

  6. malcolm - you seem more upset about it than Greg Venables does!

    (but then, he is not trying to snipe at GAFCON...there are more serious issues)

    Bonnie.......the US is a big country with a big population....and TEC gets 0.8m on a Sunday, <0.3% of the US population...but as you say, it is a big country, so that is fine, right? Sorry, nos and rates of growth and decline matter....that is why GAFCON really did not miss SCotland, Wales, Canada and Ireland....and even TEC, but Lambeth is severly weaknened with lots of bishops who represent a minority of the Anglicans in the world. So, even if Lambeth makes statements that Integrity want, what will it mean when most of the AC just will not care?

  7. And who counts and certifies Nigeria and Uganda's membership figures, Anon?

  8. Well, O Bravely Named Anonymous, I happen to think fraud and forgery by senior prelates is a serious matter.

  9. I find it very telling that the GAFFECON crowd cannot even be trusted to tell the truth about their dismissal from Jordan. If they can lie about something that simple, why trust them on matters of faith?

    IMHO, give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves. Christianity in it's entirety will benefit now that the GAFFECON leaders have pressed their "self-destruct" button.


OK... Comments, gripes, etc welcomed, but with some cautions and one rule:
Cautions: Calling people fools, idiots, etc, will be reason to bounce your comment. Keeping in mind that in the struggles it is difficult enough to try to respect opponents, we should at least try.