GAFCON responds to AU comments on South Sudan
by Andrew Gross, Anglican Ink:
Anglican.Ink recently reported on the story of the consecration of a female bishop in South Sudan. (You can read more about that story here.) In the related Anglican Unscripted episode, questions were raised about why Gafcon did not break the story. Specifically, reporter George Conger asked, “What was Gafcon thinking? Were they trying to hide this? I’m not perturbed about the issue itself. I’m exercised about why they tried to keep it quiet.”
I have the highest respect for George Conger and Kevin Kallsen, and value their journalism. They do a great service to the Anglican world, and they deserve answers to those questions. I am writing to explain what Gafcon did (and did not do) and why.
Gafcon’s actions are not the result of a conspiracy of silence, or incompetence, but rather the recognition that a Christian press and a Christian renewal movement have distinct, but complimentary callings.
First, let me dispel any conspiracy theories out there. There wasn’t a pact amongst the Gafcon Primates to keep the consecration in South Sudan a secret. None. The Primates were perfectly free to talk about the event at any time. Second, there has been the suggestion that perhaps there was incompetence; a kind of wishful thinking that the event would never be known. That’s not what happened either. Gafcon knew that South Sudan’s news would become public knowledge, but it was South Sudan’s news to break, not ours.
The decision tree was straightforward:
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
