What is she saying now? I never understand this journalist. She says this receding situation is consistent with:
The Times on Monday, that the agenda is now reform from within rather than starting a breakaway conservative Anglican church that excludes homosexuals or tried to "convert" them to heterosexuality.
So it is not receding! A new formal structural Church was never suggested - and the reform from within, a sort of relocated Instruments and oversight rather than setting up a new Church, was always the intention. The point is that this is international reform from within a Communion but from outside Churches, and that's its very problem.
If at any point a parish church in England decides to take oversight from one of the international bishops in this Fellowship (within the Communion) and does so instead of following the diocesan bishop, then it is engaging in the first (and rather many) steps of schism. It is not allowed.
GAFCON for months now has attacked the geographical principle, has attacked 'nationalism', has said there will be a New Reformation; so, either they are going to do this or they shall march their troops down the hill again.
She thinks Peter Jensen is a person of moderation (mind while I cough) and that it is "significant" that Robert Duncan is not present. Why is it significant? He was there - he spoke. I think she is doing Kremlinology when there is none to be found.
I can only guess that Ruth Gledhill is following the party line, going with the presented output in order to have full access to he leaders, like those she has already interviewed and broke news about the Fellowship. I think rather that Nzimbi made his statement to counter Ruth Gledhill's initial report and the obvious message from her interviews.
Well of course GAFCON could just follow the way of all evangelicals and snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory, but I don't believe it. There is an awful lot of money at stake and many dozens of eggs to splatter across faces if this all leads nowhere very much. Reform will be a joke; Anglican Mainstream will be a busted flush.
No, this is going where it is intended, and has been for some time. They are playing public relations ahead of doing the dirty work.
Back to Militant of the 1980s. They always said they were good loyal socialists, good loyal members of the Labour Party. Eric Heffer walked out when Kinnock started to do what was necessary. Eric Heffer said these were good young socialists. They always were, and the publicity always said so. But they met on their own, planned ahead (including for the publicity) and made sure they did what they had to do within the host body. When Neil Kinnock kicked them out, they no longer had the host to feed upon, to create tension within, and they shrivelled away.
The reason they stress they are good Anglicans is because they want to push their agenda. As soon as they are some Continuing Anglican Church, they'll be forgotten.