A quote from the Reuters article:  “The conservatives, who claim to represent 35 million Anglicans, mostly in developing countries, have been hinting at a split within the Communion since Anglicanism’s first openly gay bishop was consecrated in the United States.”

Then James Naughton says “They are trying to back down from the difficult position they put themselves in, as gracefully as possible.”

Ah, excuse me, Mr Naughton:  “They put themselves in?”  May I respectfully remind you, sir, that this Conference would NEVER have come about if The Episcopal Church had not tossed out 2,000 years of Church teaching and Holy Scripture’s authority, and completely ignored the opinion of the overwhelming number of faithful Anglican Christians in this world of ours?  And you have the gall to criticize US?

Unfortunate that Reuters would go to Jim Naughton for coment of GAFCON.  Hardly an informed or impartial source.

Frankly, I’m delighted the GAFCON attendees are unwilling to stampede away from the Anglican Communion in a formal split.

“the difficult position they put themselves in”  the only part of this sentence reflect upon.
He’s right, and any self-respecting, bonified Christian would do the same…...

to reflect upon…...

I still don’t get why everyone thought that a formal split was going to come at GAFCON.  The GS primatial leadership - even that of Akinola and Orombi - was always very clear that there would be NO formal break with Canterbury.

Splits have already happened.  The formal break with Canterbury never was in the cards.  I am a little bit surprised at how obtuse the media seems to be.

The Mainstream Media are looking for a story.  A denomination splitting in half, dramatically, and all at once, is a much better story than a slow separation.  Circulations are declining and ad revenues are way down.

Why is Jim Naughton the ‘go to” man on this. I know he gives good quote but it’s like asking a Soviet Minister of Propoganda for comments on a US Party Conference. He’s about as partisan as it gets. It’s like relentlessly going to David Virtue to get a interpretation of the actions of the Presiding Bishop. I don’t see much of the latter but why do apparently intelligent journalists think the former is any more acceptable in terms of journalistic ethics.

Many in the media have also seem to have accepted the straw man set up by liberals like Naughton.  The latter first insisted that this was a “schismatic” conference, then crowed about the so called “failure” to enact the “schism”, when that was never really the stated goal of the conference (though certain attendees suggested they hoped that would be the outcome).  TEC has become a master at controlling it’s own story, and spinning just about everything positively.  (Heck, +VGR is calling himself a traditionalist!).

#7, He’s liberal, accessible and well-connected in Washington, and can give a reasonably good sound bite.  For the national media in DC, he’s probably the closest “Anglican” they can get to.  And he’s communications director for one of the most prominent dioceses in TEC.  I’m not surprised.  I’m irritated.  But I’m not surpised.

Let’s wait and see the formal statement next week before making any final judgements. The preliminary that was issued today has several interesting points. It’s available on the GAFcon site.

I truly hope that part of the official closing statements from GAFcon addresses the media and TLc(Cult)‘s spin on the conference. It would be nice to see them squirm THEIR way out their respective distortions.

H

Naughton is a partisan, and so is everyone else commenting here.