Just a reminder that The Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (GAFCON) and the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches (GSFA) are separate entities. If the average member of an ACNA parish knows anything about the global situation, he or she probably knows that ACNA is part of GAFCON. But last year the formal, organizational weight shifted more towards being part of GSFA as a structure whereas GAFCON is a movement. This has been talked about quite a bit but I don’t think it has filtered down to the local level much. For example, see this article, which says in part:
Archbishop Duncan was honored to present this historical resolution on the anniversary of his consecration as the first archbishop of the ACNA. He commented: “As this Covenant becomes the basis of the accountability for orthodoxy, partnership, and mission in the Provinces of the Global South, it will be the most significant development in the history and ecclesiology of Anglicanism since the emergence of the Lambeth Conference in 1867.”
The ACNA has been a partner member of the Global South since 2015, and the fundamental declarations, mission objectives, relational commitments, and inter-provincial structures of the Global South are completely consistent with the provisions of the ACNA’s Constitution and Canons, Fundamental Declarations, and the GAFCON Jerusalem Declaration. The ACNA continues to be committed to mutual accountability and biblical mission among Anglican provinces as remedies for both the ecclesial deficit and the gospel deficit plaguing the global Anglican Communion. All GAFCON provinces have been members of the Global South, and Bishop Bill Atwood stressed during the council meeting that GAFCON’s influence is not diminished by this covenant but rather strengthened and complemented by it. GAFCON’s primary focus remains the address of the gospel deficit by proclaiming the Good News of Jesus faithfully to the nations, while the Global South’s focus remains addressing the ecclesial deficit by creating enhanced ecclesial responsibility and accountability.
On a practical level, the current Chairman of GAFCON is Archbishop Beach, the current Chairman of GSFA is the Archbishop of South Sudan, Justin Badi Arama.
IT had been the best for us, O most righteous Judge, and our most merciful father, that in our wealth and quietness, and in the midst of thy manifold benefits continually bestowed upon us most unworthy sinners, we had of love hearkened to thy voice, and turned unto thee our most loving and gracious father: For in so doing, we had done the parts of good and obedient loving children, It had also been well, if at thy dreadful threats out of thy holy word continually pronounced unto us by thy servants our preachers, we had of fear, as corrigible servants, turned from our wickedness. But alas we have shewed hitherto our selves towards thee, neither as loving children (O most merciful father) neither as tolerable servants, O Lord most mighty. Wherefore now we feel thy heavy wrath, O most righteous Judge, justly punishing us with grievous and deadly sickness and plagues; we do now confess and acknowledge, and to our most just punishment do find indeed, that to be most true, which we have so often hard threatened to us out of thy holy scriptures, the word of thy eternal verity: that thou art the same unchangeable God, of the same justice that thou wilt, and of the same power that thou canst punish the like wickedness and obstinacy of us impenitent sinners in these days, as thou hast done in all ages heretofore. But the same thy holy Scriptures, the word of thy truth, do also testify, that thy strength is not shortened but that thou canst: neither thy goodness abated but that thou wilt, help those that in their distress do flee unto thy mercies, and that thou art the same God of all, rich in mercy towards all that call upon thy name, and that thou dost not intend to destroy us utterly, but fatherly to correct us; who hast pity upon us, even when thou dost scourge us, as by thy said holy word thy gracious promises, and the examples of thy saints in thy holy Scriptures expressed for our comfort, thou hast assured us. Grant us, O most merciful father, that we fall not into the uttermost of all mischiefs, to become worse under thy scourge, but that this thy rod may by thy heavenly grace speedily work in us the fruit and effect of true repentance, unfeigned turning and converting unto thee, and perfect amendment of our whole lives, that, as we through our impenitence do now most worthily feel thy justice punishing us, so by this thy correction we may also feel the sweet comfort of thy mercies, graciously pardoning our sins, and pitifully releasing these grievous punishments and dreadful plagues. This we crave at thy hand, O most merciful father, for thy dear son our Savior Jesus Christ’s sake. Amen.
I am putting together a book of Anglican prayers from outside the BCP. This will include several prayers from Queen Elizabeth I’s time, as well as the so-called Wyatt Prayer Book. For an example, see this link.
I found this in an old issue of Notes and Queries and thought I would pass it along:
There is a curious tradition existing in Mansfield, Woodhouse, Bulwell, and several other villages near Sherwood Forest, as to the origin of pancakes on Shrove Tuesday. The inhabitants of any of these villages will inform the questioner that when the Danes got to Linby all the Saxon men of the neighboring villages ran off into the Forest, and the Danes took the Saxon women to keep house for them. This happened just before Lent, and the Saxon women, encouraged by their fugitive lords, resolved to massacre their Danish masters on Ash Wednesday. Every woman who agreed to do this was to bake pancakes for their meal on Shrove Tuesday as a kind of pledge to fulfill her vow. This was done, and that the massacre of the Danes did take place on Ash Wednesday is a well-known historical fact.
In The Whole Works of the Right Rev. Jeremy Taylor, he writes:
Every true penitential sorrow is rather natural than solemn; that is, it is the product of our internal apprehensions, rather than outward order and command. He that repents only by solemnity, at a certain period, by the expectation of tomorrow’s sun, may indeed act a sorrow, but cannot be sure that he shall then be sorrowful. Other acts of repentance may be done in their proper period, by order and command, upon set days, and indicted solemnities; such as is, fasting and prayer, and alms, and confession, and disciplines, and all the instances of humiliation: but sorrow is not to be reckoned in this account, unless it dwells there before. When there is a natural abiding sorrow for our sins, any public day of humiliation can bring it forth, and put it into activity; but when a sinner is gay and intemperately merry upon Shrove-tuesday, and resolves to mourn upon Ash-wednesday; his sorrow hath in it more of the theatre than the temple, and is not at all to be relied upon by him that resolves to take severe accounts of himself.
Mary Ailes died today. She was one of the pioneers of Anglican blogging who was in the thick of things from Truro in Virginia, in the early days of CANA. To me it feels like yesterday but it is quickly fading into the past. I met her in person once and she was a kind soul. I am thankful for her work in proving that blogs could be a great source of news, something that we have gone backwards on I fear. Her blog is available at:
And that brings me back to my starting point.
The business of us laymen is simply to endure and
make the best of it. Any tendency to a passionate
preference for one type of service must be regarded
simply as a temptation. Partisan “Churchmanships”
are my bête noire. And if we avoid them, may we not
possibly perform a very useful function? The
shepherds go off, “every one to his own way” and
vanish over diverse points of the horizon. If the
sheep huddle patiently together and go on bleating,
might they finally recall the shepherds? (Haven’t
English victories sometimes been won by the rank
and file in spite of the generals?)
As to the words of the service—liturgy in the
narrower sense—the question is rather different.
If you have a vernacular liturgy you must have a
changing liturgy; otherwise it will finally be
vernacular only in name. The ideal of “timeless
English” is sheer nonsense. No living language can
be timeless. You might as well ask for a motionless
I think it would have been best, if it were possible,
that necessary change should have occurred gradually
and (to most people) imperceptibly; here a
little and there a little; one obsolete word replaced
in a century—like the gradual change of spelling
in successive editions of Shakespeare. As things are
we must reconcile ourselves, if we can also reconcile
government, to a new Book.
If we were—I thank my stars I’m not—in a
position to give its authors advice, would you have
any advice to give them? Mine could hardly go
beyond unhelpful cautions: “Take care. It is so
easy to break eggs without making omelettes.”
Already our liturgy is one of the very few remaining
elements of unity in our hideously divided
Church. The good to be done by revision needs to
be very great and very certain before we throw that
away. Can you imagine any new Book which will
not be a source of new schism?
Most of those who press for revision seem to wish
that it should serve two purposes: that of modernising
the language in the interests of intelligibility,
and that of doctrinal improvement. Ought the two
operations—each painful and each dangerous—to
be carried out at the same time? Will the patient
What are the agreed doctrines which are to be
embodied in the new Book and how long will
agreement on them continue? I ask with trepidation
because I read a man the other day who seemed to
wish that everything in the old Book which was
inconsistent with orthodox Freudianism should be
For whom are we to cater in revising the
language? A country parson I know asked his sexton
what he understood by indifferently in the phrase
“truly and indifferently administer justice”. The
man replied, “It means making no difference
between one chap and another.” “And what would
it mean if it said impartially?” asked the parson.
“Don’t know. Never heard of it,” said the sexton.
Here, you see, we have a change intended to make
things easier. But it does so neither for the educated,
who understand indifferently already, nor for the
wholly uneducated, who don’t understand impartially.
It helps only some middle area of the congregation
which may not even be a majority. Let us
hope the revisers will prepare for their work by a
prolonged empirical study of popular speech as it
actually is, not as we (a priori) assume it to be. How
many scholars know (what I discovered by accident)
that when uneducated people say impersonal they
sometimes mean incorporeal?
What of expressions which are archaic but not
unintelligible? (“Be ye lift up”). I find that people
re-act to archaism most diversely. It antagonises
some: makes what is said unreal. To others, not
necessarily more learned, it is highly numinous and
a real aid to devotion. We can’t please both.
I know there must be change. But is this the right
moment? Two signs of the right moment occur to
me. One would be a unity among us which enabled
the Church—not some momentarily triumphant
party—to speak through the new work with a
united voice. The other would be the manifest
presence, somewhere in the Church, of the specifically
literary talent needed for composing a good
prayer. Prose needs to be not only very good but
very good in a very special way, if it is to stand up
to reiterated reading aloud. Cranmer may have his
defects as a theologian; as a stylist, he can play all
the moderns, and many of his predecessors, off the
field. I don’t see either sign at the moment.
Yet we all want to be tinkering. Even I would
gladly see “Let your light so shine before men”
removed from the offertory. It sounds, in that
context, so like an exhortation to do our alms that
they may be seen by men.
I have been in the
presence of the Presidents, about four, in our region, and every time I
ask the Lord, “Lord give me the strength to just raise your flag, just
in a small humble way.” And recently when, you know, we met, the
President Kagame with many delegates we talked business and after were
done we were to go and in my heart I said, “Oh Lord, I’m failing you
help me!” And I put up my hand and asked, I said, “Your excellency,
would you allow me to kindly pray in this place?” He said, “Of course
Nathan” because we bumped into each other in some high school, so we
knew each other a little bit.
And he was right there, it’s a big,
big, you know, Presidential hall. And I just felt I need to move and
pray with him there, something crazy, some of these things happen. So,
I, I said, “if I move the security will think I’m in, you know, I’m up
to something.” But I said anyway, “don’t worry” so I walked right across
and as I stood behind him, near him, we were almost the same height, so
I said, “yeah, I think it’s fitting to put my hand on him.” I prayed,
and we all got out so I said, “who knows when I will ever have the
opportunity like this?” Praise be to God.
Bishop Gasatura discusses the much-touted reconciliation process in
Rwanda between the Hutu and the Tutsi. He goes on to make the astounding
claim that “Kagame honors the Lord”:
In Rwanda the story of
forgiveness, healing, peacebuilding and reconciliation has been a very
painful journey, has been a heartbreaking journey, has been a painful,
excruciating journey, has been a very, very, hostile journey, but it has
been a worthwhile journey. We thank God for the leadership whom we
believe God has used in some way because Kagame honors the Lord.
He doesn’t proclaim Christianity openly, many of his ministers, members
of Parliament and Senators they honor the Lord. When you come in the
Presidential Prayer Breakfast that’s when you see it, it’s, it’s just
moving. And we have no doubt that God has used that government to be used as his instrument like he used King Darius. And, Rwanda is changing partly because of the work of the church and government and other forces.
Bishop Gasatura then claims that Kagame was used by God to stop revenge after the genocide of 1994:
When the genocide was beaten and stopped, the very first policy that was put in place was a policy of no revenge, Kagame, somehow was used by God
to say, “If we never stop this bloodletting and revenge this vicious
cycle will never stop.” So he put in place like a general an order,
which had not gone into policy and law, that nobody was allowed
whatsoever to shed blood of someone who had killed even 200 of your
family members, the government will handle that, nobody (should) take
the law in his hands. And today that policy has gone into practice, into
law, and a Commission of Unity and Reconciliation has been put in place
to re-educate and help the Rwandans unlearn the wrong and poisonous
history that they were taught. And if that was not supported by the
Church, praying and interceding and teaching, and you know, repenting,
it would never go far.
Fact checking the Bishop
Does Kagame honor the Lord?
One of his former cabinet ministers told me, “Like all of us, he grew
up Catholic. He has never seriously practiced any faith.Before those he
trusts, he ridicules faith in God, and those who believe.”
Furthermore, Kagame is a murderer who crushes all dissent in the open
prison that is Rwanda, not quite the qualities of a leader who honors
Did Kagame stop the bloodletting?
To the contrary, the entire reign of Kagame is covered in blood. Look
at just a couple of the thousands of examples; first, former Kagame
bodyguard Aloys Ruyezni wrote:
The Murder of Religious Leaders in Rwanda
The 157th Battalion, led by (then) Col. Fred Ibingira, killed many
innocent people in Mutara, Kibungo, Bugesera, Gitarama and elsewhere
during the final attack to take control of the country. This includes
the bishops who were murdered in Kabgayi. The 157th Battalion’s I.O.,
Wilson Gumisiriza, organized a section of his staff to kill the bishops.
It was led by (then) Sgt. Kwitegetse (alias Burakari), who was briefed
on the mission by Gumisiriza. Gen. Kagame
gave the final order to kill the bishops to Col. Ibingira. He gave him
the order in these words: “Remove those rubbishes,” or “Fagia,” in
Maj. Silas Udahemuka was appointed by President Kagame to
supervise the killing of civilians during 1994 and afterwards. He would
complete his assigned operation and then report back directly to Gen.
The example of Festo Kivengere
Bishop Gasatura rightly praises the example of Ugandan Bishop Festo
Kivengere, and says he wants to be like him. However, Kivengere spoke up
against his dictator, Idi Amin, and had to flee Uganda because of it.
Bishop Festo wrote:
A suffering Church can bless a nation and provide a
refuge to which the suffering society may turn for healing, for
liberation and hope. This was proved in Uganda as the Church came under
more systematic attack, and hundreds of martyrs’ deaths were added to
that of the archbishop’s.
Bishop Gasatura is knowingly or unknowingly spreading falsehoods about Rwanda and the nature of Paul Kagame.
On New Year’s Day in South Africa, a Rwandan defector (Patrick Karegeya) who has spoken out forcibly against the tyrannical nature of the Kagame regime was found in a hotel, strangled to death with a curtain cord. He had been led there by a “friend” visiting from Rwanda. It is reasonably certain that the Rwandan government ordered his assassination as they have multiple dissidents over the years.
At first, Rwandan sycophants and high-ranking government officials took to Twitter to deny any connection to the killing. But lately, they have started saying that Karegeya had it coming. This culminated today at the annual Prayer Breakfast in Kigali, where Church officials came to hear President Kagame essentially defend this extra-judicial murder in glowing terms. He said:
I was elected and sworn in as the leader of this nation so I can aggressively defend it. But each Rwandan has their role to play. My job as President is to confront and defend Rwanda against people who want to destroy what we have been building.
Let’s see some other things he said and see who attended this insane ceremony:
There are those who have forgotten so soon, who were made who they are by this country but turned against it. Our faith should be lived, we should see it in your actions. The God who gave us power to build our nation also gave us power to protect it.
The dictator who recently ended support for the terrorist M23 said:
Those who are actively plotting against this country stand no chance; with God’s grace we have the ability to defend it. Every Rwandan has got a stake in our progress, through quality service. God blesses us but we should be thankful while guarding our progress…
The notorious Antoine Rutayisire with the Dictator
The mass murdering Kagame said:
betraying your country and wishing the worst for it is costly. We should have the strength and courage to do good things and defend your country. There is no politeness when it comes to people who commit treason against their own country. A country makes you who you are you betray it?
According to a news report, the dictator said when news of Karegeya’s death broke; several government officials were “busy on Twitter denying. That was unnecessary. People must be ready to pay for their action.”
We should not be blamed for those whose interest is to destroy what Rwandans have built. Those who criticize Rwanda know how far they go to protect their own nation. Those who forget how far they have come from should remember they cannot put themselves above nation and people of Rwanda.
And lest we forget, American bishops have said not a word in protest of this cozy relationship with a wicked regime.
Here are some more pictures from this event, which is a testimony in pictures to what I have been saying for almost two years now: