...in stark contrast, top-down systems are characterized by very centralized knowledge - and hence very centralized power. The early church Gnostics with their "secret knowledge" were not the first (and won't be the last) to realize the power of holding knowledge back and sharing it only with a select few.
Kester Brewin - Signs of Emergence, 109 (emphasis mine) I was reading it just this morning.
Interesting.
The Anglican Church of Canada website has a news item which consists of a statement expressing concern over the "Global Anglican Future Conference". However, there is no actual news item on the ACofC site telling us anything about the "Global Anglican Future Conference." Which all seems odd to me.
News item, condemning an event we have no news of.
Anyway, actual news of the conference can be found here.
Interesting update:
While not opposed to the principles motivating the gathering of traditionalist Anglican bishops, clergy and lay leaders six weeks before Lambeth, Bishop Darwani does not want it to take place on his turf.
Strongly opposed to the notion of gay or women clergy, the diocese also has strong financial links with a number of American dioceses that are at the forefront of the progressive agenda. Highlighting the diocese’s traditionalist stance within the Anglican Communion at this time could have immediate financial consequences, Jerusalem clergy tell us.full article here.
I could be awkward and point out the link is to an ACO rather than an ACC website. But I'm not like that, so I won't.
Posted by: Peter | January 02, 2008 at 04:33 PM
Peter - the link on the ACofC site goes directly to the ACO site itself. It's highlighted in the "News from our Partners" section of the anglican.ca main page.
Posted by: joseph | January 02, 2008 at 04:41 PM
From the article,
Well, almost all Anglicans.
Posted by: John K | January 02, 2008 at 08:06 PM
I find that the ACofC website perfectly illustrates Brewin's point: the site will link to a critique of the conference, but not to the actual news release from the organizers of the conference. Heaven forbid that average pew sitters be allowed to make up their own minds, or be exposed to another point of view
Posted by: joseph | January 02, 2008 at 09:52 PM
A trifle unfair, I think, Joseph.
The "News from our partners" section includes releases from formal Anglican entities who are formal and constituent provinces or agencies of the Communion. Thus, a news release on the Anglican Communion Office site from the Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem would naturally be referenced. The announcement of the GafCon (or should that be GaffeCon?) event is not from a formerly constituted province or agency of the Communion and is not, to my knowledge, referenced on the ACO site.
But speaking of holding knowledge back, it does strike me as odd (to say the least) that a self-selecting handful of Primates should decide to hold a major conference in Jerusalem without so much as a word to the Anglican Bishop with jurisdiction in the place. Actually, it strikes me as breathtakingly rude.
Of course, some of these Primates are so accustomed now to violating international ecclesial boundaries that they may even have forgotten that it isn't right. But the Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem has not, to date, been one of those the self-styled orthodox have written off for damnation.
Now we have word that they did send him a letter a whole two days prior to the announcement. Of course, anyone who thinks a letter mailed internationally on Christmas Eve is going to get to the office of the Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem in advance of the morning of the 26th really needs to give their head a shake.
Even if that were realistic, exactly how much time would that have given my lord of Jerusalem to contact anybody to say anything about it?
Clearly the Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem was intentionally left in the dark.
The best possible interpretation of events is that the organizers of GafCon are all incompetent. I am not inclined to believe that.
Posted by: Malcolm+ | January 03, 2008 at 01:23 PM
Malcolm+: thanks for your input. I agree that the conference does not have an official status in regards to the ACO. However, I find it rather odd that our national website will publish the critique without giving us news of the original event in question. Just as the memo from +Jerusalem came straight off a local diocesan website, so there is stuff on other diocesan websites (eg +Sydney) which could easily have been presented as well. One of the things I appreciate in Kester Brewin's work is his emphasis on what he calls distributed knowledge - churches tend to guard information too closely, and hierarchical churches have a tendency to develop an information magisterium.
I agree wholeheartedly that if a group of influential leaders were to hold a conference, it would only be more than common courtesy to inform and seek the cooperation of the local bishop. As you point out, that aspect of the organizing seems sketchy. Jerusalem is a rather touchy place at the best of times. On the bigger question: will this conference be helpful in any way? To that I do not have an answer. Personally, I will wait and see.
In any event, there is a lovely Armenian cafe just up the street from the Knights' Palace in the Christian quarter of the Old City. Perhaps I'll write to +Sydney and ask if they need to hire a tour guide...
Posted by: joseph | January 03, 2008 at 02:08 PM
'...my lord of Jerusalem'....??????
How very Christendom of you, Malcolm! Bishops of Jerusalem aren't members of the British House of Lords, you know!
Posted by: Tim | January 03, 2008 at 02:36 PM
Tim - I thought Brits like you fancy all that sort of talk :^)
Posted by: joseph | January 03, 2008 at 11:20 PM
'Brits like me'?????!!!!!!!!!
I was born on the wrong side of the tracks, you know! We were definitely not gentry!
Posted by: Tim | January 04, 2008 at 11:53 AM