Skip to main content.
« Previous entry: Fairtrade communion wine | Main page | Next entry: How to be a real man »

February 19th, 2008

Gafcon rearranged

As you’ll have noticed I haven’t been commenting and drawing much about Anglican goings-on. This is a temporary state of affairs. But I couldn’t resist making one or two insignificant remarks about the fact that the ‘Gafcon’ alternative Lambeth Conference has been rearranged so that the ‘political’ bit is now only for invited dignatories. You’ll need to go elsewhere for in-depth analysis of course, but just one or two things that I noticed:

From the Gafcon site:

Participants will include bishops and their wives, key clergy and laity

I wonder how many of each the bishops are allowed to bring.

From the Gafcon brochure (pdf):

When those who are invited indicate their acceptance to the Primate, or lead Bishop, they will be issued with a unique “pilgrim number”.

If anyone reading has a pilgrim number please write in. I will give a prize to anyone who can prove that their number is in single digits.

5 Comments »



Share this on Facebook:

If you enjoyed this post you might also enjoy these (possibly) related articles:

If you liked this post why not send it to someone else by e-mail? Click here to do so.

This is a single post on the Cartoon Blog by Dave posted on Tuesday, February 19th, 2008 at 8:39 pm. Click here to read all of the latest posts. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Other things technologically advanced people may like to do: trackback from another site, follow responses via the comments feed, bookmark on del.icio.us or digg.

5 Responses to “Gafcon rearranged”


  1. Mark Bennet says:

    Perhaps they are hoping for 144,000 altogether – maybe you should give a prize for that one …

  2. Jack the Lass says:

    Why on earth are bishops being invited to the Russian Gas Company’s conference? I suppose it could be something to do with lots of hot air …

  3. joe says:

    That is interesting, I hadn’t realised Nazir Ali had aligned himself with Gafcom

  4. Charles Read says:

    ‘Bishops and their wives’ – so obviously no female bishops expected then!

  5. Simon Boswell says:

    Perhaps they meant ‘bishops and their parters’…