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 »



This is a single Cartoon Blog entry, posted by Dave on Tuesday, February 19th, 2008 at 8:39 pm.

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

Know someone else who might enjoy this post? Click here to send this to a friend. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

The technologically advanced may like to trackback from another site, follow responses to this post via the RSS 2.0 feed, or bookmark this post 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’…