It is no accident Gafcon leaders chose this passage. It reflects the poignant and sacrificial moment of sifting in which the Anglican Communion finds itself--sifting between those who will remain faithful to Jesus and his teachings and those who have "betrayed their ordination and consecration vows to banish error and to uphold and defend the truth taught in Scripture."

Knock-knock.... (door is eventually opened by a person holding and stroking a Yorkshire Terrier)

'Yes?'

'Afternoon, Mum. We'd like to speak with Mr. Canterbury, please. Oh! Ah, No offense. I was just confused by the dress. Would you be Mr. Canterbury, then, Sir?'

'This is not a dress. I'm wearing a robe.'

'Right. Very good, Sir. Harold here likes to dress up, too!'

'Oi, knock it off, mate!'

The argument is interesting: An established national church cannot ultimately oppose the culture of her nation. Some (including myself) would argue that this is precisely why no church should be established, since such politically motivated alliances always have a dominant partner, and history makes it very clear who the dominant partner always is.

From its inception Gafcon has been to an extent "political". It was born out of the boycott by many bishops of the 2008 Lambeth Conference and that first meeting produced the Jerusalem Declaration and Statement. The former sets out what are the widest possible bounds of legitimate diversity within Anglican orthodoxy, and the latter helps that to land in practice. They may well prove some of the most important documents ever written in Anglicanism.