Nigerian news
First, a report on the Nigerian provincial website, about plans for growth and how these depend in part on finance. Read OVER 20 NEW DIOCESES TO BE INAUGURATED IN 2007.
Second, a report from Changing Attitude on Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) plans for Lambeth Conference. This suggests that quite a lot of money is available.
Update Tuesday
Mark Harris notes some editorial problems with the Nigerian provincial constitution in Revisiting The Church of Nigeria’s Constitution: An exercise in (mild) frustration.
Bishop Katharine visits Rowan Williams
Updated Monday morning
As previously reported by the Living Church, today the Presiding Bishop-elect of The Episcopal Church visited Archbishop Rowan Williams at Lambeth.
Episcopal News Service and the Anglican Communion News Service both carry reports and photographs.
Archbishop welcomes Presiding Bishop, Presiding Bishop-elect to Lambeth Palace
The Presiding Bishop elect meets with the Archbishop of Canterbury
Update The Living Church has a further report, Archbishop Williams Meets With Presiding Bishop-elect Jefferts Schori
Her installation as Presiding Bishop will take place at the Washington Cathedral on Saturday 4 November. Details of the arrangements are described here.
For an earlier video interview with CBS News, go here.
For two videos from the General Convention go here.
Her remarks at a recent conference for ordained women are summarised here.
Update Monday
In his sermon at St John’s Notting Hill yesterday, Frank Griswold said:
25 CommentsMy reason for being here in London has been to introduce Bishop Katharine to his Grace, the Archbishop of Canterbury. While I have known Archbishop Rowan for many years – our friendship dating back to his days as a professor at Oxford – my successor had yet to meet him. It was an immensely positive and fruitful exchange. During our meeting we were able to share mutual concerns and hopes for the future of our Communion and its ministry of service to our broken and needy world.
The Anglican Communion, through its international consultative council, has committed itself to gender equity in all of its representative and consultative bodies. The election of Bishop Katharine to serve as 26th Presiding Bishop, and therefore Primate, is a first step toward bringing gender balance to what until now has been an all male preserve.
There are those who have indicated that they will not sit at the same table with her. I do hope that once they meet her as a person, rather than as a fabrication of the Internet, they will be able to sense the depth and authenticity of her faith, and to recognize her as a sister in Christ and a fellow bishop.
Burundi update
Earlier, I mentioned a report from Burundi. Another report from Burundi was released after that: STATEMENT from the ANGLICAN CHURCH OF BURUNDI on the Anglican Communion.
1 Commentmore responses to Kigali and to the Panel report
There was an article in last week’s Church Times by Colin Slee which has already appeared on two other websites, Why the Kigali declaration is wrong. A response to it was already made by Archbishop Yong Ping Chung, the retired Archbishop of South East Asia, and published by Anglican Mainstream. This exchange is further discussed by Jim Naughton, who notes that:
AM, a British-based group, received $12,000 in funding last year from the American Anglican Council. (That’s according to the AAC’s IRS Form 990 for 2005.) So, an organization sustained in part by conservative American donors is downplaying the influence of conservative American donors.
This updates the information reported earlier about British use of such money.
And the Church of Burundi has issued a statement which appears to distance it from the Kigali report. Mark Harris comments on this in And then there were the Kigali Seventeen.
Turning to the Panel report, this has provoked a number of further responses.
One from LGCM is reproduced here below the fold. Update It is now also available here.
Another from Mark Harris says that Archbishop Gomez Should Step Down.
And, though written slightly earlier, this speech by Katie Sherrod is well worth reading.
20 CommentsPanel of Reference reports on New Westminster
Updated again Saturday evening
The Archbishop of Canterbury’s PANEL OF REFERENCE (POR) for the Anglican Communion report on the Diocese of New Westminster is now available at the following link on the Anglican Communion Website:
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/reference/docs/report_october.pdfThe entire report is here presented in 32 paragraphs with 4 recommendations.
The Panel of Reference is chaired by the Most Revd Peter Carnley and staffed through the Anglican Communion Office, London, by the Revd Canon Gregory Cameron. The panel first met in July 2005.
The functions of the Panel include :[at the request of the Archbishop of Canterbury] “to enquire into, consider and report on situations drawn to my attention where there is serious dispute concerning the adequacy of schemes of delegated or extended episcopal oversight or other extraordinary arrangements which may be needed to provide for parishes which find it impossible in all conscience to accept the direct ministry of their own diocesan bishop or for dioceses in dispute with their provincial authorities;
With [his] consent to make recommendations to the Primates, dioceses and provincial and diocesan authorities concerned, and to report to [him] on their response;
At the request of any Primate to provide a facility for mediation and to assist in the implementation of any such scheme in his own province.”
That PDF document does not allow extraction of the text, either in part or in whole, so we cannot at present easily quote it for you here.
Update we have now received a plain text version: here are the recommendations in full:
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Panel of Reference cannot recommend the proposals of the applicants for transfer of jurisdiction either to the ANiC or to CAPAC. The Diocese of New Westminster is part of the Anglican Communion within the Anglican Church of Canada, which is due to debate both Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference and the St Michael Report at its General Synod in June 2007. The most desirable outcome, as stated in TWR (see s.6 above) is for the theological dispute to be resolved and for reconciliation to be effected within the Anglican Church of Canada.
2. In the present temporary situation, the Panel recognises that an agreed scheme of extended episcopal ministry needs to be offered to a number of clergy and parishes within the Diocese of New Westminster, which will both provide for their spiritual needs and offer assurance of continuity for their distinctive theological tradition.
3. Such a scheme should be achieved within the Anglican Church in Canada itself, at national or provincial level. The bishop of a diocese is subject to the general ecclesiastical law of the church or province concerned, and one would look to the Anglican Church of Canada for action to be taken in the first instance. The provision of a scheme of Shared Episcopal Ministry [SEM] by the Canadian House of Bishops in 2004 offers a model which we believe to be appropriate, with some additional safeguards designed to take account of the special circumstances prevailing in this case, given the protracted and deep divisions which exist.
4. In order to command the confidence of the parishes and Diocese concerned, we consider it reasonable that any arrangements made for extended episcopal ministry should address certain key issues:
a. The two congregations which are not recognised as parishes of the Diocese of New Westminster (Holy Cross, Abbotsford and the Church of the Resurrection, Hope) should be offered a context by which they may formalise their relationship with the Diocese, within the provisions of local canon law.
b. A bishop should be appointed to provide extended episcopal ministry, whose name should be agreed jointly by the diocese and the applicants, for an initial (but renewable) period of three years, in the manner described by SEM, from the list maintained by the local province; or if that can not be agreed, at a national level as described by SEM. The visiting bishop should receive delegated authority to conduct Visitations and Confirmations on behalf of the Diocese of New Westminster within the parishes which have opted to receive SEM.
c. The bishop who provides extended episcopal ministry should be involved at all stages of the process in appointing new clergy and in the ordination process in respect of candidates from and for the parishes which seek this extended episcopal ministry, in consultation with representatives of the congregations. The licence of newly appointed or ordained clergy should be signed by the visiting bishop in addition to the diocesan bishop.
d. The Diocese of New Westminster should indicate formally that any previous disciplinary action against any clergy concerned is now at an end and that any record of this has been deleted from personal records.
e. A written assurance should be provided to the four parishes concerned that the Diocese has no intention of pursuing civil legal action against them or their officers or trustees on the basis of the dispute which began in June 2002, and does not intend to use Canon 15 in respect of church properties during the agreed period of temporary episcopal ministry provided by SEM.
f. Equally the congregations concerned should be willing to regularise their connections with the diocese, in matters such as diocesan synod attendance and the payment of diocesan assessments, in the course of the period of shared episcopal ministry.
The Diocese of New Westminster has published this response: Diocese welcomes report by Panel of Reference. The Anglican Church of Canada has issued Primate welcomes Panel of Reference Report.
Statements have also been published by Archbishop Drexel Gomez and Archbishop Gregory Venables. Both can be read at Stand Firm. Or at Global South Anglican: DG here, and GV here.
Further analysis of the report can be found at:
Fr Jake: Panel of Reference’s Report on New Westminster
Tobias Haller: Panel of Reference: Still In Communion
Jim Naughton: Panel of Reference speaks
The Living Church has two reports: Panel Rejects Jurisdiction for Parishes Seeking Alternative Oversight and Panel of Reference Report Called Inadequate.
The Anglican Network in Canada has issued this open letter in response.
29 CommentsNigeria: from the provincial website
The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) has published this article: FROM CARPENTER TO PRIMATE:Ambassador Sagay writes on Abp. Akinola. (Article in THE GUARDIAN of Sunday 1st October, 2006 reproduced with permission).
It is described on the homepage as “An interesting newspaper article showing a parishioner’s view of Abp. Peter Akinola …”
Here’s another more recent report from the Guardian about the plans for 14 October: Fellowship Holds Thanksgiving For Primate Akinola.
Mark Harris has some commentary about this at Preludium headed Shameless Commerce: Church of Nigeria style, as do his readers.
MadPriest also has comments.
51 CommentsFulcrum responds to TA comments
In response to an earlier article here which linked to a piece by Andrew Goddard, several commenters responded strongly to that piece. Graham Kings has submitted this response:
As Fulcrum theological secretary, I offer the following few points concerning the posts about Fulcrum by JBE, Giles Fraser and Steve Watson:
1. JBE has commented about the founding of Fulcrum and Andrew Goddard’s role. My Fulcrum August newsletter, ‘Founding of Fulcrum’ shows that ‘proto-Fulcrum’ gathered first in October 2002, before the Reading controversy and the founding of Anglican Mainstream, and Andrew Goddard was part of Fulcrum from the beginning.
2. For Fulcrum’s original (and still valid) statement on sexual ethics, an issue raised by JBE and Steve Watson, see:
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/centre.cfm?menuopt=1.
‘In the much-contested area of sexual ethics this means that the proper context for sexual expression is the union of a man and a woman in marriage. We will participate in debates on issues in sexual ethics arising today in the life of the Church and we identify as key references the CofE document Issues in Human Sexuality and Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference and True Union (a document shared with the Anglican Primates’ Meeting, Brazil 2003).’
See also our submission to the Lambeth Commission.
3. It was good to meet Giles Fraser at the launch of Fulcrum in November 2003 and yes, our aim then and now is to ‘renew the evangelical centre’. In our FAQ section, this is elucidated as:
‘It deliberately has two meanings: Fulcrum aims to renew the moderate centre of the evangelical tradition in the Church of England and also to renew the centre of the Church of England which is historically, and again currently, evangelical.
The sermon by Tom Wright launching Fulcrum may be seen on:www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=118
4. Giles Fraser also suggests that we are an arm of Anglican Mainstream. This is not the case. Anglican Mainstream is a single issue campaigning network whereas Fulcrum, as may be seen by the subjects of our articles, covers the whole range of theological and missiological issues. Although both are conservative on issues of sexuality, on other issues we differ from Anglican Mainstream eg in our attitude to the irregular ordinations in Southwark, and in that we positively advocate the consecration of women to the episcopate.
5. Finally, Andrew Goddard mentioned Michael Poon’s crucial article on the varying status of the Kigali Communique and the Road to Lambeth document. They are not of equal weight, and this whole discussion needs to take this difference of weight seriously:
‘We need to read The Road to Lambeth against the official document Kigali Communique, and indeed not the other way around. They are not two parallel statements from Kigali that bear the same authority.’
This is Michael Poon’s important comment in his perceptive response to the CAPA report ‘The Road to Lambeth’:
‘Quo Vadis? – Questions along the Road from Lambeth – A response to CAPA’s Invitation’, by Michael Poon, Global South Anglican site, 2 October 2006.
In a key passage of the article, Poon comments:
89 Comments‘Shortly before the Kigali Meeting met, Canterbury issued a statement announcing that he has invited Archbishop Drexel Gomez to head a Covenant Design Group to draft an Anglican Covenant. He confirmed that this will be ‘a major and serious focus for the Lambeth Conference’. The Primates at Kigali greeted this in the most enthusiastic language. They believed that ‘an Anglican Covenant [that is now a major and serious focus for Lambeth 2008!] will demonstrate to the world that it is possible to be a truly global communion where differences are not affirmed at the expense of faith and truth but within the framework of a common confession of faith and mutual accountability’ (Communique, 7). In other words, the Global South Primates affirmed in clearest possible terms their intent to contribute in the Covenant processes. The Covenant constitutes the test of faithfulness (and membership). Lambeth 2008 will be the defining moment for the Communion.
Indeed, are not the recommendations in the Report superseded by recent events? Is not the Spirit of God at work, giving us more than we have ever imagined possible? Does not this explain why the CAPA Primates themselves did not explicitly endorse it at Kigali?’
Nicholas Holtam responds to the Global South
A Response to the Primates of the Global South
Dear Friends in Christ
Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus.
In the statement following the meeting of Anglican Primates from the Global South at Kigali you said you’re your vision is for a “global communion where differences are not affirmed at the expense of faith and truth but within the framework of a common confession of faith and mutual accountability”. You have begun to take initial steps towards the formation of a separate ecclesiastical structure of the Anglican Church in the USA. You received a draft report called ‘The Road to Lambeth’ commissioned by the Primates of the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa and commended it to your churches for study and response. You also commended this report “for wider reflection”. This response is part of that process.
“The Road to Lambeth” is based on five assumptions. These assume too much, or too little, or are just plain wrong, and consequently the document cannot support the breadth of traditional Anglicanism. It misquotes and misuses the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral which, ironically, was formulated as the basis for Christian unity and the fulfilment of Christ’s prayer, “that they all may be one”. You assert interpretations of three texts about homosexuality “as a sign of fallenness and a sin separating one from salvation”. In this you are asserting one conclusion to what is now generally recognised as more complex exegesis, thereby ruling out all views but your own. These texts are about homosexuality and abuse associated with idolatry . For at least some Christians they do not settle the matter with regard to what we are now considering, baptised people in loving and faithful same sex relationships. In keeping with your vision for the Communion, faithful exegesis also requires an element of mutual challenge holding us accountable to experiences that differ from our own.
The fifth assumption is simply extraordinary – “the requirement that believers not associate with openly immoral church members (1 Cor 5.1-13; 2 Thes 3.14)”. This universalises specific teaching in a way that could never have been intended by St Paul. One is tempted to ask if it is alright to continue to associate with those who aren’t so open about their immorality; to assert the more significant assumption that we are all sinners in need of forgiveness; and to quote Jesus’ teaching about forgiving the sinner not seven times but seventy times seven.
The Christian Church has a great deal of experience of divisive issues about which faithful Christians disagree strongly. In the first century circumcision and attitudes to Jewish food laws were hotly contested but those issues got resolved within the pages of the New Testament and that settles the matter for us. Many issues did not. For example, the way of peace was at the heart of Jesus’ ministry. In the life of the Church this has resulted in two quite distinct and sometimes contradictory strands: Christian pacifism and the Just War tradition. We have learned to live with both and we now recognise the fruitful tensions between these fundamentally different approaches to war and peace. Christians do not see such differences – while significant and having potentially serious implications for ethical decision making – as being detrimental to “a common confession of faith”.
For those Christians who assert “the supreme authority of Scripture” this dispute is about whether the Anglican Church is keeping faith. The difficulty with this approach is that the meaning of Scripture is not always plain and simple and needs interpretation. Further, for Anglicans Christian ethics have never simply been Biblical ethics. We also use as authorities the tradition of Church teaching (a faithful wisdom from the Church down the ages), as well as the authority of our God-given reason and intellect. These three authorities work together to help us discern the work and will of God.
In John’s Gospel Jesus says that the Spirit will lead us into all truth, not that we already have all truth. From Kigali you say in effect that there is no new truth to be discovered in relation to human sexuality. In response many of us, and not just those who are homosexual by nature, and not just those in the rich West or North of the world, will say that we asked for bread and you gave us stones.
The reason homosexuality has become so divisive is because it is the touchstone for other matters. In the current debate these issues that purport to be about the use of scripture have got attached to separate but also fundamental issues about the legacy of colonialism. You assert that “70% of the active membership of the Anglican Communion” is in the Global South. As the Primates of the Global South you observe that your Provinces are under-represented in the senior positions within the Anglican Communion which is still in the control of “the Anglo-American bloc”. History and money are the reasons but you are right and the time to face the new reality is overdue.
However, this sort of structural issue is deeply difficult to resolve. Of course there has to be pressure for change to take place, but there is an evident willingness within the Anglican Communion to listen to and address the experience of the Global South. For example on development issues the Anglo-American bloc of the Anglican Church has led public opinion and many of the political processes that are seeking greater justice.
This is not a simple area of discussion and agreeable debate. There is an aspect of the current dispute which looks as though the Anglo-American bloc has exported its contentious issue of the moment – same sex relationships – to parts of the world where this issue is not particularly pressing and other matters seem more urgent.
I wonder if you realise that the tone and style of your statement is as offensive as the worst aspects of colonialism and neo-colonialism that you oppose? It is bullying to assert the will of the majority of the Communion in ways that permit no disagreement. The majority is not always right. It is also theologically deeply flawed. Jesus taught the significance of the Kingdom of heaven being known in the outcast and in the child. The Global South knows this from its own experience. Might it also be the experience of Christians in the Anglo-American bloc in relation to gender, race and sexual orientation? Perhaps this is why the recent processes of the Anglican Communion have emphasised the need to listen carefully to our differing experiences?
Each Primate represents an autonomous Province within the Communion. In the actions you are proposing the Primates of the Global South have given in to the pressure to interfere in the legitimate business of autonomous Anglican Provinces, thereby offending fundamental principles of Church order. It is a gross breach of Christian discipline for any Primate to organise parallel structures within another Province in the pretence that this furthers “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”.
“The Road to Lambeth” begins by saying we are at a crossroads, a parting of two ways. It looks different from Trafalgar Square in London. At St Martin-in-the-Fields we have been able to hold together a very diverse church community including British people with roots in many of your Provinces. We also welcome visitors from around the Communion, including from your Provinces. We have welcomed some of you. Our unity is in Christ and our being in Communion depends not on whether we agree about matters of morality but because Christ calls us, “to do this in memory of him”.
St Martin-in-the-Fields’ experience is unique but every parish church knows what it is to be the world’s local church. That the Provinces are straining apart is contradicted by the daily realities of local church life and ought to give you pause for thought. What we daily see with our eyes and touch with our hands is, even in the imperfect Anglican Communion, an experience of what it is to know Christ and to grow together in greater depth and maturity.
In the past we have based the organisational unity of our Communion on a broad and generous expression of Christianity, such as the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. This has created a variety of complementary and overlapping Anglican identities. Just because you choose to define “The Road to Lambeth” from Kigali by the image of our being at a crossroads and the way ahead as a narrow road, does not mean this is the way of Christ. I urge you to recognise that at least some of those with whom you disagree are also seeking to walk faithfully in the light of Christ. Please think and pray very hard as you consult your own Provinces because the arguments you have used are fatally flawed and from where I stand the direction you propose looks deeply misguided.
Revd Nicholas Holtam
Vicar, St Martin-in-the-Fields, London
St Francis’ Day 4th October 2006
The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral
The following Articles supply [a basis for Christian unity]:
1. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as “containing all things necessary to salvation,” and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.
2. The Apostles’ Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.
3. The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself – Baptism and the Supper of the Lord – ministered with unfailing use of Christ’s words of Institution, and of the elements ordained by Him.
4. The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.
As adopted by the Lambeth Conference of 1888, Resolution 11
A further IC response to Kigali
INCLUSIVECHURCH: A FURTHER RESPONSE TO THE “KIGALI COMMUNIQUE”
In September 2006, a Global South Primates Meeting was held and the Kigali Communiqué published. We are among the many Anglicans concerned that its direction is at odds with our understanding of Scripture and the essence of Anglican tradition.
It is disappointing that the Communiqué renounces fellowship with Anglicans in North America and provincial autonomy, and commends for further reflection ‘The Path to Lambeth’, which condemns provinces as following the ‘way of idolatry’ if they take a different view on theology or even comply with equality laws. This also claims that there is a general ‘requirement that believers not associate with openly immoral church members’; and ‘We in the Global South have always made repentance the starting point for any reconciliation and resumption of fellowship in the Communion.’ This echoes Archbishop Peter Akinola’s earlier description of the Episcopal Church of the USA as a ‘cancerous lump’ which must be ‘excised’.
Witnessing in a broken world
The Communiqué draws attention to the tragedy of the genocide in Rwanda, to which primates and other leaders responded by ‘prayer and reflection. We were chastened by this experience and commit ourselves not to abandon the poor or the persecuted wherever they may be and in whatever circumstances. We add our voices to theirs and we say, “Never Again!”’ It continues, ‘As we prayed and wept at the mass grave of 250,000 helpless victims we confronted the utter depravity and inhumanity to which we are all subject outside of the transforming grace of God.’
Over the past century, widespread cruelty and slaughter have taken place not only in parts of Africa, Asia and Latin America but also in Europe. Many vividly remember when Hitler’s regime, which held that some people were superior and others subhuman, murdered large numbers of Jewish and disabled people, and locked gypsies and gays, communists and feminists in concentration camps which many did not survive. How have ordinary people repeatedly been persuaded to go along with ethnic ‘cleansing’ and other barbarity?
Factors perhaps include the tendency of humans to feel distaste or contempt for, or distance themselves from, those regarded as ‘other’. Most disturbingly, while some Christians have bravely resisted, other devout believers have been convinced that mistreating others was doing God’s will. Through the centuries many have believed that the Bible justified anti-Semitism and separation of humankind into different ‘races’ or violence against the defenceless. It is all too easy not to question what teachers, pastors and national leaders claim is righteous and true. Scripture and tradition, as well as claims of social progress, have been misused to justify victimising others, not recognising them as children of the same heavenly Father, in whose image they are made. Indeed ‘The heart is devious above all else; it is perverse – who can understand it?’ (Jeremiah 17.9).
Less obviously, in both the global South and North, the destitute and abandoned largely go unnoticed by the prosperous and comfortable, apart from occasional acts of charity. Often Christians as well as non-Christians pass by on the other side (Luke 10.25-37), unwilling to enter too deeply into the lives of those whose experience is different from their own.
Humility is called for on the part of Anglicans throughout the world who wish to challenge cruelty and injustice and grow more like their Shepherd, who teaches people to love even their enemies (Matthew 5.43-48), patiently seeks the lost (Luke 15) and is willing to lay down his life for his sheep (John 10.11-16). ‘Evangelical’ or ‘Anglo-Catholic’, ‘liberal’ or ‘traditional’, we can only witness authentically to a broken world if we can admit our own fallibility.
Being Anglican
Nevertheless Anglicanism has something to offer the world. It arose from the ashes of brutal conflict in which pious Christians burnt or beheaded one another in God’s name. Former enemies, joined in a common baptism, together partook of the body and blood of Christ.
Decolonisation further decentralised power in the Anglican Communion, as did the increased role of laypeople in decision-making. There is no single authority which wields control everywhere, which could stifle cultural and theological diversity.
At best, Anglican engagement with Scripture, tradition and reason (and experience, some would add) has provided fertile ground for the workings of the Holy Spirit. It has sometimes taken a long time to reach consensus, and profound theological disagreements remain on issues ranging from lay presidency at communion to nuclear warfare, remarriage of divorcees and homosexuality. Patience can be hard, not only for those who believe that harmful teachings and practices are not being strongly enough challenged but also for others who feel that their vocation or very humanity has not been recognised because of their gender, sexuality, ethnicity or disability. But in time correct ideas are generally confirmed and wrong ones abandoned, in the context of shared worship, prayer and care for the sick and needy.
Dare any of us judge others, confident that we occupy the moral high ground (Matthew 7.1-5)? Does the language of “The Road to Lambeth” reflect the wisdom from above that is pure, peaceable, gentle and full of mercy (James 3.13-18)? Can we presume to come to the Lord’s table trusting in our own righteousness, and insist that certain of our brothers and sisters be barred if we are to attend? Jesus himself was criticised for eating with sinners (Matthew 9.11-13); are the disciples greater than the master? And if strong differences of opinion arise over other matters (which is likely) might there not be further splits? Will clergy who disagree with legitimate decisions within their provinces again seek out archbishops overseas to offer episcopal oversight? This is not in accord with Anglican tradition, and sets a poor example to a divided world.
Living with difference can be painful, and it may take time to learn to dispute difficult issues with kindness, respect and empathy. But the breadth of Anglicanism is part of our inheritance which we should cherish. Through continuing to eat and drink together at the Lord’s table and seeking to love across boundaries of culture and opinion, Anglicans may experience spiritual renewal and play a greater part in the healing of the nations.
Prepared by Savitri Hensman, Anglican Matters and member of InclusiveChurch executive
16 CommentsInclusiveChurch on San Joaquin
Statement from InclusiveChurch regarding the Diocese of San Joaquin
9th October 2006
1.0 On October 1st, the Diocese of San Joaquin in California gave notice that it is calling a conference on 1st and 2nd December 2006 following proposals to amend the Diocesan constitution. The amendments would “place the Diocese of San Joaquin in an ideal position to be part of any ecclesiastical structure that the Archbishop of Canterbury and Primates might design”.
There can be little doubt that we are witnessing the rolling out of a carefully planned and well-funded strategy to create a church-within-a-church. If San Joaquin is successful, it will probably be followed by the other Dioceses seeking Alternative Primatial Oversight (APO). From there, it is likely that non-geographical missionary dioceses will be created, so that parallel structures will exist initially in the United States but thereafter in Canada, the United Kingdom and across the world.
2.0 This in tandem with the “Road to Lambeth” document and the Kigali Communique further confirm that the attempt to subvert traditional Anglicanism is already well advanced. We view these developments with deep concern.
3.0 InclusiveChurch is a broad-based organisation. Our supporters, across the world, include evangelicals, broad-church Anglicans, liberals and catholics. The partners with whom we work very closely include: Accepting Evangelicals, Changing Attitude, the Association of Black Clergy, the Modern Churchpeoples’ Union, the Society of Catholic Priests, Women and The Church, the Group for the Rescinding of the Act of Synod, Affirming Catholicism and the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement. We are orthodox Anglicans. We care deeply about the Gospel of Jesus Christ as communicated through the Anglican tradition. We look to the tradition of Lancelot Andrewes and Richard Hooker: “One Canon (of Scripture) reduced to unity by God Himself, two Testaments, three Creeds, four General Councils, (over) five centuries.” We understand the Anglican Communion to be both Catholic and Reformed, episcopally governed and synodically led. And we give thanks to God for its breadth, its diversity and its complex life.
4.1 It is in this context that we believe that what we are seeing is a serious distortion of Anglican polity and theology. In particular, bodies which have no legal or executive status in Anglicanism – notably the Lambeth Conference and the Primates Meetings – are being promoted to a position where they are being used to override fundamental Anglican principles – provincial autonomy and synodical government. Resolution 1.10 – which came at the end of a notoriously unedifying debate and is the flawed result of a badly managed process – apparently justifies the elevation of the Windsor Report to a quasi-legal status with the Primates sitting as judge and jury on the “Windsor compliance” of the Episcopal Church (TEC) and the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC).
4.2 None of this is acceptable. Primates are not cardinals. The Primates’ meeting is not the Curia. Primates of any part of the Anglican Communion do not have the right to commit their provinces to action without implementing detailed and comprehensive synodical processes. The Windsor Report was an attempt to find a way through the apparent impasse we had reached. We acknowledge that it has, in the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury, been “widely accepted as a basis for any progress”. As a result and in order to go the extra mile, TEC and the ACC have agreed in the interests of unity both to withdraw from the meetings of the Anglican Consultative Council and to major amendments in provincial practice. But the notion that TEC has in some way “broken the rules” has no place in Anglican ecclesiology.
5.0 Savitri Hensman has written “Anglicanism has something to offer the world. It arose from the ashes of brutal conflict in which pious Christians burnt or beheaded one another in God’s name. Former enemies, joined in a common baptism, together partook of the body and blood of Christ.
Decolonisation further decentralised power in the Anglican Communion, as did the increased role of laypeople in decision-making. There is no single authority which wields control everywhere, which could stifle cultural and theological diversity.
Dare any of us judge others, confident that we occupy the moral high ground (Matthew 7.1-5)? Does the language of “The Road to Lambeth” language reflect the wisdom from above that is pure, peaceable, gentle and full of mercy (James 3.13-18)? Can we presume to come to the Lord’s table trusting in our own righteousness, and insist that certain of our brothers and sisters be barred if we are to attend? Jesus himself was criticised for eating with sinners (Matthew 9.11-13); are the disciples greater than the master? And if strong differences of opinion arise over other matters (which is likely) might there not be further splits? Will clergy who disagree with legitimate decisions within their provinces again seek out archbishops overseas to offer episcopal oversight? This is not in accord with Anglican tradition, and sets a poor example to a divided world.” (InclusiveChurch: a further response to the Kigali Communique – by Savitri Hensman)
6.0 This statement is being written in a thriving, inner city parish in South London. Half of the congregation are from Nigeria; one fifth from Sierra Leone and Ghana. Some are gay or lesbian. We do not agree on everything. But we meet, every Sunday, at the altar and share in the eucharist. We give thanks, every Sunday, that we are the Body of Christ; by the one spirit we were all baptised into one body.
6.1 The approach being taken by the “Global South” and the dioceses seeking APO seems to assume a theological dualism. Those who ascribe to a particular series of beliefs, coalescing around attitudes to homosexuality, are right. Everyone else is wrong. In the words of the Archbishop of Nigeria “Who ever subscribes to this covenant must abide by it and those who are unable to subscribe to it will walk out”. We see no place in Anglicanism for the description by a Primate of another province as a “cancer” which must be “rooted out”.
7.0 We call on all members of our communion – laity, clergy and bishops – to recognise the clear and present danger to the charism with which we are entrusted. In a world where modernity is increasingly rejected, and where the “lust for certainty” is increasingly paramount, the Anglican Communion has a great deal to offer. In the words of the Archbishop of Cape Town “We must not lose this inheritance, if we are serious about being faithful to the Lord, as he has been faithful to us.”
For further information and to sign up as a supporter of InclusiveChurch’s aims, go to www.inclusivechurch.net.
Giles Goddard – Chair –
On behalf of the InclusiveChurch Executive
still more about Kigali
Earlier in the week, Jonathan Petre reported for the Telegraph that Williams told to act over gay clergy or face summit boycott:
Conservative Anglican leaders are urging the Archbishop of Canterbury to crack down on gay clergy in England or risk a boycott of the 2008 Lambeth Conference.
The archbishops, mainly from Africa and Asia, have expressed privately to Dr Rowan Williams their fears that the Church of England is fast becoming as liberal as its American counterpart.
They are particularly angry that bishops are failing to discipline gay clergy who have openly defied official guidelines on civil partnerships.
The concerns were raised at the Global South summit in Rwanda earlier this month, though no direct reference was included in their final statement. However, in a fresh blow to hopes for unity, sources said a number of archbishops may refuse to attend the Lambeth Conference, the 10-yearly summit of bishops held in Canterbury…
Andrew Goddard at Fulcrum has published a lengthy analysis, Fulfilled or Finished? which responds to the InclusiveChurch article by Giles Goddard (no relation), published earlier:
…The Inclusive Church statement (written by its Chair, Giles Goddard) and the GS documents to which it responds make evident just how serious are the differences and how wide is the gulf between Anglicans. They also signal how seriously – and how soon – we may face realignments that would bring about ‘the end of the Communion’ as we know it. The differences now becoming very clear relate not only to where we go from here but also understandings of where we are and how we got here.
The following offers an initial response to Giles Goddard’s various points in the hope that, by dialogue and listening, we may in the months ahead come to understand better where different perspectives are coming from and whether they are ultimately irreconcilable within the same ecclesial structures…
Thanks to Nick Knisely for drawing my attention to this analysis:Kigali, Covenant and Communion written by a Canadian blogger.
34 Commentsmore on Kigali
The Church Times last week had a news report by Pat Ashworth: Global South Primates call for a ‘separate structure’ in USA.
The newspaper also had a leading article: Taking the road from Kigali:
…a determination to “stand against evil” is not a normal starting point for discussions about the better working of the Church Catholic. It helps to explain the Primates’ antagonistic stance towards the leadership of the Episcopal Church in the United States, though this is cloaked as a willingness to respond to those inside the US who have asked for outside assistance and oversight. But, however explicable, the decision to set up a parallel organisation in an existing province – unbidden – is a schismatic act; for what is a “separate ecclesiastical structure” but a Church?
The Kigali Primates speak of proceeding “in consultation with the instruments of unity in the Communion”. This is a perverse idea in the circumstances. None of those instruments – the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates’ Meeting, the Anglican Consultative Council, and the Lambeth Conference – could countenance such a move. It is possible that the Global South Primates believe the US Episcopal leadership to be so discredited that the rest of the Communion will allow a new organisation to take its place as the official Anglican body there. It is more likely that they are not particularly interested in seeking permission. The document The Road to Lambeth, endorsed by the Primates of the Global South, hopes that its road ahead “may pass through Lambeth, our historical mother. But above all it must be the road of the Cross.”…
Michael Poon at Global South Anglican had some comments about the most contentious of the documents from Kigali: Quo Vadis? – Questions along the Road from Lambeth – A response to CAPA’s Invitation:
56 CommentsThe Road to Lambeth is an appeal for faithfulness to God. It also recommends the way by which we keep this faith. These are two related but distinct summons. It is important to bear this in mind as we read the Report. My purpose here is to heed the Global South Primates’ advice to reflect on this draft report.
I begin with an observation on the status of the Report. The Report states in its Preamble that it was commissioned by CAPA Primates in February 2006. CAPA Primates received it “with gratitude” on 19 September 2006. They did not say they approved it; rather they “commended [it] for study and response to the churches of the provinces in Africa”.
The Kigali Communiqué takes a more reserved view on the Report. In sharp contrast with the enthusiastic language used on the Anglican Covenant processes earlier in Section 7 of the Communiqué, the Global South Primates stated that they “receive” the Report. They noted that “it highlights the crisis that now confronts us” and “commend this report for wider reflection”. In other words, they recognized the depth of the crisis that called for faithfulness. However, they shied away from endorsing the particular solutions the Report offered.
What then is the status of the Road to Lambeth? A CAPA commission drafted it and presented it to their Primates in September. CAPA Primates now officially recommends it for wider study. They have not mentioned how they will follow it up. The Global South Primates takes note of it as a document from CAPA, and commends it for wider reflection within the Communion…
Ndungane preaches at Southwark
Stephen Bates has written about the sermon preached at Southwark Cathedral by Njongonkulu Ndungane the Archbishop of Cape Town. You can read the sermon itself in full here. Please do read it all.
The comment piece is published under the headline Harvesting intolerance. It covers the sermon, but also several other current events. It’s also worth reading all the way through.
Update
The BBC Sunday radio programme’s Jane Little also interviewed the archbishop:
11 CommentsArchbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane
The slow and painful story of the disintegration of the Anglican communion continues to unfold. The divisions over homosexuality have pitted church leaders from the south – largely in Africa – against liberals in the west for condoning something they see as unbiblical. But one prominent African archbishop has long called for tolerance and has now broken with his fellow archbishops accusing them in turn of standing on the brink of destroying Anglicanism. Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane joins Jane in the studio.
Listen (5m 52s)
other Kigali reports
Ruth Gledhill wrote in The Times about Archbishop criticises anti-gay clergy.
Ruth also appeared on the BBC Sunday radio programme. Link to audio here, and transcript here.
The South African branch of Anglican Mainstream expressed its opinions here. Greg Venables also had an opinion. So did Church Society.
11 CommentsChew responds to Ndungane
Global South Anglican has published Some points of clarification on the Kigali Meeting and Communique – Archbishop John Chew:
37 CommentsIn light of the 24 September 2006 Statement on the Global South “Kigali” Communique by the Archbishop Njongongkulu Ndungane, the Primate of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa, it is necessary to make the following clarifications:
1. “Whereas Canon Livingstone Ngewu and I were present in Kigali, neither of us were made aware even of the possibility of a communique in the name of the Primates of the Global South, prior to its release.”
The draft Agenda clearly stating the item and intent was sent out earlier to the Primates who have indicated their participation at the Kigali Meeting. At the 1st Session after the Opening Address by the Chairman, the draft Agenda was presented and, with some amendments, were agreed by all present. The 1st Reading of the draft Communique was put backward from the evening of the 2nd day to the afternoon session of the 3rd day. Furthermore, a Communique drafting committee chaired by the Archbishop Bernard Ntahoturi of Burundi was unanimously appointed. Both Archbishop Ndungane and Canon Ngewu were present throughout the time these decisions were made.
2. “I am surprised that we allow our agenda to be so dominated and driven by an inordinate influence from the United States. ……… It is hard to understand why we continue to act in response to the North to such a great extent, rather than making use of our freedom to concentrate our energies on the priorities of our own people and Provinces.”
Careful reading of the Agenda and the Kigali Communique will clearly show that discussions on and responses to the so-called matters of the United States or the ‘North’ took up only a very small portion of time of the whole Meeting. Archbishop Ndungane left immediately after the 1st Session of the Meeting on “Update of the previous two Global South Primates Steering Committee Meetings” on Wednesday morning (20th September). He would have been very encouraged and his sentiments dispelled if he had stayed throughout the Meeting.
The recently formed Theological Formation and Education Task Force (co-ordinated by Revd Dr Michael Poon with a Primate, a Bishop and two clergy seminary theologians) and Economic Empowerment Track (co-ordinated by Mr Keith Chua with mainly senior laity and some Bishops and clergy) met in parallel and intense consultations during the Meeting. Both tracks made quality presentations and recommendations for adoption. Their practical and prompt implementations were urged. The importance of these two tracks for the development and maturity of the Global South Provinces could not be over-emphasised. These were mandated when some 20 Global South Provinces (each represented by the Primate, Bishop, Clergy and Laity including Youth) met at the “Red Sea Encounter” in Egypt last October.
3. “To me, at least, it appears in places that there is a hidden agenda, to which some of us are not privy… there seems to be a deliberate intention toundermine the due processes of the Anglican Communion and the integrity of the Instruments of Unity, …”
The consistent and public stand of the majority of the Global South Provinces in relation to the crisis provoked by the actions and resolutions of the ECUSA and Canadian Anglican Church is openly known and clearly expressed in the various Statements or Communiques on these matters since late 2003. These are all in the public domain for all who wish to read or have access to them.
The Most Revd Dr John Chew
Hon Secretary, Global South Provinces in the Anglican Communion
25th September 2006
Kigali signatures
In view of the statement issued today by the Primate of Southern Africa, the question arises as to who exactly has endorsed the Kigali statement. Here’s a summary of the situation so far (emphasis added to some of the quotes):
Archbishop Ndungane said:
I wish to offer this clarification of the position of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa, in light of the potentially misleading impression that our Province has endorsed the Communiqué issued at the end of the meeting. Whereas Canon Livingstone Ngewu and I were present in Kigali, neither of us were made aware even of the possibility of a communiqué in the name of the Primates of the Global South, prior to its release.
The Kigali Global South Communique started out:
1. As Primates and Leaders of the Global South Provinces of the Anglican Communion we gathered at the Hotel des Mille Collines in Kigali, Rwanda, between 19th and 22nd September 2006. We were called together by the Global South Steering Committee and its chairman, Archbishop Peter J. Akinola. Twenty provinces were represented at the meeting*.
And the * note reads:
* Provinces Represented:
Bangladesh**, Burundi, Central Africa, Church of South India, Congo, Indian Ocean, Jerusalem and Middle East, Kenya, Myanmar, Nigeria, Philippines**, Rwanda, Southern Africa, South East Asia, Southern Cone, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, West Africa, West Indies (** Not present but represented)
No list of individuals attending, still less of those signing, was included.
The ENS press release noted:
The communiqué stated that 20 of the Anglican Communion’s 38 Provinces were represented at the Rwanda meeting, but signatories among the Primates in attendance were not included with the statement. It is unclear how many, or which, Primates endorsed the communiqué.
The Living Church claimed:
The communiqué, endorsed by representatives from 20 of the Communion’s 38 provinces,…
and went on to list the attendees as:
Present at the meeting were archbishops Bernard Ntahoturi, Burundi; Bernard Malango, Central Africa; Fidèle Dirokpa, Congo; Ian Ernest, Indian Ocean; Clive Handford, Jerusalem and the Middle East; Benjamin Nzimbi, Kenya; Samuel San Si Htay, Myanmar (Burma); Peter Akinola, Nigeria; Emmanuel Kolini, Rwanda; Njongonkulu Ndungane, Southern Africa; John Chew, South East Asia; Joseph Marona, Sudan; Donald Mtetemela, Tanzania; Henry Orombi, Uganda; Justice Akrofi, West Africa; Drexel Gomez, West Indies; Presiding Bishop Gregory Venables of the Southern Cone, and Moderator of the Church of South India Bishop Peter Sughandar.
Representatives of the Moderator of the Church of Bangladesh and the Presiding Bishop of the Philippines were also present, as was the Rt. Rev. Martyn Minns, rector of Truro Parish, Fairfax, Va., and Bishop of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America under the Church of Nigeria.
It goes on to say, though, that:
While presenting a united front in Kigali, the leadership of the Global South is not as one over the issue of homosexuality. Present for the first part of the meeting, the Primate of the Anglican Church in Southern Africa, Archbishop Ndungane left on Sept. 21 to address a controversy arising from the publication of Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s official biography.
Both the Telegraph (“a powerful group of 20 primates said”) and The Times (“archbishops from the 20 African and Asian provinces in the Anglican “Global South” grouping said”) assumed that all 20 primates had agreed the statement.
29 CommentsNjongonkulu Ndungane on the Communiqué
Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane
Statement on the Global South Communiqué
24 September 2006
I thank God for the fellowship I enjoyed with my brother Primates of CAPA and the Global South, in Kigali last week, as we shared concerns about the Anglican Communion and other matters of common interest.
I wish to offer this clarification of the position of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa, in light of the potentially misleading impression that our Province has endorsed the Communiqué issued at the end of the meeting. Whereas Canon Livingstone Ngewu and I were present in Kigali, neither of us were made aware even of the possibility of a communiqué in the name of the Primates of the Global South, prior to its release.
While I may well concur with some sections of the text, there are others which are certainly not consonant with the position of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa, as articulated only earlier this month by our Synod of Bishops and our Provincial Synod. This is particularly the case in relation to Section 10.
As a general point, I want to comment that whereas I fully endorse the rationale for a body such as the Global South, which can help us address some of the power imbalances between North and South that exist within the Church and more generally, I am surprised that we allow our agenda to be so dominated and driven by an inordinate influence from the United States. This flies in the face of the experience of those of us who are steeped in black and post-colonial theology, the theology of liberation, and black consciousness. It is hard to understand why we continue to act in response to the North to such a great extent, rather than making use of our freedom to concentrate our energies on the priorities of our own people and Provinces.
That said, there is no doubt that the tensions within the Anglican Communion, arising from actions within North America, raise serious and problematic concerns for our future. Yet I am deeply disturbed by the tenor of our approach, as reflected in this communiqué. To me, at least, it appears in places that there is a hidden agenda, to which some of us are not privy. For example, I am unable to understand why there seems to be a deliberate intention to undermine the due processes of the Anglican Communion and the integrity of the Instruments of Unity, while at the same time we commit ourselves to upholding Anglican identity, of which these, as they have continued to evolve over the years in response to changing needs, are an intrinsic part. Thus, for example, recent meetings of the Primates, in which the Global South played a very full part, requested various actions from the Archbishop of Canterbury, which he has been assiduous in pursuing; such as setting up the Lambeth Commission, the Panel of Reference, and now the Covenant Design Group. Yet there seems to be an urgency to obtain particular outcomes in advance, pre-empting the proper outworking of the bodies for which we called.
Patience is a fruit of the Holy Spirit. As Peter writes in his second letter, ‘Do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day. The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.’ We do not want the best of Anglicanism to be cast aside, and so to perish! And to allow the due processes of these bodies, and the Instruments of Unity, to be followed through will take such a short time in relation to the life of God’s Church over two millennia.
I must also say that I am disturbed by the apparent zeal for action to be taken against those deemed not in compliance with Lambeth Resolution 1:10, with a readiness to disregard ancient norms of observing diocesan autonomy. Though this was upheld within the Windsor Report’s recommendations, it is of course a practice that was adopted in earliest times by the universal church. It was thus ironic that that the feast of Theodore of Tarsus fell during our meeting: as Archbishop of Canterbury, in 673 he summoned one of the most important Synods of our early tradition. In addressing both the rights and duties of clergy and religious, its decisions included the requirement, already acknowledged elsewhere, of bishops to work within their own dioceses and not to intrude on the ministry of others. We are in danger of giving the impression of being loyal Anglicans, and loyal members of God’s One, Holy and Apostolic Church, only where, and insofar, it suits us!
We must also be careful to avoid creating, in effect, episcopi vagantes. This is a difficult and complex area, which Resolution 35 of the Lambeth Conference of 1920 addressed when it said ‘The territorial Episcopate has been the normal development in the Catholic Church, but we recognise that differences of race and language sometimes require that provision should be made in a Province for freedom of development of races side by side; the solution in each case must be left with the Province, but we are clear that the ideal of the one Church should never be obscured.’ In our time too, we must do all that we can not to obscure that ideal of the one Church.
I am also more than a little wary of calling into question the election processes of another Province in the way the Communiqué suggests, in relation to the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church. This introduces a completely new dimension into our relationships within the Communion, the reciprocal implications of which we have not considered. I would feel more confident if we addressed this question as a part of the more comprehensive reassessment of the nature of the Communion for our times, which is underway not least through the work of the Covenant Design Group.
An added concern for me is the apparent marginalisation of laity, clergy and bishops in the debate within the Global South. I was particularly glad that circumstances allowed me fully to consult both my fellow bishops, and our Provincial Synod, immediately in advance of the Kigali meeting. For a fundamental and indispensable element of our Anglican identity is that we are both episcopally led and synodically governed. I long for a consultative process that fully engages the whole Body of Christ, recognising that ‘to each one, the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good’ (1 Cor 12:7). Primates do not have sole monopoly on wisdom and knowledge at this crucial time, nor indeed at any other!
In light of this, I also want to clarify what may be to some the ambiguous wording of section 14. CAPA Primates ‘received’ the draft ‘The Road to Lambeth’ in the sense of agreeing to give it full consideration. However, we recognised our inability to commit our Provinces to this, or indeed any other text, without consulting them. It is precisely for that consultation that we are referring it to our Provinces for study, with the expectation that comments will be made, and a final text agreed in the new year. Our ‘commending’ should not be interpreted as ‘endorsing’ the text as it currently stands – it remains a draft.
To my brother Primates of the Global South and CAPA, I therefore offer a plea from the heart. Let us hold fast, in word and deed, to the true marks with which we believe the Lord has graced and gifted us as Anglicans – yes, our rootedness in Scripture as our primary touchstone, but also in our Tradition and our use of Reason. The Windsor Report has done us an invaluable service in beginning to address how we understand and recognise these and what they mean for us today, and the Archbishop of Canterbury has offered further vital insights in his reflections ‘The Challenge and Hope of Being an Anglican Today.’ I have offered my own thoughts in ‘Heartlands of Anglicanism’ and I am sure there is more to be said. But I am also sure that if we fail to carry forward the ‘three-fold strands’ not just of Scripture, Tradition and Reason, but also of what Archbishop Rowan has so eloquently described as ‘reformed commitment to the absolute priority of the Bible for deciding doctrine, a catholic loyalty to the sacraments and the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, and a habit of cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility that does not seek to close down unexpected questions too quickly’ – that if we fail to carry forward these, then we certainly relinquish our ability to claim that we stand authentically within Anglicanism.
In the book of the Prophet Isaiah, we read that ‘those who wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength, they shall mount up with wings like eagles, they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not be faint.’ We want the Anglican Communion to rise up, renewed and strengthened, on eagles’ wings. It is for us to wait upon the Lord. We do not have a God who is slow to act. We can have confidence to let him lead our Church forward, through the ways he has so often done in the past. In our concerns for the Anglican Communion which we love, we do not have to be precipitate and risk losing much of what it is we wish to preserve and enhance.
And so I also offer a call to my brother Primates, that we step back from the brink at which the Kigali Communiqué appears to place us. It is certainly the case that we need changes within the life, and structures, and processes of the Anglican Communion. Yet part of the strength of our heritage is that intrinsic to our life, structures and processes is a considerable flexibility and openness to change that has allowed us to evolve – creating and amending Instruments of Unity, for example (and I am thinking here particularly of the ACC) in response to God’s calling to be faithful in our mission and ministry to his people and his world. We are now in need of such evolution, to preserve the very best of the heart of Anglicanism – and working in conformity with this essence of Anglicanism will most effectively preserve that ‘best’ which has been God’s continuing gift to us over the centuries.
Two weeks before our meeting in Kigali, the Synod of Bishops of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa issued a statement which spoke of the gift of tolerance and grace in the face of the pains of divisions among ourselves with which we have had to deal in our past. The breadth of current divisions also find expression within our Province. Yet we remain convinced that what unites us far outweighs what divides us, and that we must therefore both choose and strive, with deep sacrificial love, for the Anglican Communion to remain united.
Our God surely is a God of surprises. As one of my predecessors as Archbishop of Cape Town said, ‘God still works his purposes out, in spite of the confusions of our minds.’
May that be so! Amen!
31 Commentsadditional Global South documents
Apart from the Communiqué, several other documents have been published:
The draft report was commissioned by the Primates of the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa (CAPA) in February 2006; it was received with gratitude by the CAPA Primates on 19 September 2006 and commended for study and response to the churches of the provinces in Africa.
Global South Anglican theological Formation and Education Task Force, Kigali September 2006
Global South Economic Empowerment Track Summary Statement, Kigali September 2006
Ethical Economic and Financial Covenant – Global South Primates, Kigali September 2006
17 Commentsresponses to Kigali
Updated Sunday
There has been a chorus of happy responses to the Kigali communiqué from North American conservatives:
NACDAP aka Anglican Communion Network Global South Confirms Support of North American Anglicans
American Anglican Council AAC Commends Bold Kigali Communiqué Issued by Global South Primates
Anglican Network in Canada Global Anglican Leaders Issue Grave Warning to Canadian Church
Episcopal News Service has issued this report Global South meeting issues communiqué.
Mark Harris has published his opinions: Some Unkind Thoughts on the Communiqué from the Global South Primates. (revised)
Ruth Gledhill at Times Online has published Anti-gay bishops vote to split the evangelical church in two (headline, but not TITLE field now changed from “evangelical” to “Anglican”)
George Conger at the Living Church has significant additional detail on attendance and other aspects in Global South Coalition: Time for Alternative U.S. Church Structure
Saturday morning additions
ENS has a further article: Observers respond to Kigali, Camp Allen statements
Associated Press Anglican conservatives to snub female
Telegraph Jonathan Petre Traditionalists plan parallel anti-homosexual Church and his blog entry is titled The Archbishop’s ‘Third Way’.
Washington Times Julia Duin Anglicans freeze out liberal, female bishop
Episcopal Majority has issued: Akinola Throws Down Gauntlet
Fr Jake has published Global South to the Communion: “We Rule!”
Jim Naughton has Aggression and also Deja vu all over again
Saturday Afternoon Additions
Marshall Scott Catholic Order, Impaired Communion, and Anglican Boundaries
Matt Kennedy The Camp Allen Statement: Gifts Squandered, Allies Rebuffed
Jim Naughton again: What to do next
Sunday Additions
Njongonkulu Ndungane on the Communiqué
Integrity INTEGRITY RESPONDS TO KIGALI COMMUNIQUÉ
14 CommentsGlobal South meeting: text of communique
Here is the text of the paragraphs of the latest Global South communique that deal with “Windsor issues”. Note that this is only a portion of the whole text, which deals with a range of other topics. ACNS copy here.
32 Comments7. We recognize that because of the ongoing conflict in the Communion many people have lost hope that we will come to any resolution in the foreseeable future. We are grateful therefore, that one sign of promise is the widespread support for the development of an Anglican Covenant. We are delighted to affirm the extraordinary progress made by the Global South task group on developing an Anglican Covenant. For the past year they have labored on this important task and we look forward to submitting the result of their labor to the rest of the Communion. We are pleased that the Archbishop of Canterbury has recognized the exemplary scholarship and leadership of Archbishop Drexel Gomez in asking him to chair the Covenant Design Group and look forward with anticipation to the crucial next steps of this historic venture. We believe that an Anglican Covenant will demonstrate to the world that it is possible to be a truly global communion where differences are not affirmed at the expense of faith and truth but within the framework of a common confession of faith and mutual accountability.
8. We have come together as Anglicans and we celebrate the gift of Anglican identity that is ours today because of the sacrifice made by those who have gone before us. We grieve that, because of the doctrinal conflict in parts of our Communion, there is now a growing number of congregations and dioceses in the USA and Canada who believe that their Anglican identity is at risk and are appealing to us so that they might remain faithful members of the Communion. As leaders of that Communion we will work together to recognize the Anglican identity of all who receive, hold and maintain the Scriptures as the Word of God written and who seek to live in godly fellowship within our historic ordering.
9. We deeply regret that, at its most recent General Convention, The Episcopal Church gave no clear embrace of the minimal recommendations of the Windsor Report. We observe that a number of the resolutions adopted by the Convention were actually contrary to the Windsor Report. We are further dismayed to note that their newly elected Presiding Bishop also holds to a position on human sexuality – not to mention other controversial views – in direct contradiction of Lambeth 1.10 and the historic teaching of the Church. The actions and decisions of the General Convention raise profound questions on the nature of Anglican identity across the entire Communion.
10. We are, however, greatly encouraged by the continued faithfulness of the Network Dioceses and all of the other congregations and communities of faithful Anglicans in North America. In addition, we commend the members of the Anglican Network in Canada for their commitment to historic, biblical faith and practice. We value their courage and consistent witness. We are also pleased by the emergence of a wider circle of ‘Windsor Dioceses’ and urge all of them to walk more closely together and deliberately work towards the unity that Christ enjoins. We are aware that a growing number of congregations are receiving oversight from dioceses in the Global South and in recent days we have received requests to provide Alternative Primatial Oversight for a number of dioceses. This is an unprecedented situation in our Communion that has not been helped by the slow response from the Panel of Reference. After a great deal of prayer and deliberation, and in order to support these faithful Anglican dioceses and parishes, we have come to agreement on the following actions:
a. We have asked the Global South Steering Committee to meet with the leadership of the dioceses requesting Alternative Primatial Oversight, in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Network and the ‘Windsor Dioceses’, to investigate their appeal in greater detail and to develop a proposal identifying the ways by which the requested Primatial oversight can be adequately provided.
b. At the next meeting of the Primates in February 2007 some of us will not be able to recognize Katharine Jefferts Schori as a Primate at the table with us. Others will be in impaired communion with her as a representative of The Episcopal Church. Since she cannot represent those dioceses and congregations who are abiding by the teaching of the Communion we propose that another bishop, chosen by these dioceses, be present at the meeting so that we might listen to their voices during our deliberations.
c. We are convinced that the time has now come to take initial steps towards the formation of what will be recognized as a separate ecclesiastical structure of the Anglican Communion in the USA. We have asked the Global South Steering Committee to develop such a proposal in consultation with the appropriate instruments of unity of the Communion. We understand the serious implications of this determination. We believe that we would be failing in our apostolic witness if we do not make this provision for those who hold firmly to a commitment to historic Anglican faith.