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…
Update The report can now be downloaded from the CofE website (458 kB pdf file).
The Church of England has launched a set of guidelines for anyone with pastoral responsibility as part of the Church’s commitment to victims of domestic abuse and to addressing the circumstances that lead to such abuse. The press release is here. Responding to Domestic Abuse: Guidelines for those with pastoral responsibility was produced in response to a motion passed by General Synod in July 2004.
Two press reports concentrate on the reasons for abuse rather than on how to respond to it.
Jonathan Petre in the Telegraph Traditional marriage vows ‘could be used to justify wife beating’
Ruth Gledhill in The Times Distorted Christianity ‘causing abuse’
46 CommentsThe Church of England is to appoint its first Bishop for Urban Life and Faith. To quote the press release
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have appointed the Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, Bishop of Hulme, to promote the dissemination and implementation of the report Faithful Cities, the follow up report to Faith in the City, which was widely welcomed at its launch in May. The appointment is for three years, during which the Bishop will respond to issues of urban policy and life on behalf of the Church.
The press release about Faithful Cities and the Faithful Cities website.
5 CommentsStephen 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)
The Living Church has two reports about the Diocese of San Joaquin:
San Joaquin Reschedules Diocesan Convention and San Joaquin to Consider Leaving The Episcopal Church.
Episcopal News Service has San Joaquin diocese to consider constitutional amendments severing relationship with the Episcopal Church.
All of these are prompted by this announcement on the diocesan website:
16 CommentsDue to recent meetings held within the Anglican Communion, the annual convention in the Diocese of San Joaquin was postponed to convene on December 1st and 2nd of this year, so that clergy and delegates would be better prepared to respond to any decisions made by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Primates that might affect us.
Meetings held in Houston by the Windsor Bishops, as well as the meeting of Primates in Kigali, Rwanda during September, were encouraging to those who have anticipated redefined relationships within the Anglican Communion.
In anticipation of some of the changes that have come about through the above mentioned meetings, constitutional amendments have been proposed that 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.
The Diocese of San Joaquin remains true to the Apostolic teaching and practice of the Episcopal Church that it received by being part of the Anglican Communion. The constitutional changes currently being proposed by the diocese affect neither this faith nor practice but rather perpetuate the historic Faith of the Church in a time when these things are being challenged by others.
Proposed Constitutional changes that have been on file with the Secretary of Convention since September 1st may be found here [PDF file].
Fr Van McCalister
Public Relations Officer
Diocese of San Joaquin
The Living Church has published this report by George Conger: Archbishop of Canterbury Clarifies Role in Camp Allen Meeting. The quotation from Jonathan Jennings reads:
“The Archbishop of Canterbury was not involved in the organization of the Texas meeting and the Bishops of Durham and Winchester did not attend at his request,” Mr. Jennings noted.
“Once they had been invited by the organizers, they sought his consent to become involved in these discussions. This was discussed in the context of other initiatives and of the statements publicly made by the Archbishop since the General Convention, and consent was given to their participation in their own right in the Texas meeting,” he said.
Links to the conflicting reports: what Bishop Wimberly said originally, what the Camp Allen letter said, what the Presiding Bishop said.
2 CommentsFollowing rumours over the weekend, the Diocese of Virginia has now confirmed that the Bishop of Virginia, Peter Lee, has offered a licence to the Cana Missionary Bishop of the Church of Nigeria, Martyn Minns, to serve until the end of 2006 as priest-in-charge of Truro Church. However the letter from Peter Lee says he has not yet received Martyn Minns’ signature on the licence.
Here is the official press release:A letter to the Diocese of Virginia from the Rt. Rev. Peter James Lee, Bishop:
October 2, 2006
Dear Friends:
On August 20, 2006, the Rt. Rev. Martyn Minns was consecrated a bishop in the Church of Nigeria. That act established his canonical residence in Nigeria and ended his canonical residence in the Diocese of Virginia. Consequently, as a Bishop from another province of the Anglican Communion, Martyn’s ability to function in any jurisdiction other than Nigeria, where he is canonically resident, requires that he be licensed by the Bishop with oversight.
As you well know, the vestry of Truro Church, where Martyn had served as rector since 1991, desired that he be allowed to serve in an ordained leadership capacity while they continue their search for a new rector, and I have been in conversation with the vestry as well as the diocesan Standing Committee, the diocesan Chancellor and others seeking their counsel on this question. Those conversations have concluded in such a way that I believe responds pastorally to the needs of Truro Church and maintains the integrity of the Canons of the Diocese and of The Episcopal Church with respect to ordained service, diocesan and provincial boundaries and episcopal authority.
Accordingly, I have licensed Martyn to serve as priest-in-charge of Truro church through January 1, 2007. The details of the license also establish that Martyn will perform no episcopal acts in the Diocese of Virginia through January 1, 2007 and that Martyn will exercise his ministry in compliance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church and The Diocese of Virginia. The license I issued requires Martyn’s signature. While I have not yet received the executed license, and had not intended to write to you until I had received it, I write to you now in light of the wide publicity being given to Martyn’s letter to the Truro congregation issued late last Friday.
I believe our response to this peculiar situation achieves the goal of discerning a resolution that expresses our concern for the pastoral needs of this congregation, honors the Church and glorifies God.
While I believe this resolution brings this matter to a close, I have no illusion that it satisfies those who continue in conflict over the actions of the 75th General Convention. As you read this, some in the Diocese are in the midst of an organized program of discernment to examine the future of their relationship with The Episcopal Church and The Diocese of Virginia.
While there can be no predetermined outcome for the results of engaging the Holy Spirit, as I write this, I am mindful of the centuries of the faithful who built up the Diocese of Virginia following periods of great division and destruction. I pray that, whatever may be the result of this period of discernment for the members of these congregations, in the end each member will choose to remain a faithful part of the Body of Christ as constituted in our Diocese and in our Church.
Faithfully,
Peter James Lee
Bishop of Virginia
The rumours were reported here, and here, and here. The original report here has still not returned.
Other blogs also commented: see Fr Jake here, and Mark Harris here and later here.
You can see a TV interview with Martyn Minns recorded on 29 September here. Richard Kew comments here.
Episcopal News Service has reported this: VIRGINIA: Bishops Lee, Minns reach agreement on Truro Church
9 CommentsThe Guardian has a Face to Faith column by Emma Klein and Judy Cooper who ask whether forgiveness is always appropriate.
The Times has a Credo column by Roderick Strange about prayer and unbearable pain.
In The Tablet Anthony Carroll, in Faith, reason and modernity, looks closely at what the Pope said in Regensburg earlier this month, and Elena Curti reports on the results of the paper’s survey on Christian-Muslim relations.
In his Sacred Mysteries column in the Telegraph Christopher Howse writes about a wallhanging in Girona cathedral depicting the creation.
In the Church Times the leader looks at the communiqué issued by the primates who met at Kigali. Giles Fraser writes about golf and Christianity, and makes a plea for more socializing by the bishops at the next Lambeth Conference.
Sunday addition
Nick Cohen in The Observer I can barely Adam and Eve it, but creationism’s catching on over here.
7 CommentsA letter, written by the Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, has been published at Anglican Mainstream. It appears that the letter was sent only to a select set of parishes in that diocese.
Ruth Gledhill has written about this on her blog: Church of England expected to revise Civil Partnership Guidelines.
24 CommentsThe Archbishops’ Council has announced that the Bishop of Manchester, Nigel McCulloch, will chair the new legislative drafting group. Read the full press release. The full text of Canon A4, for which the press release links to a pdf file, can be read more easily here.
The BBC has a report: Meeting to consider women bishops.
7 CommentsReports are appearing thick and fast today.
San Joaquin: Bishop of San Joaquin Cleared of Abandonment Charges is in the Living Church and the diocesan press release is here.
Update: much more detail from ENS in San Joaquin bishop’s actions do not constitute abandonment of communion, review committee says.
And again the Living Church reports from Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Standing Committee Rejects Bishop’s Choice of Chancellor and the Standing Committee website is here.
Meanwhile back at Camp Allen/Kigali, ENS has further reports:
Presiding Bishop reflects on Camp Allen, Kigali statements and a Statement from Bonnie Anderson, president of the House of Deputies.
In More objections voiced to Kigali communiqué, we learn from ENS of
…a September 28 statement from the Episcopal Church in the Philippines (ECP) which clarified that its Prime Bishop, the Most Rev. Ignacio C. Soliba, “did not attend the meeting and was not a signatory to the so-called Kigali Communiqué.”
…The Philippine statement also offered greetings on behalf of the province to Presiding Bishop-elect Katharine Jefferts Schori and welcomed her election. “The Episcopal Church in the Philippines will extend an invitation for her to visit the Philippines in early 2008 for the renewal of our historical ties and covenant relationship,” the statement said.
and the history of earlier Global South reports is reviewed.
Reuters has issued Episcopal Church head says split would cause chaos
Another Living Church report covers earlier Kigali news: Global South Primates Trade Accusations of Bad Faith and earlier there was Alaska Bishop Reflects on Camp Allen Meeting.
Update The Living Church report of the Griswold comments: Presiding Bishop Critical of Camp Allen, Kigali Meetings.
Episcopal News Service has published Presiding Bishop reflects on Camp Allen, Kigali meetings. This includes the following passage:
… With regard to the gathering in Texas, advance and follow-up information about this meeting suggest an involvement by the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is important for you to know that the Texas meeting was in no way held at the Archbishop’s initiative nor was it planned in collaboration with him. The two bishops from the Church of England did not attend as delegates of the Archbishop, nor were they empowered to speak on his behalf except to give the message that “the bishops meeting are bishops of the Catholic Church in the Anglican Communion.” The Archbishop has always encouraged exchanges of views, as have I. Therefore, I appreciate the concern of those who attended the Texas meeting for the faithfulness of our church. At the same time, such encouragement does not necessarily imply affirmation of or agreement with points of view expressed in the course of such exchanges…
and also this passage:
The communiqué from Kigali recommends that there be a separate ecclesial body within our province. The suggestion of such a division raises profound questions about the nature of the church, its ordering and its oversight. I further believe such a division would open the way to multiple divisions across other provinces of the Communion, and any sense of a coherent mission would sink into chaos. Such a recommendation appears to be an effort to preempt the Windsor process and acting upon it would create a fact on the ground, making healing and reconciliation – the stated goal of the Windsor process – that much more difficult to achieve.
Having said that, I am well aware that some within our own Episcopal Church are working to achieve such an end. Efforts, some more overt than others, toward this end have been underway since before the 1998 Lambeth Conference. More recently, the Colorado-based organization called the Anglican Communion Institute has posted on its website a paper outlining a four-part strategy toward a new “Constituent body” in the United States, rather than the Episcopal Church, which would participate in the development of an Anglican Covenant. Though the Texas meeting included consultants who are part of the Anglican Communion Institute, I know this goal is not shared by all of the bishops who signed the letter from Texas.
The Kigali communiqué questions Bishop Jefferts Schori’s ability to represent all of our dioceses. The role of primates is to bear witness as fully as possible to the life and complexities of their own provinces. I have sought to bring to the primates’ meetings the wide range of opinions and the consequent tensions within our own church. I have every confidence that Katharine will do the same. Furthermore, the voices from dioceses that the Kigali communiqué fears will not be heard seem to be well represented among the primates themselves.
There is a reference in the article to an Anglican Communion Institute paper. I believe that the paper referenced is this one.
24 CommentsRuth 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 CommentsGlobal 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
Updated Tuesday morning
Jack Iker has been interviewed by Stand Firm about the Camp Allen meeting. Read it here.
Mark Lawrence has been interviewed by the ACN. Related to this, Greg Jones has republished in full an article by Fr Lawrence, Remaining Anglican: In Defense of Dissociation.
Greg Jones himself wrote Megaphone Churchmanship.
Episcopal News Service reports Ndungane disavows Global South Communiqué.
Mark Harris wrote Southern Africa speaks, will more follow?
Matt Thompson continues his Nigerian writing with No guilt by association.
Christ Church Plano has issued a page of Q&A About Our Future.
D Magazine has a long article about the Diocese of Dallas, Breaking Up Is Hard To Do (hat tip KH).
Tuesday Updates
Fr Jake has The Imaginary Majority.
Marshall Scott wrote An Alternative to Hegemony in Anglican Arguments.
10 CommentsAffirming Catholicism has issued this press release:
Affirming Catholics express deep sorrow at conservative Anglican statement
The Director of the Anglican organisation, Affirming Catholicism, today expressed deep sorrow at the communiqué issued after the meeting of Anglican Primates of the Global South. The communiqué expressed the determination of conservative Anglican leaders who met in Rwanda under the chairmanship of The Most Rev’d Peter Akinola, Primate of Nigeria, to set up rival church structures for conservative members of the Episcopal Church in the United States and elsewhere. The Global South leaders also called for the proposed Anglican covenant to be drafted to exclude those who take a progressive line on the issue of homosexuality.
The Director of Affirming Catholicism, the Rev’d Richard Jenkins, said:
The communiqué suggests that Anglicans should unite on the basis of their views on sexuality – which is the very issue that divides us. If we are to be unified, we must draw on deeper resources and display greater charity.
The Anglican commitment to scripture, tradition and reason as sources of authority means that we cannot claim closure on the issue of homosexuality. A covenant which unites us must therefore hold together the three strands of our Church: catholic, evangelical and liberal. I call on the Primates of the Communion to heed the repeated calls of the Archbishop of Canterbury to engage on those lines and seek reconciliation by transcending differences.
The Primate of the Church of the West Indies, the Most Rev’d Drexel Gomez, has been invited by the Archbishop of Canterbury to chair an official drafting group for an Anglican Covenant, but other members of the group have yet to be named. Affirming Catholicism is to hold a day conference to discuss the Covenant, entitled ‘Anglican Unity and the limits of Diversity’ on Saturday 20 January at St Matthew’s Church, Westminster.
ENDS
InclusiveChurch has issued the following press release:
The end of the Communion?
1.0 As a result of the statements issued by the meeting of the Primates of the “Global South” in Kigali, the Anglican Communion has been moved into completely new territory. We are presented with a situation where the possibility of dialogue between believing Christians is being closed down. Both the tone and the content of the Communique of the Primates of the Global South reflect an understanding of the Church which is profoundly un-Anglican, and represents a radical departure from both our ecclesiology and our traditions. We are sleepwalking towards a new church, and unless the silent majority of Anglicans do take action we will wake up to find we have lost the Church and the Christianity we hold dear.
2.0 “One church, one bishop, one territory” is fundamental to our Anglican polity and identity; to say that it is now “outdated” is to deny the whole history of Anglicanism . To say that many of the Primates can either not be in communion or to be in “impaired communion” with the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (TEC) represents a theological and ecclesiological nonsense, The sacrament of Holy Communion is a sacrament given to us by God which is not capable of impairment. We trust in God and give thanks to Him for the gift of communion; it is as the Body of Christ that we exist.
3.0 The proposal to create two parallel jurisdictions within the Anglican Communion, separate but both nominally Anglican through their relationship with Canterbury, rides roughshod over the Instruments of Unity and over the Windsor process. It also represents a misunderstanding of the nature of Anglican identity. If we are in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury we cannot be out of communion with one another.
But we remember that many of the primates of the “Global South” absented themselves from a Eucharist to which they were invited by the Archbishop of Canterbury at the Dromantine Conference in 2005. We draw the conclusion from that that their allegiance to Canterbury is at best skin deep, and subject to his confirmation of their particular position on matters of human sexuality.
We also note that the Communique did not involve or receive the assent of the Archbishop of Cape Town and the Province of Southern Africa, and we wonder how many other Provinces’ assent has been assumed instead of confirmed.
4.0 Those who believe in a church which is both inclusive and welcoming have until now sought to respond to the actions of the Primates of the “Global South” with reason and restraint. As a result, factions within our Church have pushed harder and harder at the bounds of communion. Their proposals now bear only a tangential resemblance to the Anglicanism which has until now defined and developed the Communion.
5.0 We note too that significant amounts of funding for many of the organisations which have led on these – notably the American Anglican Council, Anglican Communion Network and Anglican Mainstream – have come from the Ahmanson family and other non-Anglican, politically conservative foundations based in the United States. This funding has enabled the due processes of the Anglican Communion to be subverted and hijacked, raising issues of family life and human sexuality to a prominence within the life of our church which is unjustified and contrary to the Gospel values of love and justice.
6.0 We have noted with concern that although the Archbishop of Canterbury has implicitly on a number of occasions publicly been critical of the actions of TEC – for example in his recent Pastoral Letter he has as yet not been critical of the very serious breaches of the Instruments of Unity by the Church of Nigeria; for example, the creation of a Bishop in the United States in complete contravention of Windsor guidelines on provincial boundaries. Neither has he challenged the actions of the Church of Nigeria in its vociferous support of the criminalisation of homosexuality in Nigeria despite his condemnation of homophobia on several occasions.
7.0 We note that the Communique from the Primates of the “Global South” identifies the Church of England as being compromised by its attitude towards the civil partnership legislation in this country. We believe it is important in this context for the Church of England to be clear on its current practice. Namely, that hundreds if not thousands of same-gender partnerships have been celebrated over the past thirty years, in churches, by priests and deacons. Further, that there have been, and in the future no doubt will be homosexual bishops in relationships within our church. Any Covenant, therefore, which excludes members of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada will have also to exclude the Church of England.
7.0 In the light of what is being produced by the “Global South” we have the following questions for which we request urgent clarification from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Communion Office
7.1 Will they confirm that all Bishops duly elected or appointed and with current responsibilities in the Communion will be invited to the 2008 Lambeth Conference? There can be no other way to ensure that those loyal to the principles of Anglicanism are duly and properly involved in the life of our Communion.
7.2 If “Alternative Primatial Oversight” is granted for the Dioceses seeking it in the United States, what equivalent oversight will be offered to LGBT Christians experiencing danger and discrimination in Nigeria and other parts of Africa?
7.3 What structures exist to permit the selection of an “alternative” to the Presiding Bishop of TEC to attend Primates’ meetings?
7.4 Is the development of parallel jurisdictions acceptable to the ACO? If it is, then what is to stop the development of more jurisdictions on other matters?
7.5 The “Global South” Primates appear to be seeking to pre-empt the Covenant process by preparing a draft with the clear intention of requiring assent to confessional propositions related to homosexuality. What implications does this have for the process of agreeing a Covenant which recognises the depth and breadth of Anglicanism, both Catholic and Reformed?
7.6 What brief was given to the Bishops of Durham and Winchester in their recent attendance at a meeting of Bishops of TEC?
8.0 We are also concerned by the silence from the Bishops of the Church of England. The implications of the “Global South” developments may well, in the near future, have an impact on the Church of England. Indeed there have already been actions which indicate the shape of things to come, such as the unauthorised ordinations in the Diocese of Southwark. There are significant numbers of English Bishops who are deeply perturbed by the actions of their colleagues across the world, and deeply concerned to counter homophobia and prejudice. Why are they not speaking?
9.0 Today we celebrate the life of Lancelot Andrewes, one of the fathers of our church. We deeply regret the way in which the Communion is being undermined and sidetracked by a false Anglicanism which neither reflects nor pays tribute to our history. We trust and pray that the dialogue to which we are all as Christians called will continue so that the Gospel of Christ may flourish in this country and across the Communion.
Giles Goddard
Chair, InclusiveChurch
Lancelot Andrewes; 25th September 2006
71 CommentsIn 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 CommentsArchbishop 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 CommentsThe Times has The Pope still owes Muslims an apology — a different one by Timothy Bartel.
Earlier in the week, Jonathan Petre asked Did the Pope know what he was doing?
The Tablet has extensive coverage of the Pope/Islam story, including an editorial The possibility of dialogue. Also Mona Siddiqui On the path to mutual respect.
Furthermore, it has its own complete English translation of the original lecture.
The Church Times also had a leader column about this, Gaffes — and gaffe-finding.
The Guardian has a Face to Faith column by Stephen Heap, about religion in higher education.
And Stephen Bates wrote about something else entirely: A match made in heaven.
Sunday addition
Simon Barrow on Ekklesia Christendom remains the Pope’s real fallibility