So basically, "we are what we are and if you interact with us that means you accept what we are". They have defined their boundaries. That is good.

Now the question is what are the implications of interacting with them and does that automatically confer full consent or agreement with their actions? If I work in the same workplace as a known bully, does that I mean that I agree with all their ethics and position? And if I refuse to work with them, would that make me guilty of being unfairly discriminatory? Then if they are clever, and do things when no one is watching, am I delusional or suffering from a persecution complex?

If the South African Archbishop had not attended, would that have made him overly judgmental? But because he chose to interact, does that mean he must rubber stamp all their actions? Is there no grey area where he might have tried to make the most of the situation, but not been in full agreement or cogniscant of all their actions? Considering the history (including by ABC) of not wanting to document stuff and having "private meetings", it is not unreasonable to presume that he was not privy to everything.

Phew ! That's alright then !...

Now, this is a very interesting piece and Cheryl is spot on as usual.

I'll be back after a bit of close-reading ;=)

THANK YOU ++John Chew for the clarification.

1. points out that it is untrue someone did not know there would be a communiqué
2. shows allegation of domination is untrue and unfair
3. testifies that nothing was hidden as incorrectly implied

But then he supports us, so we ignore these untruths which we wrongly attributed to other Primates (and written volumes about how unchristian! ) LORD HAVE MERCY! Will others comment?

Why is ECUSA being coerced into sticking with all these very different people.

ECUSA - be brave, start "TEC Worldwide" and let Ndugane join - he won't bring many African people with him but that's ok - its not about nos and all this fighting is very negative and tiring so please, ECUSA, get on with the only path that makes sense!

Cheryl,

I think you missed Dr. Chew's points. He's not talking about 'grey areas' where we can work things out to accomodate each other. He is countering Mr. Ndugnane's misleading statements. The preliminary draft of the communique was probably written by a committee, as is common practice in large meetings like this. But Ndugnane was trying to mislead us by omitting the fact that he was present in the meeting where it was discussed and ammended.

He also tried to mislead us by implying that nothing else was talked about, when in reality, he was only there for the first day of the conference. Mr. Ndugnane may have called away from the meetings for legitimate reasons but I find it hard to believe that all these things were kept secret from him when they were made so public to the rest of us.

Could it be that Mr. Ndugnane and Mr. Tutu are more interested in using the Church for political and social reform then in the spiritual rebirth and growth in their members, as is the case in so many churches here in America?

Andy

" He would have been very encouraged and his sentiments dispelled if he had stayed throughout the Meeting."

I'm sure he would....

So I have to choose between believing the words of someone who - to the best of my knowledge - has never spoken duplicitously, misrepresented signatories etc etc and the spokesperson for a group which has demonstrably done so in the past.

Do I get the impression that the chief architects of the GS secession are rattled?

"Could it be that Mr. Ndugnane and Mr. Tutu are more interested in using the Church for political and social reform then in the spiritual rebirth and growth in their members, as is the case in so many churches here in America?"

I presume you mean trying to get the Church to recognize the damage it does, and has done, to gay people everywhere? And that the Church itself spends much of its time actively preventing its own gay members from ever coming near "spiritual rebirth and growth"?

Or were you referring only to the usual majority, who after all have their pick of anti-gay sects and denominations everywhere in the world, since these make up 99.99% of the Church to begin with?

"Could it be that Mr. Ndugnane and Mr. Tutu are more interested in using the Church for political and social reform then in the spiritual rebirth and growth in their members,"

Without resorting to the game wherein the first person to use the word 'Hitler' is the loser, I would point out that this is a chilling argument, implying that issues of reform and justice are some how optional extras to the Gospel, an argument which has been deployed in the past by some very unsavoury people, Margaret Thatcher among them. Archbishop Desmond did comment once that he was unsure where folk got these bibles from which forbade Christian political involvement. Perhaps they were copies which left in Leviticus and unaccountably left out Amos.

Mr Tutu? Mr Ndungane? I'm sure that was a typo, not a suggestion that they are to be seen as secular rather than religious figures....

Frankly, Andy, given that the Anglican Church in South Africa played an honourable part in transition to democracy and racial justice, I suspect that they did rather more for the spiritual rebirth and regrowth side of things than you give them credit. And if 'Mr Akinola' (as presumably you want him styled) could deliver a tad more of what South African Anglicanism did, he might find a little more sympathy in the Global north when he pronounces on morality.

It strikes me that all that Dr Chew actually achieves here is to demonstrate that what was thought to be a hidden agenda is actually "consistent and public".

I think ++Chew in point 1 is simply saying that the fact that a communique will be released is made aware to all, before the Meeting and during the opening session, where ++Ndugnane was present.

We need not conclude that either one must be lying. It is possible that ++Ndugnane did not pay attention when these discussions were made or that he did not realise that the Communique will be released with the Provinces represented (or present) mentioned.

I am giving the benefit of a doubt to the Primate of SA here.

Even then, one should be careful about making insinuations on the intentions of others, especially brother primates, and in public. It would have been enough for ++Ndugnane to clarify that he is not in agreement with some sections of the communique, especially Section 10. In any case, hardly anyone would imagine he had such a quick change of mind.

First of all, it seems to me that the archbishop wasn't talking about the agenda of the meeting itself, but of the Global South as a whole. That is to say that they have rallied around their opposition to "the gay issue" and their energy is being fuelled by certain conservative Americans with whom they have made common cause over this. Of course they are concerned about other things than this, but it is this issue that they are most public about, and, while their American comrades might not be dictating this part of the agenda, they are certainly giving a great deal of support and encouragement and fuelling the fire.

Second, I am not convinced that ++Ndungane is lying about not knowing about the communique. The relative trustworthiness of both sides has been addressed here, but I would like to see the draft agenda that was supposedly circulated.

Finally, the idea that spiritual growth and justice have nothing to do with each other is absurd. "He comes to break oppression, to set the captive free" as one hymn says. We are called to serve Christ in those we meet. To ignore justice for them is to ignore justice for Christ Himself.

As to churches growing their numbers, large congregations are not a sing that the Gospel is being spread faithfully. There are a lot of "mega-churches" whose message is something entirely other than the Gospel.

Andy

Thank you for your posting. I want to thank people such as yourself who document that this modus operandi is normal and routine in certain circles, and that we should not be surprised at such tactics. Such statements do more to substantiate my concerns than any number or length of postings by myself could ever achieve. The comment about spiritual rebirth demonstrates my concern of a schizophrenic mindset - that somehow our relationship with God is divorced from our relationship with this world. We are born to this world to work in this world and we are responsible for how we contribute to this world. Negligence, denial and omission are forms of abuse when they demand shunting aside concerns about injustices. They thus dishonour God's name because they purport that God does not care about the poor, the afflicted, the oppressed. My reading of the OT is that souls who say there is "peace" when you accept their mindset and sit in their homes are disrespected by God when He walks through your community and the world and sees the starving, the homeless, the forsaken, the vandalised.

I also question BLS's statement that 99.9% of the churches are anti-gay. It is true that 99.9% of what is seen in the media is anti-gay, but that is from the time when the media controlled communications. The covert censorship is being undermined by the internet, and some of that "majority" are realising what atrocities have been done in their and Gods' names. The language is being developed e.g. http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_060921edgar.shtml
http://www.amazon.com/Middle-Church-Reclaiming-Majority-Religious/dp/0743289498/sr=1-1/qid=1158863833/ref=sr_1_1/104-4865982-6331133?ie=UTF8&s=books

Finally, if I had to choose between submitting to such machevellian priests, or embracing people such as Desmond Tutu whose words of truth touched me in the 1980s in Perth, then I would choose Tutu anytime. Souls such as Tutu are of the mould that change the world and bring glory and honour to God. They do what is right and true, not because that makes them popular with money and power brokers, but simply because it is what needs to be done. Nor are they prepared to write off the souls of their parishioners or their neighbours for some "pure" vision of God.

On nearly any issue of interest or even of noninterest, the Church in South Africa is far more reliable and trustworthy than any "Global" south press release.

Of course I must also add that practically anyone besides Tunde of Nigeria is more trustworthy. His lies, half truths, and other fabrications are well documented here.

Since he is responsible for maintaining and promulgating many "Global" south releases and such they have about as much authority as his other fabrications.

I'm sure it won't be long before we see as with the other "Global" south "release" that many disowned after having their names affixed to it without knowledge or approval, that this "communique" out of Nigeria will become more flimsy than it already is.

There are holes in this statement. For example the suggestion is that ++ Cape Town would have been able to support the communique had he stayed through the meeting, whereas the fact that ++CT repudiates the dratted thing rather suggests that this is wishful thinking and smoke.

And (in the words of Cicero) "cui bono?" What reason would there be for ++Cape Town to issue a statement which said that the communique was not agreed when there's enough cause for outrage in the indisputable fact that said communique was presented as having ++CT's support? There is, I put it to you, no reason for him to embellish in this way.

On the other hand, ++Chew has very good reason to deny the factual basis of part of ++CT's statement, does he not? If he can successfully creat an air of uncertainty about the issuing of a communique, perhaps with a bit of luck people will forget the untruth about it carrying the support of South Africa?

The slightly desperate reaction of one correspondent in suggesting that ++CT and his predecessor were political operators with no concern for the Christian faith negates ++Chew's attempt to portray ++CT as a solid Global South supporter. I know that there's an ancient and dishonourable tradition in Conservative Evangelical polemic which tries to have its cake and eat it, and this is a neat example.

They'll be stabbing one another in the front next.

If you look back at the communique it never says that Southern Africa approved the document, merely that the province was represented at the meeting. It does, of course, give the impression that all present approved the document and commentators worldwide have cited it as a statement representing the opinion of more than half the provinces in the Communion, but it doesn't actually say that all approved it. It is rather carefully drafted.

With respect to the comments made about the support of ++Tutu and ++Ndugnane for social action, I think it instructive that Our Lord is reported as having said that the examen that we shall all face on the Day will not be about personal holiness or spiritual rebirth, but rather about action taken to help those in need.

David R. wrote, "They'll be stabbing one another in the front next."

Indeed. The first thing I thought when I read ++Chew's missive was, "Good Lord, these people would turn on each other in a heartbeat." But groups who obsess over "orthodoxy" and purity inevitably do...

And Andy ? To suggest that ++Ndugnane and ++Tutu are not interested in spiritual rebirth implies an astounding lack of knowledge on your part of their lives and work. Bp. Tutu recently spoke at our parish, and I have never in my adult life been so moved by the presence of God in someone. We church folks often bandy about the phrase "man of God" - but that truly describes Desmond Tutu.

After last year’s November meeting by the Red Sea, a Communiqué was made public with the attached names of 17 Primates, several of whom later stated that they had not had anything to do with it and had not seen it since (very briefly) in the first session.

As to this year’s Communiqué, issued with a list of 20 Provinces, we do not actually know that anybody signed it, not even whoever wrote it.

But I detect 5 Americanisms in the spelling ;=)

80% of this years Communiqué is not about the South, but about Network issues, the rest is either preambles or Episcobabble.

The Kigali Communiqué contains 1995 words; the preambles §1 to 6 count 593 words, the ending 138 words; §§11 and 15 count 159 words.

Remains §§12 and 13 – which in 216 words present the substantial work of the 2 parallel meetings – and §§7 to 10c. containing Network issues in 831 words.

If we subtract the preambles and the ending together with §§12 and 13, Network issues account for some 80% out of the remaining 1048 words.

AB Chew: “Careful reading of the Agenda and the Kigali Communiqué 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.”

I cannot see that this assertion is warranted. Since according to AB Chew, the substantial work at Kigali was done in parallel meetings by 2 Task Forces: the Theological and Formation and Education Task-force and Economical Empowerment, much – if not most – of the Kigali meeting itself must have been devoted to the Network.

Also according to AB Chew, one Primate was involved in the Education Task Force. If that Primate be AB Ndungane, this would account for the obvious incompatibility of the 3 Statements and explain who knew what and when – and why.

Cheryl, do you really not recognize that the few websites like this one are just about the only places in the "Christian" world we would even be having this discussion? If so, I have to say I think you're living in a dreamworld. Gay clergy in every denomination are still subject to witchhunts; we have a friend this is happening to now, in one of the supposedly more "liberal" denominations. TEC is condemned the world over for what it is saying and doing. And need I remind you that the Archbishop of Canterbury - supposedly one of our great "friends" - has still not said anything at all about Nigeria's support for the anti-gay legislation there? That nobody in the entire Church has, for that matter, except Canada? Even the U.S. Government has issued a condemnation. Which leads one to the inescapable conclusion that gay people are far safer outside the Church.

I'm really not willing to pretend that the Church isn't a vast swamp of anti-gay bigotry; it most certainly is.

A year ago Fr.Jake posted a reflection on Fundamentalism, with a quotation from Dr. Martin E Marty's opus. Professor Marty is a savvy Church historian from the University of Chicago. His description of Fundamentalism, and his colleague's, aptly characterizes the actions and aspirations of the African primates and their Network allies.

To quote:

At the outset of their monumental six-volume Fudamentalist Project, Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby argue that the "fundamentalisms" all follow a certain pattern. They are embattled forms of spirituality, which have emerged as a response to a perceived crisis. They are engaged in a conflict with enemies whose secular policies and beliefs seem inimical to religion itself. Fundamentalists do not regard this battle as a conventional political struggle, but experience it as a cosmic war between the forces of good and evil. They fear annihilation, and try to fortify their beleaguered identity by means of selective retrieval of certain doctrines and practices from the past. To avoid contamination, they often withdraw from mainstream society to create a counterculture; yet fundamentalists are not impractical dreamers. They have absorbed the pragmatic rationalism of modernity, and, under the guidance of charismatic leaders, they have refined these "fundamentals" so as to create an ideology that provides the faithful with a plan of action. Eventually they fight back and attempt to resacrilize an increasing skeptical world.

Nick. God bless you for your comment "... personal holiness or spiritual rebirth, but rather about action taken to help those in need."

BLS, yes I am aware that at this time this is one of the few sites that such kind of dialogue can happen. Do I live in a dream world? Yes, because I accept "coincidences" as evidence of support from God, especially when they correlate with dreams or correspondence. Not just one or two, but a plethora.

For those who say I should not do this, I then question whether they really believe in God, because they do not accept the manifestations from God. For those souls the bible is an ideological cudgel, empty of the reality of a God that is present throughout time and space.

Plus I have worked in change management before, I know the signs of when a change is coming. I also know that the surface of debates appears to be unchanging, but the behind-the-scenes contemplations and dialogues are occurring. It is like a stress point in the earth's mantle, the pressure is building up but there is only slight motion at this stage. But the pressure is still mounting and the movements will become more energetic and then there will be changes that not even the delusional can deny.

I was thinking about BLS's comment about this being one of the few websites that we could be having this kind of discussion. Is BLS aware that part of that is coming from censorship? For example I was shut out of one Anglican forum with this as part of the explanation "While I am prepared to reinstate your account if you can tell me honestly you will stay within the boundaries we have discussed and not post about the connection between God/the bible and world events, anything that may be considered prophetic, the battle between God & Satan etc, I don't really want to go through this process again..." (received 6 Sept 2005)

The point being that even if anyone could prove anything was going on, they would be shut out of communicating that knowledge or evidence.

People might question my sanity. Again, for the newcomers, before I went to this level, I gave all the evidence to my paid professional counsellor and asked for her assessment on whether I was sane. She had the paperwork a month to go over it. At the end of that time her assessment was that it was highly improbable, but that it all made perfect sense.

Thus I act in faith not on what is but on what could be; because it has the hope of peace, reverence and sustainability. I am not required to be perfect (people here know that I am not), but I am called to be faithful.

A gracious man would have apologized for giving the impression that the joint communiqué was signed by all those named.

Archbishop Chew ignores most of what the Archbishop of Cape Town had to say, and says his South African colleague had trouble reading the published agenda for the meeting. (The fact that Ndungane speaks in well-wrought prose while Chew speaks in bullet points might indicate who's the subtler thinker)

basically - most of the evangelicals left the old Anglican church in South Africa a century ago and formed CESA which has grown very strongly indeed......so the Anglican church of TUTU et al has always been liberal-dominated and is very different to the 99% of the Global South's Anglican churches - also in its lack of growth in South Africa!

so, none of this is surprising with regard to Tutu et al....the problem "liberals" have is that "evangelicals" are not going to leave the AC and leave it to be dominated by "liberals" - there really is no need to do that

VERY well said bls.

We are much safer outside...But its the twofaced-ness and lies, I found most unbearable when I was in 'working for' the Church of England. And one memorable day when my partner, his 99 year old grandmother and I were threatened with being thrown out of home and job, by a liberal ecumenical body (SLIM). I haveoften wondered if her sudden mental deterioration and death was brought on by the stress of it all, on us. The relatively genteel and very comlacent language used by these anti-gay, anti-lgbt Church spokes-men ( men's voices are heard, not those of women-why?), is meant to cloak the reality, that they behave like snide shits.
*******

Goran

what about 'Q' ? !

'Is BLS aware that part of that is coming from censorship? For example I was shut out of one Anglican forum.' (Cheryl)

This is very true Cheryl.

I was thrown off -- of all things--the National Secular Society email group, for having the temerity to challenge the anti-gay tone, which hinted darkly at the old 'gays as paedophiles' put down, for laughs. I was shocked to expelled -- and am now much the wiser.

I have learnt so much by being gay. I can't bear (sic) dogmatism and intolerance -- whereever it is to be found.
On the other hand most people don't write or read these blogs, don't agitate, and there is a lot more tolerance and good will among 'ordinary people' than in the past. That encourages me. Also, most people know gay people -- a close relation, a friend, a colleague, neighbour or acquaitance. This makes an enormous difference, and is set to increase and deepen unless, Bush, Duncan or Akinola invade our shores, on a high 'moral crusade.'

Thanks for your testimony to your experience Cheryl. I think these kinds of things tend to happen where people open themselves, are in earnest or in depth, have great love / concern or where a situation is precarious -and therefore 'in need of prayer'.

A lot of this is seen in psychotherapy, analysis and that side of human caring and exploring. CG Jung called it 'synchronicity' and often people can accept something, if it has a discrete name. I also like the word 'serendipity' a lot. Especially, as the word 'seren' means 'a star' in the ancient language of Britain (Welsh / Cymraeg). I realise this association is purely --er--sernedipitous !...

The I Ching is a fascinating book to read and use, vis-a-vis synchronicity; and Jung has written a marvellous preface to the Wilhelm-Baynes translation of the I Ching.

The Worship of Friends' meetings, based on silent waiting,is also found to be a temenous of synchronicitous phenomena.

best wishes

" most of the evangelicals left the old Anglican church in South Africa a century ago and formed CESA which has grown very strongly indeed"

for many of us there is something of a cloud over CESA, despite its denials of complicity in apartheid. People like Colin Craston (http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2005/20051118craston.cfm?doc=61) have worrying observations to make about CESA in the present.

St Paul's PRetoria website (http://www.stpauls.org.za/) says "Because we are a Bible believing Church, our main reason for existence is to teach the Bible" — a strange priority.

Once again, I maintain that growth may not always be a sign that things are being done in accordance with God's will. There's a lot more to it than that.

"what about 'Q' ? !"

Did I say anything about Q?

I thought I said that until the Signatures are produced for everyone to see, the Kigali Commmuniqué is not worth the paper it is written on.

Or did't I :-(

Laurence

I was sorry to hear of your personal story, but not surprised. I watched one church leader's wife trying to charm my twelve year old daughter late last year. We were both bemused as she has been one of the people who has been most antagonistic. We later realised that she was trying to score "points" over a faux pas my daughter had made with her son at school a few days earlier.

Unknown to the woman, my daughter had confessed that same evening, and I had told her that she was unwise but that it was so out of character so God was probably behind it.

The conversation with the woman ended when she asked my daughter to confess an example of her recent mistakes, and I suggested that the woman start by sharing one of her own (so that my daughter could model how to do it appropriately).

At the time I was oblivious to her attacking my daughter. Later, there was white hot anger that an adult woman would spend several minutes trying to humiliate my twelve year old daughter on church grounds on the way to a Sunday service. Despicable in any reasonable soul's language.

Human rights and dignity count for nought if you are not "favoured" by the "suitables". Who would Jesus support? Matthew 23, especially "...they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues..." comes to mind.

Sorry --I enjoyed your deft textual analysis of Kigali--and was having a leg-pull ! ...sorry bout that ....

By all means don't! I just didn't get the reference. E-mail me if there is anything!

Thanks Cheryl. Yes, these attitudes and actions no longer surprise us old hands--but do grieve us.

Thanks for sharing that about your daughter. Children seem to combine such wisdom and vulnerability.

Yes, Goran: very fine analysis of the Kigali press release.

Goran

I liked your piece too, and you have been doing some excellent postings in the last few months (feeling guilty that I hadn't acknowledged you).

Also, to all of those who embrace dialogue (including Dave who I miss funnily enough) thanks for bringing robust discussion into a public forum.

Now seriously, I have been in and out of board rooms for some 35 years. I know how to read these things - and I know what sociopaths are wont to do, when they think no one is paying attention.

;=)