Updated Friday
The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church of Sudan has issued a statement, and also sent a letter to the Presiding Bishop of TEC.
See the news report by George Conger in the Church of England Newspaper Sudan breaks with the Episcopal Church.
The American Episcopal Church’s support for gay bishops and blessings has led the Episcopal Church of the Sudan (ECS) to ban Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori from visiting the church. The dis-invitation to Bishop Jefferts Schori follows a vote by the ECS House of Bishops last month to swap its recognition of the Episcopal Church for the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) as the legitimate expression of Anglicanism in the United States…
The letter reads as follows:
“The Most Rev Katharine Jefferts Schori Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church United States of America
Thursday 15th December 2011Dear Bishop Katharine,
Advent greetings to you in the name of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
It is with a heavy heart that I write you informing you of our decision as a House of Bishops to withdraw your invitation to the Episcopal Church of the Sudan (ECS). We acknowledge your personal efforts to spearhead prayer and support campaigns on behalf of the ECS and remain very grateful for this attention you and your church have paid to Sudan and South Sudan. However, it remains difficult for us to invite you when elements of your church continue to flagrantly disregard biblical teaching on human sexuality.
Find attached a statement further explaining our position as a province.
(Signed)
—(The Most Rev.) Dr. Daniel Deng Bul Yak, Archbishop Primate and Metropolitan of the Province of the Episcopal Church of the Sudan and Bishop of the Diocese of Juba “
The statement, which has appeared on various blog websites reads as follows:
STATEMENT OF HOUSE OF BISHOPS OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF SUDAN ON HUMAN SEXUALITY
The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church of the Sudan in its meeting held in Juba from 14-16, November 2011 in the context of General Synod has reaffirmed the statement of the Sudanese Bishops at the Lambeth Conference in 2008 as quoted below:
“We reject homosexual practice as contrary to Biblical teaching and can accept no place for it within ECS. We strongly oppose developments within the Anglican Church in USA and Canada in consecrating a practicing homosexual as bishop and in approving a rite for the blessing of same-sex relationships.”
We are deeply disappointed by The Episcopal Church’s refusal to abide by Biblical teaching on human sexuality and their refusal to listen to fellow Anglicans. For example, TEC Diocese of Los Angles, California in 2010 elected and consecrated Mary Douglas Glasspool as their first lesbian assistant Bishop. We are not happy with their acts of continuing ordaining homosexuals and lesbians as priests and bishops as well as blessing same sex relations in the church by some dioceses in TEC; it has pushed itself away from God’s Word and from Anglican Communion. TEC is not concerned for the unity of the Communion.
The Episcopal Church of Sudan is recognizing the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) fully as true faithful Orthodox Church and we will work with them to expand the Kingdom of God in the world. Also we will work with those Parishes and Dioceses in TEC who are Evangelical Orthodox Churches and faithful to God.
We will not compromise our faith on this and we will not give TEC advice anymore, because TEC ignored and has refused our advices.
(The Most Rev.) Dr. Daniel Deng Bul, Archbishop and Primate of Episcopal Church of Sudan, Juba, 12th December 2011
Responses from American dioceses are recorded by Episcopal Café in Dioceses respond cautiously to latest letter from Church of Sudan.
Update
The report on this from last week’s Church Times is now available, see Sudan chides US and backs ACNA.
The previous report on this: AMiA will negotiate with ACNA was updated with a link to one additional letter last Thursday.
Other correspondence has now emerged, and can be found here: Communique from House of Bishops of Rwanda. The original letter is dated 9 December, but was issued with a covering letter from two AMiA bishops, only on 16 December.
From the covering letter:
We also have delayed sending these letters because we needed to clarify with the Rwandan HoB the second bullet point in the letter to clergy and churches. While AMiA affiliated congregations are under the pastoral oversight of Archbishop Rwaje, they are also affiliated with the U.S. non-profit corporation, The Anglican Mission in the Americas. As a result, churches have had a type of “dual citizenship” with Rwanda and the AMiA. Unfortunately, while many of us had been led to think differently, the churches in the AMiA have never been canonically resident in the Anglican Province of Rwanda or anywhere else in the Anglican Communion. We are currently working with the Rwandan HoB to discern ways to rectify this for those congregations that desire a true membership in the Anglican Communion. At the same time, the canonical status of the clergy is clear. If you are clergy in the AMiA, (other than the 8 active bishops who resigned*) you are canonically resident in PEAR.
Reports from ACNS
Papua New Guinea approves Covenant and says it is “proud to belong to the Anglican Communion”
The Anglican Church of Papua New Guinea has announced that its Provincial Council last week approved and accepted the Anglican Covenant.
Writing to the Secretary General of the decision on behalf of the House of Bishops, the Bishop of Port Moresby, the Rt Revd Peter Ramsden, said the decision was based on their understanding of the name Anglican Communion.
“Anglican” was one of the styles of Christianity brought to this land and people near the end of the nineteenth century”, he wrote. “It never pretended to be the only form of Christianity, but it did reflect how one part of the Christian family had developed, built on the importance of scripture, creeds, sacraments and episcopal order. Today we try to combine our Anglo-Catholic theological heritage and personal discipleship to the Lord Jesus in the way we witness to the five marks of mission with our ecumenical partners in PNG and our Anglican partners overseas…
If you aren’t sure where Papua New Guinea is, here’s a map.
Southern Cone approves Anglican Communion Covenant
At its recent November (3 to 11) meeting in Asunción, Paraguay, the Executive Committee of the Province of the Southern Cone of America, together with its Bishops, voted to approve the Anglican Covenant. The Province views the covenant as a way forward given the difficult circumstance of watching certain Provinces of the Anglican Communion propose novel ways of Christian living in rejection of Biblical norms.
In response to these novel practices the Southern Cone had held churches in North America under its wing for some time while the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) was formed. However, the Province has not maintained jurisdiction over any local churches there for over a year. As a result, all so called ‘border crossings’ by any provincial members ceased (as of October, 2010) even though the Southern Cone still remains in impaired communion with US and Canadian Provinces. It is hoped that the Covenant can now provide Communion stability.
One of the Bishops commented, “We believe that life in the Communion must be maintained by a basic level of accountability if, in fact, we are a family of interdependent churches. The Covenant helps fulfill this role. Naturally, house rules should be kept to a minimum. But being a member of a family has responsibilities that must be ‘lived into’. Right now, a small faction in the Communion continues to do ‘its own thing’ enjoying many privileges and few responsibilities of family.”
There is commentary on this:
Preludium Province of the Southern Cone adopts Covenant, give or take a clause or two.
…The Province of the Southern Cone has adopted the Anglican Covenant, but with its fingers crossed. Apparently the PSC hopes that no one will notice that it still has the deposed bishop of Recife under its wings, along with a sizable number of congregants constituted as a diocese.
The PSC claims that it is no longer doing those things it ought not to have done in Canada and the United States, but makes no apology for having done so.
I suppose this counts as a “yes” in the score card on the acceptance of the Anglican Covenant, but there will not be much joy in Anglican-Land over this one.
The No Anglican Covenant scorecard on provincial voting is over here.
Jonathan Clatworthy has published an article at Modern Church entitled Instead of the Anglican Covenant.
Proponents of the Anglican Covenant sometimes challenge opponents to suggest alternatives. Thus the Archbishop of Canterbury, in his 2011 Advent Letter to the Primates, wrote:
I continue to ask what alternatives there are if we want to agree on ways of limiting damage, managing conflict and facing with honesty the actual effects of greater disunity. In the absence of such alternatives, I must continue to commend the Covenant as strongly as I can to all who are considering its future.
This article seeks to respond to the challenge. It can only be a partial response because unlike the Covenant’s proponents, who are supported by the resources of the Anglican Communion Office, opponents work on a voluntary basis and none has the right to speak on behalf of all. The matter is complicated by the marked reluctance of proponents (with honourable exceptions like the Bishop of St Asaph) to communicate directly with opponents at all. This means that nobody in particular has been asked to offer an alternative. This one expresses the views of Modern Church and the No Anglican Covenant Coalition.
Normally, opponents of a suggested change are under no obligation to present an alternative change. In this instance we understand the challenge to stem from a sense of crisis and a concern to do something to resolve it. The question, as we understand it, is: if the Anglican Covenant will not be the solution to our current problems, what will?
Tobias Haller draws our attention to Recommendation 1 from the 1878 Lambeth Conference. (The full set of them can be found in this PDF file.)
Union Among the Churches of the Anglican Communion - Encyclical Letter 1.5
There are certain principles of church order which, your Committee consider, ought to be distinctly recognised and set forth, as of great importance for the maintenance of union among the Churches of our Communion.
- First, that the duly certified action of every national or particular Church, and of each ecclesiastical province (or diocese not included in a province), in the exercise of its own discipline, should be respected by all the other Churches, and by their individual members.
- Secondly, that when a diocese, or territorial sphere of administration, has been constituted by the authority of any Church or province of this Communion within its own limits, no bishop or other clergyman of any other Church should exercise his functions within that diocese without the consent of the bishop thereof.
- Thirdly, that no bishop should authorise to officiate in his diocese a clergyman coming from another Church or province, unless such clergyman present letters testimonial, countersigned by the bishop of the diocese from which he comes; such letters to be, as nearly as possible, in the form adopted by such Church or province in the case of the transfer of a clergyman from one diocese to another.
- This does not refer to questions respecting missionary bishops and foreign chaplaincies, which have been entrusted to other Committees.
Tobias notes in Those Were the Days (Lambeth 1878) that:
It appears to me that most of the troubles in the present Anglican Communion stem from the failure of some provinces to observe and abide by point 1. Some of those same provinces have gone on to violate point 2, and the recent trouble in AMiA seems to reflect a bit of the mess one gets into by not observing point 3.
But point 1, in one sentence, is the key to any real Anglican unity. No further “covenant” is needed. And the one currently on offer provides a mechanism to frustrate point 1, by shifting from respecting the actions of the provinces to placating those offended by them. The proposed Covenant is government by discontent and disrespect.
This view is clearly not shared by IASCUFO members, who have issued this Communiqué following a recent meeting in Korea. They say this:
…Aware of our mandate to promote the deepening of communion between the churches of the Anglican Communion, we emphasised the importance of being a fully representative group, and we greatly regret that some of our members were not present. We re-affirmed the significance of the Anglican Communion Covenant for strengthening our common life. …
Jim Naughton has written a severe criticism of this at Episcopal Café in The InterAnglican Standing Committee and the illusion of consultation:
…One feels both gratified and alarmed, then, to learn that at is meetings last week, IASCUFO (the InterAnglican Standing Committee on Unity, Faith and Order) recognized the importance of “being a fully representative group” and “re-affirm[ed] the significance of the Anglican Communion Covenant for strengthening our common life.” Gratified, because, well, it is nice to have your opponents make your points for you. Alarmed because the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Communion Office continue to behave as though the more centralized church they hope to create already exists.
Whatever its claims, IASCUFO is in no way representative. Its members are not elected to represent their provinces, but are cherry-picked by the communion office to ensure the outcome that the Archbishop of Canterbury desires, while creating the illusion of consultation. (In this way it is similar to the Covenant Design team and the Windsor Continuation Group.) Of the 19 individuals named in the release, no more than three hail from churches that have adopted the covenant. (Precise numbers are hard to come by, as many churches don’t actually care enough about the covenant to have made a public statement indicating their attitude toward it.) Yet the group asserts its representative nature, and then affirms what the churches its members allegedly represent have not: that the covenant is essential in strengthening our common life.
IASCUFO employs collegial rhetoric, but it behaves like a pressure group. What sets it apart from other pressure groups is that it uses financial resources contributed by member churches to lobby on behalf of a covenant that many of those churches will not sign—a covenant that would assure that essential decisions in the communion would continue to be made by purportedly representative bodies that are in no way accountable to the communion’s member churches.
As for some members being absent, here is a full list of its membership, dated July 2009, and here are some annotations provided in October 2010 by John Chilton. Readers may care to work out for themselves who was missing from the Korean jaunt.
According to Box Turtle Bulletin in This Anglican Bishop Wants You To Rot In Jail:
Archbishop Peter Akinola, retired Anglican Primate of the Church of Nigeria, has enthusiastically endorsed Nigeria’s anti-gay bill which would impose criminal penalties on same-sex unions and LGBT gatherings. Akinola told Nigeria’s Guardian that the Nigerian government should reject warnings from Britain and the United States that efforts to deny basic human rights to LGBT people would have international implications…
Here is the original article in the Nigerian Guardian Akinola, Others Urge Support For Anti-Gay Marriage Bill
Akinola, who described the bill as “a new orientation towards transformation and reformation of Nigeria from its moral decadence into a new platform of sound morality,” said President Jonathan would be going against God’s will for Nigeria if he refused to sign the controversial bill into law.
He stated that Nigeria needs such law to preserve the nation’s sacred moral heritage for national development.
The former Primate of Church of Nigeria, who described homosexuality as an aberration, said it was repugnant to the word of God and African beliefs. “Same-sex marriage is against natural order of creation; it is against the laws of our religions, and it is against our African custom and traditions,” he said.
Responding to international protests that the bill would limit the rights of homosexuals in Nigeria, Akinola said human rights have limits by the operative society.
“Can you say you have right to marry anybody you want and because of your right, you now go and marry your mother or sister or daughter in the name of human right? For example, in this community, everybody has the right to own a car, but this community says that you drive your car on the right lane. Can you now say because it is your right to own a car, you must drive on the left, while every other person drives on the right?” he asked.
The full text of this bill, as passed by the Nigerian Senate, can be found here.
It now passes to the Nigerian House of Representatives, where this week’s statements from the US President and US Secretary of State, were not well received.
The Anglican Mission in the Americas has withdrawn from the pastoral oversight of the Province of the Anglican Church of Rwanda.
Yesterday there was an official Statement to the Clergy and Laity of the Anglican Mission.
As you may know, on December 5, in response to unforeseen and extraordinary circumstances, the Anglican Mission in the Americas withdrew from the pastoral oversight of the Province of the Anglican Church of Rwanda. In addition, Bishop Chuck Murphy resigned as Primatial Vicar and Bishops Murphy, Sandy Greene, Todd Hunter, TJ Johnston, Philip Jones, Doc Loomis, John Miller and Silas Ng, as well as retired Bishop John Rodgers, resigned from the House of Bishops of Rwanda.
During this interim period, the Anglican Mission is under the oversight of our founding Archbishops Emmanuel Kolini, Moses Tay and Yong Ping Chung until we have a new provincial home within the Anglican Communion. Bishop Murphy is meeting with these overseeing archbishops in London next week to discuss options for the best way forward…
Background documents, in PDF format, are all linked from this page.
And there is another news article today, Addressing Finances with Rwanda.
The AMiA was formally founded in 2000, six months after Bishops Chuck Murphy and John Rodgers were consecrated bishops by Archbishop of Rwanda, Emmanuel Kolini and Archbishop of Southeast Asia, Moses Tay, at St. Andrew’s Cathedral, Singapore. Its origins are in a conference held in South Carolina in 1997.
When the Anglican Church in North America was formed in 2009, the AMiA was a founding member, but subsequently in 2010 changed its status to Mission Partner.
press release from No Anglican Covenant Coalition
COALITION CELEBRATES SUCCESSES, PLANS FOR THE FUTURE
LONDON – After slightly more than a year, the No Anglican Covenant Coalition can point to several successes, according to Coalition Moderator, the Revd Dr Lesley Crawley.
“In November 2010, we launched the Coalition to ensure that the case against the proposed Anglican Covenant would be given a fair hearing,” said Dr. Crawley. “Today we are seeing our efforts bear fruit. When fair debate has been allowed, the results have been gratifying.”
Critical to the success of the campaign, especially in the Church of England, has been the support of the Coalition’s Episcopal Patrons, Bishops John Saxbee and Peter Selby, who have encouraged diocesan bishops to allow for a full and open debate. In the coming months, 37 more English dioceses will vote on the Anglican Covenant. Only 18 additional no votes are needed for the Church of England to reject the Covenant.
The No Anglican Covenant Coalition continues to provide assistance to those researching the proposed Covenant. The Resources section of the Coalition website (noanglicancovenant.org) is regularly updated with new material and analysis.
In the coming year:
“Anglican Communion Office officials have repeatedly responded to criticism of the Anglican Covenant by suggesting that critics have not read the document,” said the Coalition’s Canadian Convenor, the Revd Malcolm French. “Ironically, we find that the more familiar people are with the document, the more likely they are to reject it. The Coalition is committed to ensuring a proper and balanced debate in churches throughout the Anglican Communion.”
The following critiques of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Advent Letter have appeared.
Alan Perry Of Advent Letters and Archbishops
…In spite of many assurances, some Anglicans evidently still think that the Covenant changes the structure of our Communion or that it gives some sort of absolute power of ‘excommunication’ to some undemocratic or unrepresentative body.
Er, that would be people like me, I imagine. But then, I’ve read the document and analysed it, rather than simply rely on unsupported “assurances” to form an opinion.With all respect to those who have raised these concerns, I must repeat that I do not see the Covenant in this light at all.
I do wish that the Archbishop would ask someone to respond to the sorts of concerns that I and others have raised, and perhaps even offer a rationale or argument in favour of the Covenant. “No it isn’t” is not an argument, it’s mere contradiction.
It outlines a procedure, such as we urgently need, for attempting reconciliation and for indicating the sorts of consequences that might result from a failure to be fully reconciled.
Well, actually, it outlines the rough idea of a procedure, which is so vague that it’s practically useless, to make arbitrary decisions based on unclear criteria whether a given decision or action of a given Province is or is not “incompatible with the Covenant.” And, although it threatens “relational consequences” it doesn’t define them, so the Archbishop is incorrect to say that it indicates any “sorts of consequences.” The process, such as it is, is a recipe for arbitrariness.
Tobias Haller Noises off…
…The Archbishop also asks a question, and then assumes his question has no takers as he rushes back to square one.
I continue to ask what alternatives there are if we want to agree on ways of limiting damage, managing conflict and facing with honesty the actual effects of greater disunity. In the absence of such alternatives, I must continue to commend the Covenant as strongly as I can to all who are considering its future.
I can, of course, think of any number of “alternatives” to what I continue to see as a deeply flawed and, by its own self-confession, ineffectual effort at conflict management:
- Reliance on the Covenant for Communion in Mission from IASCOME
- Restoration of the purely consultative function to Lambeth, with a staunch refusal to adopt any resolutions at all, other than those that directly empower mission and ministry
- Expansion of ministry and mission cooperation between provinces, focused not on the mechanics of the Communion or disagreements on policies, but on doing the things Jesus actually commanded
- Continuing to provide forums for the sharing of views between provinces, as in the Continuing Indaba and Mutual Listening Process which is “a biblically-based and mission-focused project designed to develop and intensify relationships within the Anglican Communion by drawing on cultural models of consensus building for mutual creative action.”
…In what seems a very disingenuous statement, I just noticed (thanks to Rod Gillis for pointing it out in the comments to the report at Thinking Anglicans) the irony in another portion of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Advent musings:
In spite of many assurances, some Anglicans evidently still think that the Covenant changes the structure of our Communion or that it gives some sort of absolute power of ‘excommunication’ to some undemocratic or unrepresentative body. With all respect to those who have raised these concerns, I must repeat that I do not see the Covenant in this light at all. (¶ 7)
Beg pardon, but it is the Archbishop who introduced language of two tracks or two “tiers” for the future of the Communion. Moreover, the invitation not to participate in, or be suspended from, one or more of “the Instruments” is spelled out in the Covenant at 4.2.5. And further unspecified “relational consequences” concerning the actual status of communion between members churches, is also threatened (4.2.7).
If these are not “change to the structure of the Communion” then what are they? It seems to me they are fundamental changes to the only structure we have. Evidently, the Archbishop thinks otherwise, which leads me to wonder what he means by “structure.”
Andrew Gerns Communion does matter. The Covenant is not the same as Communion.
…Communion is a gift. The problem is not the Communion. The problem is the Covenant.
To make the argument, Dr. Williams begs the question: since he did all the visits and all these events happened without the Covenant in place, then is it possible to be a Communion without the Covenant? Would these connections cease if the Covenant were to not pass? Would Anglicans stop working together or would our voice be diluted in any way without the Covenant in place?
Put another way, would the voice of Anglicanism be any stronger in Zimbabwe and would it influence Mugabe any more if they had the Covenant in their back pockets? Would having the Covenant stop Polynesian islands from being any more submerged and would the urban parish be any more relevant to it’s neighborhood with a fully empowered Anglican Covenant?
Once more he talks about how we must not focus on the things that divide us, while extolling a document that defines itself in terms of division, rather than reconciliation. He says we need this to make room for everyone. Dr. Williams asks for an alternative to the mechanisms outlined in Part IV. He says that no one has offered an alternative. While this point is in itself debatable, allow me instead to make a my own humble suggestion:
Instead of spending time (as Section Four posits) on throwing each other out when we disagree, how about building a communion that encourages dialogue and reconciliation?
Instead of focusing on eliminating conflict by making sure that no innovation can happen without the approval of the most conservative member of the Anglican Communion, how about creating a structure and processes that encourage members of Churches who see the implications of the Gospel differently to come together, listen to one another, pray together, share experiences of mission together, and break Eucharistic bread together?
Mark Harris Canterbury writes a letter. It is Advent after all.
from Lambeth Palace
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has sent the following Advent letter to the Primates of the Anglican Communion and Moderators of the United Churches.
photographic copy of the letter as sent on paper (PDF)
The following three paragraphs are the ones most likely to provoke discussion:
6. Along with such signs of hope, the Communion still lives with numerous tensions. A number of Primates felt unable in conscience to attend the Primates’ Meeting in Dublin early in the year. However, two-thirds of the Primates were present to pray and take counsel together. In addition to a number of strong statements in defence of various Christian communities in situations of suffering and stress, and a very clear commitment to work together on issues of gender-based violence, the meeting produced a carefully considered statement on what those present believed was the proper role of a Primates’ gathering; and it was clear in the discussion that the position and powers of the Primate were very different in different Provinces. These differences affect opinions over the sort of powers a Primates’ Meeting could and should have. They still need more careful and dispassionate discussion, and a sustained willingness on the part of all Provinces to understand the different ways in which each local part of the Anglican family organizes its life.
7. This of course relates also to the continuing discussion of the Anglican Covenant. How it is discussed, the timescale of discussion and the means by which decisions are reached will vary a lot from Province to Province. We hope to see a full report of progress at next year’s Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) meeting. In spite of many assurances, some Anglicans evidently still think that the Covenant changes the structure of our Communion or that it gives some sort of absolute power of ‘excommunication’ to some undemocratic or unrepresentative body. With all respect to those who have raised these concerns, I must repeat that I do not see the Covenant in this light at all. It sets out an understanding of our common life and common faith and in the light of that proposes making a mutual promise to consult and attend to each other, freely undertaken. It recognizes that not doing this damages our relations profoundly. It outlines a procedure, such as we urgently need, for attempting reconciliation and for indicating the sorts of consequences that might result from a failure to be fully reconciled. It alters no Province’s constitution, as it has no canonical force independent of the life of the Provinces. It does not create some unaccountable and remote new authority but seeks to identify a representative group that might exercise a crucial advisory function. I continue to ask what alternatives there are if we want to agree on ways of limiting damage, managing conflict and facing with honesty the actual effects of greater disunity. In the absence of such alternatives, I must continue to commend the Covenant as strongly as I can to all who are considering its future.
8. These questions are made all the more sharp by the fact that the repeated requests for moratoria on problematic actions issued by various representative Anglican bodies are increasingly ignored. Strong conscientious convictions are involved here. No-one, I believe, acts out of a desire to deepen disunity; some believe that certain matters are more important than what they think of as a superficial unity. But the effects are often to deepen mutual mistrust, and this must surely be bad for our mission together as Anglicans, and alongside other Christians as well. The question remains: if the moratoria are ignored and the Covenant suspected, what are the means by which we maintain some theological coherence as a Communion and some personal respect and understanding as a fellowship of people seeking to serve Christ? And we should bear in mind that our coherence as a Communion is also a significant concern in relation to other Christian bodies – especially at a moment when the renewed dialogues with Roman Catholics and Orthodox have begun with great enthusiasm and a very constructive spirit.
The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) organised this event. See the press release, DIVCCON: CELEBRATING OUR DIVINE COMMONWEALTH.
The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) takes another stride with the introduction of Divine Commonwealth Conference (DIVCCON). At a time when the revisionist agenda is ravaging some parts of the global Global Anglican Communion, and we are confronted at home with compromises and shallowness in many aspects, we see this as the time to return to our roots by defending the ancient landmark (Proverbs 22:28) which was built on the ministries of the apostles and focused on Christ as the Biblical story and the cornerstone of our faith…
The conference which has this website, has the full text of many of the talks here.
It has also issued this proclamation:
CONFERENCE STATEMENT
From the first Divine Commonwealth Conference
Held at the National Christian Center, Abuja, Nigeria
7th – 11th, November 2011
In the name of God: the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit. Amen.
The first Divine Commonwealth Conference was held at the National Christian Centre, Abuja, from Monday 7th to Friday 11th November 2011. It was an international, non-denominational spiritual conference initiated by the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) under the leadership of the Most Reverend Nicholas D. Okoh, Primate.
We, the participants, numbering over 5,000 Bishops, Clergy and Laity, deeply appreciated words of encouragement and goodwill from notable leaders from Nigeria, other parts of Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, including the retired Primate of the Church of Nigeria, the Primates of West Africa and Kenya, the Methodist Archbishop of Abuja and the General Overseer of the Redeemed Christian Church of God…
For the full text download this PDF file. It is also available on various other websites including here.
It includes the following:
10) We are convinced that no community without the living God at its centre is a true Commonwealth. Neither is a “Commonwealth of Nations” a true commonwealth if it does not stand for righteousness. In this regard, we were shocked by the recent statement from the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the Right Honourable David Cameron, to the effect that his Government would aid only those countries that adhere to “proper human rights”. It is clear that his true agenda is to force the normalization of homosexuality and gay marriage as a human right”. While acknowledging the sacred worth of every human being we reject this erroneous notion as contrary to God’s intention for humankind and harmful to those he claims to protect. Another implication of this is that the “Commonwealth of Nations” is still being treated as a body of unequal partners, where, because of economic status, some nations are still vulnerable to manipulation. We urge the Federal Government of Nigeria to resist any such intimidation on this matter.
Michael Poon recently wrote an article for the Living Church titled Rebooting Anglican Communication.
In whatever ways we justify and reinterpret the Communion instruments of the Anglican Communion, it is clear the instruments no longer unite Anglican churches worldwide. Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meetings have become obstacles rather than means of healing the Communion’s wounds.
The reasons are clear. The Anglican Communion itself, understood as a Christian World Communion alongside the Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, and other families of churches, is a novel idea in the post-Western missionary era. The instruments emerged in haphazard ways amid the devolution of metropolitan authorities from Canterbury and New York to churches in the southern continents. To be sure, they were useful to connect churches with one another in years surrounding the independence of the southern churches.
They have now become part of the problem, and have lost their legitimacy in the new conditions of the new century. For one, international conferences are expensive exercises, which are hardly sustainable in present-day economic conditions. More important, there is a worrying disconnect between what happens at Communion levels and what occurs at local levels. The faithful in their parishes are expected to remain loyal Anglicans week in and week out. To them, the Anglican disputes are irrelevant. Many of them perhaps have not heard about the Anglican Communion Covenant. Churches of weaker numerical strength and in more fragile conditions are sidelined as well in a high-stakes and wasting religious war….
Tobias Haller has published the text of a talk he recently gave, entitled Anglican Disunion: The Issues Behind “the Issue”.
…Let me first say a word or two about where I don’t think we find our identity. And that, ironically, is in the very “Instruments of Communion” which the Proposed Anglican Covenant appears to wish to install at the center of our ecclesiastical life.
The Windsor Report called them “instruments of unity,” which is not a little blasphemous since our unity is in Christ. But those instruments don’t in any case seem to have had the effect of improving unity. The four are the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council, and the Primates’ Meeting. These are all relatively recent entities not only in Christianity but even among Anglicans.
Obviously the Archbishop of Canterbury has been around since the late sixth century, But the office only began to function as anything like a voice in a “communion” with the beginnings of that “communion” when the Episcopal Church became an independent entity in 1785-89…
…It was not until 1867 that the first Lambeth Conference was called, largely to deal with problems in the by then much more widely dispersed collection of provinces in the Anglican family. It was a full century after that, in 1968, that the Anglican Consultative Council, a representative body including for the first time laity and clergy as well as bishops, was created. Ten years later, in 1978, the Primates of the Communion gathered for the first time as a separate body.
Obviously these entities can hardly be held to be either “foundational” or “essential” or “definitional” of what it means to be the Anglican Communion, which appears to have gotten on well enough without them for much of its life. Yet since the Windsor Report they have loomed rather larger in the picture. And the pressure towards a single unified body has taken form in the Proposed Anglican Covenant.
Savi Hensman at Ekklesia has just published an article titled A clearer, less divisive Anglican Covenant?
Attempts to bring in an Anglican Covenant which can be used to define Anglicanismand discipline member churches have run into difficulties.
Many are uneasy with this development. In November 2011, it became apparent that the province of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia would reject it.
In the words of a diocesan resolution, one of its clauses contains ‘provisions which are contrary to our understanding of Anglican ecclesiology, to our understanding of the way of Christ, and to justice’.
Perhaps it is time to abandon such efforts and build on the foundations laid six years ago by the Anglican Consultative Council, when it agreed a very different Covenant for Communion in Mission…
Meanwhile, Fulcrum published A Churchgoer’s Guide to the Anglican Communion Covenant.
The whole Anglican Communion is considering whether to adopt the Anglican Communion Covenant. All Church of England dioceses and many deaneries are discussing it in coming months before it returns to General Synod in 2012. Fulcrum has consistently supported the covenant but is aware that there is little accessible material explaining it. As a result, many people are relatively uninformed or are being misinformed about it and its significance by some opponents. We have therefore produced this short briefing paper which answers some common questions and provides ten reasons to support the Covenant…
This prompted the No Anglican Covenant Coalition to publish: A Detailed Response to Fulcrum.
Recently, Fulcrum, an English Evangelical organization, issued a document offering ten points allegedly explaining why Evangelical Christians should support the adoption of the Covenant. The No Anglican Covenant Coalition (NACC) has published below a brief overview of why the ten points are inadequate reasons for Evangelicals to support the adoption. In this document we offer point-by-point refutation…
Two reports from New Zealand:
AnglicanTaonga Maori quash Anglican Covenant
The Anglican Covenant is all but dead in the water as far as this church is concerned. This follows a crucial vote by Tikanga Maori at its biennial runanganui in Ohinemutu today.
The Covenant will still come before General Synod in July, but a decision to accept it requires a majority vote in all three houses – lay, clergy and bishops – and by all three tikanga.
Today’s runanganui decision effectively binds all Maori representatives on General Synod to say no…
Bosco Peters writes at Liturgy Maori reject Anglican Covenant
In order for people to understand the significance of this news, you need to comprehend the decision-making processes of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia. Like other Anglican Churches, a decision made (for example at General Synod) needs the agreement of all three houses – bishops, clergy, laity. But in our Church, at General Synod level, it also needs the agreement of all three Tikanga (cultural streams)…
Additional press releases from Lambeth Palace:
Archbishop travels to Manicaland, Zimbabwe
Visit to St Augustine’s Mission in Manicaland, Zimbabwe
And about the final leg of the visit, to Zambia:
Archbishop of Canterbury arrives in Zambia
Archbishop meets President Michael Sata of Zambia
ACNS reports Good news for Zimbabwe Anglicans tempered by reports of orphan abuse.
Press reports:
ENI via Anglican Journal Zimbabwe judges rule in favour of Anglican church
Mail and Guardian Zim’s church horror: ‘Homosexuals must die’
Telegraph Aislinn Laing and Peta Thorneycroft Zimbabwe’s Anglicans in rare victory following Archbishop of Canterbury visit
And also Zambia’s president, Michael Sata, urges Archbishop of Canterbury: ‘send more missionaries’.
Updated Tuesday evening
Aislinn Laing in the Telegraph Analysis: will Robert Mugabe keep his word to the Archbishop of Canterbury?
Zim Eye Anglican church does not allow homosexuality – Archbishop Williams
Mail Online Tea and scones with a tyrant: Archbishop meets Mugabe in controversial visit to Zimbabwe
SW Radio Africa Kunonga hides behind homosexual debate in Anglican saga
The Herald (Published by the government of Zimbabwe) Anglican Head Admits Gay Problem
Lambeth Palace press release: Archbishops meet with Zimbabwean Prime Minister
Zimbabwe Telegraph Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town Condemns “Thuggery” Against Zimbabwean Church
Mail Online Peter Mullen The Archbishop displays a distressing innocence on this foolish, pointless visit
Associated Press Report: Zimbabwe bishops threatened, abused
Nehanda Radio Archbishop Williams harassed in Zimbabwe
and
Attack by Kunonga ‘mindless and Godless’
Living Church John Martin Denying Mugabe a Grip-and-Grin
Updated again
BBC Archbishop of Canterbury set to meet Robert Mugabe
Independent Williams’s ‘healing’ Zimbabwe trip starts with anti-gay protests
ZimGuardian Archbishop of Canterbury cheered in Zimbabwe
Voice of America Anglican Leader Visits Zimbabwe Amid Dispute Over Renegade Cleric
Zimbabwe Guardian Archbishop of Canterbury arrives in Zimbabwe
BBC Archbishop delivers message of hope to Zimbabwe
Reuters Archbishop of Canterbury to confront Zimbabwe’s Mugabe
Telegraph via Sydney Morning Herald Aislinn Laing Forthright archbishop takes good fight to Zimbabwe
AFP Anglican leader voices ‘concerns’ in Mugabe talks
Lambeth Palace has now issued this press release: Archbishops meet Zimbabwean President
Following their meeting with President Robert Mugabe, the Archbishops of Canterbury, Central Africa, Southern Africa and Tanzania issued the following statement at their press conference…
Full text below the fold. The accompanying Dossier of abuses committed against the Anglican Dioceses of Zimbabwe is a PDF file here. And is now also available as a normal web page here.
Subsequent press reports:
Guardian
David Smith Robert Mugabe offers Rowan Williams tea but little sympathy
Simon Tisdall If only UK politicians were as brave as Rowan Williams about Zimbabwe
Telegraph
Aislinn Laing Archbishop of Canterbury tells Robert Mugabe to act over church abuses
and
Archbishop of Canterbury confronts Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe over controversial Anglican split
New Zimbabwe Mugabe ‘on top of things’: Williams
Voice of America
Archbishop Hands Mugabe Dossier of Grievances
and
Zimbabwe’s Mugabe Meets With Anglican Leader Over Harare Church Dispute
AFP via Sydney Morning Herald Williams urges Mugabe to end attacks
Reuters Head of Anglican church confronts Zimbabwe’s Mugabe
BBC Rowan Williams hands Robert Mugabe Zimbabwe abuse file
Statement by the Archbishops of Canterbury, Central Africa, and Southern Africa and the President of the All Africa Conference of Churches the Archbishop of Tanzania
In our capacities as leaders of the Anglican Church in Africa and worldwide, we have just met President Robert Mugabe.
We come here to be in solidarity with our Anglican sisters and brothers at the invitation of the local church – the Anglican Province of Central Africa, which includes the five dioceses of Zimbabwe.
As you know this has been a time of immense trial.
Since 2007 Anglican congregations in Zimbabwe have suffered serious persecution at the hands of the police. They have been intimidated. Their churches have been closed. Properties, including schools and clinics, have been seized.
As representatives of the Anglican Communion, and with the support of ecumenical friends worldwide, we strongly and unequivocally support the efforts of ordinary Anglicans to worship in peace and to minister to the spiritual and material needs of their communities.
Today we were able to present President Mugabe with a dossier compiled by the bishops in Zimbabwe which gives a full account of the abuses to which our people and our church has been subject. We have asked, in the clearest possible terms, that the President use his powers as Head of State to put an end to all unacceptable and illegal behaviour.
We are proud of our church and our people who have suffered so much, but who continue to serve with love and with hope.
For our part we pray, and invite you to join us in praying, that the Anglican Church in Zimbabwe be allowed to carry out its mission in peace, and serve its communities with love.
Updated frequently on Sunday as additional reports are published
The Telegraph reports Archbishop of Canterbury cheered in Zimbabwe.
Lambeth Palace has published the full text of the Archbishop’s sermon to the Anglicans in Zimbabwe.
Riazat Butt, and David Smith in Harare, write for the Guardian that Rowan Williams takes Mugabe to task in Zimbabwe sermon.
Associated Press via the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has a report, with numerous photos of demonstrators opposing the visit, headlined Archbishop says Christianity not about politics.
Zim Guardian has Mugabe, Archbishop of Canterbury Set for Fiery Meeting
AFP Anglican leader cheered in Zimbabwe amid Church split
BBC Archbishop of Canterbury on ‘healing’ Zimbabwe trip
Reuters Archbishop of Canterbury denounces attacks on Zimbabwe church
Telegraph Aislinn Laing Archbishop of Canterbury attacks ‘mindless and Godless’ assaults on Anglicans
Press Association Williams backs Zimbabwe’s Anglicans
Updated Sunday morning
The Sunday Telegraph has two reports:
Aislinn Laing in Harare and Jonathan Wynne-Jones Archbishop Rowan Williams warned over meeting with Mugabe
The Archbishop of Canterbury has been warned by senior church leaders that he risks handing a propaganda coup to President Robert Mugabe by seeking to meet the Zimbabwean dictator on Sunday.
Aislinn Laing Zimbabwe Church row as Archbishop of Canterbury visits: meet the child orphans who are its victims
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, arrives in Zimbabwe on Sunday in a bid to heal a growing rift in the country’s church. Aislinn Laing visited an orphanage where 80 unhappy children are among its victims.
Two other earlier reports:
Voice of America has Archbishop of Canterbury Due in Zimbabwe; No Word on Mugabe Meeting
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, was expected in Harare, Zimbabwe, this weekend for a major service Sunday at the City Sports Centre with Anglicans from the Church of the Province of Central Africa under Bishop Chad Gandiya.
Williams is expected to meet with President Robert Mugabe on Monday in what most see as a bid to end an acrimonious and at times violent rift among Zimbabwean Anglicans that started in 2007 when Harare Bishop Nolbert Kunonga resigned from the church saying homosexual priests and congregants had gained influence…
RadioVOP Anglican Does Not Support Homosexuality - Archbishop Of Canterbury
The Anglican Church of the Province of Central Africa (CPCA) on Thursday said it does not condone homosexuality.
“It is reaffirmed that the CPCA position regarding homosexuality is crystal clear. In terms of Canon 22, marriage is between one man and one woman and in consequence, homosexuality is not acceptable in the CPCA which comprises Botswana, Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe,” Reverend Clifford Dzavo, the secretary for the diocese of Harare said in a statement.
“We therefore reiterate that the CPCA does not condone homosexuality. Whatever happens in other Provinces worldwide does not affect us as we do not necessarily share the same views with them.”
Press releases from Lambeth Palace:
Archbishop Rowan arrives in Malawi
Archbishop meets President Bingu wa Mutharika of Malawi
Archbishop’s Malawi sermon – God’s healing and mercy are there for all
Sunday morning updates
ENI via ACO Williams, Malawi president discuss church agriculture projects
New Zimbabwe Mugabe to challenge Williams over sanctions
PRESIDENT Robert Mugabe will engage the visiting Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams over homosexuality and the “illegal sanctions” imposed by the West, a spokesman of the Zimbabwean leader has said.
Zim Eye Mugabe may refuse to meet Rowan Williams
President Robert Mugabe may refuse to meet Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams as it emerged after more thanthree weeks waiting, Mugabe is still to respond to the former’s request for audience, amid fierce fighting between ousted Bishop Kunonga and the current head of the Anglican church in Zimbabwe, Chad Gandiya.
Without providing more details, a source in the President’s office on Friday indicated that it was still not clear President Robert would accept Williams’ meeting request.
His statement was weighed in by presidential spokesman George Charamba who said that “if ever the two are going to meet”, Mugabe and the State in Zimbabwe “have nothing to do with the goings-on in the local chapter of the Anglican Church.”
BBC Archbishop of Canterbury on ‘healing’ Zimbabwe trip
CNN Archbishop wants to meet with Mugabe over Anglican persecution allegations
AFP Mugabe wants to quiz Anglican leader on gays, sanctions
…Mugabe’s spokesman George Charamba did not say if the two men would meet, but told the state-run Sunday Mail newspaper that if they did speak, the 87-year-old president would challenge Williams about gays and sanctions.
“Fundamentally, he would want to know why the church of the British state, the Anglican Church, has remained so loudly silent while the people of Zimbabwe, and these people include Anglicans, are suffering from the illegal sanctions,” Charamba said.
“The second issue that the president wants this man of God to clarify is why his Anglican Church thinks homosexuality is good for us and why it should be prescribed for us.
“He thinks the Archbishop will be polite enough to point to him that portion of the Great Book (that) sanctions homosexuality and sanctions sanctions.”
Updated Friday afternoon
additional items below the fold
Official press release issued Wednesday:
Lambeth Palace Archbishop to pay a pastoral visit to the Church of the Province of Central Africa with map:
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams is today embarking on a week-long pastoral visit to the Church in Malawi, Zimbabwe and Zambia at the invitation of the Archbishop of the Province of Central Africa, the Rt Revd Albert Chama. During the course of the week Dr Williams will meet with bishops, clergy and parishioners to celebrate the life and ministry of the Anglican Church in the region…
British press reports:
Riazat Butt Guardian Rowan Williams seeks meeting with Robert Mugabe
…The Foreign Office, attempting to quash speculation that Williams is engaging in a form of freelance diplomacy, said that the archbishop’s visit was purely as head of the Anglican church.
A spokesman told the Guardian: “He is not a representative of the government and his proposed meeting with Mugabe in no way reflects a change of government policy.
“The archbishops of Zambia, Southern Africa and Tanzania are also part of the delegation of senior Anglican leaders visiting Zimbabwe.
“It is not for us to comment on the appropriateness of the archbishop’s visit, which is in a pastoral and not a political capacity.”
The Foreign Office said the situation of Anglicans in Zimbabwe had worsened in recent months and as head of the church, Williams’s “desire to support them is understandable”.
The UK ambassador to Harare discussed the visit with the archbishop when they met in London in July, the FCO said, adding that the two will meet again during the visit and that British officials will “continue to offer logistical support”…
Aislinn Laing Telegraph Archbishop of Canterbury to meet Mugabe amid Anglican rift
…Chad Gandiya, the Anglican-appointed Bishop of Harare, said Dr Rowan Williams was “very likely” to meet Mr Mugabe on Monday, with a time and place yet to be confirmed.
“With these things it is impossible to say for sure, but it seems that the Archbishop has been granted an audience with the president,” he said…
African press reports:
ZimOnline Williams visit for solidarity: church
…When Kunonga and former Manicaland bishop Elson Jakazi revolted against the Church of the Province of Central Africa (CPCA), the supreme authority of the Anglican church in the region, they claimed they were doing so because the mother church supported ordination of gay priests.
However this is not true as the Anglican Church in Africa is largely conservative and has strongly opposed ordination of gay priests.
Kunonga and Gandiya were excommunicated in 2008. A staunch supporter of Mugabe, who tried to use the pulpit to defend the Zimbabwean leader’s controversial policies, Kunonga was excommunicated together with several priests and other church leaders who backed his revolt against the CPCA…
The Zimbabwean Archbishop to pay a pastoral visit to Central Africa
And also Coltart intervenes in Anglican saga with a great cartoon:
Minister of Education, Sport, Arts and Culture David Coltart has ordered Mash East Provincial Education Director to produce a detailed report of school children and teachers who were evicted by ex-communicated Anglican church leader Nolbert Kunonga in Mrewa.
I have instructed the Mashonaland East Provincial Education Director to prepare a report detailing what happened to the teachers, headmasters and children. I got a very disturbing report that teachers were physically beaten up. This is very disturbing as it affects lives of school children,” said Coltart in an interview this week.
Kunonga evicted headmasters, teachers and priests for allegedly aligning themselves with the diocese of his arch-rival, Chad Gandiya.
“I have said time and again that politics should stay out of schools. What is happening in the Anglican Church is not religious – it is politics,” Coltart said.
Church of England Newspaper George Conger Dr. Kunonga attacks Canterbury on eve of Zimbabwe visit
Church Times Williams to confront Kunonga
New York Times Anglican Leader to Seek Meeting With Mugabe
Reuters Archbishop of Canterbury to press Mugabe on persecution
ENI via ENS Archbishop of Canterbury to discuss key issues in Africa
Christian Today Archbishop hopes to meet Mugabe in Zimbabwe
…Dr Rowan Williams arrived in Malawi on Thursday afternoon, where he was greeted by Archbishop Albert Chama and Bishop James Tengatenga.
His visit coincides with a service of celebration to mark the 150th anniversary of the Anglican Church in Malawi. His first stop in the country was the shrine of Bishop Charles Mackenzie in St Paul’s Cathedral, Blantyre. The Scot was the first missionary bishop in Nyasaland – today’s Malawi.
Speaking to the media shortly after his arrival, Dr Williams said: “The Church today in this country still plays a deeply significant part in community development, in education, in grassroots agricultural development, in the empowerment of women and young people – I am here to give thanks to God, with you, for all that work.
“I am here to pray with you for a Church that will continue responding to God’s call in that way in the future, and to learn from what you do as I go around and visit various projects in different parts of the country.”
Maravi Post Archbishop Williams to raise persecution issues with Mugabe
The worldwide spiritual leader of the Anglican church Dr. Rowan Williams said on Thursday he will raise the issue of his church’s harassment and persecution in Zimbabwe with Pres Robert Mugabe.
“My purpose of the visit is not directly political but pastoral, but of course I should be raising with President Mugabe issues on harassment and persecution of our churches in Zimbabwe,” the Archbishop of Canterbury told a news conference when he arrived in Malawi at the start of a three-nation pastoral visit.
“What difference that will make, I don’t know, but I want to raise those issues on the table,” he added…
We first reported on Sydney Anglicans and the threat to world Anglicanism at the end of August. Now here’s an update.
The coverage at ABC in Australia in response to the original excerpt from the book continued: in addition to the article Serious flaws in Muriel Porter’s misguided polemic by Mark Thompson previously linked, there was also another one by Michael Jensen, Are Sydney Anglicans actually Anglicans? and another by Peter Kurti It’s Anglicanism, Jim, but not as we know it.
Later, Bruce Kaye wrote about all this in Terms of engagement in Anglican war of words.
Now, Anglican Media Melbourne has published two articles: a news report on the book launch by Roland Ashby Sydney’s ‘harsh sectarianism’ a threat to church and a review of the book by Alan Nichols Exposing the agenda of the Sydney Diocese.
And, in England, John Richardson has written a review for New Directions which can be read here.
Updated Wednesday afternoon
Changing Attitude reports on this, see New Bill prohibiting same-sex marriage placed before Nigerian Parliament.
For the third time in five years the Nigerian parliament is considering a law seeking to prohibit same sex marriage after a new bill was presented to the House. The Nigerian Vanguard newspaper reported on Wednesday September 28, 2011, “The bill had its second reading yesterday September 27, just as senators described the act as ungodly, morally and religiously unacceptable”. The bill is sponsored by Senator Domingo Alaba Obende, Edo North senatorial district and had its first reading in July…
Box Turtle Bulletin has the text of the bill, see Here It Is: Nigeria’s Proposal To Criminalize Same-Sex Marriage:
A BTB reader found a copy of Nigeria’s latest proposal to not just ban same-sex marriage (it’s already illegal in Nigeria), but to impose criminal penalties on anyone who enters into a same-sex marriage — as well as for anyone who “witnesses, abets and aids the solemnization of a same gender marriage contract.” The penalty for entering into a same-sex marriage under the proposed measure would be three years’ imprisonment. The penalty for witnessing/aiding/abeting a marriage would bring five years imprisonment or a fine of ₦2,000 (2,000 naria, or US$13 in a country where the average annual income is US$1,200). If a group of persons witness/aid/abet a marriage, the fine is ₦50,000. It’s unclear whether two people at a wedding would be considered two individuals or a group. The bill also does not define what constitutes witnessing, abetting or aiding in the solemnization of a marriage.
This bill is a considerably scaled down from an earlier bill that was being considered as late as 2009…
Meanwhile, the Primate of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), Nicholas D. Okoh, spoke recently on this subject, see this report from thisdayonline.com: Anglican Primate Launches Attack against Gay Marriage, Homosexuality.
Peeved by the growing malaise of sexual immorality in the country, Primate, Church of Nigeria, the Anglican Communion, Most Rev. Nicholas D. Okoh, has described the practice of homosexuality, lesbianism and gay marriage as great evils that must neither be condoned nor allowed to further exist in our society…
But Changing Attitude also reports that Nigeria Human Rights Defenders condemn 2011 Same Gender Marriage Prohibition Bill.
Wednesday updates
Savi Hensman has written Nigeria’s anti-gay Bill: remembering human rights at Ekklesia.
Some Nigerian politicians are again trying to push through legislation to further criminalise lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) people and their friends.
Sex between people of the same gender is already a crime, and in some parts of the country, men who have sex with each other can be put to death – but certain people seem to believe this is not harsh enough.
The Same Gender Marriage (Prohibition) Bill 2011 is a scaled-down version of earlier anti-LGBT bills. These were dropped after strong protests by human rights advocates at home and abroad., “We as a country need to act very fast for this trend not to find its way into our country,” the Bill’s main sponsor, Senator Domingo Obende, reportedly said. “Same sex marriage cannot be allowed on moral and religious grounds. The Muslim religion forbids it. Christianity forbids it and the African traditional religion forbids it. It should not be allowed because it will lead to a breakdown of the society.”
Apparently he warned that the results would be catastrophic if action was not taken to prohibit same-sex marriage: “With the legalisation of same sex marriage, every school in Nigeria would be required to teach that this perversion is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Textbooks would have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationship and stories written for children as young as kindergarten would have to give equal space to homosexuals…
And Changing Attitude reports that Changing Attitude Nigeria will campaign against the prohibition marriage between persons of the same sex bill.
Updated again Sunday morning
The Zimbabwe press contains reports of Bishop Kunonga’s statements about the forthcoming visit of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
New Zimbabwe Kunonga scorns Williams visit
REBEL Anglican cleric Nolbert Kunonga claims the Archbishop of Canterbury is visiting Zimbabwe in October to “lobby for homosexuality” and “represent neo-colonialism”.
Kunonga, who was banished by the main Anglican Province of Central Africa and the worldwide Anglican Church in 2007, charged that Archbishop Rowan Williams was a “civil servant on a mission”.
“The Anglican Church is a political organisation when it is in England,” said Kunonga, who denied he was a Zanu PF “puppet”.
He added: “Rowan William was appointed by the Queen and the Prime Minister and he is a civil servant of Britain. In a political and economic environment, the civil servant represents and symbolises with his State…
Zimbabwe Guardian Archbishop Kunonga: I’m no Zanu-PF puppet
…Speaking to journalists yesterday, Archbishop Kunonga said he supported democracy that involved the passing on of natural resources to people.
He said he spoke his mind in his capacity as a church leader and not as a Zanu-PF activist.
“I do not need any favours from anyone. I am fighting for this land, mines, natural resources of this land and economic power, which is in the hands of the whites. That’s my fight with the British.
“I am not a puppet of Zanu-PF and if I am a puppet, then I am a proud and educated puppet,” he said…
And according to the Telegraph in London in a report by Peta Thorneycroft Rowan Williams is ‘lobbying for homosexuality’, claims Mugabe-backed bishop:
Reverend Admire Chisango, the secretary for Mr Kunonga’s “diocese”, told The Daily Telegraph: “We have not received an invitation to attend the Archbishop’s service.
“You know Lambeth is just a club, the Lambeth Conference is a fellowship and the Archbishop of Canterbury marries women marrying women and men marrying men.
“He is on the wrong side of the scriptures and commits blasphemy.”
Meanwhile, the Voice of America reports that Evictions of Anglican Clerics Continue as High Court Rebuffs Application.
Evictions of Zimbabwean priests from properties owned by the Harare Diocese of the Anglican church continued following a High Court decision late last week refusing to stop the removals by a faction led by the former Harare Bishop Nolbert Kunonga.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Godfrey Chidyausiku recently gave Kunonga control of all church properties until a final ruling is made on control of the church’s assets. On Friday, High Court Judge Tendai Uchena dismissed an application in which Bishop Chad Gandiya of the Church of the Province of Central Africa - the regional branch of the worldwide Anglican Church - sought protection for clergy against evictions from their rectories and houses. Explaining his ruling, Uchena said Chidyausiku was expected to deliver a final judgment so there was no need for a lower court to rule in the case.
Chidyausiku had promised to deliver a judgment on Friday, but did not do so.
Saturday updates
Some further reports have appeared.
Newsday Kunonga dubs self ‘life Bishop’
Anglican Bishop Nolbert Kunonga who has called himself “life Bishop” remained defiant and claimed ownership of 3 800 properties in and outside Zimbabwe. He argues there is nothing to apologise for.
On Friday, Kunonga evicted two families from St Luke’s Church in Rhodesville.
The latest eviction precedes a wave of evictions targeted at those refusing to recognise Kunonga’s authority.
On Thursday Kunonga described the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who is set to visit Zimbabwe, Malawi and Zambia in October, as a non-entity and said there was nothing to stop him from being “Bishop forever”.
“I would prefer not to meet him because I will not be in solidarity with him. I am taking things from Williams because I am indigenising…”
ZimEye Chief Justice speaks on Anglican row
CHIEF Justice Godfrey Chidyausiku has blasted the Bishop Chad Gandiya-led faction of the Anglican Church for seeking political intervention in the long-drawn property ownership wrangle still pending before the courts.
This, the Chief Justice said, was tantamount to interference with the independence of the judiciary…
Sunday update
Standard Kunonga speaks on Anglican chaos
…Kunonga told journalists on Friday that as long as he was alive, all the 3 800 Anglican properties in the country would remain in his custody. He said whoever wants to use the property should rejoin his group, because it was impossible to have him and Chad Gandiya as bishops. “There is always one diocese, one bishop and one throne, not two,” Kunonga said.
“People simply walked out in thousands, they simply walked out on their own after being misled by nonentities. If they want to come back, they are free to do so and we are not going to ask them anything.
“Those who ran away from the church and do not want to come back just have to rest their case, because they donated the properties to the church, they donated to God,”
He said a lot of people had begun retracing their steps back to his faction. “There was a time when there were only five of us in the hundreds of churches, but now the situation is improving and some churches now have 300 parishioners, and these are the same people coming back after realising they had been lied to,” he said.
While extending a conciliatory hand to ordinary members of the church, Kunonga dismissed possibilities of reconciliation with the Gandiya faction. “We call for reconciliation, everybody is free to come and worship with us. We invite people and we don’t chase them away,” he said. “The dispute of bishops has nothing to do with worshippers, as has been said in the media, some people choose to politicise the dispute, others choose to be judgemental.
“The dispute is between ourselves and the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, and bishops of the Province of Central Africa and it is purely doctrinal and has nothing to do with politics.”
Updated Friday evening
Global South Anglican has published Communiqué of the Global South Primates during their visit to China in September 2011.
A large number of primates of Anglican provinces visited China from 30 August to 10 September 2011. The attendance list is:
Most Rev Dr John Chew, Most Rev Henry Luke Orombi, Most Rev Dr Mouneer Hanna Anis, Most Rev Justice Ofei Akrofi, Most Rev Bernard Ntahoturi, Most Rev Nicholas Dikeriehi Okoh*, Most Rev Stephen Than Myint Oo, Most Rev Hector Zavala, Most Rev Eliud Wabukala, Most Rev Onesphore Rwaje, Most Rev Albert Chama. (*Note: Abp Okoh left a day earlier before the Communique was finalised.)
The text of the communique deals in part with their perceptions of China, but also contains their views on the Anglican Communion. This section is copied below the fold.
Updates
Press coverage in the Church Times: Instruments lack backbone, Primates of Global South say.
And in the Church of England Newspaper: Canterbury’s international agenda in tatters.
11. In our reflections, we found that our Anglican Communion has also undergone a tremendous transformation in recent decades. Today, the majority of Anglicans are found no longer in the west, but in churches in Africa, Asia and Latin America that are firmly committed to our historic faith and order.
12. At the same time, it grieves us deeply to observe many Anglican churches in the west yielding to secular pressure to allow unacceptable practices in the name of human rights and equality. Beginning with the undermining of Scriptural authority and two millennia of church tradition, the erosion of orthodoxy has gone as far as the ordination and consecration of active gay and lesbian clergy and bishops, and the development of liturgies for same-sex marriage.
13. We are wholeheartedly committed to the unity of Anglican Communion and recognize the importance of the historic See of Canterbury. Sadly, however, the Anglican Communion’s Instruments of Unity have become dysfunctional and no longer have the ecclesial and moral authority to hold the Communion together. For instance:
13.1. It was regrettable that the Lambeth Conference 2008 was designed not to make any resolutions that would have helped to resolve the crisis facing the Communion.
13.2. The Primates’ Meeting in Dublin in January 2011 was planned without prior consultation with the Primates in regard to the agenda. There was no commitment to follow through the recommendations of previous Primates’ Meetings. The responsibility given by all bishops at the 1988 and 1998 Lambeth Conferences for the Primates’ Meeting to “exercise an enhanced responsibility in offering guidance on doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters” seems to have been completely set aside.
13.3. The Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), the Anglican Communion Standing Committee, and Communion-level commissions such as the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) and the Anglican Communion Liturgical Commission no longer reflect the common mind of the churches of the Communion because many members from the Global South can no longer with good conscience attend these meetings as issues that are aggravating and tearing the fabric of the Communion are being ignored.
14. We have devoted much time to discuss the Anglican Communion Covenant and the Preamble by the Province of South East Asia documenting the historical events leading up to the Covenant and insisting that the Primates should be the proper moral and spiritual authority for the monitoring of the Covenant. The Covenant with the Preamble have been commended to our respective Provinces for further study and decision.
15. We are committed to uphold the apostolic faith and traditions that define us as Anglicans. This commitment compels us to adopt a proactive stance with respect to our common mission and witness.
15.1. We are planning a Missions Consultation with the theme “Decade of Mission and Networking” as proposed in the Fourth South-to-South Encounter, as a unifying vocational platform on which we realize and build up our common life and witness. Orthodox Anglican churches and groups will be invited to join hands with us in missions.
15.2. We commend the initiatives of theological education carried out in some of our provinces to strengthen the theological foundations and deepen theological reflection among future leaders of the Church.
15.3. We are developing economic empowerment strategies and networks to enable churches in the Global South to be more economically self-sustaining using the resources God has blessed each of our nations.
15.4. We are committed to support faithful orthodox Anglican churches and groups in the west which share our historic faith and order.
Updated Saturday morning
ACNS report the latest development: As Zimbabwe priest is freed, bishop is robbed of communications equipment.
The Bishop of Harare the Rt Revd Dr Nicholas Chad Gandiya said he is suspicious of a robbery at his house in which only money and communications equipment were taken.
On the same day that international media carried the news of the arrest and imprisonment of Anglican priest Reverend Julius Zimbudzana and of the impending visit of the Archbishop of Canterbury to Zimbabwe, four men forced their way into the bishop’s home on Thursday evening. They ordered him and his family to lie on the floor and then proceeded to ransack the house.
Bp Chad said, “We gave them all the money we had between us all which came to $600 to $800. They threatened to kill us if we did not give them money. They searched my son’s bedroom and ours for money and any valuables they could get. They literally trashed our bedroom. They took my laptop and my son’s two laptops and all our cell phones.
“They shoved us all into the bathroom and tried to lock us in but it did not work. They threatened to load all our property in cars and take it all away. We rejoice and thank God that none of us were hurt. We simply did what they told us to do.
“I am however, very suspicious of this robbery. It seems what they were after were just the laptops and phones.”
He added that the robbery means that his ability to communicate is now, of course, much more limited than before.
The robbery took place only hours after the priest in charge at St Mary’s Anglican Church, Reverend Julius Zimbudzana, was finally released from jail after being arrested on a charge of taking over Anglican church property worth over US$1.5 million…
Saturday morning updates
Mail Online Archbishop of Canterbury risks church split as he seeks to meet Mugabe
Telegraph More Anglican churches and properties seized in Zimbabwe
SW Radio Africa Mugabe’s Bishop Kunonga evicts nurses, school head and priests and also OUTSIDE LOOKING IN - A letter from the diaspora
Council on Foreign Relations Archbishop of Canterbury Wants to Meet with Mugabe
Updated Friday
Since the October visit of Archbishop Williams was announced, there have been further developments in Zimbabwe.
ACNS Anglican Bishop of Harare: “Priest’s arrest for ‘theft’ of US$1.5 million is baseless”
Highlands Police today (Tuesday 6 September 2011) arrested Reverend Julius Zimbudzana, the priest in charge at St Mary’s Anglican Church for allegedly taking over Anglican church property worth over US$1.5 million as police intensified their persecution of the Anglican Church, hiding behind unjust court rulings.
Dr Nicholas Chad Gandiya, the Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of Harare in the Church of the Province of Central Africa (CPCA) immediately dismissed the charge as persecution of the Anglicans under the CPCA by the police, acting on the instructions of the ex-communicated Dr Nolbert Kunonga.
“That [accusation against Revd Julius] is unfounded, baseless and without foundation,” Bishop Gandiya said. “This is very strange indeed as no parish in our diocese (perhaps the exception of the Cathedral Parish) has properties worth that much. He has been refused bail. The police claim they have clear instructions not to release him…”
Other reports:
Church of England Newspaper Harare eviction order appealed
SW Radio Africa via AllAfrica.com Anglican Priest Arrested By Police in Highlands
Telegraph Anglican priest arrested in Zimbabwe as Archbishop of Canterbury plans visit and also Archbishop of Canterbury ‘to meet’ Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe
New Zimbabwe Archbishop of Canterbury to meet Mugabe
Friday updates
The Church Times has this report: Zimbabwe: priest arrested for ‘taking’ his own parish which also includes this:
…The Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Revd James Langstaff, has recently returned from a trip to the diocese of Harare, which has a link with Rochester.
Bishop Langstaff attended a diocesan conference with clergy, and said that it was a “slightly surreal experience, as off-stage we knew clergy were routinely being persecuted” and churches’ property being dispossessed. “Gradually, all of the clergy will be ousted from their own property. But, although Kunonga has the buildings, he has no people. He is only interested in making money.
“Congregations are now meeting in borrowed premises and tents, and are growing. I went to one church meeting in a tent. There was a very positive atmosphere, and people feel they are growing spiritually and are more committed — and feel good will come out of it. The congregations are in really good heart, but are concerned for their clergy.”
BBC Archbishop will find Zimbabwe Church in chaos
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, will find his followers dismayed and a Church in chaos when he visits next month…
And the Telegraph has an editorial column: Christian courageous
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, is right to expose himself to risk by visiting Zimbabwe, where many Christians practise their faith in fear, and meeting its President, Robert Mugabe…
In the previous Covenant article, mention was made of the recent analysis by Andrew Goddard.
Two developments in relation to that.
Alan Perry wrote this critique of it: Send in the Theologians
The editors of the No Anglican Covenant blog asked the ACO if what was claimed about IASCUFO working on reforms to the Instruments of Communion was correct. The answer is available here: Don’t Panic.
From New Zealand come reports that two further dioceses have voted against adoption of the Anglican Covenant:
Auckland Covenant clause ‘contrary to Anglican ecclesiology’
But, for the amended text of the resolution that was passed, please see the comments below.
Waiapu The following motion was passed by a 99.5% majority:
Waiapu affirms its desire to remain a member of the Anglican Communion. We do not believe that the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant will enhance the life of the Communion and request that General Synod/te Hinota Whanui declines to sign the Covenant. (All three regional conferences supported this motion going to Synod.)
The No Anglican Covenant campaign has criticised the materials recently issued in the Diocese of Oxford.
Meanwhile, the Living Church has published a number of articles in support of the Covenant, to which Lionel Deimel has helpfully provided a set of links. See this page. He explains why he did this here.
One of these is by Andrew Goddard who has published an interesting article which suggests that, in the light of the Anglican Covenant’s prospective adoption, some reforms are needed to the Anglican Instruments of Unity.
This is also available from the Fulcrum website: Commitment in Word and Deed.
The Church Times reports: Williams to visit Zimbabwe as harassment continues.
And Ekklesia has a report from ENInews headlined Anglican leader to seek meeting with Mugabe in Zimbabwe.
An earlier Church Times report said: Kunonga looks over the border as evictions bite.
And there was this ACNS report: Zimbabwe Anglican Church fights to reclaim its properties and end attacks.
The Church of England Newspaper has Mugabe meeting for Archbishop Williams and earlier Anglican clergy under siege in Harare.
Updated Saturday
ABC in Australia has published this article by Muriel Porter: Sydney Anglicans and the threat to world Anglicanism. It starts:
Sydney Diocese has always been an important player in the Anglican Church of Australia.
It is the oldest and largest of the 23 Australian dioceses, and until its recent catastrophic financial losses, was the richest. It is also the most conservative, and is strident in defence of that conservatism.
But how could Sydney Diocese be a threat to the international Anglican Communion? After all, Australia, with just 3.7 million Anglicans according to the 2006 census - the same number as those Australians who claimed no religion - should be but a small player among the 80 million world Anglicans.
Yet in the first decade of the twenty-first century, under the leadership of Archbishop Peter Jensen, Sydney Diocese has become a force to be reckoned with in the Anglican Communion. As a leader of the alternative international Anglican movement focused in the Global Anglican Future (GAFCON) project, his diocese became what can only be described as a destabilizing influence.
And it ends with:
Overall, Sydney’s influence is of real concern for the future of world Anglicanism.
The article is an edited extract from Dr Porter’s new book Sydney Anglicans and the Threat to World Anglicanism.
Dr Porter is a journalist and author, a Fellow of the University of Melbourne School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, and a member of the Australian General Synod.
Update
ABC News has published this response by Mark Thompson Religion & Ethics: Serious flaws in Muriel Porter’s misguided polemic.
Today’s Church Times carries a news report, by me, on the recent meeting of the International Anglican Liturgical Consultation.
See ‘Respectful’ hearing for gay-rites debate.
“RITES relating to marriage” was the subject under study by 56 Anglican liturgists at the biennial meeting of the International Anglican Liturgical Consultation (IALC) earlier this month in Canterbury. Continuing work that was begun two years ago in New Zealand, a report on this topic will be completed by December.
Participants came from 19 Anglican provinces, including Brazil, Hong Kong, Nigeria, and the Southern Cone. Topics included theology, cultural contexts, and the shape and elements of ritual. Papers were delivered by the Bishop of Central Tanganyika, the Rt Revd Mdimi Mhogolo, and by the Revd Dr Simon Jones, of Merton College, Oxford…
…In addition to the regular sessions, there was a separate presentation by members of the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music (SCLM) of the Episcopal Church in the United States on their development of a theological rationale and liturgical principles for same-sex blessings. Those who attended were asked to give feedback by considering specific questions in small working groups.
The chair of the IALC, Dr Eileen Scully, from Canada, said on Thursday of last week that the purpose of the IALC meeting was to work on rites related to heterosexual couples only. In countries where civil-marriage laws were changing, however, to allow either civil unions or same-sex marriage, Churches faced challenges. They needed to reflect on the parallels with traditional marriage…
Anglican Communion Office backfiles of material on IALC here.
Gladstone’s Library is holding a residential event from the evening of Friday 2nd to lunchtime on Sunday 4th September which is titled The Future(s) of Anglicanism.
Is there a distinctive Anglican ethos and does it still survive? What does Anglicanism stand for? Is Anglicanism in danger of splitting apart over contentious issues like gay clergy, divorce, women bishops - the so-called western liberal agenda? The end of Anglicanism as we know it?
Is an Anglican Covenant the answer to our contemporary problems? Amidst all the controversy do we miss signs of hope and vibrancy - and the beginnings of an exciting future?
The speakers are:
More details from this page.
We reported back in May: Primate calls for Nigeria to leave the UN.
Then at the end of June, there were some press reports about a national consultation in Nigeria, for example: Homosexuality: Nigeria’s Anglican church calls for pull out from UN or Homosexuality: Okoh urges FG to quit UN.
Now, the actual communiqué from that conference has been published: COMMUNIQUE ISSUED AT THE END OF THE NATIONAL CONSULTATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS.
While it is critical of the United Nations, it does not include a call for Nigeria to withdraw.
Jim Naughton’s earlier comments about this are still relevant.
Updated Wednesday
There are disturbing reports of Christian, and in particular of Anglican, support for attacks on homosexual people in Ghana.
Independent Alex Duval Smith Ghana official calls for effort to ‘round up’ suspected gays
In a new burst of African homophobia, a government minister in Ghana has drawn support after calling on the country’s intelligence services to track down and arrest all gays and lesbians.
The call from Paul Evans Aidoo, the minister for the Western Region of Ghana, marks the latest in a series of expressions of officially condoned homophobia across the continent, which has previously been seen in Malawi, Uganda and South Africa…
BBC Paul Evans Aidoo’s Ghana gay spy call ‘promotes hatred’
A Ghanaian minister is “promoting hatred” by urging people to report those they suspect to be homosexual, a human rights group has told the BBC…
Africa Review Homosexuality: Ghana churches caution politicians
Ghanaian politicians who may want to push the idea of human rights to include open support for homosexuals will think twice after the Christian Council of Ghana (CCG) took a strong stand on the issue.
The latter have and called on the faithful to “vote out lawmakers who show support for homosexuals”.
The CCG’s position stems from fears that international human rights groups want to lobby Parliament to pass a law that would legalise homosexuality in the country.
And:
The Presiding Bishop of the Anglican Church in Ghana, the Right Rev. Mathias Medadues-Badohu, says the Church in Ghana would intensify its teaching on the ills of homosexuality and would use its clinics to help those who want to get “out of it”.
ghana mma Christian Leaders Warn Politicians Over Gays
…Rt. Rev. Matthias Modedues-Badohu, Presiding Bishop of the Anglican Church and Bishop of Ho, said, “We speak against acts that go against the word of God. It is abnormal and not good. Our objective is to condemn it so that people will not get involved.”
The Anglican Communion Office recently held a Continuing Indaba Hub Meeting in Ghana, see this ACNS report, “The Anglican Communion is one family” Ghanaian bishop tells theologians.
Updates
Warren Throckmorton has written about this at Religion Dispatches Ghana’s Government Silent on Investigation of Gays.
…Some observers believe the number of sexual minorities may have been inflated in order to whip up opposition to homosexuality which could advance the standing of conservative politicians. Graham Knight, a British blogger living in Ghana, recently wrote that the claim of 8,000 sexual minorities has little support in fact. Knight concluded, in a blog post titled Did Ghana register 8000 homosexuals? The facts behind the hype that:
the real story is of a rather low-key workshop that has been sensationalized by the press, possibly with the collusion of a local doctor. The press reports are designed to create fear as are the unrepresentative group of Muslims claiming an imminent Sodom and Gomorrah for Africa.
While the accuracy of the original story is open to question, only a spark is needed to get a fire going—intentionally or not. And given the rhetoric in Ghana, it is difficult to avoid comparison to Uganda’s recent history in relation to sexual minorities. In March, 2009, three Americans spoke at a conference on homosexuality and used false and misleading information to inflame public sentiment against gays. Later that year, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill was tabled…
Jill Hamilton writes in the Guardian today, Christians in the Holy Land shouldn’t have to convert to Islam to get divorced.
“We cannot wait for politicians to sort things out, we have got to make a difference ourselves,” concluded Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, at the conference on Christians in the Holy Land co-hosted at Lambeth Palace with archbishop Vincent Nichols, the head of the Roman Catholic church in England and Wales.
As they explored ways to support Christians in the Middle East, I sent a query to Lambeth Palace asking why Anglicans in Jerusalem convert in order to get divorced. The reply from the press office was disappointing: “Each province has its own canon law, so the archbishop wouldn’t have any jurisdiction over this in another province … “
Yet it is time that foreign churches, as well as sending money and priests to the Middle East, used their influence to reform family law in the region. Who will bring pressure to bear to modernise the dense muddle of Christian personal status laws in the Middle East? The majority of the 14 million Arab Christians there cannot divorce. Many are locked into dead marriages – or convert to another religion so they can divorce…
And more precisely she reports that:
In the Holy Land, Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans can only separate; to remarry they first have to convert to Greek Orthodox or Islam to obtain a divorce. Annulment is possible, but there are only about five cases finalised in the region annually. Converts for divorce, though, are welcomed by the Greek Orthodox church. Metropolitan Cornelius, the Greek Orthodox judge in Jerusalem, has said the majority of divorces he handles are for former Catholics.
Information about the Lambeth Palace conference referred to at the beginning of this story can be found here, then here, and finally here.
Updated
press release from noanglicancovenant.org
COALITION RELEASES A SHORT INTRODUCTION TO THE ANGLICAN COVENANT
LONDON – Responding to requests for a concise explanation of the Anglican Covenant and the lack of even‐handed discussions of the Covenant from official sources, the No Anglican Covenant Coalition has released of A Short Introduction to the Anglican Covenant. The one‐page primer outlines the history and likely effect of the proposed Anglican Covenant.
“Most of the study material that has been produced to date has been designed for readers already familiar with the background and issues involved,” said the Coalition’s Moderator, the Revd. Dr. Lesley Fellows. “This brief, plain‐language explanation is intended to help ordinary Anglicans worldwide to understand what is being proposed.”
“Many people have complained that the official study material from the Anglican Communion Office has lacked balance and has failed to take seriously the concerns of Covenant critics,” according to the Revd. Canon Hugh Magee, the Coalition’s Scottish Convenor. “Recent study material from Canada has taken a more realistic view. While clearly written in opposition to the Covenant, A Short Introduction seeks to present a fair but critical view of the Covenant.”
A Short Introduction to the Anglican Covenant may be printed and copied by groups or individuals. It is particularly appropriate for people who know little about the Covenant or are overwhelmed by the available material related to the proposed pact. The document is available formatted both for letter‐size stationery used in Canada and the United States and for A4 stationery used in Britain and elsewhere.
Update
More attractive two-page versions are now also available: A4 stationery; North American stationery.
Coalition Appoints Episcopal Patrons
NEWS RELEASE
JULY 6, 2011
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
BISHOPS JOHN SAXBEE, PETER SELBY TO BE PATRONS OF NO ANGLICAN COVENANT COALITION
LONDON – The Right Reverend Dr John Saxbee and the Right Reverend Dr Peter Selby have been appointed Episcopal Patrons of the international No Anglican Covenant Coalition.
“The Anglican Communion doesn’t need a Covenant because Anglicanism is a Covenant, predicated on grace and goodwill,” Dr Saxbee said. “If there is grace and goodwill, a Covenant is unnecessary. If there is no grace or goodwill, a Covenant will be unavailing.” Dr Saxbee was Bishop of Lincoln from 2001 until his retirement in January of this year.
Dr Selby, Bishop of Worcester from 1997 to 2007, has been a supporter of the Coalition since its launch last November. “This proposed Covenant is not the solution to the tensions in the Anglican Communion,” he said. “It will inevitably create a litigious Communion where every serious disagreement will become a possible occasion to seek a province’s exclusion.”
“More and more questions are being raised about the potential pitfalls of the proposed Anglican Covenant,” said the Reverend Dr Lesley Fellows, Moderator of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition. “We have consistently seen that support for the Covenant tends to collapse in the face of full and fair discussion and analysis. We are very pleased to welcome Bishops Selby and Saxbee as our first Episcopal Patrons. They are well respected in the Church of England and throughout the Anglican Communion. We expect that their views on the Covenant will persuade many more people to take a harder look at the risks inherent in this radical proposal.”
The Standing Commission on Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church has issued a report on the Anglican Covenant.
See this ENS news report: Task force releases report on Anglican Covenant.
“The SCCC is of the view that adoption of the current draft Anglican Covenant has the potential to change the constitutional and canonical framework of [the Episcopal Church], particularly with respect to the autonomy of our Church, and the constitutional authority of our General Convention, bishops and dioceses,” says the report.
The full text of the report can be found here as a PDF.
Mark Harris has commented on it: The Standing Commission on Constitution and Canons’ report. There it is.
Lionel Deimel has Analysis of the Report from the Standing Commission on Constitution and Canons.
The Anglican Church of Canada has produced further material, in addition to its excellent study guide and linked materials which were mentioned earlier.
see the press release: Governance Working Group analyzes Covenant.
…This GWG report is one step in the Anglican Church of Canada’s ongoing consideration of the Covenant. A resolution at General Synod 2010 (A137) requested several actions to advance this work. First, the Anglican Communion Working Group was asked to prepare materials for parishes and dioceses to study the Covenant and give feedback. These materials were released June 9 and are available online.
Both the GWG and the Faith, Worship, and Ministry Committee were asked to assess the Covenant by “providing advice on the theological, ecclesiological, legal, and constitutional implications.”
The resolution also requested that “conversations, both within the Anglican Church of Canada and across the Communion, reflect the values of openness, transparency, generosity of spirit, and integrity, which have been requested repeatedly in the context of the discussion of controversial matters within the Communion.”
After this period of consideration, the Council of General Synod will bring a recommendation regarding adoption of the Covenant to General Synod 2013.
The report itself is here as a PDF. There is also an Executive Summary, also a PDF.
I have reproduced below the fold those parts of the Executive Summary which are of most relevance outside Canada. A read of the full report is highly recommended, as many of the issues raised by it should be of concern to all Anglicans worldwide.
The Anglican Church of Canada Governance Working Group
LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES PRESENTED TO THE CANADIAN CHURCH BY THE PROPOSED ANGLICAN COVENANT
Executive Summary
…The GWG’s Memorandum identifies four broad areas of concern:
1. Lack of Definitional Clarity
Because the Covenant is intended to bind those Churches which adopt it, there are concerns about the imprecision or ambiguity of important terms used in the Covenant, which makes it difficult to know with certainty the meaning, scope and operation of the Covenant:
2. Procedural concerns
The procedures contained in section 4 of the Covenant raise a number of concerns:
The multiple roles of the Standing Committee creates uncertainty about the authority and jurisdiction granted to it under each role and cumulatively.
There is a lack of both substance and detail in the rules of process to be followed.
There are no criteria for actions or decisions which are deemed to be “controversial”, which is what initiates the procedure under section 4.
The Covenant does not contain the normal procedural fairness that is fundamental in Canadian jurisprudence.
The rules around the establishment, application and length of moratoria are ill-defined or absent.
The proposed Covenant does not provide rights for appeal.
The outcomes for a Church declining to implement recommended “relational consequences” are unspecified.
3. Constitutional Issues for the Canadian Church…
4. Consequences of Non-Adoption
Not adopting the Covenant does not affect the membership of the Anglican Church of Canada in the Anglican Communion.
How do non-covenanting churches relate to the actions of the Standing Committee?
Apart from section 4.2 of the draft text, are there any substantial consequences to the Canadian Church if it chooses not to adopt the Covenant.
Updated Wednesday and Thursday
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has released the following statement regarding recent violence in South Kordofan, Sudan:
Along with the Christian leaders represented in the Sudan Ecumenical Forum and Council of Churches and many more throughout the world, we deplore the mounting level of aggression and bloodshed in South Kordofan State and the indiscriminate violence on the part of government troops against civilians. Numerous villages have been bombed. More than 53,000 people have been driven from their homes. The new Anglican cathedral in Kadugli has been burned down. UN personnel in the capital, Kadugli, are confined to their compound and are unable to protect civilians; the city has been overrun by the army, and heavy force is being used by government troops to subdue militias in the area, with dire results for local people. Many brutal killings are being reported.
This violence is a major threat to the stability of Sudan just as the new state of South Sudan is coming into being. The humanitarian challenge is already great, and the risk of another Darfur situation, with civilian populations at the mercy of government-supported terror, is a real one.
International awareness of this situation is essential. The UN Security Council, the EU, the Arab League and the African Union need to co-operate in guaranteeing humanitarian access and safety for citizens, and we hope that our own government, which has declared its commitment to a peaceful future for Sudan, will play an important part in this.
The Diocese of Bradford is linked to the Diocese of Kadugli in Northern Sudan. There is an appeal from the Bishop of Bradford on the diocesan website. This has links to information about what is going on in Sudan.
Wednesday update
The Diocese of Salisbury also has a link with the Episcopal Church of Sudan. It has published a response to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s statement. There is more information on the diocese’s link at Sudan Link.
From the Anglican Communion News Service: Anglican agencies to work together on humanitarian crisis in Sudan.
ENI News has Christian leaders condemn terror in Sudan’s Kordofan.
Thursday update
William Haigh, the British Foreign Secretary issued this statement on Sudan to the House of Commons yesterday. The Minister of State answered an oral question in the House of Lords.
Updated Monday evening
The Church of St-Matthew-in-the-City in Auckland, New Zealand published this petition on its website: Petition to the Anglican Bishops of New Zealand. The heading reads:
Stop White Collar Crime - Ask NZ bishops to end their discrimination against gays and lesbians
Following an explanation of the specific NZ circumstances, it says:
We respectfully ask the bishops of the Anglican Church in New Zealand to be true to the values of the Gospel and end the discriminatory practices that prevent the selection and ordination of gays and lesbians who are in committed relationships.
Bishop Philip Richardson, Bishop in Taranaki then wrote this response: White collar crime?
And the anglicantaonga website also published a news article about the exchange, Bishop refutes “white collar crime”.
A new petition urging bishops to end their “discrimination” against gays and lesbians misunderstands both church law and the power of bishops to change church doctrine.
That’s the view of Bishop Philip Richardson, who has released a public response to the “Stop White Collar Crime ” petition being driven by Auckland’s St-Matthew-in-the-City…
Both Kiwianglo’s Blog and Anglican Down Under have drawn attention to this. Both seem to think this dialogue is a good development. Scroll down here to see Ron Smith’s comments. Peter Carrell has identified the following key passage from Bishop Richardson’s response:
I believe that General Synod needs to reach an agreed position on these three inter-related issues, in the following order:
First , whether sexual orientation towards those of one’s own gender is a consequence of wilful human sinfulness, or an expression of God-given diversity. This in itself requires the process of collective biblical exegesis, prayer and discussion and debate which we are engaged in.
Depending on our collective answer to the first question, the church might then be in a position to move to the development of a formulary for the blessing of committed, life-long, monogamous, relationships other than marriage.
It is worth making the point that as bishops of the Diocese of Waikato and Taranaki we have suspended the licenses of heterosexual ministers living in relationships other than marriage (for example, in civil unions) for exactly the reason that there is no agreed position in this church on the status of committed relationships other than marriage.
Thirdly, the church could agree that such relationships so blessed and formally recognised by the church meet the standards of holiness of life that is the call on every Christian life, and is required to be reflected in the lives of those called by God and affirmed by the church to holy orders.
Update
Bosco Peters has written a response to this: Gay Ordinations Invalid?
For our earlier report on the New Zealand situation, see New Zealand Maori diocese rejects Covenant.
Now, Bosco Peters reports that a second Maori diocese has also voted against it. See Maori momentum growing against Anglican Covenant. Below is the text of the motion, see Bosco’s post for further analysis.
TE HUI AMORANGI O TE TAIRAWHITI
ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
TURANGA-NUI-A-KIWASaturday 11 June 2011
Motion concerning the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant
IT IS MOVED:
That for the purposes of providing feedback to Te Hinota Whanui (General Synod) and Te Runanganui o Te Pihopatanga o Aotearoa, Te Hui Amorangi o Te Tairawhiti wishes to express the following:
- We have carefully considered the text of The Anglican Communion Covenant, and what we know of the context in which it was proposed;
- In terms of our shared Mihingare and Anglican heritage, our call to communion, and our call to ministry and mission, the Covenant offers us nothing new or more compelling than the Spiritual Covenant that we already have with each other through faith in Jesus Christ;
- We see that Section Four of The Anglican Communion Covenant propose measures of compliance and discipline – including “relational consequences” and being declared “incompatible with the Covenant” – that go against our Gospel imperative to “love one another” (John 13:34-35).
We note that our sister Amorangi, Te Hui Amorangi o Te Manawa o Te Wheke, has stated its opposition to The Anglican Communion Covenant because:
- It is a threat to the rangatiratanga of the Tangata Whenua;
- It does not reflect our understanding of being Anglican in these Islands; and
- We should instead focus on the restoration of justice for Tangata Whenua under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
We agree with Te Hui Amorangi o Te Manawa o Te Wheke, and choose here to stand in solidarity with them.
For the reasons expressed above, Te Hui Amorangi o Te Tairawhiti states that it is opposed to the adoption of The Anglican Communion Covenant.
MOVED: Rev Don Tamihere SECONDED: Rev Connie Tuheke-Ferris
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH ACCLAMATION
Update Monday evening
The brief note below about the Anglican Covenant may be misleading. To clarify, a decision in principle on whether or not to adopt the covenant will be made at the General Synod in 2012. Formal adoption requires canonical legislation, and it is this that will require a further two years. Full details are in the Paper from Faith and Order Board.
Update late Thursday:
Kelvin Holdworth reports that the Primus actually said more about the Anglican Covenant in his charge than was included in the official text, and gives a transcript, in What the Primus actually said.
The Scottish Episcopal Church is holding the 2011 meeting of its General Synod in Edinburgh from today until Saturday. There was a official preview published last month, General Synod 2011, and all the papers can be downloaded.
There are these official reports of the first day’s business.
Primus’ charge at the opening Eucharist
Brief summary of business General Synod - Thursday 9 June
There is also an official Twitter stream.
Kelvin Holdsworth is blogging from the floor of Synod.
The business included a paper on the process of considering the Anglican Covenant: Paper from Faith and Order Board. The process described in this paper was accepted by the Synod; this will involve making a final decision on whether to adopt the covenant at the 2014 meeting of the Synod, although a decision not to adopt it could be made earlier.
There is background information on the Scottish General Synod here.
Updated Friday evening
USPG reports 16 arrested as persecution of Anglicans in Zimbabwe continues.
Sixteen church-goers have been arrested and priests have been turned out of their homes in Zimbabwe’s Diocese of Harare – where the Anglican Church is facing persecution at the hands of an ex-communicated bishop.
The Rt Revd Chad Gandiya, Bishop of Harare, said the arrests were illegal and that those detained – including a elderly woman – were traumatised.
The diocese is now trying to arrange bail and has asked for prayers for those in prison and their families.
Bishop Chad, a USPG Regional Manager until 2010, said: ‘I am really concerned about this. We shall be running around to try and bail the whole group out today, if the police will listen.’
The Anglican Church in Harare is under attack from an ex-communicated bishop, Dr Norbert Kunonga, a supporter of President Mugabe, who left the Anglican Province of Central Africa (CPCA) in 2007 to try and set up a rival church.
Kunonga, with the support of police and henchmen, has seized CPCA church property and used violence to break up church services…
And there is a lot more detail in that article, including a full statement by Bishop Chad Gandiya (scroll down).
Earllier, there was a lengthy report in the New York Times by Celia W Dugger Mugabe Ally Escalates Push to Control Anglican Church:
…But it is leaders of the Anglican Church, one of the country’s major denominations, who have lately faced the most sustained pressure. Nolbert Kunonga, an excommunicated Anglican bishop and staunch Mugabe ally, has escalated a drive to control thousands of Anglican churches, schools and properties across Zimbabwe and southern Africa.
“The throne is here,” declared Mr. Kunonga, who has held onto his bishopric here in the sprawling diocese of Harare through courts widely seen as partisan to Mr. Mugabe. He has also been backed by a police force answerable to the president, whom Mr. Kunonga describes as “an angel.”
Chad Gandiya, who was selected by the Anglican hierarchy in central Africa to replace Mr. Kunonga as bishop of Harare, said he was baffled by the support for Mr. Kunonga from state security services since the church that Bishop Gandiya leads is apolitical: “It’s not Kunonga we find at the church gates, it’s the police. It’s not Kunonga who drives us out, who throws tear gas at us, it’s the police. When we ask them why, they say they’re following orders.”
Friday evening update
USPG now reports 16 Anglicans released on bail in Harare, Zimbabwe.
The Rt Revd Chad Gandiya, Bishop of Harare, has told USPG that 16 Anglicans arrested on Wednesday have now been released on bail…
The Anglican Communion Institute has published The Covenant: What Is It All About? by Philip Turner.
The Living Church has published Recognizably Anglican by George R Sumner.
Mark Harris asks What’s at Stake with the Anglican Covenant. Some questions. And earlier, The Strange Case of the Province of South East Asia and their Letter of Accession.
Jonathan Clatworthy has written two items: Analysis of the Provincial Votes and a letter which has not so far been published by the Church Times but which appears here at Wounded Bird.
The Daily Episcopalian ran a series last week of articles that were first published by the Chicago Consultation:
Updated
The Church of Ireland has voted in favour of the Anglican Covenant. Here is what the official press release, issued last Friday, says:
The General Synod of the Church of Ireland meeting today in Armagh voted in favour of the following Motion on the Anglican Covenant:
‘Seeing that the Anglican Covenant is consonant with the doctrines and formularies of the Church of Ireland, the General Synod hereby subscribes the Covenant.’
The vote was passed by a large majority of the House of Representatives. The House of Bishops also voted as a separate House, approving the motion, also by a large majority.
The Motion was proposed by the Bishop of Cashel & Ossory, the Rt Revd Michael Burrows, and seconded by the Bishop of Down & Dromore, the Rt Revd Harold Miller. In the course of the Synod debate it was stressed that the word ‘subscribe’ in relation to the Covenant, rather than ‘adopt’, was important. Subscribing the Covenant is an indication that the Church of Ireland has put its collective name to and aligned with it. The Covenant sits under the Preamble and Declaration of the Church and does not affect the sovereignty of the Church of Ireland or mean any change in doctrine.
So subscription is something different to adoption. And South East Asia used the term accession.
Confused? If so, then these three four blog articles may not help you.
Catholicity and Covenant has Quincy, SE Asia & Ireland: Covenant questions.
Bosco Peters at Liturgy has Anglican Covenant meaningless.
Tobias Haller at In a Godward Direction has The Anglican Covenant — Let’s be clear.
Alan Perry has What goes on in the Emerald Isle?
George Conger reports for the CEN that South East Asia endorses the Anglican Covenant. Here’s an extract:
…The province noted that “our accession” to the covenant was based on the understanding “that those who accede” to the agreement “will unequivocally abide by Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10 in its spirit and intent,” and would honour the moratorium on gay bishops and blessings.
Churches that accede to the covenant should also “bear authentic witness to the orthodox faith by an unequivocal commitment to the standards of moral and ethical holiness as set by Biblical norms in all aspects of their communal life.”
And South East Asia stated that it saw the primates as the body to oversee the implementation of the covenant, as it was the group “responsible for Faith and Order” in the Anglican Communion.
The language of the covenant that called for “common commitments and mutual accountability” among Anglicans to “hold each Church in the relationship of communion one with another,” echoed the “closing appeal” of the Kuala Lumpur statement. The 1997 statement called call for new structure to “guard the internal unity of our Communion,” and “strengthen the bonds of affection between our provinces, and especially, make for effective mutual accountability in all matters of doctrine and polity throughout the Communion.”
The province said the “similarities” between the documents were “not accidental” as the covenant was “the culmination of a decade of intense disputes over ethical teaching and church order in the Communion. The Kuala Lumpur Statement, in fact, marked the beginning of a united stand, spearheaded by churches in the southern continents, for the faith that was once delivered to the saints across the Communion.”
Those too young to remember it will find the Kuala Lumpur Statement here.
The full text of the Preamble to the Letter of Accession can be read here.
The Living Church has a report on this at S.E. Asia Adopts Anglican Covenant which contains the inital paragraphs.
The Church Times has a sober news article, ‘Disappointed’ Primates announce GAFCON 2 by Ed Thornton.
THE leaders of GAFCON, a global network of conservative Anglicans, said this week that the decision to “reduce the status” of the Primates’ Meeting in Dublin earlier this year (News, 28 January) was “unacceptable.” Those who organised the meeting had been “misled”. The GAFCON leaders announced plans for a second conference in 2013, and the opening of new offices in London and Nairobi.
A 13-point communiqué, issued on Wednesday after a meeting of GAFCON Primates in Nairobi last month, said: “The fabric of our communion life has been torn at its deepest level and until the presenting issues are addressed we will remain weakened at a time when the needs before us are so great.”
The Church of England Newspaper has an exuberant report from George Conger headlined Gafcon throws down gauntlet to Dr. Williams.
The formation of the Anglican Ordinariate was a natural consequence of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s mismanagement of the crisis facing the Anglican Communion, the leaders of the Gafcon movement said in a statement released on May 10.
In a strongly worded communiqué summarizing the work of their April 25-28 meeting in Nairobi, the archbishops of the Gafcon movement, representing a majority of the church’s members, voiced their displeasure with the usurpation of authority by Dr. Williams and the staff of the Anglican Consultative Council and laid upon their door responsibility for the de facto schism within the communion.
While the 13-point communiqué touched on administrative issues for the Anglican reform movement, including the creation of a Nairobi and London offices, the appointment of Bishop Martyn Minns as Deputy Secretary, and the calling of a second Jerusalem conference in 2013, the heart of the letter came in a sustained attack on the actions taken by London-based instruments of the Anglican Communion.
While Pope Benedict XVI’s offer of an Anglican Ordinariate was “a gracious gift” to those Anglican clergy and congregations “alienated by recent actions in the Communion,” it should not have been necessary, the archbishops said.
“Our own Communion has failed to make adequate provision for those who hold to a traditional view of the faith. We remain convinced that from within the Provinces that we represent there are creative ways by which we can support those who have been alienated so that they can remain within the Anglican family,” they said…
Updated again 11 am Friday morning
The US Government has issued an extremely strong denunciation of the legislative proposals, see CNN U.S. State Department condemns ‘odious’ Ugandan anti-gay bill.
The State Department Thursday condemned a proposed bill in the Ugandan parliament that could make engaging in homosexual acts a capital offense punishable by death. The bill may be debated Friday by the Ugandan parliament.
“No amendments, no changes, would justify the passage of this odious bill,” State Department spokesman Mark Toner told reporters. “Both (President Barack Obama) and (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) publicly said it is inconsistent with universal human rights standards and obligations.”
The State Department, he said, is joining Uganda’s own human rights commissions in calling for the bill’s rejection.
“We are following this legislative process very closely,” Toner said. “Our embassy is closely monitoring the parliament’s proceedings and we also are in close contact with Uganda’s civil rights and civil society leaders, as well as members of the (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community there.”
Warren Throckmorton has this analysis of the current position: Possible amendments to Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill.
Human Rights Watch has Uganda: Parliament Committee Backs Anti-Homosexuality Bill.
The Ugandan parliament’s Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee has regrettably recommended passage of the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill, including retaining the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality,” Human Rights Watch said today. The committee’s report, as seen by Human Rights Watch, recommends amendments deleting some provisions but adding criminal penalties for “conduct[ing] a marriage ceremony between persons of the same sex.”
The committee’s report is likely to be presented to parliament on May 13, 2011, as part of a debate before the bill could be up for a vote. Such reports are required under parliamentary procedure…
Box Turtle Bulletin has HRW: Uganda’s Parliamentary Committee Backs Retaining Death Penalty and Other Expanded Penalties.
Friday morning updates
Box Turtle Bulletin Uganda’s Death Penalty Appears Firmly In Place
Warren Throckmorton Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill: Is the death penalty off the table or not?
Warren Throckmorton Breaking: Ugandan Parliament stalled on technicality, fate of anti-gay bill uncertain
Despite being called to business today by Speaker Edward Ssekandi, Uganda’s parliamentary session has been stalled today and may adjourn without taking any action on pending legislation, including the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. According to parliamentary spokeswoman, Helen Kawesa, Parliament is stalled on a “technicality.” She said there is no Cabinet in place because it was dissolved in preparation for the end of the 8th Parliament in advance of yesterday’s Presidential inauguration. It is unclear who raised the issue of the necessity for Cabinet to be place for business to be conducted. However the effect is that the session is winding up, with members discussing how to proceed before the end of the 8th Parliament on 18th…
Updated Monday
Several reports of this have emerged today. The “Traditional Anglican Communion” in Canada is not, it seems, getting what it wants.
Ordinariate Portal has TAC Archbishop on Canadian Ordinariate.
Anna Arco at the Catholic Herald has Ordinariate talks stall in Canada.
As the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham has been gaining deacons in the last few weeks and continues to take shape, expectant eyes begin to focus on the other side of the Atlantic. A decree establishing personal ordinariate for the United States is rumoured to be announced any day now. Things are looking good for the further implementation of the Pope’s 2009 Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus which reached out to Anglo-Catholics.
But this morning we learned that the leader of the Traditional Anglican Communion has thrown his toys out of the pram and warned that the British structure may well be the first and last ordinariate, as negotiations in Canada have come to a standstill.
Archbishop John Hepworth – a flamboyant and outspoken former Catholic turned Anglican who leads the TAC – wrote a letter to Bishop Peter Elliot, a former Anglican who is the Vatican’s appointed delegate for the Australian ordinariate, in which he accused the Vatican’s Canadian point man for the ordinariate of derailing the process. He said he would put talks with the Church on hold. He added that the Canadian development would have an effect on the potential establishment of ordinariates around the world, including in Australia. The TAC is the largest umbrella group for Anglo-Catholic continuing churches around the world who have broken with the Anglican Communion…
The bulk of membership of the TAC is to be found in Africa and in India, as originally reported by me in the Church Times, see my statistics here.
Update
The RC Archbishop of Toronto has issued a Statement re: Implementation of Anglicanorum Coetibus in Canada.
I wrote an article this morning for Cif belief that was published with the title Uganda’s anti-gay bill is far from dead.
It may be temporarily off the parliamentary agenda, but local Anglican support for the Ugandan anti-gay bill continues
The infamous Ugandan anti-homosexuality bill, which earlier this week was thought likely to be voted upon on Wednesday as the current session of the Uganda parliament draws to a close, does not now appear on the order paper for the day. The bill, which is technically still at the committee stage, could, however, be carried forward into the next session of parliament…
The article includes this analysis of the Anglican angle:
Sadly, local Anglican support for the bill continues, even though on Tuesday of the archbishop of Canterbury issued a statement in which he opposed it, saying: “Overall, the proposed legislation is of shocking severity and I can’t see how it could be supported by any Anglican who is committed to what the Communion has said in recent decades. Apart from invoking the death penalty, it makes pastoral care impossible – it seeks to turn pastors into informers.”
This was not, in fact, a new statement, but rather a quotation from the interview in the Telegraph that he gave in December 2009 to George Pitcher, who has since become his secretary for public affairs. Pitcher also wrote: “He adds that the Anglican Church in Uganda opposes the death penalty but, tellingly, he notes that its archbishop, Henry Orombi, who boycotted the Lambeth Conference last year, “has not taken a position on this bill.”
That lacuna was remedied in February 2010, when the Anglican church of Uganda issued a detailed statement offering strong support for the bill. It has not made any further public statements on the bill since that time. Archbishop Orombi has continued his boycott of Anglican Communion events, including the latest primates meeting in Dublin, and to support the rival church body Gafcon, which has announced plans for expansion. There can be little chance of a change of heart on homosexuality by Orombi.
Since I wrote this morning, the situation - which was changing rapidly then - has developed even further. The Anti-Homosexuality Bill was restored to (a revised) Order Paper. However, it was not reached during the Wednesday session, and may now be considered in the additional session that has been scheduled for Friday. For the latest reports see Warren Throckmorton here, and also Box Turtle Bulletin here.
Update Box Turtle Bulletin also reports LA Times Not Withstanding, Uganda’s Death Penalty Has NOT Been Dropped.
GAFCON has a press release: Plans announced for GAFCON 2 and London and Africa offices.
GAFCON primates meeting in Africa have announced plans for another international conference as well as opening offices in London and Nairobi.
The council of Anglican leaders was established by the Global Anglican Future Conference in 2008, representing more than 35 million Anglicans.
Now, the Primates are planning for a second GAFCON in 2013 preceded by a leadership conference in New York in 2012…
…In a 13 point statement issued after their Nairobi meeting, the Council said “if we are offer adequate support to our member provinces, sustain our various initiatives, and strengthen our communications capabilities we must add capacity to our current secretariat.”
A Chairman’s office would be established in Nairobi, Kenya and a GAFCON Global Coordination office would be established in London under the direction of the Rt. Rev’d Martyn Minns, Missionary Bishop of the Church of Nigeria, serving as Deputy Secretary and Executive Director.
The meeting discussed the challenges confronting the Anglican Communion and the Primates said they were “disappointed that those who organized the Primates meeting in Dublin not only failed to address these core concerns but decided instead to unilaterally reduce the status of the Primates’ Meeting. This action was taken with complete disregard for the resolutions of both Lambeth 1978 and 1998 that called for an enhanced role in ‘doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters’. We believe that they were seriously misled and their actions unacceptable.”
“We continue to be troubled by the promotion of a shadow gospel that appears to replace a traditional reading of Holy Scriptures and a robust theology of the church with an uncertain faith and a never ending listening process. This faith masquerades as a religion of tolerance and generosity and yet it is decidedly intolerant to those who hold to the “faith once and for all delivered to the saints”.
The thirteen-point statement is available in full via the above link, and also as a PDF. It includes:
9. Confident of the power of God’s Word to renew His church we are creating a network for theologians and theological educators who embrace the Jerusalem Declaration to give further support for our seminaries and Bible Colleges. We have also reviewed and approved plans for the leadership conference now scheduled for April 2012 and the beginning preparations for an international gathering of Primates, Bishops, Clergy and Lay Leaders now scheduled for the first half of 2013 and provisionally designated “GAFCON 2”.
10. We are delighted in the election of the Most Rev’d Eliud Wabukala, Primate of the Anglican Church of Kenya to serve as Chairman of the Primates’ Council and also the Most Rev’d Nicholas D. Okoh, Primate of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) to serve as Vice-Chairman. We were pleased to appoint Bishop Greg Venables and Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini as trustees. We also welcomed the Most Rev’d Hector Zavala, Province of the Southern Cone and the Most Rev’d Onesphore Rwaje, Anglican Church of Rwanda as new members of the Council.
11. We also recognized that if we are offer adequate support to our member provinces, sustain our various initiatives, and strengthen our communications capabilities we must add capacity to our current secretariat. Consequently it was agreed that a GAFCON/FCA Chairman’s office would be established in Nairobi, Kenya and a Global Coordination office would be established in London under the direction of the Rt. Rev’d Martyn Minns, Missionary Bishop of the Church of Nigeria, serving as Deputy Secretary and Executive Director.
Alan Perry has written an article about the Anglican Covenant, which he has titled Mostly Harmless.
I have had a number of conversations with well-informed, thoughtful Anglicans, many of them in leadership positions such as Synod members and bishops and ecclesiastical lawyers, which convince me that a large number of people have essentially adopted a narrative about the proposed Anglican Covenant, a narrative which seems to be relatively uninfluenced by anything like reading the document. Their comments typically go like this:
I don’t actually believe that the Covenant will accomplish what it is supposed to do. It won’t really address the tensions in the Anglican Communion. But I don’t believe that it is the Abomination of Desolation, either. I don’t think it’s going to have any ill effect. Recommendations of Relational Consequences are nothing to worry about.
This reminds me of the succinct description of the Earth and its inhabitants in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy: “Mostly harmless.” Not to mention feckless.
I’m not sure about that assessment, but let’s assume it for a minute. What amazes me is the conclusion reached based on it:
Since it’s mostly harmless, even if it’s also not likely to produce any positive effects, I will vote to support it because by doing so we can show our commitment to the Anglican Communion and our loyalty to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Now, I am committed to the Anglican Communion, and loyal to the Archbishop of Canterbury, but I don’t grasp how this conclusion follows from the assumption that the proposed Covenant is both harmless and feckless.
Concerning the Archbishop of Canterbury, he has this to say:
And as to demonstrating loyalty to the Archbishop of Canterbury, surely supporting a proposed Covenant which we believe will eventually just sit harmlessly on a shelf gathering dust is equally ineffective. Do we participate in a charade simply to avoid hurting the Archbishop’s feelings, or to cheer him up by giving him something in the win column? Is that not to play the role of the royal advisers, praising the Emperor’s new clothes to his face whilst trying to avoid sniggering behind his naked back? In what way is that loyal to the Archbishop?
And he includes this specific reference to the Church of England:
What will happen when a woman is appointed as Archbishop of Canterbury, if some churches can’t accept her authority as an Instrument of Communion? Could a question be raised as to whether the Church of England in making the appointment was not sufficiently cautious, or failed to obtain sufficient consensus? How harmless will the Covenant look then?
Alan Perry has written Yes, Virginia, There is an Alternative
TINA: There Is No Alternative.
The slogan was used so often by Margaret Thatcher that my English friends tell me her detractors began to call her Tina.
TINA can indicate a number of possible things:
At times, it is true, that options are in short supply. And it may seem there are no choices but a single proposal on the table. But that is not the usual meaning of TINA.
TINA can also indicate a failure of imagination or initiative. In this case, it’s not so much that there are no alternatives, but rather that whoever is in charge is unable to think of any, or simply couldn’t be bothered.
But in its usual sense, TINA is an ideological assertion. It’s not that there aren’t any alternatives, but that whoever is saying TINA is unwilling to entertain any other options than that which is being pushed. In this sense, TINA is a slogan. It’s propaganda, which dismisses any attempt to suggest that alternatives should be imagined and explored. It’s a slightly less impolite way of saying, “my way or the highway.” TINA is the slogan of what is euphemistically called strong and decisive leadership, or bullying in plain English.
TINA has taken a central place in the narrative in support of the proposed Anglican Covenant. We are told that it is the Covenant or the demise of the Anglican Communion. We are told that there are no other options, so we’d better get on board with the right side of history and support the Covenant. I’m not here launching an ad hominem attack on the leadership of the Anglican Communion. I’m not calling them Margaret Thatchers or bullies. Nor am I suggesting that they are deliberately engaging in propaganda. I am prepared to believe that they honestly believe that there is no alternative to the Anglican Covenant as proposed.
But they’re wrong. TINA isn’t true. There are alternatives…
In the same vein, Laura Sykes penned Is Archbishop Rowan fatally dependent on his sat nav?
The central North Island hui amorangi (Maori diocese) of Te Manawa o Te Wheke has become the first New Zealand episcopal unit to formally give the thumbs-down to the proposed Anglican covenant.
Read more about this at Manawa o Te Wheke rejects Anglican covenant.
The text of the motion passed unanimously:
That Te Hui Amorangi o Te Manawa o Te Wheke, for the purpose of providing feedback to Te Hinota Whanui/ General Synod, states its opposition to The Anglican Covenant for the following reasons:
- After much consideration this Amorangi feels that The Anglican Covenant will threaten the Rangatiratanga of the Tangata Whenua.
- We believe The Anglican Covenant does not reflect our understanding of being Anglican in these islands.
- We would like this Church to focus on the restoration of justice to Te Tiriti o Waitangi which Tangata Whenua signed and currently do not have what they signed for.
There are five [Maori] hui amorangi. Any motion must gain a majority in all three Tikanga (Maori, Pakeha, and Polynesia) and three hui amorangi constitute a majority in Tikanga Maori. So two further similar votes would cause the Covenant to be “dead in the water” in New Zealand.
Peter Carrell has written Dead Duck Covenant?
Bosco Peters has written Maori vote against Covenant
…Since 1992, the Constitution of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia provides for three Tikanga (cultural streams) partners to order their affairs within their own cultural context: Tikanga Maori (the indigenous people of Aotearoa-New Zealand); Tikanga Pakeha (those here by virtue of te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi); Tikanga Pasefika (encompassing the episcopal units of Polynesia in New Zealand, Vanua Levu and Taveuni, and Viti Levu West, and the Archdeaconries of Suva and Ovalau, Samoa and American Samoa, and Tonga).
When significant decisions are made at te Hinota Whanui/General Synod, as with other Anglican Provinces, there must be agreement across all houses – here those are the house of bishops, clergy, and laity. There must also be agreement across all Tikanga. In other words, even if Tikanga Pakeha and Tikanga Pasefica are in majority agreement in favour of the Covenant, if Tikanga Maori votes against the Covenant, the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia would be saying no to the Covenant…
There have been several articles recently in the Living Church by Church of England writers.
Andrew Goddard has written about Establishment in the CofE.
See Arbiters of the Faith?
The Church of England, wrestling with internal differences over provision for opponents of women bishops and over responses to same-sex relationships, could soon find a further contentious topic being added to the mix: the question of establishment, the church’s relationship with the state. This has been highlighted by two recent developments in which government ministers or Members of Parliament have pressed for a certain conception of equality in English law and society…
Paul Avis and Geoffrey Rowell have both written about the Anglican Covenant.
See Catholicity Outweighs Autonomy by Avis.
The future of the Anglican Communion is in jeopardy. The Windsor Report proposed an Anglican Covenant, centering on mutual commitment, to secure a unified future for the Communion. The Anglican Covenant is the only credible proposal that I am aware of to help hold this family of churches together. The alternative to the Covenant is to allow the present sharp tensions to be worked out in the formal separation of some churches of the Communion from others — and that means schism, and the fracture and possible dissolution of the Anglican Communion…
And Belonging Together by Rowell.
…As vice-chair for a number of years of the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Ecumenical Relations, I am aware of how divisions in the Communion pose challenges to our ecumenical partners in dialogue — who are we talking to? Do Anglicans affirm same-sex relationships as equal and equivalent to marriage, or do they uphold Christian teaching of marriage as being a lifelong union between a man and a woman? Behind the particular questions are questions about authority in the Communion, and our belonging together. The Anglican Covenant emerges out of this situation and is a result of careful consultation. If we can make ecumenical agreements with other churches we ought clearly be able to do so among ourselves…
The Standing Committee is a 14-member group (15, if the Archbishop of Canterbury is present, as he is an ex officio member, as well as being its President). Seven of its members are elected by the members of the ACC, and five are members of the Primates’ Standing Committee. The other two members are the Chair and Vice-Chair of the ACC, elected by the members in plenary session. Their function is together to assist the Churches of the Anglican Communion in advancing the work of their mission worldwide.
There is a Q and A about the Standing Committee here which has further information.
The previous TA update was this one. And later there was an interview with Canon John Rees which we reported here.
The minutes of the meeting held in July 2010 are available from this page as a PDF, here.
The meeting held in March 2011 was reported in a series of bulletins starting with this one, and continuing here, then here, and finally here.
The Primate of Nigeria, Archbishop Nicholas Okoh, has been interviewed on a range of subjects. The full text is published on the website of the Church of Nigeria. Read it here.
TA readers may be most interested in this section:
QUESTION: HOMOSEXUALISM WHAT IS YOUR NEW? [sic]
RESPONSE: The fight against homosexual had been on for quite some time and the Anglican church in Nigeria and I must say not only in Nigeria in other places of the world have said no to the homosexual lifestyle, that that type of sexual orientation is unbiblical, ungodly, unnatural, unacceptable.
We have said that over and over again, we discover that those who are set on it think we are ignorant, they think we are living the old past time- ancient days but that this is a post modern day and that they can rewrite the bible to suit their culture the way they want it.
But what we have continued to say is that that sexual relationship is against the society because the society rules through procreation and when we allow a sizeable member of the society to be homosexuals or Lesbians we cannot expect procreation to take place so naturally it is against nature.
It is unfortunate and right now, the other time I visited United Kingdom they were saying that people are free to come to the places where they worship to come and solemnize their homosexual relationship or lesbian relationship in their places of worship.
I am aware that the Church of England says no and so also the Roman Catholic Church.
There are quite a number that says they don’t mind and that the basic thing is that two people love themselves which is a very selfish perspective.
The issue at stake is not just a case of if it will make two people happy if they love themselves. I think that the rejection of absolute truth, absolute right and wrong had turned everything to the doctrine of relativism.
We are in a kind of free moral fall and we do not know when it is going to stop. Let me say this is not an Anglican form, it cuts across denominations. Some have decided to keep quiet because it is very embarrassing they decided to hide it.
The Anglican Church has been quite vocal about it discussing it openly. Those of us in Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and some other parts of the world, some parts of Australia, some part of America, some parts of United Kingdom.
You don’t have a particular place where you will say the whole of this people are homosexuals we just have pockets, in fact this is a kind of focal minority who are trying to turn the table against the majority and right now as I talk to you, the journalists, the lawmakers, in the UK, the politicians, the school authorities, the government, they are all in support. In America, we now have two bishops who are homosexuals and of course Canada supported it.
I can say that this vocal minority has redefined the family in a very radical way. What we used to know is a family made up of a man a woman and Godly raised children. We are now being told that a man and a man can form a family and then they can get a child.
There was even a very amusing one claiming to be a mother and presenting another man who is the husband and they adopted a child from a surrogate mother. All these are happening in our time, and when you dare raise objection they say you are not sufficiently educated, they say you are living in the pre-medieval age, they say you need to be exposed.
But the question we continue to ask is that the gospel came to us and identified areas where we were not living well and the gospel corrected us, the gospel transformed our lives, for instance we were killing twins here and when it was exposed to us that we were wrong, we dropped it.
The irony of the situation now is that the people who brought this are now telling us that such things are right but thank God we are not very confused we are not confused at all.
The scripture has been given to us we will not return it to anybody, we have accepted it and we are implementing it because we have a heavenly agenda.
The Diocese of Los Angeles has issued this press release: Diocese of Los Angeles declines to endorse Anglican Covenant.
And there is this video documenting the process by which Diocesan Convention initiated the response.
Here is an extract:
… We are concerned about the omission of the laity from Section 3. As St. Paul teaches, we are all of us the Body of Christ and individually members thereof (I Corinthians 12). There are four orders of ministry in the Church – bishops, priests, deacons and lay people, who also minister as members of the baptized people of God. Such an ecclesiology should both undergird the theology expressed in the Covenant and the church structures developed as means of connecting and serving the churches of the Communion. A Covenant to which we could subscribe would need to re-imagine the Instruments of Communion to provide a stronger representation from all the orders of ministry.
Section 4 is of greatest concern. It creates a punitive, bureaucratic, juridical process within the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion, elevating its authority over the member churches despite previous affirmations of member church autonomy (see, e.g., Section 4.1.3). It contains no clear process for dispute resolution, no checks and balances, no right of appeal. The concept of mediation, introduced in Section 3.2.6, is not mentioned in Section 4. The covenant’s focus on “maintenance, dispute and withdrawal” bodes of an immobilized church mission instead of one that is flexible and prophetic. For these reasons, we cannot agree to Section 4.
We cannot endorse a covenant that, for the first time in the history of The Episcopal Church or the Anglican Communion, will pave the way toward emphasizing perceived negative differences instead of our continuing positive and abundant commonality. We strongly urge more direct face-to-face dialogue, study, prayer and education before the adoption of a document that has such historic significance in the life of the Anglican Communion and The Episcopal Church. Our differences should not be seen as something that must be proved wrong or endured but rather a motivation to dig deeper into discerning God’s purposes for God’s church…
The following passage comes from Archbishop Okoh’s opening address to the Standing Committee of the Church of Nigeria held on 3 March 2011. (It has only just come to my attention.)
Visit to the UK: In our meeting in Lagos, we were mandated to visit the UK to ascertain the condition of Nigerian Anglicans, and how to help them. Our first attempt was on 17th December 2010, which failed because excessive snow fall, led to the closure of Heathrow airport. We rescheduled for 16th February, 2011. Thank God we were able to go. It was a full delegation. The Group was made up of:
The Most Revd Nicholas D. Okoh - Primate
The Most Revd Joseph Akinfenwa - Ibadan
The Most Revd Michael Akinyemi - Kwara
The Most Revd Bennet Okoro Owerri
The Most Revd Ignatius Kattey Niger Delta
The Most Revd Emmanuel Egbunu - Lokoja
The Rt. Revd David Onuoha - Secretary
Barr. Abraham Yisa - RegistrarThe delegation was well received by the Nigerian High Commission in London. There was a brief meeting and an interactive section. The group also visited the Archbishop of Canterbury at Lambeth Palace. Our message:
The need to allow Nigerians to worship “the Nigeria way” in abandoned Church buildings or allow them a scheduled time in parish Churches where they could express themselves unreservedly in worship, to save us from the unceasing and intense bleeding of our young executive Anglicans moving over to the New Generation Churches due to what they describe as “cold” worship style. Our request was viewed positively by the Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of All England. We also visited the Lord Bishop of London and the Bishop of Southwark. Other places visited include Manchester and Birmingham. In summary the Archbishop requested us to put our proposal into writing. He assured us that it is a practical proposal. We addressed a group of Nigerians of different age brackets in London, Manchester and Birmingham and had a special session with representatives of Nigerian Clergy in the UK. Our visit was said to be timely. But a few had their reservations.
Another issue which has emerged in this visit is the status, sponsorship and future of the Nigerian Chaplaincy in the UK. At the moment they are enjoying the last part of the generosity of the CMS, and the grace and benevolence of St. Marylebone. These are issues requiring urgent attention.
press release from The Chicago Consultation
CHICAGO CONSULTATION RELEASES PUBLICATION ON PROPOSED ANGLICAN COVENANT
The Genius of Anglicanism includes essays by theologians, church leaders
April 5, 2011—The Chicago Consultation, which advocates for the full inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Christians in the worldwide Anglican Communion, has released a collection of essays and study questions on the proposed Anglican Covenant.
The Genius of Anglicanism, a 64-page booklet, includes eight essays and study questions, and may be downloaded at no cost at www.chicagoconsultation.org.
“We believe that congregations, bishops, General Convention deputations and individual Episcopalians will benefit from this careful exploration of the proposed covenant,” said the Rev. Lowell Grisham, co-convener of the Chicago Consultation and rector of St. Paul’s Church in Fayetteville, Arkansas.
“The proposed covenant is a complex document that could have a major impact on the Episcopal Church and its many vital and longstanding relationships within the wider Anglican Communion,” he added. “We are grateful that well-respected theologians, clergy and lay leaders were willing to analyze it for us.”
The Very Rev. Jane Shaw, Dean of Grace Cathedral in San Francisco and former dean of divinity at New College, Oxford, wrote the introduction for the guide, which was edited by Jim Naughton and includes essays by:
- The Rev. Ruth Meyers, Hodges-Haynes Professor of Liturgics at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific in Berkeley, California, on the relationship of the proposed covenant to the Baptismal Covenant of the Episcopal Church
- The Rev. Ellen Wondra, editor in chief of the Anglican Theological Review and academic dean at Seabury Western Theological Seminary in Evanston, Illinois on how a theological innovation, such as the proposed covenant is received or rejected by a community of faith
- The Rev. Timothy Sedgwick, Clinton S. Quin Professor of Christian Ethics at Virginia Theological Seminary, on the concept of episcopal authority in the proposed covenant
- Fredrica Harris Thompsett, Mary Wolfe Professor Emerita of Historical Theology at the Episcopal Divinity School in Cam bridge, Massachusetts, on how the proposed covenant will affect the participation of the laity in Communion affairs
- The Rev. Canon Mark Harris, of the Diocese of Delaware, a member of the Episcopal Church’s Executive Council on the proposed covenant and the traditional concept of “the historic episcopate locally adapted”
- Sally Johnson, chancellor to Bonnie Anderson, President of the House of Deputies on the judicial and disciplinary provisions in the fourth section of the proposed covenant
- The Rev. Gay Jennings, the Episcopal Church’s clergy representative to the Anglican Consultative Council, on the Anglican Communion’s existing covenant, which is grounded in the Five Marks of Mission
- The Rev. Winnie Varghese, priest-in-charge at St. Mark’s-Church-in-the-Bowery in New York City and member of Executive Council on the kind of covenant necessary to make the Communion an ally of the poor and the oppressed.
Grisham, who prepared the study questions that accompany each essay, said he believes the booklet will be widely used in the run-up to the Episcopal Church’s next General Convention in July 2012.
The Chicago Consultation, a group of Episcopal and Anglican bishops, clergy and lay people, supports the full inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Christians in the Episcopal Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion. To learn more about the Chicago Consultation, visit www.chicagoconsultation.org.
Alan Perry has just written an analysis of Section 3 of the Anglican Covenant, see Life Together.
Section 3 of the proposed Anglican Covenant describes the way in which the Churches of the Anglican Communion collaborate with each other. At the heart of this section is a description of the Instruments of Communion. These used to be know as Instruments of Unity, but for some inscrutable reason the term was changed in recent times.
Section 3.1.2 correctly notes, quoting the Lambeth Conference of 1930, that “Churches of the Anglican Communion are bound together ‘not by a central legislative and executive authority, but by mutual loyalty sustained through the common counsel of the bishops in conference’ and of the other instruments of Communion.” This statement is a little ironic, of course, being contained within a document which is being proposed as central legislation for the Communion, and which gives at least some executive powers to the Instruments of Communion and the Standing Committee. As we say in Quebec, it seems the proposed Covenant is speaking out of both sides of its mouth…
His earlier analyses of Section 1 are called Defining the Faith and Living the Faith.
That of Section 2 is called Vocation and Mission in the Anglican Communion.
And there is lots more analysis of the Anglican Covenant elsewhere in his blog.
Letters published last week in the Church Times can now be found at Anglican Covenant: responses to last week’s Church Times guide.
The Satirical Christian has written Ecclesiastical Dominos.
How do you get people to vote for something they don’t want?
In the Church of England, it’s easy. You employ the domino effect.
Take the Anglican Covenant, for instance. It is clear that many people in the Church of England are deeply suspicious of it. In the debate in General Synod last November many voices raised deep misgivings about it, even among the House of Bishops. In fact, enough people were sufficiently concerned to mean that if the vote was taken purely on what people thought, it would probably have been chucked out there and then…
Bosco Peters has written Anglican Covenant.
…I have tended towards the approach that if you have a problem because you lost something in the garden, to get a solution that’s where you should be looking – even if the light in the house is better! I do not think that the “Covenant” is the appropriate tool as a solution for the “problem”, just as I do not think that a sledgehammer is the appropriate tool as a solution for screwing two planks together.
The “problem” is the ethics of committed same sex relationships. Discussing that is IMO what should be happening. Of course, for some, there is nothing to discuss…
And he continues with
How to get a province to sign up to the “Covenant”
Lessons from/for the Church of England1) Make sure that the lowest voting percentage possible be required (2/3 or 3/4 in all houses would be just hopeless to get the “Covenant” through. And involving parliament in the state church’s significant signing away of its autonomy would just be a step too far.) How embarrassing if others signed up to the “Covenant” and the Church of England didn’t!
The (slightly shortened) texts of the papers delivered at the recent event in Dublin are now online at the website of Search.
“The Proposed Anglican Covenant - a step forward or a step too far?”
The SEARCH Colloquium on “The Proposed Anglican Covenant - a step forward of a step too far?” took place in TCD on Saturday March 12th and has been judged a great success. Over 50 people attended the Thomas Davis Theatre to hear speakers from England, Wales and Ireland (both North and South) consider the decision on our response to the Covenant to be made at the General Synod in Armagh in May.
After a welcome from the TCD chaplain and secretary of the SEARCH editorial committee, the Revd Darren McCallig, and a brief introduction from the editor, Canon Ginnie Kennerley, the speakers and their subjects were as follows:
- Ms Kate Turner, C of I lay representative on the Anglican Consultative Council: “A Brief Historical Introduction to the Covenant.”
- The Rt Revd Gregory Cameron, Bishop of St Asaph, former Deputey Secretary General of the Anglican Communion: “The Case for the Covenant.”
- The Revd Jonathan Clatworthy, general secretary of Modern Church: “Reservations about the Covenant.”
- The Rt Revd Michael Burrows, Bishop of Cashel and Ossory and former C of I clerical representative on the Anglican Consultative Council: “The Implications for the Church of Ireland.”
The panel discussion which followed was chaired by the Revd Professor John Bartlett, chairman of the SEARCH editorial committee.
Last week the Church Times published a Guide to the Covenant. This is now available to non-subscribers, but only as a PDF file (4.1 Mb).
Download The Anglican Covenant - A Church Times Guide.
This is highly recommended reading. :-)
One of the articles has been reproduced at Anglican Mainstream. See Church of Nigeria and the proposed Anglican Covenant.
From the Lichfield Diocesan Website
Lichfield Diocese approves Anglican Communion Covenant
Date 19/03/11
The Lichfield Diocesan Synod has become the first in the Church of England to approve the Anglican Communion Covenant with overwhelming votes in favour in all three houses (bishops, clergy and laity).
The vote at today’s meeting in Longton Hall near Stoke on Trent is in response to the General Synod’s decision to refer the matter to the dioceses. All 44 dioceses in the Church of England are being asked to “approve the draft Act of Synod adopting the Anglican Communion Covenant.” Last week the diocese of Wakefield voted to reject the motion; and the diocese of Hereford voted to refer the matter to deanery synods for wider discussion.
An attempt to adjourn the debate in Lichfield diocese so it could be referred to deanery synods was rejected with 47 voting in favour of an adjournment and 60 voting against.
Before the debate, members heard from the Revd Dr Andrew Goddard, lecturer in ethics at Trinity College, Bristol, who introduced the Covenant and outlined some of the arguments for and against it.
The idea behind an Anglican Communion Covenant - the closest thing to a constitution for the worldwide Anglican Communion - was first proposed in the Windsor report of 2004, following developments in relation to same-sex partnerships in North America. It was envisaged that the Anglican Covenant would “make explicit and forceful the loyalty and bonds of affection” which govern the relationships between the churches of the Anglican Communion.
A text of the Covenant was sent to all the Provinces of the Anglican Communion for their approval in December 2009. Each Province has different governance structures and it is expected to be a number of years before all the Provinces complete the process for acceptance or rejection. The Anglican Consultative Council will discuss progress at its meeting expected in November 2012.
In the Church of England, the House of Bishops agreed in May 2010 to commend the Covenant to the General Synod and a draft Act of Synod was debated by the General Synod in November last year and referred to diocesan synods. If a majority of dioceses agree to the draft Act of Synod it will return to the General Synod for final approval, possibly in 2012.
The Anglican Communion is not a single church or a federation of churches but a collection of 44 different churches made up of 34 Provinces, four United Churches, and six other churches, spread across the globe; with an estimated 80 million Christians.
The tensions in the Communion which arose as a result of the liberalising actions of the Episcopal Church of the United States and the Anglican Church of Canada in the area of sexuality highlighted that there were no formal structures or agreements for handling disputes when they arise. The Covenant is designed to balance the need to define how the churches of the Communion formally relate to each other without creating a formal constitution or federation; continuing to hold the Communion together through mutual relationships.
The Diocese of Lichfield has formal mission partnerships with the Dioceses of West Malaysia, Kuching and Singapore in South East Asia, Matlosane in South Africa and Qu’Appelle in Canada. Churches within the diocese enjoy individual relationships with churches across the Communion.
The result of the vote in the Lichfield Diocesan Synod were:
| House | For | Against | Abstain |
| Bishops | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Clergy | 39 | 11 | 1 |
| Laity | 57 | 9 | 1 |
| Total | 100 | 20 | 2 |
The audio of the Synod debate will be available on the Lichfield Diocesan website on Monday afternoon: lichfield.anglican.org/chadnet/synod.
Updated again Thursday morning
The Archbishop of the Nippon Sei Ko Kai The Most Revd Nathaniel Makoto Uematsu has issued a statement via the ACNS, see A statement from the Archbishop of the Anglican Communion in Japan.
…Since the earthquake the Provincial office has worked very hard to find out about the people and the churches in Tohoku diocese. However, we could neither contact them by phone nor email. Only yesterday were we able to start to see a picture of the devastation in the affected areas. I had been most concerned that I could not contact the Bishop of Tohoku diocese [The Rt Revd John Hiromichi Kato], but on Saturday he rang me and I was able to find out more about what had happened to the churches in Sendai City.
Bp Kato explained that he himself had not been able to find out much about the other churches in the diocese of Tohoku. This was largely due to the fact that neither power supplies nor telephone lines had been restored in areas most badly hit by the tsunami. There is particular concern for two churches: Isoyama St Peter’s Church in Fukushima Prefecture and Kamaishi Shinai Church and the kindergarten in Iwate that were close to the sea. Priests have been frantically trying to confirm that their parishioners are safe. We also know that it is not only Tohoku diocese that has been affected, some churches in Kita Kanto diocese have been reported to have been damaged also…
An earlier report: Bishop of tsunami-hit diocese is safe, but uncontactable.
Tuesday update
Update 2 from the Nippon Sei Ko Kai (The Anglican Communion in Japan)
From Shinya Samuel Yawata - Secretary, PIM NSKK, based upon reports from the dioceses of Tohoku, Kita Kanto, Yokohama and Tokyo
15 March, 2011
The earthquake/tsunami affected areas include the dioceses of Tohoku and Kita Kanto, and a very small area of the Diocese of Yokohama in Chiba prefecture.
The Diocese of Tohoku covers the prefectures of Aomori, Akita, Miyagi, Yamagata, and Fukushima, and the last three have been hit hard, particularly Miyagi prefecture. Membership of diocese of Tohoku is about 1,500 people and there are 29 churches, chapels and missionary stations. Its Cathedral is in Sendai, Miyagi prefecture.
The Diocese of Kita Kanto covers prefectures of Ibaragi, Tochigi, Gunma, and Saitama. The membership of the diocese is about 2,100 people and there are 31 churches, chapels, and missionary stations. Its Cathedral is located in Maebashi-shi, Gunma prefecture.
It was the biggest earthquake in recent history, followed by a big tsunami, and fires. Now the nuclear reactor is in danger. The death toll continues to rise and as I write this there are 3,100 or more deaths and 550,000 people are living in temporary shelters (according to [Japanese newspaper] Asahi Shimbun).
This update includes the latest information about the situation in Kita Kanto. I am still awaiting for official information from the diocese of Tohoku. There are no casualties among clergy.
St. Stephen’s Church in Mito-city, Ibaragi prefecture has lost its bell tower although not completely destroyed with a big crack in the tower, and the church building and rectory suffered substantial damage, cracked and fallen walls and ceiling. Shimodate Anglican Church in Ibaragi prefecture also has sustained significant damage with walls and ceilings damaged. Other churches sustained cracked walls, ceilings and damage to shelves, but it is limited to minor damage.
In other areas within diocese of Tokyo and Yokohama there is no substantial damage to church buildings except broken or cracked window glass, cracks in walls and fallen shelves.
Thursday update
Pastoral Letter from Bishop John Hiromichi Kato, diocese of Tohoku via ACNS
Five days ago, on March 11 at 2:46 PM, there was a major earthquake followed by a tsunami and fires. Now we are facing potential disaster caused by the malfunction of nuclear power plant. On the day of earthquake it was snowing. Today it is expected to get colder. The tsunami and the fires it caused have made us miserable. We are now experiencing a lack of food supply. Over the past five days there have been as series of worrying aftershocks. Essential services are disrupted, particularly the phones with many people unable to recharge their cell phones. There is now a petrol shortage in the immediate area. We were simply not prepared for problems on this scale. In the central part of Sendai City there does not appear to be major damage to the buildings; it almost appears as if there is no problem, but in reality the lack of essential services—gas, electricity and water—is particularly hard for people.
What we are experiencing in our city does not compare to what we have seen in the media, particularly those areas directly impacted by the tsunami. According to the Asahi newspaper, life for the between 400,000 to 500,000 people living in temporary shelters is getting worse. The affected area is very wide and diocesan staff have not been able to visit all areas…
The Archbishop of Canterbury has published a letter to the Primates of the Anglican Communion.
The full text of the letter is here.
The portion of the letter dealing with Communion internal politics is copied below the fold.
The recent Primates’ Meeting in Dublin did not set out to offer a solution to the ongoing challenges of mutual understanding and of the limits of our diversity in the Communion. But it is important to note carefully what it did set out to do and what it achieved. In recent years, many have appealed to the Primates to resolve the problems of the Communion by taking decisive action to enforce discipline on this or that Province. In approaching the Dublin Meeting, we believed that it was essential to clarify how the Primates themselves understood the nature of their office and authority. It has always been clear that not all have the same view – not because of different theological convictions alone, but also because of the different legal and canonical roles they occupy as Primates. Some have a good deal of individual authority; others have their powers very closely limited by their own canons. It would therefore be difficult if the Meeting collectively gave powers to Primates that were greater than their own canons allowed them individually, as was noted at the 2008 Lambeth Conference (Lambeth Indaba 2008 #151).
The unanimous judgement of those who were present was that the Meeting should not see itself as a ‘supreme court’, with canonical powers, but that it should nevertheless be profoundly and regularly concerned with looking for ways of securing unity and building relationships of trust. And one reason for the fact that it did not offer any new schemes for this was that those present were still committed to the Covenant process and had no desire to interrupt the significant discussions of this that are currently going on (as many of you will know, several Provinces have already adopted the Covenant and others are very close to finalising their decision).
The Primates were strongly focused on the situation of churches under threat, and this was reflected in the statements they issued. But it is also important to recognise that the Primates made no change to their existing commitments to both the Covenant process and the moratoria requests. The purpose of the Dublin meeting was, as I have said, not to offer fresh solutions but to clarify what we believed about our shared purpose and identity as a Primates’ Meeting. I think that this clarity was achieved, and achieved in an atmosphere of very demanding and searching conversation, which intensified our sense of commitment to each other and the Communion. We were painfully aware of those who did not feel able to be with us, and held them in prayer each day, seeking to remind ourselves of the concerns that they would have wanted to put on the table. We were all agreed that the Meeting inevitably represented ‘unfinished business’, and were all committed to pursuing the conversations needed to consolidate our fellowship. We shall continue to seek ways of meeting at every level that will prevent our being isolated from each other in suspicion and hostility.
ACNS reports that “The Anglican Communion is one family” Ghanaian bishop tells theologians.
Ghanaian bishop Festus Yeboah-Asuamah told a recent meeting of Ghanaian theologians that while the challenges facing the Communion were “complex”, and that the answers may yet be “far away” there was hope in unity.
Speaking at the latest Continuing Indaba ‘hub’ meeting, Bishop Festus said, “There is hope! We should try as much as possible to keep the Anglican Communion together – we are one family.”
He was one of ten theologians who met on March 4-5 to consider how Ghanaian culture and theology could shape the Continuing Indaba1 initiative taking place across the Anglican Communion.
Facilitated by Dr Victor Atta-Baffoe, Dean of St Nicholas Seminary in Ghana’s Cape Coast, the group considered a number of models of conversation from their cultural perspectives that resonate with the Scriptures and the traditions of the church.
Last November there was a meeting in Limuru, Kenya, see Continuing Indaba gives bishops “excitement and hope for the future of the Communion”.
For more background on Continuing Indaba, see here.
There is a press release, Anglican Communion bishops: “We really need one another. We are stronger together than apart.” Full text below the fold.
And there is a statement A Testimony of Grace from the Consultation of Bishops in Dialogue, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania. Full text here.
Copies also available at ACNS here.
PRESS RELEASE
FROM THE CONSULTATION OF ANGLICAN BISHOPS IN DIALOGUE
DAR ES SALAAM 3 MARCH 2011
From February 24 to 27 2011, nineteen bishops of the Anglican Communion met in Dar Es Salaam Tanzania. The Provinces represented were: Botswana, Burundi, Canada, England, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Southern Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, and the United States. This meeting had its origins in the Lambeth Conference of 2008, at which some significant partnership relationships and commitment to further dialogue had been made.
In a context undergirded by worship, bishops shared testimonies from their partnership mission and dialogue work, and together visited local projects in education and community service. The group is grateful to the Primate of Tanzania, Archbishop Valentino Mokiwa, the MEA Foundation and St. Augustine’s Primary School for their warm welcome.
These bishops have been engaged in a process of patient and holy listening. Some diocesan partnerships have been involved in dialogue about human sexuality prior to the meeting and these continue. The present context of conflict in the wider Anglican Communion around issues of human sexuality has presented the opportunity to renew commitments to each other: these Church leaders have chosen to turn to one another within the Body of Christ. The know one another to be and trust each other as brothers and sisters in Christ.
The bishops reflected on the legacies of collusion in the slave trade, and encourage the Communion to work on dialogue and reconciliation in relation to slavery. They also witnessed the positive impact of global Anglican partnership in visits with the MEA Foundation and St. Augustine’s diocesan primary school, meeting students, orphans, those in need of health care and those dying of AIDS. They mourn the impact of the economic crisis on these ministries, some of which will no longer exist after this year.
Commending the experience of such dialogue-in-partnership and encouraging other bishops to take on such initiatives, the bishops at Dar es Salaam offer a “Testimony of Grace” to the wider Church. This statement is appended to this Press Release.
For further information, contact the bishops noted below, or Canon Isaac Kawuki Mukasa (ikawukimukasa@national.anglican.ca) or the Rev’d Eileen Scully (escully@national.anglican.ca) for further information.
Bishops:
The Rt. Rev’d Michael Bird Niagara
The Rt. Rev’d George Bruce Ontario
The Rt. Rev’d John Chapman Ottawa
The Rt. Rev’d Garth Counsell Cape Town
The Rt. Rev’d Terry Dance Huron
The Rt. Rev’d Mary Gray-Reeves El Camino Real
The Rt. Rev’d Michael Ingham New Westminster
The Most Rev’d Colin Johnson Toronto
The Rt. Rev’d Shannon Johnston Virginia
The Rt. Rev’d Julius Kalu Mombasa
The Rt. Rev’d Sixbert Macumi Buye
The Rt. Rev’d Sadock Makaya Western Tanganyika
The Rt. Rev’d Mdimi Mhogolo Central Tanganyika
The Rt. Rev’d Gerard Mpango Western Tanganyika
The Rt. Rev’d Musonda Mwamba Botswana
The Rt. Rev’d Michael Perham Gloucester
The Rt. Rev’d Anthony Poggo Kajo Keji
The Rt. Rev’d Daniel Sarfo Kumasi
The Rt. Rev’d James Tengatenga Southern Malawi
Staff:
The Rev’d Canon Dr. Isaac Kawuki Mukasa, Coordinator for Dialogue, Anglican Church of Canada
The Rev’d Dr. Eileen Scully, Interim Director of Faith, Worship and Ministry, Anglican Church of Canada
press release from No Anglican Covenant Coalition
LONDON —The No Anglican Covenant Coalition has criticized church officials for attempting to suppress honest discussion of the proposed Anglican Covenant.
“Instead of fostering a free and open discussion, church officials are trying to ensure that this radical document is endorsed without serious debate,” according to Coalition Moderator, Dr Lesley Fellows. “Unfortunately, this is entirely consistent with what has been happening throughout the process.”
The idea of an Anglican Covenant was first proposed officially in 2004 as a means of addressing divisions among the member churches of the Anglican Communion on matters ranging from human sexuality to the role of women. The current draft, which has been unilaterally designated as “final”, has been referred to the Communion churches for adoption. The proposed Covenant establishes mechanisms that would have the effect of forcing member churches to conform to the demands and expectations of other churches or risk exclusion from the Communion. The draft must be either accepted without amendment or rejected entirely; no other options are allowed.
A series of decisions demonstrate a pattern of bias and manipulation designed to facilitate Covenant adoption:
“In the history of General Synod, we know of no instance where such an important matter (designated as Article 8) has been referred to diocesan synods without the case for both sides being clearly set out,” according to Jonathan Clatworthy, General Secretary of Modern Church and a member of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition. “Both sides were represented regarding the most recent plans for unity with the Methodists. That was the case at every stage of the debate over the ordination of women as priests, and now, as bishops. The material concerning the Covenant falls far short of the ideals of justice, of the Anglican tradition. Even in the House of Commons, all sides of an issue are allowed to be heard.”
The No Anglican Covenant Coalition website, noanglicancovenant.org, provides a wealth of resources for those seeking to understand the proposed Anglican Covenant. Material specifically designed for use by Church of England dioceses is also available from the Modern Church Web site at modernchurch.org.uk/resources/mc/cofe.
“Diocesan synods in the Church of England deserve to hear all sides of the debate,” said Dr Fellows. “We are not afraid of an open, fair, and honest debate. If the supporters of the Covenant had a stronger case, perhaps they wouldn’t be either.”
Updated Friday afternoon (? added to headline, see below)
From a report in the Vanguard CANA no longer a Nigeria mission, says Archbishop Okoh.
The Archbishop Nicholas Okoh, the Primate of Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), says the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), is no longer under the jurisdiction of Nigeria.
Speaking during his recent visit to London , Okoh said: “CANA is now part of the Anglican Province of North America (ACNA).
ACNA is a breakaway province from the Episcopal Church headed by Archbishop Robert Duncan.
“We are not interested in territorial ambition; our main reason for going to America was to provide for those who were no longer finding it possible to worship in the Episcopal church.
“A new structure has been put up in the U.S. which is ACNA.
“CANA now belongs to ACNA even though they still relate to us;but essentially it now belongs to Anglican province of North America,” he said.
Archbishop Okoh visit to London was reported by George Conger in the Church of England Newspaper as Nigerian archbishop in Lambeth meeting with Dr Williams.
The head of the Anglican Communion’s largest province will meet with the Archbishop of Canterbury this week at Lambeth Palace.
Archbishop Nicholas Okoh of Nigeria is scheduled to meet with Dr. Williams on Feb 17, and will also meet with officials from the Nigerian High Commission and Nigerian expatriates during a three day pastoral visit to the UK.
A spokesman for Archbishop Okoh said this week’s visit will be his first to London since his election as primate. A trip set for December 2010 was postponed due to inclement weather. The trip will also provide an opportunity for Dr. Rowan Williams to mend fences with the Nigerian Church, which along with a majority of the African church has become estranged from Lambeth over the past three years.
(As an aside, this report also contains information about the reason for the absence from the recent Dublin primates meeting of the Kenyan primate.)
And Archbishop Okoh was also quoted recently in a Nigerian Observer report Nigeria Anglicans Re-Affirm Stand On Gay Marriages.
Episcopal Café has commented on the status of ACNA in Abp Okoh says CANA belongs to ACNA, not CoN.
…Okoh’s statement illustrates the ability to redefine the relationship between CANA and the Church of Nigeria to meet the circumstances. The Province of the Southern Cone has been sanctioned by the Anglican Communion Office for crossing provincial boundaries into the United States. The question has lingered, why did the Church of Nigeria escape the same sanctions on the same grounds?
The question remains whether CANA and the Church of Nigeria will be allowed have it both ways as suit the circumstances. See CANA’s self definition on its website…
…and Frequently Asked Questions about Dual Citizenship in CANA & ACNA, updated 2010-12-16.
And the Church of Nigeria’s own website contains this on its FAQ page:
Q5. What is CANA?
CANA is the Convocation of Anglicans in North America. Initially started to provide worship centres for Nigerians in North America, it is now a Missionary diocese of the Church of Nigeria Anglican Communion catering for many who feel alienated as their former church walks away from the faith once delivered…
Update Friday afternoon
There are developments in this story. Anglican Mainstream reports: Clarification of CANA under the jurisdiction of Nigeria.
A recent article in Vanguard Online states that CANA is no longer a Nigeria Mission. This is incorrect. Bishop Martyn Minns’ Archdeacon, The Ven Julian Dobbs, writes:
CANA’s Missionary Bishop Martyn Minns (who is currently in Singapore en route to Nigeria for the Church of Nigeria’s House of Bishops’ meeting, which is to be followed by a meeting of the Church of Nigeria’s Standing Committee) has asked me to pass along this information to you:
Earlier this morning Bishop Minns heard from both Archbishop Nicholas Okoh and Registrar Abraham Yisa who were surprised to see a recent statement in the media that suggests that CANA is no longer part of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion).
Both Archbishop Okoh as well as Registrar Yisa told Bishop Minns that such reports are erroneous. They assured him that there has been no change in the status that exists between CANA and the Church of Nigeria, that Bishop Minns and CANA’s suffragan bishops continue to serve as members of the House of Bishops in the Church of Nigeria, and that the Church of Nigeria at the same time continues to promote the full recognition of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) as a province in the Anglican Communion.
Information regarding the relationship that exists between CANA, the Church of Nigeria, and the ACNA can be found on the CANA website.
A new set of documents has been published by Modern Church as Church of England resources intended for use in forthcoming diocesan synod debates on the proposed Anglican Covenant.
The resources can all be found at this page which notes that:
On 24 November 2010 the General Synod of the Church of England voted to consider adopting the Anglican Communion Covenant. As this would constitute
“a permanent and substantial change of relationship between the Church of England and another Christian body”
it may not receive final approval unless first approved by a majority of the dioceses at meetings of their diocesan synods.These documents have been produced as resources for presenting the case against the Covenant in these debates.
Previously, questions were asked about the participation of Mark McIntosh in the work of ARCIC III.
Now, some questions have been raised about the participation of Julian Linnell in this Evangelism and Church Growth Initiative of the Anglican Communion Office.
See the recent news report: More than 60 evangelism resources soon available for the Anglican Communion.
Questions are asked here:
Paul Bagshaw Who is the Anglican Communion Office working for?
Mark Harris Is Julian Linnell an ACNA member on an Anglican Communion group? and later ACNA priest part of Anglican Communion evangelism group
Episcopal Café Jim Naughton Of dubious appointments
Updated Wednesday
Anglicans Online has taken a public stand on the Anglican Covenant. You can read this by going over here.
…In the nearly 20 years that this website called ‘Anglicans Online’ has existed, we’ve tried to be a place outside politics, a via media centre where Anglicans of every stripe, opinion, background, and churchmanship (remember that word?) could come and be at home. We shunned the shrill, avoided invective, and cleaved to reason, moderation, and what we’ve trusted is a genuine Anglican sensibility. We’ve not voiced our opinion on controversial matters, holding to that fact that reasonable people can disagree — and we’re proud to call many of those reasonable people our friends.
But it’s time for Anglicans Online to state that we’re not in favour of the Covenant and cannot imagine a Communion bound by it.
At the end of its cumbrous process for approval, we hope it will fail and be heard of no more. If such isn’t the case, we fear for what the quondam Ecclesia Anglicana will become.
Also, Paul Bagshaw points out that views about the Covenant in Japan are not straightforward, see The view from Japan.
And for those who want to trace the development of the text of the Covenant, this page from Tobias Haller should prove invaluable: A Comparison of various drafts of the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant.
Paul Bagshaw has comments on this, see The Synoptic Covenant.
Meanwhile, Pluralist is not impressed with the documents coming from IASCUFO, see Not a Whiff of No and also Not a Whiff of No: the Q and A.
And neither is Paul Bagshaw, see Study Guide, Q&A, C-
Savitri Hensman writes in the Guardian about the Ascent of the Anglican primates.
More than a third of those invited to a recent Anglican primates’ meeting were unable or unwilling to attend. There has been much debate about whose fault this was. But there are more basic questions. How useful are such meetings (which aim to bring together the most senior bishops from each province) and how much power should be given to bishops and archbishops?
Paul Bagshaw has commented further on this in Ascent of the Primates.
The voice of the laity has almost no place in the centralised and curial world envisaged in the Covenant, as was evident from its inception. This is from a report to General Synod in 2007, responding to the Nassau draft which Jonathan Clatworthy and I wrote with John Saxbee, Bishop of Lincoln:
4.8 The absent laity
Apart from a brief, factual, mention in §5 para. 6 the laity are invisible in this Draft Covenant. If the Draft’s processes were to be implemented the voice of the laity would be utterly peripheral and rendered inaudible. This is a contradiction of an ecclesiology in which the Church is ‘the blessed company of all faithful people’ (Book of Common Prayer, 1662). To marginalise the laity in decision making would be to hobble the body of Christ, to undermine the faithful work of the people of God, and to diminish the quality of ecclesial life.
It’s worth looking back to what the primates themselves said about this in Dublin (scroll down for the full text of Towards an Understanding of the Purpose and Scope of the Primates’ Meeting: A working document)
And here is yet another view, from Benjamin Guyer at Covenant The Primates’ Meeting, 2011: Mis-Representation and the Failure to Resolve.
If we are going to enter into these kinds of necessary critiques, then we ought to do so while recognizing the institutional ends and the limits of the Primates’ Meeting. Otherwise our critiques will be rooted in expectations and assumptions that are either unfair or, what is worse, false.
The Anglican Communion Office announces Study guide on the Anglican Communion Covenant published.
A study guide and a Questions & Answers document was published today to assist people exploring the Anglican Communion Covenant.
The study guide (available as a pdf document) from the Anglican Communion website (www.anglicancommunion.org) is intended for parishes, deaneries, dioceses or groups of individuals wishing to explore the Covenant and the way it describes Anglican identity. It contains the text of the Anglican Communion Covenant interspersed with summaries of the material. Communion members are invited to download the guide and to adapt it for their own context. There is also a set of Questions & Answers about the Covenant that seeks to address some commonly asked questions. Neither is a definitive commentary on the Covenant.
These resources were produced as a result of a meeting of the Inter-Anglican Standing Committee on Unity Faith and Order (IASCUFO) in 2009. A working group of IASCUFO has now completed this commission. There is a suggestion that people may be interested in including some of the material for use in parish bulletins, diocesan newspapers or other church communication channels.
The working group of IASCUFO includes the Rt Revd Victoria Matthews, Bishop of Christchurch New Zealand (convenor); the Rt Revd Kumara Ilangasinghe, recently retired Bishop of Kurunagala, Church of Ceylon; and the Revd Dr Simon Oliver, Associate Professor of Systematic Theology, University of Nottingham.
The Q&A is also available as a PDF.
More about IASCUFO can be found here.
ACNS has published Members of the Primates’ Standing Committee announced.
The following Primates were elected as members of the Primates’ Standing Committee at the recent Primates’ Meeting in Dublin, Ireland and have agreed to serve:
Africa
Archbishop Daniel Deng Bul Yak (Sudan) - alternate Archbishop Bernard Ntahoturi (Burundi)Central, North, South Americas and the Caribbean
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori (The Episcopal Church) - alternate
Archbishop John Holder (West Indies)Europe
Bishop David Chillingworth (Scotland) - alternate Archbishop Alan Harper (Ireland)Middle East and West Asia
Bishop Samuel Azariah (Pakistan) - alternate Bishop Paul Sarker (Bangladesh)South East Asia and Oceania
Archbishop Paul Kwong (Hong Kong) - alternate Archbishop Winston Halapua (Aotearoa, New Zealand & Polynesia)Each Primate serves for a period of three years, and thereafter until the next Primates’ Meeting. Also membership ceases when a member ceases to be a Primate.
Paul Bagshaw has written another article about the Anglican Covenant: Doors slammed shut! Windows blown open?
…I stand by my description of how I see the Communion shaping up (centralised in the Archbishop of Canterbury, the General Secretary of the Anglican Communion and their respective officials, clericalised, women and laity further marginalised, the distance from centre to edge getting ever greater).
But I will make a significant qualification.
A kairos moment
The end of the civil war gives a brief moment for debate on what the Communion might look like. The idea of changing it has been very widely accepted. Significant changes have already been made. But we no longer need to look at the Communion through the lens of civil war or the foci of sexuality, biblicism and accusations of colonialism. These remain important issues but, fairly abruptly, the steam has gone out of them and the engine driving them has departed on a side-line…
From Peter Carrell we have The Anglican Covenant’s future.
After the change to the life of the Communion marked and underlined by last week’s Primates’ Meeting, it could be fantasy to think the Anglican Covenant now has a future, other than as a piece of paper read by fewer and fewer people and signed up to by even fewer member churches (three to date). But as the days have gone by I have been thinking that the Covenant has a future, and that future could be along two lines (or more)…
Jim Naughton has written The Anglican Covenant is not as dead as it looks and the comments on this thread are well worth reading.
I am wondering if the proposed Anglican Covenant is as dead as many Episcopalians think it is. It seems to me that Rowan Williams is making slow but significant progress toward assembling a notional center that he can then play off against the left (constituted by us, the Brazilians, the Scots and maybe the Welsh) and the right (constituted by Nigeria, Uganda and the Southern Cone.)
Consider: The Churches of Mexico, Myanmar and the West Indies have approved the covenant, and the Churches of England and South Africa have embarked on a process that seems almost certain to end in its approval. Mexico and South Africa are two of the provinces that opponents of the covenant within the Episcopal Church hoped might keep us company if we declined to sign up.
The Australians and Canadians are in the midst of processes whose likely outcomes are not clear to me. But both are members of the British Commonwealth, and Archbishop Philip Aspinall of Australia is a leading figure among the Primates, so covenant opponents would be foolish to presume that these two provinces won’t follow where Canterbury leads…
Lesley Fellows got this reply by Joanna Udal to her letter that she had sent earlier to Rowan Williams.
ACNS has announced the names of participants in the next stage of Anglican Communion-Roman Catholic Church dialogue. See this Press Release for ARCIC III.
ANGLICAN MEMBERS OF ARCIC
The Most Reverend David Moxon, co-Chair, is the Bishop of Waikato and Archbishop of the Dioceses of New Zealand in the Province of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia.Dr. Paula Gooder, biblical scholar, is Canon Theologian of Birmingham Cathedral, Visiting lecturer at King’s College, London, Associate lecturer at St Mellitus College, London, an Honorary Lecturer at the University of Birmingham and Senior Research Scholar at the Queen’s Foundation, Birmingham, England.
The Rt Reverend Christopher Hill is the Bishop of Guildford and the Chair of the Council for Christian Unity of the Church of England.
The Reverend Dr Mark McIntosh is Van Mildert Canon Professor of Divinity in the Department of Theology and Religion at the University of Durham in England.
The Rt Reverend Nkosinathi Ndwandwe is Bishop Suffragan of Natal, Southern Area, in the Anglican Church of Southern Africa.
The Rt Reverend Linda Nicholls is Area Bishop for the episcopal area of Trent-Durham in the Diocese of Toronto, Anglican Church of Canada.
The Reverend Dr Michael Poon is director and Asian Christianity coordinator of the Centre for the Study of Christianity in Asia at Trinity Theological College in Singapore, Province of South-East Asia.
The Reverend Canon Nicholas Sagovsky is retiring as Canon Theologian at Westminster Abbey in the Church of England. An ecclesiologist, he served on ARCIC II.
The Reverend Dr Peter Sedgwick is Principal and Warden of St Michael’s College in Llandaff in the Church in Wales, where he teaches theology and social ethics.
The Reverend Dr Charles Sherlock is a consultant to ARCIC III. He has recently retired as Registrar of the Melbourne College of Divinity and lives in the Diocese of Bendigo, Anglican Church of Australia.
These nominations have raised some eyebrows. See ARCIC III members named, and then ARCIC appointment does not violate American ban, ACC says.
…in his Pentecost letter of May 28, 2010, Dr. Rowan Williams stated that members of provinces that were in breach of the three moratoria on gay bishops and blessings and cross-border encroachments of provincial boundaries would no longer participate in the formal ecumenical dialogues in which the Anglican Communion was engaged
“Provinces that have formally, through their Synod or House of Bishops, adopted policies that breach any of the moratoria requested by the Instruments of Communion and recently reaffirmed by the Standing Committee and the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order should not be participants in the ecumenical dialogues in which the Communion is formally engaged,” Dr. Williams wrote.
Yet, as the reports note:
One of the Anglican members was ordained to the priesthood in the Episcopal Church and was one of the theologians who authored “To Set Our Hope on Christ: A Response to the Invitation of Windsor Report Paragraph 135.”
And it appears that he is still canonically resident in the Diocese of Chicago.
The Anglican Communion Institute has published Dublin Post-Mortem. The concluding paragraphs read:
…For all these reasons, the group of Primates who met in Dublin cannot be recognized as acting in accord with the accepted Communion understanding of the Primates’ Meeting as an Instrument of Communion. This Instrument thus joins the others as now being dysfunctional and lacking in communion credibility. The role of the Lambeth Conference as an Instrument of Communion is to “express episcopal collegiality worldwide.” But in 2008, when the bishops of most Anglicans “worldwide” were not present, it could not perform this function. It accomplished little of substance and is now regarded throughout much of the Communion as a symbol of futility. Similarly, the Anglican Consultative Council has been re-structured legally so that it is no longer recognizable as the Instrument defined in the Covenant or in past Anglican documents. The role of the Archbishop of Canterbury as an Instrument of Communion is to function as “a primacy of honor and respect among the college of bishops,” as “a focus and means of unity,” and the one who “gathers” the Lambeth Conference and Primates’ Meetings. Whatever may be said about the cause of the disintegration, it is incontrovertible empirically that Canterbury has been unable to perform this function over the last three years. The Communion thus finds itself with no working Instrument that has been able to perform its necessary function, follow its rules, and garner credible acceptance from the majority of the Communion.
We are left with a grouping—one can no longer say “communion”—of three dozen or so autonomous churches, many of whom are not in communion with others, without any effective Instruments of Communion to bind them together. This is made no less heartbreaking by being the Communion’s obvious trajectory for several years.
But we can only proceed from where we are. The first task for those who share a Communion ecclesiology is to begin to re-constitute working Instruments of Communion. These will necessarily be provisional at first, but if the Communion is to survive they must evolve into Instruments that actually work to unite the member churches of the Communion. If church history, including our own recent experience, teaches anything it is that neither confessions without instruments nor instruments without common faith and order are sufficient to preserve unity. As recently noted by the Secretary General, the vast majority of the Communion continues to share Anglicanism’s historic faith and order notwithstanding its rejection by two provinces. What is needed as a matter of urgency are Instruments that express that common faith. We call on the Primates representing the vast preponderance of Anglicans, together with their colleagues, to take up the charge of seeing to the furtherance of the Communion and we pledge our prayers to that end.
Bishop David Anderson of ACNA and the American Anglican Council in his latest weekly email quoted various other commentators and then wrote this:
…For my own opinion on the leadership of the Anglican Communion I would refer you to last week’s AAC Weekly Update, and my lead comments.
And here is what he had written (before the Dublin meeting took place):
Many of the primates have made their reasons for being absent very clear in public and private correspondence to Dr. Williams, who is the convener. However, the Anglican Communion Office, headed by Canon Kenneth Kearon, has concocted reasons for some of them that are simply disingenuous. Most of the primates have made it clear to Dr. Williams why they are absent and why they are frustrated and disappointed in his leadership. With this fact in mind, there is a question that begs to be asked; “Is Dr. Williams competent to lead the Communion?” You would be surprised if you polled liberal revisionists and orthodox conservatives to find that many on both sides would answer NO. It is time to acknowledge before the world that the emperor has no clothes, and the Archbishop of Canterbury has no competency to lead the Communion.
We do understand the formal process that led to the royal appointment/directive of Dr. Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury, but in practical, realpolitik terms, Williams was chosen by Prime Minister Tony Blair to assist in Blair’s task of blending church and state agendas to the gay agenda. One should be able to ask why in the world the entire Anglican Communion should be subject to a manipulative prelate chosen by a politician elected by a secular government. If there is no way to replace a failed archbishop and restart with an actually spiritual (in a historical and understandable sense) archbishop, then those who can see failure and call it for what it is need to look elsewhere for leadership.
The Anglican Communion is a wonderful global family that has some real dysfunction, and as is often the case, the heart of the dysfunction sits in the center. The heart of the dysfunction is not TEC, nor Bishop V. Gene Robinson, nor Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori. That these have perpetrated grossly unbiblical misconduct and deserve to be severely punished is clear enough, but to posit the blame on all of them gives them entirely too much credit and feeds their sense of importance. The blame properly falls on the spiritual father who should have disciplined the miscreants and is now unable to act for the well being of both the miscreants and the rest of the family. To be effective, discipline needs to be clear, redemptive in nature, and prompt - all of which Dr. Williams is unwilling and unable to fulfill.
In a more perfect world we could announce, “NEXT!” and pick a new one. As it is, the process will be unsure, open to failure, possessing unforeseen collateral effect, and take much more time. Will the Anglican Communion survive? Possibly, but most likely not in the form we have known. Perhaps there will be a healing of the orthodox Global South stress fracture, and a new way forward will be found. Fortunately, God is still sovereign, and the church still belongs to him, and in time he will set right what man has over turned…
Paul Bagshaw has written End game. His concluding paragraphs read:
Primatology
I think George Conger is right: it is the end of the Communion we once thought we knew.The Primates’ meeting is to be a consultative forum with no powers of instruction or direction. Powerful and influential, certainly, but these stem from the role of participants within their own Provinces, not across provinces. As the Primus said in the press conference, this is a Communion of independent provinces.
Conger is also right about the concentration of powers in the hands of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Standing Committee is to be the Archbishop’s ‘consultative council’. In effect the Diocesan structure of the English Church is writ global: the monarchical Archbishop rules and courtiers advise. They have no veto.
A Communion for the twenty-first century
So this would now seem to be the shape of the Communion:
- Each province is autonomous.
- There is a stronger recognition of the differences of structure, decision making and distribution of powers within each province. Pressures towards harmonisation have been rebuffed.
- The motif of ‘family’ has resurfaced, specifically in its aspect of ‘blood is thicker than water’, i.e. we disagree but continue together. Clearly this is only true for those family members who are prepared to stay together.
- There is a renewed emphasis on regionalism, facilitated by the Primates’ Standing Committee. This will be a difficult trick to pull off effectively: on the one hand the centralising agenda will still pull matters towards the Archbishop of Canterbury and, on the other, the defence of autonomy will pull people apart. However, if successful, regional groupings could well supply an intermediate layer of debate and discussion which will enable better co-ordination of a looser Communion to the benefit of all.
- It is an ever more clerical Communion. Unless regional meetings include the laity as full participants they will reinforce the dominance of bishops.
- The more deliberative nature of the Lambeth Conference (if continued) and Primates’ Meeting will leave a vacuum. There will still be a demand for the equivalent of Lambeth Resolutions - of moral and persuasive authority, but only given force when incorporated in the
- Power will flow to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Leadership of global deliberation will flow to the international consultative bodies. Thus power will flow to the Anglican Communion Office. Information and administration is power and it will all go though the ACO & Lambeth Palace staff.
- The Anglican Consultative Council will be marginalised. Like an English Deanery Synod it will make work for itself but its primary function is merely to vote for (some of the) members of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.
- The SCAC will become a rubber stamp to endorse decisions made between the Archbishop of Canterbury, the General Secretary of the Communion, the ACO & Lambeth Palace staff.
The place of the Covenant in this is not clear. Clearly the Covenant is not dead. The logic of this shape of the Communion would marginalise it, perhaps draw any teeth, but the question remains: will the Covenant be an effective document oar will it now join the honoured ranks of documents with little or no consequence?
I’m still afraid it’s the former. If passed the Covenant contains so many powers-in-embryo that it will inevitably be used.
The Church of Ireland Gazette has this leading article:
Editorial: The Primates Meeting
It includes the following:
The Covenant, of course, is also being debated throughout the Communion. However, a forthcoming colloquium on the subject - being jointly hosted by the Church of Ireland journal, Search, and the Church of Ireland Chaplaincy at Trinity College Dublin - could open up a deeper debate on the subject than we in the Church of Ireland so far have had (http://searchjournal.ireland.anglican.org).
A big question about the Covenant is just what impact it would have on the Communion:
Would it help the Communion overcome its difficulties?
Would it make no difference?
Would it create new difficulties?
Whatever people’s views on the Covenant, the General Synod is due to reach a position on it next May.
When international bodies hold top-level meetings in one’s country, a great deal depends on the local organisers.
We conclude this brief comment on the Primates’ Meeting by paying tribute both to our own Primate for his role as host and to the Church of Ireland staff who helped to make the event happen.
The Gazette also has a front page story about US Presiding Bishop encourages congregation and country in Christ Church Cathedral sermon during Primates’ Meeting.
Referring to the Republic’s impending general election, the American church leader asked the congregation: “what hopes is this nation laying on its next Taoiseach? will your next prime minister be expected to solve the entire fiscal crisis in his or her first week of office? that person will take office overloaded with urgent desires for healing and resolving all the ills of this nation, or maybe even larger parts of the world.”
With this in mind, Dr Jefferts Schori asked the country to be gentle with its new leaders, “but not too gentle”.
Updated
In the Church Times Ed Beavan reports under the headline Williams plans trips to mend fences
THE Archbishop of Canterbury will engage in a round of shuttle diplomacy in an attempt to improve relations with the Global South primates who boycotted last week’s primates’ Meeting.
Speaking during the closing press conference at the Emmaus Centre, near Dublin, on Sunday afternoon, Dr Williams spoke of his plans to visit some of the provinces of the absent Primates, such as South-East Asia. He said that he had recently met the Archbishop of Kenya, Dr Eliud Wabukala, one of the Primates who did not attend, taking part in “a very long and detailed conversation on a variety of matters”.
Such diplomatic endeavours would be a “long task”, he said; and trying to keep the diverse Communion together was “difficult”; but “the task we’ve been given, it’s part of the gift of living in the Church” and “part of the cross we carry”.
Dr Williams acknowledged that there remains a “critical situation” in the Anglican Communion. “Nobody would deny that. But that critical situation has not ended the relationships, often very cordial and very constructive, between Churches within the Communion.”
And Ed also wrote Impressions of ‘gracefulness’.
THE Dublin Primates’ Meeting represented “comfort-zone Anglicanism”, the Bishop of Argentina and chairman of the conservative GAFCON network, the Rt Revd Greg Venables, said this week.
Speaking on behalf of the GAFCON Primates of Uganda, Rwanda, West Africa, Nigeria, Tanzania, Kenya, and the Southern Cone — none of whom went to Dublin — Bishop Venables said that the meeting “had ignored the difficult issues that divide us.
“There was a denial of the seriousness of the crisis facing the Communion which led to the absence of Primates representing two-thirds of the Anglican Communion, and there remains a complete lack of trust, which every day is getting worse.
“The Dublin meeting has just made things worse, as they did not deal with the reasons why people stayed away, or the causes of the divisions in the Anglican Church.”
Commenting on the new definition of the standing committee of the Primates’ Meeting, Bishop Venables said that the creation of a new “centralised” body reminded him of Animal Farm: “It seems all Primates are equal but some are more equal than others.”
Update There is a further related report: Ed Thornton Kato murder ‘profoundly shocking’ - Dr Williams
Speaking at a press conference after the Primates’ Meeting, on Sunday, Dr Williams said that Mr Kato’s murder “illustrates the fact that words have results…Whenever people use any kind of language that dehumanises or demeans such persons [as homosexuals], we have to think these are the possible consequences.”
Dr Williams noted that the Archbishop of Uganda, the Most Revd Henry Orombi, was “a signatory, along with all the other Primates to . . . statements . . . deploring and condemning all violence and demeaning language about homosexual persons”.
When contacted, the Archbishop of York’s office said that Dr Sentamu would not be commenting on the murder of Mr Kato, and referred to Dr Williams’s statement.
There is editorial comment at Leader: Decommissioning. It concludes with this:
…Those unfamiliar with recent Anglican history might overlook the importance of that dull list produced in Dublin, with an even duller title: “Towards an Understanding of the Purpose and Scope of the Primates’ Meeting”. Until their principled — and possibly unwise — decision to give the Primates’ Meeting up as a bad job, the conservatives saw the gathering as a potential power-base to rival the other instruments of the Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury was an individual attached awkwardly to an ex-colonial power; the Lambeth Conference met only once a decade; and the Anglican Consultative Council, well . . . This left the Primates’ Meeting, the most representative body in the Communion — if you saw no need to represent lay people, the parish clergy, women, etc. Not only did it meet every two years: there was the prospect of a permanent standing committee, which could govern between meetings.
Suddenly there was the prospect of an effective, powerful governing body, in charge of theological and ethical pronouncements, discipline, and membership. Furthermore, the conservatives might be strong enough to control it. It is in this light that the redefinition of the Primates’ Meeting, framed in their absence, must be seen. Note how the document refers to “taking counsel”, “being collegial”, “being consultative”, and “acknowledging diversity and giving space for difference”. On the pressing issues of faith, order, and ethics, the Primates are merely to “seek continuity and coherence”, whatever that means. And the standing committee has been tucked neatly away, to “act as a consultative council for the Archbishop of Canterbury” and to care for the “life and spirit” of the Primates’ Meeting, whatever that means. If the conservatives ever choose to return, they will find that the guns have been spiked.
Over at the Church of England Newspaper George Conger has written a report titled Dublin primates meeting marks an ‘end to the communion as we know it’.
He quotes conservative spokesmen as follows:
A spokesman for the Gafcon movement told The Church of England Newspaper that it was unlikely the primates affiliated with the conservative reform movement would comment on the meeting. Each archbishop made his own decision whether or not to attend, the spokesman explained, and there is no common response yet to what took place in Dublin.
A senior Global South leader told CEN, the Dublin meeting was “irrelevant” to several of the absent primates. “It doesn’t mean a thing to them,” he noted.
As Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Williams’ sole power lay in his ability to call meetings of the church. Lambeth and now Dublin has shown he has lost this “moral authority” as his invitations now go unanswered, the bishop noted. Dr. Williams cannot now claim that he speaks for a majority of Anglicans, he said.
(The quote used in the headline does not appear in the body of the article, but Dr Philip Turner, of the Anglican Communion Institute is quoted as saying
The “fabric” of the communion remains torn “because of a failure in leadership,” he said, noting that the “communion as we have known it is gone.”)
The Primate of Canada, Archbishop Fred Hiltz, has given an interview to the Anglican Journal. Read it at Interview with the Primate.
There is also a letter sent to the Canadian church, see Archbishop Hiltz reflects on the Primates’ Meeting.
Here is one extract from the interview:
Q: How important was it to have this conversation?
A: Absolutely, critically, important…When you have primates who say, “For reasons of conscience and for reasons of who’s going to be there, I’m not coming,” you really have to sit down and say, “Well, what really is the purpose of the primates’ meeting?” There are some of us who would [agree with the] Archbishop of Canterbury that “the primates’ meeting is a given, you’re a primate. I may not be excited about going to a primates’ meeting, I don’t look forward to it, but nonetheless I have an obligation to attend the primates’ meeting…” It’s not just about my own personal choice; when you go to the primates’ meeting you don’t represent yourself or your own conscience alone, you go representing your province. To say, ‘I won’t go’ in some sense is to deny the voice and perspective of your own church that you represent…We recalled the fact that [the 101st Archbishop of Canterbury] Donald Coggan, 20 years ago, envisioned the primates’ meeting as a place “for leisurely thought, prayer, and deep consultation.” And then [Archbishop of Canterbury] Rowan Williams gave a history of the last 10 years of the primates’ meeting…What happened was there was a call in the communion for enhanced responsibility on the part of the primates… the primates were assuming an authority [that] as a group was never intended.
Q: Has this issue been resolved?
A: It was pretty clear…among those who were present, and that would have been two-thirds of us…that we don’t speak on our behalf. We speak on behalf of the churches that we represent and what we heard across the board was that we don’t speak until we’ve consulted with the bishops or the synods and councils of our churches…Within the Communion…there are some who really speak for themselves and they don’t consult or speak for their bishops or their provinces… That’s not only creating some difficulties within the communion, but it’s also, to be honest, creating tension within their own provinces. Some bishops are feeling that their perspective is not represented by what their primate says, or they’re told they can’t go to meetings because their primate has told them not to. They’re denied being part of the wider councils of the church. That’s really unfair…
And another extract:
Q: There were primates with more conservative views on sexuality who boycotted the meeting, but were there others with similar views who chose to attend?
A: There was a good mix of people…Those who came…exhibited huge loyalty to the Archbishop of Canterbury, deep respect for his invitation to draw us together in consultation with one another and a huge amount of respect for the Instruments of Communion…there was honest exchange between individual primates. But I have to say that this meeting was not in any way dominated by discussions around sexuality. In fact, you actually would have to pull very hard to find references to it in our plenary conversations, which is amazing…The last few primates’ meetings have just been dominated by that issue, [the] actions of certain provinces and the reactions of other provinces to those actions, people not going to the Eucharist. None of that happened, everybody participated fully in every aspect of the meeting…People were together at the Eucharist, they were together at tea, they were together at plenary, they were together for prayer, for meals. There was a real sense of community there… The blessing of same-sex unions was just not a big ticket item, not a topic of discussion at this meeting. Not only was it not a big ticket item but nobody was saying, “When are we going to get to this issue?” which was quite profound. Likewise, with the [proposed Anglican] Covenant…there was a general feeling that…we need to let the provinces have the conversations…and we’re not going to enter into a big conversation about it until our provinces have spoken.
There have been a number of articles commenting on the murder of David Kato, and what the primates said about it.
ENS has published Albert Ogle David Kato’s Anglican funeral: A tale of two churches
Chicago Consultation Chicago Consultation Thanks Primates for Decrying Anti-Gay Violence
Changing Attitude England Primates’ statement on David Kato’s murder brings them closer to the moment of truth
Walking with Integrity Mixed Messages from ABofC Dangerous for LGBT in Uganda
Benny’s Blog Today I am ashamed to be an Anglican.
ACNS reported yesterday on this. See The Church in the Province of the West Indies adopts the Anglican Communion Covenant.
The Archbishop of the Province of the West Indies has announced that his Province has adopted the Anglican Communion Covenant. It is the third to do so officially, the others being the Anglican Church of Mexico and The Church of the Province of Myanmar…
Was there some previous announcement about Myanmar?
Updated Tuesday morning
RTE has two video reports which are linked from this report: Anglican leader in warning over homophobia.
Associated/Canadian Press has Anglican leader says reuniting communion will be a lengthy task, but work will continue.
Irish Times Archbishop reacts strongly to queries over homophobic climate in Uganda
THE ARCHBISHOP of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, reacted strongly to media questions in Dublin yesterday which queried the role of the Anglican primate of Uganda, Most Rev Henry Luke Orombi, in fomenting a climate in which gay activist David Kato was murdered there last Wednesday.
Bishop Orombi was one of seven Anglican Church leaders who boycotted the Anglican Primates Meeting in Dublin which concluded yesterday, because Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, presiding bishop of the US Episcopal Church, was attending it.
The absent primates do not approve of the US church’s ordination of actively gay bishops or its same-sex blessings.
Defending Bishop Orombi, Archbishop Williams, head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, emphasised that, as with other relevant Anglican primates, Bishop Orombi’s position concerned “exclusion from ministry on grounds of behaviour, not orientation”.
Belfast Telegraph Top cleric warns against demonising gay people
Guardian Riazat Butt Anglican leaders condemn victimisation of gays and lesbians
At a press conference, held at the Emmaus Centre, Dublin, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, reminded journalists that Orombi had signed an earlier pledge “deploring and condemning all violence and language about homosexual persons” while also warning that homophobic language had consequences - as illustrated by Kato’s murder.
Williams acknowledged there was “a critical situation” in the communion.
“The division is very real. The question is how we cope with it. Whether we are able to stay in the same room and argue the case.”
Church Times Ed Beavan has further reports, at Primates’ Meeting, Dublin: updated reports (new material is at the top of the page).
Dr Williams said that there were a “significant number of absentees for a number of reasons”, but in particular the absence of the Global South Primates “was felt and noted every day”, with their names placed on empty chairs in the meeting room and candles lit for them.
“There is a critical situation in the Communion, no one would deny that,” he said. But they would not be “closing the doors on those who are not with us”. He planned to engage in bridge-building visits to some of the absent provinces, such as South-East Asia, and had recently met the Archbishop of Kenya, who did not attend the meeting, engaging in ”a very long and detailed conversation on a variety of matters”.
Such diplomatic endeavours would be a “long task”, he admitted, and trying to keep the diverse Communion together was “difficult”; but “the task we’ve been given and part of the cross we carry.” He said he hoped the standing committee of the Primates’ Meeting, whose role was discussed in Dublin, could also be part of the process to help “re-establish local and regional relationships”.
Asked if he and the Primates would take any disciplinary action against the US Episcopal Church if it continued to ordain gay bishops, he said did not know: “he did not have a crystal ball about the future,” and that he had “no idea” if the boycotting Primates would attend the next Primates’ Meeting.
ENS Primates outline their roles, commit to ‘journeying together in honest conversation’
ENI via Christian Century Anglican archbishops end meeting on a quiet note
Christian Post Anglican Head: Nobody Denies Division
Christian Today Re-establishing relationships in the Anglican Communion will be a ‘long task’, says Archbishop
Updated
ENS has now published a video recording of the press conference. See here.
ACNS has published Primates’ Meeting – Briefing #5.
This links to a series of other statements, available currently only as PDFs:
The release concludes with:
…Private letters that the Primates all agreed to send included one to Pakistan’s leaders on the blasphemy laws, a letter of support for Archbishop of Sudan the Most Revd Daniel Deng Bul, a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regarding the Bishop of Jerusalem the Rt Revd Suheil Dawani, a letter to the heads of the six-nation talks on the situation in Korea, and a letter of support to both Archbishop Mouneer Anis and Pope Shenouda III.
In the afternoon session, the Primates nominated and elected their five members and five alternate members for the Primates’ Standing Committee. When all the Primates of the Anglican Communion have been informed who the new members are, the names will be posted on the Anglican Communion website. Documents on the scope and purpose of the Primates’ Meeting and of the Primates’ Standing Committee were also agreed.
Immediately following the press conference, the Primates attended a final Eucharist, presided over by the Primate of All Ireland Archbishop Alan Harper. The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams gave the homily. This service marked the end of the meeting.
There was also a press conference, see Podcast of the Press Conference from the Primates Meeting 2011.
At todays press conference the panel comprised of the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams, The Most Revd Bernard Ntahoturi, Archbishop of the Province of Burundi & Bishop of Matana, The Most Revd Dr John Walder Dunlop Holder, Archbishop, Church in the Province of the West Indies & Bishop of Barbados and The Most Revd David Robert Chillingworth, Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church & Bishop of St Andrews, Dunkeld & Dunblane. They were welcomed by The Most Revd Alan Edwin Thomas Harper, Primate of All Ireland & Archbishop of Armagh.
Dr Rowan Williams said the outcomes of the Primates Meeting had met his “Chief hopes” for the week. He explained that among other letters and statements agreed by the Primates there were two outlining the scope and purpose of the Primates Meeting and its Standing Committee. His address was followed by a question and answer session with members of the media.
And a further press release is titled Renewed clarity on Primates’ Meeting meets Archbishop of Canterbury’s “chief hope”. It includes:
Acknowledging the “significant number of absentees” at the meeting he [the Archbishop of Canterbury] said that the fact remained that two thirds of the body of Primates was present and three quarters expressed their willingness to attend but were unable to do so. “That means that two thirds of the Communion at least wish to meet and wish to continue the conversations they have begun.”
He said, however, that the absences of fellow Primates were felt and noticed every day, and that the documents agreed by the Primates emphasised building relationships across the whole body of Primates. He added he had had, and would be having meetings with those Primates who had not attended.
Archbishop of the Anglican Church of Burundi the Most Revd Bernard Ntahoturi stressed that those from Africa who had decided not to attend had “not withdrawn from the life of the Anglican Communion.”
“Not attending physically does not mean you are not participating in the life of the Communion,” he said. “I personally believe whether they are here they or not in Dublin, their hearts and aspirations are to see that the Anglican Communion develops positively and works together for the furtherance of the Kingdom of God.”
The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church preached this morning at Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin.
ENS reports In Dublin sermon, presiding bishop challenges all to ‘show up’ to heal the world.
“We’re challenged in this very body to ‘show up,’ to present ourselves ready, willing, and able to help heal this broken world,” Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said on Jan. 30 during her sermon at the 9 a.m. Sung Eucharist service at Christ Church Cathedral in Dublin, Ireland.
Highlighting sobering statistics of child mortality rates in some parts of the world – like Angola, where nearly 20 percent of children die before their first birthday – Jefferts Schori said the healing of the world “needs the participation and leadership of all parts of the body of Christ. It starts with urgent voices, and changed hearts, our own conversion, and our challenge to systems that perpetuate all kinds of sickness and death around the world.”
Jefferts Schori noted the brutal murder of Ugandan gay rights activist David Kato, who was bludgeoned to death in his home community on Jan. 26.
Kato “has been a strong voice for the basic human rights of gay and lesbian people,” Jefferts Schori said. “His voice has been silenced. We can pray that others will continue that work, or be challenged by the brutality of his death into some conversion of heart. Will we challenge the world to respect the dignity of every single human being?”
The full text of the sermon is available here.
Link to video recording of sermon.
Here’s the official bulletin: Primates’ Meeting - Briefing #4.
Today’s meeting moved from the work of reflecting on the exercise of primacy and the purpose and nature of the Primates’ Meeting, to considering the role, purpose and composition of the Standing Committee of the Primates. In addition to attending the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) and the Standing Committee, other roles suggested for the committee by Primates included “holding” the life, vision and spirit of the meeting between the Primates’ Meetings; helping to shape their future meetings; and acting as a consultative group for the Archbishop of Canterbury. Several groups also suggested that the Primates’ Standing Committee might have an ongoing bridging role between the Primate’s Meeting and the regions from where the Primates come…
There are some pictures posted, which you can reach via here (and then top left).
Titus Presler asks some Questions about Anglican primates’ day on theology/ecumenism/covenant.
And there is more from Ed Beavan here.
CHICAGO CONSULTATION HOPES ARCHBISHOP’S STATEMENT SIGNALS NEW COURSE ON LGBT ISSUES
Asks other Anglican primates to condemn violence
CHICAGO, IL, January 28, 2011—The Chicago Consultation issued this statement today from its co-convener, the Rev. Lowell Grisham:
“The Chicago Consultation applauds the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams for his statements condemning the murder of Ugandan LGBT activist David Kato. We hope the archbishop’s statement signals a willingness to speak out against the persecution of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people more directly and forcefully than he has in the past.
“It is essential that the other primates of the Anglican Communion join Dr. Williams and Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori of the Episcopal Church, in condemning the cultivation of hatred and violence against LGBT people. The primates who boycotted the current meeting in Dublin over theological differences with gay-friendly churches have a particular responsibility to affirm the dignity of every human being, and the right of LGBT people to live without fear of violence, degradation or criminal prosecution. We would welcome similar clarity from the Anglican Church in North America, which maintains close relationships with these primates.
“Heartened as we were by the archbishop’s statement, we believe that he is speaking aspirationally when he claims that the worldwide Anglican Communion has condemned violence against LGBT people. Occasional references to the dignity of gays and lesbians in voluminous communiqués cannot mask the fact that a number of Anglican provinces have been active or complicit in encouraging state-sponsored persecution of gays and lesbians, including the notorious anti-gay legislation still under consideration by the Ugandan parliament.
“Dr. Williams’ advocacy would be more credible were his handling of LGBT issues within the Anglican Communion more evenhanded. He has made it clear that the Episcopal Church may face consequences for consecrating gay and lesbian bishops. Yet primates such as Archbishop Henry Orombi in Kato’s own country of Uganda support laws that would imprison same-sex couples for simple acts of physical affection, but risk no such reprisals. The tortured ecclesiological rationale offered for this double standard makes little sense outside the cocoon of Communion bureaucracy, and it compromises the archbishop’s ability to be the forceful and effective advocate for human rights that this statement indicates he wants to be.”
The Chicago Consultation, a group of Episcopal and Anglican bishops, clergy and lay people, supports the full inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Christians in the Episcopal Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion. To learn more about the Chicago Consultation, visit www.chicagoconsultation.org.
Ed Beavan has filed further reports (and photos) for the Church Times from Dublin: Primates’ Meeting, Dublin: updated reports. (Scroll down for his earlier report.)
The Guardian’s Riazat Butt has reported the Archbishop of Canterbury’s statement: Archbishop urges government to protect gay asylum seekers.
The Presiding Bishop of TEC has issued a statement, see PB statement on David Kato’s murder.
The official briefing from ACNS is Primates’ Meeting – Briefing #3
The BBC reports: David Kato funeral: Uganda priest berates gays. See also Box Turtle Bulletin here and Warren Throckmorton on Anti-gay reaction to David Kato’s death.
For reference, here is the Church of Uganda’s official statement of its position on the Ugandan anti-homosexuality bill of 2009.
ENS also had a report: Episcopalians condemn murder of Ugandan gay rights activist David Kato.
Archbishop condemns murder of Ugandan gay human rights activist
Friday 28 January 2011
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, who is currently in Dublin for the Primates’ meeting, has made the following statement regarding the murder of the gay human rights activist David Kato Kisulle in Uganda:
“The brutal murder of David Kato Kisule, a gay human rights activist, is profoundly shocking. Our prayers and deep sympathy go out for his family and friends - and for all who live in fear for their lives. Whatever the precise circumstances of his death, which have yet to be determined, we know that David Kato Kisule lived under the threat of violence and death. No one should have to live in such fear because of the bigotry of others. Such violence has been consistently condemned by the Anglican Communion worldwide. This event also makes it all the more urgent for the British Government to secure the safety of LGBT asylum seekers in the UK. This is a moment to take very serious stock and to address those attitudes of mind which endanger the lives of men and women belonging to sexual minorities.”
The official bulletin for Thursday: Primates’ Meeting – Briefing #2.
The Church Times has Ed Beavan on the scene, and his first report is Primates depleted as Dublin summit kicks off.
The Church of England Newspaper has a report by George Conger 15 Archbishops skip Dublin primates meeting.
Patsy McGarry reports in the Irish Times: Church of Ireland group urges that Ugandan ‘homophobia’ be confronted.
THE CHURCH of Ireland Changing Attitude group has called on the Taoiseach and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Brian Cowen, and international Anglican primates meeting in Dublin “to confront the problem of homophobia in Uganda”.
It follows the murder there last Wednesday of gay rights campaigner David Kato.
The group said that in recent years “anti-gay feeling in Uganda has been stirred up by religious leaders, a group of USA evangelicals and politicians”.
Senior bishops from Anglican churches worldwide are in Dublin and “needed to assume their responsibilities in tackling homophobia and the churches collusion in it”.
The Anglican primate of the Church of the Province of Uganda, Most Rev Henry Luke Orombi, is among seven primates of the Anglican Communion who have boycotted the Primates Meeting now under way at the Emmaus Centre near Swords, Co Dublin…
Some background to this:
The Kampala-based Daily Monitor carries this editorial comment today: Can we talk honestly about homosexuality? . It concludes:
People like David Kato and others who might be gay are Ugandans and enjoy the same rights and protections of the law as heterosexuals. We cannot send them into exile neither, lock them away, or hang them.
We need to have an honest discussion about how to ensure that their rights are upheld without violating the rights of other Ugandans.
Peaceful and stable societies only emerge when we understand and try to accommodate those who are different from us, or who disagree with us – not by ostracising or killing them.
Box Turtle Bulletin comments on this editorial here, and says:
What makes this editorial remarkable is that it is being printed in Uganda’s largest and most influential independent newspaper, and it expresses the need to ensure the rights of LGBT people are upheld in a nation whose leadership refuses to recognize gay people as humans beings deserving of human rights. That’s remarkable, and a most welcome addition to the debate.
More material is available from that site, and from the blog of Warren Throckmorton.
ACNS has the official report of yesterday: Primates’ Meeting – Briefing #1.
Changing Attitude Ireland has issued a call for the primates to consider the issue of Christian-backed persecution of gay persons. See Call to confront Homophobia at Anglican Primates’ Meeting. (See also this BBC news article.)
The Institute for Religion and Democracy has issued its opinion: Global Conservative Anglican Leaders Duck Worldwide Meeting
“This strife within the third largest family of Christian churches worldwide will not conclude in decisive schism. Instead, liberal and conservative Anglicans will continue to realize a de-facto separation over time. The Dublin primate’s [sic] meeting exemplifies this evolving separation.”
As Episcopal Café points out, this amounts to a change of position: IRD revises forecast for the Communion.
If you came late to this party, you can read about what IRD did to bankroll the Anglican schism in Following the Money. Or you can read This Schism Is Brought to You by the IRD and Power, Money, Control . . . It’s the Church!
The Revd Jonathan Clark, Rector of St Mary’s, Stoke Newington and Chair of Affirming Catholicism has responded to what Andrew Goddard wrote, see Actions and Consequences.
Tobias Haller has responded to what Mouneer Anis said, see Mouneer Gets It Wrong.
The ACI has written The Dublin ‘Meeting’ and Mark Harris has responded with The ACI Numbers Game.
TitusOneNine has published a complete transcript of the recent address made by the Presiding Bishop of Jerusalem and the Middle East, Mouneer Anis. See Recovering the Word of God for the Anglican Communion. Bishop Anis is not attending the meeting in Dublin.
Fulcrum, which argued previously that the Presiding Bishop of TEC should not be invited to attend the Dublin meeting of the Anglican Primates has published an article by Andrew Goddard titled Actions and consequences: Reflections on the state of the Anglican Communion.
Summary: Reflecting on Fulcrum’s call not to invite the Presiding Bishop to the Primates’ Meeting in Ireland, the consequences of inviting her are highlighted: the widespread principled absence of many Global South primates. As it is still unclear why the Presiding Bishop was invited after the breach of the moratorium and the Pentecost Letter, three possible scenarios are outlined in the hope that the rationale for this decision may be made clear. Then, drawing on past Primates’ statements and statements from TEC, three justifications for non-invitation and grounds for non-attendance are outlined: developments in TEC are now indisputably a breach of the moratoria, TEC has displayed a lack of integrity in its dealings with the Communion and its own stance reveals a lack of coherence in teaching and practice while increasingly signalling a determination to re-define the Christian doctrine of marriage. After exploring some of the challenges of holding a meeting to address key issues in the Communion but with the leaders of most of the world’s Anglicans not present, possible future paths for the Communion are outlined in relation to both the need for serious theological discussion about sexuality and the need to reform the Instruments, all of which have seen their authority eroded through this crisis. The conclusion notes that various actions and inactions in recent years have had serious damaging consequences and highlights the need to pray that, while nothing said or done this week can be painless, the actions of this gathering of Primates may have positive consequences for the Communion’s future unity…
The Anglican Communion News Service has issued a press release listing exactly who is not coming, and why not.
24 are currently expected. Only 22 of them are real live Primates of their Provinces. The other two are the Archbishop of York (representing the CofE), and the Dean of the Province of Central Africa (primatial office is vacant).
Absentees include 7 who cite the presence of The Episcopal Church as the reason, and a total of 8 who cite other reasons. Total absentees 15.
See Anglican Communion Primates arrive in Dublin, Ireland for meeting.
The attendance list from the press release is copied below the fold.
The Primates’ Meeting January 25-31, 2011
Those who are present, on their way or are expected:
The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand & Polynesia The Most Revd Winston Halapua
The Anglican Church of Australia The Most Revd Phillip John Aspinall
The Church of Bangladesh The Rt Revd Paul Sishir Sarkar
Igreja Episcopal Anglicana do Brasil The Most Revd Maurício José Araújo de Andrade
The Episcopal Church of Burundi The Most Revd Bernard Ntahoturi
The Anglican Church of Canada The Most Revd Frederick J Hiltz
The Church of the Province of Central Africa Represented by The Dean of the Province The Rt Rev Albert Chama**
Iglesia Anglicana de la Region Central de America The Most Revd Armando Roman Guerra Soria
The Church of England The Most Revd Rowan Douglas Williams
Also represented by The Most Revd John Sentamu
Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui The Most Revd Paul Kwong
The Church of Ireland The Most Revd Alan Edwin Thomas Harper
The Nippon Sei Ko Kai (The Anglican Communion in Japan) The Most Revd Nathaniel Makoto Uematsu
The Anglican Church of Korea The Rt Revd Paul Keun-Sang Kim
The Church of the Province of Melanesia The Most Revd David Vunagi
The Church of Pakistan (United) The Rt Revd Samuel Azariah
The Anglican Church of Papua New Guinea The Most Revd Joseph Kifau Kopapa
The Episcopal Church in the Philippines The Rt Revd Edward Pacyaya Malecdan
The Scottish Episcopal Church The Most Revd David Robert Chillingworth
The Church of South India (United) The Most Revd Suputhrappa Vasantha Kumar
The Anglican Church of Southern Africa The Most Revd Thabo Cecil Makgoba
The Episcopal Church The Most Revd Katharine Jefferts Schori
The Church in Wales The Most Revd Barry Cennydd Morgan
The Church in the Province of the West Indies The Most Revd John Walder Dunlop Holder
Those who are unable to attend:
For reasons of visa difficulties:
Province de L’Eglise Anglicane Du Congo The Most Revd Henry Kahwa Isingoma
For reasons of health:
La Iglesia Anglicana de Mexico The Most Revd Carlos Touche-Porter
The Church of the Province of Myanmar (Burma) The Most Revd Stephen Than Myint Oo
For reasons of diary commitments:
The Anglican Church of Kenya The Most Revd Eliud Wabukala
The Church of North India (United) The Most Revd Purely Lyngdoh
For personal reasons:
The Anglican Church of Tanzania The Most Revd Valentino Mokiwa
For reasons of Provincial matters:
The Episcopal Church of the Sudan The Most Revd Daniel Deng Bul Yak (the referendum)
L’Eglise Episcopal au Rwanda The Most Revd Onesphore Rwaje (two days after his installation)
Those who have chosen to stay away over recent developments in The Episcopal Church:
The Church of the Province of the Indian Ocean The Most Revd Gerald James (Ian) Ernest
The Episcopal Church in Jerusalem & The Middle East The Most Revd Mouneer Hanna Anis
The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) The Most Rt Revd Nicholas Dikeriehi Okoh
The Church of the Province of Uganda The Most Revd Henry Luke Orombi
Church of the Province of South East Asia The Most Revd John Chew
Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur de America The Most Revd Hector Zavala
The Church of the Province of West Africa The Most Revd Justice Ofei Akrofi
** There is currently a vacancy in the Primacy of the Church of the Province of Central Africa. The Primatial role and representation is exercised by the Dean of the Province.
Here are media reports this morning:
RTE Anglican split over gay bishops deepens
At least seven archbishops who oppose the ordination of gay and lesbian bishops will boycott a meeting of the world’s Anglican leadership, which begins in Dublin today…
BBC Anglican archbishops to boycott primate meeting
A meeting of Anglican leaders in Dublin is expected to be boycotted by up to a third of those invited.
ENI Several leaders will boycott Anglican summit
At least seven of the leaders representing 38 Anglican provinces worldwide will not attend a key meeting in Dublin from 25-30 January. Their absence comes at a time when the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, is under mounting pressure from two wings of the 77 million-member Anglican Communion on the subject of human sexuality.
ENS Primates set to meet in Dublin, with a few absentees
…But according to the Rev. Canon Kenneth Kearon, secretary general of the Anglican Communion, at least seven primates have indicated they will not be attending the meeting at the Emmaus Retreat & Conference Centre because of Jefferts Schori’s presence and recent developments concerning human sexuality issues in the Episcopal Church.
Christian Today Anglican Primates meeting in Dublin despite absences
…The Primates of the Indian Ocean, Jerusalem and the Middle East, Rwanda, Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda, West Africa, the Southern Cone of Latin America, and South East Asia are all boycotting the meeting in protest against the attendance of Katharine Jefferts-Schori, Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church in the US.
Christian Post Anglican Primates Meeting to Take Place Despite Boycott
…As many as ten of the leaders of the Communion’s 38 provinces will not attend the meeting because of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts-Schori, who represents the Episcopal Church and a supporter of gay bishops and same-sex marriage.
Episcopal Café has a statement from Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori.
Updated again Tuesday morning
The previous roundup of news on this topic was here. Since then there was also this announcement.
This week’s Church Times reports that There could be sandwiches to spare in Dublin.
At the end of last year, it was announced that ten Primates from the Global South intended to boycott the meeting, in protest at the inclusion of the US Primate after rows over gay bishops and same-sex blessings (News, 26 November).
The Church Times understands that this number might have risen to 14 out of the possible 37 Primates eligible to attend. (There is one vacancy.) The general secretary of the Anglican Communion Office (ACO), Canon Kenneth Kearon, believes, however, that those who stay away, “in protest after developments in the Episcopal Church” in the United States, will number “less than ten”. There might be other absentees because of health or visa issues, he said.
He admitted, however, that numbers would be unknown until the meeting began on Tuesday. “Given that most Primates make their own travel arrangements, and that plans can change at the last minute, it is impossible for anyone to say for certain how many Primates will travel to Dublin for the meeting.”
The ten Primates in the original boycott are understood to be those of Jerusalem & the Middle East, the Indian Ocean, South-East Asia, the Southern Cone, Rwanda, West Africa, Tanzania, Nigeria, Uganda, and Kenya. A Global South spokesman suggested that another four were likely to stay away. One of these, the Primate of Sudan, has other matters demanding his attention in the wake of his country’s referendum…
The Anglican Communion News Service reports that Primates not attending Dublin meeting “have reiterated their commitment to the Communion”.
…The Primates who have turned down the invitation to this week’s Primates’ Meeting because of developments in The Episcopal Church are still committed to the Anglican Communion.
In an interview today with BBC Radio Ulster’s Sunday Sequence programme, Anglican Communion Secretary General Canon Kenneth Kearon told presenter William Crawley that at Communion meetings there are always a number of participants who cannot come for a variety of reasons including health or diary commitments.
Canon Kearon gave as an example of those who would likely leave their decision to attend until the last minute the Primates of Sudan and Australia whose countries are dealing with major issues including a referendum and flooding respectively.
He added that on this occasion some Primates had written to say they would not be attending the Dublin meeting because of the presence of the Primate of The Episcopal Church and recent developments in The Episcopal Church.
“About seven or possibly eight have written to me directly to say that’s the reason why they cannot come,” he said. “About two can’t come because of health reasons and there are a few we are not yet sure whether they are coming or not.
“Those Primates who said they’re not coming as part of an objection to the Episcopal Church and other developments have reiterated their commitment to the Communion and the Archbishop of Canterbury in their writing to me…”
There was a Mere Anglicanism conference this weekend in South Carolina, at which the Primate of Jerusalem and the Middle East has been speaking. He made some comments about the forthcoming meeting reported as follows:
…With the regard of the upcoming Primate’s meeting, (Dublin, Ireland Jan 25-30, 2011) we are not boycotting. Many have said that we are boycotting this meeting. We however are not attending.
Why? Because we did ask the Archbishop of Canterbury to follow up on the recommendations of the previous meeting (Dar es Salaam, 2006; no meeting was held in 2008 because of the Lambeth Conference). At that meeting we discussed, decided and recommended actions. This was never done. It is time for decisions after comprehensive discussion.
For this meeting, we received an invitation to sit in 2 separate rooms: the revisionists in one and the Global South in another. This is a joke. We were not given a chance to affect the process and have some ownership of the meeting. When we are given that opportunity, we will attend.
Update there is a full transcript of these remarks now available here.
The text of the article in Evangelicals Now by Chris Sugden is now available over here.
…The clear implication of Bishop Fearon’s case ( which is also Archbishop Rowan Williams’ case) is that even though Anglicans have been persecuted and driven from their homes, buildings and jobs in the USA and Canada, other Anglican leaders should meet yet again with those responsible for these outrages and thus legitimate the presence of those who completely contradict the teaching and practice of the Christian churches. Once decisions were made at the Early Church Councils Bishop Fearon has referred to, Arius and others were declared to be and treated as heretics. Similar clear decisions taken by the succession of meetings since 1998 have not been followed through…
Global South Anglican has published this: On the Dublin Meeting: GSA Editorial.
The full text is copied below the fold.
21st January 2011
There have been various interests and concerns expressed about the absence of some Global South Primates at the forthcoming Dublin Primates’ Meeting.
Where these Primates are concerned, arriving at such decision was not a sudden or knee-jerk reaction. Both before, and more so after, The Episcopal Church has once again proceeded, against widespread appeals and warnings across the Anglican Communion, not least from the Archbishop of Canterbury himself, to consecrate an openly lesbian Mary Glasspool as bishop. The concerned group of Global South Primates had communicated very clearly with the Archbishop of Canterbury, especially those who were present at the All African Bishops’ Conference (Entebbe, Uganda Aug 2010), in a private conversation with him. They have indicated that it would be extremely difficult - and in fact, quite pointless - for them to be present at the planned Primates’ Meeting 2011.
Unless and until there is unequivocal commitment to honour the agreed basis of Lambeth Resolution 1.10 and implement the decisions of previous Primates’ Meetings (2005, 2007, 2009) expressed in the respective Communiqués, especially that of Dar es Salem 2007, it will only lead to further erosion of the credibility of the Primates’ Meeting and accentuate our failure to honour the work already done by them.
What is most disturbing and difficult is that given the intractable miry situation the Communion is already in and being further driven into, there was hardly any timely and intentional prior consultation and collegial engagement of all concerned (or at least as many as reasonably possible) in preparing for the Meeting to ensure certain degree of significant and principally legitimate outcome to hold and move the Communion together. In light of the critical importance of the Meeting, the preparations are gravely inadequate. As it stands, the Meeting is almost pre-determined to end up as just another gathering that again cannot bring about effective ecclesial actions, despite the precious time, energy and monetary resources that Primates and Provinces have invested in attending the Meeting. This, most Provinces could scarcely afford. With the disappointingly lack of serious transparent planning and leadership beforehand to prepare the Primates for a genuine meeting of minds and hearts to face the very real and obvious issues before us, it will be strenuous to expect any significant, meaningful, credible and constructive outcome of the Dublin Meeting.
In the light of these concerns, these Primates have actively urged a postponement of the Meeting until adequate ground work has been done, which they would be most ready to contribute, hopefully, with input by others as well.
Therefore, it is with great sadness that some Primates have arrived at the decision that it is not right for proper for them to be present at the Dublin Meeting.
This stance is in fact an expression of Global South Primates’ commitment to continue to be constructively and responsibly engaged in the apostolic life and witness of the global Anglican Communion.
Ronald Stevenson, QC, the former Chancellor of the Anglican Church of Canada, and a retired Court of Queen’s Bench judge, has written another article (see here for his earlier one): Some History of Resistance to Centralizing Authority in the Anglican Communion.
Paul Bagshaw has recently written Creeds, orthodoxy and the Covenant.
Caroline Hall has published three articles so far about the Anglican Covenant:
