Thinking Anglicans

Global South: more disagreement

Pat Ashworth reports in the Church Times today that A fourth Primate disowns ‘hectoring’ letter.

…The Archbishop of Burundi, the Most Revd Bernard Ntahoturi, was one of three Primates listed among the 17 signatories as “Present but had to leave before the final draft was circulated”. He has also confirmed that he did not sign.

He responded in a message to the Church Times on Tuesday: “I have read Archbishop Akinola’s letter. Without going into details of the content, I would like to make it clear that I was not present when that letter was written, so I did not take part in its conception. It is sad what is going on.”…

Also, the Southern African province reports on how their representative was treated:

Further light was shed by the Primate of Southern Africa, the Most Revd Njongonkulu Ndungane. In a message to the Church Times, he writes that he was represented at the meeting in Egypt, where the letter was drafted, by the Bishop of Pretoria, Dr Johannes Seoka.

Bishop Seoka had “found himself excluded from meetings, including those at which the letter was discussed – despite the presence, it appeared, of others who were neither Primates nor, indeed, from the Global South”, the Archbishop writes.

The full text of Abp Ndungane’s remarks is available this week only to CT subscribers. I will link to it here when it is available.

Meanwhile there is also an article in the CT by Bishop Tom Wright which is summarised in Pat Ashworth’s article but again the full text is for subscribers only, until next week now available here. Meanwhile an extract is available here.

But he also is strongly critical of the Global South letter:

This kind of hectoring inevitably backfires, creating such distaste that people instinctively want to do the opposite of what is requested, or at least to declare loftily that one must do nothing at all rather than give in to such bullying.

Perhaps that is what some of these groups intend: to generate a situation where they can claim spurious justification for schism. Archbishop Akinola, and particularly his advisers and letter-drafters, need to be reminded of the Windsor report’s insistence on due process within an episcopal Communion.

17
Leave a Reply

avatar
3000
17 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
11 Comment authors
DaveGöran Koch-SwahneChristopher ShellMartin ReynoldsTunde Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Dave
Guest
Dave

If, as ABofY Sentamu suggested, both sides should “cool it”, then that should also include public acts or statements that are likely to be provocative ! Trouble is, I suspect, that both sides “know” that we are only stating the truth and speaking out for righteousness !

J. C. Fisher
Guest

Trouble is, I suspect, that both sides “know” that they are each reading the Bible, studying Tradition (with whatever Reason they possess) and then deriving *totally different criteria* for
“truth” and “righteousness”.

Lord have mercy!

badman
Guest
badman

Dave:

Those claiming to list signatories to their letter turn out not to have been “stating the truth” on any view.

Correcting an untruth is not provocative. Telling one may be.

I’m not sure who you refer to by “we”. No-one suggests you were involved with drafting the letter or with alleging who signed it.

Charles
Guest
Charles

Bishop Tom Wright’s comment suggesting that as ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada, went against a Lambeth resolution, their Bishops should not be invited to Lambeth 2008 is interesting.

If that logic was applied to all the Bishops evenly then very few Bishops would be invited, as the very same resolution also stated that the Communion should undertake a listening process, that in most regions has not taken place. In fact this listening process has been actively discouraged.

Martin Reynolds
Guest

Another first class report from Pat Ashworth – she really is getting her teeth into this story.

I do hope she continues working on this, I have a feeling there is still much to uncover here.

Well done, Pat!!

Göran Koch-Swahne
Guest

Not to forget the other 14 resolutions of Lambeth 1998.

If acting upon them is required, I suppose very few indeed would be feasible for Lambeth 2008 ;=)

Dave
Guest
Dave

Dear Göran, it was deliberately acting AGAINST a Lambeth resolution, AND appeals from the ABofC and the whole of the Primates (!!) that got ECUSA and ACoC into this mess.

Whatever you think about the Global South primate’s disarray over this letter, their opposition to blessing homo-sexual partnerships is consistent with Scripture, Tradition and the official teachings of the Anglican church !

Uche
Guest
Uche

Archbishop Ndungane comments about Bishop Jo Seoka being excluded from meetings makes an interesting commentary: For one ++Ndungane has not been very keen associating ++Akinola and whatever he represents. At the maiden African Bishops conference he was conspiciously absent. In fact at the period of that historic meet in Lagos Nigeria (Oct 2004) he was busy delivering lectures in US. Then Jo Seoka was the toast of the Nigeria local media. A very handsome press-friendly Bishop his photo appeared on almost every edition of the Conference daily (African Anglican Daily). In fact he preached the closing sermon on the last… Read more »

marc
Guest
marc

RE Dave: I’ve wondered about this for a long time. Given that the AC is not a denomination and has little polity to speak of, maybe someone can explain to me how a resolution (e.g. 1.10 from Lambeth ’98) that expresses the thinking only of *some* bishops of the AC and is not binding on any province of the AC has now become “official teaching” of the AC, to which all must subscribe or be banished into the outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Prior Aelred
Guest

“this is a melodrama unfolding in the global Anglican Communion.”

Indeed, Mr. Uche, Indeed!

Dave, IIRC, the Lambeth resolution was “cannot advise” — which grammatically simply is not a prohibition (just as the counsel to listen to the experiences of homosexuals and minster to their needs was advisory) — whereas boundary violations (which began prior to Gene Robinson’s election & have continued unabated) are against the canon law of every province. Apparently “What is law for thee is not law for me.”

Martin Reynolds
Guest

The more blessed Tom speaks about Windsor, the deeper he digs the pit. Shame.

Tunde
Guest
Tunde

What is happening! ++Rowans had private meeting with GS delegates, no press allowed, but it is published on his website. Everyone hails. He gets a response, which is also made public. Some say Oh no! You cannot do that! Did you first travel round the world to collect signatures? Others say it is coming out too late and therefore timed to hurt. It is interesting to note that somehow, the contents have become a forgotten issue.

Göran Koch-Swahne
Guest

The “contents” are a dead issue, Tunde.

Martin Reynolds
Guest

Tunde, your Primate made much of the meeting in Egypt not being a business meeting, yet we noticed that a leadership team was elected and he became “President” – at what time did the agenda for this meeting change to become a “business meeting” – or is he just a bare-faced liar? As to your problems over the letter sent from the GS to Rowan, it seems you should address your confused questions to some of the GS “leadership team” elected at the same “non-business meeting” – it is these Primates who are calling the authorization of the letters publication… Read more »

Christopher Shell
Guest
Christopher Shell

Goran writes ‘The contents are a dead issue’.
Confirms my suspicion that once personal issues start overshadowing factual issues, they overwhelm them in people’s minds and affect people’s views and decisions.
Which is completely unjustified. It is, surely, adolescent to see everything on a personal level in terms of goodies and baddies. Don’t we prefer those politicians, for example, who stick to facts and issues rather than descend to the level of personalities.
The issues raised by the letter are still there to be chewed over, and they will remain there whether we chew them over or not.

Göran Koch-Swahne
Guest

Now, who’s mixing “opinion” and facts here ;=)

Should I have inserted a “now” into my post, to make the meaning clearer?

Dave
Guest
Dave

Dear marc and Prior Aelred,

Active homosexual practice is contrary to the two authoritative Church of England statements on the issue of homosexuality, namely the 1987 General Synod resolution of 11 November 1987, and the House of Bishops Statement of 1991 ‘Issues in Human Sexuality’. It is also contrary to Resolution 1.10 of the Lambeth Conference 1998, which is the official teaching of the Anglican Communion on the subject, and which has been recently reaffirmed by the Primates at their meeting in Ireland in February 2005 and by the Anglican Consultative Council at its meeting in Nottingham in June 2005.