The Nation has a report by Juliet Chimwaga Mwenda kicked out, heads back home.
0 CommentsAnglican Bishop James Mwenda at the centre of a controversy over the headship of the Diocese of Lake Malawi is going back home in Zambia, the church’s Archbishop Bernard Malango confirmed Sunday.
But Malango could not give further details on the development, saying he would issue a press statement Monday…
Archbishop’s address to General Synod on the Anglican Communion ACNS copy here and Audio here
I am glad to have the opportunity of offering in these few minutes a very brief update on the current situation in the Anglican Communion, particularly in the light of the recent session of the Episcopal Church’s General Convention – which was, of course, attended by my brother Archbishop, who made an outstanding contribution to its discussions. The first thing to say is that the complex processes of Convention produced – perhaps predictably – a less than completely clear result. The final resolution relating to the consecration of practising gay persons as bishops owed a great deal to some last-minute work by the Presiding Bishop, who invoked his personal authority in a way that was obviously costly for him in order to make sure that there was some degree of recognisable response to the recommendations of the Windsor Report in this regard. I think that he – and his successor-elect – deserve credit and gratitude for taking the risk of focusing the debate and its implications so sharply.
However, as has become plain, the resolutions of Convention overall leave a number of unanswered questions, and there needs to be some careful disentangling of what they say and what they don’t say. This work is to be carried forward by a small group already appointed before Convention by the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and the ACC. And I have also written directly to every Primate to ask for a preliminary reaction from their province. The next Primates’ Meeting in February next year will digest what emerges from all this.
You will be aware of a number of developments in the public arena in the last couple of weeks, notably the request from several US dioceses for some sort of direct primatial oversight from outside the US, preferably from Canterbury. This raises very large questions indeed; various consultations are going forward to clarify what is being asked and to reflect on possible implications. There has also been an announcement from Nigeria of the election by the Nigerian House of Bishops of an American cleric as a bishop to serve the Convocation of Nigerian Anglican congregations in the US. I have publicly stated my concern about this and some other cross-provincial activities.
A working party is also being established in consultation with the Anglican Communion Office and others to look more fully at the question of what sort of ‘Covenant’ could be constructed to fulfil another significant recommendation of the Windsor Report.
Mention of this leads me to say a word about my own published reflections in the wake of General Convention. In spite of some interesting reporting and some slightly intemperate reaction, this contained no directives (I do not have authority to dictate policy to the provinces of the Communion) and no foreclosing of the character and content of such a covenant. Were any such arrangement to be proposed, it would of course have to be owned by the constitutional bodies governing Provinces. The proposal has already been dismissed in some quarters as a capitulation to fundamentalism and in others as a cunning plan to entrench total doctrinal indifferentism.
Both characterisations are nonsense. Perhaps you will allow me a word or two of clarification and further thought on all this. When I said, as I did in my reflections, that the Communion cannot remain as it is, I was drawing attention to some unavoidable choices. Many have said, with increasing force of late, that we must contemplate or even encourage the breakup of the Communion into national churches whose autonomy is unqualified and which relate only in some sort of loose and informal federation. This has obvious attractions for some. The problem is that it is unlikely to bear any relation to reality. Many provinces are internally fragile; we cannot assume that what will naturally happen is a neat pattern of local consensus. There are already international alliances, formal and informal, between Provinces and between groups within different Provinces. There are lines of possible fracture that have nothing to do with provincial boundaries. The disappearance of an international structure – as, again, I have observed in recent months – leaves us with the possibility of much less than a federation, indeed, of competing and fragmenting ecclesial bodies in many contexts across the world.
A straw in the wind: in Sudan, there is a breakaway and very aggressive Anglican body that has had support, in the past, from government in Khartoum. Among the varied grounds advanced for its separation is the ludicrous assertion that the Episcopal Church of Sudan is unorthodox in its teaching on sexual ethics. Some mischievous forces are quite capable of using the debates over sexuality as an alibi for divisive action whose roots are in other conflicts. And churches in disadvantaged or conflict-ridden settings cannot afford such distractions – I speak with feeling in the light of what I and others here in Synod know of Sudan. It helps, to put it no more strongly, that there is a global organisation which can declare such a separatist body illegitimate and insist to a local government that certain groups are not recognised internationally.
So I don’t think we can be complacent about what the complete breakup of the Communion might mean – not the blooming of a thousand flowers, but a situation in which vulnerable churches suffer further. And vulnerable churches are not restricted to Africa… But if this prospect is not one we want to choose, what then? Historic links to Canterbury have no canonical force, and we do not have (and I hope we don’t develop) an international executive. We depend upon consent. My argument was and is that such consent may now need a more tangible form than it has hitherto had; hence the Covenant idea in Windsor.
But if there is such a structure, and if we do depend on consent, the logical implication is that particular churches are free to say yes or no; and a no has consequences, not as ‘punishment’ but simply as a statement of what can and cannot be taken for granted in a relationship between two particular churches. When I spoke as I did of ‘churches in association’, I was trying to envisage what such a relation might be if it was less than full eucharistic communion and more than mutual repudiation. It was not an attempt to muddy the waters but to offer a vocabulary for thinking about how levels of seriously impaired or interrupted communion could be understood.
In other words, I can envisage – though I don’t in the least want to see – a situation in which there may be more divisions than at present within the churches that claim an Anglican heritage. But I want there to be some rationale for this other than pure localism or arbitrary and ad hoc definitions of who and what is acceptable. The real agenda – and it bears on other matters we have to discuss at this Synod – is what our doctrine of the Church really is in relation to the whole deposit of our faith. Christian history gives us examples of theologies of the Church based upon local congregational integrity, with little or no superstructure – Baptist and Congregationalist theologies; and of theologies of the national Church, working in symbiosis with culture and government – as in some Lutheran settings. We have often come near the second in theory and the first in practice. But that is not where we have seen our true centre and character. We have claimed to be Catholic, to have a ministry that is capable of being universally recognised (even where in practice it does not have that recognition) because of its theological and institutional continuity; to hold a faith that is not locally determined but shared through time and space with the fellowship of the baptised; to celebrate sacraments that express the reality of a community which is more than the people present at any one moment with any one set of concerns. So at the very least we must recognise that Anglicanism as we have experienced it has never been just a loose grouping of people who care to describe themselves as Anglicans but enjoy unconfined local liberties. Argue for this if you will, but recognise that it represents something other than the tradition we have received and been nourished by in God’s providence. And only if we can articulate some coherent core for this tradition in present practice can we continue to engage plausibly in any kind of ecumenical endeavour, local or international.
I make no secret of the fact that my commitment and conviction are given to the ideal of the Church Catholic. I know that its embodiment in Anglicanism has always been debated, yet I believe that the vision of Catholic sacramental unity without centralisation or coercion is one that we have witnessed to at our best and still need to work at. That is why a concern for unity – for unity (I must repeat this yet again) as a means to living in the truth – is not about placing the survival of an institution above the demands of conscience. God forbid. It is a question of how we work out, faithfully, attentively, obediently what we need to do and say in order to remain within sight and sound of each other in the fellowship to which Christ has called us. It has never been easy and it isn’t now. But it is the call that matters, and that sustains us together in the task.
ENDS
© Rowan Williams 2006
Today’s Church Times has several reports (and others not on the web until next week):
Nigerians set to write off Lambeth by Pat Ashworth
Requests for alternative Primatial oversight leave ECUSA guessing by Douglas LeBlanc
Leader: Is the Communion too much bother?
Columnist: A new way to silence prophecy? by Giles Fraser
22 CommentsThe Church of England Newspaper has four articles this week relating to the major news stories of the Anglican Communion:
Mixed response to call for two-tier Communion by George Conger
Six dioceses appeal
Caution as US priest is made Nigerian bishop. This includes the following claim:
Four bishops affiliated with the Network voted for Bishop Schori with the express purpose of “bringing down the house of cards”. The four swung the close election to Bishop Schori, prompting a charge the three retired and one sitting diocesan bishops had behaved badly, and had acted with “unmitigated evil”.
Rival Lambeth warning by George Conger
Three recent reports from the Malawi press:
Daily Times Hooligans attack Anglican Church by Deborah Nyangulu
Nation Anglicans fight in church by Francis Tayanjah-Phiri
Nation 10 arrested in Anglican fracas by Willie Zingani
10 CommentsHarold Meyerson has written Co-dependence day. The right wing of American Episcopalianism wants the Archbishop of Canterbury to save it from its crazy modernist brethren.
Stephen Bates has written Things fall apart. Rowan Williams’s plea to the Anglican communion to hold together appears to have fallen on deaf ears.
12 CommentsFirst, we apologise for the difficulties some of you have had accessing TA recently. The same difficulties have delayed publication of more news items. We hope they will be resolved soon.
Now, here are two report from ABC Radio in Australia. First:
The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of Sydney on the state of Anglican Communion
Concerning what Peter Jensen says here about Archbishop Akinola, for a full set of links to what Peter Akinola really said (or not) go here.
And second:
UK Guardian journalist Andrew Brown on the state of Anglican Communion
As a footnote to that, here’s a comment from Andrew’s blog this morning.
(News reports are appearing today, Tuesday, about Monday’s Nigerian story.)
Two more reports have now been posted on the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) website:
First, a Communique from the Episcopal Synod of 27-28 June.
Second, a report from the First National Anglican Conference on WELFARE OF THE NATION: THE ROLE OF THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION IN NATION BUILDING.
Some quotes from the first document:
1. CONGRATULATIONS
Synod notes with satisfaction the efforts of the Primate of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), His Grace, The Most Rev. Peter J. Akinola, in giving the Church of Nigeria, CAPA and Global South a purposeful and effective leadership. It further expresses its approval of his actions and pronouncements against errors of revisionist ideologies. With much delight and enthusiasm, Synod received his citing by TIMES Magazine as one of the 100 persons that shaped the World in 2005, and encouraged him not to relent in his efforts in exercising his ministry.
2. THE ANGLICAN COVENANT
Synod is satisfied with the move by the Global South to continue with its veritable project of defending the faith committed to us against present onslaught from ECUSA, Canada, England and their allies. The need therefore, to redefine and/or re-determine those who are truly Anglicans becomes urgent, imperative and compelling. Synod therefore empowers the leadership of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) to give assent to the Anglican Covenant.
3. THE LAMBETH CONFERENCE
The Lambeth Conference which is one of the accepted organs of unity in the Anglican Communion is due for another meeting in 2008. the Synod, after reviewing some recent major events in the Communion, especially the effects of the ‘revisionists’ theology’, which is now making wave in America, Canada and England, observed with dismay the inability of the Church in the aforementioned areas to see reason for repentance from the harm and stress they have caused this communion since 1988 culminating in the consecration of Gene Robinson, a practicing homosexual in 2003 as a bishop in ECUSA. Synod also regrets the inability of the See of Canterbury to prevent further impairment of the unity of the Church. It therefore, believes strongly that the moral justification for the proposed Lambeth Conference of 2008 is questionable in view of the fact that by promoting teachings and practices that are alien and inimical to the historic formularies of the Church, the Bishops of ECUSA, Canada and parts of Britain have abandoned the Biblical faith of our fathers.
4. GLOBAL SOUTH CONFERENCE
Synod underlines the need for maintaining the age-long tradition of a ten-yearly Conference of Bishops in the Anglican Communion for discussing issues affecting the Church. It therefore calls on the leadership of the Global South and Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa (CAPA) to do everything necessary to put in place a Conference of all Anglican Bishops to hold in 2008 should all efforts to get the apostles of ‘revisionist agenda’ to repent and retrace their steps fail.
The second document includes the following points, among numerous others:
At the end of the conference it was resolved that:
11. [That the church should] Learn to speak out when human rights are subverted and violated in the nation and against societal ills that hamper true nation-building, as well as participate in partisan politics.
And also this:
26 Comments7. On marriage, the conference agreed that marriage between man and woman is the official position of the Anglican Communion, and confirmed by its laws, and condemned in its entirety homosexuality and same sex marriage.
Today’s Guardian carries yet another piece about the Anglican Communion. This time it is editorial opinion, and is entitled Divine divisions.
The concluding part:
26 Comments…Lambeth’s gamble is that, faced with the enormity of allowing the next 10 years to be dominated not by ministry but by schism, with all that implies by way of painful, wasteful rows and expensive lawyers, the US conservatives will have to face up to the fact that they cannot sustain themselves apart. With the prospect of meaningful negotiation, the liberals will back off too. At that point the two sides may finally begin to engage with one another, and try seriously to find a common way through their difficulties. If the US church calms down (the Canadians are cited as the model of temperate conduct), there is a chance at least for a world-wide lowering of the temperature. But it could all too easily go the other way. Here, the Church of England is already dangerously divided and open to ideas of parallel jurisdictions. Its traditionalists certainly appear ready to seize the opportunity, in tandem with the African churches and other conservatives, of capturing the heart of Anglicanism. It’s not surprising, then that liberals are already talking of making common cause with the North American churches and warning that division could sever the church from the very top down to the humblest parish.
The best hope for avoiding the schism of which Dr Williams warned lies in redefining the argument. Lambeth would like the rival factions to understand that the row between two fundamentally opposing points of view is superficial. What happens next is not about gay bishops, nor same-sex weddings, nor polygamy. Rather it is about the church’s architecture and the degree of autonomy enjoyed by its constituent parts. Faced with the terrifying idea of first establishing and then policing the doctrinal purity for the core churches implicit in the twin-track approach, the rival factions are being challenged to stop it happening. In the end, though, Dr Williams will have to choose between unity – and bigotry.
Updated again Tuesday
Monday
Richard Ostling of the Associated Press has written this report on the first item below: African Branch Criticizes Anglican Plan.
Tuesday
Both the Telegraph and the BBC have now caught up with Monday’s story. So has Reuters.
Tuesday’s Nigerian story is here.
First the Nigerian House of Bishops has issued this response to Rowan Williams: Re: THE CHALLENGE AND HOPE OF BEING ANGLICAN TODAY. It deserves to be read in full.
Second this newspaper headline has appeared in The Tide : Anglican communion to restore Nigeria’s glory. This of course refers not to the “Anglican Communion” but rather to the “Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion)” which is the name by which the Anglican Church of Nigeria is known locally. For background on the conference being held, see here and also the full text of the press briefing. For other news reports, see here, and also here.
24 CommentsThe BBC’s radio programme Sunday considered theArchbishop of Canterbury’s recent Reflection. Chris Sugden and Giles Goddard are interviewed by Jane Little. Starts here ( about 7.5 minutes). Better permalink here.
0 CommentsSimon Jenkins in the Guardian expresses an opinion: Dr Williams should abolish bishops and end this missionary creep. He has a point.
The Times has some more letters to the editor.
The Church Times reports: Dr Williams spells out future for Anglicans – ‘Choose between sacrifice and separation’.
Doug LeBlanc reports on events after the General Convention in Left and right show their frustration.
And Giles Fraser mentions the Bishop of Rochester in Why I thank God for political correctness.
Most important, there is editorial opinion: Without generosity there is no future.
Update
On the BBC Today radio programme this morning, Jim Naughtie interviewed Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori. Listen here (Real Audio – about 7 minutes).
For immediate release
June 27, 2006
Anglican Archbishops here look forward to the proposed international Anglican covenant
The Anglican Archbishops in this country welcome the prospect of contributing to the shaping of a worldwide Anglican Communion covenant on doctrine, as outlined today by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams.
And they say that describing such a covenant as an “ultimatum” to the liberal wing of the church is a misrepresentation of his address.
Furthermore, suggestions that New Zealand’s Anglican church might find itself on the outer with the Archbishop of Canterbury is hard to imagine, says Archbishop David Moxon, one of the co-presiding bishops of the church here.
“I believe we will always be in communion with him,†says Archbishop Moxon. “And also, with this particular Archbishop of Canterbury, there’s a widespread trust in his scholarship, integrity and spirituality. Being in communion with him is a pleasure.”
The Times in England has reported a significant address by Dr Williams, which he made in response to the recent convention of the Episcopal Church of the United States (ECUSA). The American church had sparked concern among the worldwide Anglican Communion when it unilaterally ordained a man in a gay partnership as a bishop.
The ECUSA convention made significant concessions to the worldwide communion, including an acknowledgment that it had “strained” the communion by its actions. Even so, the American church’s moves did not satisfy Biblical conservatives, especially in some parts of Africa.
Dr Williams, in a major address, was responding to the ECUSA actions, and he suggested that a two stage “opt-in” covenant, to be developed over time by the Anglican Communion – whereby those who didn’t wish to fully subscribe to a covenant defining Biblical standards could become “associate” members of the communion, rather than full members, if they wished.
Meanwhile, Archbishop Moxon has said that the English press has gone off on the wrong foot.
“They’re assuming,” he says, “what the covenant will say” and that has yet to be shaped. Their assumptions are premature.
“There are many liberals and conservatives who trust Dr William’s scholarship and reason. He will be a key player in the wording.
“And if you look at the people, including two New Zealanders, who wrote the Windsor Report, and who suggested the covenant, there are some very deep, reflective scholars “liberal and conservative” on that group.
“They weren’t suggesting a straitjacket. They were suggesting clear claims about the Bible in coherent, contemporary terms, which we would all gather around, if we can.
“Anglicanism has only ever survived because of the genius of the wording we’ve been able to gather around, with integrity and hospitality.
“Because the classic Anglican texts, including liturgical texts, are “roomy”. We can say them, we can pray them, we can believe them – but there is also room for a reasonable variety of Christian points of view.
“Anglican Christianity has tried to say that we want a large room, of unity in diversity, which is clearly and simply described, and a covenant can do that.”
Ends
Lloyd Ashton
Media Officer to the Anglican Church
in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia
Phone: (09) 521-0192
Fax: (09) 528-2219
Mob: (021) 348-470
Email: mediaofficer@ang.org.nz
First, from Abuja, Nigeria this Reuters story:
Top Nigerian has doubts about Anglican split plan. And this press release which says CANA “To provide safe harbour†and “in tradition of missionary bishops†Akinola
Second, from Sydney, Australia these reports by Linda Morris in the Sydney Morning Herald:
US church leader could not preach here: Jensen
Losing their religion
and editorial comment A battle for hearts and souls
Inclusive Church is grateful to the Archbishop of Canterbury for his reaffirmation of the breadth and diversity of the Anglican tradition.
His recognition of this fundamental principle and mark of Anglicanism – the catholic, reformed and liberal strands of the Communion – offer a sound basis for our journey forward together.
But we have profound concerns about the process of agreeing any Covenant. The quick response of some of the more conservative parts of the Communion indicates that they see a Covenant more as an instrument of division than an instrument of unity.
The terms and wording of any document will need to “renew our positive appreciation of the possibilities of our heritage†in the Archbishop’s words. A Covenant must therefore give value to the strands in our tradition, not excluding reason from our theological method but finding a new way of expressing the Anglican approach to the faith in today’s world.
If we are to approach the process of agreeing a Covenant with honesty and integrity we must as Provinces and local churches be willing to be open about our own present situations. Many provinces have practices which other parts of the Communion may not support. For example, the blessing of same-gender relationships happens regularly in this Province even if not officially acknowledged. There are ongoing issues around the world over the tacit acceptance of lay presidency and polygamy.
The possibility of a two-tier Communion should not therefore be seized upon as a way to exclude those who support the full inclusion of gay and lesbian people in the church. The Church of England is in various ways very similar to the Episcopal Church (TEC) and the Anglican Church of Canada and many of us would hope to strengthen our links in the future. It is likely that any wording designed to exclude TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada would also exclude the Church of England.
We are also uncertain whether a Covenant would affect the unilateral activities the Windsor report hoped to end – for example the election by the Province of Nigeria of Revd Martin Minns as bishop for a missionary initiative in North America.
We have serious concerns about the way a Covenant might be applied locally in the future. Proposals before the Church of England’s General Synod for the ordination of women as bishops are specifically designed to avoid parallel jurisdictions. How can we reconcile that with the proposal to have “constituent†and “associate†members of the Communion? Is there not potential for division even at Deanery level?
Ultimately we believe that we are already brought together by the covenant of Baptism. An Anglican Covenant, to reaffirm the bonds of unity for our Communion, will have to reflect the essential inclusiveness of the Baptismal Covenant.
Revd Dr. Giles Fraser, President, InclusiveChurch
Revd Giles Goddard, Chair, InclusiveChurch 07762 373 674
office@inclusivechurch.net
www.inclusivechurch.net
Jim Naughton has had further thoughts since yesterday, see Hmm. Maybe this is what I was missing. Read it all, but here are some quotes:
I think Dr. Williams release yesterday of a reflection on the future of the Anglican Communion, and his outlining of a two-tiered membership system was intended to head all of this off. Obviously it didn’t…
…This isn’t what good faith looks like.
This game may be played at levels I can’t discern, but I can’t imagine that Rowan Williams welcomes this initiative. Thirty-six hours ago, he laid out a comprehensive plan to re-form the government of the communion. This evening, despite media reports that they were ‘elated’ with his proposal, American conservatives have attempted to undermine it by issuing a very public appeal for Williams to insert himself into the internal affairs of a member province without that province”s consent. That can’t be the manner in which he hoped this process would begin. But I don’t know whether it is his way to voice the displeasure he might be feeling…
…In addition to undermining Williams’ efforts to achieve ‘the highest degree of communion possible despite our differences,’ the concerted actions undertaken today also present a challenge to the Episcopal Church. The primary question being: should we respond in kind? There are ample grounds for presentments against any number of prominent conservatives, but it strikes me that Bishop Duncan in particular is eager to be presented, and that pursuing a presentment simply hands him a bigger megaphone.
On the other hand, there are parishes in the dioceses seeking alternate oversight that want to remain loyal to the Episcopal Church. (I am most familiar with the numbers in Pittsburgh where about 12 or 13 parishes, including some large ones, have opted out of Duncan’s conservative Network.) How much longer do we allow these folks to languish? How do we assure their continuing membership in the Episcopal Church under Episcopal Church leadership as their dioceses pursue separation?…
Fr Jake has a rather different view, see ABC Gives Green Light, and They’re Off! The blog comments are also interesting. Again some quotes:
It appears that Archbishop Akinola, not satified with the Kingdom of Nigeria, has moved into the greener pastures of North America. His henchman on this shore will be none other than Marty Minns, formerly rector in Truro, Va., and well known extremist.
And so the plan, revealed to us some years ago, finally comes to fruition, only one day after the Archbishop of Canterbury issued a statement that was interpreted as giving the extremists a nod of approval for launching their plan…
…Well, now we have Marty Minns elected as Bishop of this attempted end run around the Windsor Report. The absurd thing is that those bishops begging for ALPO (Alternative Primatial Oversight) which are currently Fort Worth, South Carolina, Pittsburgh and San Joaquin, fancy themselves as “Windsor Bishops.” How much you want to bet the Primate they ask for is Peter Akinola? And then, of course, they will eventually attempt to move their entire diocese over to CANA, where their bud Marty will be waiting for them.
Thank you, Dr. Williams, for giving the green light for this drag race to destruction to commence. And please don’t act surprised; the plan has been quite clear, easily accessible to everyone, for many years now.
Or maybe neither of these is correct.
11 CommentsUpdated Thursday afternoon
Before we return to the American war zone, whose news came too late in Britain to get more than this NIB in The Times, there is a comment article in today’s Guardian:
Andrew Brown The archbishop, we can only deduce, is a humanist mole
And Colin Slee had a letter published in The Times under this headline: Communion not Empire: the future of Anglicanism.
Meanwhile in Australia, Archbishop Peter Jensen gave his opinion: Two-tier Anglican church absurd: Jensen in the Sydney Morning Herald and Anglican church split won’t affect Australia: Archbishop on ABC.
updated to add
Andrew Carey has this analysis in tomorrow’s Church of England Newspaper Analysis: Facing a two-speed Communion? There is also this news report there.
Updated Thursday
For earlier items see this list.
Jim Naughton has more thoughts: Am I missing something?.
Commonweal magazine’s blog has Principle of subsidiarity?
Frank Griswold has issued this:
I am greatly encouraged by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s timely call to the provinces of the Anglican Communion to join together in exploring our Anglican identity. I am one with him in his desire to develop a covenant capable of expressing that identity amidst the complexities of the world in which we live. I believe it is possible for us hold up a renewed vision of what it means to be Anglican Christians.
The Archbishop has helpfully raised up in his text the constituent elements of classical Anglicanism, namely the priority of the Bible in matters of doctrine, the Catholic sacramental tradition and a “habit of cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility that does not seek to close down unexpected questions too quickly.†This both reminds us of the tradition that has formed us and points us to the future.
The conclusion of this lengthy process is now unknown. Therefore is it misleading that some, in responding to the Archbishop’s lengthy theological reflection, have focused their attention on speculations about a yet-to-be determined outcome. And, as we enter into that process of discernment, we must never forget that God can always surprise us, and that the church is not our possession but is an instrument of God’s reconciling love in the world.
Mark Harris has had further thoughts: Second Look at the Archbishop’s Reflection
1 CommentPress release from the Church of Nigeria: For Immediate Release: ELECTION OF BISHOPS:
14 Comments…The Rev Canon Martyn Minns of Truro Parish in Virginia, USA was also elected Bishop in the Church of Nigeria for the missionary initiative of the Church of Nigeria called Convocation of Anglican Churches in North America (CANA)…
Updated
In no particular order:
Affirming Catholicism UK see below the fold (now on the web here)
Update
The Archbishop of Cape Town
Updated again
Matthew Thompson on PoliticalSpaghetti first re Archbishop Akinola, and second re Bishop Duncan.