The Story Goes Round…The Attempted Coup is at Hand, and Egypt is the Place. (revised 9/13)

Well, it goes round and round – the story that is of an impending dramatic set of actions that will shift the actual and real power away from the “first among equals” that is the Archbishop of Canterbury to a patriarch of an Anglican sort in the person of an Archbishop from the Global South. The body of Christian communities that would gather around that Patriarch would claim to be the true heirs of Anglicanism and would include certain groups of Anglicans in North America who embrace realignment.

The story goes round and round, and it came out here: The Scotland on Sunday just ran an article by Trevor Grundy titled, “Africans set to found rival Anglican church.” It quotes Archbishop Malango of Central Africa who said, “We’ve had enough.” This is the same Archbishop Malango who was interviewed by David Virtue, who reportedly backed off his statements, who Virtue later stated said exactly what he (Virtue) reported.

I went back to David Virtue’s interview with him. The punch line of the interview has obviously come up again in the Scotland on Sunday article. The Archbishop said then, “We shall meet as CAPA Primates in October (actually they meet in September) and one of the questions will be where a new Anglican Communion will be set up. (You will notice he did not say if.) We shall approach that question very carefully. The choice right now is Alexandria. We did not want it to be in Israel....too political, nor any other Middle East nation, nor Africa, for obvious reasons, nor Europe or Southeast Asia. We think Alexandria, Egypt is best as we can trace our historical roots from there.”

The Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa (CAPA) Primates will meet in September and in October the South to South Encounter, a meeting of Anglicans from the “non-West” will be held in Egypt. The advertised theme for that gathering is, “The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

In the past representatives to the South to South Encounter came from a wide range of Provinces in the “non-West” world, but not so this time. This time the Province of Brazil has been told not to come. The Chair of CAPA, the Archbishop of Nigeria, is also the chair of the South to South Encounter. He was the one to tell Brazil the sad news.

Prior to all of this an organization called the Council of Anglican Provinces of the Americas and the Caribbean (CAPAC) was formed. It consisted, interestingly enough, of two Provinces of the Anglican Communion (the Province of the West Indies and the Province of the Southern Cone) and two North American network organizations. The two network organizations, although of the “West” are considered part of the emerging realigned churches to become part of the new Patriarchy.

CAPA and CAPAC member churches seem to be the ones invited to the South to South Encounter…with one supposes representation from East Asia. One would suppose that all Provinces except the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada would be part of CAPAC, but not so. Only two Provinces are, and a founding member of the Encounter meetings, Brazil is not. Their exclusion has already taken place from CAPAC. At the CAPAC meeting the only representatives from Brazil were from Recife, claiming to be the Diocese of Recife. So the ouster of Brazil from CAPAC preceded the decision of the planning committee, or at least of its chair, the Archbishop of Nigeria to shut them out of the Encounter meeting.

All of this clearly points to the crux of the matter, reported by Mr. Grundy, namely, “A conference that could turn the Anglican community on its head takes place in Alexandria, Egypt, next month, organized by angry Africans and Latin Americans who say they are ‘sick and tired’ of endless debate about same-sex blessings and the ordination of gay Christians.”

So the story goes round and round - and what of its truth? It is hard to know. Archbishop Malango has twice now been quoted on the matter. The action of the Archbishop of Nigeria in ousting Brazil seems in line with the move to make the Encounter meeting one of like minded Provinces. The inclusion the Networks in the CAPAC agreement puts them there as partners in the enterprise. Some small part of this might be confusion on Archbishop Malango’s part, some small part may be confused reporting. But the letter from the Archbishop of Nigeria is there, and CAPAC is there, and the Encounter is taking up the matter of “the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” And there is considerable reason to assume that they will indeed be concerned with the actions of churches in England, the US and Canada.

So, with all that in hand, now consider this: It appears that the Archbishop of Canterbury is invited to this South to South Encounter.

I hope he is advised to stay away, advice that must come from close at hand. And I hope he takes that advice. This is not because he could not do some good there. I think he could well be able to make a significant contribution to substantive theological dialogue. The problem, however, is that this meeting is not about theological dialogue. It is about decapitating the Anglican Communion, and the Archbishop of Canterbury has the head in question.

It is being rigged: Provinces that were formative to the development of the South to South Encounter are being dis-invited. By way of CAPAC the North American Networks will find ways to be present or be represented. The Archbishop of Nigeria is openly talking of suspending the Church of England from the meetings of the Anglican Consultative Council. The theme of the Encounter is far from benign: “The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” and the issue at hand is who claims the right to be the Anglican expression of that Church.

The several reports now begin to paint a picture which, if even true in part, spell disaster for any participation by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

(i) If the meeting is highly critical of the Church of England as well as the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada the ABC will be identified with the outcasts and the Encounter will have to prove it by deriding the ABC. There is no reason for the Archbishop of Canterbury, a fine person, to be subjected to ridicule. In terms of the office, such ridicule would spell the end of the ABC’s role as “first among equals.”

(ii) If the meeting actually leads to a break with anything like what Mr. Grundy reports, there will be a diplomatic disaster. He quotes an unnamed leading “gay vicar” as saying, “I also hear that African Anglicans plan to place a throne in a conference room and ask Archbishop Akinola to sit in it – while Dr. Williams is supposed to stand by and watch.”

Such a possibility could of course be nonsense. The way it is stated smacks of racism. The problem, however, is that it might be true. The whole business of a throne (and of course a room to go with it) is an exercise in ecclesial diplomacy. Patriarch in several of the Catholic Churches, East and West, use such rooms to greet delegations with chairs arrayed on either side of the throne or central chair. The fact that a particular person sits in that chair signals his (and it seems always to be a “his”) primacy in the gathering. If such a thing took place at the Encounter in Egypt, the Archbishop of Canterbury would simply have to absent himself, for not to be invited to sit in the seat of honor would signal his diminished authority. He might attempt to get around that, being the invited guest of a "chair" of the conference, but in such matters context is everything, and the reading of ecclesial tea leaves would leave nothing to chance. Better he not come to the Encounter at all.

(iii) Of course the primary reason for the Archbishop should stay away is that this is no longer an Anglican Communion gathering. The planners of the Encounter, or better yet its chair, have determined that it is a gathering of particular Provinces, groups, dioceses claiming to represent their provinces, etc., who are convinced of the need to “realign” the Anglican Communion and not the Provinces of the Global South in its entirety.

The call for the Anglican Consultative Council to disassociate itself from the Encounter if Brazil is unwelcomed is now something that requires the Archbishop of Canterbury’s exact and distinct action. He would be well advised, I believe, to refuse to go to Egypt and to do so in solidarity with the Province of Brazil. Actions taken at the Encounter in Egypt need to be seen as totally divorced from the workings of the Anglican Communion, and the work of those attending needs to be seen as an effort to effect a coup.

The story goes round and round...and it seems to come out here. I can earnestly hope that I am wrong.

(addendum)

Since writing this George Conger wrote a commentary on the article by Trevor Grundy. Here is my response to his commentary.

I appreciate Fr. Conger's words of caution about the Scotland On Line article. I also appreciate Tobias' comments on the HoB/ D list on the same.

Several notes on the Conger comments::

First George Conger's remarks, then my response:

The article says a meeting scheduled for October is to be held in
Alexandria, Egypt. This is not true.

OK, so maybe not Alexandria... but why list it there. At least can we settle on Egypt? That seems true enough. For that is what the Archbishop of Nigeria wrote the Primate of Brazil when he said, "Until we hear from you and your church your clear decision to correct these actions and statements, the organizing committee has agreed unanimously to withdraw the invitation for your province to be represented in Egypt." RICHARD N. OSTLING, AP RELIGION WRITER wrote of " a special international conference for conservative Anglicans in Cairo, Egypt, beginning Oct. 25" So he has it in Cairo, not Alexandria, but he does note "conservative Anglicans.". I assume October is the right month and Egypt is not a metaphor?

The article says the meeting is being "organised by angry Africans and
Latin Americans". This is not true.

But this meeting is being organized by a committee that has decided that a regular "Global South" Province is having their invitation withdrawn. This makes it at least different from the previous two South to South meetings. "Anger" may have been the wrong word, but upset might have been too limited. The limitations come from the upset by the committee.
By the way, it appears from Louie Crew's inquiry as to the funding of the South to South Encounter that none of the funds come from the ACC as the agent of the Anglican Communion "instruments of unity." They come from funds gleaned from the South. This does not mean that they do not come from friends elsewhere (dioceses, discretionary funds, friendly organizations, etc in the :"West," but that they don't come from the central program funds of the Communion. None come, it seems, from the Episcopal Church either. All of which means this is not a meeting constrained by any of the normal inclusionary norms of the Communion, namely that inclusion in the Anglican Communion is the primary context for inclusion in sub-groups, like the "non-West."

The article says the participants seek to supplant Rowan Williams with
Peter Akinola of Nigeria. This is fanciful nonsense--and no proof is
offered for this absurd allegation.

That seems correct...no direct proof except by extension of the remarks of several reporters.
.

This group does not seek to "exclude homosexuals from full church life"
as the article states--they all affirm the 1998 Lambeth Statement on
Human Sexuality: Resolution 1:10. To say they seek to exclude (homosexuals) from full church life is partisan raving-it assumes that salvation in Christ comes only with a plastic collar and purple shirt.

Both Archbishops have been quoted as saying things about gay and lesbian persons that are terribly hateful. Those were not quoted in this article.

George is exactly right about the writers' confusion of members of CAPA and the beginnings of CAPAC
The quotes from Archbishops Malango, Gomez and Akinola come from earlier printed reports-some of which the imputed speakers claim were taken out of context.

Some but not all.

The leading gay vicar is an original quote--but not one I
would put too much trust in. It's a good pub story-but is it anything
more?

Who knows?

The Nicholas Henderson story is unrelated-but as it involves
Anglicans, Africa and THE ISSUE has been tacked on for good measure.

I agree

My opinion: There is a great deal of heavy breathing, shoddy sourcing,
loony conspiracy theories and profound ignorance of the people, issues
and ways things are done in the Anglican Communion.

Certainly the story was short of the mark... but "ways things are done in the Anglican Communion" has come to include a lot of actions unbecoming Anglicans - and from all sorts and conditions of Anglicans.

Does this article advance the ball? No. Is the situation dire? Yes. Will
things fall apart after the October meeting? No.

I hope George is right. But I wait.