9/22/2006

Some Unkind Thoughts on the Communiqué from the Global South Primates. (revised)

The Global South Primates have issued a Communiqué.

The Carrion Eaters are circling what they believe is a wounded dying church. I am sure they do not see themselves as this. I believe they see themselves as stepping in to save true Christians from a damned environment. This is what they had to say about those needing saving:


“We grieve that, because of the doctrinal conflict in parts of our Communion, there is now a growing number of congregations and dioceses in the USA and Canada who believe that their Anglican identity is at risk and are appealing to us so that they might remain faithful members of the Communion. As leaders of that Communion we will work together to recognize the Anglican identity of all who receive, hold and maintain the Scriptures as the Word of God written and who seek to live in godly fellowship within our historic ordering.”

That is a gross misread of the life of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. Still, they believe they are here to help. Only time will tell. Meanwhile, of course, the constant intervention in the US and Canada has caused such strains in the so-called bonds of affection that it is clear there are none.

This is the what the Communiqué said as the birds circle the body:

“We are convinced that the time has now come to take initial steps towards the formation of what will be recognized as a separate ecclesiastical structure of the Anglican Communion in the USA. We have asked the Global South Steering Committee to develop such a proposal in consultation with the appropriate instruments of unity of the Communion. We understand the serious implications of this determination. We believe that we would be failing in our apostolic witness if we do not make this provision for those who hold firmly to a commitment to historic Anglican faith.”

That’s it: the “formation of what will be recognized as a separate ecclesiastical structure of the Anglican Communion in the USA." So now those fighting over the bones include: The Network, Common Cause Partners, the Church of Nigeria through CANA, the hodgepodge of dioceses that are exercising oversight from outside the Episcopal Church, AMiA, and now The Global South. How long will it take for them to turn from picking at us to picking at one another? It will happen before Lambeth.

Then the Communiqué, totally lacking in Christian charity, says this about the Presiding Bishop elect of the Episcopal Church:

“We are further dismayed to note that their newly elected Presiding Bishop also holds to a position on human sexuality – not to mention other controversial views – in direct contradiction of Lambeth 1.10 and the historic teaching of the Church.”

And then says:

“At the next meeting of the Primates in February 2007 some of us will not be able to recognize Katharine Jefferts Schori as a Primate at the table with us. Others will be in impaired communion with her as a representative of The Episcopal Church. Since she cannot represent those dioceses and congregations who are abiding by the teaching of the Communion we propose that another bishop, chosen by these dioceses, be present at the meeting so that we might listen to their voices during our deliberations.”

Let us remember that the Primates Meeting is touted as one of the “instruments of communion.” It is called by the Archbishop of Canterbury and its members are the chief bishops of the Provinces of the Communion. If our Presiding Bishop is not recognized as Primate, this meeting is no “instrument of communion.” If a bishop from “those dioceses and congregations who are abiding by the teaching of the Communion” comes, it’s not a Primate’s Meeting. And, by the way, notice the singular “the teaching”? That’s Lambeth 1998, 1.10.

No one but the Archbishop of Canterbury can do something, and he has got to do it soon: He has to tell this crowd to step back. If not, the Primates Meeting will be a disaster, and not an instrument of communion, the Anglican Covenant development will be taken over by the Global South Steering Committee chaired by Archbishop Gomez and will not be a covenant but a directive, and the Anglican Consultative Council, swamped by double purple shirts, will not represent any of us.

I hope and trust the level of insult to the Episcopal Church, its leadership and people will be felt by the House of Bishops. If there is a broad middle group of those bishops, a fair number of whom voted for the new Presiding Bishop and all of whom are bound to uphold the Constitution and Canons of this church, they are being given their wake up call.

Let’s cut to the chase: if these birds circle and feed on what they think is a dead body, let’s rise up and show them what a phoenix can do.

********

Twenty Provinces were represented: eighteen by Primates. Depending on how you count Jerusalem and the Middle East, there were eleven or twelve from Africa. The Living Church has reported that in addition to the Primates present, and the two representatives of Provinces not represented by the Primate, "the Rt. Rev. Martyn Minns, rector of Truro Parish, Fairfax, Va., and Bishop of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America under the Church of Nigeria" was present.

I posted this addition on 9.22.
(The whole thing gets stranger and stranger: Martyn Minns is no Global South Bishop, and he for sure is no Primate. Where is Alice when we need her?)
On 9.23 I got this note from KarenB. "Just FYI, Martyn Minns was present because he is an elected member of the Global South Secretariat. (I'm not trying to claim it's advisable to have an ECUSA priest on the Secretariat, but the Global South clearly value his ability to present the conservative perspective on life in ECUSA. This is his second term on the Secretariat.)" Thanks to KarenB for this correction.



Here were the Provinces attending:

Bangladesh**,

Burundi,
Central Africa,
Church of South India,
Congo,
Indian Ocean,
Jerusalem and Middle East,
Kenya,
Myanmar,
Nigeria,
Philippines**
Rwanda,
Southern Africa,
South East Asia,
Southern Cone,


Sudan,
Tanzania,
Uganda,
West Africa,
West Indies
(** Not present but represented)


Once again we may not that no representatives from La Iglesia Anglicana de Mexico, Igreja Episcopal Anglicana do Brasil, Iglesia Anglicana de la Region Central de America, all of whom are tainted by historical ties to the Episcopal Church and may not have been invited. (We know Brazil was not invited to the Third South to South Encounter.)

There are other “Global South” Provinces not represented here. Why not?

42 comments:

  1. My cynical side wonders if perhaps those not in attendance were not present because they would be unlikely to accede to Bp. Akinola's eventually acting as an alternative to the ABC...

    Lord, have mercy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Surely Southern Africa didn't vote in favor of this obscenity called a "Communique"?! :-0

    ReplyDelete
  3. Padre Mickey22/9/06 3:41 PM

    La Iglesia Anglicana de Mexico, Igreja Episcopal Anglicana do Brasil, Iglesia Anglicana de la Region Central de America probably weren't invited as they all signed the Panama Declaration last October and declared themselves Global Central and not aligned with either the Global South or the Global North.

    Padre Mickey de Panamá

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mark, that rumbling sound you hear is ~60 million Anglicans moving on without you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Like this?

    http://www.wisdomoftheelders.org/prog5/images/buffalo_jump.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  6. Actually, I was thinking more like this

    ReplyDelete
  7. Calling godly bishops, your brothers in Christ, carrion? What kind of Christianity is that? I don't think it's the Global South that has the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  8. But then, what is the definition of "represented"? ;=)

    Two of them are even stated not to have been there...

    Remember Alexandria!

    ReplyDelete
  9. And no, Newbieanglican,

    doint something "because you can" is very bad policy...

    ... in the long run.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dear anonymous - you post all over the blogosphere (I think it is always you because you only have one message) but are afraid to post your name? Put on the whole armor - and sign your messages.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "That is a gross misread of the life of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. Still, they believe they are here to help."

    As one physically (but no longer canonically) within a Diocese completely hostile to those who disagree with choices TEC has made, I can tell you that they have not overstated the needs of a significant number of us in the United States. I'm pleased that your own experience in the TEC has not been so difficult. We must always be open to the fact that others may be in true need of assistance. That assistance has been categorically and repeatedly denied us by our own Bishop. We do cry for help and I, for one, am pleased that our bleatings are being heard by someone. There is no more cold and helpless feeling to be told "get over it" when you believe to your core that there are issues that we cannot "get over". I hope you will think longer before minimizing the effects the last 3 years have had on the common communicant who loves the Church and his denomination but has been alienated from the latter.

    In Christ's unchanging love, Andy

    ReplyDelete
  12. Andy W.: "in true need of assistance"

    ???

    Oh please: euphemism.

    Don't you really mean "Hands soiled consecrating +Gene Robinson will NEVER confirm me&mine!"?

    There is no more cold and helpless feeling to be told "get over it" when you believe to your core that there are issues that we cannot "get over".

    Why do these "issues" get in the way of your worshipping Sunday by Sunday? Receiving the Body&Blood of Our Lord? These "issues" simply shouldn't matter...

    ...UNLESS you've got some kind of Donatist thing going ("Can't receive, cuz can't be Real Jesus, cuz can't be real priest/bishop---cuz pro-gay makes 'em apostate!"). IF you have that heresy in your heart, Andy, I strongly suggest you send it back to the-evil-one-below it came from...

    ReplyDelete
  13. obadiahslope22/9/06 7:52 PM

    After the predictable outrage settles perhaps you might look at the reasonable nature of the Kigali proposals. For instance there is no proposal to kick TEC out. (In time it may not decide to sign onto a covenant depending on what that is, and which it will have input into forming.)
    A two church solution in north America is the least disruptive solution for the communion as a whole.
    There is no great desire in other provinces for a split anywhere else from what I can see. certainly not in Australia - one of the western provinces that some north american provinces have identified as the site of s split if TEC was to leave the communion. Southern Africa wants to stay linked with its fellow African anglicans.

    ReplyDelete
  14. J.C. Fisher:

    Southern Africa apparently did not sign on to the communique. There are other interesting details in the article George Conger wrote for The Living Church:

    --quote--

    A common response to Presiding Bishop-elect Katharine Jefferts Schori eluded the Global South. Some would “not be able to recognize Katharine Jefferts Schori as a Primate at the table with us,” while “others will be in impaired communion with her as a representative of The Episcopal Church.”

    A further group, unidentified in the communiqué, but believed to center around Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane of Southern Africa, recognized Bishop Schori and remained in communion with The Episcopal Church.

    --snip--

    Representatives of the Moderator of the Church of Bangladesh and the Presiding Bishop of the Philippines were also present, as was the Rt. Rev. Martyn Minns, rector of Truro Parish, Fairfax, Va., and Bishop of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America under the Church of Nigeria.

    While presenting a united front in Kigali, the leadership of the Global South is not as one over the issue of homosexuality. Present for the first part of the meeting, the Primate of the Anglican Church in Southern Africa, Archbishop Ndungane left on Sept. 21 to address a controversy arising from the publication of Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s official biography.

    In a statement released Friday, Archbishop Ndungane responded to revelations that the Nobel Peace Prize winner was “ashamed” to be an Anglican following the 1998 Lambeth Conference’s statement that homosexual practice was incompatible with scripture.

    The Anglican Church in Southern Africa had moved on from that point, Archbishop Ndungane said in a statement released Friday, noting "As Anglicans we continue to value the rich diversity of our people and to strive towards unity.”

    ReplyDelete
  15. Not so fast, obadiahslope. It seems to me that the Archbishop of Canterbury was right to say that the split will take place at the level of every province, diocese, and parish church.

    ReplyDelete
  16. obadiahslope, I should add: the split will take place, because one group within the Communion demands it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. It seems to me that the covenant has already taken shape according to Kigali. Input after the fact is simply window dressing and likely to not affect what appears to be a confessional covenant. It also seems that this usurps a worldwide shaping of a covenant. In essence, it forces rejection from the get go.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Mark, just for clarification, Martyn Minns was present because he is an elected member of the Global South secretariat.

    http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/weblog/comments/global_south_update_19_november_2005/

    ReplyDelete
  19. *christopher, that's been the tactic of this group all along.

    Remember the consolidated Appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the dioceses seeking alternative primatial oversight? When the list of "objections" to Bishop Katharine was leaked on a website, everyone thought it was a joke. Half the bishops at the New York meeting hadn't even seen it; nor had the secretary of the ACC, who thought he was there to discuss APO. How could serious discussions proceed under those conditions? But +Duncan et. al were there to torpedo discussion, not to participate in it.

    Now the group around Archbishop Akinola -- interesting that Martyn Minns was present, though not named in the communique -- have written the Anglican Covenant, and all the churches will have to sign it or else. Never mind the process of development, which the Archbishop of Canterbury thought would take eight years or so. Never mind that they aren't the committee charged with developing a covenant. It's a document intended to split the church, not preserve it in unity.

    Are these actions in the spirit of conciliarism?

    ReplyDelete
  20. The time has come for TEC to consider declaring a morotorium on its membership in the Anglican Communion, which has now been reduced to a mere hoax on the part of ++Rowan Cantuar and his handlers, H.H. Peter Abuja, Gomez. et al., no longer respecting the constituion and canons of TEC's General Convention, an autonomous province of the Communion. Why bother and submit to abuse from anti-American hate-mongers? Let's re-direct TEC's funding of aid projects through other global charities and initiatives, such as Bill Clinton and Bill Gates's. Maybe, the Anglican Communion will revert back to its earlier structures after the departure, or retirement, of ++Rowan Cantuar, ++Peter Abuja and their Global South cohorts.

    In the meantime, let's get on with the mission of the Church, which is reconciliation of people in Christ's name and the ministry of loving others, especially the marginalized people who are being ignored by the Anglican majority so fixated on the warm sins of the flesh. Enough is enough...

    John Henry

    ReplyDelete
  21. I am unsure of just what the new conserve TEC & Global South believers now wish to get powerfully from others, as well as what they exactly offer powerfully to other unconformed believers.

    Once upon a time, seeming long ago but really not all that long ago, one could count on the historic Anglican vitamins of agreeing to disagree while getting on with common worship/witness and common Tikkun. In common worship/witness and common Tikkun, many people who held different views nevertheless appreciated one another’s sincerest and most conscientious paths to fallible integrity – trusting God to be the final judge at the end of time.

    Then agree to disagree got summarily defined as nothing but pathological, as an innate manifestation of hate for those with whom does not agree, and as either a pagan or secularist invention that has no place in the whole (and by definition newly conserved) body of those now called the Most Anointed. We find that common worship/witness and common Tikkun are also innately defined as impossible.

    The straight new conservative house is on fire, so they say, and further, we hear clearly that quite a few unconformed neighbors are not needed to belong any longer. Not anywhere, and certainly not inside. If they wish to occupy a second Anglican tier which will be totally bad mouthed and denigrated by the first tier members, while having its funding and other resources siphoned off for this or that new disenfranchising of somebody else who has failed to be conformed – well, that is the new meaning of being an unconformed Anglican believer. If it were not actually being suggested, predicted, defined, and lobbied all around us, it would be silly, laughable, and almost conceivable from within any comprehensive and differentiated range of Anglican leeway.

    Okay, then.

    First item is needing new power, new institutional structures through which people can be thrown out. Unconformed Anglicans need to be thrown out - by (1) being defined out in closed frames of very new orthodox sort - by (2) being dared to continue to perceive themselves as wanted or belonging to Jesus who in fact invited them to the Anglican feast in the first place (in all those historical and cultural moments of large and medium and small size or account in which inquiry, education, and staying open-ended were not defined ahead of time as innate betrayals of essential faith) - by (3) being called every bad name in this or that church or cultural book - by (4) being subject to police actions, via new institutional communion structures or processes, including new means of punishment.

    I guess you do, really, need new power and new institutional forms of policing for all that.

    Second item is claiming new power to speak a new conserve truth (in love so we are told) to anybody and everybody who is still yet not conformed.

    But of course, you cannot preach the data out of existence if you are following best practice versions of empirical and critical scholarly methods, so far as we know. So what to do with the data? And what to do with anybody who still remembers the data? And what to do with people who will not go quietly into the good, conformed new Anglican night, bowing almost as low before new conserve bishops as one formerly bowed before God at altars everywhere?

    Make no mistake about it, this is not speaking the truth, because it innately denies others the rights of good conscience that new conservatives claim, define, and assert – exclusively, absolutely, and finally – only – for themselves as the only real Anglicans.

    Alas. This totalitarian spirit is not going to bear what we used to call the good fruits of the spirit. It so far is closed-minded, mean-spirited, and seeks often to wield enough power that it can do unto others what it would never countenance being done to itself.

    Alas. Lord have mercy.

    I hear Saint Gracie Allen, saying: Do not put a period where God has put a comma. And Saint Bette, saying: Fasten your seat belts.

    P.S. to Canterbury – you may not like this realignment power play all that much when it comes to your own British/European shores.

    ReplyDelete
  22. obadiah, I am less hopeful than you are about the communique, or see it as less graceful. The "inability" of many to accept the Presiding Bishop-elect (whether because she's a woman or because she's an American doesn't seem a difference that makes a difference); the preemption of the Communion-wide process of forming a covenant by preparing their own; and the coordination of a separate program for theological education, including perhaps coordinated catechisms, suggests an effort to establish a distinct separation. So does the unwillingness to wait for a reception process a la the Windsor Report. The fact that American, Canada, and England are specified strengthens the impression.

    Indeed, your last message on my site led to a reflected response that required a whole new post, very much affected by the events of the day. I invite you to look in.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Mark, please forgive me if this is a duplicate comment. I don't see the comment I posted earlier. (If you deleted it, would you mind letting me know why?)

    -----
    Just FYI, Martyn Minns was present because he is an elected member of the Global South Secretariat. (I'm not trying to claim it's advisable to have an ECUSA priest on the Secretariat, but the Global South clearly value his ability to present the conservative perspective on life in ECUSA. This is his second term on the Secretariat.)

    Background here:

    http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/weblog/comments/global_south_update_19_november_2005/

    ReplyDelete
  24. “At the next meeting of the Primates in February 2007 some of us will not be able to recognize Katharine Jefferts Schori as a Primate at the table with us."

    I take this as meaning that a minority of Primates (of the 38 provinces in the Anglican Communion) ascribe to this statement. It looks like KJS will have no problem being seated even if a few of the Primates don't want to catch girl cooties.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Remember the consolidated Appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the dioceses seeking alternative primatial oversight? When the list of "objections" to Bishop Katharine was leaked on a website, everyone thought it was a joke. Half the bishops at the New York meeting hadn't even seen it; nor had the secretary of the ACC, who thought he was there to discuss APO. How could serious discussions proceed under those conditions? But +Duncan et. al were there to torpedo discussion, not to participate in it."

    I seem to remember, this information was posted and thoroughly discussed by commenters on Stand Firm and TitusOneNine, and other blogs ...there for all to read.


    "In the meantime, let's get on with the mission of the Church, which is reconciliation of people in Christ's name and the ministry of loving others, especially the marginalized people who are being ignored by the Anglican majority so fixated on the warm sins of the flesh. Enough is enough..."

    Few are as fixated on the 'warm sins of the flesh' as TEC has been these past 40 years. What the orthodox have done is cling to the authority of the Scriptures and to the words of Jesus "I am the Way, I am the Truth, I am the Life ...no man comes to the Father except by me" ... through true repentance of our sins and acceptance of our salvation through His atonement for our sins on the cross. The ministry we are all called to is to preach this messsage to the whole world: Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Wiccan, Buddhist.

    ReplyDelete
  26. obadiahslope22/9/06 10:45 PM

    In my view Ruidh is right to say that it sounds that only a minority of Primates will not be able to "recognise" +Jefferts-Schori at the primates meeting.
    Additionally it could be said that the Kigali statement implies that she will be there! It asks for an additional person to be present to represent your conservatives. It seems to me then that the Global South is signalling that at least until a covenant is written the TEC is expected to remain within the communion. I would have thought that was a welcome development. OTOH it also signals that the GS is not about to walk apart - which confounds some predictions by some commentators on this site - but not Mark.
    Mark is entitled to his unkind thoughts, but some kindly ones might also be appropriate.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Responses to several comments:

    Padre Mickey pointed out that Brazil, Central America and Mexico perhaps were not invited because they all signed the Panama Delclaration. Perhaps, for this time, but remember that Brazil was not invited to the Third StoS meeting either.

    Good ol' Anonymous (whose voice at least is familiar) said...

    "Calling godly bishops, your brothers in Christ, carrion? What kind of Christianity is that? I don't think it's the Global South that has the issue."

    Actually I was referencing that they were birds, and the Episcopal Church, which seems dead to them, is the meal.

    Andy W. wrote a fine comment, one deeply touching. Read the whole thing. In it he said

    "As one physically (but no longer canonically) within a Diocese completely hostile to those who disagree with choices TEC has made, I can tell you that they have not overstated the needs of a significant number of us in the United States. ... We must always be open to the fact that others may be in true need of assistance. That assistance has been categorically and repeatedly denied us by our own Bishop. ... There is no more cold and helpless feeling to be told "get over it" when you believe to your core that there are issues that we cannot "get over"... I hope you will think longer before minimizing the effects the last 3 years have had on the common communicant who loves the Church and his denomination but has been alienated from the latter.

    In Christ's unchanging love, Andy "

    If you would let me know which diocese is doing this I'd be glad to explore the matter further. I try, and will try better, not to write in ways that are dismissive of the pain of others.

    KarenB made a comment which corrected a point in my essay. I have noted that in the essay itself. Thanks KarenB. By the way, KarenB asked if I delete comments. I don't. Don't know what happened to her first note.

    Thanks for all the comments. keep them comming.

    I do agree with Ann who wishes that those who sign on as anonymous would use a name, even a made up one so that we can distinguish anonymous (1), anonymous (2), and so on.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Columba Gilliss23/9/06 9:16 AM

    Puzzled -- aren't Australia and New Zealand in the Southern Hemisphere?
    Columba Gilliss

    ReplyDelete
  29. Well worth taking a look at -- even more so than their Communique -- is a document titled The Road to Lambeth, published on the Global South's website.

    This, friends, is CAPA's draft Anglican Covenant. We must all sign on to this document and meet its demands or leave "their" Communion. "All" includes the Church of England, too. "All" includes the Archbishop of Canterbury, too.

    Several of CAPA's demands are worth pondering.

    The Episcopal Church must "prune" its clergy of gay and Lesbian people, or the Nigerians and their allies will refuse to be seated at Lambeth.

    The Episcopal Church must "repent" of having selected Katharine Jefferts Schori as Presiding Bishop, or the Nigerians and their allies will refuse to be seated at Lambeth.

    But scroll down past the insults to our own Church, fellow Episcopalians, and read the threats against the Archbishop of Canterbury.

    The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Church of England must denounce the British Civil Unions law. The Church of England must excommunicate parishoners and defrock clergy who have entered into civil unions, or the Nigerians and their allies will refuse to be seated at Lambeth.

    Some of you will remember that both Lord Carey and the present Archbishop were in favor of that law. Hence the recent declarations by Rwanda that Lord Carey is also an apostate.

    We have just a few months to wait now, and we will wake up one morning to discover that ++Akinola and a handful of CAPA members, along with six or seven American bishops, have formed their own Communion. And then the bullies and schismatics will be gone, and the Churches of the Communion can begin to heal.

    Quotation below from The Road to Lambeth, http://www.globalsouthanglican.o...sented_at_capa/

    We in CAPA want to say clearly and unequivocally to the rest of the Communion: the time has come for the North American churches to repent or depart. We in the Global South have always made repentance the starting point for any reconciliation and resumption of fellowship in the Communion. We shall not accept cleverly worded excuses but rather a clear acknowledgement by these churches that they have erred and “intend to lead a new life” in the Communion (2 Corinthians 4:2). Along with this open statement of repentance must come “fruits befitting repentance” (Luke 3:8). They must reverse their policies and prune their personnel.

    It is clear from the actions
    of the recent General Convention of the Episcopal Church in the USA, including electing a Presiding Bishop whose stated position on sexuality – not to mention other controversial views – is in direct contradiction of Scripture and Lambeth 1.10, that that Province has refused to repent. Accordingly, we commend those churches and dioceses in the USA that have renounced the actions of the Convention and sought alternative oversight.

    The current situation is a twofold crisis for the Anglican Communion: a crisis of doctrine and a crisis of leadership, in which the failure of the “Instruments” of the Communion to exercise discipline has called into question the viability of the Anglican Communion as a united Christian body under a common foundation of faith, as is supposed by the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. Due to this breakdown of discipline, we are not sure that we can in good conscience continue to spend our time, our money and our prayers on behalf of a body that proclaims two Gospels, the Gospel of Christ and the Gospel of Sexuality.

    It grieves us to mention that the crisis is not limited to North America. The passage of the Civil Partnerships Act in England and the uncertain trumpet sounded by the English House of Bishops have made it unclear whether the mother Church of the Communion is fully committed to upholding the historic Christian norm. We note, for instance, that it appears that clergy in the Church of England are obliged legally and without canonical protection to recognize the immoral unions of active homosexual church members and may soon be forced by law to bless homosexual “marriages.” Recently, the British media reported that a senior clergyman, supported by his bishop, “married” his same-sex partner, also a clergyman.. So far as we can see, the Archbishop of Canterbury as Primate of All England has failed to oppose this compromising position and hence cannot speak clearly to and for the whole Communion.

    In light of the above, we have concluded that we must receive assurances from the Primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury that this crisis will be resolved before a Lambeth Conference is convened. There is no point, in our view, in meeting and meeting and not resolving the fundamental crisis of Anglican identity. We will definitely not attend any Lambeth Conference to which the violators of the Lambeth Resolution are also invited as participants or observers.

    We are frankly disappointed that the announced plans of the Lambeth Design Team avoid discussion of Communion order and discipline, which have been clearly strained to the breaking point. We are disappointed that the central issue of an Anglican Communion Covenant is not front-and-centre on the agenda of the Conference. If any group should be expected to consult on these most important issues, it should be the assembled bishops of the Communion.

    To add to our reservations about the 2008 Lambeth Conference, we note the huge expense of such an event. Our African churches are asked to divert funds from much needed work of evangelization and charity to a 3-week meeting which has no authority and which is blatantly ignored by “autonomous” member churches. In some cases, poorer provinces are “assisted” by donors from the West who have a deliberate agenda of buying silence from these churches. We conclude that if a regular all-bishops’ conference is to continue in the Anglican Communion, it should be held in the Global South, where the costs are much less and the local economy can benefit; that it be shorter in duration; and that every church be required to pay its own way (we in CAPA will take care of our own genuinely needy members).

    --endquote--

    ReplyDelete
  30. Quite a few weren't there. According to the Communiqué 20 provinces were "represented", 2 of them without their Primate (no explanations given), one Primate (South Africa) left before the meeting was over.

    Leaves 19 Provinces + 2 observers.

    I repeat that the Communiqué does not say anything about anybody signing on to it. According to rumors, the Communiqué itself was probably written by the Global South Secretariat, i.e. +Minns of Truro.

    So Who does it "represent"? Half of the Provinces of the present Anglican Commuion - or just the Secretariat?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Mark Harris:

    Re: Carrion

    No, I WISH your comments were merely clinical,however, they were demeaning. If someone called Shori an 'opportunist scavenger' or a 'shark' something tells me you might take offense to this. Therefore, saying that the global South bishops are 'vultures' in effect is both offense and not in line with our Christian Faith. e.g - 1John 4: 7-8
    7 Dear friends, let us continue to love one another, for love comes from God. Anyone who loves is a child of God and knows God.8 But anyone who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

    Being loving means treating others with respect, and respect does mean refraining from demeaning people with labels.

    I read the Comminque from the Global South Bishops - there wasn't one portion of it from beginning to end that demeaned anyone.

    Therefore, I have to wonder who has the problem here.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Mr Harris,

    Why should progressives be distressed? These events were all entirely predictable. Progressives have imposed onto TEC an entire superstructure of post-modern theological assumptions - assumptions which have warped the Christian faith into something which even 100 years ago would be entirely unrecognizable as Christian let alone Anglican. Progressives would like to extend that superstructure to the entire Anglican communion. Did they think the other side would not notice? Did they expect that conservatives would meekly surrender to a post-modern voice which comes with no authority other than its own name? Progressives may consider themselves a moral vanguard which travels at the leading edge of civilization. Their opponents consider progressives to be wolves in sheep's clothing - the leading edge of deadly apostacy, and they will oppose the progressive vision to their last breath. Indeed they are compelled by conscience to do so.

    Had progressives been wise, they could have forestalled this outcome. They had only to give to the conservatives some theological space (meaning freedom from the post-modernism which drives the Church leadership), but this the leadership was singularly unwilling to do. Progressives were determined that all aspects of the church should be governed by the post-modern superstructure. All were welcome, but not all definitions of Truth were welcome - most especially not in positions of influence. So progressives backed their opponents into a corner and now affect shock and anger that their opponents have at long last chosen to fight.

    And so there will be war - for property and legitimacy. Progressives will likely win the war over property. I doubt the courts will desire to involve themselves in church law - especially for so unpopular a cause as conservative religion. So a mighty Episcopal Army of lawyers will tramp from parish to parish only to claim at the end "We had to destroy the parish to save it." They will devastate pastors, and despoil congregations. But it will be a pyrrhic victory - for possession of unusable property cannot replace the capital consumed by law suits. It cannot stop the impending death of thousands of parishes as the 60-somethings become 80-somethings and die. It cannot halt the implosion of dioceses as collection plates return empty, and endowement funds dry up. The achilles heal of progressive religion is thus exposed. It has intellectuals, and leaders aplenty - but it has no base. Progressives will win the war for property, but they have already lost the war for legitimacy.

    It is for judgment that this has happened. How long will progressives continue to harden their hearts, and bring even worse judgment upon themselves?

    carl

    ReplyDelete
  33. Breathe, carl.

    Christ is risen, and Our God reigns!

    *****

    Charlotte, thank you for excerpting the clear ultimatums which the "Global South" (I always use quotation marks, as it is a few who CLAIM to speak for so many!) have issued to the rest of us.

    "Repent (as we define it) or depart": sorry, Peter Abuja. TEC (and Anglicans all around the world, North AND South) WON'T be your (OR your financial backers') slaves...

    ReplyDelete
  34. First démenti of Kigali Communiqué aswell as the Confessio kigaliana is in from Archbishop Nudngage of Southern Africa:

    http://blog.edow.org/weblog

    ReplyDelete
  35. Also on no longer Sinking Anglicans:

    http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk

    ;=)

    ReplyDelete
  36. According to Thinking Anglicans, The Archibishop of Southern Africa has essentially dissavored this communique, saying he had no idea when he left that such a statemet would be issued and that he has grave concerns about the tone and content of it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Mind you, ++Nudngage of South Africa would certainly never have signed the Communique in the light of the latter contents regarding the AC crisis and the conflict between orthodox and revisionists. However, he was, I imagine, there because the larger part of the Kigali Conference dealt with strictly African matters, such as AIDS, poverty, in which he would very naturally have a vital stake. With regard to the AC conflict, The bishop is in agreement with ECUSA.

    ReplyDelete
  38. " According to rumors, the Communiqué itself was probably written by the Global South Secretariat, i.e. +Minns of Truro."

    Goran, can you substantiate that rumour? No? I thought not!

    Columba: Australia does its own thing. It has both orthodox and revisionist provinces. I don't quite understand NZ ... they have formed some sort of 'partnership' province with a number of the Pacific Island groups. Others can correct me if I've got NZ wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Bill wrote: "because the larger part of the Kigali Conference dealt with strictly African matters"

    This is not reflected in the "Communiqué" itself, which is all American, reflecting American issues not South ones.

    As to who wrote the piece - ask him!

    ReplyDelete
  40. Re "Carrion Eaters":

    Mark:

    While you are striving for justice and peace among all people, will you please respect the dignity of every human being, even if you don't like them?

    ReplyDelete
  41. "If you would let me know which diocese is doing this I'd be glad to explore the matter further."

    How comforting. Mark Harris: a one-man Panel of Reference.

    Can I give your contact info to some parishioner freinds in Penn and CT as well? They'll be thrilled to know you're on the case!

    ReplyDelete

OK... Comments, gripes, etc welcomed, but with comment moderation but with some cautions and one rule:
Cautions: Calling people fools, idiots, etc, will be reason to bounce your comment. Keeping in mind that in the struggles it is difficult enough to try to respect opponents, we should at least try.
Rule: PLEASE DO NOT SIGN OFF AS ANONYMOUS: BEGIN OR END THE MESSAGE WITH A NAME - ANY NAME. ANONYMOUS commentary will be cut.