The Third Trumpet, Wormwood, and the Bitter Pill

Sunday evening October 30 the communique of the Third Global South Encounter was posted on a variety of sites. It is titled, A Third Trumpet From The South: Trumpet III The Third Anglican Global South to South Encounter Red Sea (Egypt) 25-30 October, 2005. It can be read here.

I will comment on the text later today.

It is a document that has important things to say on many levels, but it's title is peculiar and is worthy of note even at this early hour.

The Third Trumpet:

The text that comes to mind is from The Revelation of John 8:10-11: "The third angel blew his trumpet, and a great star fell from heaven, blazing like a torch, and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the fountains of water. The name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the waters became wormwood, and many men died of the water, because it was made bitter." (RSV)

Wormwood is the star and it falls, and so the message concerns the bitterness, often understood to be the idolatry of Israel, or the false judgements of Israel, that poisons the waters.

I presume the writers viewed the South to South Encounter as being the trumpet the Angel blew, thus the Third Encounter is the work of God's angel causing the star Wormwood to fall from heaven, etc. It seems an oblique way of talking about ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada, and perhaps even the Church of England as a bitterness in the waters, or as we might say in these days, a bitter pill.

The writers of this communique are blowing trumpets. The question is, who will listen.

More later.

Does the Church care for the 2000, or even the one? (Revised version)

Tuesday, October 25^th marked the day that the 2000^th member of the US Armed Forces died in the war in Iraq. As many as 15000 were wounded and about 8000 were able to return to duty. The rest were not. A friend reading the first draft of this wrote and gave these numbers: "At least, 7,159 of the returning veterans have been severely injured, including 10% with spinal injuries, 10% with head injuries and 8% who were amputees. Among the 420 who lost limbs, at least 44 were multiple amputees."

The estimates of Iraqi civilians killed in the war and resulting civil chaos is by conservative estimates now over 25000. The numbers of people wounded or displaced by the war and the civil unrest is very high.

Numbers mean very little, of course. The first life lost is as valuable as the last, and the number 2000 is just a number. Today one columnist suggested that actually, the war in Iraq has cost very few American lives. This seemed to be counted as a good. Of course it remains to be seen how to value the lives of the many dead, displaced, and destroyed who go unnamed and unmentioned in most of what we hear and see.

In what terms are the human cost of war to be measured? Perhaps the measurement must be in terms of the cause, perhaps in terms of the willingness to live and die for one’s comrades, perhaps in terms of the greater good. Perhaps there is no way to describe the full measure of devotion by which someone will take up arms and place themselves in harm’s way.

In any event today, October 26^th, in the little town of Lewes, Delaware, we along with other communities held a special vigil. One hundred and ten of us came together where a smaller group regularly week by week holds a 45 minute silent vigil to remember the human cost of war. We came with candles, signs, and a string of 2000 stars, each with the name of someone who had died. We stood in profound silence for an hour. We remembered.

When we look at the stars in the heavens our may think of the Creator and the creation are a source of glory and grace. When we look at the stars knit together with twine, held by one hundred and ten regular paid up Americans, we still can think of the stars in the heavens, and the Creator who is the source of all our hope. But we look to at the lost stars, lost with so many others who die at the hands of others. Each has a name, and each name is of some mother’s child. In our destruction we know how far we are indeed from the glory that is God’s.

In the midst of all this, in the remembering and silence I am reminded that among the human costs of war are the ways in which the glory and grace, otherwise found in the beauty of nature and the wonder of the created order get transmogrified into the glory of devotion and the grace of camaraderie under fire. Great things of the human spirit are revealed in war, but none is so great that it justifies the deadening of the spirit in the grief of those whose lives are changed forever, and not for the good.

The Silent Vigil is the right spiritual practice for remembering. But there is also the need for the Vocal Vigil: the cry of anguish and the shout of outrage that stands as witness agains our self created horrors.

The human cost of war, particularly when it is war without clear purpose and reason, ought to be a source of public grief and political outrage.

The Silent Vigil is one side of the mirror. The Vocal Vigil is the other. The Church as a source of spiritual strength needs to be part of both the Silent and the Vocal Vigil.

I am profoundly disappointed in the Church on both counts. At our Silent Vigil very few clergy take part. In the Political and Public Verbal Vigil too little is heard from the churches.

Yesterday I asked of a 1600 member list serve what people were doing regarding the occasion of the 2000^th death of an American member of the Armed Forces. I had three responses.

Today I looked at the web sites of various Anglican and Episcopal entities to see if there was any comment at all about the war. There was none that I could find. I was reminded by people who read the first draft of this that there have been statements earlier by bishops and others, but I was looking for something these past two days. I found nothing.

Surely the people of the Church know the deaths continue? But where is the action, or reflection?

The AAC and the Via Media Memo: Lots of Noise and Smoke, and Certainly Paranoia.

It appears that the minutes of a meeting of the Via Meeting Steering Committee Meeting on 9/29/05 was “leaked” by a source named by the American Anglican Council as the Connecticut Six. The AAC is in quite a dither about it all and has published an article on the memo titled, “The American Anglican Council Condemns Via Media’s Planned Coup of Biblically Faithful Dioceses.”

So the AAC considers the memo to be about a planned coup. It would help if the AAC, or at least the author of this article, could read English. Far from being a “planned coup,” the memo describes a strategy for dealing with bishops (presumably the Network bishops) who, following General Convention 2006, might announce that “they are in a ‘new’ Anglican Communion and the Network is ‘recognized’ as the only legitimate expression(s) of the A.C. in North America.”

The scenario required for this question to make sense involves taking seriously the fairly overt strategies and plans of the AAC and the Network to seek recognition for the Network as the “legitimate expression of the Anglican Communion in North America,” and the threat or promise of Archbishops Gomez and Akinola to disengage from any way of being the Anglican Communion that would include ECUSA and perhaps, interestingly, the Church of England. Via Media does indeed take the AAC and Network at its word.

Such strategizing does not entail Via Media conducting a coup. Rather the strategizing assumes the coup that has been in the works all along – the coup that wrests the claim to legitimacy from ECUSA and gives it to the Network. The AAC is raising a lot of smoke, some fire, and makes no sense at all in its critique of the Via Media memo. Hopefully very few people will take the AAC article seriously.

Here is what the Via Media memo had to say about plans in the "memo," which seems to have been the notes taken by someone about the meeting:

“Strategy discussion what can we do, then how, then how to reach the larger community.

1. What will be our response the “Day After” when the bishops start announcing they are in a “new” Anglican Communion and the Network is “recognized” as the only legitimate expressions of the A.C. in North America?

• Have ready blank presentments for abandonment of the communion.
• Have already drafted request stating that the see is vacant and requesting appointment of interim bishop. Need to coordinate with PB on these appointments.
• Have request for special convention ready to give to interim bishop so that vacant spots in diocesan government can be filled (trustees, council, standing committee, commission on ministry, etc.)
• Be ready to take legal action on property identify who will serve as litigants, what property needs to be covered.
• Have plan for locations and personnel to provide worshipping communities and “safe havens” for the faithful remnants. Identify retired priests and deacons, lay leadership.

2. Build a broader awareness and support for VMUSA and the coming crisis.

• Tap into provincial presidents.
• Build sister parish connections and lay leadership.
• Find a group of bishops to work with, including PB candidates
• Cultivate Executive Council, Officers of General Convention
• Cultivate local press
• Develop criteria for recognizing schism"

As a strategy outline it is interesting, perhaps a bit dramatic, but certainly not the planning of a coup. On the basis of this strategy outline, the AAC article goes ballistic:

“According to documents and articles in circulation, Via Media USA is planning attacks against the Anglican Communion Network (ACN) dioceses and bishops at the conclusion of General Convention 2006. It is reported that they will have fill-in-the-blank deposition documents against ACN bishops, as well as true-church-lawsuit documents, ready to fill in for court litigation. If Via Media’s plans become a reality, every orthodox bishop and diocese will be ousted, leaving dioceses with rogue bishops and diocesan commissions. The biblically faithful within those dioceses would be held captive and lose their affiliation with the worldwide Anglican Communion.

Via Media’s exposed plot to supplant ACN bishops is outrageous and unconscionable.”

It is useful to note that the AAC article says Via Media is out to “supplant ACN bishops.” But the Via Media memo is about bishops who have declared themselves to be part of something else than the Episcopal Church – the Network, a new Global South oriented Anglican entity, something. Via Media is contemplating the situation in which Bishop X declares a break with the Episcopal Church in favor of the “legitimate” Anglican Communion presence in the US. The principle in place here is that the Diocese in which Bishop X has served is an Episcopal Church diocese and no matter the number of people who follow Bishop X, the Episcopal Church has every right to declare the see vacant and appoint or elect new bishops, officers, etc, in a now vacant see.

The Via Media has nothing to do with ousting anyone. It has everything to do with a bishop claiming to be bishop of a diocese of the Episcopal Church that he is taking with him into a new setting. The AAC article turns the matter inside out, and while it is at it, it accuses Via Media of being filled with dupes and revisionists. To quote the article,

“Since its inception, Via Media has served as a pawn of 815 [the Episcopal Church’s national office], Integrity USA, Every Voice Network, and other radical revisionists intent upon transforming the Episcopal Church into a religion devoid of Christian faith, doctrine and practice. While espousing a mantra of tolerance and diversity, the organization has now been exposed as a body committed to dismantling dioceses that uphold Scriptural faith and historic Anglican doctrine. Via Media clearly has no desire to walk together with the Anglican Communion; nor does it respect the mind of the Communion on matters of sexuality. Rather, it has plotted and schemed with unparalleled duplicity to seize control of dioceses, thereby usurping legitimate episcopal and diocesan authority.”

The article then turns from this strange accusation to an entirely new string of observations, ones that betray a level of paranoia that is remarkable.

“Let us not forget that a group of ECUSA bishops has established a special task force to develop strategies for ensuring that no churches leaving the Episcopal Church as a matter of conscience retain their property. Formation of this task force has been made public; now Via Media’s intentions have been revealed. What other secret plans are being plotted behind closed doors that have not yet been leaked? We encourage those who have knowledge of such plans and proposals to come forward and place them in the public sector so that all can be forewarned.”

Why, we might ask, the vehement insistence on there being secret plots and plans? Perhaps it is enough to observe that the AAC and the Network have been strategizing for so long and have so complex a network of organizations, individuals pledged to this or that covenant, churches in or out of recognition by the Anglican Communion, and bishops and clergy in, partially in, or out of communion with their own Primates, that they believe that strategic planning belongs only to them. Perhaps the AAC kind of wishes no one would plan for eventualities so that they could then do anything without objection?

To bad. Via Media people and others will continue to think things through.

Some thoughts on influence peddling.

The question of influence peddling has come up again in the exchanges between Archbishop Akinola and Archbishop Eames, carried out indirectly by way of Akinola’s various public messages and the reports of an Eames interview and remarks from his press officer. Both these Anglican leaders are reacting to issues they believe to be particularly difficult, and the result is a rather bumpy sort of unfolding concern about influence peddling. In my article on Archbishop Akinola I wrote of the concerns about funding, not believing that the matter would be raised in such sharp terms by the Archbishops within twenty-four hours. I had of course seen the report of Archbishop Eames’ comments. That report is as follows:

“During an interview at the college, Eames expressed concern over the role that wealthy conservative donors in the United States were playing in the current controversy. He said he was “quite certain” that many church leaders in the developing world had been offered financial inducements to distance themselves from the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.

“I think it is happening, I just don't think it is moral,” Eames said. “Is it the might of finance that will influence a theological outlook, and then that outlook come to dominate the Communion?

“It raises a serious question for me: what is the real nature of their faith and their Anglicanism? It is certainly different from mine.”

Conservative leaders have said they are simply trying to help poor provinces that cannot in good conscience accept financial support from provinces that differ with them on the issue of homosexuality.”

(From an article by Jim Naughton, Oct. 7, 2005 on Episcopal Diocese of Washington web pages )

That triggered my own thinking about funding issues, issues which I believe are not resolved by looking solely at the rumors that circulated about influence peddling at the Primates Meeting, rumors that Steven Bates believes were unfounded.

Still, the report on the Eames conversation was out there, and Archbishop Akinola responded in a letter on Sunday,

“It is reported that you, without citing specifics, are ‘quite certain’ that some of us have been bought. I have always had great respect for you and considered you a friend and a great leader of our Communion but such irresponsible accusations are outrageous, uncharitable and untrue. If you have any evidence of such financial inducements I challenge you, in the name of God, to reveal them or make a public apology to your brother Primates in the Global South for this damaging and irresponsible smear. I have always made it clear that there is no price-tag on my head – I am not a slave to anyone – I have been set free by the blood of the One who died for us all.

I must also respond to your misleading comments about our constitutional provision to establish Convocations and Chaplaincies outside of Nigeria. As you well know such a provision has long been the tradition in Europe. I wonder why it is acceptable for one part of the Communion and not for the other – perhaps the yoke of imperialism still survives?”

( From The Church of Nigeria website)

I commented on October 19th, on the House of Bishops/ House of Deputies list on the second part of Archbishop Akinola’s quote. There I said,

“He (Archbishop Akinola) asks a questions that indeed requires answer..."perhaps the yoke of imperialism still survives," but prefaces that question with a serious misreading ( by accident or on purpose) of the "tradition in Europe." Anglican jurisdictions appear to overlap in Europe and indeed there are all sorts of questions that may be raised about the odd configuration of chaplaincies, mission work and national catholic expressions there, but the jurisdictions are in reality quite separate in their history. History does not determine future form, of course, but it does slow the process of the building of mutual regard and trust so that common concerns can be shared and go forward. Bishop Whalon and his predecessors have done a good bit to build such mutual regard and the fruits of that work will I hope become clearer as time goes by.

But in the meantime it is inaccurate of the Archbishop of Nigeria to point to the Anglican presence in Europe as a parallel to his own establishment of chaplaincies in ECUSA. Among other things the Church of England, the Episcopal Church, and the Churches of Spain and Portugal are not separated by virtue of one group believing the other has gone astray.”

About the question of continued imperialism, there is more to be said, more that relates to Akinola’s ire at Archbishop Eames’ reported comments on financial inducements. The reporter wrote, “He said he was “quite certain” that many church leaders in the developing world had been offered financial inducements to distance themselves from the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.”

The author of this article, Jim Naughton, writes well and I believe reflected what the Archbishop said, although one must note it was not a quote, save for the “quite certain” reference. The nub of the issue is the reference to being “offered financial inducements.” To that Archbishop Akinola took offence, and quite rightly. Archbishop Eames press officer responded the next day with this remark, reported by George Conger, “Janet Maxwell, Archbishop Eames’ press officer told The Church of England Newspaper the Irish Primate’s remarks had been misconstrued. Archbishop Eames “in no way questioned the sincerity of theological conviction” of the Global South nor was he “suggesting votes were purchased”, Ms Maxwell stated. What he had said was that he “expressed concern that too much emphasis has been placed on the role of funding relative to theological perspective”, she told us, as requiring aid donors and recipients to share theological and political convictions was “not a moral way of looking at issues”.

So, the accusation is not that votes were purchased at the Primate’s meeting, i.e. that influence was peddled for votes. The matter has to do with “the role of funding relative to theological perspective.”

The whole thing is well reported by Thinking Anglicans and by Fr. Jake, whose essay is so good that I have to guide you too it even though he also references mine on Archbishop Akinola.

The problem at hand, however, is a larger one: When does financial support cross over into that grey area where it becomes an inducement for the receiver of funds to either keep silent about actions and statements of the donor or alternately to support such actions and statements?

Every religious organization has to deal with this. We in ECUSA have a long and complicated relationship with the Federal Government with whom we from time to time enter into contract. Certainly we have also on parish and diocesan levels felt the constraints that come from grants, gifts and offerings that had strings – either real or understood - attached. Offending donors large and small is always a problem of immense moral importance. It is appropriate to ask just how much and how the church feels constrained by such gifts. Internal issues of influence peddling arise once and a while, and every preacher knows the constraints that come when wanting to speak to difficult national issues such as preemptive strikes.

So it is appropriate to ask about major donors to the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, the American Anglican Council, and about the extent to which they in turn are major donors to the international work of the Archbishop of Nigeria and other Global South leaders.

It is also appropriate for Global South bishops and Primates to ask to what extent they have felt constrained in their truth telling by having received monies from donor churches with whom they disagree. I believe it is destructive to the mission we all have that some monies have been rejected out of hand. That seems to me to be about proving righteousness, as in “I will have nothing to do with unclean things.” Since there is no proof of righteousness regarding money, given whose image or name is on the face of the coins, there are always clean and unclean things to be said about the source of funding for every effort. Is money that bears the US name less unclean because it does not come from the Episcopal Church?

What would have been helpful is to ask for full disclosure of the “strings attached.” Was there any, or would there be any, expectation from Episcopal Church donors that recipients would withhold their criticism of ECUSA? Would the distance they took from the actions of ECUSA put those grants in jeopardy?

If full disclosure indicated that with the funds came expectations, then ECUSA could be accused of influence peddling. If not, then the money could be accepted in good conscience.

Public disclosure is a real issue. Influence peddling takes place behind closed doors, and the solution is not to simply toss accusations but to look for transparency.

There has certainly been a good deal written on conservative sources of the funding for the Network and AAC, just as there has been concerns about the funding for the ACC and the Anglican Communion Office.

Funding for the ACC and the Anglican Communion Office comes from donor Provinces, on the basis of an asking. ECUSA’s support come from the General Convention budget. Additional sources of funds, from The Compass Rose Society, wealthy parish granting agencies, etc, are received, but they are directed towards ends already determined by the ACC or the Anglican Communion Office.

While it may be argued that the considerable support by ECUSA to the ACC gives it undue influence, events of the past months would suggest that its influence is not as great as might be imagined. ECUSA has been asked to withdraw its representation to the ACC for a time, and has complied. Given the continued support of the ACC office it is hard to suggest that ECUSA is involved in influence peddling, or at least peddling that works.

There have in the past been questions raised about the bias of various officers of the Anglican Communion Office, and while folks in those positions have to take the heat sometimes, they are also accountable to other parts of the “instruments of unity.” That accountability involves transparency as it relates to funding sources and their “strings attached.”

The Network, the AAC and in turn its assistance to international bodies, has no such synodical budgetary grounding, and no general mandate from the Communion, and they have no accountability beyond their own boards of managers and their donors. Funding comes from “like minded” organizations and persons and it has every business in turn making grants to like minded Provinces, leaders and international organizations.

Unlike ECUSA’s engagement with the Anglican Communion structures, where the level of support is known and the supposed bias of ACC officers can be challenged (and often is), the Network and AAC funding support for like minded international agencies, persons and other Provinces is not easily know, nor is much known about agreements with its own funding sources as it relates to the international work of these organizations.

Some work has been done, and Fr. Jake’s article references in particular an article by Kevin Jones, on the Every Voice Network .

So, although Archbishop Akinola is quite right to challenge the statement attributed to Archbishop Eames as to the facts, the concern expressed by Eames is appropriate. The question of financial support being an “inducement to distance themselves…” still stands.

Organizations, like the Network and the AAC, that have no synodical authority, accountability or mandate may do as they wish. But unless they are in some way as transparent as the agencies of the Church there is no way to disentangle wishes of their donors, their own actions and the persons and organizations that receive funds from them.

One assumes that the AAC and the Network are in the best sense of the word partisan. The question is: are their contributions to the work of the Archbishop of Nigeria or other leaders BECAUSE these leaders share their values, or do these contributions INFLUENCE these leaders to share their values? And, if the latter, are staff and leaders from the AAC and the Network present at various meetings primarily supportive or directing?

Archbishop Akinola was indignant when he said, “It is reported that you, without citing specifics, are “quite certain” that some of us have been bought.” If that is what he understood was meant by Archbishop Eames, I can see why that makes Akinola angry. It is not a pleasant thing to be accused of taking a bribe or selling oneself. There is nothing unclear about such an accusation… either the accused took the bribe, took the strings attached, or not.

Actually what was said in the Naughton article was, “He said he was “quite certain” that many church leaders in the developing world had been offered financial inducements to distance themselves from the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.” “Inducement” is not at all as clear as be bought.

Suppose one overheard an AAC or Network person saying to someone, “Listen, we think you should join us in openly stating your opposition to what was done by GC 2003. It would mean a great deal to us and to the work of realignment if you would declare a state of impaired communion. Don’t worry about what that means financially in terms of support for your work. We will make sure you have funding both for what you do in your Province and for your wider role in the Communion.” What would we make of this, influence peddling or assurance between like minded persons?

The whole matter of where money comes from and the strings attached to funds is a background rumble in the whole exchange between Archbishop Eames and Archbishop Akinola. It is a rumble of a deeper set of problems about transparency. At its best transparency can be asked for and received by people who are mutual in their regard. At its worse transparency can be asked of one organization and not another for reasons that increasingly reveal themselves as being grounded in imperialism, racism or class. What is needed here, as in many places, is a mutual sharing of budgets, sources, strings attached, goals and objectives, and so on.

Until then we will have occasional exchanges like this one, often on the basis of second hand information, that do little to clarify and much to confuse.

Some Thoughts on the Archbishop of Nigeria

The Archbishop of Nigeria, The Most Rev. Peter Akinola, has emerged as a primary spokesperson for the collection of Provincial leaders, diocesan bishops, and other concerned Anglicans who constitute a movement within the Anglican family of churches to “realign” their various bodies into greater conformance with what they understand to be a biblically warranted or based internationally organized church.

THE ARCHBISHOP’S VOICE

In that effort the Archbishop has become for many the voice of an emerging Anglicanism, in which true freedom is found in obedient service to the faith “once delivered.” For others, he is the enemy of that which they believe Anglicans hold most dear, the belief that true servanthood in the Lord Jesus is perfect freedom, and that out of that servanthood grows new duties to meet new occasions.

I am to be numbered among those who find the Archbishop of Nigeria to be the enemy of what I understand the Anglican Communion to be. At the same time I admire his willingness to take on the Anglo-centric focus of the so called instruments of unity. He is on some level driving the last nail in the coffin of colonial Anglicanism.

He is not necessarily consistent in his attack. The Church of Nigeria is practicing the sort of autonomy that its Archbishop criticizes when practiced by the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. More, the Church of Nigeria is acting autonomously in ways similar to the Church of England, assuming that the Church of Nigeria can claim to be the focus of unity for a world wide community of churches.

The Archbishop speaks his mind on many occasions, and what he says is often intriguing, sometimes hurtful, sometimes constructive and occasionally destructive.

He has said horrid things about gay persons:

"I cannot think of how a man in his senses would be having a sexual relationship with another man. Even in the world of animals, dogs, cows, lions, we don't hear of such things." (The Atlantic online)

And about gay and lesbian persons:

“God created two persons — male and female. Now the world of homosexuals has created a third — a homosexual, neither male nor female, or both male and female — a strange two-in-one human.”

“The acceptance of homosexuality and lesbianism as normal is the triumph of disobedience; the enthronement of human pride over the will of God. This lifestyle is a terrible violation of the harmony of the eco-system of which mankind is a part. As we are rightly concerned by the depletion of the ozone layer, so should we be concerned by the practice of homosexuality.” (Both from Why I object to Homosexuality and Same-sex unions)

His arguments – that homosexuals are a “two-in-one human” and that homosexual lifestyle is somehow related to the eco-system – are amazing in their profound misreading of both homosexuality and humankind’s role in the eco-system. His suggestion that not “even in the world of animals, dogs, cows, lions, we don't hear of such things” turns out not to be completely true, but worse it makes the dreadful hierarchical comparison where, as President Mugabe of Zimbabwe stated, gay people are “worse than dogs…”

On the other hand, the Archbishop does speak out against tribalism, for integration of all peoples of Nigeria, and called on the delegates to the General synod of Nigeria to lead “integration and true unity to serve as a paradigm for the nation.”

“I appeal to you by the mercies of God, let us unite to make this Church great. The potentials are enormous. If only we can catch the vision of a strong, united Church… the hope of Nigeria. For the sake of God of the common good, let us bury our differences.”

And he speaks clearly about the need to address real problems in the social and political climate in which he works and lives. The “Message to the Nation,” sent by the synod over which he presided, mostly concerns the realities faced in Nigeria, and does so forcefully.

He has made an amazing plea to the nation in the midst of great political and social struggle,

“Lately, our nation has been impaled with rumours of chaos and the political class(es) are not helping matters as scheming for the 2007 elections seem to override every other consideration. The Church is also impaled with the complaints of the wretched of the earth- the poor, the jobless, the oppressed and millions of Nigerians who continue to groan under abject want and poverty in the midst of plenty.

The brokenness of our entire society including the Church of God, calls for urgent action from all and sundry. The suffering of the vast majority is as glaring as the ostentatious living of a privilege few.”

Occasionally the Archbishop is given to moments of pique, as when he wrote in response to concerns about what was going to take place at the South to South Gathering in Egypt:

“A lot of the misinformation has been due to the figment of imagination of protagonist wishing to introduce alien ideas into our historic faith. Some even go as far as to suggest it is a power tussle affair. This pitiful reasoning is far from our minds as we do not seek such.

It is pertinent to state that we are not concerned with power as being published in the media. Our major concern is upholding the integrity and sanctity of the Word of God and the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference guiding the integrity of our common historic faith. Any person or Church disregarding or flouting these are the ones to do a rethink about their status within our worldwide Anglican family.”

In wanting to straighten out the media and internet bloggers (me included) he can’t resist a last taunt, “Any persons or Church disregarding or flouting these (the Word of God and the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference) are the ones to do a rethink about their status within our worldwide Anglican family.” With that kind of taunt one wonders how the meeting in Egypt CANNOT be mostly dealing with realignment.

The Archbishop has some sense of his apparent power. He signs off as “The Primate of All Nigeria.” There are Archbishops of the internal provinces of the Church of Nigeria, so perhaps there is some reason for this title, but that would mostly make sense if these Archbishops were also Primates in their own right. Still, the title perhaps tells us something of the Archbishop’s sense of office. He is Primate of All Nigeria, just as the Archbishop of Canterbury is Primate of All England.

Archbishop Akinola is complex, outspoken, a person of considerable power. I gather from those who know him that his is a person of some real charm. He is willing to use his power, charisma and charm to ends he believes are central to his life and ministry. There was a fine article in the Atlantic Monthly on him, and much of what is written there fleshes out the man. (See The Atlantic Monthly, November 2003 ) He is a force to be reckoned with.

THE RECKONING

That reckoning is taking place. In the past few weeks there have been several important essays critical of the Archbishop of Nigeria and in particular of his church’s changes in the Church of Nigeria’s Constitution deleting reference to Canterbury and institutionalizing CANA (the Convocation of Anglican Nigerians in America). Both efforts distance the Church of Nigeria from widely held Anglican norms: the norm that the Archbishop of Canterbury is central to the definition of an Anglican Communion, and the norm that Churches (provinces or dioceses) do not go mucking about in jurisdictions other than their own.

The Rt. Rev. John Chane, Bishop of Washington, has taken the Archbishop to task on some of this. In his recent article in the Diocesan paper, he said:

“With the Archbishop’s reference that “no Church can ignore the teaching of the Bible with impunity,” I must ask myself who has been left with the ultimate authority to interpret the teaching of the Bible? Certainly such important work has not been left up to the Archbishop of Nigeria alone. And if the Church is to really focus on the issues of the Bible’s teaching and the core teachings of Jesus Christ, why does this Archbishop spend so much time on human sexuality issues while so many of his countrymen and women are oppressed by poverty, illiteracy and violence? Where is the strong voice of the Nigerian Anglican Church in opposing the continued neglect of vulnerable women and children, or in advocating on behalf of the poorest of the poor? Jesus was very clear in his hard teachings that one could always tell the righteous from the damned by whether they lived into feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, welcoming the stranger and visiting those who were in prison.” (See article at http://www.edow.org/news/window/sept2005/chanecolumn.html )

Bishop Chane may have made a stretch near the end of this quote, given what the Archbishop and Synod said, but the first part is clear and I think appropriate.

In a question and answer period following Archbishop Eames’s two talks at Virginia Seminary in early October, Jim McNaughten reported that Archbishop Eames said, in response to the Church of Nigeria’s constitutional change removing references to the Archbishop of Canterbury,

“My plea to my brother Peter, the Primate of Nigeria would be, ‘Pause, Peter, pause, because we are all in this together, because a preemptive strike like this would have the consequences of making the tensions greater and therefore, I ask that you would pause and take on the reservations that the rest of us have.”

Archbishop Eames, in his lecture at Berkeley was more highly critical of Archbishop Akinola and the Church of Nigeria and its actions.

The decision by the Synod of the Church of Nigeria to remove any reference to the Archbishop of Canterbury or the See of Canterbury has been roundly criticized, and although reported by the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes and by the American Anglican Council, it does not seem to have been met there with real relish. The decision by the Synod in Nigeria was clearly made with the approval of Archbishop Akinola, and his participation in this is disturbing to those who believe that Canterbury is in any way a real touchstone to the determination of just who is part of the Anglican Communion.

The lack of real enthusiasm about this move by Nigeria is, I believe, for two reasons: (i) There are those who would turn away from the Network’s movement if it really led away from Canterbury, and (ii) the Archbishop of Nigeria has in fact made it possible to sidestep Canterbury and perhaps the “West” altogether, and form an alternative collection of Anglicans on an international level, thus raising the question as to whether the Network is in the long run necessary at all.

It is not clear just what part the Network leadership might play in such an alternative Anglican community. On the one hand the Moderator of the Network has been well received by the Archbishop of Nigeria, the Network has been included in the list of invitees to the South to South Encounter, etc. On the other hand the Network is very much made up of people of the “Global North” who have the same temptations to use money and power in the same ways that have irritated the churches of the Global South perceived the “West” doing at other times.

Although I would hate to see the rupture happen, it would be most instructive to see how a new “Global South” oriented international church would play out with its North American partners its concerns about western colonial attitudes. And, of course, if the Network was troublesome to ECUSA, what is to say it would not be troublesome to this new thing?

Archbishop Akinola’s various remarks, papers, and official briefings give every indication that he clearly is his own man, save for his obedience to the Word of God as he has received it. It is not at all clear that he is willing to live again in a world where deference is given to a church leader simply because that person is leader of the English church.

Whether or not he is his own man in reality is yet to be seen. He is the chair of CAPA, the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa, which he acknowledges has been underwritten by western donors to the present time. He is chair of the South to South Encounter which will meet in Egypt this month. Its funding is from its own members, but where they in turn get the funds is less clear. It is unclear how many of his international activities (which are considerable) are funded by Western conservative voices, particularly the AAC and the Network.

The effort to realign the Anglican Communion has given rise to the creation of a wide variety of agencies and organizations, some more a reality than others. All the meetings, travels, lectures, caucuses, consultations and encounters necessary to put this together costs a great deal, and there is considerable lack of clarity as to where the funding comes from.

There is no question that the funding of the AAC or the Network includes major donors whose concerns and objectives are not primarily about the Episcopal Church but about conservative agendas across ecclesial structures. There is also considerable concern that those non-church conservative agendas include paralyzing the ‘mainline’ denominations with such internal dysfunction that they cease to be able to carry out the progressive agendas of their own synods. So the question of AAC and Network engagement with the Archbishop of Nigeria and his agenda involves the question of funding, and the agenda of these outside funding sources.

Archbishop Eames describes the realignment of the Anglican Communion sought by the Network and the Archbishop of Nigeria as “proposals for groupings which can share one overall concept of Anglicanism and an exclusion from new structures of those who are interpreted to be in denial of true and traditional Anglicanism. I cannot overstate the dangers I see in such developments. Not alone do I view them as leading to a fragmented concept of the Communion we have inherited from generations of worship, witness and practice, I see them as a threat to the very word Anglican itself.” (The Berkely lecture, referenced above.)

The reckoning will come – from other primates and Anglican leaders who see him as destructive, from fellow bishops who question his particular hold on the Gospel, from a wide range of people who feel his anti-gay statements are over the top. And strangely, a reckoning will come from western conservatives who may find that the Province of Nigeria has gone too far in removing references to the see of Canterbury as part of the definition of what it means to be Anglican. The Network may indeed go with the Archbishop into this redefined form of Anglicanism, but some of the Network members will not be pleased.

The emergence of the Perfected Anglican Communion is of course no Anglican Communion at all. The Anglican Communion is provisional, unperfected, messy, and finally NOT a world church. To bad. No wonder the Archbishop of Nigeria must look elsewhere for what he wants, and when he gets it it will not be the Anglican Communion at all.

RETURNING TO THE ARCHBISHOP AND THE CHALLENGE OF THE ESTABLISHED ORDER OF THINGS.

I believe we need to honor Archbishop Akinola for making us more aware of the colonialism still present in the automatic assumption that the Englishness of Anglicanism is essential to its existence. Could there be an Anglican Communion without the Archbishop of Canterbury as the primary focus of unity? I think so. Can a church be an Anglican church and not finally “like” the Church of England? I hope so. Could there be an Anglican Communion without communion with the see of Canterbury? I think not.

The Archbishop is an icon of our unity, but the unity itself is not dependent on the office. The core of Anglicanism, Archbishop Eames states, is found in the return to our sense of community. He stated in the Pitt Lecture at Berkeley Divinity School, “In the end we Anglicans ten to return time and again not to new structures, but to new appreciation of a way of life, and attitude, in short a being rather than a doing.”

The Windsor Report suggests a strengthening of the “Instruments of Unity,” with a particular role for the Archbishop of Canterbury. The suggestion is that he become the “focus of unity” and the other instruments (the Lambeth Conference, the Primates Meetings, the Anglican Consultative Council) become the instruments of communion. This in a way places the Archbishop of Canterbury in a unique position, separate from all the other instruments of our way of being church.

I am not sure that this is the way to go. Perhaps it would be better to have the Archbishop of Canterbury be one principle of unity by virtue of his “invitation” list – the list in the Constitution of the Church of England of those churches with whom the Church of England is in communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury then unites when he invites. Thinking of the circle of churches in the Anglican Communion as an ellipse instead, the Archbishop is at one foci. The Anglican Consultative Council (with some work on what counts as representative government there) becomes the second foci. The Primates would be defined as the chief bishops of those churches part of the Anglican Consultative Council. So the two foci would be the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lambeth Conference as its Episcopal instrumentality and the Anglican Consultative Council with the Primates as its Episcopal instrumentality.

Anglicans are drawn together by being in churches related in a family way to the Church of England. All we sisters, cousins, are drawn together finally by the desire to do so and by the suspicion that in doing so we are helping somehow to restore the unity that is the fulfillment of our Lord’s prayer that we might be one. Such bonds of affection and mutual regard can continue, even when the move beyond colonial Anglicanism requires a recasting of our relationships. I hope Archbishop Akinola can learn with us all how to recast our relationships without negating what has been our real sense of common life and community.