[Some but not all]…Global Anglican leaders will gather to meet in Canterbury in early October for a summit meeting. Most of them come from contexts where the Anglican church is continuing to teach and promote the biblical Gospel of repentance and faith in Christ for salvation, and the historic Christian understanding of sexuality and marriage. A few Provinces, with most of the wealth and power, are dominated by a leadership wanting to promote a different form of Christianity that is more acceptable to the secular West.

The last Primates…[gathering], in Canterbury January 2016, only made these divisions clearer. The majority of Primates resolved then to work together to continue the important work of the Anglican Communion, but required TEC to withdraw from full involvement, as they had violated the ‘bonds of affection’ by continuing to pursue their revisionist agenda, of which acceptance of same sex marriage was the latest example. But the TEC leadership, along with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Communion Office, interpreted things very differently. For them, Canterbury 2016 was all about resolving to “walk together”, continuing a conversation, finding unity in diversity, putting differences in doctrine to one side for the sake of common mission, etc.

There have been such scenarios many times before in the twenty-year process of separation between these two groups and their mutually incompatible visions of Christian truth. The pattern goes like this: an expensive, time-consuming meeting brings Primates together in good faith. While there is common ground on shared support for Anglican ministries of mercy, community development and peacebuilding, the majority again and again express their desire to move forward together on the basis of shared understanding of and commitment to the faith once delivered to the saints, and deep concern about departures from it. A document is produced reiterating the majority view and giving some form of censure for TEC and the revisionists. Almost immediately after the meeting the powerful minority ignore and renege on the agreements. As the majority protest, they are accused of being divisive by the officials from the Anglican Communion Office.

Two of the longest-serving Primates have experienced this pattern several times at first hand. Archbishops Nicholas Okoh and Stanley Ntagali have decided not to attend the upcoming conference, because it is clear that the result will be no different; there has been a “breakdown of trust”[1] and the failure to follow through resolutions reinforces “a pattern of behaviour which is allowing great damage to be done to global Anglican witness and unity”[2]. Why are more Primates not boycotting the meeting? Of the four others who are not attending, at least two have not publicly given a reason but are known to align with Okoh and Ntagali. Several of those attending are relatively new in post; they may have heard about the bad faith and broken promises at meetings in the past but have not experienced it themselves; some believe that it’s important to be there and defend the orthodox position. Some have been personally welcomed and persuaded by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and are mindful of not jeopardizing important connections with British and American government aid departments.

Read it all.

Just three months afterward, the Anglican Consultative Council (a deliberative body in which lay persons, clergy, bishops and Primates all take part as elected representatives of their respective denominations) held its sixteenth triennial meeting in Lusaka, Zambia. Representatives from ECUSA attended, but refused to honor the Primates’ requirement to abstain from certain deliberations of the Council having to do with “doctrine or polity.” Nor did the Council bar them from doing so.

The Episcopal delegates not only refused, but they gloated about the Council’s refusal even to consider the Primates’ requirement. In an open letter they sent to ECUSA after the meeting, which was published in the official Episcopal News Service, they reported that although Archbishop Welby had communicated the results of the January meeting to the Council, “ACC members seemed to have little energy for answering the primates’ call for consequences”.

Thus just as they flouted Resolution 1.10 from the 1998 Lambeth Conference in 2003, when they approved the consecration of Bishop V. Gene Robinson contrary to that Resolution, and just as they have repeatedly, in the years since, rejected all calls to change their course, ECUSA is determined to walk apart from the former Communion while keeping up the pretense that their actions have not turned it into a Disunion. (“How could it be a ‘Disunion’?” I hear them asking. “We still attend all its meetings!”)

Not only do they insist on exercising their full authority and rights when it comes to participation in Anglican-wide affairs, but they rub it in the GAFCON Primates’ faces every chance they get. For instance, Archbishop Welby has invited all Anglican Primates (with the exception of ACNA’s, whom he had invited the previous year) to another meeting at Canterbury next October. Just last week, the official news organ of the Anglican [Dis]union published a story about his invitation, and his expectations for the meeting. In the process, they rather loosely characterized ECUSA’s actions at ACC-16 in Lusaka (by serving up what is called “Anglican fudge” to describe what happened).

The ECUSA delegates to that meeting issued a response challenging the story’s accuracy, and ACNS had to add some further explanation by way of making the fudge thicker. (See the updated story here, and the explanation at the end. What ACNS added is the last sentence to the next-to-last paragraph.)

The upshot is that ECUSA once again saw to it that the other Primates were told in no uncertain terms that ECUSA had never yet acceded to their demands, and was not about to change its course.

Read it all (my emphasis).

From here:

The agreement from the January Primates meeting in 2016 was broken when The Episcopal Church (TEC) took part in decision making on issues pertaining to polity and doctrine in Lusaka. Equally damaging, was an attempt by the Anglican Communion Office to deny the fact by claiming that, technically, the process included no formal votes. This is sophistry.

The Primates agreement in January was never limited to the narrow issue of the method of voting. It said that “[The Episcopal Church] will not to take part in decision making on issues pertaining to polity or doctrine.” [Primates 2016 Communique]
Whether a meeting uses a consensus model, or a voice vote, or paper ballots, or electronic ballots is of no relevance. The Episcopal Church was not to take part in decision making on issues pertaining to polity or doctrine. They did.

As the GAFCON Primates Council has said: “The future of the Anglican Communion does not lie with manipulations, compromises, legal loopholes, or the presentation of half-truths; the future of our Communion lies in humble obedience to the truth of the Word of God written.” [Gafcon Primates Communique, April 2016]

Read it all. The ACNS then altered their article based on this response. You can see both versions there; make sure to read them and compare the differences.

It is now perfectly clear that the meeting failed in its intention. Far from being rebuked, the leaders of the Episcopal Church said that they intend to continue in their present course and indeed to export their ideas vigorously to the rest of the world.

It seems, from what the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion is communicating, that repentance was never required ”“ which makes the disciplinary measures rather strange.

The mild discipline which was imposed was at once put to the test at the meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council, and fundamentally (though not entirely) failed to hold.

Astonishingly, the membership of the taskforce set up to continue the business of the meeting, contains no GAFCON Primate, although Presiding Bishop Michael Curry of the TEC is a member. At best, this is an error of judgement. In truth, it seems symbolic of an unfortunate disdain for the leaders of some of the most thriving of the Provinces in the Communion.

Read it all.

Two weeks ago, I went to London and met with Archbishop Justin specifically to ask the question, ‘Will this also apply to us if we complete the process of Canonical change in 2017?’ The answer is that it will. Most directly, I will be removed from the role of Anglican Co-Chair of the International Anglican-Reformed Dialogue. But other effects are limited. Our bishops will be present and fully involved in the Lambeth Conference planned for 2020. We shall continue to be actively involved in our network of Diocesan Companionships and in the Anglican Networks.

Let me try and explain to you what has happened and what has changed.

The Anglican Communion does not have a central authority, The Provinces – of which our own SEC is one – are autonomous. But clearly we owe a duty and respect to other Provinces, We sometimes say ‘autonomous and interdependent’. That delicate balance becomes stressed when Provinces which live in very different contexts address the changing context in which they live in very different ways.

The Global North is experiencing massive social change in respect of human sexuality – not that the church simply follows that. The Global South – and in particular Sub-Saharan Africa – remains deeply conservative and is under pressure from the Islamisation of Africa. The legacy of colonialism makes measured and respectful dialogue very difficult. Different understandings of collegiality and leadership confuse expectations about how issues will be addressed.

Read it all.

Read it all.

In receiving the Archbishop of Canterbury’s formal report of the Primates’ Gathering and Meeting, ACC16 neither endorsed nor affirmed the consequences contained in the Primates’ Communiqué. There was no plenary discussion or decision with respect to the Primates’ Communiqué. From our perspective there did not seem to be a common mind on the issue, other than the clear commitment to avoid further confrontation and division. ACC16 did welcome the call for the Instruments of Communion and the Provinces to continue to walk together as they discern the way forward. No consequences were imposed by the ACC and neither was the ACC asked to do so.

During the meeting there were many opportunities, both formal and informal, to explore the ACC16 theme of ”˜Intentional discipleship in a world of differences.” This was done faithfully and respectfully.

Read it all.

With thanks to Kevin Kallsen and George Conger at Anglican TV

The council also elected five representatives to the communion’s Standing Committee. They are:

Diocese of Edmonton Bishop Jane Alexander, Anglican Church of Canada
Alistair Dinnie, Scottish Episcopal Church
Jeroham Melendez, Anglican Church of the Region of Central America
The Rev. Nigel Pope, Church of North India (United)
Bishop of Nairobi Joel Waweru, Anglican Church of Kenya

Read it all

This week, the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), one of the four Anglican “Instruments of Communion,” is meeting in Lusaka, Zambia. In the life of a desperately compromised institution, it has been no surprise that the decision of the overwhelming number of Primates of the Anglican Communion has been ignored. The Episcopal Church (TEC) has not only led the rebellious charge to incorporate sexual practices that are proscribed by Scripture, but they (and a few other Anglican Provinces) also have gone a step further”¦they are blessing what God calls sin.

What is absolutely remarkable is the great absence of institutional voices to say that what TEC (and other similarly minded Provinces) is doing is wrong. It’s not really hard. W.R.O.N.G. Easy to say, but it isn’t being said.

Instead, the emphasis is on “positive” contributions from TEC and on apologizing to “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,Transgendered, ”˜Questioning,’ and ”˜Inquiring’” (LGBTQI) people. Most of the apologies center around asking for forgiveness for not fully incorporating those with leanings or behaviors of LEBTQI into the life (and leadership) of the Church.

Read it all

The Archbishop and Primate of Hong Kong, the Most Revd Dr Paul Kwong, has been elected as the new chair of the Anglican Consultative Council ”“ the legally constituted body that brings together Anglican churches from around the world.

Read it all

..Let me speak very personally. One of the most painful elements of the present crisis for me has been the lack of leadership in places from which one could have expected it. I can understand TEC; her leadership make no secret of their theology or the reasons why they take the stand they do.

But what I find most painful is the silence or prevarication of those who don’t agree with the new sexual ethic, who understand that our ministry is the ministry of the word of God, but who say nothing except to distance themselves from a movement like GAFCON.

Where is Elijah?

I have sat in the room with Primates who have spoken with evident deep pain about the way in which the ones they have looked to for clear teaching and leadership, have failed to say publicly what God’s word says.

More, when I mix with ”˜the ordinary person in the pew’, people who have always understood that we are meant to obey the word of God, when these people seek to live and speak for Christ in a culture which has abandoned God, they too are bewildered and dismayed by a leadership which has not given them voice and hope…

Read it all

..A recent wave of church developments, similar to what has happened in New York, has at least three of them rebuilding sites, sparking debate about urban planning and heritage preservation, as well as whether religious institutions are exploiting land intended for non-profit use.
….
The Anglican Church plans to build two towers of 18 floors and 11 floors as part of a redevelopment near Lan Kwai Fong. The land currently has historic buildings, including the 166-year-old bishop’s house and a church that was used by Japanese soldiers during the second world war as a training school.

In the deal reached and approved by the government in 2011, the Anglican Church will preserve the heritage buildings at its own cost. The two new towers will be used for facilities including a church, kindergarten and a medical centre, according to a June 2011 government document.

A representative of the church was unavailable for comment on the development.

The Anglican Diocese’s St John’s Cathedral built in 1849 sits on the only freehold plot of land in the city in the shadow of Central’s soaring office towers. Other land in Hong Kong is owned by the government and sold for long-term leases.

“Those land sites that they acquired in colonial times have become their biggest assets today,” said Ng Cho-nam, a former member of the Antiquities Advisory Board, a government body advising on heritage issues in the city. While maximising the value of their land, churches should take heritage into consideration as they had close relationship with the city during its development as a former colony, he said.

Previously, the church partnered with Li Ka-shing’s Cheung Kong (Holdings) in 1993 to build a residential complex on a site it was using as an orphanage, which was set to be relocated, in a suburban district. The church and its foundation earned about HK$1.1 billion from selling homes and parking spaces at the project, a legal document showed.

Read it all and there is an update here

The pro-democracy Occupy protests last year divided Hong Kong and violence has become more frequent, Archbishop Paul Kwong said on Sunday.
…..
“Our city has been divided and fragmented after the Occupy Movement and the dispute over political reform last year. When dealing with people and social issues, we begin to see a more frequent use of violent language and behaviours rather than mutual trust, tolerance, objectivity and rationality.”

The Archbishop ended his message by calling for an accepting and tolerant attitude, as it was the only way a society of mutual trust,
….
Paul Kwong has made controversial remarks in the past. Last year, he said that some of the protesters at the July First march joined out of a herd mentality. He also asked why the arrested demonstrators “didn’t bring their Filipino maids to the march,”

Read it all

Members of the Anglican Consultative Council, meeting in Lusaka, Zambia, will elect a new chair tomorrow and will have the choice of two candidates with significant knowledge of global Anglicanism: Professor Joanildo Burity from Brazil and Archbishop Paul Kwong from Hong Kong.

Read it all and AB Kwong may be seen here at the Primates Gathering Press Conference

In a rare interview, his second since taking over the helm at the church in 2007, the Most Reverend Paul Kwong told the Post that, contrary to accusations, he was not a government yes-man. He claimed he had, behind closed doors, urged officials to communicate with different sectors and explain their policies more clearly and frequently.

Kwong declined to say if he supported Leung’s re-election, but he said he believed the chief executive “loves Hong Kong”.

Read it all

Top Anglican official in Hong Kong defends multi-million dollar flat and past comments critical of Occupy protesters

In rare interview, Most Reverend Paul Kwong explains to Post his comments generating media attention two years ago and today
In a rare interview, Most Reverend Paul Kwong spoke with the Post on questions raised in the media about his political stances and why he resided at upscale Pacific View complex on Tai Tam Road. It was reported that the apartment cost the church HK$13.4 million in 2006. The latest public records involving Pacific View flats indicated transactions in recent months ranging from HK$19 million to HK$38 million.

When asked why he did not follow his predecessors’ example of staying at Bishop House in Central, Kwong said the building, built in 1851, was too spacious for an unmarried bishop like him.
………
In July 2014, Kwong talked about “peace of mind” in a sermon and questioned why Hongkongers “speak up so much”. He asked at the time why protesters who complained about being denied water after they were arrested at a sit-in in Central did not “bring along their Filipino maids”.

Read it all

The Archbishop of Kenya has denied that he signed or approved a letter released under his signature that appeared to change Kenya’s stance on its boycott of the meeting of Anglican leaders in Zambia this week.

The Most Rev Eliud Wabukala told Anglican Ink that the forgery was a ruse to defy his authority and justify the attendance of the Kenyan delegation in Lusaka.

Read it all

..What I find most striking about these recent events is not the dysfunction and disobedience of Bishop Waweru (one would expect as much of a “bishop” involved in “dialogue” with heretics), but the political ineptitude and foolishness of Archbishop Idowu-Fearon. Does he really want to stand behind a lie or a liar? Does he really want to accept a delegation to the ACC that sits in defiance of its own province? Isn’t seating this delegation at ACC16 an open affirmation of Bishop Waweru’s deception? Isn’t the ACC now taking an active role in the subversion of a legitimately elected Anglican Communion Primate?

On what basis or foundation can any ACC official decry colonialism? One does not need to be a prophet to see that this is nothing less than a bald shameless attempt to undermine a sitting Anglican primate who does not toe the Canterbury line and replace him with a toady.

Read it all UPDATE: See also Forged Documents and Subversion

The Archbishop of Kenya did not sign, nor did he approve, a letter released under his signature that was posted to the provincial website that purported to change the church’s stance on its boycott of ACC-16 in Lusaka.

In an 11 April 2016 interview, the Most Rev. Eliud Wabukala confirmed the forgery was a ruse to justify the attendance of the Kenyan delegation to the meeting and to “defy my authority.”

Archbishop Wabukala explained he had been in Marsabit brokering an end to clashes between pastoralists and farmers in northern Kenya when “I found the delegation from Kenya were ready to go,” with air tickets and travel reservations in hand. Aware of the archbishop’s opposition to their attending the meeting, the leader of the delegation, the Rt. Rev. Joel Waweru, Bishop of Nairobi telephoned and asked for a meeting in the provincial office with the archbishop and the two other delegates..

Read it all and see also:

Kenya 8: AU 224 – Kenya, Canterbury, ACC and 815
Kenya 7: [Matt Kennedy] Anglican Colonialists and the Subversion of a Kenyan Province
Kenya 5: [AI] Primate of Kenya refutes claims from ACC 16
Kenya 4: Bishop Idowu-Fearon comments on TEC Standing Committee membership and Kenya
Kenya 3: Fraud and Forgery Allegations Raised at ACC 16 [with copy falsified letter]
Kenya 2: [ACK] Statement on Anglican Consultative Council 16, Lusaka
Kenya 1: Archbishop Wabukala responds to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Letter to Primates

In the light of media speculation about contradictory statements posted on the ACK website about attendance at of the Kenyan delegation at ACC-16, I wish to confirm that the statement dated 5th April was not seen by me and I did not authorize the use of my signature. Its use by my office was based on a clear misunderstanding.

My position remains in solidarity with that of my brother Primates of Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda and Jerusalem and the Middle East.

The Most Revd Dr Eliud Wabukala.

Archbishop of Kenya and Bishop, All Saints Cathedral Diocese, Nairobi

Read it all

A TEC representative whose attendance at the ACC Standing Committee has been commented on as breaching the decision of the Primates, was elected to the Standing Committee several years before the Primates’ meeting. As the Standing Committee is a Trustee body under English law, they cannot be removed without legal cause, and neither the Primates nor the ABC, nor indeed the ACC, can override the law.
…..
The unsubstantiated public allegations of forgery against the members of the Kenyan delegation are scurrilous and untrue and are made in a manner against all biblical principles of appropriate behaviour.

Read it all

From Anglican Ink
The Anglican Church of Rwanda has declined to send a delegation to this week’s meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council in Lusaka. However, no statement will be issued at this time by the East African church’s House of Bishops explaining their motivation.

Read it all

Just when you thought Godly order couldn’t unravel any further, it appears that it has. According to an article published on Anglican Ink, a fraudulent letter was posted on the Anglican Church of Kenya’s website, with Archbishop Wabukala’s digital signature, purporting to reverse his public decision not to send a delegation from the Anglican Church of Kenya (ACK) to the meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council which begins today.
……….
These facts are troubling and invite obvious questions: Who had access to Archbishop Wabukala’s digital signature in such a way that they could forge such a letter? Who did so? Did they have help from others within the Provincial Office or with whomever is responsible for the website? What did Bishop Waweru know about this letter? Exactly what representations did he make to the lay and clergy delegates from Kenya? At least one blogger has noticed that the language in the forged letter is partially lifted from Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby’s letter imploring Churches to attend ACC-16. If this is so, did the Anglican Communion Office have any role in this forgery?

There is a larger question as well: What does this forgery, the gift of airplane tickets, assignments from ACC-16 and false pretenses under which some delegates from Kenya have come to ACC-16 say about the mind of the Anglican Consultative Council? What does it say about their public intent to overrule and usurp the authority of the Primates in order to pursue their own agenda? And to do so by overreaching the clear limits of their “advisory” authority as I have written below?

Finally, as Archbishop Wabukala notes in his April 6 letter, what does the deafening silence of the Archbishop of Canterbury ”“ in the face of these and other facts ”“ say about his leadership of the Anglican Communion?

The Apostle Paul wouldn’t hesitate a moment to give his opinion:

“Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God.” 2 Corinthians 4:2 NIV

It is time for Anglicans everywhere to wake up and walk in the light (I John 1:7).

Read it all

..Some would say that those who break fellowship because of the distorted gospel are the ones at fault. They would say that we have succeeded in making so much fuss that all we talk about is sex, rather than Jesus. Furthermore, society no longer has the faintest idea of what the Bible is saying on this subject and cannot be sympathetic to our views. Instead the world labels us bigots and homophobes and we do not get a hearing for Jesus.

They would say that it is better to agree to disagree about the subject, enter a ”˜good disagreement’ with each other, maintain unity so that our quarrels do not become the story, and talk about Jesus.

But there are four problems with this argument.

First, it narrows Jesus down so that we are in danger of not teaching the real Jesus who called for repentance from sin.

Second, it forbids us to analyse and expose human sin and idolatry at precisely one of its most obvious points.

Third, it forbids us to do good in our community by offering a far better vision of what it is to be human.

Fourth, it insists that those who refuse to compromise over these matters are the ones at fault and grants a mark of approval to those who distort the gospel.

Fellowship in a false gospel, is not fellowship.

Read it all

Update: The statement whose authenticity has been denied posted online on the Anglican Church of Kenya website briefly before being removed is available to be read below thanks to a sharp-eyed correspondent

From Anglican Ink: Fraud and Forgery Allegations Raised at ACC 16 – George Conger
Kenya’s participation in this week’s ACC meeting in Lusaka was procured by fraud, leaders of the East African church report. A statement under the signature of the Archbishop of Kenya, the Most Rev. Eliud Wabukala, appeared on the website of the Anglican Church of Kenya on 6 April 2016, announcing the church had reversed its stance on the boycott of the ACC meeting in Lusaka. However, within hours of its publication, the letter was taken down and a new statement was posted from the archbishop lamenting the interference of the Anglican Consultative Council in the Kenyan church.

The first letter was a forgery with the archbishop’s digital signature pasted on the letter. Sources in the Kenyan church tell AI the archbishop suspects the forgery was prepared under the direction of the Bishop of Nairobi, the Rt. Rev. Joel Waweru, who is leading the Kenyan delegation to Lusaka. Emails to the Nairobi bishop, who is in transit to Lusaka, have not been answered as of our going to print.

The Kenyan clergy and lay delegates to Lusaka, Lay Canon Peter Gachuhi, Diocesan Chancellor of All Saints Cathedral Diocese and the Ven Canon Philip Obwogi, Vicar General of the Diocese of Nakuru, are understood to have been informed by Bishop Waweru that Archbishop Wabukala had changed his mind, and agreed to go to Lusaka under these circumstances. “They are known as good men and I do not believe they would knowingly defy the Primate,” a source in the ACK said. It is not known if they will now stay for the meeting after learning of the forgery.

A frequent participant in the Canadian-sponsored Anglican Bishops in Dialogue program, Bishop Waweru has defied his primate in the past over his collaboration with the Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada in defiance to the Kenyan bishops’ ban on relations with the North American provinces.

The situation is further complicated by Bishop Waweru’s bid to replace Archbishop Wabukala as primate of the ACK at the provincial elections on 20 May 2016. Civil and ecclesiastical elections in Kenya are often marked by appeals to tribal loyalty. A source who asked not to be named as he was not authorized to speak on behalf of his fellow bishops said he doubted any immediate disciplinary action would be taken as it would inflame tensions in the run up to the election of a new archbishop.

In 2013 elections for primate of the Anglican Church of Tanzania were marked by bribery allegations, with supporters of ousted Archbishop Valentino Mokiwa claiming the Episcopal Church of the USA purchased the votes of some delegates to ensure the election of a candidate favorable to the US church. The Tanzanian church’s general secretary denied the allegations, but other church leaders confirmed to AI the veracity of the claims.

Read it all

Statement on the ACC 16 Lusaka by The Elves

As we indicated in our 2013 post Men, Women and Marriage, and the Church in Wales, the approach taken by the CiW has differed from that of the Co E, one consequence of which was the inclusion in the Marriage (Same sex couples) Act 2013 of a provision under which the Lord Chancellor could by Order allow for the marriage of same sex couples according to the rites of the Church in Wales.

However, section 8 of the Act:“”¦ applies if the Lord Chancellor is satisfied that the Governing Body of the Church in Wales has resolved that the law of England and Wales should be changed to allow for the marriage of same sex couples according to the rites of the Church in Wales”.

It is clear from Dr Morgan’s letter that the Church in Wales is not in a position to satisfy this legal requirement. However, the introduction of a service of blessing is not constrained by such statutory legal requirements..

Read it all

Anglican Church of Kenya
Head Office

Statement on Anglican Consultative Council 16, Lusaka

It is a matter of regret that this Church’s delegation to the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) in Lusaka has been encouraged to disregard my spiritual counsel and attend this meeting.

In January, the Primates meeting at Canterbury agreed to curtail the participation of the Episcopal Church of the United States (TEC) in Communion bodies for a period of three years in view of its formal adoption of same sex ”˜marriage’.

The provisions of this resolution, and the Primates’ authority to make it, have been rejected by Bishop Tengatenga, the Chairman of the ACC. As a result, the Provinces of Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda and most recently Jerusalem and the Middle East announced that they could not attend.

Despite my public statement and my personal direction to them, the Kenyan delegation has informed me of their intention to be present, with air tickets purchased for them and assignments already given.

It seems that the rejection of the moral and spiritual authority of the Primates by the ACC Chairman, without public rebuke from the Archbishop of Canterbury, has become infectious and is encouraging further breakdown of godly order in the Communion.

The underlying cause of this particular problem, which is just one symptom among many, is the doctrinal confusion that has been allowed to take root in the Communion. The GAFCON movement, of which I am Chairman, is committed to the deep healing of the Anglican Communion by restoring the Bible to its rightful place among us and I remain entirely committed to that great cause.

The Most Revd Dr Eliud Wabukala,
Archbishop of Kenya and Bishop, All Saints Cathedral Diocese, Nairobi
6th April 2016

Read it all

for those who will be attending in Lusaka, what picture of discipleship will they be getting? Among the list of resources provided on the ACNS website is a book available as a downloadable document of around 140 pages, entitled Intentional Discipleship and Disciple-Making: An Anglican Guide for Christian Life and Formation. It’s worth looking at this in some detail. It is described by Archbishop Justin Welby as “the best document I have read on the subject”
the TEC report (p103ff) says that now that we are in “post-Christendom”, Christian life consists of “reimagining” the faith and developing “new narratives”.

The inclusion of this section by TEC, advocating the replacement of historic doctrine and practice of the Christian life with something new (although this is not specified), jars with and even contradicts the majority of the document. It is a good illustration, if we needed further evidence, of the problem that will be the elephant in the room when the document is discussed in Lusaka. A nice report will be produced after the event, but if the Anglican Communion really wants to work in unity for renewal of discipleship, the constituent churches must at least agree on the basics of the Christian faith. This document shows that the majority of Anglicans, mostly in the global south (whether or not explicitly aligned with GAFCON) have an orthodox understanding of faith and are seeking to get on with evangelism, church planting, discipleship and discipling according to the Scriptures. Increasingly, Anglicans in the north and West have developed a very different understanding of faith and therefore of what it means to follow Christ. As we all know, different understandings of sex and marriage are just the surface ”˜presenting issue’. Underneath we find the difference between discipleship and apostasy.

Read it all