Meeting at the Imperial Hotel in Entebbe, on the shores of Lake Victoria, the meeting offered confusing signals to participants. Speakers such as Archbishop Henry Orombi of Uganda, Bishop Mouneer Anis of Egypt and key Ugandan government ministers offered pointed criticisms and critiques of the divisions within the Anglican Communion.
The chairman of CAPA, Archbishop Ian Ernest of the Indian Ocean told reporters Africa was the hope for the Anglican future. “Today, the West is lacking obedience to the word of God. It is for us to redress the situation,” he said.
However, the official agenda prepared by the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa (CAPA) office in Nairobi looked at anodyne issues of social and institutional development in the African church, while a wan Archbishop of Canterbury returned to themes of patience and forbearance in his address to the gathering.
This article is an excellent demonstration of how to “spin” the facts and leave the reader with ‘cleverly cultivated’ negative thoughts about the Entebbe Conference.
How so? Are you referring to Duncan’s negative assessment or Conger’s citing of it, or what?
For example, the article’s title stated “doctrinal issues.”
Then why this poison pill,
“However, CAPA accepted a grant of $25,000 from Trinity Church in New York to help underwrite the conference, embarrassing the host Ugandan Church.”
This speaks to a grant and doesn’t state anything at all about any conditions attached to the grant, if any. But it sure can leave some readers believeing that the African bishops “talk the talk, but don’t walk the walk.”
There can be all sorts of reasons why that grant was made and why it was accepted. Maybe there is a faction within Trinity Wall Street and its vestry that tends toward being “orthodox” and that it’s will was expressed by this grant. Who knows? I don’t.
But to impugn or to provide ammunition for those who would impugn the motives/behavior of the conference’s bishops just on the basis of accepting a grant is wrong. Maybe that wasn’t the writer’s intent.
What language is the dominant language spoken at the All African Bishops Conference? I get the impression that something may have been lost in translation.
Perhaps the article was not sufficiently clear, the Ugandan bishops were the ones who objected to the CAPA staff having accepted a grant. CAPA subsequently apologized for having put the host country, Uganda, in the awkward position of appearing to be hypocrites.
My concern regarding the Trinity Wall Street grant accepted by the CAPA officials is that it may have had extenuating/mitigating statements/communications associated with it that were not mentioned and which freed the Ugandan Church from compromising its principled position on accepting monies from revisionist bodies.
No, there were no such extenuating circumstances. That is why the extraordinary step was taken of CAPA offering a public written apology to the Church of Uganda over its having taken Trinity Wall Street’s money.
Thank you George.
By the way, Conger is not a common name and my maternal grandmother was a Conger.
It may be easier to understand CANA’s apology and the reasons why African Anglicans want to sustain themselves honorably if you read this 2004 “Open Letter†from: Louis Crew, “a member of the board of directors (Executive Council) of the Episcopal Church†to: “Archbishop Orombi and other Bishops of Uganda“.
http://rci.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/natter2004/msg00077.html