The opposition of Nigerian Bishops and their congregations to any softening of attitudes towards homosexuality has made them increasingly uneasy with the notion of being in full communion with overseas churches which allow – in their view – an unacceptable latitude in sexual matters. The size and faithfulness of this province means that in any ensuing schism, to be able to claim communion with the Church of Nigeria will be invaluable for a body seeking to present itself as the genuine inheritor of the Anglican tradition. As British, Australian and North American churches fight within themselves over the status of women Bishops and active homosexual clergy, the Church of Nigeria, along with the other African provinces such as South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda, finds itself courted by traditionalists and reformists, Anglo Catholics and Evangelicals, as a fountain of legitimacy for whatever schismatic or unifying agency can claim it. In an extraordinary moment of thwarted ecumenicism the low church, evangelical, and frequently anti-Catholic African Anglicans even found themselves rejecting an advance by Pope Benedict XVI, who wanted to bring them into his newly formed Personal Ordinariate, where they would have been permitted exceptional latitude in liturgy and practice, including the ordination of married men.
The irony of this is that the Church of Nigeria itself is relatively untroubled by internal dissent. The old debates between Anglo Catholicism and Evangelism which wracked British and North American Churches in the 19th century barely touched the African Provinces, where Anglicanism was always defined by its distance from both the Catholic Church on one side and the Baptist and Pentecostalist movements on the other.
Hegemony is hegemony.
While I’m sure that there is some truth in the claim that various Anglican parties have wooed Nigeria, there is no evidence of such given in this article. In fact, there is a complete absence of supporting facts in this article. Having a degree in English instead of journalism can do this to ones writing.
As for the claim that somehow Benedict XVI in some particular pointed way had aimed his Ordinariate at Nigeria, it is completely absurd. The Ordianariate has always be a response by Benedict to some Anglicans to return to Catholicism while retaining their liturgical traditions. If Benedict sent a delegation bearing gifts and promises to Akinola to specifically bring on Nigerian Anglicans, that would be a different story. But that never happened–which is why this kind of “reportage” is worthless.
Yes, I don’t think it is attempting to be journalism. It’s an editorial by someone firmly ensconced in the UK’s liberal tradition who has an interest in Africa. It’s about as one-eyed, and as lacking in self-awareness of that one-eyedness, as one would expect of someone from the Radio 4/Times class. However, he does show some awareness of the religious issues and doesn’t just reduce everything down to politics, so it’s more perceptive than many examples of its kind.
Much of the information is not just slanted but dated, going back at least a year or two, and much of it is simply garbled. Let’s just count some of the errors in this one portion of one paragraph:–
“However, whatever one’s views on the ordination of homosexuals, there are very good reasons to be wary of GAFCon and its future. The Reverend Doctor Mouneer Anis, the Bishop of Egypt and presiding Bishop of Jerusalem and the Middle East, a doctrinal conservative and member of the Global South grouping whose steering committee Peter Akinola chairs, warned that the ‘Global South must not be driven by an exclusively Northern agenda or Northern personalities. The meeting of the Global South in ‘09 will be critical for the future, and the agenda will need careful preparation ahead of time.’ It is certainly true that GAFCon, which depends for much of its legitimacy on the huge memberships of its African Churches, saw a great deal of its agenda set by the majority of British, Australian and North American clergy who made up its leadership council.”
(quoted from this William Clarke article of April 14 2011)
1. The article actually refers to the 2009 Global South-South Encounter as something that has not yet happened. Of course it happened in Singapore some time ago now, with results that should have been pertinent to the article.
2. What could it possibly mean to refer to “the Global South grouping whose steering committee Peter Akinola chairs”? Maybe it meant that he was the leader of CAPA (which is headed now by Ian Earnest of the Indian Ocean, not Akinola)? Doesn’t the article also imply that Akinola is still Primate in Nigeria (instead of ABP. Okoh? If “the Global South grouping” meant GAFCON, then the leader is Gregory Venables.
3. Who says that the GAFCON agenda was mostly set by “British, Australian and North American clergy, who made up its leadership council”? Of the nine members of the GAFCON Primates Council, who signed its communique of last November, seven are Africans, one Australian, and one American. In 2009, the Primates Council had the following members: Emmanuel Kolini (Rwanda), Valentino Mokiwa (Tanzania), Justice Akrofi (West Africa), Benjamin Nzimbi (then Primate of Kenya), Henry Orombi (Uganda), Gregory Venables (Southern Cone), and Peter J. Akinola (Nigeria). Council members listed on last November’s communique were Kolini (Rwanda), Mokiwa (Tanzania), Eliud Wabukala (Kenya), Nicholas Okoh (Nigeria), Orombi, represented by Bishop Nathan Kyamanywa (Uganda), Akrofi (West Africa), Peter Jensen (Sydney),
Robert Duncan (US), and Peter J. Akinola (Nigeria). http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/blog/comments/communique_from_the_primates_council_of_gafcon_fca
So where was the dominance of “British, Australian and North American clergy, who made up its leadership council”??
3. It is falsely implied (it seems to me) that Mouneer Anis has been saying “there are very good reasons to be wary of GAFCon and its future.” I don’t believe that is a current statement from ABP. Anis but may refer to something he said a couple of years ago. ABP. Anis signed on to the Singapore Communique from the South-South Encounter, which welcomed ACNA (and two Communion Partners), saying of ACNA, “We welcomed them as partners in the Gospel” (in fact, Robert Duncan officiated at Communion) and saying also, “our hope is that all provinces will be in full communion with the clergy and people of the ACNA and the Communion Partners.” http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/blog/comments/fourth_trumpet_from_the_fourth_anglican_global_south_to_south_encounter
4. There are other problems in this paragraph, but I won’t go on!
Surely it’s shocking to print such an out-of-date, slanted, and confusing article. It was never really correct and now it is years behind the developments in the Global South and the Anglican Communion.
Amen to all the above.
I am guessing that this article has emerged because the Archbishop of Nigeria has just announced that a second Gafcon conference will take place in Jerusalem in 2012.
But you would think that the writer could at least do some basic research.