6. It is clear to us that the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church (TEC) has not given an unequivocal response to the requests of the Primates at Dar es Salaam. Therefore we affirm the conclusion that the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa (CAPA) has reached in the communiqué of their meeting in Mauritius in October 2007 that “a change in direction from our current trajectory is urgently needed” because “we want unity but not unity at any expense”.
7. In view of our desire to move forward:
7.1 We call for an urgent meeting of the Primates to receive and conclude the draft Anglican Covenant and to determine how the Communion should move forward;
7.2 We urge that the proposed Lambeth Conference 2008 be postponed to a later date when bishops of all the provinces in the Communion can participate in a spirit of true collegiality and unity in the faith;
7.3 We request the Steering Committee to start preparations for the 4th Encounter of the Global South in 2008;
7.4 We receive with thanks the report of the Economic Empowerment Consultation in Accra, Ghana, in September 2007, and encourage the Task Force to continue to develop programmes to help our churches to be increasingly self-supporting;
7.5 We commend the work of the Theological Education and Formation Task Force, especially the drafting of the Anglican Catechism in Outline (ACIO), and urge our dioceses to make it available to all strata of leadership in preparation for its formal adoption in the first quarter of 2008;
7.6 We call upon bishops of the Global South and the Anglican Communion to write to their churches to explain the current situation and ask them to pray for the Communion at this crucial time which would lead to reformation and transformation.
Assuming Kenya and Tanzania are in agreement, but not signed here.
These nine Primates plus ++Park of Korea are the ten who just completed a visit of China.
[url=http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/index.php/2007/10/30/ten-anglican-global-south-primates-visit-china/#more-2306]Story here[/url]
The absence of ++Park’s name from this communiqué is significant. The absence of any other names may not be.
This communiqué is dated October 30, in compliance with +Rowan Williams’ request for a response to the HOB report.
Now it is time—fully time—for Canterbury to act.
“It is clear to us that the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church (TEC) has not given an unequivocal response to the requests of the Primates at Dar es Salaam.”
I disagree. I believe that the HOB did give an unequivocal response to the Dar communique. That response was “We’re going to continue to do things our way and we don’t care if that endangers the communion as a whole. We believe in the “golden rule.” Those who have the gold make the rules.”
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Does anyone know if this catechism is available on-line yet? I searched for it and didn’t find it — although I found this article discussing the why’s and wherefore’s of it — and I would be curious to see it.
Thanks for the link, Mark McCall [#2]. I haven’t kept close tabs on the state of religious freedom in China lately, other than to recall reports of brutal suppression of Falun Gong just a few years ago. Does anyone else regard it as curious that these ‘GS Primates’ are getting chummy with the Chinese State Administration for Religious Affairs?
I don’t think there will be a true spirit of collegiality until TEC changes its stance……..and I doubt that this will ever happen.
D.C. Falun Gong are theologically distinct from other Christianity; were and are heavily persecuted.
The House churches have nothing to do with them and have been booming in China one of many areas where Christianity is booming in very difficult circumstances. Only today it is alleged that bibles and religious insignia will be banned from the Olympic village. Much as the Roman Catholics have done, engagement by us as a denomination may be able to allay some of the concerns of the Chinese Government. The position is very precarious there for Christians and I would plead with you that they be left out of this and not used as a stick to beat the GS Primates with. It could cost others there a very great deal.
Phil Snyder, you are correct. The HOB has indeed given an unequivocal answer.
This reasserter is deeply disappointed in this communique. One can almost hear the loud ‘Whoopee!’ issuing from the HOB and ABC. It gives further wiggle room to the HOB and the ABC. One can almost predict their response: “Indeed, yes, our response is not ‘unequivocal’, we were faithfully reflecting the blessed diversity of TEC and our culture. Because of that, we shall never be able to issue an ‘unequivocal’ response (but we will insist on going our own merry way). Meanwhile we shall continue to establish ‘facts on the ground’ (including SSBs, Communion on a ‘c’mon, y’all’ basis, total lack of discipline of our HOB, etc., etc.) And you will continue to dither and meet and issue meaningless communiques with no teeth or follow-up. That’s fine with us! Each day we dither is one day closer to our fat retirement checks, and we can then hand the mess over to someone else! Thanks!!!”
I expected more of the GS Bishops than their equivocating comment concerning the TEC response to Dar.
Whether one thinks that it is justified or not, and whether one agrees with their overall position or not, this is essentially the first step in a massive [i]coup d’eglise[/i] that would replace the existing four Instruments of Communion and 44 autocephalous churches with a single central authority.
The Communique calls on the Primates to act unilaterally in responding to TEC and adopting the Covenant, without any reference to the Anglican Consultative Council or the Archbishop of Canterbury. It further calls for the suspension of the Lambeth Conference until the Primates can purge its membership and direct its agenda.
Clearly, any Covenant that this group could support would also abolish the autonomy of any of the 38 provinces and 6 dependencies that were permitted to remain in the Communion. All the actions of their provincial, diocesan, and parish synodical governments will be subject to “judicial review” by the Primates at their sole discretion. Any provinces that were not willing to agree to this would be declared open missionary territory and their members would be assisted to defect [i]en masse[/i].
At one fell swoop, Anglican laity, deacons, presbyters, and 96% of the bishops will lose any control over the course of global Anglicanism, or even their local churches. The remaining 4% of the bishops who happen to be primates will hand over final primatial authority in their own provinces to majority vote of the Primates’ Meeting. The expulsion of the Primate (and province) of Brazil from the Global South group shows how dissenters can expect to be handled. Not only will they be expelled from the fellowship, but will be subject to outside intervention as in the case of the Diocese of Recife.
It is interesting that there are only 9 signatures on this document. That means that they need the agreement of 14 more primates to complete the [i]coup[/i]. I wonder how many more will be willing to sign away their own authority. Indeed, I wonder if even these 9 would [b]really[/b] be willing to do that. The recent constitutional changes in the Church of Nigeria (defining Anglicanism in terms of doctrinal agreement with Nigeria rather than institutional relationships) seek more local independence from outside authority, not less.
Could this perhaps just be the nonnegotiable demand that sets up a threat to walk out of the Communion (and intervene in all the remaining provinces) if it is not complied with? The Global South wins either way: if it does not emerge in command of the historic Anglican Communion, it will be in command of its own body which will include not only the Global South provinces but also new Western provinces formed by secession from the existing ones. We can already see the maneuvering for leadership roles in the New Order; it is hard to explain the recent actions and statements of the Bishops of Pittsburgh (US) or Rochester (UK) except as Primates-in-Waiting.
Dale,
All the more reason for the Archbishop of Canterbury to act now, and act decisively. Power abhors a vacuum.
Dale,
If TECUSA had acted as an autocephalas (self-headed) church rather than an autonomous (a law unto itself), then there would be no need for a more formal structure. But when the informal bonds of fellowship are broken with the “well, it’s not written down somewhere that we can’t….” then it is time to write it down and set an authority to which all can appeal. I would rather that authority be dispersed among 38 primates acting in concert than in one person – however brilliant or well meaning. More than that, thought, I wish that TECUSA had not broken the bonds of fellowship and that it had not brought the Anglican Communion to the brink of dissolution out of its desire to impliment what it calls a “minor” matter.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Dale Rye,
I think your analysis of the situation is incisive and comprehensive. My gut feeling– based to some degree upon personal relationships with some of these primates, and what I consider to be pretty good second-hand information about some of the others– is that the 9 primates really would be quite willing to sacrifice their autonomy for clarity. These are people who are genuinely and deeply scandalized by what goes on in TEC. Some of us here in North America– especially those of us who have been on the front lines of the war for the soul of TEC– have become almost blase’ about the innovations and rank heresies of the revisionists. We are no longer shocked by even the most appalling revelations of depravity and idolatry being practised and propagated by 815… We’re like soldiers in the trenches in 1918– “oh… here come some more mustard gas cannisters… masks on, everybody…” and life goes on, as if the air is not filled with a hideously poisonous vapor sent over by the enemy…
Off the top of my head, I can easily imagine at least 7 or 8 other primates who would sign off on such a thing immediately, with little or no thought or apprehensions beforehand. That makes for 16 or 17 primates… A nd, realistically, I think that there are probably at least 7 other primates who can be convinced fairly easily to go along with this deal, despite some substantial reservations that they might have. (I think it is easy to anticipate these reservations in advance, and it is not hard for me to envision some last-minute jockeying over phraseology to allay these reservations.)
It is going to take MORE than just these few primates, for this thing to float. And this is why we (the orthodox remnant in North America)should ALL be committed to daily, disciplined, detailed, fervent prayers on behalf of the primates who are facing these decisions.
If the battle is going to be won, then it is going to be won by the Lord– not by the primates; not by the bishops; not by the faithful
Overlooked in all this is what’s happening in Latin America on the non-Anglican front. There the dead church is Rome. On any given weekend there are now more evangelicals worshipping in Latin America than there are Romans.
I say “weekend” because through much of South America the “Adventistas” (7th day Adventists) are a big deal. So are the Nazarenes. Together they often build a church where one worships Saturday and the other Sunday, and they share a secretarial/ministry staff.
Rome? Oh, yeah, there was a 68-year-old guy with a collar who came through sometime last year to ask for money and tell us all those Protestantes were headed straight to hell.
The results are remarkable. Latinos used to say: “El hombre es de la calle, y la mujer de la casa.” — the man is of the streets and the woman of the house (not “home”). Masculinity was established by drunkenness and how many women you could bed.
Since the evangelicals arrived Pepe stays off the street, keeps his job, saves money (instead of drinks it), and dotes on his wife and kids. In short, the emergence of a functional middle class in much of Latin America is a direct function of the missionary activity of evangelical Christians.
Every one of those Latin evangelicals would stand with Orombi, Akinola, Venables, and the like. They’ve lived the transformation that comes from walking with Christ. If you teach, preach, and live the Word … your church will grow. If you don’t, it won’t.
I suppose that when unity has been broken, the [i]Instruments[/i] of unity in the Communion just don’t appear to be workin’ so well… Embracing historical anglican doctrine as a reference point doesn’t seem to be such an outrageous move – after all, it is our heritage.
We once were there, and it was OK.
#11 Br’er Rabbit, but hasn’t the ABC already ‘acted’ — by dithering? He’s an old campaigner in the trenches of academic warfare, and has used the tools he honed there to scrape by (so far) in his term in office. We all know his stance re: homosexual activity — he’s all for it, and has not disciplined any CofE clergy for engaging in it.
I predict further erudite dithering from the ABC.
#6: “Does anyone else regard it as curious that these ‘GS Primates’ are getting chummy with the Chinese State Administration for Religious Affairs?”
Uh, no, should we?
But even if a majority of the Primates were to meet and approve the Draft Covenant, wouldn’t it still have to go to their individual conventions or synods for final approval? I know that the actual power that a Primate has varies from province to province, but I didn’t think there were any where the Primate could act on their own to quite that extent.
Unless they all chose to call extraordinary meetings of their synods, that would mean that even if there is a Primates’ Meeting in the near future it still would take another year or two before the Covenant could be said to actually be in effect. And that’s assuming that all of the provincial bodies do in fact sign off on the Covenant, which I wouldn’t consider a given.
Hasn’t Archbishop Malango (Central Africa) already retired, and Bishop Albert Chama is carrying out primatial responsibilities? If so, surely +Malango cannot sign a statement from the Global South [b]Primates[/b].
D.C. for an excellent history of Christianity up to the present is Jesus in Beijing. It looks at the official state protestant and Catholic churches as well as the house church movement. The protestant side is tied strongly to Anglicanism. The author was station chief for Time magazine for many years. Really a great book.
The ABC was “getting chummy”, as you put it, just a few months ago with the state religious leaders. This is obligatory religious leaders visiting China. But saying that, I have been “chummy” with Chinese medical leaders and they are very gracious hosts, and it would be very inconsiderate of the GS leaders to refuse their hospitality. I am sure that you are not suggesting they should have.
So, what else is new? This is the same stuff being repeated over and over again: our way or the highway. They will destroy the Communion and blame TEC and the AC of C for it.
[i]Rome? Oh, yeah, there was a 68-year-old guy with a collar who came through sometime last year to ask for money and tell us all those Protestantes were headed straight to hell[/i]
Is this an ignorant, bigoted slander of the successor to St. Peter? It’s hard to tell, since the Vicar of Christ is 80, not 68. Of course, errors by the ignorant are to be expected. If you were slandering the Pope, Mr. Hall, then you should consider the eternal consequences of violating the 8th commandment.
And shame on the management of this site. Would such filth be tolerated if it weren’t the pope?
Pageantmaster [#8] and robroy [#20], apropros of my concern about the GS Primates getting a bit too cozy with Chinese religious authorities, see also Kendall’s later post about the Chinese banning of the Bible and other religious items at the 2008 Olympics.
Engagement with Chinese authorities is one thing; obsequies of the kind manifested in the GS communication (Mark McCall [#2] provided the link) are something else entirely.
Words Matter,
Please re-read what #14 said. It’s obvious he wasn’t referring specifically to Benedict XVI but rather to some random priest of a random age who happened through a village and stated the above. While it’s a colorful description, and I have no way to determine how it correlates to reality (though the little I do know says the RCC is in trouble in Central and South America), I wouldn’t call it slanderous. The only way one could consider it to speak of the Pope would be to say that the Pope is the personification of everything every priest in the RCC does or does not do. We shouldn’t get our hackles raised by colorful description or hyperbole–our discussions would be very boring indeed without them.
“My way or the highway” is how conservatives/traditionalists have been treated in TEC for these thirty years. I can understand that revisionists don’t like it. We didn’t.
[blockquote]The Communique calls on the Primates to act unilaterally in responding to TEC and adopting the Covenant, without any reference to the Anglican Consultative Council or the Archbishop of Canterbury.[/blockquote]
Yes, it would appear that the refusal of the ABC and the ACC to have taken seriously the responsibility of their office to discipline an aberrant member of the communion means that someone else has decided that they will do a job that has long needed doing.
Bob: “They will destroy the Communion and blame TEC and the AC of C for it.”
The Communion is already in shambles, and, yes, the reappraisers in TEC are to blame. No reasonable person can refute that.
And you actually have the guts to publicly claim that it’s the reasserters that have the “my way or the highway” mentality? Just how obtuse are you?
Rolling Eyes, good grief! Reasonable persons have not only refuted that argument, it’s been destroyed. The reappraisers are simply responding to the cumulative dissolving of TEC into our greater US culture of relativism on all matters, including the authority of the Bible and sexual behaviors. Who led this dissolving? Why, the HOB! The Episcopal Church has been destroyed from within by its majority of spineless bishops who have refused to discipline each other over the years for anything — up to and including serial adultery, and breaking of numerous canons (e.g., inviting non-Christians to communion, winking at and presiding at SSBs, etc., etc. are just the latest stunts they’ve pulled with impunity).
And ‘any reasonable person’ knows that’s exactly what has occurred. The revisionist bishops have led TEC over a cliff. Thank God there are a few who cling to the faith and around whom the Christians can gather!