The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Revd and Rt. Hon. Dr. Rowan Williams took over the leadership of the Anglican Communion in 2002 when it was a happy family. Unfortunately, he is leaving behind a Communion in tatters: highly polarized, bitterly factionalized, with issues of revisionist interpretation of the Holy Scriptures and human sexuality as stumbling blocks to oneness, evangelism and mission all around the Anglican world.
It might not have been entirely his own making, but certainly “crucified under Pontius Pilate”. The lowest ebb of this degeneration came in 2008, when there were, so to say, two “Lambeth” Conferences one in the UK, and an alternative one, GAFCON in Jerusalem. The trend continued recently when many Global South Primates decided not to attend the last Primates’ meeting in Dublin, Ireland.
Since Dr. Rowan Williams did not resign in 2008, over the split Lambeth Conference, one would have expected him to stay on in office, and work assiduously to ”˜mend the net’ or repair the breach, before bowing out of office. The only attempt, the covenant proposal, was doomed to fail from the start, as “two cannot walk together unless they have agreed”.For us, the announcement does not present any opportunity for excitement. It is not good news here, until whoever comes as the next leader pulls back the Communion from the edge of total destruction. To this end, we commit our Church, the Church of Nigeria, (Anglican Communion) to serious fasting and prayers that God will do “a new thing”, in the Communion.
Nevertheless, we join others to continue in prayer for Dr. Rowan Williams and his family for a more fruitful endeavour in their post ”“ Canterbury life.
–(The Most Rev.) Nicholas D. Okoh is Archbishop, Metropolitan and Primate of All Nigeria
That’s gonna hurt ….
Ungracious and inaccurate. The Anglican Communion was a happy family in 2002? It costs nothing to be appreciative and kind even to those regarded as being the opposition.
Perhaps ungracious, but speaking truth to power rarely is perceived with grace. Inaccurate only in laying claim to a “happy family” since the TEc under Frank Grizwold was deliberately seeking to undermine the faith once delivered (and the unhappiness was with the Canadians for firsting, as I recall).
To be appreciative in the historical sense does not mean whitewashing the evident reality of Rowan Williams tenure nor ignoring their role in the opposition.
I find this a refreshingly accurate appraisal of the current ABC and his lived-through tenure to date. It avoids the boredom of his academic credentials and the Inadaba and Ubuntu for which PB Schori properly credits him.
That Williams ignored the message of the Lambeth fiasco ought to stand in his column and not be forgotten, nor the reduction of the Primates, nor his boondoggle over the Covenant.
I am sure that the CoE will duly credit him for his watch when all the tom-foolery is over and history speaks.
Agree with wvparson. The Anglican Communion was NOT a happy family in 2002. The storm clouds had been gathering for years before +++Rowan Williams was enthroned. His predecessor talked the talk but did nothing to avert what was coming.
Surely Nigeria is aware of this [edited]. It makes the discourse appear as a temper tantrum.
[Edited by Elf]
Remember dudes that this stuff was kept low key at the highest levels by none other than Petersen at the Communion level. All Primates meetings were manipulated and structured from the main office. There should have been more awareness with the 2000 consecrations by Singapore and Rwanda, but Carey tried to squash that stuff as well.
Would the Nigerians like some cheese with their whine? The last time I checked they are still in full communion with Canterbury. Clearly nothing doctrinally beyond the pale has occurred. Someone drop me a line if and when this changes.
I’m pleased to see that Okoh is as sturdy as I had hoped — and as aware. Truth to tell, masses of other Anglicans from many provinces both first world and third world agree in particular with Rowan Williams utterly dreadful record of actions — and this statement:
“Unfortunately, he is leaving behind a Communion in tatters: highly polarized, bitterly factionalized, with issues of revisionist interpretation of the Holy Scriptures and human sexuality as stumbling blocks to oneness, evangelism and mission all around the Anglican world.”
Rowan Williams’ tenure was an epic — and I do mean epic — fail. “Historic fail” might be another apt descriptor.
Doesn’t mean that he’s not a nice man, or very learned, or a fine Christian gentleman or any number of other lovely attributes.
But I think history will recognize just how disastrously incompetent his reign was.
“Unfortunately, he is leaving behind a Communion in tatters: highly polarized, bitterly factionalized, with issues of revisionist interpretation of the Holy Scriptures and human sexuality as stumbling blocks to oneness, evangelism and mission all around the Anglican world.â€
Certainly a money sentence.
Sounds like a question, but it’s a statement–how many times have I heard the plain truth spoken bluntly referred to as “ungracious”. Ho-Hum.
“His predecessor talked the talk but did nothing to avert what was coming”.
I doubt you have the foggiest idea what ++Carey did to “avert what was coming”, especially behind the scenes. He’s not perfect, but had he not done the things he did, it would have been his tenure that was the “epic fail”, not Williams’.
Somebody else has said it already–the devil will also be in the details of Cameron working like mad to advance his secular agenda. Praise God and pass the ammunition; it’s going to be a wild ride, methinks. Prayers…
Okoh was a bishop in 2002, and I presume that he was an attendee at GAFCON in lieu of travelling to Lambeth. So his use of something akin to the passive voice could be better amended to “I and other bishops set up GAFCON in competition to Lambeth,” and “I decided not to attend the last primates’ meeting.” I understand Okoh to be participating in and working towards the destruction of the communion. Nobody could have held things together on Okoh’s terms.
Actually it was the Primates of certain provinces who set up GAFCON.
RE: “I understand Okoh to be participating in and working towards the destruction of the communion. Nobody could have held things together on Okoh’s terms.”
I understand Okoh to be participating in and working towards the alliance necessary to salvaging one part of a shattered communion. Nobody could have salvaged anything on RW’s terms, since he accomplished merely moving forward a charade of faux “unity.”
Actually, it’s a fairly gracious way of simply saying: “Don’t let the door hit you on the way out”.
This just illustrates that no one who is acceptable to the Church of England as the new ABC will be acceptable to Archbishop Okoh. Even Sentamu is way too liberal in accepting civil unions. There never was any way forward that would bridge the gap in English and Nigerian Anglicanism. Can we still hope for an irenic ecumenism between two separate churches?
Re: covenant ‘doomed from the start.’ With whom is Nigeria unwilling to walk? Philippines — they rejected. CofE — no problem there, two votes away from rejection. TEC — ditto. ACoC — also likely not to adopt. Nigeria does not want to ‘walk together’ with SE Asia and Southern Cone? Why not? It’s statements like this that make one wonder whether rhetoric and outrage outpace clear thinking.
BTW, can anyone publish the calendar schedule of forthcoming provincial meetings re: covenant? There are over 30 yet to decide on this, many from the GS.
Lacking in grace? Probably, though only because “grace” requires that we speak well of someone when they announce their retirement no matter how much damage they might have caused when in office. Perhaps we should look to Churchill’s speech on the occasion of the death of Neville Chamberlain to see a “gracious” comment.
Lacking in accuracy? Well, I think the line that the Communion was “a happy family” in 2002 kind of answers that.
I think that the lack of graciousness can be discerned from this passage:
What Okoh seems to be saying here is that after Rowan Williams supremely botched the 2008 Lambeth Conference, he ought to have resigned. But he didn’t and kept inflicting immense damage on the Communion through his duplicitous political manoeuvrings that cut the legs out from all of the Instruments of Unity except for his own. And now he just walks away when the Communion is a wreck.
I think that Rowan Williams will be remembered in history much as Neville Chamberlain is – a basically good and decent man who was unable to grasp the enormity of the crisis facing him and thus utterly unsuited to the task he faced, which led to disastrous results. And that will be tenor of the kind reviews. I am sure the nasty reviews will be much worse.
Dr. Seitz: re: your post #12. I don’t understand your retort to Okoh. Surely, your own comments (e.g. “Philippines—they rejected. CofE—no problem there, two votes away from rejection. TEC—ditto. ACoC—also likely not to adopt”) prove his point – i.e. “the covenant proposal, was doomed to fail from the start”. It seems to me to be entirely consistent to advocate for the Covenant’s passage in one’s own Province, yet also recognizing the, by now, apparent reality that the Covenant is doomed as an instrument that can seriously address the Communion’s problems. It was rather obvious, was it not, that TEC, ACoC, and its liberal allies were absolutely not going to agree to any substantive Covenant at all. It was exceedingly clear to me.
I think that the concept of a Covenant is a great idea, its just that the horse has already left the barn. Kind of like agreeing to get your oil changed on a regular basis from now on, with the only problem being that the engine has already seized up and is no longer working. The oil change regimen is a great idea, but has no immediate relevancy anymore until the engine is fixed. And I think that this is the point of Okoh’s anger – Rowan Williams consistently blocked and scuttled any agreements to change the oil early or get the engine fixed when it still could be. And now, after the engine has seized up and no longer works, he finally pushes an oil change regimen that even now can’t pass. And realizing that Williams just bows out and leaves the mess and expensive repairs for others.
#13 — Those who want to say No can do so, and those Yes equally. Covenant adopters, in other words, can walk together with those who share their view of communion. Nigeria and SE Asia, e.g. So no, I do not understand your point or +Okoh’s. The covenant is a means by which to determine who in the Communion accepts the idea of mutual accountability, and who not.
To put it another way, no one I know assumed that the covenant was an effort to keep everyone together — a manifest impossibility. It was designed to do what it is doing: establishing who wants to walk together according to the vision of the communion the covenant holds up, and those who do not want this vision — preferring instead national autonomous churches, etc. It would be odd if TEC and Nigeria agreed on the latter, leaving SE Asia, S Cone, and who knows–perhaps 15-20 others–adopting.
Dr. Seitz: I understand your point, but the Covenant community you speak of (perhaps 15-20 Provinces at most minus CofE, TEC, ACoC, NZ, Australia, Wales, Scotland, etc.) is not really the “Anglican Communion” but rather a subset of Anglican provinces, much as GAFCON might be. To have a group united by a Covenant is surely a good thing, but it strikes me as being completely divorced from the Anglican Communion structure (indeed the Communion structures appear to be dominated by those opposed to the Covenant).
So I suppose the question is what is the purpose of the Covenant? If it is to be a more moderate version of the GAFCON declaration, to perhaps make that coalition more comprehensive, then sure, the Covenant process might have some life in it. If it is meant to address the wreckage of the Anglican Communion structures (which I think is what Okoh believes it was meant to do), then it was doomed to failure from the start.
#16
1. It is by no means clear how many will adopt the covenant, and in theory that ought to include Nigeria; we must see what transpires in the coming months, and only now do we have the fact of the CofE appearing to say NO; that will have its own effect on the provinces, especially in view of the fact that on the order of 80% of Bishops did vote YES;
2. Gafcon is a subset, but not one that could be as large potentially as those adopting the covenant (note that Gafcon S Cone and non-Gafcon SE Asia have both adopted);
3. a Covenant Communion is a Communion, by virtue of the covenant’s own account of things;
4. hard to say about ‘structure of the Communion’ into the future: are any instruments now functional? a new standing committee for the covenant would be required simply by virtue of non-adopters being ineligible;
5. it is hard to know what ‘moderate’ as against something gafcon is, means; the covenant does not deal in moderate and im-moderate categories: if 25 were to adopt it, for example, its character and life would be determined by those who adopted it and made it its own.
So to declare it ‘doomed’ is to my mind to introduce confusion. No one can know what the covenant and its adopters might look like in God’s eyes until we see the next season unfold. I should think it unwise to declare anything unilaterally in the manner, seemingly, of +Okoh. That is, unless one is simply angry and wants chiefly to signal that.
We are in uncharted territory at present. God often does his best work there.
Dr. Seitz – think of it this way – you’ve got the official structures of the Anglican Communion dominated by liberals who are forcefully opposed to the idea of the Covenant. These liberals have been facilitated every step of the way by Rowan Williams. Rowan Williams is the one who proposed the Covenant. A casual glance suggests some duplicity there. Propose the Covenant, but then ensure that it will never gain traction in the highest structures of the Communion.
Rowan Williams, I think, bears a lot of the blame for undermining the Covenant internationally. Now, given its apparent defeat in the Mother Church, and the staunch opposition of those liberal Provinces which dominate the Communion structures, I question whether the Covenant can, in any way, be described as being sanctioned by the Anglican Communion. It appears to be an idea what was shot down by the Communion, but which is now attempting to be salvaged by a minority of smaller Provinces. That’s good, but I suppose my point is this – how does the Covenant differ NOW (i.e. now that it no longer bears the approval of the Communion structures or Mother Church) from the GAFCON declaration. Or, in other words, lets supposed that 15-20 Provinces agreed to the Covenant and then modified it. What status does it have vis a vis the ACC, ABC, Primates Meeting, etc.? Is this meant to be a “new Communion out of the ashes of the wreckage” sort of thing?
I don’t think that anyone thought that the Covenant would be signed on to by all involved. But there are indicia of credibility for the Covenant (sign-on by leading Provinces, sign-on by the Church of England, adoption as norms by the Instruments of Unity, etc.) which seem to be dropping away as time marches on, and often as a result of what Rowan Williams has done. I think that it is this which is motivating Okoh’s comments.
Dr. Seitz – thank you for your explanation in post #17. My post #18 was written before reading your #17. I agree with what you say and I personally think that this sort of growing Covenant community is one of the better hopes for the future of international Anglicanism.
That said, I don’t know that Okoh was saying the Covenant was “doomed” in this respect. I think he meant “doomed” as a mechanism for keeping the old structures alive.
My sense is that you are proposing that the Covenant be a “new Communion out of the ashes of the wreckage” (which is really the only option forward at this point) but one that is as comprehensive as possible (which I am in FULL agreement with).
#19. Yes. (With the caveat that I do not know what +Okoh genuinely meant to say). We are entering a new season. I believe No sayers assumed their No would scuttle the covenant, forgetting that to say No is not to be able the restrict or coopt the Yes of others.
PS–I should hasten to add, that I have heard rumblings about wanting the covenant adoption process foreshortened/covenant edited mid-stream. One needs to be on guard about that. It is a basic ‘justice issue’ (to adopt the language) to allow all provinces to evaluate the same covenant on equal terms as CofE and others.
#19 — I’d like to believe that the majority of GS provinces would adopt and make the covenant work for themselves and others, but I listen to +Okoh and don’t know how he can climb down should Indian Ocean, Burundi, W Africa, Kenya, et al join SE Asia and S Cone. That is my concern.
Notice the way The Times effectively conflates a defeat in the CofE with a defeat grosso modo, when it opines: “With the Covenant effectively doomed, the next Archbishop is likely to lead the Anglican Communion towards a federal model similar to that adopted by the Lutheran churches.”
This ‘federal outcome’ is one wished by TEC and ACoC and others. It will happen if the covenant is defeated, but not if a majority of provinces adopt it and make it their own. It would be odd to have Nigeria aiding the federal outcome.
Educational all, but #23 is a most astute comment–Thank you. 🙂