9th October 2014
Mercy, grace, and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. We, the undersigned primates, were honored to participate in the joyful investiture of the Most Rev. Dr. Foley Beach as Archbishop and Primate of the Anglican Church in North America, and to receive him as a fellow Primate of the Anglican Communion.
Though our contexts vary in our different parts of the globe, the heart of our calling is to share the transforming love of God through the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We celebrate that the Anglican Church in North America shares in that same mission and purpose. We and our Provinces will continue to share in Gospel work together, and pledge our continued partnership with the Anglican Church in North America to pursue the work of Christ.
The Most Rev. Dr. Mouneer Hanna Anis
Chairman of the Anglican Global South; Bishop of Egypt with North Africa and the Horn of Africa; President Bishop of the Anglican Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East
The Most Rev. Dr. Eliud Wabukala
Archbishop and Primate of Kenya and Chairman of the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans
The Most Rev. Nicholas Okoh
Archbishop, Primate, and Metropolitan of All Nigeria, Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) and Vice-Chairman of the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans
The Most Rev. Stanley Ntagali
Archbishop and Primate of Uganda; Bishop of Kampala
The Most Rev. Dr. Onesphore Rwaje
Archbishop and Primate of Rwanda; Bishop of the Diocese of Kigali
The Most Rev. Stephen an Myint Oo
Archbishop of Myanmar; Global Trustee of The Anglican Relief and Development Fund
The Most Rev. Hector (Tito) Zavala
Archbishop of the Southern Cone and Bishop of Chile
Other recent related posts:
Archbishop Venables’ Message and Greetings from Pope Francis to Archbishop Foley [Transcript] – October 14, 2014
Prebendary Charles Marnham’s Greetings from the UK and Ireland to Archbishop Foley [Transcript] – October 13, 2014
Phil Ashey: Anglicanism at Its Best – October 10, 2014
WCC staff member appointed Unity, Faith and Order Director for the Anglican Communion – October 10, 2014
[Anglican Ink] ACNA is Anglican – October 10, 2014
(Anglican Ink) Papal greetings for newest ACNA Leader Foley Beach – October 10, 2014
A Local Paper article on ACNA, Anglicanism+Archbishop Justin Welby’s recent interview – October 10, 2014
The Investiture Sermon of new ACNA Leader Foley Beach – October 10, 2014
The Investiture of Foley Beach as new ACNA leader on Thursday Evening – October 9, 2014
Phil Ashey: Anglican Identity? Canterbury’s loss, not ours – October 8, 2014
Mark Thompson: Who or what defines the Anglican Communion? – October 8, 2014
All About Canterbury [Video] – October 8, 2014
(ACNS) Abp Welby: “Next Lambeth Conference a decision for the primates” – October 6, 2014
(Anglican Ink) Has Archbishop Welby buried the instruments of Anglican unity? – October 4, 2014
The Audio Link to the Full Interview of Justin Welby by Canon Ian Ellis of the C of I Gazette – October 4, 2014
(David Ould) Diocese of NW Australia Recognises ACNA as Anglicans – October 4, 2014
(Telegraph) Tim Walker””Archbishop Justin Welby snubs the Royal College of Organists – October 3, 2014
Archbishop Justin Welby sends good wishes for Yamim Nora’im – October 2, 2014
Archbp Justin Welby””Survivors of abuse are never the ones to blame – October 1, 2014
Wow… there it is IN WRITING:
“… to receive him as a fellow Primate of the Anglican Communion.”
The other thing that’s very striking about this is the headline:
“A statement from the Primates of the Global South and the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglican”
So… the Global South and GAFCON movements joining together in common cause, and this appears on the Global South website, not the GAFCON website.
Double Wow.
#2 Good point, so I looked, and it is indeed on the GAFCON Website here.
I have to say I was dismayed to hear the ABC say in the Church of Ireland Gazette Interview firstly that who he was in communion with was the definition of who was in the Anglican Communion and based on that went on to assert that ACNA was an ecumenical body like any other but not in or related to the Anglican Communion.
It struck me as showing a complete failure of pastoral care for the other side in the TEC split, and at odds with the care for them shown by the united Primates at Dar-es-Salaam and in GAFCON and Global South Standing Committee declarations. It also contrasts with the bleats he made to the Primates at the Nairobi GAFCON Conference pleading with them not to exclude anyone [TEC and Anglican Church of Canada I assume]
It looks like this statement shows three things:
1. A firm though courteously expressed rebuke to Archbishop Welby for his lack of pastoral care;
2. Unity – quite an achievement for Archbishop Welby, though not in the way he intended
3. Continuing support for all those on the other side of the TEC split to the one which has been funding Welby’s projects.
That is to their credit – we should be supporting all those who are faithful Anglicans in North America – those now collecting in ACNA, South Carolina and those still struggling on in TEC.
If I have any advice to the CofE leadership it is to consider carefully the decisions you make at this time and the words you permit to be used. Looking back in a few years time, it would be a shame if you by your words and actions end up on the wrong side of history on this matter as Anglicans flourish in North America and TEC continues its self-imposed descent to irrelevance. Moreover you may find yourself being held to account for actions and words you use now in ways you come to regret.
I have noticed in other situations how the antagonism between organisations can be traced back to a thoughtless betrayal or antagonism, something others in those organisations have to live with. It is surprising to see the supposed expert in ‘Reconciliation’ Justin Welby make such an elementary error.
Ah PM, thanks for posting the link to the GAFCON website. I actually hadn’t checked there. What I meant is that I would consider it “normal” to be on the GAFCON website. It’s a bigger deal that it’s on the more moderate / broader Global South website. I guess I should have written “not only on the GAFCON website”
The original note, when one checks it, is brilliantly lacking any letterhead!
It makes a statement, makes no reference to GS or Gafcon in the text, and is signed by Primates as Primates.
#4 Karen – I agree – altogether it is looking very significant.
#5 Professor Seitz – do you think that the description of the document on the Global South Anglicans website as “A Statement from the Primates of the Global South and the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans” and the same on the GAFCON website might nevertheless be indicative?
My hunch is that the effort is being made to call attention to the event and not to politics. After all, the ‘Gafcon Primates’ are also already GS Primates. So I welcome the statement and its form. It is good to see all the GS Primates working together in this instance! I believe the day for Anglican conciliarism is arriving.
It is certainly good to see the gathering of the clans.
Especially when the one clan is already part of the other clan! I agree. Alleluia.
#9 Ah, but is the reverse true? You can do all sorts of things with Venn Diagrams
Then again can they actually work together without politics, or scheming from Lambeth Palace?
Although to some extent, this Statement answers to some degree my last question
You bet.
#5 Dr. Seitz, just to nitpick a little bit, I do note that Abp. Mouneer explicity noted Global South next to his signature, not only his role as +Egypt.
Also, in the text version that appears on the Global South website, ++Mouneer is listed first, with the following title:
The Most Rev. Dr. Mouneer Hanna Anis
“Chairman of the Anglican Global South; Bishop of Egypt with North Africa and the Horn of Africa; President Bishop of the Anglican Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East”
so very explicitly signed as Chairman of the Global South, it seems,
As to the lack of letterhead, since it’s a joint statement of TWO groups / organizations, one single letterhead wouldn’t be very workable…
#13. Takes nothing away from my point. GS is the larger grouping. I agree with your observations re: +Mouneer. But the main point is seeking to gather the largest bloc. This is critical in our present season.
Having seen them all together here in Toronto a year ago–for prayer, teaching, fellowship, unity–it is just a joy to see them re-gather in such an important statement. I repeat my hope from #7.
First and foremost, we are truly blessed to have these archbishops as the leadership of the Anglican Communion. And in turn, they have blessed us with their support and fellowship.
Letterhead notwithstanding, I would note that there is no way that the metadata of this particular document can be parsed so as to discount it as something written by +Martin Minns on ++Peter Akinola’s laptop with names typed in the signature area by person or persons unknown (we’ll see how many old timers we have on board today).
Definitely signed by the Archbishops, up on both websites.
Now comes the test of the “new” AC Communications office- will we read this on ACNS tomorrow morning?
I guess ball is back in the court of the ABoC. And not the easy volley he anticipated.
#16…. ah memories of the good old days… Anglican metadata detectives!! Seems like only yesterday 🙂
#16. If you want to emphasize that the GS Primates as an entity lack the money and administrative support to produce documents on par with “something written by +Martin Minns on ++Peter Akinola’s laptop with names typed in the signature area” I do not doubt that. But thank God the spare statement on a blank page is allowed to speak for itself. It does to the larger Communion. Very powerfully. Praise God.
A look at The Diocese of Egypt’s monthly e-reports would dispel any idea of lack of digital expertise in the Global South.
That Word document dust-up what what pushed me to discover how to produce PDFs. Good times.
#19–Dear Katherine. I know the man who does most of the posting for the Global South (not Egypt) and it is probably his fifth job.
Yes, I know him too, Dr. Seitz.
I recommend everyone read Bishop Atwood’s letter on Anglican Mainstream:
ACNA and the Anglican Communion
I love Bishop Atwood’s last paragraph:
[italics mine]
I absolutely agree! The WWAC has re-aligned and is re-forming itself around the provinces of the Global South and the GFCA (GAFCON). Everyone else are just institutionalist loyalists with TEC and ACofC heading up the parade of revisionism.
Can anyone explain why some might object to ACNA being considered Anglican? On another site, [url=http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com]Anglicans Ablaze[/url], it seems that Robin Jordan has the view that ACNA does not teach the authority of Scripture and other views that, to Robin, mean ACNA is not Anglican. I have seen Robin post over at Anglican Ink as well. Go read Robin’s post at Anglican’s Ablaze and then can someone explain it to me? Perhaps as a post on your own blog or some where it can be discussed? Thanks.
SC blu cat lady,
Robin Jordan has a number of practical objections to ACNA [some of which are understandable — some of his analysis on the deficiencies and biases of the ACNA Constitution & Canons was quite apt, for instance] but in regards to his definition of Anglican, he appears to be a Truly Truly Reformed Protestant Anglican along the lines of the older version of the REC, or a Sydney Anglican, or perhaps more closely, a CESA Anglican — for example the unequivocal acceptance of the 39 Articles as described by the Jerusalem Declaration, rather than as described by the Constitution and Canons of ACNA [which allows for a more AngloCatholic vision of the 39 Articles] , a firm rejection of language of “eucharistic sacrifice,” etc, trial rites, catechism, etc.
As nearly as I have heard, Sydney had a very strong hand in drafting of the Gafcon/FCA documents and ACNA did have to dilute some of that in order to include the AngloCatholics in ACNA — and still both sides of ACNA were uneasy with either 1) the dilution or 2) its being too “reformed.” That *is* a less-talked-about divide.
Here’s one of his numerous posts on some of the perceived reformed deficiencies:
http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2014/10/a-sad-day-for-reformed-anglicanism-in.html
I do not share many of Robin’s theological emphases. I do see the need for a particular Anglican organization to serve as a river with very wide banks that encompasses Anglicans who are AngloCatholics just inside of the Anglopapalists [who probably should go ahead and ford the Tiber] and Sydney Anglicans without the lay presidency enthusiasms. That essentially leaves out CESA Anglicans and appears to leave out Mr. Jordan.
ACNA is probably is a bit more “inclusively liberal” than I am — I’m confident there are seething Anglopapalists and seething lay presidency enthusiasts [I have it on good authority that there are clergy who were enthusiastic Todd Bentley supporter as well as anti-sacraments like baptism — bizarre on both!] — but I think all in all ACNA has struck the best “broad river banks” balance they could accomplish, theologically speaking, and also have struck the best compromise [i]in all of Anglitania[/i] about women’s ordination [which I have faithfully opposed forever and ever].
Just to be crystal clear yet again — I do think that ACNA is Anglican — as is CESA and the APA and many other Anglican entities. I do not think that all Anglican entities or individuals belong in the same Anglican entity.
I have not made reference to various opinions about Mr. Jordan’s personality or nature or ability to remain on-topic on most threads, since I wanted to try to respond to some of his ideas as best as I can.
I agree with Sarah #25 on “Anglicans Ablaze” and on the compromises which are keeping ACNA afloat. ACNA has done its best to maintain the idea of an Anglican church which can include both high and low tendencies (an idea I support), but there are a few who can’t abide that.
Hi SC Blu Cat Lady,
Robin Jordan has been implacably opposed to ACNA, pretty much since its inception.
For a while, Mr Jordan championed Sydney Diocese as the true embodiment of Anglicanism, and held it up as a point of adverse comparison to ACNA. He seems to have dropped us now – much to many people’s relief.
HIs loss of interest in Sydney as the Avalon of Anglicanism may be in part because he spent a lot of time on Sydney blogs urging that it publicly reject ACNA, and got nowhere. I haven’t seen more than a very occasional post there by him for the last few years.
I agree that many of his objections are very difficult to understand – I read one post where he was complaining that ACNA churches don’t use the BCP in services. How many churches do, these days? Certainly very, very few services in Sydney!
Thanks for that link, Sarah. So now REACH (formerly CESA) has become the new paragon of Anglicanism which Mr Jordan is holding up in order to illuminate ACNA’s deficiencies? REACH have my sympathies, but sooner or later I expect Mr Jordan will get over them and move on to someone else.
There are many amusing points in his article:
1. Quoting a recent article by the Dean of Moore College in Sydney against ACNA – the target of that article was Archbishop Welby, and it *supported* ACNA!
2. Claiming that recent recognition by the Primates “offer[s] encouragement to those seeking to impose a single identity on the ACNA—a unreformed Catholic identity, not a reformed Anglican one” – the idea that ACNA might become “a single identity” (of any kind) within the next generation is fascinating. Even if there is a split of some kind, its difficult to imagine that the parts won’t still contain a wide variety of divisions of opinion, on many issues.
3. “The seven primates either attended the investiture of the new ACNA archbishop or sent representatives to that investiture….” On my count that is ten primates – seven who were present, and three who sent reps.
4. “The Anglican Church in North America does not in practice fully accepts the Scriptures as a canon or functioning rule for the Christian faith and life.” True enough – but I am trying to think of an Anglican Church anywhere that does. I know we here in Sydney still have a lot to work on, even though we accede to the principle
5. “The ACNA expound one passage of Scripture so that it disagrees with another and treats the Thirty-Nine Articles as a historical document with which it can do what it pleases.” Its one thing to make this accusation, but another to state the reasons in detail so that others can evaluate them. There is more in this vein in the article (i.e. general accusations) but not much detail, so its difficult to respond to his accusations.
6. “It also adopts an unreformed Catholic position on the sacraments, recognizing seven sacraments, not two.” At best, this is very imprecise language – the 39 Articles recognise seven sacraments. Perhaps Mr Jordan didn’t read that bit.
7. “The ACNA proposed baptism rite contradicts the ACNA catechism and ties regeneration to baptism.” So does the BCP, in a sense, and since Robin Jordan gives no indication of what he means, we are left with nothing work on.
8. “The ACNA catechism and proposed confirmation rite teach that confirmation is a sacrament.” So do the 39 Articles.
9. “Yet the same group of primates has not to my knowledge extended their recognition to that ecclesial body. Why not?”
Well for starters, the issue has never come up, whereas for ACNA, Archbishop Welby chose to put it on the agenda in a very provocative way. The Primates at the investiture then met before the service and agreed to change the words of invocation, presumably to refute the ABC’s claim that he could determine who was in the Communion and who isn’t.
Also, I am not aware that CESA (now REACH) has ever complained about lack of recognition by Gafcon-FCA, of which it is a member. It appears that Mr Jordan would like it to complain, and is perhaps trying to encourage it to do so?
Thanks to many commenters above for their helpful ontributions. I want to take another tack and perhaps spark a somewhat different angle for discussion. While I too naturally welcome the primates’ strong statement in Atlanta, I must admit that I think it also injected an unfortunate confusing element into the whole matter.
What I think they meant to do was to offer a very strong explicit endorsement of Foley Beach as a fellow Anglican primate and accept him into their elite company, implicitly acknowledging the ACNA as a fellow Anglican province (or perhaps province in formation), and implicitly countering ++Welby’s empty (and as PM notes, grossly unpastoral) assertion that he alone determines who is and is not part of the Anglican Communion. So far so good. That is most welcome and commendable.
The unfortunate part that muddies the water (IMHO) is their regrettable choice to use the language of receiving ++Beach as a fellow primate of “the Anglican Communion.” It’s the same basic mistake that the admirable +Bill ATwood makes in his otherwise fine and incisive contribution to properly understanding what’s going on here. He too uses the language that “the Anglican Communion” has already undergone realignment.
Well, yes and no. It would much clearer and more helpful to say that ANGLICANISM has already undergone the basic shift that he’s talking about. My fundamental point, of course, is that Anglicanism is NOT synonymous with, or equivalent to, the formal organization known as the Anglican Communion.
Let me make the point another way. Anglicanism, as I’m using the term, is both significantly smaller, and larger, than the Anglican Communion, as we’ve known it heretofore. Namely, there are many heretics within the Communion who don’t deserve to be called or regarded as true Anglicans. And there are many real, authentic ANglican outside the boundaries of that Communion.
That strong claim of course raises some difficult, complex, and highly contentious issues. Among them are these:
1. What are the criteria by which we determine who is, and who isn’t, a real Anglican? For example, is it as seemingly simple as who is recognized by the ACC (or Canterbury) and who is not? Or is fidelity to the classic Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of Anglicanism a better and more important criterion?
2. Above all, WHO GETS TO DECIDE? That’s always the bottom line. Who has the authority to make a final and definitive adjudication of the conflicting claims involved, and the universal authority to make that decision stick?
And if the answer to that fateful, all important second question is “No one in Anglicanism has, or can have, that kind of papal-like power,” well, then I for one say that this is a hopeless and disastrous situation.
In closing, let me pick up on an optimistic note injected by the eminent Dr. Seitz above, when he expresses his hope that Anglicanism is (finally) showing some sign of evolving into a truly conciliar family of churches. Well, again, yes and no.
I join with the Toronto theologian in hoping that Anglicanism (note my language, not the AC but Anglicanism) is moving in the direction of fulfilling its potential of being a conciliar form of Church. That is an admirable wish and goal, much to be desired. However, it’s crucial to recognize what being a truly CONCILIAR church implies. I earnestly contend that it means that we MUST become a GLOBAL CHURCH (singular, not a family of virtually autonomous provinces) that is GOVERNED by an international council that can make and enforce binding decisions worldwide. After all, real church councils issue canons and liturgies and meet in real synods. They don’t just have some leaders gather for mere consultation, or for strengthening the bond of affection and fellowship, etc. Any group of church leaders that can’t make real decisions is not a “council” worthy of the name.
Enough. I’ve made such audacious, radical, and highly controversial claims on T19 before. But I’ll close by making my typical observation that what we’re witnessing isn’t just the “realignment” of Anglicanism (or, if you insist, the Anglican Communion). No, something far more momentous than that is taking place here, for those with the eyes to see it. This is nothing less than the birth pangs of, you guessed it, The New Reformation.
One that will be just as bitterly divisive and polarizing as the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. But also just as lifegiving and beneficial in the end. Put another way, what we’re seeing here is another fateful but promising step toward the abandoning of the old, obsolete institutional wineskins of the Anglican Communion (that served their purpose well for a long time and are not to be despised), and the early steps in forming new inter-provincial wineskins that are capable of holding and shaping the potent new wine of orthodox Anglicanism (again, as an ism, as a distinctive Protestant-Catholic hybrid) for a new, global, post-colonial, post-Erastian, post-Christendom era. Thanks be to God.
David Handy+
P.S. Just so it’s clear. My problem with what the noble orthodox primates said in Atlanta is that no subgroup of primates can speak for the whole “Anglican Communion.” Only the officially recognized four Instruments of Unity/Communion can do that. What they should have said (IMHO) is that they received Foley Beach as a fully and authentically Anglican primate, on a par with themselves, REGARDLESS of his status or non-status in the Anglican Communion.
As far as I’m concerned, the gradual consolidation of orthodox Anglican bodies and leaders (GFCA + Global South, etc.) portends something much more radical and potentially beneficial than the mere adding of a “5th Instrument” to the four we all know. No, in my eyes, this still informal group of primates represents nothing less than the beginnings of a REPLACEMENT of the four accepted Instruments, all of which are now under very gloomy clouds of suspicion and distrust because they have been corrupted by liberal elites in a highly colonial and reprehensible fashion.
Some will lament this development as schismatic, as if it represented the destruction and discrediting of Anglicanism. I choose to focus on the positive side. This promising development, while incomplete and still inchoate, represents nothing less than the salvation of Anglicanism, which can and will survive the demise of the old wineskins of the Anglican Communion. The kernel is separable from the chaff. Prayerbook religion needs more than a drastic global realignment to survive and flourish in the 21st century. It needs nothing less than a New Reformation, comparable to the 16th century one in scope and significance. And an essential part of that painful, highly controversial process will be new organizational structures capable of sustaining Anglicanism. Structures that are truly global and truly conclliar. That will be something genuinely new and worthy of celebration.
David Handy+
A report: https://soundcloud.com/world-news-group/twe-the-new-archbishop-of-the-anglican-church-in-north-america-oct-14-2014
Worth a listen.