“Sudan came out with the statement for reasons of their own, and felt they had to say something. It was important for them to make that statement, and we appreciate them for that. I don’t think you will find any of the Global South provinces disagreeing with what they say. The way they put it will be coming from Sudan, but the essence ”” yes.”
Archbishop Chew had not studied the statement, but there was nothing new in it, he suggested: it repeated Windsor and was consistent with the Primates’ statement from Dromantine. “They are not calling for anything new, which would have been unfair. They are saying that if we do not take up what we have committed [ourselves to] seriously, then even in the eyes of the secular world, our credibility is reduced.”
The Global South comprises more than 75 per cent of the total membership of the Communion. It was speaking what the whole Communion should be speaking in its good times, the Archbishop suggested. Although nothing could be solved in the two weeks of the Conference, and even the Covenant would have to undergo the lengthy constitutional process of being returned to the provinces, the dragging out of the issue would be unfair on the Windsor group and the Covenant group, and could not continue.
“We have more priorities in our home provinces than in the Communion: we cannot think of it as the thing more important than the diocese,” he said. “It is taking a big toll on our time. This is the fifth time I have been in the UK on a working trip. I can’t afford that. It isn’t fair. So I hope and don’t think that [the Archbishop of Canterbury’s ] words can be taken in isolation.
Pat Ashforth inserts Archbishop of Canterbury in the last paragraph. It seems to me that Abp Chew was more likely speaking of Abp Daniel Deng rather than the Archbishop of Canterbury. That would indicate that Chew was saying do not isolate or ignore Deng’s words. That makes sense with the rest of the article.