THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO PAT UTOMI

Then he spoke on the need for men to have the courage to be witnesses,
rather than just preachers and teachers, and this is where the gospel according to Pat Utomi seems to take its essence. He began by acknowledging that God has given him, “the grace to see things going wrong around me and want to do something about it: I have had that good fortune”. That, for him, is the very core of the Christian’s witness. He cited a number of examples of such social activism as Christian witness.

First, full disclosure. For the avoidance of any doubts, I am a Pat Utomi partisan. I admire his doggedness in advocacy and his roll-up-your sleeves style of activism. That was why in the run-down to the last elections in which he ran as president, I sent out hundreds of text messages canvassing his candidacy, unknown to him and totally independent of his structure. That was why, in a piece meant for this column, but which found itself in the op-ed page of the Daily Independent, I even played the geo-politics card, as it were. The relevant paragraph read like this:

“…The first is that all who wish to enthrone equity and call the bluff of those who think might is right should refuse to vote for candidates from outside of the two disadvantaged regions. There are a number of candidates to choose from. I do not shy away from saying that my personal preference would be Professor Pat Utomi. Apart from his other attributes of character, compassion, competence and freshness, he uniquely meets the objective of filling the South-South/South-East slot. As a Deltan, his geo-political home is the South-South while as an Igbo; his root is in the South-East. Thus, he could even be the President that completes the rotation circle and free our nation to henceforth shop for the best from anywhere at all times.”

That could easily be seen as the reason Professor Utomi was invited to speak at last quarter’s Real Men Luncheon of Christian Men’s Network Nigeria of which I am one of the Coordinators. For a while, I felt I might even be guilty of abuse of privilege, using what was fast becoming a major men’s forum to “push a personal agenda.” It didn’t help matters that a number of my colleagues actually questioned the gentleman’s Christian credentials! But thank God, apart from what I knew about Pat Utomi’s impeccable Christian character which went way back, I had a witness in my spirit that he was absolutely qualified to follow in the footsteps of our illustrious earlier guest speakers: Elder Felix Ohiwerei, Dr Christopher Kolade and Deacon Gamaliel Onosode. Thank God for the Holy Spirit. Full disclosure over.

And so Professor Patrick Okedinachi Utomi came, spoke and left an indelible impression on the minds of that gathering of hardly impressionable men, at the Sparkles Hall, Ikeja GRA on August 2. Aged 52, last February 6, but looking as youthful as ever in his “parachute”, his version of “agbada”, he spoke, as he was requested to, on “The Men Nigeria Needs.”

He began somewhat like this. “Nigeria needs men strong enough to love…courageous enough to be witnesses, not just teachers and preachers… men who are leaders…; men of integrity… men who trust God and are therefore unshaken in His faithfulness… men who have the courage to stay the course…”

Kicking off on the subject of love, he said, being tough does not mean being unable to love. It does not mean lack of compassion. He noted that it is widely thought that men are not supposed to cry; that they are not supposed to love. The typical Nigerian father is supposed to be so tough and feared that the children scamper for cover the moment he arrives at the gate of their home. And this is not applicable only to the home-based, or if you like, the unexposed Nigerian male! The Nigerian family in the United States, for instance is in grave danger. The divorce rate of African marriages in that country is above the national average, he pointed out

He recalled a famous Reuben Abati column in the Guardian. Titled “The 12 O’clock Man”, it told of a man who was so busy making money to keep his family materially comfortable, that he was never home except on Sundays when he manages to have lunch with them at noon. One day, goes the story, he failed to do even that. One of the children wondered aloud; where is that man who usually comes to lunch every 12 O’clock on Sunday. You can imagine the rest.

Emphasising the place of this quintessential issue, Utomi referred to a Yale University study which has identified the greatest challenge of the future as the challenge of compassion, adding that it is now widely accepted that what the world needs, most of all, now is a civilization of love.

If Nigerian men would rise up and love; love their family enough to want to safeguard the future of their children and love their neighbours as themselves, which is the Christian thing to do, then we won’t have corruption, for instance.

He tarried a while on the issue of corruption. He quoted an international agency report which opened in these words: “Corruption runs a spectrum in Afric; from rare in Botswana, to widespread in Ghana, to systemic in Nigeria.” In other words, whereas corruption hardly exists in resource poor Botswana, and it’s widespread in Ghana, in Nigeria, it is ingrained in the system! He also noted the irony of how Nigeria is characterized both as religious and corrupt. He recalled the story of a man, who upon hearing that he (Pat) was being considered for a ministerial appointment, complained to somebody that he would stop the flow of ill-gotten wealth if so appointed. The man then prayed; “he won’t get there, in Jesus’ Name.” That’s the kind of amazing thing we do in the name of Jesus.

He spoke about how, in their greed for corrupt acquisition, many people are today consuming the future of their children. And how so myopic those who corruptly enrich themselves while in office are, even at the practical level. He drew attention to the fact that they do not even really enjoy their stolen wealth. Once out of office, they have to provide for themselves the municipal services they failed to provide for society while in office – power, water, security, name it. Have you seen the high fence walls behind which many erstwhile public officers live; or the roads that lead to their villages and homes, he asked. He quoted several passages from the Bible Book of Proverbs to buttress his position about the futility of wealth by ungodly methods.

Then he spoke on the need for men to have the courage to be witnesses, rather than just preachers and teachers, and this is where the gospel according to Pat Utomi seems to take its essence.

He began by acknowledging that God has given him, “the grace to see things going wrong around me and want to do something about it: I have had that good fortune”. That, for him, is the very core of the Christian’s witness. He cited a number of examples of such social activism as Christian witness.

He spoke about how the experience of a woman he knew who went from living comfortably in a middle class suburb of Lagos to become homeless within a few weeks of her husband’s death. Her husband’s relations had thrown her out and taken over the family house, in accordance with tradition. He was so moved that he wrote a newspaper article to draw attention to the plight of widows in our society. He recalled how his concern over the issue eventually led to his involvement with a Widow Support Group.

He also gave Christian witness as his motivation for establishing the Centre for Values in Leadership which trains young men to inculcate elevating values and prepare them for future leadership. Many Lagosians remember this centre as responsible for clearing the daunting mountain of refuse at Obalende in the heart of Lagos a few years back. Though, he didn’t mention it, the now famous Lagos Business School is a product of Christian witness through the Catholic group, Opus Dei. Even his transition from political activism to politics is situated in within the concept of Christian witness.

As he spoke, one couldn’t but see that social and political activism is an essential part of Christian witness. In fact, without it, we would just be preachers and teachers and our fruits would be limited. Jesus could have stayed in Heaven and tried to persuade God to send an angel to come and save mankind. He did not. He could have ignored the woman whose only son was about to be buried; after all, she didn’t ask for his help (Luke 7: 12-15). He did not. Neither he did he wait for the helpless cripple at the pool in Bethesda who had waited for miracle healing for 38 years (John 5:2-9). Like Pat Utomi and others like him, we should follow the Lord’s example.

GAFCON & THE FUTURE OF THE CHURCH (6)

"..I continue to see a negotiated “orderly separation” as the best and most fruitful way forward for the Anglican Communion. The experience of this Lambeth Conference… has again convinced me that the Anglican Communion cannot hold in tension convictions and practices that are incompatible…without continuing seriously to damage the life and witness of Anglican Churches as much in “the Global South” as in North America and in other provinces that have followed the lead of TEC. The experience of this Conference cannot have encouraged any participant to imagine that the latter are about to turn their backs on a generation or more of development in directions foreign to the life and convictions of the vast majority of Anglicans, let alone of other Christians, across the world. I cannot see that the members of an “international family of Churches” can thrive and grow and offer a clear witness to Jesus Christ as Lord while offering contradictory teaching, on a matter as central as the character of the Holy Life… "

We have said these past few weeks that it is in the nature of man to give the mundane centrestage, while the fundamentals are studiously ignored. This, we said, explains the scant attention paid in the media, in particular, to happenings in the Anglican Church in the past several years culminating in the founding of the Global Anglican Future Conference, the boycott by more than 200 bishops of the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference, and the import of all of these on the entire Church of Jesus Christ.

Let me say, in passing, that the media in particular need a rethink of our attitude to religious events. The iron-cast position that Christianity, for instance, is a Sunday subject, is simply untenable. Christianity, in its true essence, is a way of life; an every second of life reality and needs to be so treated as such; given as much priority as we currently give to politics and governance; business and economy, sports and whatever else we’ve been committing tonnes of newsprint, ink and airtime to. True Christianity influences all other aspects of life and is influenced by none. That is why to get our religion right is to get everything else right. And as always, the media’s role is pivotal.

Please forgive the digression. But as we said, the formation of GAFCON and the subsequent Jerusalem Declaration should be seen as of such significance as the publication in 1517 of the late Rev Martin Luther’s 95 Theses, which led eventually to the Reformation and the birth of the Protestantism.

There might have been readers who thought that was alarmist, but as subsequent events demonstrated, the impact of GAFCON is such that at least one influential bishop is beginning to suggest an orderly separation within the Anglican Church as the way forward!

We have noted, in the course of this serial, that Archbishop Rowan Williams is a man in the eye of a storm; with his potential place in history oscillating between that of the man who presided over the disintegration of the Anglican “empire” or, the one who pulled her away from the brink. We had said that this deeply spiritual man didn’t have a minute to stand and stare since taking the see of Canterbury and the headship of the Communion. He had been there only a few months when the crisis over the ordination of openly gay bishops blew open. We have stated that his handling of the situation opened him to criticism particularly in the appointment of Canon Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading. Quotes attributed to him then suggested he was either pro-gay bishop ordination or indifferent. But so strong was the opposition to that appointment, that he was never consecrated. Canon John, a vocal gay, resigned the appointment obviously on the Archbishop’s advice.

The appointment and subsequent consecration of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire by the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (ECUSA) didn’t lend itself to the same treatment. Robinson has since become the symbol of the Anglican crisis. That was five years ago. While the Archbishop seemed unwilling or unable to take a firm position on the issue, the so-called conservative wing of the church was unequivocal. They severed all relationship with ECUSA and demanded the enforcement of Lambeth 1998 Resolution1:10 (on Human Sexuality) which clearly forbids the ordination of openly gay bishops while the issue was still being considered through what it called the “listening” process. In this group were bishops from what is known as the Global South where a vast majority of Anglicans live. Several meetings of several organs, or what the Church calls ”Instruments of unity” yielded very little. ECUSA and her allies in the Liberal West including Canada where homosexuality has been elevated to a human right dug in. The opponents who insist that it is a sin also stood their ground.

That was the situation when preparations began for Lambeth Conference 2008, the once-a-decade gathering of Anglican bishops. It was a meeting which, for some, held the potential of resolving the issue; while for others, it would just be a talkshop designed to attempt to weary and possibly overwhelm the anti-gay group. To the latter group, the only way they would attend was if bishops whose provinces had violated Resolution 1:10 from the last conference were not invited. The Archbishop thought otherwise; he wanted a full house where things could be resolved in the Holy Spirit-filled atmosphere he hoped could be created by the way the Conference was designed.

In the event, about 250 Bishops gathered in Jerusalem for GAFCON, drew up the Jerusalem Declaration and urged their leaders to establish what could be seen as parallel structures to those of the Communion. Most of them also stayed away from Lambeth.

Canterbury hosted about 650 Bishops at Lambeth 2008. From the archbishop’s presidential addresses, it was clear that Dr Williams saw the problem as partly structural. His office was just one of the Instruments of Unity without executive powers of any kind. So, he canvassed an Anglican Covenant and a new council with powers to take certain decisions. The meeting ended without approving either. The Conference however would seem to have approved that discussions and negotiations continue towards these goals. The meeting also saw nothing wrong with the continued moratoria on the appointment of gay priests, the blessing of same-sex unions in Church and the creation of cross-border dioceses and provinces.

As we saw last week, the conference didn’t even have a resolution. In its place is a 161-paragraph document styled “Lambeth Indaba, Capturing Conversations and Reflections from the Lambeth Conference 2008,“ otherwise known as the “Reflections,” document. It was simply a narrative of what transpired at the Conference; the arguments for and against as well as a long list of “possible ways forward”.

So what is the import of all of these? Did Lambeth 2008 fail? Did it succeed in staving off the threat of disintegration permanently or just for a while? What is the place of GAFCON in the future of the Anglican Communion?

To answer the last question first, it is my opinion that GAFCON has a major role to play in how things shape in the coming days. First, if there was no GAFCON and no Jerusalem Declaration, it is possible that Lambeth 2008 might have ended differently. It is possible that condemnation of bigotry and intolerance may have found its way into a resolution that would have watered down Resolution 1:10 of 1998.

On the other hand, the absence of most of the opposing bishops contributed in no small measure to the lowering of temperature and pressure at the Conference, Had they attended and tried to get their viewpoints into the resolution, they certainly would have been resisted. Should that then lead to a walk out, the damage such a spectacle would have caused would have been devastating. So mercifully, Lambeth 2008 cannot be said to have failed, even if it wasn’t a roaring success. It enabled the Archbishop make the point that the Anglican Church has a position on homosexuality. It has been seen as a sin over the years, and it remains so until the Church decides otherwise. The onus is on those who think otherwise to continue to push their case with a view to getting others to see what new information or revelation or whatever makes a change imperative. This position should satisfy the Bishops of GAFCON. But will it please ECUSA and their allies? Will they refrain from ordaining any gay priest and stop conducting gay marriages till the matter is resolved as stated above? Will GAFCON, on the other hand stop establishing dioceses outside of their geographical boundaries? I certainly hope and pray so.

But there are informed opinions to the contrary. For instance, The Rt Revd Michael Scott-Joynt, Bishop of Winchester had this to say: "...I continue to see a negotiated “orderly separation” as the best and most fruitful way forward for the Anglican Communion. The experience of this Lambeth Conference… has again convinced me that the Anglican Communion cannot hold in tension convictions and practices that are incompatible…without continuing seriously to damage the life and witness of Anglican Churches as much in “the Global South” as in North America and in other provinces that have followed the lead of TEC. The experience of this Conference cannot have encouraged any participant to imagine that the latter are about to turn their backs on a generation or more of development in directions foreign to the life and convictions of the vast majority of Anglicans, let alone of other Christians, across the world. I cannot see that the members of an “international family of Churches” can thrive and grow and offer a clear witness to Jesus Christ as Lord while offering contradictory teaching, on a matter as central as the character of the Holy Life… “

How all of these affect the Church as one body? Simple, we have to face and deal with all intra- and inter- doctrinal and other conflicts; even if it brings us to the brink. For we can rest assured that the gates of hell will not prevail. The time to begin is now. (Concluded)

*Pix:The Rt Revd Michael Scott-Joynt, Bishop of Winchester , Church of England

GAFCON & THE FUTURE OF THE CHURCH (5)

“I think that we have emerged at the end of this conference with
some quite surprising results; a surprising level of sheer willingness to stay together; a surprising level of agreement about what might be necessary to make that happen. So that for all the fact that all the details of the covenant proposal still need a good deal of clarification nonetheless there is a following for that. There is also a wide degree of agreement on the need for moratoria on both sides where divisive actions are concerned. And one thing that came up which is not planned and is not really expected was again a strong level of support for a more coherent and coordinated attempt to draw together the work of the Communion around issues of justice and international development.”

And so Lambeth 2008, the ten yearly meeting of Anglican Bishops, the first this millennium, has come and gone. It ended on Sunday August 3. Although I was in London for most part of the Conference, I could not cover it officially because, accreditation of journalists had closed by the time I arrived in the United Kingdom. In the event, when, at the close of the Conference, I did not get to see the resolutions, I thought I had somehow missed it. I combed various Anglican websites, in vain. It took a terse e-mail from Canon James Rosenthal, the veteran Communicator (Director of Communications) of the Anglican Communion and Editor of the Anglican World magazine, to convince me that Lambeth 2008, momentous as it was, ended without a formal statement of decisions in the form of a communiqué. In his reply to my inquiry, Rosenthal assured me that there were no resolutions and directed me to what he described as “Reflections” published on the Conference website.

Of course, I had seen the document he referred to. Titled, Lambeth Indaba, Capturing Conversations and Reflections from the Lambeth Conference 2008, it was a 42-page narrative of the discussions at the Conference. In 161 paragraphs divided into 13 sections, the document rivals the best of United Nations resolutions carefully put together to avoid the almighty veto of any of the Security Council permanent members. I do not say that to minimize the gains of the Conference. And there were many, intangible for now.

Archbishop Rowan William’s address to journalists at the final media conference shortly before the conference formally wound up sought to put the gains in perspective. He identified what he described as “some quite surprising results” from the Conference. His words:

“I think that we have emerged at the end of this conference with some quite surprising results; a surprising level of sheer willingness to stay together; a surprising level of agreement about what might be necessary to make that happen. So that for all the fact that all the details of the covenant proposal still need a good deal of clarification nonetheless there is a following for that. There is also a wide degree of agreement on the need for moratoria on both sides where divisive actions are concerned. And one thing that came up which is not planned and is not really expected was again a strong level of support for a more coherent and coordinated attempt to draw together the work of the Communion around issues of justice and international development.”

As a result of these “surprising results”, the archbishop said “…there’s work to do” and he went on to itemize some of the various processes that will take the process forward as follows: “There will be a number of meetings coming up: a special meeting of the joint standing committee of Primates, the Consultative Council in November; we are planning a Primates meeting very early in the new year, and there would be the routine meeting of the Consultative Council in the early summer”.

Situating the place of the “Reflections” document in the on-going processes, the archbishop continued: “Feeding into all of these will be continuing reflections from various groups that will be looking at the issues the Conference has been discussing. They will be looking at those in the light of the very detailed responses and perspectives offered by the indaba groups as represented in the “Reflections’ document, which was formally presented to the Conference and to myself this afternoon and, which we will be dedicating in prayer at the service at the cathedral very shortly. I think that in addition to all that, all the formal aspects of the work together, there’s been very, very widespread desire simply to go on building personal relations…”

But it is, perhaps, his concluding statement that captures the state of the Communion best and I quote: “Even where people may not want to sign up to formal agreements, nonetheless they felt that the exchanges they had have been nourishing, valuable and the phrase that has occurred in several context is we want the indaba to continue. We want the process to continue in which there is space to do the sort of thing we have sought to do in this last two weeks.”

This statement is indicative of the fact that the outcome of the Conference did not meet the expectations of the conference president himself as reflected in both his opening and second addresses. He had canvassed the need for both a Covenant to bind the provinces that make up the communion together in a fairly less loose manner and a Council that can, at least, make pronouncements on critical issues concerning the body. Neither was adopted.

Commenting on the Conference’s failure to put an Anglican Covenant in place, Dr Williams said: “I had outlined in my opening address that the covenant was not meant to be a punitive exclusionary device, it was meant to say if you want to adopt a more integral, more intensified form of mutual responsibility; this is the way to do it. If that doesn’t happen, well, that’s regrettable. It doesn’t mean that there is an absolute separation; it means that some levels of relationship will be entered into. And that still leave a great many possibilities for cooperation”.

In spite of that, however, the archbishop still saw much to celebrate in the outcome of the Conference. Answering a reporter’s question, he said: “I feel it’s worked out very much as I had hoped and prayed. It’s not evaded the difficult questions, even if it has not solved them the way some people would like to have them solved. But that doesn’t cause me to lose much sleep, because the conference has not been an executive body that can simply make those sorts of quick-fix decisions. I’ve actually been surprised by how much energy that’s been growing in the indaba groups to continue the process of encounter. I feel we’ve been very well served by …providing an atmosphere of prayer and worship. People have said the encounters were serious and prayerful, without too much pressure. I don’t think I could have prayed for that”

On the face of it, it does seem as if the archbishop has been rationalising the failure of Lambeth 2008. Of course, the resort to a “Reflections” document, is itself evidence that there were very few, if any, agreements on the way forward; beyond ”a strong willingness to stay together.” Some of the contents, in many ways, help the conclusion that the Communion still has a long way to go towards resolving the issues that kept at least 250 bishops away from Lambeth 2008, and gave birth to GAFCON.

For instance, where Rowan Williams canvassed a “more integral more intensifying” form of mutual relationship and sought a review of the Structure of the Communion to provide for it, the Reflections document didn’t go beyond “affirming the need for the review of the bureaucracy of provinces in order to facilitate more effective communication and efficiency. There is need to strengthen the sense of collegiality and the building of trust and accountability between dioceses, the assumption of some appellate function as a way of adjudicating issues which may arise, and ensuring that decisions and actions are taken at the appropriate level…(Paragraph 44)

This is in spite of the documents’ admission later in paragraph 79 that “Current divisions between Anglicans and the actions by certain provinces that have provoked them have inevitably disrupted not only the internal life of the Communion but also ecumenical dialogues and cooperation. Our ecumenical partners are sometimes bewildered by apparent Anglican inconsistency especially where issues of authority and ecclesiology are concerned. This is immediately relevant to the dilemmas facing this Conference.”

This philosophy class approach to issues was also evident in Section H of the document, which dealt with the issue of Human Sexuality. In all of 15 paragraphs (105-119), an attempt was made to capture the various views. And in the 16th, 12 possible ways ahead were listed including: “Further careful study of the Scriptures, theology, doctrine and other disciplines, such as theological anthropology, must be pursued together through a formal Commission at Communion-wide level. This would equip the bishops in their teaching office.” And I thought this was a Spiritual matter!

Nonetheless, Conference recorded a major victory in the tacit reaffirmation of ”the moral authority of the whole of the Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1:10, and the report commended in it, and continue its implementation…Acknowledge that some good work has been done on the resolution..”. Although, this was contained in paragraph 130 (Possible Ways Forward), its mention by Archbishop Rowan in his media conference address would seem to give it the force of a declaration.” (Concludes Next week)

*Pix: Rev Canon James Rosenthal, Director of Communication, Anglican Communion.

GAFCON & THE FUTURE OF THE CHURCH (4)

The covenant, envisaged as a unifying document, probably to be known as the Anglican Covenant, is expected to set out the loyalty and bonds of affection that would henceforth govern relationships between the churches. It will also seek to carry the weight of an international obligation and prevent churches pressing ahead with unilateral innovations. It is however not conceived, in Dr Williams’ words as “a means of excluding the difficult or rebellious but would intensify existing relations.” The proposed council, on the other hand is being touted as the Anglican equivalent of the Catholic Church’s Holy Office. Formally known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it is a Vatican body with responsibility for endorsing doctrine. The proposal for a similar body for Anglicans to be known as “Faith and Order Commission" seen as capable of bringing “guidance on issues raised by our current crisis", was contained in a document released by the Windsor Continuation Group, which analyses tensions within the communion

If Most Reverend (Dr) Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury has his way, a new Council and a Covenant of The Anglican Communion will emerge at Lambeth Conference 2008 which ends today at the University of Kent, near London, England.

This much he made clear in his second Presidential Address to about 650 leaders of the Church at their once-a-decade meeting on Tuesday. I quote: “I spoke about council and covenant as the shape of the way forward as I see it. And by this I meant, first, that we needed a bit more of a structure in our international affairs to be able to give clear guidance on what would and would not be a grave and lasting divisive course of action by a local church.”

Rationalising this position further, he said: “While at the moment the focus of this sort of question is sexual ethics, it could just as well be pressure for a new baptismal formula or the abandonment of formal reference to the Nicene Creed in a local church’s formulations; it could be a degree of variance in sacramental practice — about the elements of the Eucharist or lay presidency; it could be the regular incorporation into liturgy of non-Scriptural or even non-Christian material”.

He continued: “Some of these questions have a pretty clear answer, but others are open for a little more discussion; and it seems obvious that a body which commands real confidence and whose authority is recognised could help us greatly. But the key points are confidence and authority. If we do develop such a capacity in our structures, we need as a Communion to agree what sort of weight its decisions will have; hence, again, the desirability of a covenantal agreement.”

In his opening address to the conference a week earlier, he had spoken along the same lines. Acknowledging that the Communion was “in the middle of one of the most severe challenges to have faced the Anglican family in its history," he said "we cannot ignore the fact that what is seen to be a new doctrine and policy about same-sex relations is causing pain and perplexity."
Referring to the Global Anglican Future Conference, launched in June in Jerusalem as a reaction to “what is seen to be a new doctrine and policy about same-sex relations”, the Archbishop said, "we cannot ignore the pressures created by new structures that are being improvised in reaction to this, pressures that are very visibility in the form of irregular patterns of ministry across historic boundaries." This developments, he implied, makes the need for renewal in the Communion, as an institution an imperative. In his words "this is the moment for it. There is, quite properly, a sense of being at a deeply significant turning point."

It is against the background of this awareness that he proposes a Council and a Covenant. The covenant, envisaged as a unifying document, probably to be known as the Anglican Covenant, is expected to set out the loyalty and bonds of affection that would henceforth govern relationships between the churches. It will also seek to carry the weight of an international obligation and prevent churches pressing ahead with unilateral innovations. It is however not conceived, in Dr Williams’ words as “a means of excluding the difficult or rebellious but would intensify existing relations.”

The proposed council, on the other hand is being touted as the Anglican equivalent of the Catholic Church’s Holy Office. Formally known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it is a Vatican body with responsibility for endorsing doctrine. The proposal for a similar body for Anglicans to be known as “Faith and Order Commission" seen as capable of bringing “guidance on issues raised by our current crisis", was contained in a document released by the Windsor Continuation Group, which analyses tensions within the communion.

It is not difficult to appreciate the exertions of this man of God on a salvage mission; a man who can easily go down in history as the one who presided over the disintegration of a 70million-man strong community of Christians spread over 132 countries, administered through 58 provinces.
And the threat to the continued existence of the Communion is quite real. Between 230 and 250 Anglican Bishops didn’t attend Lambeth 2008. The absentees were among those who gathered for GAFCON in Jerusalem in June. The declaration issued at the end of the Global Anglican Future Conference bespeaks what might be described as irreconcilable differences within the family.

Described as “a spiritual movement to preserve and promote the truth and power of the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ as we Anglicans have received it”, the conference, according to the introduction to their communiqué is “global”, having attracted “1148 lay and clergy participants, including 291 bishops representing millions of faithful Anglican Christians”.

They emphasized their Anglican root and heritage in these words: “we cherish our Anglican heritage and the Anglican Communion and have no intention of departing from it. And we believe that, in God’s providence, Anglicanism has a bright future in obedience to our Lord’s Great Commission to make disciples of all nations and to build up the church on the foundation of biblical truth…” Nonetheless they went on to set up what does look like a communion within the communion.

GAFCON, says the document, “is not just a moment in time, but a movement in the Spirit, and we hereby: launch the GAFCON movement as a fellowship of confessing Anglicans; publish the Jerusalem Declaration as the basis of the fellowship and; encourage GAFCON Primates to form a Council. The group cited the crisis within the Communion brought about by three “undeniable facts” as responsible for their action. The first fact according to them is “the acceptance and promotion within the provinces of the Anglican Communion of a different ‘gospel’ (cf. Galatians 1:6-8) which is contrary to the apostolic gospel. This false gospel undermines the authority of God’s Word written and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the author of salvation from sin, death and judgment. Many of its proponents claim that all religions offer equal access to God and that Jesus is only a way, not the way, the truth and the life. It promotes a variety of sexual preferences and immoral behaviour as a universal human right. It claims God’s blessing for same-sex unions over against the biblical teaching on holy matrimony. In 2003 this false gospel led to the consecration of a bishop living in a homosexual relationship”.

The second fact, continues GAFCON, “is the declaration by provincial bodies in the Global South that they are out of communion with bishops and churches that promote this false gospel. These declarations have resulted in a realignment whereby faithful Anglican Christians have left existing territorial parishes, dioceses and provinces in certain Western churches and become members of other dioceses and provinces, all within the Anglican Communion. These actions have also led to the appointment of new Anglican bishops set over geographic areas already occupied by other Anglican bishops. A major realignment has occurred and will continue to unfold.”

And the third? “…The manifest failure of the Communion Instruments to exercise discipline in the face of overt heterodoxy. The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada, in proclaiming this false gospel, have consistently defied the 1998 Lambeth statement of biblical moral principle (Resolution 1.10). Despite numerous meetings and reports to and from the ‘Instruments of Unity,’ no effective action has been taken, and the bishops of these unrepentant churches are welcomed to Lambeth 2008. To make matters worse, there has been a failure to honour promises of discipline, the authority of the Primates’ Meeting has been undermined and the Lambeth Conference has been structured so as to avoid any hard decisions…”
As was pointed out last week Lambeth 1998’s Resolution1:10 appeared the minimum acceptable compromise on the subject of Human Sexuality, which although listed third by GAFCON, is easily the trigger of the current crisis. Had it been enforced, the situation would certainly have been different today. Why was it not enforced? Who could have enforced it and how? Is this what the Archbishop had in mind when he proposed “a body which commands real confidence and whose authority is recognized...” and emphasized “? Will his proposal succeed at Lambeth 2008? (Continues next week)
*Pix: Most Rev Dr Rowan William, Archbishop of Canterbury

GAFCON & THE FUTURE OF THE CHURCH (3)

Two issues threatened that conference. First, it was the first conference to be attended by women, not just as spouses, but a number of them as Bishops in their own right. Many had predicted that the presence of Bishops of the fair sex would be resisted; that it might lead to a walk-out. But no such thing happened. The second was the issue of human sexuality; which is euphemism for the debate over whether homosexuality was a sin to be condemned or an orientation to which human rights apply. Again, there were those who expected the worst. But at the end Resolution 1:10, to which I shall return presently, came to the rescue. Although many there were who were displeased by the outcome, the Anglican Communion left the University of Kent venue of the conclave in one piece.

George Carey, the 103rd Archbishop of Canterbury and predecessor of Dr Rowan Williams must be thanking his stars that he left the worldwide Anglican Communion intact on his retirement in 2003. He spent about twelve years in office. Five years earlier he had led a largely restive communion through possibly one of the most difficult Lambeth Conferences ever. Two issues threatened that conference. First, it was the first conference to be attended by women, not just as spouses, but a number of them as Bishops in their own right. Many had predicted that the presence of Bishops of the fair sex would be resisted; that it might lead to a walk-out. But no such thing happened. The second was the issue of human sexuality; which is euphemism for the debate over whether homosexuality was a sin to be condemned or an orientation to which human rights apply. Again, there were those who expected the worst. But at the end Resolution 1:10, to which I shall return presently, came to the rescue. Although many there were who were displeased by the outcome, the Anglican Communion left the University of Kent venue of the conclave in one piece. So satisfied with the outcome of Lambeth 1998 was Archbishop Carey that he described the Communion as “significantly stronger” than it was before the conference. That is why many people must be wondering why things seemed to have unraveled so rapidly between then and now. A bit of retrospection may help here. Rowan Williams, a professor of theology who had been consecrated as Bishop of Monmouth in 1991 and Archbishop of Wales in1999, was announced as Archbishop of Canterbury in July 2002. He took office in December of that year, at age 52, becoming 104th head of the Church of England and of the Anglican Communion worldwide. When his appointment was announced on July 23, 2002, acknowledged that an “enormous trust” had been placed in his hands and promised to “approach it with a degree of awe as well as gratitude that I have been thought worthy of it.” He said of his predecessor: “Archbishop Carey has set a very high standard in his selfless work for unity and understanding within the Anglican Communion; I shall have a fine example to follow as I learn how to approach this task…” He then declared: "I hope with all my heart that I can serve to nurture confidence and conviction in our Church, and to help Christian faith to capture the imagination of our people and our culture…I have much to learn, and hope that I shall discover how God is leading the Anglican Church, and how I can best co-operate with that leading." To nurture confidence and conviction in the Church; to learn the much that he needs to, and discover and cooperate with the direction the Holy Spirit would have him lead the Anglican Church would probably have required a tranquil season. Dr Williams didn’t have much of that! A mere five months after he took office on December 2, 2002, he found himself smack in the eye of a storm. Canon Jeffrey John, a very vocal gay priest who had been in the forefront of the campaign to have the Church change its stance on homosexuality was nominated as Bishop of Reading, a suffragan bishop in the Diocese of Oxford. That was on May 20, 2003. To say that the appointment was controversial is to understate things. John’s appointment was condemned not only within the Church of England, but also in the wider Anglican Communion. John’s nomination was faulted on two grounds despite his claim to celibacy: his strong pro-gay stance and, his refusal to publicly repent his past sexual activities as evidence that he accepted that they were wrong. So vociferous was the opposition to John’s appointment that hints of secession from the Church were heard from some parts of the communion. To date, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s position on Canon John Jeffrey’s nomination remained fuzzy. At a point he was quoted as saying that he “neither sought to promote nor obstruct the appointment”. This led to calls by people, including the European Editor of KINGDOMPeople magazine at the time, to ask him to “please clarify your position.” Such calls were however overtaken by events as Dr Jeffrey John eventually declined the appointment on July 6, of the same year, supposedly on the advice of the archbishop. Within a year, however Jeffrey John was appointed as Dean of St Albans and inducted. He was inducted on 2 July 2004. Those who know saw this appointment as a masterstroke, as his new office was said to be of “equal or even greater prominence and prestige, but without the hierarchical authority over others which gave conservatives within the Diocese of Oxford grounds for complaint.” It is to be noted that the celebrated homosexual celibate, Dr Jeffrey John, Dean of St Albans went on to enter into a civil partnership with his long-term partner, the Revd Grant Holmes in August 2006. Well, as Dr Williams was battling with the fire next door, a hurricane was developing from abroad. Three weeks before Jeffrey John publicly declined his appointment as Bishop of Reading, Rev Gene Robinson was elected Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire on June 7, 2003. He was otherwise eminently qualified for the position, having served as an assistant to the bishop (Canon to the Ordinary) for nearly 18 years. In spite of protests from the so-called conservative wing of the church, he was consecrated a Bishop on All Saints Sunday, November 2, 2003, and was invested as the Ninth Bishop of New Hampshire on March 7, 2004. Now both developments must be examined against the background of Resolution1: 10 passed by a very wide margin by the Bishops at Lambeth 1998. Titled Human Sexuality, the resolution was the result of great compromise between the conservative arm of the church, now being branded fundamentalists, in some circles and the liberal wing. It reads in part: “This Conference …commends to the Church the subsection report on human sexuality; in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage” Resolution 1:10 also says that the conference: “recognises that there are among us persons who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation. Many of these are members of the Church and are seeking the pastoral care, moral direction of the Church, and God's transforming power for the living of their lives and the ordering of relationships. We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ.” It rejected “homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture”, but “calls on all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals, violence within marriage and any trivialisation and commercialisation of sex” It also declared that the conference “cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions.” Now, the question is this: did the ordination of Gene Robinson and the general position of the Episcopal Church of the United States, and the Canadian church, among others run counter to Resolution 1:10? The Bishops of Global South and their supporters elsewhere who came together to found the Global Anglican Future Conference think so. What do you think? (Continues Next Week).
Pix: Dr George Carey, Immediate Past Archbishop of Canterbury