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

STILL ON LEADERSHIP

Now that is what we were saying. Neither the individual, nor the nation and those who rule her can afford to dichotomise their activities! Everything begins and ends with God. And by that I do not mean the practice of praying at the beginning of an event or meeting or project, shut Him out of things all through and then pray to Him at the end! The leadership style, the lifestyle model that we are canvassing here is one that puts God in the picture “every second of time and every inch of the way.” It is a leadership model that we think is exclusive to the clergy; but it is not! It should be the model for every one in any denomination or group, who name the name of the Lord.

We were saying the last time that there is need to ensure that everything we do is grounded in the spiritual otherwise, it would not endure. We quoted one of the founding fathers of the United States, George Washington as saying as follows: “And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail, in exclusion of religious principle.”

We then counselled that even in the determined effort to identify, develop, groom and mentor leaders, in a nation in desperate need of transformational leaders; a venture being boldly spearheaded by Senator (Dr) Ken Nnamani through his Ken Nnamani Centre for Leadership and Development, the place of the spiritual must be assured.

We argued that the current leadership buzz word in Nigeria, servant leadership does not have its origin in the works of some expert; it has its roots in the leadership style and teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ. We wrote about “...the original servant leader; the one who washed his disciples’ feet; the one his followers could wake up from a well deserved rest with a sharp rebuke: ‘carest thou not that we perish’, and who woke up to rebuke the storm and not those who had rudely interrupted his sleep! (see Mark 4:38-39); the leader to whom his followers can say “what kind of question is that; don’t you see the crowd? (see Mark 5:30-32). The one who said, “And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: (Matthew 20:27);” If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all (Mark 9:35); And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all (Mark 10:44).”

We drew attention to the possibility that political correctness may have made an in-road into the conduct of our affairs, such that we compartmentalise events, settings etc as secular or spiritual and wondered whether that was why the speakers, including the chief host made no reference to their faith.
“No sir”, we wrote “every forum is God’s; the separation of the spiritual from the so-called lular is the mother and father of all lies! Man is first spirit before his is body! Nigeria might be a multi-religious State; it’s certainly not a secular one”.

We conclude with these words, lost to Gremlin, the infamous printer’s devil or one of his cousins, “This brings me to the following words of Howard Jeter: ‘…Nigeria’s geography has insulated it from many of the world’s most devastating natural disasters;…(the) combination of factors – size, dynamism, talented and energetic population and abundant natural resources – places Nigeria in a position to emerge as a great economic and political power, not only in Africa but in the world.’
“Now, think about that! He spoke of a “geography” that insulates from disaster and a ‘combination of factors’ that places Nigeria in a position for leadership, as if they were some accidental, fortuitous occurrence. No, they are not. Rather, they are the deliberate will of an omnipotent Creator who has a role for this great nation in His plans for His earth. Will KCNLD please factor these into its programming? A course on Spiritual Leadership Models will be a place to start.”

But since those words were written, I have had the privilege of coming across information, some new, some just being seen in a new light by me, that not only validate the points we sought to make but also confirms one of Ambassador Howard Jeter’s statements at the KNCLD launch that Nigeria need not look too far away for examples.

Incidentally, the KNCLD founder and chairman, Dr Nnamani himself fits the bill. He was a freshman senator who did his constituent, his nation and his faith proud by no displaying courage in the heat of tremendous pressure during the Third Term controversy.

I was also privileged to come across a book by a United Kingdom-based Nigerian Christian publisher, Pamela Chinekwe, titled “Ambassador Christopher Kolade in Britain.” The title tells the story of the content. The sub-title states it as “the dynamic story of how one man made the difference..” You need to get and read this book published Chosen Books in their Distinction Series to get the gist, but permit me to draw attention to Chapter Four of the book, captioned “High Commissioner Versus Man of God?”

The opening paragraph reads: “Something made me curious during the course of studying the life of His Excellency in Britain. It was the certainty and confidence in steps taken or steps about to be taken that things would work alright.”

When she put the question, Dr Christopher Kolade replied in these words: “My starting point is that there is nothing I am involved in that God didn’t lead me into. I took the role as High Commissioner because God indicated to me that he wanted me to take it. He gave me that indication because He already knows me very well and knows where I am coming from and where I am likely to go. He would give me an assignment or permit me to take it because He knows I will do my best to be faithful to Him. In my day to day decision making, my day opens with the conviction that whatever opportunities come to me that day must be used to serve God.”

Continuing, he said: “I must not assume that there are certain times of the day that I work for myself or I am working for somebody else because God is interested in everything I do; He can give me an opportunity to serve Him through anything...”

Now that is what we were saying. Neither the individual, nor the nation and those who rule her can afford to dichotomise their activities! Everything begins and ends with God. And by that I do not mean the practice of praying at the beginning of an event or meeting or project, shut Him out of things all through and then pray to Him at the end! The leadership style, the lifestyle model that we are canvassing here is one that puts God in the picture “every second of time and every inch of the way.” It is a leadership model that we think is exclusive to the clergy; but it is not! It should be the model for every one in any denomination or group, who name the name of the Lord.

Talking about the clergy and leadership brings me to the other information I was privy to during the week. And it has to do with the man Archbishop (Dr) Peter Jasper Akinola, Primate of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion). If you are a regular reader of this column, you would have read about him a number of times before. You may recall how I had quoted the words of Pastor Rick Warren, the well known author of the prodigious book, “Purpose Driven Life” who writing for TIME magazine three or so years ago described Akinola as a “Model of Christian Leadership”. And so, I was really reluctant to “get on his case”, as it were again today. But, if you’ve been monitoring what’s going on in Jerusalem at a meeting of about 300 Primates of the worldwide Anglican Communion, known as GAFCON (Global Anglican Future Conference), you will understand why I succumbed.

Here is a meeting, put together under the leadership of about ten Anglican Primates from across the continents; he being the prime force, to contemplate the future of the second largest Christian denomination in the world against the background of satanic revisionism, compromise and relativism that seem to be getting the better of the Church. But the world knows that it had taken the courageous leadership of one man standing up for the faith; his resilience; his forthrightness to start this unstoppable movement towards changing the face of Anglicanism forever. That is leadership, at its transformative best and it is anchored on the spiritual. That is why it has endured; That is the kind of leadership that should interest KNCLD for it to make the difference in Nigeria and in Africa and become a model for even older centres to study and emulate. (Next: Gafcon & the Future of Christianity)

GAFCON & THE FUTURE OF THE CHURCH (2)

Against the background that a sizeable percentage of the bishops represented at the Global Anglican Future Conference are not at Lambeth 2008, the question remains, will whatever is achieved at be too little too late? Or will Lambeth 2008 succeed where Lambeth 1998 failed. Will Rowan Williams avert the seemingly looming fate of being the Primate who presided over the disintegration of the Anglican Communion? Or will he be remembered as the one who pulled the Communion back from the brink?

By the time you read this, Lambeth Conference 2008, the once-a-decade gathering of Anglican Bishops from across the globe would have entered its fifth day in the beautiful ambience of the University of Kent in Canterbury.

Depending on what time of day you are reading, this assortment of clergy men and their from diverse climes would have had or are about to have breakfast, a drive in coaches to the Canterbury Cathedral for the official Lambeth Conference Service; returned from the service just in time for lunch; spend a free afternoon followed by a conference session during which they are introduced to the programme of the conference as put together by the so-called Design Group; have their evening meal and relax at a concert to be given by the Korean Choir.

The atmosphere would have been largely calm and tension-free on the surface. But underlining this would be the nagging question of the effect that recent events in the communion might have on the future of Anglicanism. And that would simply be euphemism for the effect of GAFCON on the Anglican Church and, I daresay, the Church in general.

The calmness, however, though a deliberate design of the chief host of the conference, might not necessarily be a put-on. This writer recognises the place of the hand of God on matters such as this when he is given the place of primacy that rightly belongs to Him. And irrespective of anyone’s perception of the Most Rev Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury and leader of the Anglican Church, he is a deeply spiritual man, who seems to have put together his first Lambeth Conference with absolutely no personal agenda. He comes across as totally and absolutely depending on the Holy Spirit to speak clearly and unequivocally on the key issues – and not just to him, but to as many of his colleagues as He might chose. These much are discernible from the structuring and programme of the conference, as well as, the rhetoric of the man.

In a video message he sent across the Anglican commonwealth in April, the archbishop revealed his heart and his expectation of the conference which opened on Thursday, the bishops having arrived the day before.

“What I would really most like to see in this year’s Lambeth Conference”, he said, “is the sense that this is essentially a spiritual encounter. A time when people are encountering God as they encounter one another, a time when people will feel that their life of prayer and witness is being deepened and their resources are being stretched. Not a time when we are being besieged by problems that need to be solved and statements that need to be finalised, but a time when people feel that they are growing in their ministry. And for that to happen once again, we are going to need the prayers and the support of so many people around the world.”

He continued: “And that is why I have encouraged people across the Communion to prepare for the Lambeth Conference not only by praying for Bishops as they gather but also by sharing some of the material that has been provided for Bible study at the Conference - sharing in reflection on St John’s Gospel - so that Bishops and their people and their clergy will in the Gospel that will lay the foundations for what we hope to achieve at the Lambeth Conference. So please pray for the Conference and please share in that process of preparation, that reflection of God’s word in the Gospel of John that will open up to us the horizons that we need in order to be better Bishops for the sake of a better Church.” months ahead be going through the same kinds of processes of thinking and praying around St John’s.

All of these explain the structure of the Conference, made up of many small group meetings or “indaba” which in the words of the archbishop, are “groups where in traditional African culture, people get together to sort out the problems that affect them all, where everyone has a voice and where there is an attempt to find a common mind or a common story that everyone is able to tell when they go away from it. This is how we approached it. This is what we heard. This is where we arrived as we prayed and thought and talked together.”

It also explains why between Thursday and Sunday, the bishops would have spent considerable time at retreats praying and worshipping and generally just seeking the face of God for direction. Of course, in spite of Dr Rowan’s position that “Lambeth” is not a legislature, the Conference won’t be shying away from taking on the key issues, namely the threatened split of the Anglican Church which GAFCON forebode.
In the same April video, which predated GAFCON, he said: “At the heart of the whole Anglican Communion is relationship. We have never been a body that is bound together by firm and precise rules and that is often, as it is at the moment, a matter of some real concern and some confusion in our life as a communion. We don’t want at the Lambeth Conference to be creating a lot of new rules but we do obviously need to strengthen our relationships and we need to put those relationships on another footing, slightly firmer footing, where we have promised to one another that this is how we will conduct our life together. And it is in that light that at this year we are discussing together the proposal for what we are calling a covenant between the Anglican Churches of the world. A covenant. A relationship of promise. We undertake that this is how we will relate to one another; that when these problems occur, that this is how we will handle them together, that this is how advice will be given and shared and that this is how decisions and discernment can be taken forward.”

Emphasising the crucial role of a covenant within the Communion and therefore how it is arrived at, the Archbishop continued: “That is a very a big part of what we will be looking at this year but it is not everything because no covenant, no arrangement of that sort is worth the paper it is written on if it doesn’t grow out of the relationships that are built as people pray together and share their lives together over tow and a half weeks. And to try and underline, we have also decided that this year we are going to begin the Lambeth Conference with a couple of days of retreat, of quiet prayer and reflection. There will be addresses. There will be a lot of open space and open time where people can just be alone with God, to think deeply about what they want from the conference and perhaps have the opportunity to talk quietly with one of two others about their hopes and fears.”

The journey to a covenant would therefore take the bishops through such routes as reflecting on themes like: God's Mission and the Bishop's discipleship; Listening to God and each other; Celebrating Common Ground; Proclaiming the Good News; and Transforming Society. Other themes are: Discerning our shared calling; Safeguarding Creation; Engaging with a Multi-Faith World; Equal in God's sight; Living under scripture; and Listening to God and each other.

Against the background that a sizeable percentage of the bishops represented at the Global Anglican Future Conference are not at Lambeth 2008, the question remains, will whatever is achieved at be too little too late? Or will Lambeth 2008 succeed where Lambeth 1998 failed. Will Rowan Williams avert the seemingly looming fate of being the Primate who presided over the disintegration of the Anglican Communion? Or will he be remembered as the one who pulled the Communion back from the brink? We shall examine all the ramifications as this serial progress next week.

GAFCON & THE FUTURE OF THE CHURCH

Yet, the coming on board of the Global Anglican Future Conference, which is what GAFCON stands for, is possibly one of the most significant issues of our time. Without exaggerating, it is of such moment as Martin Luther’s nailing of the 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany on October 31, 1517. This was what led inexorably to the Reformation of the Church and the birth of Protestantism.

It is one of the ironies of today’s living and lifestyle that the mundane gets maximum attention, while the important, the fundamental are relegated to the back burner. That is why the on-going developments in the worldwide Anglican Communion have yet to find space, to my knowledge, on the front page of any newspaper or magazine. That is therefore why, dear reader, you can be forgiven if your reaction upon reading the headline is this piece is ga-what?

Yet, the coming on board of the Global Anglican Future Conference, which is what GAFCON stands for, is possibly one of the most significant issues of our time. Without exaggerating, it is of such moment as Martin Luther’s nailing of the 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany on October 31, 1517. This was what led inexorably to the Reformation of the Church and the birth of Protestantism.

To understand this comparison, it is necessary to understand the import of the 95 Theses, its essence and its aftermath. Church History has it that Martin Luther, a Professor of theology at Wittenberg University who doubles as the priest at the town’s City Church therefore responsible for the salvation of the parish made one significant observation. He noticed that fewer and fewer members of the congregation were coming to him for confession. His investigation revealed that the people were going to neighbouring towns to buy what is known as Indulgences, particularly, the Peter's Indulgence.
What are indulgences, you may wonder. According to Wikipedia, Indulgences had a firm root in Roman Catholic theology which posits that “faith alone, whether fiduciary or dogmatic, cannot justify man; and that only such faith as is active in charity and good works can justify man. These good works could be obtained by donating money to the church.” In operating this theological concept, the Church even had a Papal commissioner for indulgences.
It was recorded that the from about 1508, trade in Indulgences rose very sharply because both the Papal Court and Bishop Albrecht von Brandenburg Germany's representative for the sale of indulgence were in great financial trouble.
This was the setting when a Dominican Friar, Johann Tetzel, was appointed commissioner for indulgences and sent to Germany, to sell indulgences to raise money to rebuild St Peter's Basilica in Rome. This was in the period 1516-1517.
It is this practice that had virtually become a substitute for confession, thus seemingly allowing people to “buy” their salvation. This was completely repulsive to Luther, who strongly believed that to receive the grace of God; you had to live a life of humility.
Tetzel’s ostentatious style of selling the indulgences in the region around Luther’s Wittenberg territory did not help matters. It was said that stories started making the rounds that “Tetzel could redeem the sins of the deceased.” He was also famously quoted as declaring that: “When the money clangs in the box, the souls spring up to heaven.".
Luther would have none of that! So, on October 31, 1517, he wrote to Albrecht, Archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, to protest the sale of indulgences enclosing in his letter a copy of his "Disputation of Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences," which was to become known as The 95 Theses.

Those who know would testify that since Luther saw his disputation as a scholarly objection to church practices rather than an attempt to confront the church the tone of his writing was largely mild, or Hans Hillerbrand put it, “searching rather than doctrinaire.” Which probably explained the covering note to the theses which reads: “Out of love for the truth and from desire to elucidate it, the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and Sacred Theology, and ordinary lecturer therein at Wittenberg, intends to defend the following statements and to dispute on them in that place. Therefore he asks that those who cannot be present and dispute with him orally shall do so in their absence by letter. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, Amen.”

A perusal of the theses, however, would reveal that some of the theses did have an undercurrent of challenge. Thesis 89, for instance, pointedly asked: “Why does the pope, whose wealth today is greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build the basilica of St. Peter with the money of poor believers rather than with his own money?”
Church fathers took Luther’s concerns tardily, indeed with considerable levity. The man to whom the letter was addressed, Cardinal Albrecht of Hohenzollern, Archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, had personal reasons for ignoring Luther. Pope Leo X had given his consent to the archbishop to use part of the indulgence income to pay certain personal debts of his. So he didn’t as much as formally acknowledge the letter, even when its contents were circulating like wild fire. His tentative reaction was to set up a panel of experts to scrutinize the letter for heresy and then forwarded it to Rome.
Pope Leo was to respond over the next three years, with what he described as “great care as is proper." He deployed a series of papal theologians and envoys against Luther probably hoping the matter would die down of its own accord. This attitude was discernible from the fact that sometimes in 1518 he was quoted as dismissing Luther as, "a drunken German" who "when sober will change his mind".
While Rome fiddled, Luther's writings were circulating widely abroad. By 1519, he had garnered audience for his viewpoints in France, England, and Italy. As a result, students thronged to Wittenberg to hear him speak. His creative juice was flowing too. Three of his best known works, To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation; On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church; and Christian were published in 1520:
Church history has it that the Pope finally reacted on May 30th in 1519 by formally demanding an explanation from Luther who wasted no time in writing a summary and explanation of his theses to the Pope. Predictably, although the Pope was believed to have conceded some of the points to Luther, he simply could not accept the challenge to his authority implied by Luther’s exertions. He summoned Luther to Rome to on this score. Intervention came from Frederick the Wise, the Saxon Elector, who did not want one of his subjects to be sent to Rome to be judged by Italians. He prevailed on the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V who needed his support to arrange a compromise.
By the arrangement that resulted, the summons to Rome was cancelled, and instead Luther went to Augsburg in October 1518 to meet the papal legate, Cardinal Thomas Cajetan. In spite of long hours of debates and arguments, still nothing was resolved. While Cajetan held on to the opinion that the practice of indulgences had to be right, otherwise, God Himself would have revealed the fraud, Luther stood his ground rejecting what he saw as the ‘sanctification of history.”
As a result, the Pope formally warned Luther through an edict, called the papal bull asking him to recant 41 sentences extracted from his writings, including the 95 Theses, within 60 days or risk excommunication.
Although other attempts were made at resolution of the crisis, Luther was excommunicated by Pope Leo X on January 3, 1521, about three weeks after he made a bonfire of the papal bull and other related documents in a public show of defiance on December 10, 1520. Of course that wasn’t the end of the story. One thing led to the other and the reformation resulted.
Now, I have taken you through this excursion into the life and times of Dr Martin Luther and the eventual birth of Protestantism, because of the parallels between what happened then and what has been happening in the Anglican Church in the last one decade or so which culminated in Jerusalem 2008, the Global Anglican Future Conference. (Continues Next Week)
.

FANIKAYODE, BLOOD-SUCKING DEMONS AND ALL THAT

The devil makes his home in any environment where justice and equity are aliens; he thrives in the bitterness that oppression brings out of the oppressed; he is lord where the poor are trampled upon and the rich are not averse to sustaining their wealth and privileges through unjust means. We should thank God that more of our citizens are running to the Churches, to the Lord Jesus Christ, for succour; but we must not underestimate the number rushing to the occult, to satan for help. That is the source of the kind of thing that Fani-Kayode spoke about.

These are truly interesting times in the life of our nation. For interesting, some might want to read trying or testy, or whatever else is their perception on the state of affairs in the largest black nation in the world.

As I write this, most, some say all, of Lagos, where I live and work, has been in complete darkness for about a week. To my knowledge, nobody has told us why; and when we shall have the privilege of having the occasional flicker we’ve become accustomed to back. As a result, we’ve had to spend some more on fuel for generators, drink tonnes more of fumes per day to supplement the “poor” water that have become considerably poorer and food that have become dearer.

No, I am not complaining; not one little bit. That is because, I’ve always known and stated it here that the flood of righteousness will come, some day soon; sooner than most of us are willing to allow for. That is why I disagree with respected journalist and one time ‘action Governor” of Lagos State, Alhaji Lateef Jakande who said recently that all probes are useless. You see, previous probes may have been so, but the current ones are certainly going to bear bountiful fruits. These are no man-orchestrated moves; these are the moves of God in His wisdom, to fulfil His promise in the Bible that there is nothing hidden that shall not be exposed (see Matthew 10:26). Incidentally, Atiku Abubakar, Action Congress presidential contender in last year’s election had to admit that there is a higher power involved in what is going on at the moment!

The other aspect of the goings-on that many of us are missing is that the speed with which these exposes are coming on, within the first half of Yar’Adua’s disputed four-year term is also prophetic. When a people’s conscience becomes dead, as in unable to respond to stimuli, they take the word and the ways of God with levity. The Bible’s book of Ezekiel recorded God’s reaction to such temerity when He found it among the children of Israel:

"Son of man, what's this proverb making the rounds in the land of Israel that says, 'Everything goes on the same as ever; all the prophetic warnings are false alarms'? "Tell them, 'GOD, the Master, says, This proverb's going to have a short life!' "Tell them, 'Time's about up. Every warning is about to come true. False alarms and easygoing preaching are a thing of the past in the life of Israel. I, GOD, am doing the speaking. What I say happens. None of what I say is on hold. What I say, I'll do--and soon, you rebels!' Decree of God the Master“ (Ezekiel 12: 22-25).

That is why those who thought they were going to have a breathing space; that before anything untoward happens they would have had time to cover their tracks, must be wondering what hit them. I’ve said it many times before and I am going to say it again, things are not ever going to be the same again in our land. God is on our case, and it therefore CANNOT be business as usual. And it applies as much to those in government (every tier and branch of it), as it does to those in business, in academia, in sports, every other area of our national life including, most crucially of all, the Church.

It must also be stated that, because God is in it, true justice will be done eventually in all cases. It doesn’t matter how much people, who have smelt blood and would want to go for the kill, clamour for some heads, the innocent will not be punished. Yes, there would be trials for some, here and there, but those who have not soiled there hands will not need bleach. If you think that is prophetic, it is.

I say this because, as I write this, Mrs Diezani Allison Madueke, Minister of Transportation was being tarred with the brush taking out of the Professor Grange/Obasanjo-Bello paint bucket. And I know that many can’t wait to hear that she’s been asked to resign and docked by EFCC like the crowd from the Ministry of Health (corrected). But, unless the investigations reveal other things from what we already know, this is simply a tea-pot storm.

One, the money said to have been withdrawn were for projects already approved, and which had gone through due process. Two, there are no evidences yet that the minister or any one else benefited personally from the steps taken. Three, even if she were to be in disobedience of the Executive Order that unspent funds be returned to the Treasury, she would only have violated the letter rather than the spirit of that presidential directive. After all wasn’t the directive issued to forestall fraud? But, this is not a defence of the minister, it is simply a declaration that, as things stand today, there is no comparison yet between what happened at the Ministry of Health (corrected) and that of the Ministry of Transportation. And even the courts are yet to rule in the Health (corrected) case.

Incidentally, two erstwhile Ministers in that ministry responsible for Aviation were also in the news during the week. You already know the story. Dr Babalola Borisade, the one we call “Boris” and Deacon Femi Fani-Kayode honoured the invitation of the Senate Committee investigating the transportation ministry. They were specifically asked to account for how the so-called Aviation Intervention Fund was spent and somehow they couldn’t agree on the arithmetic!

This is surprising, to say the least. I had the opportunity of interacting with “Boris” early in the life of the Obasanjo government. He was then a Senior Special Assistant and had led a small team to design the National Poverty Eradication Programme, NAPEP. (In retrospect, the nation would most certainly have benefited immensely had he been left to execute the programme). Back then, I found him quite a thorough person; with a knack for knit-picking in his attention to details. It is therefore not in his character not to be able to account for anything.

Femi Fani-Kayode, on the other hand, may be guilty of brashness and of being a trifle bit uncivil in the execution of his assignments, his forthrightness cannot be in doubt. For instance, till tomorrow, I believe that he was one of two or three people in the Obasanjo State House who did not know about their bosses’ third-term ambition until towards the end of the project! And the Deacon wore his faith on his sleeves, as it were, although his stay in government. Did he get his numbers mixed up?

I have stated all of these to make the point that whatever the case; no matter how susceptible many of us may have become to the revenge instinct, we must remain on the side of justice; God’s kind of justice.

Incidentally Fani-Kayode also got into the news for declaring that there was demonic involvement in the spate of air disasters that claimed many lives in this country before he got into office. Many have found that laughable. Many members of Moyo Oyatogun’s people’s parliament, Talk Back on Star FM radio, for instance, were very uncharitable in their reaction to the statement. And I am laughing. I am laughing at the ignorance of those who think life consists only of the things they can relate to by their senses. I am laughing at the suggestion that a “well-educated” man like Fani-Kayode should know better than to acknowledge the existence of the spiritual, including the satanic.

Fortunately one of the “parliamentarians”, as Moyo likes to address them, was “uneducated” enough to admit that the problems of this nation are spiritual. The earlier we face this truth the better. The devil makes his home in any environment where justice and equity are aliens; he thrives in the bitterness that oppression brings out of the oppressed; he is lord where the poor are trampled upon and the rich are not averse to sustaining their wealth and privileges through unjust means. We should thank God that more of our citizens are running to the Churches, to the lord Jesus Christ, for succour; but we must not underestimate the number rushing to the occult, to satan for help. That is the source of the kind of thing that Fani-Kayode spoke about. And he should know! He is a member of one of the most effective deliverance ministries in the land. (Apologies: GAFCON and the future of the Church will come later)

LEADERSHIP ON THE FRONT BURNER (3)

This brings me to the following words of Howard Jeter: “…Nigeria’s geography has insulated it from many of the world’s most devastating natural disasters;…(the) combination of factors – size, dynamism, talented and energetic population and abundant natural resources – places Nigeria in a position to emerge as a great economic and political power, not only in Africa but in the world.” Now, think about that! He spoke of a “geography” that insulates from disaster and a “combination of factors” that places Nigeria in a position for leadership, as if they were some accidental, fortuitous occurrence. No, they are not. Rather, they are the deliberate will of an omnipotent Creator who has a role for this great nation in His plans for His earth. Will KCNLD please factor these into its programming? A course on Spiritual Leadership Models will be a place to start.

Let me start this, the third in my serial on the leadership question in Nigeria, by making the obvious point that the very essence of this column is to draw attention to the kingdom perspective on any and all issues. For, as we like to boldly declare, there is a kingdom perspective to every issue and we ignore that perspective to our peril whether as individuals, institutions or nations.

That is why I ended the second part last week on the seemingly provocative conclusion that most of the intellectual discourse that’s going on, and which will continue, on the important subject of leadership is misdirected. We need to redirect our efforts and, if it is to make any difference at all, the Ken Nnamani Centre for Leadership and Development (KNCLD) must lead the way.

As you may recall, the four men, leaders of note themselves, who spoke at the May 6, 2008 launch of KNCLD agreed almost completely that leadership is foundational to development. They all seemed to agree with Ambassador Joseph Ayalogu, Executive Director of the Centre, who at a pre-launch event said, “it is only in the dictionary that development comes before leadership”.

The Chief Host, Senator (Dr) Ken Nnamani had set the ball rolling with his robust defence of the position that “leadership matters”, declaring unequivocally: “…it is incontrovertible that leadership makes the difference whether in the public or private sector. The quality of leadership sets countries and institutions apart.”

Event chairman, General (Dr) Yakubu Gowon couldn’t agree less. “At the heart of Africa’s problem lies the key issue of leadership and governance. The leadership question, particularly the lack of committed and selfless political leaders on the African continent, is largely responsible for their slow pace of development and growth.” Although he identified another critical factor in the development process as an atmosphere “devoid of tension and acrimony”, he pointed out that only the right leadership can bring about this atmosphere. The right leadership, in his opinion has to be “God-fearing, honest, visionary, transparent, and accountable to the people…”

Howard Jeter, a former United States envoy to Nigeria, who was Guest Speaker said he had always believed that leaders “are the distinguishing factor among nations and it is their actions, their vision, their commitment that determine whether their countries are rich or poor, at war or at peace, developing or decaying, models to emulate or pariahs to be avoided.” He however expanded the focal point beyond the political class pointing out that leadership starts in the family, the workplace and marketplace, in large and small villages, as well as, in the various branches and tiers of government.

In spite of his recognition of the crucial role of leadership in development, however, Jeter did not shy away from emphasising the importance of the led. Likening the leader to a conductor in an orchestra, he said: “he or she cannot make good music without a great and diverse orchestra… The leader, the guide can show the way, but a people will not reach their destination unless they rally around, support and follow their leader, their guide. A leader, no matter how strong, sincere and committed, cannot get to that destination alone without popular trust and support. Leadership is within and starts with each and every one of you…”

On his part, Ghanaian former Head of State, J.J. Rawlings who gave the keynote address on the theme, “Nurturing Transformative Leadership, Promoting Good Governance and Improving Lives in Africa,” described as compelling, the perspective that good leadership leads to good governance that in turn improves the lives of the people. He nevertheless canvassed the position that a leader is a product of society. His words: “Docile societies get dictatorial leaders; while transformational societies create transformational leaders. This view turns the argument upside down, by putting huge responsibilities on societal dynamics and not just on a mythical ‘transformational leader’”

Continuing, he declared: “A dynamic citizenry emboldened to demand their rights at every turn, will help steer the leader down a path of caution, care and responsibility. If this crowd of citizens were simply waving and hailing the leader, irresponsible leadership occurs…”

One of the conclusions that can be reasonably drawn from the four presentations is that leadership is the quintessential factor in a nation’s development; though he/she must be ready to carry along the led, if he is to succeed. It is also clear that nobody at the forum disagreed with the notion that transformative leaders are a class apart.

It is recognised, even if unspoken that while leaders may be born in monarchies and dictatorships, they are, largely made in democracies. Even in systems where leadership is something of a birthright, deliberate grooming processes are usually in place, which includes military and diplomatic training. It is the recognition that military training hones leadership skills that led to the applause that used to greet every coup d’ tat, apart, that is, from the failure of the political elite. The subsequent failure of the military in governance, as admitted by General Gowon, has however put a question mark on the value of military institutions as breeding ground for leadership. That is the real rationale for leadership institutions like KNCLD. And that is why this columnist welcomes it and would like to encourage all who can to contribute generously towards its funding.

But, permit me to warn: intellectualism does not a leader make; only character does.
Character is defined by values and values that endure are anchored on the spiritual.
While one does not want to join the egg-and-chick debate on which produces which - leader or follower; it must be emphasised that leaders emerge from societies, and while there are those who somehow step out of the norm, break away from extant value-free or value-vague ambiences to change things, they are the exception, not the rule. So, for any nation to have a free flow of real leadership, it must have a pool of leaders honed on enduring values; values that do not succumb to relativism, expediency and political correctness.

One of the founding fathers of the United States, George Washington put it this way: “And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail, in exclusion of religious principle.”

General Gowon came close to hitting the nail on the head when he said that good leadership must be “God-fearing..”. But he did not elaborate, and I like to believe that that is because he was only the chairman. Ex-President Rawlings delved on it too when he lamented that modern African societies had “bypassed the spiritual sanctity of the truth…” But again, he didn’t pursue the theme, possibly because it would have been “politically incorrect.” Jeter, coming from the home of political correctness itself simply didn’t go there at all!

In this respect, even Dr Nnamani, who referred to the servant leadership concept embraced by President Umar Yar’Adua also pandered to political correctness or intellectualism or both. He attributed this core quality of true leadership to some obscure experts whose names, I cannot remember. Christian that he is, he surely, has read in his Bible about the original servant-leader; the one who washed his disciples’ feet; the one his followers could wake up with sharp rebuke: ‘carest thou not that we perish’, and who woke up to rebuke the storm and not those who had rudely interrupted his sleep! (see Mark 4:38-39); the leader to whom his followers can say “what kind of question is that; don’t you see the crowd? (see Mark 5:30-32). The one who said, “And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: (Matthew 20:27);” If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all (Mark 9:35); And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all (Mark 10:44).

Perhaps he thought that, that was not an appropriate forum! And I say, no sir; every forum is God’s; the separation of the spiritual from the so-called secular is the mother and father of all lies! Man is first spirit before his is body! Nigeria might be a multi-religious State; it’s certainly not a secular one.

This brings me to the following words of Howard Jeter: “…Nigeria’s geography has insulated it from many of the world’s most devastating natural disasters;…(the) combination of factors – size, dynamism, talented and energetic population and abundant natural resources – places Nigeria in a position to emerge as a great economic and political power, not only in Africa but in the world.”

Now, think about that! He spoke of a “geography” that insulates from disaster and a “combination of factors” that places Nigeria in a position for leadership, as if they were some accidental, fortuitous occurrence. No, they are not. Rather, they are the deliberate will of an omnipotent Creator who has a role for this great nation in His plans for His earth. Will KCNLD please factor these into its programming? A course on Spiritual Leadership Models will be a place to start.