1. In a spirit of unity and trust, and in an atmosphere of love the Primates of the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa (CAPA) as well as Archbishop John Chew, the Chairman of the Global South, which represents the majority of the active orthodox membership in the entire Anglican Communion, met during the 2nd All Africa Bishop’s Conference in Entebbe, Uganda. We enjoyed the fellowship and the sense of unity as we heard the Word of God and gathered around the Lord’s Table.
2. We gave thanks to God for the leadership of the Most. Rev. Ian Ernest, Archbishop of the Indian Ocean and Chairman of CAPA and for the abundant hospitality provided by the Most Rev. Henry Orombi, Archbishop of Uganda and the entire Church of Uganda.
3. We were honored by the presence of the His Excellency General Yoweri K. Museveni, President of the Republic of Uganda, for his official welcome to Uganda and for hosting an official state reception for the AABCH. We are very grateful to him for his support of the work of the Anglican Church in Uganda and for his call to stand against the alien intrusions and cultural arrogance which undermines the moral fiber of our societies. We recall his admonishment to live out the words and deeds of the Good Samaritan. We are also grateful to the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister of Uganda for his presence and words of encouragement to us.
1. KingDavid wrote:
I’ve just been reading the first paragraph here and wondered why Abp. Mouneer Anis was not mentioned along with Abp. John Chew. Does anyone know if Abp. Anis was still present?
August 29, 6:28 pm | [comment link]
2. cseitz wrote:
+Mouneer is an ‘African’ in the sense that Augustine and Athanasius are. +Chew is from SE Asia.
August 29, 6:36 pm | [comment link]
3. Barbara Gauthier wrote:
My guess is that ++Mouneer Anis was not mentioned separately along with ++John Chew because ++Anis is attending the CAPA conference as the Bishop of Egypt. He would therefore be included among the CAPA primates as one of the African archbishops and not a non-African archbishop like ++Chew.
August 29, 6:40 pm | [comment link]
4. Martin Reynolds wrote:
“the Primates of the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa (CAPA) “
But I understand this is not so. Two Primates have already demurred .... thats a poor start.
August 29, 7:08 pm | [comment link]
5. Martin Reynolds wrote:
“it is obligatory of all Provinces to observe the agreed decisions and recommendations of the Windsor Report and the various communiqués of the past three Primates Meetings,”
Well, does that mean that all Africa is now obliged to work for the decriminalisation of homosexuality so that they can live up to the Dromantine Anathema?
And does it mean that all Africa is now fully committed to the balanced and tolerant view expressed in paragraph 146 of the Windsor Report?
These would be welcome developments and would help heal many wounds.
August 29, 7:20 pm | [comment link]
6. DonGander wrote:
I think it an excellent way forward. Get rid of the management baggage that is in itself unmanageable.
This is 2010. Why use tools that were developed for the communications of 1840?
August 29, 10:38 pm | [comment link]
7. KingDavid wrote:
About Mouneer Anis—But I don’t think Egypt is one of the CAPA provinces, is it? I read in one of the early statements about the 12 CAPA provinces—and twelve were listed, without Egypt. I hope you’re right that Abp. Anis is not named in the first paragraph simply because he was deemed to be one of the African leaders. (But is he a CAPA primate? Aren’t Egypt, Jerusalem and the Middle East in another group?) I wonder if signatures are affixed?
My take is that some of us will feel this statement is not quite strong enough and others will think it’s too extreme. Maybe that means it’s about right? How damaging to the effect of this Communique is the separate statement from S. Africa and W. Africa? At the South-South Encounter, too, the Communique had a few dissenters, but very few.
August 30, 12:55 am | [comment link]
8. Pageantmaster [KJS to Coventry] wrote:
If it helps, Egypt is listed as a CAPA Province, KingDavid, according to their website. They do wonderful work in a difficult situation.
August 30, 7:32 am | [comment link]
9. Barbara Gauthier wrote:
#4 Two primates did not demur because the primates of Southern Africa and Central Africa were not at the CAPA conference. Southern Africa primate Thabo Makgoba did not attend due to a prior commitment. Central Africa has been without a primate since the retirement of ++Bernard Malango in 2007. Both provinces were represented at the conference, but without their primates. Thus the statement distancing themselves from the Primates Communique was would have been issued by the provincial representatives but not by their primates (although I feel sure that ++Makgoba would concur with his province’s decision).
August 30, 7:46 am | [comment link]
10. Sarah wrote:
RE: ” Two primates did not demur . . . “
Barbara—please don’t trouble Martin Reynolds with facts like that. It quite spoils the effect and the mood.
August 30, 8:17 am | [comment link]
11. pendennis88 wrote:
The important part of the communique, it seems to me, is in 6A and 6B (and the footnotes - always read the footnotes). I interpret them as saying that the nonattendance of TEC representatives is obligatory, as far as the CAPA primates (yes, not counting South Africa, which has long been within TEC’s sphere of influence) are concerned, and that they want to reemphasize the primates’ meeting. Consequently, I suspect they will only be willing to attend a primates’ meeting called by Canterbury if TEC is not invited. The reference to Global South primates meeting together suggests they may be intending to meet on their own without Williams otherwise, which would be consistent with a view of his role as limited to primus inter pares, not sole convener, interpreter and enforcer as at Jamaica. Moreover, perhaps I am reading too much into the reports of their dropping Kearon from the agenda, but one wonders if the primates are beginning to act on the recognition of the lack of legitimacy of the ACO, ACC and JSC at this point, given their questionnable governance.
Anyway, should make for an interesting primates meeting at some point. It looks like the “facts on the ground”, as the Americans like to say, are that the Anglican Communion is gliding into two more formally separate communions.
August 30, 9:16 am | [comment link]
12. Pageantmaster [KJS to Coventry] wrote:
Definitely an important story to warrant two comments from you, Martin Reynolds.
Btw, I thought your comment on Thinking Anglicans was perceptive:
But from Rowan and the Lambeth/ACO perspective if only S Africa and Central Africa dissent then they have lost five Primates/Provinces to the ACNA led split.
Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Sunday, 29 August 2010 at 6:59pm BST
Not a split, led by ACNA, nor anyone else, but it is true that this was not a good week for Lambeth Palace and the ACO’s ‘Sea of Indaba’ approach.
August 30, 10:58 am | [comment link]
13. pendennis88 wrote:
#12 - I also found interesting the spin of the spokesperson for Bishop Chane of TEC that it is “just the same old guys saying the same old stuff”. I am reminded of this same spokesperson’s famous prediction in 2003 on CNN that this would all blow over in a few months.
More notably, recall that events did not begin by the Windsor Report asking for the expulsion of TEC, it asked for alternative oversight for the orthodox in the US, which would have had to cede some self-determination to the orthodox bishops for it to be acceptable to them. This dual-authority approach, giving the orthodox in the US enough autonomy to allow their continued existence, was advocated at least through Dar es Salaam. Under Griswold, the prior presiding bishop of TEC, there was at least a certain portion of the leadership of TEC that contemplated the notion of an amicable separation into two episcopal authorities in the US. But that was since firmly quashed.
It is precisely TEC’s insistence of no protections for orthodox Anglicanism in the US - in the guise of provincial boundaries being the main theological distinctive of Christianity, but transparently based on abject fear of members streaming out the door to a competitor - that lead to the creation of ACNA, and it is TEC’s continued insistence on the exclusion of ACNA that forces a choice between the two. This is evidenced even in South Africa’s recent letter which talks of not discarding relationships with TEC at the same time that it happily recommends exclusion of the orthodox in the ACNA.
I would not suggest that there are those who would no longer be comfortable being in communion with TEC. But that is not where things started, and there have been times all along at which, if the Archbishop of Canterbury had wished to hold things together, he could have done so by putting both at the table, instead of siding with TEC and trying to exclude ACNA. That it is possible now seems unlikely. But it is not the ACNA that brought things to where they are, it is TEC’s intransigency, the very thing that created the ACNA.
August 30, 12:08 pm | [comment link]
14. Cennydd13 wrote:
I’m going to say this once and for all: Everything which has led to the creation of the Anglican Church in North America is entirely the fault of The Episcopal Church’s leadership…...including General Convention…...and the Archbishop of Canterbury. They have been aided and abetted from the very beginning by the LGBT crowd.
August 30, 12:43 pm | [comment link]
15. cseitz wrote:
Here’s another confusing entry from Mr Reynolds on TA. How does he speak so confidently about Lambeth Palace’s supposed ‘strategies’?
August 30, 12:47 pm | [comment link]
“The “middle ground” promoted by Lambeth and represented here by Ian Earnest has been thoroughly trounced it appears. The “cut off the two extremes” mantra that guided Lambeth policies has been shown to be the hopeless illusion it ever was. The main ACO speakers are sacked – though strangely some survived – the work of undermining the ACC by such as Radner and Seitz has born its fruit. Rowan is told there is no more room for diplomacy and compromise.’
Undermining the ACC? One might conclude ACI is defending the integrity of the ACC (over against a new Standing Committee—which is being virtually ignored by the GS).
The Communion is unraveling, but it is hardly doing so because people’s alleged ‘strategies’ are not working (Lambeth Palace). Can Mr Reynolds not see that the GS is fed up with TEC’s actions over the last decade, and if anything, they have been overly patient. One gets the same impression from Mark Harris. Everything is the fault of everyone else, except TEC. The self-referentiality of the SSB movement is at times staggering.
16. Grant LeMarquand wrote:
August 30, 2:48 pm | [comment link]
17. Loren+ wrote:
Before running to the hospital to make a pastoral call, I took a look at the communique and signatories: I thought I did so on the Anglican Communion website. Now I can not find the communique on the AC website at all. Nor can I find the communique plus signatories anywhere else. Does anybody have a list of the signatories? Thx.
August 30, 4:43 pm | [comment link]
18. Pageantmaster [KJS to Coventry] wrote:
#17 Loren+ - I haven’t to my recollection seen a list of signatories. I have seen the Communique here as well as above.
You might try looking in ‘history’ in your browser for recently browsed pages, unless it is configured to automatically clear at the end of a session.
#15 Professor Seitz
The more I think about this the more significant I think it is. When you consider the  CAPA Primates Communique together with the:  Global South Communique from Singapore; and the  African Bishops Statement from this conference [still only available on Thinking Anglicans so far as I am aware], there is a pattern.
They have all been politely expressed, but what we are seeing is not only the Gafcon Provinces, but also the moderate Global South Provinces now united, not only on the view they take of the way things are going, but what needs to be done about it. Time and again they have referred back to the central role of the Primates Meeting [or something similar] for dealing with the Communion crisis, and rejected the shenannigans with the Standing Committee. There is also a rejection of the Lambeth Palace Indaba-isation plans.
It is pretty clear that if Lambeth Palace had its way, like Singapore, there would have been a concentration on Indaba, Listening, and a sign up to the Covenant as presented. It looks as if the original speakers from ACO/Lambeth Palace who were planned to speak were dropped, and that the team from Lambeth Palace/ACO who turned up, particularly Canon Phil [Listen he shouted] Groves, and Jan Butter [Fingers] were just completely out of synch with the conference. The bishops were just not having more ‘indaba/listening/lets all talk about something else’ from them.
So I do see a crisis developing - not a splitting off of a few conservative provinces as some liberals hope, but a face-off; with the ABC/ACO bureaucracy on one side, and the majority of the Communion on the other. TEC/ACoC are just not included in the discussion, having just been written of [or perhaps having written themselves off in the case of TEC is more accurate. ACoC is not quite as far off as TEC].
The questions are: will the ABC continue to try to face the majority of the Communion down; if he does so, will the majority of the Communion put up with him; and where will the other global north provinces decide to stand, and that includes the Church of England which is coming under great pressure from all sides.
The indications are from this conference and the CAPA Communique that open season on the CofE may well be coming as well.
All of which is rather unsettling. It need not have been, but it is the consequence of the line taken by Rowan Williams, much as the Ordinariate attempt by the Vatican was.
August 30, 5:24 pm | [comment link]
19. Loren+ wrote:
#18 Pageantmaster: Unfortunately my browser does erase the history—but I know that I saw a list of signatories. There were fourteen names as I recall, with two representatives each from two provinces and one each from all the others. I will look again.
August 30, 8:38 pm | [comment link]
20. Loren+ wrote:
I can’t find it anywhere: maybe it’s possible that I accidentally swapped the 2010 Entebbe communique with the 2007 Mauritius African Primates’ communique.
August 30, 9:32 pm | [comment link]
21. Pageantmaster [KJS to Coventry] wrote:
More news today of how our imported Archbishops are continuing to undermine the Church of England on the day of +Tom Wright’s retirement as Bishop of Durham. This follows on a spate of liberal appointments of Affirming Catholics to Chelmsford, Stafford and the fiasco over Southwark.
The new Bishop of Ely [Cambridgeshire] has been announced - Stephen Conway, currently suffragan bishop of Ramsbury in the diocese of Salisbury.
From which it emerges that he is Vice President of Affirming Catholicism which partners with bodies such as Inclusive Church:
He is also, if not an actual member of Changing Attitude, one of the signers of its letter to GAFCON:
He has recently distinguished himself by approving a Eucharist service to be held after the civil partnership of Colin Coward.
Thanks for nothing Archbishops Rowan and John as you continue to stuff our House of Bishop with your crap liberal pro-gay Affirming Catholic friends. Why should anyone follow you in the Church of England, let alone the Anglican Communion?
August 31, 7:42 am | [comment link]
22. Pageantmaster [KJS to Coventry] wrote:
The enemy within.
August 31, 7:47 am | [comment link]
23. pendennis88 wrote:
Well, there certainly is a lot of vitriol on the usual TEC websites directed towards orthodox bishops these days, but I note in particular that a member of TEC’s Executive Council on the Preludium website has called for there to be no more primates’ meetings. I wonder if Williams will comply.
It galls the TEC leadership no end that TEC cannot control the orthodox primates. They see no irony or contradiction in their insistence that provinces are autonomous, yet they should be able to tell the rest of the communion what to do, including their insistence that to be part of the communion, the other provinces must “anathematize” the ACNA. It angers them no end that bishops and clergy they deposed are still considered bishops and clergy by so many provinces, and that so many African primates will not follow TEC’s directions.
August 31, 10:49 am | [comment link]
24. Martin Reynolds wrote:
#9. I have been rather unwell the past few days and regret I have not been able to respond. As I understand it Central Africa (albeit without a Primate) is still claimed to support this Communiqué through her representatives - though not S Africa So at least one appears to have demurred saying “The majority of the African Provinces at this Conference are being ambushed by an agenda that is contrary to the beliefs and practices of our various Provinces.”
This makes Central Africa supportive of both positions .....
#15. Confusing? I don’t understand how you might find my observation in TA - Confusing. Perhaps you might explain you confusion so I might clear this up.
I was unaware the strategy of Lambeth was a mystery - I heard it most confidently expounded by Canon John Rees at the residential conference of the Ecclesiastical Law Society in Liverpool sometime in January 2007.
I think what you and your friends now have to offer feeds the schismatics - I believe that is how your contribution will be remembered.
August 31, 7:03 pm | [comment link]
25. MichaelA wrote:
Good to see that most African provinces agree that TEC should be publicly anathematised. This is a very important witness which conveys to everyone in the West that the antics of liberal leaders in TEC, ACiC, CofE etc are not acceptable to orthodox Anglicans.
There is a long way to go yet, but it is a small step along the road to rolling back liberal influence in the western Anglican churches.
August 31, 11:58 pm | [comment link]
26. cseitz wrote:
Mr Reynolds – When you speak confidently of the strategy of Lambeth Palace, what you mean is public remarks by John Rees that the ‘strategy’ is to cut off the ends of a spectrum? John Rees said this, and he said so on behalf of Lambeth Palace. Is this correct? This is a strong statement and I think Canon Rees needs to be aware that you are attributing that to him, and suggesting as well it was a ‘way forward’ Lambeth Palace endorsed. Indeed, according to you it has never been a mystery at all.
September 1, 11:22 am | [comment link]
And what would these ends look like?—at present the ‘ends of the spectrum’ would appear to be the bulk of the Global South, on one ‘end’, and TEC progressives and proponents of a new Christian belief/practice, on the other. Confusion? Yes—just what is left? And how have these been ‘cut off’? If this is the strategy you are attributing to John Rees/Lambeth Palace, it went wrong in very serious ways. For there is no one to the ‘right’ of the GS, and there is no one to the ‘left’ of TEC progressivism. If Lambeth Palace had the view you attribute to them, things went terribly wrong.
Finally you speak enthusiastically about ‘schismatics’ – any neutral observer would say that when progressives seek to impose their views on the 80% of the communion, by turning a Communion into a federation of disparate accounts of the work of the Third Person of the Trinity, and that latter group says No, they are not being schismatic. They are standing still in their previous faith and practice, and observing an effort to divide by means of ‘new views/opinions’ (in older greek form – heresies). There are in consequence no bad ‘schismatics’ on the end of a spectrum – that is, except those like yourself.
ACI is making no contribution to the feeding of schismatics. And what will be remembered is that the actions of TEC and supporters like yourself led to the patient but firm resolve of the bulk of the Communion to simply stand aside from your innovations.
27. Martin Reynolds wrote:
#26 ...... “things went terribly wrong”.......... I agree.
Though otherwise in all respects I think your analysis wrong.
September 1, 12:03 pm | [comment link]
28. MichaelA wrote:
Martin Reynolds continues his attempts to focus attention on the 2 provinces that (apparently) did not endorse the communique, rather than the 10 or so who did.
I would have thought the fact that over 80% of African provinces signed to this communique is very significant.
What was even more significant was the clear and open acceptance by all African provinces of ++Duncan representing ACNA. Clearly, ACNA is accepted in Africa as an orthodox province-in-formation, whereas TEC no longer has any real acceptance there.
ABC’s status in Africa also appears to be diminishing rapidly, because he has made the mistake of supporting TEC.
September 1, 7:14 pm | [comment link]
29. cseitz wrote:
I am trying to understand what Mr Reynolds is saying. This much one can conclude from his prior notes on blogs:
September 1, 7:29 pm | [comment link]
1. John Rees, chancellor to the ABC, stated publicly that the ‘strategy’ of Lambeth Palace was to ‘cut off ends of a spectrum’;
2. Canon Rees made such a statement on behalf of Lambeth Palace, and Mr Reynolds claims we are all to know that this was so and no mystery; Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams also was on board;
3. In earlier notes, we heard this even more explicitly;
4. ACI was supposed to be an ally in this LP/Rees/ABC strategy, but ACI did not do so and ‘fed schismatics’ instead.
Two questions (and many stated in earlier T19 posts) might be answered by Mr Reynolds:
1. Is the above correct?
2. What are we to understand is the ‘neither end of a spectrum’ portion of the Communion? This portion Mr Reynolds claims Canon Rees/Lambeth Palace/+RDW sought to encourage. It embraces SSBs and a new teaching on Christian marriage, but is not ‘hard right’ or ‘hard left’. Who was being encouraged in the Communion by this strategy; which constituencies hold this view, they must not be on ends of a spectrum, etc?
30. robroy wrote:
MichaelA, there is a letter “from some of the bishops of the province of Central Africa and South Africa” whose text is here. The letter is unsigned. How many bishops from these two provinces support the minority position is unclear. The CAPA communique does not call for the expulsion of the TEO. It also is not does not include signatures. It is incorrect to say that the “two provinces demurred.”
These two provinces are the ones that the TEO has delivered the majority of its lucre to.
September 1, 7:40 pm | [comment link]
31. Martin Reynolds wrote:
#29. Your questions:
September 2, 1:52 pm | [comment link]
1. The above is correct in part.
2. I am not at all sure I understand this question, but I would like to help so please elucidate.
32. cseitz wrote:
Mr Reynolds: Re 1: which parts are not correct? They are all lifts from your prior comments. Re 2: you spoke of a strategy from LP/John Rees/+ABC to cut off ends of a spectrum. Presumably this was so a middle portion would survive. But what middle portion is there that judges SSBs something everyone can live with? Isn’t this precisely what has been shown unacceptable—not by radical ends of a spectrum but by 80% of the Communion which judges it unacceptable as such and reflective of something other than a genuine Communion. These are obvious facts now established on the ground.
September 2, 3:12 pm | [comment link]
33. Martin Reynolds wrote:
#32 Sorry for the delay and to appear so impolite but I can only assure you my reasons are sincere.
I am confident in what I have written on this subject since February 2007, you are welcome to use any or all of it in any enquiries you make. But I am sure you wouldn’t want to put your own words in my mouth so let’s leave it at that. I am surprised that your reading of anything I wrote would imply this was Rowan’s strategy. I once asked him what his strategy was in dealing with a certain matter - there was laughter and his chaplain said warmly “Rowan doesn’t do strategy”. If Rowan has anything we might remotely call a strategy it has been clear to all from the beginning - keep everyone talking - as Robert Duncun was referring to in his revealing VOL interview:
DUNCAN: He led in the very same way he has led since 2002.
I believe you and your friends were once seen as a useful part of that ongoing conversation.
I did not ask John Rees who he thought ought to be cut off - I was somewhat shocked by his clarity and firmness of his view and felt I might be standing on the wrong side of his line!
But from what I gathered (the conference speakers were an interesting crowd) at the time there was a struggle going on to keep both TEC and the border crossers isolated particularly in the run up to the meeting in Dar es Salaam ( then just a month away). I strongly suspect that this was at least in part what might have been in John’s mind though I hesitate to put words into his mouth.
If this was part of any plan it surely was an immediate and unmitigated disaster with Peter Akinola turning up at the Primates meeting with a paper in his pocket claiming the support of some 27 (was it? - seems an age!) provinces .....
But there are those who say it had it’s successes in 2008 .....
I thought it wrongheaded
September 3, 5:46 pm | [comment link]