Mr Abraham Yisa, Board Chairman of CANA , who was in the U.S. three weeks ago to attend the enthronement of Minns told NAN “that Canterbury had no right to choose who goes to the Lambeth or not”.
Say what?!?
The whole thing is here; h/t Thinking Anglicans.
There’s been a lot going on in Anglican circles these days that I haven’t felt up to reporting. But I do feel the need now to put three points of data in relation to one another.
First, notice who is not on the steering committee. No +Duncan…no +Iker…no +Schofield…no +Beckwith…
Now, notice who is on it. As Brad Drell rightly points out, all of the people who signed the “Windsor” letter ordain women.
What does this mean? It’s too soon to tell. The way I connect the dots, though, it would seem the FiF dioceses may be trying to leave, aligning themselves with Nigeria. But something smells fishy here; ++Akinola is a protestant…
I have always contended that the groups aligned against the current Episcopal leadership are only aligned in what they are against–not in what they are for–and that this does not bode well for their continuation as an organized structure. I would not be surprised if this latest bit of news does not herald the end of the Network as we know it.
My sole personal experience of African Anglicanism came in the person of one of my preaching students. He was already a priest in the Nigerian church, in the US to improve his theological training. Passionate, intelligent, he was an amazing preacher; my class learned a great deal from hearing and responding to his sermons. His best sermon–I forget the text–was on the connection between the call of the Gospel and the rule of law. This took most of the class by surprise. Whenever Gospel and law are connected in American preaching it tends to be about legalism or attempts of one political part or the other to make a selective reading of a text. Not in this case. He wasn’t pushing a party agenda–he was pleading for law. He explained a bit about the African context at the conclusion of the sermon. We in the US take the rule of law for granted. He couldn’t. Not where he was from. Pleading for the rule of law was essential for him because it was so often denied in the political culture he was from.
(And yes, for the record, he also shocked them when one student asked him his views on homosexuality and he expressed his utter disgust…)
It’s this reality of life on the ground in Africa that so often we miss in our electronic debates–and it has truly profound implications on what we do. For instance, As the center of gravity in the Anglican Communion shifts southward, how aware are we making ourselves of what is going on in Africa? How many of the self-styled “orthodox” know what the major political and social issues are in Africa–and how their ecclesial allies are coming down on them?
This has now come to a head.
The crisis in Zimbabwe is reaching a breaking point with President Mugabe attempting to extend his corrupt rule yet again. There’s a story here about the brutal suppression of non-violent protests. I kept reading about “bishops” speaking out against Mugabe and his regime–and I kept hoping they were Anglican. I was wrong. No, as CNN reports here, it was an Easter message from Roman Catholic bishops across the country.
What is the response of the Anglican bishops? Dr. Chilton writes about it here at the Episcopal Cafe. This is what conservative Anglicans are pinning their hopes to. Does this look like the Gospel?
(n.b.: Don’t mistake this for a whole-hearted embrace of Mugabe’s opposition either–I don’t know their politics nearly as well as I’d like. I’m equally guilty of not knowing African current events as well as I should. It should be obvious, though, that Mugabe’s oppression which has been censured by not only Western human rights groups but also other African groups and governments is beyond the pale.)
UPDATE: I am more than happy to report that Stand Firm has called attention to this matter. I applaud Greg Griffiths for calling this to the general attention and condemning the Mugabe regime. There are some who dispute the level of the letter’s support for that government but the important thing is that the issue is being aired.
I had wondered about this yesterday and it seems that the rumor mill is doing nothing to allay my fears.
It is very important for the cause of clarity to see a breakdown of which bishops voted for which candidates. Did Network bishops deliberately vote for +(+)Schori in order to “push things along”?
Update! This from the Bishop of Texas (perhaps a more reputable source than David Virtue…): “As for the vote, Bishop Jefferts Schori was consented to by our deputation in the House of Deputies with two non-consenting votes, one lay and one clergy. The House of Bishop’s vote is not public. However, I will say to you that I understand she received votes from supporters and a solid number of more conservative bishops who supposedly hope to move the split of our communion forward. Politics can make strange bedfellows. Further, this same undercurrent is attempting to undermine the good work of the Special Committee on Windsor.”
I will note that Bishop Don Wimberley is not someone that I know much about. He himself is not a member of the Network. He says this is his understanding so this is still in the realm of hearsay as far as I am concerned. His full text is here.
Further Update Again…hearsay but pointing in the same direction. In the biblical studies field we might start calling this multiple attestation…:
“I have sources in purple shirts who verify David
Virtue’s allegation that the PB election was heavily,
even unduly, influenced by Bp. Bruno of LA. Check out
VirtueOnline for details. [Here is the link.]{{I refuse to link to VOL…}}The same sources tell me that the Network bishops and
those bishop who wish to be windsor-compliant are
meeting secretly every morning, often in the
afternoons, and occasionally in the evenings.”
Hat tip to Whitehall for the full thing…
And just to note, power politics has been part of church life at least since the writing of First Corinthians so this really is nothing new. The divisions and strategies are the same; only the names change.
One of my pet peeves is popping up all over the place with General Convention right around the corner: experience as a criterion for theology. Let’s be real clear on what this is and what this isn’t.
Some Anglicans talk about Hooker’s stool, suggesting that theological reflection is equal parts Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. This is a modern construct. Hooker placed Scripture first as read through Tradition as aided by Reason.
Others talk about Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. This was labelled the Wesleyan Quadralateral at the Methodist seminary where I did my MDiv. To the best of my understanding–and I skipped all the Theology of Wesley classes–this too is a modern construct approximating something vaguely Wesleyan. My sense of what Wesley meant when he said “experience” is not individual experience but the Church’s collective experience of the Holy Spirit. Again, I’m not enough of a Wesleyan to know what scope of “Church” he meant–local, denominational body, global-in-this-age or the Church as the collected Body of Christ throughout all ages.
Why the distinction? Because if we’re gonna split hairs about stuff, let’s be precise in how we go about it. You cannot invoke Reason–or, actually, Scripture or Tradition–without personal experience being an aspect of it. How we think, perceive, and comprehend is all conditioned by our experience. Whatever we know of Scripture and Tradition is filtered through our experience of it, of the world, and of what we have experienced others teaching us. Furthermore, our knowledge and understanding of Scripture and Tradition is conditioned by Reason.
So let’s just lose the claim that Experience and Reason are being used by one side in this dispute and not the other, shall we? What it is perfectly fair to argue about is the place of Reason and its admixture of personal experience and of Experience especially on the local church and denominational levels.
That clarification having been made, you may return to your regularly scheduled feuds.