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.

4. We were very happy and appreciated that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Dr. Rowan Williams, accepted our invitation to attend the 2nd All Africa Bishop’ Conference. We were encouraged by his word to us. We also appreciated the opportunity to engage face-to-face with him in an atmosphere of love and respect. We shared our hearts openly and with transparency, and we have come to understand the difficulties and the pressures he is facing. He also came to understand our position and how our mission is threatened by actions which have continued in certain provinces in the Communion. We therefore commit ourselves to continuously support and pray for him and for the future of our beloved Communion.

5. We were very saddened with the recent actions of the Episcopal Church in America who went ahead and consecrated Mary Glasspool last May 2010, in spite of the call for a moratorium[1] and all the warnings from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion and the 4th Encounter of the Global South. This was a clear departure from the standard teaching of the Anglican Communion as stated in Lambeth Resolution 1.10. We are also concerned about similar progressive developments in Canada and in the U.K.

6. Being aware of the reluctance of those Instruments of Communion to follow through the recommendations of the Windsor Report[2] and taken by the Primates Meetings in Dromantine[3] and Dar es Salaam[4] we see the way ahead as follows:

A. In order to keep the ethos and tradition of the Anglican Communion in a credible way, it is obligatory of all Provinces to observe the agreed decisions and recommendations of the Windsor Report and the various communique of the past three Primates Meetings, especially Dar es Salaam in 2007. We as Primates of CAPA and the Global South are committed to honor such recommendations.

B. We are committed to meet more regularly as Global South Primates and take our responsibilities in regard to issues of Faith and Order.[5]

C. We will give special attention to sound theological education as we want to ensure that the future generations stand firm on the Word of God and faithfully follow our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

D. We are committed to network with orthodox Anglicans around the world, including Communion Partners in the USA and the Anglican Church in North America, in holistic mission and evangelism. Our aim is to advance the Kingdom of God especially in unreached areas.

E. We are committee to work for unity with our ecumenical partners and to promote interfaith dialogue with other faiths in order to promote a peaceful co-existence and to resolve conflicts.

F. We are committed to work for the welfare of our countries. This will involve alleviating poverty, achieving financial and economic empowerment, fighting diseases, and promoting education.

7. Finally, we are very aware of our own inadequacy and weaknesses hence we depend fully on the grace of God to achieve his purpose in the life of his church and our beloved Anglican Communion.

Notes

[1] The Windsor Report Section 134.1
the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached in the events surrounding the election and consecration of a bishop for the See of New Hampshire, and for the consequences which followed, and that such an expression of regret would represent the desire of the Episcopal Church (USA) to remain within the Communion (2) the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges.

The Windsor Report Section 144.3
we call for a moratorium on all such public Rites, and recommend that bishops who have authorised such rites in the United States and Canada be invited to express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached by such authorisation.

[2] Windsor Report Section D.157
There remains a very real danger that we will not choose to walk together. Should the call to halt and find ways of continuing in our present communion not be heeded, then we shall have to begin to learn to walk apart.

[3] The Communique of the Primates Meeting in Dromantine (2005) Section 14.
Within the ambit of the issues discussed in the Windsor Report and in order to recognise the integrity of all parties, we request that the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada voluntarily withdraw their members from the Anglican Consultative Council for the period leading up to the next Lambeth Conference.

[4] The Communiqué of the Primates Meeting in Dar es Salaam in 2007
If the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion.

[5] Lambeth 1988 Resolution 18.2(a) Urges that encouragement be given to a developing collegial role for the Primates Meeting under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury, so that the Primates Meeting is able to exercise an enhanced responsibility in offering guidance on doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters.

Lambeth 1998 Resolution III.6(a) reaffirms Resolution 18.2(a) of Lambeth 1988 which “urges that encouragement be given to a developing collegial role for the Primates’ Meeting under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury, so that the Primates’ Meeting is able to exercise an enhanced responsibility in offering guidance on doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters”;

This document was agreed upon by the Primates and the representatives of Primates who were not able to attend, of the following provinces:

Burundi, Central Africa, Congo, Indian Ocean, Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, West Africa and the Diocese of Egypt with North Africa and the Horn of Africa.

Update: This communiqué is available as a PDF from the Church of Uganda. A letter of dissent by the Provinces of Central Africa and South Africa is available on Episcopal Café.
View the original post

The call for a confessional Anglicanism is one which I hope will be rejected. The 39 Articles and the 1662 BCP are authentic expression of the faith, but can hardly be seen as authoritative for all times and all places.

Daniel,

In the face of the failure of a Communion based on mutual trust and “bonds of affection,” what then would you suggest?

Dan - I have to disagree.

Daniel Weir - 02 September 2010 09:22 PM

The call for a confessional Anglicanism is one which I hope will be rejected. The 39 Articles and the 1662 BCP are authentic expression of the faith, but can hardly be seen as authoritative for all times and all places.

When you and I first met in 1973 I was horrified to find that the prevailing view in PECUSA was that we were not a “confessional” Church.  My whole Anglican background - in England - had been to the effect that we were due to the 39 Articles.  Naturally the 1662 BCP was and still is the standard for the C of E.  It is for many or the Churches around the world.  At ordination one was REQUIRED to sign off on the 39 Articles (in 1975 this was relaxed).  So how could they not be the required minimum statement of Anglican doctrine? 

IMHO we now have an “anything goes” set of doctrinal standards because of either this relaxation or the outright rejection of such doctrinal standard.  IMHO this makes us confessional.  Notwithstanding this our very recitation of the Creeds has always seemed to me “Confessional.”

The fault line in the AC run very deep and are very old.  At some point they had to break.  They have done so.

I still hold to the 39 Articles and the BCP 1662.  I believe they MUST be the minimum standard for the AC to survive as recognizably Christian.

Ian’s point raises a question: if the Church of England has always been confessional and if acceptance of the Articles and the 1662 BCP as authoritative is required, then why was the Episcopal Church allowed to be part of the Communion. I’m not sure when - or even if - acceptance of the Articles played any part in ordinations in the Episcopal Church.

While Ian is right that the 1662 BCP is still the official book in the C of E, its use is hardly general and, by the principle of lex orandi lex credendi, I would suggest that seeing 1662 as part of the confessional nature of the C of E today is a stretch.

I happened to read our version of the Articles yesterday and, while I would not have used that language to describe the faith, I found myself in substantial agreement. They are an authentic expression of Anglicanism, but they are a contextual expression and contexts change. Our version contains changes from the original that were necessary because of our changed context and there are further changes that might be made in our context.

One particular paragraph from Article XIX has come to mind often in the past few years: “As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also the Church of
Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of
Faith.” In humility we should acknowledge that such a statement could be made about all the member churches of the Communion.

Thanks Dan

I should point out that it was my understanding that this made us confessional and the shared understanding of those amongst whom I grew up, was nurtured and eventually trained at theological college.  In those days the C of E was definitely a church or parties.  When I went to Oxford to study theology there were four Anglican theological colleges, that later became three.  I was part of the Evangelical community.  I was not even allowed to enter Wycliffe Hall without subscribing to the 39 Articles.  I did of course as I still do.

I agree that the Articles are very much a product of their time and reflect that context.  Critically however the doctrinal content is IMHO timeless.  Hence they were adaptable to the US prayer books without changes in doctrine.  IMHO context CANNOT change doctrine while it does change discipline - 1549 preface!

Pax

It is worth pondering that the meaning of “confessional” might have subtly changed over time. In the wake of the Fundamentalist-Moderist conflict of the early 20th Century, being confessional has a somewhat harder edge. Every Evangelical institution since has felt the need to write a “statement of faith” to serve as a dike between themselves and a precieved slide towards ‘liberalism’.

The fact that we seem to need to do something similar, from the Evangelical Anglican perspective, is telling.

Until a revision of the Constitution of TEC in the 60s the Articles were required to be “in use” in every diocese and missionary diocese of the church. vide Constitution.  After the Articles, slightly revised, were adopted by PECUSA the question was raised about subscription. The House of Bishops stated that as the Articles were part of the doctrine of PECUSA the oaths taken at ordination included the Articles. When the Articles were moved to the “Historic Documents” section of the BCP their authority became a matter of contention. It may be argued that as the BCP is part of the Constitution, the documents retain authority as part of the doctinal formularies. Others suggest that this is not the case. What is not true is the contemporary fable that fidelity to the Articles was never a part of PECUSA discipline. It should be noted that at leat until the 50s, study of the Articles was part of the core curriculum in all seminaries.

Similarly the authority of the Articles in the CofE has been diminished by Canon Law in a series of enactments since the 19th Century and now are included for “general” subscription with other formularies. However it is a matter of dispute, and has been for centuries, whether the Articles are a “confession” in the same way as doctrinal statements created after the Reformation among Lutheran and Reformed Churches. Certainly an historical study of Anglican theology suggests that the Articles formed part of but not the whole of doctrinal authorities influencing the Anglican “temper” and theological foundation.

This is what David Virtue reports from the CAPA meeting:

“A Covenant presently circulating around the Communion will resolve nothing and will be replaced by the Jerusalem Declaration.”

Now, the shooting of the messenger (Virtue) can commence.

So now we know!

The shooting of the messenger didn’t take long at all - within minutes.

Although I would not subscribe to the Jerusalem Declaration, I see that for many Anglicans it is a necessary document, describing how they understand what it means to be Anglicans. It is, as similar declarations by progressives and traditionalists are, inevitably partisan. The obvious difficulty is that its partisan character means that it cannot unite the Communion. If, as David Virtue asserted, acceptance of this document is to be the requirement for membership in the Communion, then we will have not but two Communions.

Thank you, Daniel, for your substantive response.  We have been moving toward two communions since August 2003 and since pecusa will not back up I expect the chasm to widen.

Tony Seel - 10 September 2010 12:15 PM

Thank you, Daniel, for your substantive response.  We have been moving toward two communions since August 2003 and since pecusa will not back up I expect the chasm to widen.

AMEN

One further thought: when we lived in Oxford in 1972-73, I was struck by the more marked separation of Anglicans into parties and recall Bryan Green observing that it was sad that clergy from different parties were often unwilling to appear on the same platform at missions and similar events. Perhaps it was because the parties in the Episcopal Church tended to be concentrated in different dioceses, but I had never encountered that kind of division - and even rivalry - in the US. If the Communion does split, I see party divisions as one of the challenges to the Communion envisioned by CAPA and the Jerusalem Declaration. Will Anglo-Catholics feel at home in this Communion? The Anglican Church in North America has managed to bring together evangelicals, Anglo-Catholics and charismatics. I can’t say to what extent this has been a matter of people wanting to identity themselves as not-the-Episcopal-Church, but there are bound to be disagreements and conflicts in time. The question of the ordination of women may be, as one of my ACNA friends has told me, the focus of some conflict. Having watched friends and colleagues leave the Episcopal Church during the past 30 years and seeing the various continuing churches, I was hoping that, as much as I don’t agree with their convictions, these sisters and brothers would find a way to unite in something like ACNA. It was sad to see the Anglican Chapel that had been formed by former parishioners of mine in western New York as the only congregation in the state under the authority of a Bishop in Florida. That has now changed and I hope that ACNA’s leaders are able to navigate a course that will avoid splintering over disagreements among the various parties.

Daniel, you’re asking the right question.  The possible fracture point is still w.o.  This has kept some continuing churches out of the ACNA and it is a concern for some ACs in the ACNA.  While there is still some not-pecusa around as one would expect, by and large the ACNA movement is driven by mission.  I don’t think that the continuing churches outside the ACNA have much of a future and I do believe that the ACNA will continue to grow.  ACNA growth will come to a certain degree from pecusa, but more so through new church plants.