Forum Thread
The Church of Nigeria and the Anglican Communion

Archbishop Akinola has written an 'Open Letter' to Archbishop Robin Eames, 16 October 2005, which may be seen on the Church of Nigeria web site: http://www.anglican-nig.org/primate's_ltrr2abpire.htm

He is responding to Archbishop Eames' three lectures given in the USA recently, which may be found on: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2005/20051013eames.cfm?CFID=4551019&CFTOKEN=31e51625d8b8e55b-42F6C447-D107-ABA8-35962CC2C1E4F523

It may be worth pointing out that there has been a Nigerian Chaplaincy in London for many years, supported by both the Bishop of London and the CMS. The Revd Ben Enwuchola is the chaplain.

http://www.wmin.ac.uk/page-645-smhp=594

On the 'titusonenine' site, http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=9523#comments

Dale Rye has posted the following pertinent comment:

  Dale Rye Says:
October 17th, 2005 at 10:37 am

1. Re #29: The Church claims that authority as the Body of Christ, as it has always claimed it. The Faith once delivered to the Saints was, in fact, delivered to the saints for their safekeeping and care. Like any garden, it has not remained static and lifeless, but has developed in line with its own internal logic. It requires caretakers who are sympathetic to its history, but who do not arrogantly assume that its history ends with them (or ended at some arbitrary point in the past, whether the 1st, 4th, 12th, or 16th century). If the Anglican Communion is, indeed, a Communion and not a loose association, its care is committed to all of its members, not to a particular province or faction.

   I was surprised that Abp. Eames took the tone he did, but I think he was spot-on in terms of substance. Whatever its merits abstractly, the Nigerian change in definition of the Anglican Communion at this time and in this context could only be interpreted as a repudiation of the notion of the Communion as an united body with central Instruments of Unity capable of guiding its collective discernment. It substituted the notion that each province is empowered to independently discern what it will believe and do, and then voluntarily enter into bilateral intercommunion agreements with like-minded provinces.

   That is essentially the same as the ECUSA and Canadian reappraiser position, and essentially unlike the sense of collective responsibility for Anglican identity that the Communion had been moving towards for nearly fifty years. It is understandable how Abp. Eames could get annoyed at those who would violate this central point of the Windsor Report (and of the prior Eames and Virginia Reports), while claiming its authority for their actions.'

A very perceptive article, 'A Call to Our Primates' has just been published by the Anglican Communion Institute

http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.org/articles/call_to_our_primates.htm

There is a 'wry smile' misprint in the title at the moment, due to be corrected soon: it has Primtates for Primates. Prim and Proper...?

Dale Rye has posted the following perceptive comment about Archbishop Robin Eames' third lecture on the Anglican Communion. I copy it from Kendall Harmon's 'titusonenine' site. Dale refers to some previous comments posted about the lecture.

'I would like to reiterate what Fr. Kendall said at the very top of this thread. We need to react to the contents of this address (which is indeed largely recycled from the two VTS lectures), and not to what we might think a hypothetical spokesman for the 'revisionist' cause might read from a script by the Presiding Bishop. Very few of the comments above relate to what Abp. Eames actually said, as opposed to a deconstruction of his words as filtered through a hermeneutic of suspicion. (I thought only reappraisers were supposed to be post-modern ).

My guess is that the reappraisers in the audience read the following words - accurately - as a criticism of themselves: 'Am I alone in thinking that at the root of those clashes, irrespective of our personal allegiances or preferences, lies the failure of succeeding generations of Anglicans to accept that there are parameters to divergence in scriptural interpretation, there are boundaries to ecclesiological autonomy and there are limitations to what a world family of vague technical relationships can endure and still remain a cohesive entity?' That is the crime indicted by the Windsor Report, Dromantine, and Nottingham in a nutshell.

This speech is not a one-sided attack on reasserters. It is a 'plague on both their houses' speech. It is a heartfelt expression of what most moderates in the Communion feel: that there is blame enough for all of us in this nightmare. Back during the period of roughly a half-century after WW II when this situation was developing, we all should have had the foresight to recognize the possibility that 44 autonomous national or regional churches, each developing its theology independently, needed some lines drawn in the sand that we should not pass if we wished to remain in fellowship. Instead, we went merrily on our way, each assuming that every other parish in the entire Communion was just like our own, until circumstances revealed this as a romantic fantasy. Attitudes in Kampala about homosexuality, even among Christians, are different than those in the Castro district of San Francisco, surprise, surprise, just as attitudes in Sydney about the Eucharist are different than those at St. Mary the Virgin. We were all then shocked by what we should have seen decades earlier. Instead of accepting the blame for our own shortsightedness, we have each projected our shock and horror on others.

It is very difficult (no, impossible) for me to see how anybody can read this lecture as 'Talk about religion and politics if you must, but not at the dinner table.' Under the polite language is a scathing indictment of the last three generations of Anglicans precisely for the sin - and that is not too strong a word - of talking nicey-nice when we should have been facing the realities of Christian faith and ecclesiology. We were not getting along because we agreed, but only because we never talked about, or even adverted to, our disagreements.

Someone suggests that 'Eames and his associates are afraid of anger.' Sorry, but I read this as a very angry speech, full of barely repressed fury. However, he studiously avoids personal attacks, because personal attacks are precisely what he is attacking. Not so on this thread. Someone else asked 'What part of the recent Anglican statements does the Archbishop not understand?' Bearing in mind that he wrote most of them, I think there is very little that he does not understand. Simply because his understanding does not agree with yours does not make him stupid or dishonest. If we are going to be strict constructionists and look to the intention of the drafters, his opinion should carry considerable weight.

Someone else observes 'The witness that is ongoing now in the USA from ECUSA is horrible - nothing but squabbling, lawsuits, shrill language, etc. Any positive message of hope or salvation (whatever the theological basis) is being lost in the bickering.' The Archbishop would heartily agree. It should be obvious that this entire speech is about that horrible situation.

However, he extends his horror to the similar behavior of the entire Communion. 'In any deeply divided situation of human relations several options can point the way forward to a possible solution. There is the path of reconciliation. There is the path of compromise. There is the path which acknowledges agreement is impossible and that the important issue to then emerge is how such fracture of relationships can be managed with the highest degree of human dignity.' If the Irish Republican Army can work out many of its differences with the Ulster Defense Force in that way, and the United Auto Workers can accept those principles in negotiating with General Motors, why can't men and women who proclaim Jesus as Lord? Instead, both sides are behaving like spoiled children who will take their toys home if everyone else won't agree to play by their unilaterally-imposed rules.

Finally, someone refers to 'tangents like 'the nature of communion' and similar irrelevancies.' How in the name of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost can anybody talk about the Anglican Communion and dismiss koinonia as an irrelevancy? The Trinity is itself an expression of this 'irrelevancy.' Not even the Desert Fathers living by themselves in caves regarded the nature of communion as an irrelevancy. I would submit that anyone who disagrees with the entire Anglican -and Christian - tradition should 'take their pledge checks to some other church.' They certainly shouldn't be calling other people revisionists.'

[quoted from http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=9420#comments ] 

For Robin Eames' lecture see http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_68521_ENG_HTM.htm 

I suppose that one reason that some Americans wonder about the Nigerian constitutional changes is that some of us look at them through the lens of our own church, ECUSA.  We might well pose the question in the context of ECUSAs documents of self-ordering:  what, if any, constitutional changes would protect or could have protected ECUSA from its current dissolution?  Would constitutional changes like the Nigerian churchs be helpful to ECUSA, more so than its current 1967 version?  How might matters have played out in ECUSA if in fact we had a constitution in conformity with the new Nigerian revisions?  And what, if anything, does an answer to these kinds of questions say about the revisions themselves?

The 1967 Preamble to ECUSAs Constitution was framed to conform to the language and ecclesial spirit of the 1930 Lambeth discussion of the newly prominent Communion character to Anglicanism (cf. Resolution 49)   being a constituent member of  the fellowship [the Anglican Communion itself] within the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted dioceses, provinces or regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury that share common characteristics, including upholding and propogating the historic faith and order of the Church (in Lambeth 1930, this was termed the Catholic and Apostolic faith and order), as set forth in the Book of Common prayer. 

All this was seen, in 1967, as binding ECUSA to the Communion in a fundamental way.  Of course, ECUSAs Prayer Book also (e.g. in its original 18th-century Preface), tied the church to the essential doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, and this predated the rise of the Anglican Communion itself.   There were changes, of course, both in the American Church and in the Communion itself regarding the exact authority of the English formularies within Communion churches, e.g. the 39 Articles (see the 1888 Lambeth Encyclical, which dropped the express subscription to the Articles as a standard for Communion membership, even while demanding common conformance to their substance, and, interestingly, also hinting at something akin to a common doctrinal and disciplinary covenant).  But despite these, there was a basic sense that EUCSA had, in her Prayer Book and Preamble subjected herself to the demands of the Communions common teaching.  This subjection was, furthermore, concretely bound up with the See of Canterbury.

Now we might ask:  what has the current crisis shown regarding this constitutional format?  At present there are three Communion parameters within which ECUSA lives.  First, there is something called membership in a fellowship; second, there is a common mission and identity  upholding the historic faith and order within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church and embodied in the Book of Common Prayer (in Lambeth 1930, understood as a family of Prayer Books);  thirdly, communion with Canterbury.  In theory, all of these parameters impose themselves together in concert; it is debatable as to eachs force when one or the other either crumbles or is questioned.  At present, for instance, there is enormous concern on the part of many over Canterburys failure to take an active role in maintaining the force of the other two elements.  Whether this means that it should be ignored or thrown over;  or whether the other two parameters themselves will do their work on Canterbury itself is unclear.  (I would prefer to think the latter, precisely on the basis of the communion character of Anglicanism from the start  assuming it is accepted, which is what the present crisis is all about.)

What is clear, however, is that ECUSAs only wider accountability  at present in terms of her internal teaching and discipline is given through these external parameters.  Were it not for her constituent membership in the Communion as a defining element of her Constitutional existence, there would be no conciliar or legal interest period in the concerns of the wider church at present;  were there no doctrinal constraints, identifiably labeled (however broadly), that were imposed upon our ecclesial identity, there would be no demand for theological accountability (however poorly responded to at the moment);  were there no communion link to Canterbury, there would be no disciplinary force to Lambeths gathering and resolutions. 

None of these parameters, it should be said, has prevented ECUSA from in fact devolving into doctrinal and disciplinary chaos.  Why not?  Would it have been different had an alternative constitutional framework been in place?  What about Nigerias new revisions  could they have helped if they had been adopted long ago by ECUSA?  I think it fair to say that they would not.  The key parameter of accountability now in place for the Nigerian Church are the classic English formularies, interpreted according to her own internal councils.  Would they have constrained ECUSA if applied in this fashion?  It is hard to see how.  Certainly on the element of sexual ethics, in its presenting scandal today, there is nothing in the Formularies that is not already in even the 1979 Prayer Book, especially with respect to the authority of Scripture in determining these matters.  And ECUSAs own internal councils have long re-interpreted her own acknowledged standards in a way that has (in the mind of much of the rest of the Communion, eviscerated their meaning.) 

Thus, more to the point, the decline in ECUSAs theological disciplinary self-control is historically linked to a long period before the canonical revisions involved in the new Prayer Book  the 1950s, especially, but even before.  Other elements in American Episcopalianism  national and political culture, shifts in demographic power, the infiltration and rootedness of social sin of a variety of kinds  simply overwhelmed the constraining forces of the Formularies in ECUSAs self-ordering.   It is the Nigerian churchs business, certainly not mine, to ask itself if she is strong enough in the long run to resist the internal forces of sin where others have failed.   All I would say at present is that it is less a question of some kind of constitutional inoculation against such forces, as it is a matter of ordering ones life within a system where the larger Body, animated by the Sons Spirit, can come to ones aid when one has weakened and fallen.

The question for today, then, is whether the Communion-oriented parameters of ECUSAs constitution can prevail in the long-term, not only for itself but on behalf of the larger Anglican fellowship, and what will be required for that to happen.  If this does not happen, as I have long argued, Anglicanism itself will have seen its providential day pass it by;  and there will be little point in latching on to the life-rafts of individual ecclesial planks cut off from the shattered vessel of the Communion itself.  Anglicanism, in the context of her communion identity, is tied to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, and if her internal life embodies itself as fragmenting, factionally hostile, local, and scripturally-barren, she is a church that has committed suicide.  The 1930 Lambeth discussion of the Communion in terms of existing for the sake of the ultimate reunion of all Christendom in one visibly united fellowship is one I share;  if the Communion cannot do that through its internal life, its purpose will have been spent. 

It is still the case  though time may well be running out more quickly than I could ever have feared  that the force of these Communion-oriented parameters have strength enough to press for an outcome of mutual subjection in the Lord and in His truth.    If I cannot pray for this, then I must pray for another church altogether. 

Ephraim Radner (the Revd Dr.)

Church of the Ascension

Pueblo, Colorado, USA

Archbishop Robin Eames commented on the change in the Church of Nigeria's constitution, in an interview with Kim Lawton, of the Religion & Ethics Newsweekly, published on 7 October 2005:

Kim Lawton: 'I'm wondering if you could briefly comment about what seems to be happening in Nigeria?'

Robin Eames: 'The latest I've heard about this, which is that they are rewriting their constitution to take out communion with the See of Canterbury and to talk about recognizing only those members of the Anglican family who agree with their interpretation of orthodoxy -- that concerns me. It concerns me for a dozen different reasons. Just one I would mention: I think it goes across the spirit of what the primates ... all agreed in my own country at their meeting in Drummantine. And I think it most certainly goes across the spirit of the Windsor Report. I can understand why Nigeria has done this. I think they are frustrated; I think they feel that they are fighting a lone battle. I can understand why they think "orthodoxy" is now a term that can be used for an individual outlook rather than a Communionwide outlook. But I would beg them to pause and think of the consequences of what they are doing because schism, schism could quickly become a reality if we all start doing that sort of thing.'

For the full version of this crucial interview see http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week906/interview1.html

Also from Kendall Harmon's site, I copy a perceptive comment by Dale Rye:

'Obviously it is possible to conceive a Communion outside the dominance of Canterbury. In fact, the non-English provinces of the existing Communion are not dominated by Canterbury now (and the Northern Province of the Church of England isn't particularly dominated, either). As far as I know, nobody has ever envisioned a Communion that would be dominated by Canterbury or one in which the Archbishop has any real power to corrupt him.

The question is one of accountability. Is the Anglican Communion to be a loose Federation in which each province is accountable only to God and therefore free to make decisions independently, or a genuine Communion in which the members are accountable to one another under God? For some 50 years, there had been steady progress towards the latter, with the Abp. presiding over the Instruments of Unity as the first among equals and mediating discussions among the provinces when the Communion sought to make decisions affecting its common life. That hardly constitutes dominance, but it does constitute at least the seeds for a system of mutual accountability.

Nigeria has plainly repudiated that line of progress, just as some in North America have. The North American reappraisers are at least consistent in repudiating the whole notion of provincial accountability to any outside agency. Nigeria, at least apparently, wants to eat its cake (by asserting that their province is free to follow what it unilaterally defines as Gospel principles) and keep it, too (by asserting that the Western provinces are not equally free to follow their conflicting vision). They have thrown out the dirty bathwater (an apparently colonial loyalty to an English archbishop), but they have not offered any alternative means for saving the baby (accountability among the provinces).

If the Nigerians and other like-minded provinces want to abolish the Anglican Communion and replace it with a fellowship of independent provinces with bilateral intercommunion agreements, they are certainly welcome to do that. However, that is no way to save the Communion as a communion.'

Dale Rye

[from http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=9325#comments]

An interesting discussion, about both our Church Times article and the Church Times letter in response from Philip, Chris, Ben and Martyn, is taking place on Kendall Harmon's blog:

http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=9320

See especially the comment from Ephraim Radner of the Anglican Communion Institute

I couldn't help chuckling at the wording of the following quote from Robin Eames: 'The historic significance of Canterbury, itself for generations the fulcrum of those 'bonds of affection', continued to be acknowledged in spirit.'

This is from his fine, timely lecture 'The Anglican Communion: A Growing Reality' which may be found on:

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_68335_ENG_HTM.htm

I've just returned from the  Annual Evangelical Assembly, which this year was held at St Helen's Bishopsgate, London. Dr Samson Mwaluda, Bishop of Taita Taveta, Kenya, gave a very fine paper 'Mission in Crisis' which, in parts, related to this discussion. This should be up on the CEEC web site soon in full www.ceec.info His important final section is: 

'Support the maximum evangelical patience and initiatives to partner one another without breaking from the Anglican Communion. In a situation of crisis in any association the concerned may end up with all kinds of reactions.

First, there are those who would quickly think of breaking away for reasons of impatience, desperation, fear of betraying their strong convictions or an opportune space to take a leadership position in the break away constituency. This often leads to many subsequent break away associations and leaves the remaining a free field for the operation of those whose actions initiated the break.

Secondly, there are those who would give up their concerns and convictions for reasons of the quest for peace at the cost of their convictions, the fear of the cost of being counted or on the basis of 'when you cannot defeat them, you join them.' As a result, the association is then left without a challenging voice and could disintegrate into its worst of its weaknesses with impunity.

Thirdly, there are those who would choose to remain part of that association but strategizing themselves afresh within the association to prayerfully, patiently use every possible opportunity to influence the association with their convictions. The example of the East African Revival in our missionary founded churches in eastern Africa is a good example of this. When it began, the East Africa Revival was suspect and was opposed and often persecuted by the church leadership of the time. The members of the revival made it one of their policies that they would not leave their churches to form one of their own. They formed their committed partnerships, revival fellowships and strategically placed themselves to spread their convictions through conventions in their churches. This long patient journey has given great dividends in influencing missionary founded churches with the East Africa Revival spirituality. Today, ninety percent of the said church leadership is nurtured and influenced by the said revival spirituality. [See Samson Mwaluda, Reorienting A Church for Accelerated Growth (Nairobi: Uzima Press, 2003)] It is this third reaction that I would recommend for the Evangelical voice in the world-wide Anglican Communion as we struggle in the current challenges facing the communion.'

In the latest Church Times, 30 Sept 05, there is a letter in response to the article Francis Bridger and I wrote in the 23 Sept 05 edition: the article is on http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2005/20050923nigeria.cfm and the letter will be available on the Church Times site to non-subscribers next Friday. It reads:

From Dr Philip Giddings, Canon Dr Chris Sugden, Canon Ben Enwuchola, and Canon Martin Minns

Sir, - We read with considerable interest the article by the Revd Dr Francis Bridger and Canon Dr Graham Kings "Why Archbishop Akinola is wrong" (Comment, 23 September). They are correct in pointing to the importannce of the unanimous action of the 800-member Nigerian synod, but their criticisms are misplaced.

Instead of being critical, it is surely better to celebrate the fact that the province with the largest churchgoing membership in the Anglican Communion is defining itself by traditional Anglican formularies: the sufficiency of scripture and fellowship with the Church Catholic, and the common biblical, historical, and Catholic faith.

Dr Bridger and Canon Kings appear to be suggesting that an Archbishop of Canterbury has an almost papal role, "as the central instrument of unity", which Archbishop Williams himself has on many occasions very clearly foresworn. In fact, the focus of unity for the Communion, as Nigeria insists, is the centrality of the gospel rather than the centrality of a person or institution, however venerable.

Moreover, the Nigerian Church has only done what the Church of England did in the Elizabethan Settlement, when it rejected the relationship with a particular see as the touchstone of authentic Christianity and ecclesiology, created a national Church accountable only to itself, or, more strictly, to the civil power, and then became confessional - as evidenced by the Thirty-Nine Articles.

The claim that the actions of Nigeria indicate an abandonment of the Windsor process seems at odds with the declaration by Canon John Rees, joint secretary of the Lambeth Commission, that "it does not seem to me to change the legal position at all." (The Times, 17 September). Far from abandoning the Windsor process, Archbishop Akinola has in fact reiterated his commitment to it.

In his letter to fellow Primates on 19 September, he wrote: "we are committed to the historic faith (once delivered to the saints), practice and the traditional formularies. We treasure our place within the worldwide family of the Anglican Communion, but we are distressed by the unilateral actions of those provinces that are clearly determined to redefine what was once our common faith...

"We continue to pray, however, that there will be a genuine demonstration of repentance."

So the Nigerian synod is tying itself to historic Anglicanism, not making up its own faith or asking others to submit to its own interpretation. That contrasts markedly with the position of the Episcopal Church in the United States, which has arrogated the right of going its own way regardless of the view of the rest of the Communion.

Philip Giddings, Covener of Anglican Mainstream UK; Chris Sugden, Executive Secretary of Anglican Mainstream International; Ben Enwuchola, Chaplain to the Nigerian Community in the UK; Martyn Minns, Rector of Truro Church, Fairfax, Virginia, US  c/o 21 High Street, Eynsham Oxford OX29 4HE