If you pop over to ACNS you can find a useful list of attending and non-attending primates AND in a novel, but helpful and relevant development a list of reasons being given for non-attendance.
Here is the list of reasons:
"For reasons of visa difficulties:
Province de L'Eglise Anglicane Du Congo The Most Revd Henry Kahwa Isingoma
For reasons of health:
La Iglesia Anglicana de Mexico The Most Revd Carlos Touche-Porter
The Church of the Province of Myanmar (Burma) The Most Revd Stephen Than Myint Oo
For reasons of diary commitments:
The Anglican Church of Kenya The Most Revd Eliud Wabukala
The Church of North India (United) The Most Revd Purely Lyngdoh
For personal reasons:
The Anglican Church of Tanzania The Most Revd Valentino Mokiwa
For reasons of Provincial matters:
The Episcopal Church of the Sudan The Most Revd Daniel Deng Bul Yak (the referendum)
L'Eglise Episcopal au Rwanda The Most Revd Onesphore Rwaje (two days after his installation)
Those who have chosen to stay away over recent developments in The Episcopal Church:
The Church of the Province of the Indian Ocean The Most Revd Gerald James (Ian) Ernest
The Episcopal Church in Jerusalem & The Middle East The Most Revd Mouneer Hanna Anis
The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) The Most Rt Revd Nicholas Dikeriehi Okoh
The Church of the Province of Uganda The Most Revd Henry Luke Orombi
Church of the Province of South East Asia The Most Revd John Chew
Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur de America The Most Revd Hector Zavala
The Church of the Province of West Africa The Most Revd Justice Ofei Akrofi "
But, as Sarah points out in a comment on my previous post, the list bears analysis. If we ask the question 'who among those who are absent are likely to either (1) sign a statement of protest against TEC's actions and/or (2) work on alternative structures such as GAFCON and Global South?' then the number is greater than the seven at the bottom of the list.
What is your call on who might be fellow supporters of the seven who have stated in writing that they are not attending because of developments in TEC?
I would add at least Kenya, Rwanda, and Tanzania. Sudan should be considered.
I think you have to look at who signed the Oxford statement.
ReplyDeleteThe *current* Primates of Kenya and Tanzania signed the Oxford Statement. So putting down "personal reasons" and "diary commitments" is really too rich.
And then, the previous Primate of Rwanda signed the Oxford Statement [as did the previous Primate of the Southern Cone]. And if anything their replacements are even more traditional.
So it's rather ridiculous to say "Provincial Matters" about Rwanda -- that's cutting it a bit thick.
So we're now up to the 10.
I also throw in Sudan and North India. The Sudanese Primate called the impromptu press conference at the Lambeth Meeting and since then has become even clearer. Recall that the South Asia Primates were moved to clarify their traditional stance on sexuality during the Lambeth Meeting by the very surprising move of releasing a gentle and circuitous statement [demonstrating again that the Lambeth Meeting was a wonderfully clarifying event for moderate traditional bishops].
And I'd throw in Myanmar. He is on the Global South Steering Committee, with his name on numerous statements including excerpts along the lines of this: "As Primates of the Communion and guardians of the catholic and apostolic faith and order, we stand in communion with our fellow bishops, clergy and laity who are steadfast in the biblical teaching against the ordination of openly homosexual clergy, the consecration of such to the episcopate, and the blessing of homosexual partnerships. We also urge them, as fellow Anglicans, to continue to stand firm with us in cherishing the Anglican heritage, in pursuing a common vocation, in expressing our unity and common life, and in maintaining our covenanted life together."
So my former estimate of 12 is now raised to 13.
Keep in mind that almost all of the non-attending hang out together at the Global South meetings -- which appear to be the new "gathering point" for traditional Primates.
This is all, from my point of view, a stunning development. Recall that my previous thoughts were that the Gafcon 6 and maybe one or two more would not attend, for -- if folks of my strategic inclination are lucky -- a total of maybe 8.
I am very surprised and pleased that Archbishop Chew is not attending -- that is incredible, given his moderating and more institutionalist stance.
But I think what we are seeing is the coalescing of the non-Gafcon, but informed Primates. That is my hope and I think that is what we are seeing. As I said from Lambeth onward . . . that meeting was a sea change for *those traditional bishops who attended*. They got to see in all of their glory the bishops of TEC -- and that was deeply significant in their slowly becoming more informed -- not to mention participating in a meeting that essentially turned out a playdough and fingerpainting document of Indaba, the "Reflections" document.
By my count there are another 8-9 traditional Primates who simply need to move along the same "path of recognition." A couple more meetings with themselves as the participating traditional Primates should just about do the trick.
The other thing to note is the rather desperate rhetoric now emanating through the ACO's release. Revealing that you're *that concerned* by pretending as if folks like the Primates of Rwanda, Kenya, and Tanzania [all Gafcon] are not attending because of health and scheduling reasons is . . . really . . . just silly.
Had they not tried that blatant a spin, we might have been led to believe that the Primates of Myanmar and a couple of others had genuine "scheduling conflicts."
But at this point -- I'm sticking with 13 Primates not attending the meeting formerly known as "The Primates Meeting."
Sarah
Hi Sarah,
ReplyDeleteWhen you talk about Lambeth 2008 I recall that you were there!
Look, the reality is that those who without question have not attended because of TEC (and ACofC)amount to seven primates. Every primate had an opportunity to state openly where they stand; seven did so.It's pure speculation, day-dreaming, wishful thinking etc. to list others, at least at this time.
ReplyDeleteKurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY
Kurt,
ReplyDeleteI would point out that the ACNS statement said specifically that 7 primates had written directly to Canon Kearon and said they were not attending because of the attendance of the PB of TEC, and because of TEC's recent actions. Let us note that 3 (++Earnest, ++Anis and ++Chew) of those 7 are not Gafcon primates. The Gafcon primates council is on record, in the Oxford statement and elsewhere, in slightly different words, rejecting any meetings with TEC's PB. Canon Kearon's quote related only to letters sent to him in his capacity as Secretary of the ACC, not to all public statements made by the Primates. You clearly have 9 who have signed either letters to Canon Kearon, or the Oxford statement (or both). And it is hardly a stretch to add the new Rwandan primate.
I would note that the Primate of Myanmar was among the first to officially recognize ACNA, which is certainly no endorsement of TEC. And of course, Bishop Daniel said what he said at Lambeth. In the latter case, he has been quite willing, it seems, to try to engage TEC, even on their home ground, in an effort to get them to reverse course. So maybe he would have gone if the situation at home did not require his presence. But if he had, I could almost guarantee that by now, the press would have something a whole lot more interesting to talk about than the latest ACNS release on what the Primates had for lunch.
RE: "It's pure speculation, day-dreaming, wishful thinking etc. to list others, at least at this time."
ReplyDeleteWell, I'm definitely "making the call," as Peter posted. Others will call it as they see it.
Certainly nothing I can do if others want to believe that the Gafcon Primates of Kenya, Tanzania, and Rwanda [two of which signed a statement saying they wouldn't attend two months ago] didn't attend because of personal reasons and diary commitments. Folks can believe as they wish -- heck, they can even *pretend* to believe as they wish.
Maybe those guys have really been moderate loyal-to-the-institution Primates all along and have been Entirely and Brutally Misjudged by their naysayers. ; > )
Sarah
"The other thing to note is the rather desperate rhetoric now emanating through the ACO's release. Revealing that you're *that concerned* by pretending as if folks like the Primates of Rwanda, Kenya, and Tanzania [all Gafcon] are not attending because of health and scheduling reasons is . . . really . . . just silly."
ReplyDelete- Sarah Hey -
It's easy, Sarah, to see whose spin-doctor you are. ACNA must be very grateful for your input on this New Zealand site. I, for one,
do not appreciate your take on the Anglican Communion Office. It is, after, more central to the Communion Provinces than GAFCON & ACNA - whom you represent. Also, it tends to be more transparent in its public communiques than the self-absenting primates.
I, like most N.Z. Anglicans, am hoping that our own Primate and Representative, Abp. Winston Halapua, will back the inclusion of TEC and the A.C.of C. in their bid for justice to women and gays.
RE; "It's easy, Sarah, to see whose spin-doctor you are."
ReplyDeleteRight -- because pointing out how silly it is to state that three Gafcon Primates didn't attend the Primates Meeting because of their diary commitments is just outrageous of me! ; > )
RE: "I, for one, do not appreciate your take on the Anglican Communion Office."
I should hope not.
RE: "It is, after, more central to the Communion Provinces than GAFCON & ACNA - whom you represent."
Um . . . that would be a "no." I'm a member of TEC and have no interest in either GAFCON or ACNA.
Shouldn't you first become informed, prior to speaking?
Sarah