1. Which two Anglican churches are sending two primates to the forthcoming Primates' Meeting, beginning 11 January 2016?
PS The answer is not "North America"!?!
As far as I can tell the answer is "the Church of England" (who send the ABC and the ABY) and (... drumroll ...) the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia (as you can see in this press release).
2. Supplementary question Which Anglican News service is seriously wrong in its understanding of ACANZP's three tikanga structure?
PS The answer is not "Anglican Down Under".
I reckon the answer is "Anglican Ink" (and any other agency relying on it). In its article about two primates going from our church, it says this:
"Alone among the churches of the Anglican Communion, the ACNZP [sic], is divided along racial lines into separate but equal churches with three co-primates."
Rather oddly the article begins with a photo of an American-African bishop, but let's pass by that oddity and deal with the myth-information around the use of the word "racial": our church is structured along cultural lines, not racial lines. I'll put this in bold type: any member of any race may belong to any of our tikanga. Pakeha (European or other non-indigenous extraction) belong to Tikanga Maori, ditto for Tikanga Pasefika (which is multi-racial because the Anglican church of the South Pacific islands includes Fijians, Melanesians, Indians, Tongans, Samoans, Chinese as well as expatriate Kiwis and Aussies and anyone else.
3. Why are we sending two of our three Primates, given that even England only gets to send two because the ABC is busy chairing the meeting so the ABY steps up to represent the CofE?
Well, that's the big question, is it not? Let's see what emerges in the media in the run up to the beginning of the meeting on 11 January 2016.
In the meantime, let's be praying for this meeting which may just be the "make or break" meeting about the future of the Anglican Communion. Will it be a "Communion" or a "Federation" or a "something a little bit the same and quite a bit different"? Will there be a commitment to making a next Lambeth Conference work?
4. Monday 4 January's question: Which usual suspects are reported as intending to walk out of the Primates' Meeting (but they might not, or maybe they will, or ...)?
Clue: starts with G and ends with N, but it's not "Gene Robinson".
5. Tuesday 5 January's question: Who has the most to gain and who has the most to lose from the Primates' Meeting?
Answer: you are most welcome to work out your own answer to the question but a very, very interesting answer is here. (H/T Thinking Anglicans) In this answer Christopher Craig Brittain analyses the situation with Game Theory. I think this leads - in the end - to the possibility noted in a comment below by Bowman Walton about the possible triumph of the centrists.
I very much like what Brittain has to say but think his analysis may overlook a couple of points. For instance, if the Anglican churches in some African countries are losing ground to Pentecostal churches, then that might be a stronger pointer to those churches maintaining rigorous conservatism than wishing to maintain present status quo Communion links. Also, Game Theory analysis begins and ends with the present Communion structure and winners/losers relative to that, but what if ++Welby's underlying agenda is to change the structure, for instance, towards "federation" rather than "communion", might all be winners in such a structure compared with the possibility that an unchanged Communion post-Primates would necessarily mean "winners" and "losers".
Think of it this way: each Primate needs to go back to his (or, in our case, their) home province and assure the province that (a) it remains Anglican (b) it is in relationship with the ABC and other provinces which matter in the eyes of the home province (c) no ground already attained in the spectrum of commitments re human sexuality has been given away. Assurance (b) is consistent with a speculated GAFCON (+/-) primates "walk out", and a "walk out" now or refusal to countenance another Lambeth Conference might be required if TEC/ACofC do not "repent" in respect of (c). But a new "federal" structure would permit (a) and (c), and (b) would be met if this structure permitted groupings of provinces according to differing commitments under (c).
Now, of course, my paragraph above itself is speculative, so ignore it if you please!
6. Wednesday 6 January Will the primates listen to each other?
Answer: That is something we should be praying for as we pray for the meeting!
For instance, will certain African primates hear (mark, digest, inwardly reflect) on the concern many Anglicans have that they have implicitly or even explicitly supported criminalization-with-excessive-punishment of gay and lesbian citizens?
And, will certain Western primates hear (mark, digest, inwardly reflect) on the concern many Anglicans have that they have supported or are contemplating supporting changes to understanding marriage which fundamentally disrupt common Anglican understanding of marriage since at least the time of the English Reformation?
Which leads me to another question, which I will pose tomorrow ... Stay tuned!
7. Thursday 7 January What is the role of Charles Raven in GAFCON?
Answer: He is the writer of this thoughtful article published on the GAFCON website, 16 December 2015, on the importance of the Primates' Meeting. Charles works in Kenya after many years of ministry in the Church of England. He is described both as "adviser to the Most Revd Eliud Wabukala, Primate of Kenya, who is Chair of the GAFCON Primates’ Council" and as "the Archbishop of Kenya’s Officer for Anglican Communion Affairs." He is also responsible for the development of GAFCON communications.
Bonus question: Did you know the Primates' Meeting has its own website?
Answer: I am guessing you didn't know that! You can find it here.
PS If you do not like my set of questions, there is another set here.