A Report from Four Communion Partner Members on a Recent Global South Conference
From the hopper of things I’ve been meaning to post, there is this report from four members of Communion Partners who attended the Global South Conference on Decade of Mission and Networking. I’m excerpting the comments from Dan Martins, but the entire thing is interesting reading:
Bishop Dan Martins: “I was honored to accompany Bishop Smith, Dr. Alley, and Dean Clark to this conference. It came at a significant time, and was held in a significant place. As Bishop John Chew—recently retired as Archbishop of Singapore and Primate of Southeast Asia— welcomed us on the first evening, he pointed out that 2012 is a year of great ferment in the world and in the church: the Arab Spring, the European Union debt crisis, a new Archbishop of Canterbury about to be appointed, a difficult General Synod in the Church of England and a difficult General Convention in the Episcopal Church. Bangkok, with its tiny minority Christian population, is emblematic of the missional challenge the worldwide church faces, and the Anglican Global South movement now has a two decade history of taking responsible principled stands in the councils of the worldwide Anglican Communion. What better time, what better place, and what better group is there to network together for the sake of mission?
As a Christian in the western developed world (Global North? ... First World? ... we began to drift toward ‘Minority World,’ and this is probably the most accurate descriptor), I found it both sobering and humbling to be in the presence of leaders whose working contexts are materially and spiritually challenging in ways I can scarcely imagine. The rising tide of militant Islam emerged as perhaps the dominant area of concern. In places like Nigeria and Tanzania, the frontiers of the two religious cultures clash with one another, and in places like Pakistan, Christians are a barely tolerated minority. In our world, of course, the challenge is the rampant secularization of our society. They are different problems, but both invite strong measures of faith, vision, and discipline.
When the four of us from the Episcopal Church had the opportunity to address the group in plenary, we spoke very briefly and tried to strike a humble tone. We apologized for the long pattern of damage done to the wider communion by our own church, most recently the most recent General Convention, and shared the Indianapolis Statement minority report.4 Our stance was that we need the voice of the Global South to speak for us, since we are a minority voice within our own church. This is sensitive territory. Some of those present were somewhat cool toward us because we remain in what they see as a hopelessly compromised church. They have transferred their seal of approval to the ACNA. Others are more sympathetic to our position and grateful for our continuing witness from within the Episcopal Church. I don’t think we changed any minds among the former, but we did strengthen our position with the latter, and moved some off the fence in our direction.
In a few minutes that evening, I think we may have essentially accomplished what we came here for, and in this context the trip was eminently worthwhile. It put our names and faces in front of people who might otherwise be tempted to forget about us or write us off. We want the Global South, which represents the overwhelming majority of the world’s Anglicans, to be very clear that not all in the Episcopal Church are supportive of the communion-shattering and self- absorbed actions of recent General Conventions. There is a remnant. We need their encouragement and leadership as we endeavor to be a loyal but uncompromised minority party in our church for the indefinite future. We also have gifts to offer as partners in gospel witness and mission.
This conference was not a particularly historic event, but it is nonetheless important. ... This group includes some of the key ‘players’ in Anglicanism, whether one perceives their influence as benign or malign. Both the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Communion Office sent formal greetings. Nothing world-shaking emerged from the meeting. But when something significant does happen, these are many of the leaders who will be involved.”
Share this story:
Recent Related Posts
- Serving the LGBT Community?
- Unrest in Salisbury Goes All the Way to the Top?
- More From a COE Bishop About The Importance of Being Unified With Him
- Sam Allberry - Is God Anti-Gay? [video]
- They lived not only in ages past (South Sudan news)
- Don’t Sign the Letter
- Hey Anglicans, hearing the Benghazi testimony, how ‘bout that IX Commandment?
Comments
Facebook comments are closed.
17 comments
Why would they need the voice of the Global South? You’ve committed to staying within TEC and you are, after all, “Communion Partner” types…whatever that means.
Why would Dan Martins want the Global South to speak for them? They have offered(WHEN ASKED) to provide pastoral oversight and what did it get them? An appeal to Nicea? Laughable.
BigTex AC
[1] Posted by BigTex AC on 8-27-2012 at 03:08 PM · [top]
Yeah, I don’t get it. They went to GC; they issued a Minority Statement. Everyone already knows what their position is. What could they possibly need the Global South to say on their behalf?
[2] Posted by James Manley on 8-27-2012 at 03:24 PM · [top]
It sounds like they couldn’t generate much support. Perhaps a letter or statement to the effect that “We stand beside these Episcopalians.” It is the same “stayers” issue that we face when blogging, or as Rodney Dangerfield termed it, we get “no respect at all.”
[3] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 8-27-2012 at 03:27 PM · [top]
The folks who have chosen the cast their lot with TEC just need to own it…much like those who have chosen to leave..just own it.
BigTex AC
[4] Posted by BigTex AC on 8-27-2012 at 03:32 PM · [top]
Well, the GS spoke before and they were ignored at DES and every time afterward. Folks in TEC tried to tell the ABC of the mess of APO; ABC ignored the need for action. Have “some” not learned anything? Is there anything else that can be said? Really.
[5] Posted by iamaworm on 8-27-2012 at 04:12 PM · [top]
It just occurred to me that the battered wife syndrome is alive and well in TEC.
[6] Posted by iamaworm on 8-27-2012 at 04:13 PM · [top]
RE: “Why would they need the voice of the Global South?”
Same reason why ACNA so fervently requests the same thing.
RE: “The folks who have chosen the cast their lot with TEC just need to own it…”
We have. Happy to, too. I’m very pleased and honored to be in TEC. I’m exactly where I should be, and it’s clear that Dan Martins is too.
RE: “It just occurred to me that the battered wife syndrome is alive and well in TEC.”
Yeh . . . no doubt that’s just what many 21st century folks would have said to Jeremiah and Hosea. Especially when the folks who left their “husband” [weird weird analogy but that’s what I’ve been given] are still obsessing over the “family” they left behind, trolling on threads, and generally showing to the world how filled with joy and peace they are.
Heh.
[7] Posted by Sarah on 8-27-2012 at 04:28 PM · [top]
Sarah @#7 - Ouch. I don’t think I have ever been called a troll on any blog or web site. Having been a regular commenter on SF for many years as I languished in TEC hoping for change, and then in ACNA, and then finally leaving all the drama (and I might add at a personal cost but which has been credited to me in more abundant ways). I can confidently say there is a bit of truth in what I wrote. How many times has there been a way forward for folks who have been battered by the revisionists but don’t want to leave? In the comments above I feel there is a cry for help; I feel the anguish. But I doubt it will get better; I doubt TEC will repent. I don’t think Bp. Martins (which I have met and admire) thinks it will get better or is expects it will change. It’s painful to watch Sarah. Painful. Like the battered wife crying for help, you can only do so much. So much. People have to want a way forward that is healthy. That’s how I see it. There is no trolling for reaction. Only seeing the pain. Brothers and sisters that have left still care for those inside.
[8] Posted by iamaworm on 8-27-2012 at 06:41 PM · [top]
Hi Festivus.
All of us agree that TEC will not repent.
We who have stayed in TEC have a way forward—we are happy and believe that we are in the center of God’s will, nor do we believe that we should leave, so why people keep claiming they are offering us things we do not want, I cannot grasp.
I am sure those who left TEC also believe that they were and are in the center of God’s will.
I did not call you a troll—I called what some who have left TEC do on every single thread that opens up about people in TEC and staying within TEC “trolling.”
It sounds to me like *you* are in pain. There is no need to answer why on this thread—for once again, a post about a report from four communion partner members on a recent global south conference is not about “why won’t they leave TEC and join ACNA when there is a way out for their battered-wife-syndrome.”
All of the above has been stated and re-stated I would guess at least a thousand times here on StandFirm.
Further comments about why people should take “the way forward” that those who have left TEC took will be deleted.
Again.
[9] Posted by Sarah on 8-27-2012 at 07:04 PM · [top]
“RE: “Why would they need the voice of the Global South?”
Same reason why ACNA so fervently requests the same thing.”
I very much agree. The CP bishops are doing the right thing - keeping their fellowship and communion links alive with other Christians and in particular other Anglicans. The Global South comprises the leaders of a very large number of baptised Anglicans, 30-50 million depending on how you count it - why wouldn’t you keep communion with them?
And as Sarah rightly points out, this is just what ACNA does. I think both ACNA and CP have a healthy attitude, in that they think fellowship and communion with a large number of overseas Anglicans are worth preserving.
“Yeah, I don’t get it. They went to GC; they issued a Minority Statement. Everyone already knows what their position is. What could they possibly need the Global South to say on their behalf?”
James, my understanding is that the CP bishops wanted primarily to maintain their bonds of communion and fellowship with the GS, rather than have the GS say something on their behalf.
[10] Posted by MichaelA on 8-28-2012 at 12:25 AM · [top]
Hi MichaelA:
Bishop Martins wrote, “Our stance was that we need the voice of the Global South to speak for us, since we are a minority voice within our own church.”
[11] Posted by James Manley on 8-28-2012 at 09:08 AM · [top]
“Troll?” is this now junior high? Listen, I think it’s wonderful the keep mission partnerships/gospel partnerships alive and well with Anglicans all over the world but he’s asking for the global south to speak for him. He is a bishop in the the wider church catholic, Why can’t he and the rest of the communion partner types speak for themselves? There’s one…only one…who has chosen to lead courageously from within. At least you, Ms. Hey, are offering concrete suggestions on radical differentiation. You’re not asking anybody to speak for you(a minority voice in the wilderness)...you’re taking action.
Play the man, Bp. Martins.
BigTex AC
[12] Posted by BigTex AC on 8-28-2012 at 11:03 AM · [top]
Great comment, BigTex—but nobody called anybody a “troll” on this thread.
Claiming that people called you a troll when they did not *is* Junior High, however.
Please don’t do so again until somebody actually calls somebody “a troll.”
Thanks.
[13] Posted by Sarah on 8-28-2012 at 12:12 PM · [top]
James, fair comment, I missed that bit. His main purpose in being there was to ensure that communion and fellowship links were not cut - he makes that clear, but I take your point. So now to respond to it:
“Our stance was that we need the voice of the Global South to speak for us, since we are a minority voice within our own church.”
What is wrong with that? You and Big Tex have criticised it, but i am still at a loss as to the basis for that criticism. Anglicans in the past have asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to “speak for them”. As it happened, the wishy-washy Rowan Williams did nothing, but I have never before heard anyone suggest that the fault lay with the Anglicans who asked him to do so! Why can’t any Anglican who is facing persecution from within ask the primatial leaders of millions of overseas Anglicans to speak for them?
Big Tex at #12, you criticise +Martins for not speaking out himself - assuming your criticism on that point is fully justified, why are he and his fellows not also entitled (nay, obliged) to go to other parts of the church seeking support?
+Lawrence has attended Global South and Gafcon meetings over the years, and those meetings have issued strong statements of support for the Communion Partner bishops (I am thinking mainly of the GS statement of April 2010 but there have been others) - I rather doubt that those statements were made without +Lawrence’s full knowledge and desire. How is this any different?
This all seems to be arbitrary criticism of other Christians who are in a very difficult situation.
I think we need to learn a bit from the Global South leaders also. +Martins candidly admits that there those were who felt that the GS should just excommunicate or anathematise TEC and be done with it. I can understand that - everyone has been shocked and mortified by the actions and words of the last GC, even when they knew beforehand what was likely to happen. Its a very human reaction.
But the fact remains that the Global South has always (that I can think of) indicated its support for both ACNA and the Communion Partner bishops and other faithful christians within TEC, and not distinguishing between +Lawrence and other CP bishops. We can learn something from that.
[14] Posted by MichaelA on 8-28-2012 at 05:58 PM · [top]
Hi MichaelA:
I didn’t criticize Bishop Martins’ statement! I said that I don’t understand it.
I don’t know to whom he expects the Global South to speak, and for what purpose.
He hopes the Global South speaks to someone, and say something. I don’t know what he wants.
The guy flew all the way to Thailand and asked people to speak for him. Obviously this is an important thing for the bishop. I’m just curious about what he expects them to say, and to whom. I’m not criticizing him. I just don’t get it.
I fully understand what ACNA wishes said, and to whom. The “tu quoque” argument won’t fly. It’s fairly obvious what ACNA wishes said by the Global South. I’m confused about what Bishop Martins (and we are led to believe the CP bishops as a whole) want said, and to whom, and why they feel that they cannot say such things themselves, and need someone else to speak in their place. I thought that having a voice within the Communion was the whole point of being a Communion Partner!
But I’m certainly not criticizing his statement. I just don’t understand it.
[15] Posted by James Manley on 8-28-2012 at 08:36 PM · [top]
Did +Martins ever write or imply this? Perhaps again its something I have missed and you can direct me to where he did.
Needing someone to speak is one thing; needing someone to speak “in their place” is another: You thereby imply that +Martins wants the Global South to speak because he and his fellows don’t intend to. But does he ever say that?
Sure. So why, having made the Indianapolis Statement, is +Martins not also entitled to ask the leaders of 50 million Anglicans to add their voice to his? I am not criticizing your position; I just don’t understand it!
[16] Posted by MichaelA on 8-28-2012 at 09:28 PM · [top]
The problem with summary statements is that often necessary information is omitted by necessity. Therefore when we begin to dissect such statements we get mired in confusion. As an aid to clarification let me list some fact.
1. Both ACNA and CP we invited to the conference by the GS. To my knowledge neither asked to attend.
2. The conference was about Mission and Networking for the 21st Century and not dedicated to church politics ( and most certainly NOT the misbehavior of TEC).
3. Our bishops were coming directly from GC and still reeling from its actions, so found great solice in being inthe presence of a group that was untied in a desire to propagate the “faith once delivered.”
4. The purpose of the CP delegation was to listen to our brothers in the GS and learn from them. It was not our plan to enlist or otherwise distract them from their mission focus. We felt that they have already suffered enough through contact with our uniquely(?) American way of doing church.
5. Graciously the organizers put aside an evening to hear from the western partners. Delegations from Australia, Canada, ACNA, and CP (to name four), brought greetings and concise statements of their situations as Anglicans. It was natural that the topic of GC came up and the CP delegation addressed the issue by sharing the Indianapolis statement and the fact that there were more than a few TEC bishops who signed on. We then asked for their prayers.
6. When asked to contribute to the conference communique, the western partners declined because we felt that it was their conference and we were committed to humbly listening to their teaching rather than usurping their platform for our grievances.
This comment is in no way a criticism of the present conversation, but offered as an aid to clarification of the facts on the ground so that the discussion might continue in a constructive manner.
[17] Posted by calley on 8-29-2012 at 10:29 AM · [top]
Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.
Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.