Anglican Mainstream

Why the Kigali declaration is wrong

Kigali is unrepresentative, sectarian, unAnglican, and colonialist, argues Colin Slee in the Church Times

THE STATEMENT of the recent meeting of Primates at Kigali has reverberated around the Church like the aftershocks of an earthquake, giving an impression that something definitive has happened to the Anglican Communion, and that schism is inevitable (News, 29 September). Yet, before the Anglican tradition slides into a suicidal panic, certain presuppositions should be examined. Schism is never inevitable unless two parties to an argument are determined to separate. This week, the world celebrated Archbishop Desmond Tutu¹s 75th birthday and his chairmanship of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). The TRC worked because both sides of apartheid were desperate that it should ‹ the alternative was too horrific to contemplate.
The word ³irreconcilable² should possibly be the most unused in Christian vocabulary; it is theologically questionable. The New Testament prearrative of God at work through Jesus Christ ³reconciling the world to himself ². If God can undertake that task for creation, it is not for Christians to regard the transitory differences of opinion that bedevil the Church as adequate cause for irreconcilable estrangement. Sectarianism is different; it requires only one party to say to the other: ³I don¹t care what you think ‹ I am going off to walk by myself.²

Kigali, and many earlier statements, show strong sectarian inclinations. In the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Jesus speaks of the children in the market
place: ³We piped for you and you would not dance, we wailed and you did not mourn.² He is denouncing intransigence and contrariness. IT IS SAID that the Archbishop of Canterbury wishes to keep the Anglican Church as one Communion, and will make concessions to the loudest demand at whatever cost.
Yet Dr Williams¹s current request is for consideration of a covenanted relationship that permits disagreement without schism. Kigali paid scant attention to that request; it set conditions for the Communion on the terms of its determination. The inclination towards sectarianism is clear. The Archbishop has called for genuine debate; Kigali calls for walking apart.
The status of the Kigali declaration must also be questioned. It has no credibility as a declaration of Anglican decision. It was a private meeting.
The ³Global South² has no mandate as an organ within the structures of the Anglican Church. Kigali spoke a great deal for the ³Global South². That is a tendentious term, because much of the Church in the south of the globe does not wish to be associated with it. The Archbishop of Southern Africa, the Most Revd Njongonkulu Ndungane, a man imprisoned on Robben Island because of his courage in the face of division, was the first to disassociate himself from Kigali and the Global South; the Archbishop of the Philippines has also done so; the Archbishop of Papua New Guinea absented himself to make his disapproval clear.

THE PRIMATES imply two unsubstantiated claims in the Kigali declaration which are worthy of examination. First, some speak in terms of ³the majority² of Anglicans, and base this on the statistical size of the Anglican Church in their provinces. These statistics are open to challenge.
Anglicans of the Global South are not counted on the same basis as the electoral rolls and Easter communicants of the Church of England; it is not possible. The Elizabethan Settlement carefully steps away from any concept of majority rule as theologically unsound, because it implies imposed belief and the alienation of minority opinion. Second, most Kigali Primates spoke as if they had the authority of their provincial synods. Their synods meet at long intervals, and had not been consulted (by definition) about the Kigali statement; the Primates had no authority from them. This is not Anglican governance as enshrined in the concept of the bishop in synod. The Anglican tradition requires the laity, the clergy, and the bishops each to have a voice. Then the synod ‹ the coming together ‹ of thought in decision can be articulated by the bishop, or, in the case of a province, the archbishop. Then there is finance. Delegates paid their own fares (what
from?) with nothing for accommodation, conference facilities, and resources.
Who paid? He who pays the piper calls the tune.
There should be a debate about the dependency of certain Anglican Primates on external financial resourcing, and a call for transparency and accountability. Whoever paid for the conference at Kigali had an agenda that needs examination. Those who benefited need to show that their judgement was unaffected by hospitality. There is something unpleasant about Christian leaders from the developing nations accepting invisible financial assistance from those who once were their (white) masters, and from whom they have proudly gained independent status as Churches. There is a new colonialism abroad, which shows all the exploitative tendencies of the old in new forms.
The Kigali statement has another critical weakness. It claims unanimity (with South Africa as an exception). But subsequent statements (for example, from the Archbishop of the Philippines) and ³private² comments suggest otherwise. So there are signs of intellectual (and possibly financial) coercion. This raises questions about the courage of church leadership ‹ questions that may be applied equally to the bishops of the Church of England. If honest disagreement has to be concealed, it ceases to be honest.
Individuals need to put their heads above the parapet, and stand up to bullying. Bishops wear purple to represent their role as the first to give their blood for Christ and the Church. We are witnessing a haemorrhage of episcopal courage, and that is grave.

The Very Revd Colin Slee is Dean of Southwark.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.