Joint Annual Event of Wycliffe Collegeand Trinity College (University of Toronto, Canada)
28 November 2007
The Rev Canon Dr R. Mwita Akiri is the General Secretary of the Anglican Church of Tanzania & Visiting Scholar, Wycliffe College, University of Toronto, Canada
As some of you may know, Africa is a large continent. It has over 50 nation states and covers 30 million square kilometers, with a population of over three quarters of a billion. There are 12 Anglican Provinces in Africa (or national churches, each with a Primate) and the Diocese of Egypt. These form what is known as the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa (CAPA). Though I have had the privilege to serve on one of the CAPA Boards (2002-2006), and to meet all the Primates of CAPA twice in Dar es Salaam (September 2005 and February 2007), I am not a CAPA spokesperson. Equally, though I am a member of the Anglican Consultative Council since 2005, I am not a spokesperson for the Anglican Communion. Therefore the reflections that I want to offer are personal, but I believe that they represent the general position of the Anglican Church of Tanzania and hopefully the Church in Africa.
For many years now, especially in the post-colonial and 'post-missionary' eras, Africa has experienced rapid Church growth. Now it has a majority of world Christians. This alone may not give Africa a unique place in the Anglican Communion, but I am afraid, it is difficult to disregard this fact. Having said this, one must not forget that the Church in Africa is facing formidable missionary challenges. There is a large number of Muslims in Africa and followers of traditional religions. As church planting continues and new parishes and Dioceses are formed, the tasks of strengthening the disciples and enhancing theological education are among the ongoing challenges. There are also socio-economic challenges in areas of education, water and sanitation, health, HIV/Aids and drug abuse- to name a few. Politically, peace and security, enhancement of the democratization process and good governance, as well as the fight against corruption are also high on the list of our challenges. Those of us who live and work in Africa hardly need to be reminded about these and many other challenges, but need to be supported to face them.
It is obvious that Africa has been on the spotlight in the current debate and crisis in the Anglican Communion. On the one hand, there is a sense of hope among some Christians in the West, that they have brothers and sisters in a continent where the Church is doing well in mission, and that Africa may have something to offer to the wider Anglican Communion. On the other hand, there are symptoms of renewed interest in the old stereotypes, with African church leaders and one might say the African Christians being blamed and at times abused or being accused unfairly. Yet Africa is not the originator of the current crisis in the Anglican Communion on the issue of homosexuality. The fact is that the whole issue that has now plunged all of us into a crisis started off badly in North America, with actions and counter-actions taking the center stage. There was little room for people on both sides to hear one another. The level of suspicion is now very high. This is damaging relationships not only in North America but in the entire Anglican Communion.
Africa has been drawn into the crisis because the Church in Africa belongs to the Anglican Communion, and would not be silent when some who share in the familyhood of Anglican Communion act in a manner that threatens the survival of the very family itself and do so under the pretext of 'autonomy' and 'culture'. It has to be recalled that Lambeth 1998 declared that homosexual practice is incompatible with Scripture. Lambeth 1998 also rejected an attempt to legitimize or bless same sex unions or to ordain those involved in same gender relationships. I am aware that the same Resolution 1:10 called on the Church to minister pastorally and sensitively to homosexual people. Within the spirit of Lambeth and in obedience to Scripture and historic faith, the African church hold the view that homosexuality is incompatible with Scripture. A broad consensus and firm position is that homosexuality is a lifestyle which can be surrendered to the transforming Gospel of Jesus Christ. Of course it's up to the individuals concerned to recognize God's love through Christ and accept it. Before a gay or lesbian person accepts that transforming love, the expectation is that he or she (lay or ordained) will remain celibate. Moving from celibacy to homosexual practice and from practice to a homosexual union calling it 'marriage' sanctioned by secular authorities, then seeking a blessing of the union in church, and having a desire for adopting children is what changes the whole issue. These desires and steps only help to confirm that homosexuality is lifestyle now seeking legitimization in church.
There is no doubt that the debate on the issue of homosexuality has been going on in the Anglican Church of Canada and in the Episcopal Church (TEC) long before Lambeth 1998, and some diocesan synods had voted on the issue a number of times. But I think it would be fair to suggest that things changed dramatically from 2002 onwards after the bishop of the Diocese of New Westminster in Canada decided to authorize the blessing of same sex unions. I am aware that he did so after his Synod had voted and passed the motion three times. I will say something a little later on the problem of voting on the issue of homosexuality at diocesan levels and its impact. Though this decision was very alarming and provocative, and was described by some as "schismatic", many in Africa took comfort in the fact that the Canadian Church had not taken a decision on the matter at national level. Put briefly, even after all this, I think one would say that the Anglican Communion was not in deep crisis yet. So what caused it?
In my opinion, the big bang that got the entire Anglican Communion into deeper crisis on a truly international scale was the decision by TEC to give its consent, at national level, to have an openly practising gay priest consecrated as Bishop in 2003. This was done despite the numerous pleas and cautioning given regarding the adverse consequences to the life of the Anglican Communion, not least by the Primates of the entire Communion. This stunned Africa and indeed the Global South. Then everything went into flames. Some Primates and individual Bishops in Africa had started offering Episcopal oversight to parishes that walked out of TEC years back. But I think the number of parishes seeking alternative Episcopal oversight went up significantly after 2003.
I have to stress that as pointed put above, generally speaking, African Church leaders, clergy and lay people (even beyond the Anglican Church) are opposed to homosexual practice, no matter where it takes place. So what I want to outline below is not a diversity of opinion on homosexuality or homosexual practice. It is a diversity of responses or approaches to the actions of the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of New Westminster. I have chosen to describe the categories to which Provinces belong without necessarily mentioning names. However, I will share the approach of my own Province in some detail. There is at least one province that has been urging other CAPA provinces to leave TEC alone. This province would have nothing to do with what is going on in Canada and America. I am not sure whether this position represented the official view of the House of Bishops or the Church in that Province, but I believe that this was the position of the outgoing Primate of that Province. However, this may change following the recent election of a new Primate whose confessional background is widely regarded as conservative, if that description of him is correct. The other 11 Provinces and the Diocese of Egypt are very concerned and are deeply disturbed by what is going on in North America. Nevertheless, even in this second category, there are at least three sub-categories.
In the first sub-category, there are provinces that have accepted invitations to offer alternative Episcopal oversight to parishes in TEC and to a limited extent in Canada. These Provinces would hardly negotiate anything until TEC complies fully with the requests made by Lambeth Commission in the Windsor Report, namely repentance for the consecrating a gay priest as Bishop, and for the consequences of the action, as well as having a moratorium on the blessing of same sex unions, not only at national level, but also in the Dioceses. The provinces in this first sub-category have broken relations with TEC completely and are not in communion with it. It is possible that they would like to see TEC expelled from the Anglican Communion, especially if she fails to comply fully with the Windsor and Dar es Salaam requests. If the expulsion is not possible, they may consider forming an alternative structure other than the Anglican Communion and would like to see the entire Global South belong to it, together with Dioceses and parishes in the new emerging structures in North America. In the meantime, their Primates are not only deeply involved in the ministries in North America, but are also consecrating Americans as Bishops to minister to parishes in America.
A second sub-category among the Provinces that are united against the actions of TEC and some Dioceses in Canada are Provinces that have declared that their relationship with TEC is severely impaired. Such Provinces are also asking for a full compliance by TEC, but are in working terms with it. At least until now, these provinces have not accepted invitations from parishes in America. The Anglican Church of Tanzania is in this category. On the basis of Scripture, all our Bishops oppose homosexual practice and the blessing of same sex unions. However, Tanzania would argue that there should be room for communication with the very people we disagree with, if that would help. Of course some in Africa would challenge us and say that TEC has reached a point of no return and it's a waste of time to try to convince them that the path they have taken is hurting others and threatening the integrity of the Communion. In the same spirit of room for communication, we continue to communicate with churches and parishes within the Episcopal Church that do not accept the ministry of their bishops, as well as those who have walked out of the Episcopal Church. It would have been better to remain and challenge their bishops from within, but it is somehow late now, and our solidarity is with them. We continue to monitor the developments within TEC and Canada. While our relationship and partnership with TEC is severely impaired, the status of our partnership with the Anglican Church of Canada at national level remains largely the same. However, this could change depending on what happens next in the Canadian Church, especially at national level. Yet as far as I am aware, the Province of Tanzania is not in partnership with the Diocese of New Westminster or those Dioceses that condone homosexual practice in Canada.
Despite what I have said above, Tanzania issued a statement in 2005 requesting the Primates of the Anglican Communion to declare North America as a mission field that requires fresh re-evangelization with consent from within but with missionary assistance from other parts of the world, if requested, formally or informally. This would be something different from the ongoing 'incursions'. From what I read and hear incursions are a matter of great concern to the leadership of the Church and some ordinary people in North America. Perhaps a mutually agreed partnership in evangelism that Tanzania proposes may be a better option than incursions. Specifically about TEC, the House of Bishops in Tanzania resolved unanimously, with effect from December 2006, that until there is clear reversal of position on homosexual practice and blessing of same sex unions, Tanzania shall not knowingly request and receive financial or material assistance from the Episcopal (national) Church and its associate organizations as well as from individuals, priests, parishes, bishops and Dioceses that condone homosexual practice in the Episcopal Church. This decision was endorsed later by the Council of the General Synod (known as the Standing Committee) of the Province. One of the reasons for declining to receive assistance from the Episcopal Church is the conviction that money alone cannot constitute partnership in mission. It has to be partnership in mission with values. This is more so if already there is such a huge gulf between us in the understanding of the place of Scripture in matters of faith and Christian life, approach to mission, as well as the historic teaching of the Church on issues such as marriage.
In the third sub-category there are Provinces that are opposed to the actions of the Episcopal Church but have not taken any steps to define the status of their partnership with TEC. Most of these Provinces have continued to receive financial assistance from the Episcopal Church at national and diocesan levels. However, the number of such provinces is relatively small.
My reflections could end with what I have said above. However, I think I should continue and say that despite all the complexities and the twists and turns on the issue of homosexuality in the Anglican Communion, there are some positive issues emerging out of the current crisis. A little later I shall also mention some of the things that I regard as negative and undesirable at this stage of the crisis in the Anglican Communion.
First of the positive things emerging sharply in the current crisis is the increased awareness and acknowledgement of the place of Africa in world Christianity and in particular, in the Anglican Communion. Some in North America are asking, 'do we need Africa to tell us what to do'? Of course the issue is not about Africa telling the West what to do. But a number of North Americans are stunned, or perhaps embarrassed, that the continent that receives so much negative publicity in Western media (most of the time it's about poverty, corruption and wars) have Church leaders and Christians who can disagree with the West openly! It seems to me, and most of my brothers and sisters in Africa and some in North America would agree, that some people in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada are increasingly becoming Afrophobic and some of its members are wrongfully becoming very frustrated with the Church in Africa. Why this Afrophobia?
Despite all the misleading statements that have been made about Africa by a number of people in key positions in the church in North America, the current crisis in the Anglican Communion is not a contest between Africa and North America. Instead, and I believe, it is largely a contest between obedience to Scripture and faithfulness to the historic faith of the Church on the one hand, and on the other, a desire to accommodate social concerns in society, and using humans (in this case, gay and lesbian people) as a shield to advance the latter view. Indeed in the West, the Church has been divided for years on this and many other issues relating to authority of Scripture and historic faith of the Church. Most people in the African church (the leadership and ordinary members) know that there are cultural differences and these may play a part in the way we express our faith and worship God, and interpret the Scripture. But if it were a mere issue of culture and cultural differences, why are there American Episcopalians and Canadian Anglicans challenging the view of their national church or diocesan bishops on the question of homosexual practice? These are not Africans. Are they?
Second, there is the issue of gospel and culture. There is a growing opinion in the African Church that for years now a sizeable part of the Church in the West (including the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada) has been leaning more and more towards ordering its faith and life by the temperature of what the secular society around it wants. One of the questions that most in Africa would ask is this: 'is the Gospel synonymous with Western culture'? Why is it that some aspects of life are almost being excluded from the redeeming value of the written word (Scripture) and the saving grace of the living word (Jesus Christ)? Why has it become almost normal in much of the Western world now that human failure is sanctioned as a credible response to the call of Jesus to sinners instead of bringing such failure before Christ whose love and grace is all too welcoming to sinners? The Church in Africa is acutely aware, that without degrading or devaluing human dignity, and without 'homophobia', Jesus has left us with a Gospel to proclaim. This Gospel is capable of transforming lives in all cultures. It is a Gospel that can be very unsettling. It can make people very uncomfortable, at least briefly, but eventually enables those involved to make peace with God through Christ. It is a Gospel that makes its own demands upon each and everyone of us, and does so continually. It requires that we abandon things which have found to be dear to us - culturally or socially in order to please God.
Third and related to the issue of gospel and culture is the mission of the church. In Africa, it is not uncommon to find that within one family there are people who belong to different denominations and sometimes different religions. This is reflected in communities and at national level. In this case, I don't think that Africans can be lectured so much about tolerance, religious pluralism, and social diversity. Yet the Church is growing in Africa and much of the Global South. However, this is far from saying that this growth comes cheaply as some may suggest that it is a result of the African supernatural worldview. Whether you are talking about Islam or African traditional religion(s), each is a religion in its own right, indeed a formidable one. However, the followers of each are challenged to respond to the invitation of Christ. They are not asked primarily to come to the Church as an institution per se. These people hear God's voice calling them from very specific life situations into new life in Christ. Inevitably they have to belong to the Body of Christ - the Church.
In some places in Africa, for example Egypt (I could name more countries outside Africa such as Pakistan, Indonesia and so on), Christianity is a minority faith. In my own country, Tanzania, many Christian churches that are growing fast are on the mainland. However, Christianity is a minority faith, for example in the island of Zanzibar, forming less than 1% of the population. The mission of the Church in Zanzibar is as tough as it is in Egypt. During the Primates meeting in Tanzania in February 2007, as host Province we organized a farewell service in the Christ Church Cathedral in the island of Zanzibar, followed by lunch, with the President of Zanzibar as guest of honour. Our guests did not know that the newspapers were full of stories that the Primates of the worldwide Anglican Church, with the leader of the Anglican Communion, the Archbishop of Canterbury had come to officially introduce homosexual practice in Zanzibar. Of course this was inaccurate. Nonetheless, they made a point. The understanding of an average person in or outside the Anglican Church is that the Anglican Church is the same everywhere. To them variations and diversities make little or no difference. But more so, in places like Zanzibar, those who form the majority of the population would ask: 'If what is happening in the Anglican Church is all that Christianity offers, why are you preaching to us to leave Islam and become Christians'? The same public perception about the Anglican Church may be found in other continents too. We therefore have to be aware that when there is an unnecessary big bang in America and Canada, then that's everybody. In other words, decisions and actions by one part of the worldwide family of the Anglican Communion affect us all.
Fourth is the issue of episcopacy in the Church. In the entire Anglican Communion, and more so in Africa, people are asking: 'is a Bishop only a Bishop of the local Diocese which elects him or her to the episcopacy'? Yes to some extent. Indeed in the Anglican tradition, the Bishop tends to be a symbol of unity of the local church. However, in the same Anglican tradition, the Bishop of a local church is also a Bishop for the whole church first within the local jurisdiction, and secondly, in the worldwide church of God, even beyond the Anglican Communion. That is why it is important that he or she is duly consecrated within a church that accepts apostolic succession. If the ministry of a Bishop cannot be accepted in a wider Church as in the case of Gene Robinson, surely this is a challenge to the person concerned. We now end up with questions being raised as to whether or not Gene Robinson should be invited to Lambeth Conference in 2008. To my knowledge, a number of African bishops may not go to Lambeth 2008 not because they discriminate against Gene Robinson, but for his non-acceptability as bishop in the wider Anglican Communion.
Fifth and last on the positive side is the question of Anglican ecclesiology. Most people are asking: what is this thing called the Anglican Communion? Some think of it as a community, a historical 'family' of some kind that is worth belonging to as Anglicans. Perhaps others think it is irrelevant, or it has lived its day, especially in view of the fact that the Anglican Church has historic connections with the Church of England. I am sure there are other views as well. But the two that I have mentioned can be found both in Africa and North America. Yet if one was to make a comparison, except for a few voices that I think are not representative of the Church in Africa, Africa as a whole has not questioned the need to belong to the Anglican Communion or the relevance of it. On the other hand, I think it would be fair to suggest that some (perhaps a few voices as well) in America and Canada had perhaps thought that it was enough to belong to the Anglican Church in Canada or the Episcopal Church in America. Now they realize that this is not the case, particularly if anyone wants to remain in the Anglican Communion. The fact is that all of us have belonged to a larger movement than the church within our borders, and took for granted that we knew why we were in that movement, but it seems we didn't. Perhaps now is the time to try to know, or at least it's the time to make a step towards the journey of knowing better what our obligations are to one another in the Communion.
The issues I have raised above are hardly new. Yet it seems to me that at least the current crisis has enabled us to ask these questions once again, perhaps more sharply than before. Let me now reflect on some of the negative developments in the current crisis. I will give a few examples only, but not by order of importance. First on my list of the negative outcomes or developments is too much politics. This has at least two features. One is evident when a legitimate decision making body passes a resolution at national level that is supposed to restrain people and ease the intensity of the crisis. Soon afterwards, people on the ground, often bishops or clergy, ignore the decision of the national organ, or find a way around the resolution to justify their old or new actions. I am an Anglican (in the respectful sense of the word and not in the manner that some tend to misuse it), and from the job I do, I just know how much rests with the so called the 'autonomy' of the Dioceses. I am well aware of the limitations of the Provincial organs and of the role of the Primate as one among equals even in Africa (though unfortunately, sometimes this may suffer depending on the personality of an individual Primate). I know that in some cases, a decision has to be ratified by the lower organs (the Dioceses) before it can be 'binding'. Nevertheless, on contentious issues such as homosexuality, can't we try a little more wisdom? Can't we refrain from being too determined to cause turmoil under the pretext of 'Diocesan autonomy'? I don't think that it is possible or necessary to avoid collective responsibility and obligations once one has participated in a decision making process that reached a consensus of some kind. Another feature of politics is the tactful use of words and phrases when writing statements. This is not about Africa or the Global South being over-suspicious, or doubting the integrity of those issuing statements. Far from it. But I am not surprised that when responding to the recent statement of the House of Bishops of TEC issued at New Orleans, some Primates and members of the Anglican Consultative Council from the Global South have noted that on the issue of the blessing of same sex unions, the Episcopal Church has merely changed words and phrases, without a change of heart or direction.
The second negative thing is what I refer to as 'money matters', that is, it matters if you have the money, or if you want the money. It seems to me that during the current crisis, money is exchanging hands in a rather worrying manner, especially between Africa and North America. Few people would admit this. But the fact is that money is being used to make people support or disown a position, even if the people involved know that what they support or disown in their Province is not a position of their conviction. This is evident on both sides of the current crisis. But there is another disturbing aspect of the issue of money. If a Province declines from taking money, you hear words close to this: 'you poor creatures in Africa, why don't you just take the money and sort out your problems of poverty and HIV/Aids'. But we ask: if the power of money is taken out, what else constitutes partnership in mission? Is there any connection between faith and money? No one can afford to deny that poverty exists in Africa, or that much genuine help and assistance is needed. Nonetheless, it is important to be mindful also that the God that the African Christians worship is not a poor God. Moreover, in my view, poverty in Africa is not God-given. It is man-made, especially when one takes into account the abundant natural resources available there. It is unfortunate that often times, these are not managed well locally or even in partnership with investors from the West.
But even in the face of poverty, the Church is doing relatively well in its mission. In this regard, I would like to pay tribute to Anglican Christians in Tanzania and Africa as a whole. Though the majority of our people earn very little, yet from the little they have, they are able to offer some financial support towards Diocesan ministries, pay 'salaries' for clergy in parishes, support mission within parishes, and contribute money and physical labour to build churches as well as bungalows for their clergy. And above all, they give tremendous hospitality to visitors! You only have to visit a place in Africa to experience this. My travels with my Primate within the Province of Tanzania for the last seven years have made me more appreciative of our people provincially than ever before! They are struggling so much, yet they are generous. Even those of us who live and work are amazed at the level and the richness of the faith, the commitment, and the dedication of these people. So when bishops seek external assistance it is sometimes for the purpose of easing the pressure and encouraging these self-sacrificing Christians, especially where mission projects are likely to take years to complete. It is these dedicated poor Christians in rural parishes and the slightly better-off in urban churches who have supported the Province of Tanzania to establish a Christian University (St John's University of Tanzania) now offering secular and theological studies in an effort to support the development and transformation of Tanzania, for the sake of all Tanzanians regardless of race, religion, gender or social status. But more important, the contributions that we received from the people of goodwill outside Tanzania did not come with any conditions in the context of the current crisis in the Anglican Communion. Never. Nor did we compromise our integrity to receive any money for the University project. Not a single cent.
Having said that, I would like to pay tribute also to the Episcopal Church (USA) and its incorporated bodies that have supported the mission and ministry of our Church over the years at national and diocesan levels. I believe that this was as a response to God's call to be involved in world (international) mission, and was more than just doing charity. So when we come to a point of declining to take money (perhaps for a while) and asking what else constitutes our partnership besides money, we do so with respect, knowing that we have had good relationships in the past. But now, something is standing between us, and we have to redefine our partnership and common mission afresh, if we can.
Last on this list of unfortunate and negative outcomes is the impact of the process by which decisions are reached on matters relating to the crisis. Most of us would agree that voting is a democratic way of making decisions, so there is nothing wrong with the process itself. However, one wishes that wherever possible we could refrain from voting on contentious issues such as homosexuality, and instead try to reach decisions by consensus even if this method may not bring us faster to places where we would like to be. Whether in the religious sphere or public (secular) domain, experience shows that voting creates winners and losers. Those who lose the vote feel alienated. And if they are not looked after well by those in leadership positions, then the very democratic process becomes a recipe for further problems. It is important for the church in North America to be mindful of its members (lay and ordained) that hold orthodox views and are likely to lose the vote because they are obedient to the traditional teaching of Scripture and do not just follow the demands of the secular world. Those in leadership should avoid pushing such people (clergy and parishes) further to the point where they seem to have no choice but to seek Episcopal oversight from Africa, Asia or South America. I don't think that this solves the problem, but it is happening. Must it continue?
Like in the Episcopal Church, a new structure has just been formed or is in the process of being formed in Canada by those who disagree with their Bishops and feel alienated. Perhaps so far only a small number of parishes have joined the new alternative structure. However, in all sincerity, my feeling is that unless there is a genuine desire on the part of the North American bishops that support homosexual practice and the blessing of same sex unions to address the concerns of those who hold orthodox views on Scripture, there is likely to be further troubles ahead. These troubles will not be comfortable to anyone, so it's better to avoid them.
Finally, friends and fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, let us make no mistake. Despite all the negative publicity that Africa has received over the years and continue to receive (for good or bad purposes), and although some people tend to underplay the impact of colonialism in Africa and post-colonial socio-economic global realities, Africa remains a very strategic place in the emerging new world order - secular and Christian. I trust that whatever solution is sought and emerges in North America or in the entire Anglican Communion, no one will afford to ignore or marginalize the voice of the Church in Africa.
The Rev Canon Dr R. Mwita Akiri is the General Secretary of the Anglican Church of Tanzania & Visiting Scholar, Wycliffe College, University of Toronto, Canada
28 November 2007
The Rev Canon Dr R. Mwita Akiri is the General Secretary of the Anglican Church of Tanzania & Visiting Scholar, Wycliffe College, University of Toronto, Canada
As some of you may know, Africa is a large continent. It has over 50 nation states and covers 30 million square kilometers, with a population of over three quarters of a billion. There are 12 Anglican Provinces in Africa (or national churches, each with a Primate) and the Diocese of Egypt. These form what is known as the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa (CAPA). Though I have had the privilege to serve on one of the CAPA Boards (2002-2006), and to meet all the Primates of CAPA twice in Dar es Salaam (September 2005 and February 2007), I am not a CAPA spokesperson. Equally, though I am a member of the Anglican Consultative Council since 2005, I am not a spokesperson for the Anglican Communion. Therefore the reflections that I want to offer are personal, but I believe that they represent the general position of the Anglican Church of Tanzania and hopefully the Church in Africa.
For many years now, especially in the post-colonial and 'post-missionary' eras, Africa has experienced rapid Church growth. Now it has a majority of world Christians. This alone may not give Africa a unique place in the Anglican Communion, but I am afraid, it is difficult to disregard this fact. Having said this, one must not forget that the Church in Africa is facing formidable missionary challenges. There is a large number of Muslims in Africa and followers of traditional religions. As church planting continues and new parishes and Dioceses are formed, the tasks of strengthening the disciples and enhancing theological education are among the ongoing challenges. There are also socio-economic challenges in areas of education, water and sanitation, health, HIV/Aids and drug abuse- to name a few. Politically, peace and security, enhancement of the democratization process and good governance, as well as the fight against corruption are also high on the list of our challenges. Those of us who live and work in Africa hardly need to be reminded about these and many other challenges, but need to be supported to face them.
It is obvious that Africa has been on the spotlight in the current debate and crisis in the Anglican Communion. On the one hand, there is a sense of hope among some Christians in the West, that they have brothers and sisters in a continent where the Church is doing well in mission, and that Africa may have something to offer to the wider Anglican Communion. On the other hand, there are symptoms of renewed interest in the old stereotypes, with African church leaders and one might say the African Christians being blamed and at times abused or being accused unfairly. Yet Africa is not the originator of the current crisis in the Anglican Communion on the issue of homosexuality. The fact is that the whole issue that has now plunged all of us into a crisis started off badly in North America, with actions and counter-actions taking the center stage. There was little room for people on both sides to hear one another. The level of suspicion is now very high. This is damaging relationships not only in North America but in the entire Anglican Communion.
Africa has been drawn into the crisis because the Church in Africa belongs to the Anglican Communion, and would not be silent when some who share in the familyhood of Anglican Communion act in a manner that threatens the survival of the very family itself and do so under the pretext of 'autonomy' and 'culture'. It has to be recalled that Lambeth 1998 declared that homosexual practice is incompatible with Scripture. Lambeth 1998 also rejected an attempt to legitimize or bless same sex unions or to ordain those involved in same gender relationships. I am aware that the same Resolution 1:10 called on the Church to minister pastorally and sensitively to homosexual people. Within the spirit of Lambeth and in obedience to Scripture and historic faith, the African church hold the view that homosexuality is incompatible with Scripture. A broad consensus and firm position is that homosexuality is a lifestyle which can be surrendered to the transforming Gospel of Jesus Christ. Of course it's up to the individuals concerned to recognize God's love through Christ and accept it. Before a gay or lesbian person accepts that transforming love, the expectation is that he or she (lay or ordained) will remain celibate. Moving from celibacy to homosexual practice and from practice to a homosexual union calling it 'marriage' sanctioned by secular authorities, then seeking a blessing of the union in church, and having a desire for adopting children is what changes the whole issue. These desires and steps only help to confirm that homosexuality is lifestyle now seeking legitimization in church.
There is no doubt that the debate on the issue of homosexuality has been going on in the Anglican Church of Canada and in the Episcopal Church (TEC) long before Lambeth 1998, and some diocesan synods had voted on the issue a number of times. But I think it would be fair to suggest that things changed dramatically from 2002 onwards after the bishop of the Diocese of New Westminster in Canada decided to authorize the blessing of same sex unions. I am aware that he did so after his Synod had voted and passed the motion three times. I will say something a little later on the problem of voting on the issue of homosexuality at diocesan levels and its impact. Though this decision was very alarming and provocative, and was described by some as "schismatic", many in Africa took comfort in the fact that the Canadian Church had not taken a decision on the matter at national level. Put briefly, even after all this, I think one would say that the Anglican Communion was not in deep crisis yet. So what caused it?
In my opinion, the big bang that got the entire Anglican Communion into deeper crisis on a truly international scale was the decision by TEC to give its consent, at national level, to have an openly practising gay priest consecrated as Bishop in 2003. This was done despite the numerous pleas and cautioning given regarding the adverse consequences to the life of the Anglican Communion, not least by the Primates of the entire Communion. This stunned Africa and indeed the Global South. Then everything went into flames. Some Primates and individual Bishops in Africa had started offering Episcopal oversight to parishes that walked out of TEC years back. But I think the number of parishes seeking alternative Episcopal oversight went up significantly after 2003.
I have to stress that as pointed put above, generally speaking, African Church leaders, clergy and lay people (even beyond the Anglican Church) are opposed to homosexual practice, no matter where it takes place. So what I want to outline below is not a diversity of opinion on homosexuality or homosexual practice. It is a diversity of responses or approaches to the actions of the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of New Westminster. I have chosen to describe the categories to which Provinces belong without necessarily mentioning names. However, I will share the approach of my own Province in some detail. There is at least one province that has been urging other CAPA provinces to leave TEC alone. This province would have nothing to do with what is going on in Canada and America. I am not sure whether this position represented the official view of the House of Bishops or the Church in that Province, but I believe that this was the position of the outgoing Primate of that Province. However, this may change following the recent election of a new Primate whose confessional background is widely regarded as conservative, if that description of him is correct. The other 11 Provinces and the Diocese of Egypt are very concerned and are deeply disturbed by what is going on in North America. Nevertheless, even in this second category, there are at least three sub-categories.
In the first sub-category, there are provinces that have accepted invitations to offer alternative Episcopal oversight to parishes in TEC and to a limited extent in Canada. These Provinces would hardly negotiate anything until TEC complies fully with the requests made by Lambeth Commission in the Windsor Report, namely repentance for the consecrating a gay priest as Bishop, and for the consequences of the action, as well as having a moratorium on the blessing of same sex unions, not only at national level, but also in the Dioceses. The provinces in this first sub-category have broken relations with TEC completely and are not in communion with it. It is possible that they would like to see TEC expelled from the Anglican Communion, especially if she fails to comply fully with the Windsor and Dar es Salaam requests. If the expulsion is not possible, they may consider forming an alternative structure other than the Anglican Communion and would like to see the entire Global South belong to it, together with Dioceses and parishes in the new emerging structures in North America. In the meantime, their Primates are not only deeply involved in the ministries in North America, but are also consecrating Americans as Bishops to minister to parishes in America.
A second sub-category among the Provinces that are united against the actions of TEC and some Dioceses in Canada are Provinces that have declared that their relationship with TEC is severely impaired. Such Provinces are also asking for a full compliance by TEC, but are in working terms with it. At least until now, these provinces have not accepted invitations from parishes in America. The Anglican Church of Tanzania is in this category. On the basis of Scripture, all our Bishops oppose homosexual practice and the blessing of same sex unions. However, Tanzania would argue that there should be room for communication with the very people we disagree with, if that would help. Of course some in Africa would challenge us and say that TEC has reached a point of no return and it's a waste of time to try to convince them that the path they have taken is hurting others and threatening the integrity of the Communion. In the same spirit of room for communication, we continue to communicate with churches and parishes within the Episcopal Church that do not accept the ministry of their bishops, as well as those who have walked out of the Episcopal Church. It would have been better to remain and challenge their bishops from within, but it is somehow late now, and our solidarity is with them. We continue to monitor the developments within TEC and Canada. While our relationship and partnership with TEC is severely impaired, the status of our partnership with the Anglican Church of Canada at national level remains largely the same. However, this could change depending on what happens next in the Canadian Church, especially at national level. Yet as far as I am aware, the Province of Tanzania is not in partnership with the Diocese of New Westminster or those Dioceses that condone homosexual practice in Canada.
Despite what I have said above, Tanzania issued a statement in 2005 requesting the Primates of the Anglican Communion to declare North America as a mission field that requires fresh re-evangelization with consent from within but with missionary assistance from other parts of the world, if requested, formally or informally. This would be something different from the ongoing 'incursions'. From what I read and hear incursions are a matter of great concern to the leadership of the Church and some ordinary people in North America. Perhaps a mutually agreed partnership in evangelism that Tanzania proposes may be a better option than incursions. Specifically about TEC, the House of Bishops in Tanzania resolved unanimously, with effect from December 2006, that until there is clear reversal of position on homosexual practice and blessing of same sex unions, Tanzania shall not knowingly request and receive financial or material assistance from the Episcopal (national) Church and its associate organizations as well as from individuals, priests, parishes, bishops and Dioceses that condone homosexual practice in the Episcopal Church. This decision was endorsed later by the Council of the General Synod (known as the Standing Committee) of the Province. One of the reasons for declining to receive assistance from the Episcopal Church is the conviction that money alone cannot constitute partnership in mission. It has to be partnership in mission with values. This is more so if already there is such a huge gulf between us in the understanding of the place of Scripture in matters of faith and Christian life, approach to mission, as well as the historic teaching of the Church on issues such as marriage.
In the third sub-category there are Provinces that are opposed to the actions of the Episcopal Church but have not taken any steps to define the status of their partnership with TEC. Most of these Provinces have continued to receive financial assistance from the Episcopal Church at national and diocesan levels. However, the number of such provinces is relatively small.
My reflections could end with what I have said above. However, I think I should continue and say that despite all the complexities and the twists and turns on the issue of homosexuality in the Anglican Communion, there are some positive issues emerging out of the current crisis. A little later I shall also mention some of the things that I regard as negative and undesirable at this stage of the crisis in the Anglican Communion.
First of the positive things emerging sharply in the current crisis is the increased awareness and acknowledgement of the place of Africa in world Christianity and in particular, in the Anglican Communion. Some in North America are asking, 'do we need Africa to tell us what to do'? Of course the issue is not about Africa telling the West what to do. But a number of North Americans are stunned, or perhaps embarrassed, that the continent that receives so much negative publicity in Western media (most of the time it's about poverty, corruption and wars) have Church leaders and Christians who can disagree with the West openly! It seems to me, and most of my brothers and sisters in Africa and some in North America would agree, that some people in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada are increasingly becoming Afrophobic and some of its members are wrongfully becoming very frustrated with the Church in Africa. Why this Afrophobia?
Despite all the misleading statements that have been made about Africa by a number of people in key positions in the church in North America, the current crisis in the Anglican Communion is not a contest between Africa and North America. Instead, and I believe, it is largely a contest between obedience to Scripture and faithfulness to the historic faith of the Church on the one hand, and on the other, a desire to accommodate social concerns in society, and using humans (in this case, gay and lesbian people) as a shield to advance the latter view. Indeed in the West, the Church has been divided for years on this and many other issues relating to authority of Scripture and historic faith of the Church. Most people in the African church (the leadership and ordinary members) know that there are cultural differences and these may play a part in the way we express our faith and worship God, and interpret the Scripture. But if it were a mere issue of culture and cultural differences, why are there American Episcopalians and Canadian Anglicans challenging the view of their national church or diocesan bishops on the question of homosexual practice? These are not Africans. Are they?
Second, there is the issue of gospel and culture. There is a growing opinion in the African Church that for years now a sizeable part of the Church in the West (including the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada) has been leaning more and more towards ordering its faith and life by the temperature of what the secular society around it wants. One of the questions that most in Africa would ask is this: 'is the Gospel synonymous with Western culture'? Why is it that some aspects of life are almost being excluded from the redeeming value of the written word (Scripture) and the saving grace of the living word (Jesus Christ)? Why has it become almost normal in much of the Western world now that human failure is sanctioned as a credible response to the call of Jesus to sinners instead of bringing such failure before Christ whose love and grace is all too welcoming to sinners? The Church in Africa is acutely aware, that without degrading or devaluing human dignity, and without 'homophobia', Jesus has left us with a Gospel to proclaim. This Gospel is capable of transforming lives in all cultures. It is a Gospel that can be very unsettling. It can make people very uncomfortable, at least briefly, but eventually enables those involved to make peace with God through Christ. It is a Gospel that makes its own demands upon each and everyone of us, and does so continually. It requires that we abandon things which have found to be dear to us - culturally or socially in order to please God.
Third and related to the issue of gospel and culture is the mission of the church. In Africa, it is not uncommon to find that within one family there are people who belong to different denominations and sometimes different religions. This is reflected in communities and at national level. In this case, I don't think that Africans can be lectured so much about tolerance, religious pluralism, and social diversity. Yet the Church is growing in Africa and much of the Global South. However, this is far from saying that this growth comes cheaply as some may suggest that it is a result of the African supernatural worldview. Whether you are talking about Islam or African traditional religion(s), each is a religion in its own right, indeed a formidable one. However, the followers of each are challenged to respond to the invitation of Christ. They are not asked primarily to come to the Church as an institution per se. These people hear God's voice calling them from very specific life situations into new life in Christ. Inevitably they have to belong to the Body of Christ - the Church.
In some places in Africa, for example Egypt (I could name more countries outside Africa such as Pakistan, Indonesia and so on), Christianity is a minority faith. In my own country, Tanzania, many Christian churches that are growing fast are on the mainland. However, Christianity is a minority faith, for example in the island of Zanzibar, forming less than 1% of the population. The mission of the Church in Zanzibar is as tough as it is in Egypt. During the Primates meeting in Tanzania in February 2007, as host Province we organized a farewell service in the Christ Church Cathedral in the island of Zanzibar, followed by lunch, with the President of Zanzibar as guest of honour. Our guests did not know that the newspapers were full of stories that the Primates of the worldwide Anglican Church, with the leader of the Anglican Communion, the Archbishop of Canterbury had come to officially introduce homosexual practice in Zanzibar. Of course this was inaccurate. Nonetheless, they made a point. The understanding of an average person in or outside the Anglican Church is that the Anglican Church is the same everywhere. To them variations and diversities make little or no difference. But more so, in places like Zanzibar, those who form the majority of the population would ask: 'If what is happening in the Anglican Church is all that Christianity offers, why are you preaching to us to leave Islam and become Christians'? The same public perception about the Anglican Church may be found in other continents too. We therefore have to be aware that when there is an unnecessary big bang in America and Canada, then that's everybody. In other words, decisions and actions by one part of the worldwide family of the Anglican Communion affect us all.
Fourth is the issue of episcopacy in the Church. In the entire Anglican Communion, and more so in Africa, people are asking: 'is a Bishop only a Bishop of the local Diocese which elects him or her to the episcopacy'? Yes to some extent. Indeed in the Anglican tradition, the Bishop tends to be a symbol of unity of the local church. However, in the same Anglican tradition, the Bishop of a local church is also a Bishop for the whole church first within the local jurisdiction, and secondly, in the worldwide church of God, even beyond the Anglican Communion. That is why it is important that he or she is duly consecrated within a church that accepts apostolic succession. If the ministry of a Bishop cannot be accepted in a wider Church as in the case of Gene Robinson, surely this is a challenge to the person concerned. We now end up with questions being raised as to whether or not Gene Robinson should be invited to Lambeth Conference in 2008. To my knowledge, a number of African bishops may not go to Lambeth 2008 not because they discriminate against Gene Robinson, but for his non-acceptability as bishop in the wider Anglican Communion.
Fifth and last on the positive side is the question of Anglican ecclesiology. Most people are asking: what is this thing called the Anglican Communion? Some think of it as a community, a historical 'family' of some kind that is worth belonging to as Anglicans. Perhaps others think it is irrelevant, or it has lived its day, especially in view of the fact that the Anglican Church has historic connections with the Church of England. I am sure there are other views as well. But the two that I have mentioned can be found both in Africa and North America. Yet if one was to make a comparison, except for a few voices that I think are not representative of the Church in Africa, Africa as a whole has not questioned the need to belong to the Anglican Communion or the relevance of it. On the other hand, I think it would be fair to suggest that some (perhaps a few voices as well) in America and Canada had perhaps thought that it was enough to belong to the Anglican Church in Canada or the Episcopal Church in America. Now they realize that this is not the case, particularly if anyone wants to remain in the Anglican Communion. The fact is that all of us have belonged to a larger movement than the church within our borders, and took for granted that we knew why we were in that movement, but it seems we didn't. Perhaps now is the time to try to know, or at least it's the time to make a step towards the journey of knowing better what our obligations are to one another in the Communion.
The issues I have raised above are hardly new. Yet it seems to me that at least the current crisis has enabled us to ask these questions once again, perhaps more sharply than before. Let me now reflect on some of the negative developments in the current crisis. I will give a few examples only, but not by order of importance. First on my list of the negative outcomes or developments is too much politics. This has at least two features. One is evident when a legitimate decision making body passes a resolution at national level that is supposed to restrain people and ease the intensity of the crisis. Soon afterwards, people on the ground, often bishops or clergy, ignore the decision of the national organ, or find a way around the resolution to justify their old or new actions. I am an Anglican (in the respectful sense of the word and not in the manner that some tend to misuse it), and from the job I do, I just know how much rests with the so called the 'autonomy' of the Dioceses. I am well aware of the limitations of the Provincial organs and of the role of the Primate as one among equals even in Africa (though unfortunately, sometimes this may suffer depending on the personality of an individual Primate). I know that in some cases, a decision has to be ratified by the lower organs (the Dioceses) before it can be 'binding'. Nevertheless, on contentious issues such as homosexuality, can't we try a little more wisdom? Can't we refrain from being too determined to cause turmoil under the pretext of 'Diocesan autonomy'? I don't think that it is possible or necessary to avoid collective responsibility and obligations once one has participated in a decision making process that reached a consensus of some kind. Another feature of politics is the tactful use of words and phrases when writing statements. This is not about Africa or the Global South being over-suspicious, or doubting the integrity of those issuing statements. Far from it. But I am not surprised that when responding to the recent statement of the House of Bishops of TEC issued at New Orleans, some Primates and members of the Anglican Consultative Council from the Global South have noted that on the issue of the blessing of same sex unions, the Episcopal Church has merely changed words and phrases, without a change of heart or direction.
The second negative thing is what I refer to as 'money matters', that is, it matters if you have the money, or if you want the money. It seems to me that during the current crisis, money is exchanging hands in a rather worrying manner, especially between Africa and North America. Few people would admit this. But the fact is that money is being used to make people support or disown a position, even if the people involved know that what they support or disown in their Province is not a position of their conviction. This is evident on both sides of the current crisis. But there is another disturbing aspect of the issue of money. If a Province declines from taking money, you hear words close to this: 'you poor creatures in Africa, why don't you just take the money and sort out your problems of poverty and HIV/Aids'. But we ask: if the power of money is taken out, what else constitutes partnership in mission? Is there any connection between faith and money? No one can afford to deny that poverty exists in Africa, or that much genuine help and assistance is needed. Nonetheless, it is important to be mindful also that the God that the African Christians worship is not a poor God. Moreover, in my view, poverty in Africa is not God-given. It is man-made, especially when one takes into account the abundant natural resources available there. It is unfortunate that often times, these are not managed well locally or even in partnership with investors from the West.
But even in the face of poverty, the Church is doing relatively well in its mission. In this regard, I would like to pay tribute to Anglican Christians in Tanzania and Africa as a whole. Though the majority of our people earn very little, yet from the little they have, they are able to offer some financial support towards Diocesan ministries, pay 'salaries' for clergy in parishes, support mission within parishes, and contribute money and physical labour to build churches as well as bungalows for their clergy. And above all, they give tremendous hospitality to visitors! You only have to visit a place in Africa to experience this. My travels with my Primate within the Province of Tanzania for the last seven years have made me more appreciative of our people provincially than ever before! They are struggling so much, yet they are generous. Even those of us who live and work are amazed at the level and the richness of the faith, the commitment, and the dedication of these people. So when bishops seek external assistance it is sometimes for the purpose of easing the pressure and encouraging these self-sacrificing Christians, especially where mission projects are likely to take years to complete. It is these dedicated poor Christians in rural parishes and the slightly better-off in urban churches who have supported the Province of Tanzania to establish a Christian University (St John's University of Tanzania) now offering secular and theological studies in an effort to support the development and transformation of Tanzania, for the sake of all Tanzanians regardless of race, religion, gender or social status. But more important, the contributions that we received from the people of goodwill outside Tanzania did not come with any conditions in the context of the current crisis in the Anglican Communion. Never. Nor did we compromise our integrity to receive any money for the University project. Not a single cent.
Having said that, I would like to pay tribute also to the Episcopal Church (USA) and its incorporated bodies that have supported the mission and ministry of our Church over the years at national and diocesan levels. I believe that this was as a response to God's call to be involved in world (international) mission, and was more than just doing charity. So when we come to a point of declining to take money (perhaps for a while) and asking what else constitutes our partnership besides money, we do so with respect, knowing that we have had good relationships in the past. But now, something is standing between us, and we have to redefine our partnership and common mission afresh, if we can.
Last on this list of unfortunate and negative outcomes is the impact of the process by which decisions are reached on matters relating to the crisis. Most of us would agree that voting is a democratic way of making decisions, so there is nothing wrong with the process itself. However, one wishes that wherever possible we could refrain from voting on contentious issues such as homosexuality, and instead try to reach decisions by consensus even if this method may not bring us faster to places where we would like to be. Whether in the religious sphere or public (secular) domain, experience shows that voting creates winners and losers. Those who lose the vote feel alienated. And if they are not looked after well by those in leadership positions, then the very democratic process becomes a recipe for further problems. It is important for the church in North America to be mindful of its members (lay and ordained) that hold orthodox views and are likely to lose the vote because they are obedient to the traditional teaching of Scripture and do not just follow the demands of the secular world. Those in leadership should avoid pushing such people (clergy and parishes) further to the point where they seem to have no choice but to seek Episcopal oversight from Africa, Asia or South America. I don't think that this solves the problem, but it is happening. Must it continue?
Like in the Episcopal Church, a new structure has just been formed or is in the process of being formed in Canada by those who disagree with their Bishops and feel alienated. Perhaps so far only a small number of parishes have joined the new alternative structure. However, in all sincerity, my feeling is that unless there is a genuine desire on the part of the North American bishops that support homosexual practice and the blessing of same sex unions to address the concerns of those who hold orthodox views on Scripture, there is likely to be further troubles ahead. These troubles will not be comfortable to anyone, so it's better to avoid them.
Finally, friends and fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, let us make no mistake. Despite all the negative publicity that Africa has received over the years and continue to receive (for good or bad purposes), and although some people tend to underplay the impact of colonialism in Africa and post-colonial socio-economic global realities, Africa remains a very strategic place in the emerging new world order - secular and Christian. I trust that whatever solution is sought and emerges in North America or in the entire Anglican Communion, no one will afford to ignore or marginalize the voice of the Church in Africa.
The Rev Canon Dr R. Mwita Akiri is the General Secretary of the Anglican Church of Tanzania & Visiting Scholar, Wycliffe College, University of Toronto, Canada
