Whenever the words “bishops” and “dialogue” appear in the same sentence, it is likely that something fishy is going on. In this case, Western bishops are having conversations with African bishops to convert them to the fashionable foibles of contemporary Western Anglicanism. The hors d’oeuvre is same-sex blessings with, no doubt, the suggestion that there are many paths to God and Jesus isn’t really unique to follow.
Toronto archbishop Colin Johnson was there to lead the neo-colonial charge:
The Consultation of Anglican Bishops in Dialogue
The consultation began at the 2008 Lambeth Conference, when the Anglican Communion was split over issues of same-sex unions and larger questions of Scriptural interpretation.
At this conference Archbishop Colin Johnson of Toronto and the Rev. Canon Dr. Isaac Kawuki Mukasa, a Ugandan-Canadian now on staff with General Synod, began conversations with African bishops. Interested African dioceses started theological correspondence with Canadian counterparts, first on human sexuality and then mission.
The chairman of the GAFCON Primates’ Council, Archbishop Eliud Wabukala, seeing through the ecclesiastical murk, denounced the Canadian funded propaganda exercise as a sham.
Canada figured prominently in the second half of the archbishop’s letter, as he condemned as a sham the Anglican Church of Canada’s Bishops in Consultation initiative. Underwritten by the Canadian church and supported at its last meeting in Coventry in May 2014 by the Archbishop of Canterbury and his Director of Reconciliation, the Rev. Canon David Porter. Begun in 2010 and funded by the Canadian Church, the gatherings have brought together Canadian, American and African bishops to discuss the divisions within the church, with an eye towards achieving institutional unity while permitting a degree of latitude of doctrinal positions on issues ranging from sexual ethics, Christology, universalism and soteriology.
Archbishop Wabukala wrote: “For instance, the ‘Bishops in Dialogue’ group after their Coventry meeting earlier this year claimed that we must maintain visible unity despite everything because ‘now we see through a glass, darkly’ (1 Corinthians 13:12). In other words, things will only become clear in heaven. This is a bad mistake. It is true that there is much about our future state that we do not yet understand, but God has given us the inspired Scriptures as a lamp to our feet and a light to our path (Ps.119:105). Our future hope cannot be turned into an excuse for compromise or silence when Scripture is clear. For Anglicans the collegial mind of the Communion on sexuality and Scripture remains the orthodox position as strongly reaffirmed by the 1998 Lambeth Conference which continues to call us to obedience and pastoral responsibility. Dialogue is no substitute for doctrine.”
Ironically, as the Anglican Church of Canada’s denunciation of the Doctrine of Discovery escalates in righteous vehemence, so does its attempt to impose Anglican Western values – none of which have much to do with Christianity – on African Anglicans.
Ironic indeed.
As I have stated in previous submissions, the ACoC and the TEC are no longer Christian as they reject both the authority of Scripture and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. Having a purple shirt and a white collar does not make a bishop as apostates can wear the same. Tragically that is what most so-called bishops within the ACoC and the TEC have proven themselves to be. Doing so they mislead many in the pews and they will definitely face the judgement in the last day.
David – can you clarify your last paragraph? It seems that you are suggesting that Christians must support the Doctrine of Discovery. I’m not familiar with this doctrine so I looked it up.
From what I read, the general gist is that when Europeans arrived in America, they had rights to it. The cultures and land claims of the aboriginal peoples were considered meaningless because they were not European nor Christian. If this understanding is correct, please enlighten me as to why this doctrine is “Christian” and not racist?
The Doctrine of Discovery is largely irrelevant for the ACoC; that is why they take such satisfaction in denouncing it. In the 2010 general synod someone stood up and protested that the building that the meeting was taking place in was situated on land that rightfully belonged to Native Americans. Maybe it did, but the church had no means to restore it (the meeting was in a university) to its purported rightful owners.
In a sense – and this was the point of the last paragraph – the ACoC is still engaged in intellectual colonialism by attempting to impose its views on African Anglicans. And the Doctrine of Discovery is colonialism.
Of course, if the church you belong to wants its disapproval of the Doctrine of Discovery to be taken at all seriously, it could make a practical start at reparation by giving away all its buildings to the First Nations.
Thanks for the clarification. I had originally thought that you were promoting the doctrine.
However, I disagree with you that it is largely irrelevant. For those in western Canada, it is always in the news. Don Iveson, the mayor of Edmonton, starts every speech in Edmonton with an acknowledgement that they are meeting on Treaty 6 land. I think Nenshi in Calgary often does the same. By doing this, neither are suggesting that their city is given back to the original inhabitants. Rather, it’s to remind people of their collective past.
With respect to the context in Africa, perhaps you are correct. Or, perhaps it’s just a political effort to stop more GAFCON signatories from reconciling with the TEC and ACoC.
Is there a list of which African Bishops are participating in this? Perhaps I am being too cynical but I would not be surprised to find out that it would be entirely and exclusively those from places like South Africa which are already in line with AcoC and TEc. In which case this is nothing more than propaganda in that it is an attempt to portray reconciliation that is not happening, or in other words it’s all just another big lie.
The article states that participating Bishops were from South Africa, West Africa, Tanzania, Burundi and Central Africa. Three of the provinces – Tanzania, West Africa and Central Africa – under their former primates had taken part in the formation of the GAFCON movement, but following the election of new archbishops had moved closer to the Episcopal Church.
Another link shows the following African Bishops involved…
The Rt. Rev. Johannes Angela—Diocese of Bondo, Kenya
The Most Rev. Albert Chama—Primate of the Province of Central Africa, Zambia
The Most Rev. Jacob Chimeledya—Primate of the Province of Tanzania, Tanzania
The Rt. Rev. Garth Counsell—Diocese of Cape Town, South Africa
The Most Rev. Josiah Idowu-Fearon—Diocese of Kaduna, Nigeria
The Rt. Rev. Julius Kalu—Diocese of Mombasa, Kenya
The Rt. Rev. Evans Mukasa Kisekka—Diocese of Luwero, Uganda
The Rt. Rev. Cyril Kobina Ben Smith—Diocese of Mampong, Ghana
The Rt. Rev. Sixbert Macumi—Diocese of Buye, Burundi
The Most Rev. Bernard Ntahoturi—Primate of the Province of Burundi, Burundi
The Rt. Rev. Anthony Poggo—Diocese of Kajo Keji, South Sudan
The Most Rev. Daniel Sarfo—Primate of the Province of West Africa, Ghana
The Rt. Rev. Mensha Torto—Diocese of Accra, Ghana
The Rt. Rev. Joseph Wasonga—Diocese of Maseno West, Kenya
The Rt. Rev. Joel Waweru—Diocese of Nairobi, Kenya
Source:http://www.anglicanjournal.com/articles/coventry-meeting-providential#sthash.T2XYTx9t.dpuf