| IT WOULD be unwise to dismiss the Sudanese statement and the comment that followed it as solely an African voice.
Archbishop Deng’s suggestion that 500 of the bishops had been present at a meeting of provinces of the Global South on Monday was described by someone who had been there as a huge over-estimate: the number was around 150. But his claim that 17 provinces agreed with the statement was thought extremely likely to be accurate by the Archbishop of South-East Asia, the Most Revd John Chew.
Archbishop Chew has been secretary to the Global South Anglicans since 2003, and is widely respected for the serious theological input that the group has had into matters such as the Covenant and the Anglican catechism that it published two weeks ago.
As a land of ancient civilisations, Asia probably had a longer and wider perspective than Africa, and, because of its presence alongside the other major world religions, did not speak in isolation or in absolute terms, the Archbishop suggested. “We might be saying the same thing, but, because of our context, we say and see it in a different way.
“Sudan came out with the statement for reasons of their own, and felt they had to say something. It was important for them to make that statement, and we appreciate them for that. I don’t think you will find any of the Global South provinces disagreeing with what they say. The way they put it will be coming from Sudan, but the essence — yes.”
Archbishop Chew had not studied the statement, but there was nothing new in it, he suggested: it repeated Windsor and was consistent with the Primates’ statement from Dromantine. “They are not calling for anything new, which would have been unfair. They are saying that if we do not take up what we have committed [ourselves to] seriously, then even in the eyes of the secular world, our credibility is reduced.”
The Global South comprises more than 75 per cent of the total membership of the Communion. It was speaking what the whole Communion should be speaking in its good times, the Archbishop suggested. Although nothing could be solved in the two weeks of the Conference, and even the Covenant would have to undergo the lengthy constitutional process of being returned to the provinces, the dragging out of the issue would be unfair on the Windsor group and the Covenant group, and could not continue.
“We have more priorities in our home provinces than in the Communion: we cannot think of it as the thing more important than the diocese,” he said. “It is taking a big toll on our time. This is the fifth time I have been in the UK on a working trip. I can’t afford that. It isn’t fair. So I hope and don’t think that [the Archbishop of Canterbury’s ] words can be taken in isolation.
“We recognise that there are practical things that cannot be resolved here now, but certain things must be very clear before the next ACC [Anglican Consultative Council] meeting. Whether you like it or not, Canterbury has got to take the lead, and we pray for him and wish him well.”
Archbishop Chew said that the impetus from Sudan had probably come from Archbishop Deng as a new Primate. “He had the confidence to rally the chaps and the importance to make this statement. That, to me, is the freshness that has come from him. It speaks a lot for the quality of the man, and I take my hat off to him.”
Was the Archbishop of Sudan’s intervention on the subject of Anglican divisions helpful? Vote here |
back to News
previous story
|
next story 
%231%23.jpg)
_1_.gif "Nottingham University Distance Learning © site")