Chris Sugden and Vinay Samuel (June en, ‘Where now for the Anglican Communion’) see the pandemic-enforced postponement of this summer’s GAFCON and Lambeth Conferences as an opportunity to take a fresh approach to Anglican divisions based on the model of the Commonwealth.
It is an interesting proposal. There is a natural affinity as the Communion shares much of the same history and geography. And although generally undervalued, the Commonwealth is a remarkable achievement. There is still a surprising degree of affection for a former colonial power which reflects the fact that, despite undoubted evils, the British Empire was also associated with a strong sense of service and moral purpose, not least in the dismantling of the slave trade. This ethos continues to attract with Rwanda, a former Belgian colony, joining the Commonwealth as recently as 2009.
Praying for the UK in Kenya
This was borne out in my own experience in Nairobi. Before the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, I found to my surprise that Kenyan friends were praying that the UK would remain intact, despite the publicity in the previous year around the British Government’s settlement of a compensation claim for veterans of the MauMau Emergency of the 1950s. So the Commonwealth does look like a natural model for the Anglican Communion as a family of now-independent national and regional Churches with a shared history and a common vision. But there is a problem.
Problematic embodiment
Both have traditionally relied upon a person to embody their values. For the Commonwealth, it is Queen Elizabeth who commands great respect and affection at home and around the world. In the case of the Communion it is the Archbishop of Canterbury, but his standing is increasingly questionable. Earlier this year, the Church of Uganda and the Ugandan press were openly uneasy about his presence at the service inaugurating the new Primate, Archbishop Stephen Kaziimba; and at home, Lambeth Palace increasingly appears to be in thrall to progressive groupthink.
Nick Timothy, Theresa May’s former advisor and a seasoned political commentator, has gone so far as to write: ‘Nobody personifies the madness of our times, and the moral cowardice of our leaders, like the Archbishop of Canterbury’ (Daily Telegraph, 30 June), after Justin Welby invited comparison of figures commemorated in Church of England buildings with Felix Dzerzhinsky, the founder of the Soviet Union’s secret police.
Strange silence
Timothy was writing just before China’s abrogation of the 1997 ‘one country, two systems’ treaty hit the headlines and this could have been an opportunity for the Archbishop of Canterbury to speak out on a manifest injustice about which sane UK opinion is united across political divides, but at the time of writing (2 July) there is a strange silence. Why should this be?
We do not know, but it may be relevant that the Primate of Hong Kong, Paul Kwong, is both Chairman of the Anglican Consultative Council, and an active member of the Chinese Communist Party who has persistently downplayed criticism of the Chinese Politburo’s human rights record on the mass detention of Uighurs and the legislation that has now come into force in Hong Kong.
If silence is simply an oversight, we must hope it is soon corrected. Otherwise many will conclude that the Archbishop of Canterbury’s passion for historic injustice does not stretch as far as current injustice if Anglican institutions might be jeopardised.
In a recent blog (contendinganglican.org/) Professor Stephen Noll has perceptively described the ‘Commonwealth’ model of Chris Sugden and Vinay Samuel as ‘weak tea’ because it fails to address the heart of the problem, which is the breakdown of discipline as it touches core Anglican doctrine. For a spiritual ‘Commonwealth’, there has to be something stronger than the affection that arises from a shared history, but leadership which appears to be focussed on misplaced brand management will never do anything more than sweeten the tea.
