ARCHBISHOP OKOH RESPONDS TO ARCHBISHOP ROWAN's RETIREMENT

From the Church of Nigeria website:

The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Revd and Rt. Hon. Dr. Rowan Williams took over the leadership of the Anglican Communion in 2002 when it was a happy family. Unfortunately, he is leaving behind a Communion in tatters: highly polarized, bitterly factionalized, with issues of revisionist interpretation of the Holy Scriptures and human sexuality as stumbling blocks to oneness, evangelism and mission all around the Anglican world.

It might not have been entirely his own making, but certainly “crucified under Pontius Pilate”. The lowest ebb of this degeneration came in 2008, when there were, so to say, two “Lambeth” Conferences one in the UK, and an alternative one, GAFCON in Jerusalem. The trend continued recently when many Global South Primates decided not to attend the last Primates’ meeting in Dublin, Ireland.

Since Dr. Rowan Williams did not resign in 2008, over the split Lambeth Conference, one would have expected him to stay on in office, and work assiduously to ‘mend the net’ or repair the breach, before bowing out of office. The only attempt, the covenant proposal, was doomed to fail from the start, as “two cannot walk together unless they have agreed”.

For us, the announcement does not present any opportunity for excitement. It is not good news here, until whoever comes as the next leader pulls back the Communion from the edge of total destruction. To this end, we commit our Church, the Church of Nigeria, (Anglican Communion) to serious fasting and prayers that God will do “a new thing”, in the Communion.

Nevertheless, we join others to continue in prayer for Dr. Rowan Williams and his family for a more fruitful endeavour in their post – Canterbury life.

+Nicholas D. Okoh

Archbishop, Metropolitan and Primate of All Nigeria

Don't hold back, Abp. Okoh.  Tell us what you really think.

The Nigerian bishops use the phrase, "two cannot walk together unless they have agreed," time and again to justify their decision to "walk apart" from the churches in the Anglican Communion with whom they do not agree.  Is the quote from the prophet Amos in the KJV?  Not really.  The words that come closest to Abp. Okoh's quote are in the form of a question.

Amos 3:3-8

KJV

Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
 
I first heard of the phrase from Abp Peter Akinola, who said, "The Bible says that two cannot walk together unless they are agreed."  The Bible says no such thing that I can find, therefore it appears that Abp Okoh quotes his predecessor, rather than the Bible, when he uses the words.  The two other translations below wouldn't really make the case for walking apart at all.  Of course, people cannot walk together unless they agree to walk together, but they do not have to agree about everything in order to walk together.  I find the apparent misattribution of the words to the Scriptures annoying in the extreme.  Besides, even the GAFCONites do not agree on everything,

NRSV

Do two walk together
unless they have made an appointment?
 
NIV

Do two walk together
unless they have agreed to do so?

Abp Okoh's claim that the Anglican Communion was "a happy family" back in 2002 when Rowan Williams became Archbishop of Canterbury is absurd.  The beginning of the end of the "happy family" began at least as early as Lambeth 1998.

ON CHECKING THE DRIFT IN THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION

Lionel Deimel struck gold. At least, I think he has with the statement by Bishop John Akao, chair of the Church of Nigeria Theological Resource group, on the original intention of the Anglican Covenant in the Church Times. (Not yet online, but David Virtue posted the statement in its entirety.)

The idea of an Anglican Covenant was suggested by the Global South to check the drift of some members especially in TEC and Canada as well as some other parts of Europe like Germany and Britain in the wake of revisionist agenda manifested radically by the recognition of same -sex relationships by the Church, especially the consecration of two same-sex practitioners as bishops in The Episcopal Church of America.

Aside: Are "same-sex practitioners" members of a new medical specialty of which I've never heard?

The Global South's intention was to "check the drift" in certain churches in the Anglican Communion with the Anglican Covenant. How does one "check the drift" without consequences? Indaba is not what the Global South had in mind.

The bishop has no kind words for the Episcopal Church:

The offending TEC remained defiant and recalcitrant despite series of appeals and resolutions. This attitude of TEC to the entire Communion smacks of arrogance and colonial mentality against the African voice.

Read the quote from Bishop Akao's statement at Lionel's blog as to why the Anglican Covenant is no longer acceptable to the Global South, along with Lionel's commentary.

The original intention of the Anglican Covenant was to force the churches in the Communion into compliance with "the faith handed down", as certain member churches interpreted the faith. Let's not forget that the disciplinary consequences for non-compliance are still present in the final draft of the covenant, admittedly in a softened form, in the objectionable Section 4.