It’s hard to do more than yawn over the Church of Nigeria’s redefinition of who it will regard itself as being in communion with:
With a careful rewording of her constitution, the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) redefined her relationship with all other Anglican Churches.
All former references to ‘communion with the see of Canterbury’ were deleted and replaced with another provision of communion with all Anglican Churches, Dioceses and Provinces that hold and maintain the ‘Historic Faith, Doctrine, Sacrament and Discipline of the one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church’.
Emphasis was also placed on the 1662 version of the Book of Common Prayer and the historic Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion.
The Constitutional change also allowed the Church to create Convocations and Chaplaincies of like-minded faithful outside Nigeria. This effectively gives legal teeth to the Convocation of Anglican Nigerians in Americas (CANA) formed to give a worshiping refuge to thousands in the USA who no longer feel welcomed to worship in the Liberal churches especially with the recent theological innovations encouraging practices which the Nigerians recognize as sin.
[Hat tip: Thinking Anglicans]
The traditionalist blogosphere is of course a-twitter about this development, even though it’s nothing new. Some traditionalists seem especially excited about speculation that Nigerian archbishop Peter Akinoloa may become the de facto pope of a “realigned” group of “faithful” churches.
The always-insightful Dale Rye comments, however:
… In other words, the only Instrument of Anglican Unity that the [Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion)] recognizes is itself. The fact that a particular church may consider itself Anglican (even under [the Nigerian] definition), and is considered Anglican by the majority of the other provinces and each of the four prior Instruments, no longer matters unless it passes muster in Abuja.
The C of N (AC) here denies—as emphatically as the reappraisers in ECUSA and Canada—that it has any need for the other members of the Body of Christ except insofar as they agree with a particular local interpretation of the Gospel. As Paul predicted in 1 Cor. 12:21, the eye is claiming it has no need for the hand unless it is willing to abandon its distinct nature and agrees to become another eye.
This is emphatically not the rejection of a Christianity bound to Western culture for an allegedly culture-free Christian faith…. because there is no such thing. This is a Christianity operating from a particular African perspective insisting that everyone else must share its perspective. I do not see how that is an improvement on the proponents of a particular Western perspective doing the same. … Western reasserters may welcome the political support of Nigeria and its allies for the moment, but it is clear that Nigeria has no long-term interest in supporting anything other than its own priorities, which are very different than anything native to the West.
The notion of an Anglican Communion was a great idea because it did not insist that uniformity within a centrally directed entity should be a prerequisite to mutual recognition among the diverse members of the Body of Christ. The Nigerian action flatly rejects that rationale. Henceforth, “Anglican” means the Nigerian way or the highway.
(Boldfaced emphasis in original.)
It’s probably tiresome of me to say it yet again: No one is forcing ++Akinola & Co. to share the communion table with us sinful “revisionist” Americans, Canadians, New Zealanders, Australians, etc. If they can’t abide doing so, fine: now can we please get back to work feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc. — and oh by the way, loving God with our whole heart, soul, strength, and mind?
Leave a Reply