A Globe of Witnesses      
AGW Welcome The Witness Magazine

 

The Anglican Communion’s Prophetic Role

by Ethan Flad

Simon E. Chiwanga is the chair of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), the decision-making body of the international Anglican Communion (a worldwide church of over 70 million Christians). He is also Bishop of Mpwapwa, a diocese in the Anglican Church of Tanzania, The city of Mpwapwa is located about 80 kilometers (50 miles) east of Dodoma, the nation’s capital. Bishop Chiwanga was interviewed by The Witness earlier this year at the time of the United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa.

Ethan Flad: What are some of the issues that have come before the ACC during your 18 years of involvement with the Council?

Bishop Simon Chiwanga: The first issue that I remember, as a member of the Council — it came up in 1994, in Nigeria, at ACC-6 — what I enjoyed most was [working on] the definition of "mission." I think that definition of mission that was worked out at ACC-6 has remained since; I don’t think we have improved on it significantly, because it was very comprehensive.

…trying to spell out the nature of Anglicanism and what holds Anglicanism together, as distinct from other confessions which have sort of a central authority. Ours is what is known as "dispersed authority." And yet, it is not fuzzy because it is dispersed.
Another issue [we have] thoroughly discussed is the relationships between what we call the "instruments of unity" in the Anglican Communion. There is the Primates meeting (an annual meeting of the heads of each of the 38 member provinces of the Communion); there is the Lambeth Conference of Bishops, which meets every ten years (bringing together all the bishops of the worldwide church); there is the ACC itself; and then there is the Archbishop of Canterbury in his own personal office, as president of the Communion. So these are the four instruments. Now how do they work together? How do we make effective use of these instruments? Our discussions were very, very informed by the work commissioned by the Lambeth Conference that has become known as the Virginia Report. It deals with what are called these four instruments at great length, trying to spell out the nature of Anglicanism and what holds Anglicanism together, as distinct from other confessions which have sort of a central authority. Ours is what is known as "dispersed authority." And yet, it is not fuzzy because it is dispersed. There are certain unifying factors, referred to sometimes as bonds of unity. These are very crucial. So that study, I think, has been dealt with very, very extensively and intensively by the Council over the years.

Ethan Flad: Do these issues of "authority" relate to some of the critical issues of the church and society raised over the last five to ten years? If we look at issues of peace and justice, do they relate to issues of authority?

Simon Chiwanga: Well, thank you for that. The ACC works in another dimension in an interesting way. There are structured programs at the secretariat. Like for example, communications, the mission program, ecumenical relations program, and of course the central administration of the Communion’s funds are all under the secretary general. But apart from these sort of central structures of the secretariat, the Council works also through what is called networking. And the networks cover a number of the issues you gave as examples. There’s a network for peace and justice, a network for family, a network for youth, a network for refugees, a network for interfaith concerns, a network for development, a network for indigenous peoples. So, there have been quite a few networks that have been encouraged to start. And networks, of course, as the word implies, are made up of people who are fired by interest and concern on a specific issue of their own calling, of their own choice. And therefore they gather people of like mind in other provinces and form a network. To start with they begin by corresponding and using the internet. Most networks have also organized face-to-face meetings, where they have worked together how they would work as a network. The process is that networks do begin, let me say, informally, by interested people, but as the network becomes mature and established, then it seeks recognition by the ACC.

Ethan Flad: Some of the people at the Global Anglican Congress on the Stewardship of Creation have expressed interest in the creation of an Anglican Environmental Network. Would you be supportive of that, and do you see that coming down the road?

Simon Chiwanga: Yes, I would support it. Of course, since 1973, when ACC was formed, a few networks have been formed. So I think it would be useful when a network starts to find out if there is another network that deals with issues similar to theirs, and see how they can either agree on division of responsibilities and concerns to conserve energies, or if they can integrate. But certainly, to my memory, I don’t remember a network that concentrates/focuses on the issues of the environment. So to have such a network, I think, would be quite ideal. But, as I said, it would be useful to look at what other networks deal with, because under development there are also environmental issues, in peace and justice, there are also issues of the environment, as you know. You can’t separate them. So it would be useful to know how tradeoffs could be worked out between networks. And to see how this could be strengthened to be a more organized and structured network.

Ethan Flad: That certainly seems to make a lot of sense. Obviously, issues like HIV/AIDS relate both to development and environment, as do international debt and poverty, and those are issues where the Anglican Peace & Justice Network has made statements and brought those forward. AIDS and debt seem to be two issues that are really before the Communion at this time. What is the Communion’s response?

As part of the preparation to the Lambeth Conference, a kind of questionnaire was sent out to provinces to indicate which issues they would like to receive priority at the Lambeth Conference. And the number one issue that was mentioned by practically every province in the Communion was international debt.
Simon Chiwanga: Well, let me begin with debt. Of course, I would say that the two issues are again inter-linked, interconnected. And that those two issues are part and parcel if not offshoots of poverty as a whole. So poverty, HIV/AIDS and international debt have got to be looked at together. But I want to start with international debt. International debt has featured prominently in the discussions of the Council, but much more prominently at the 1998 Lambeth Conference. As part of the preparation to the Lambeth Conference, a kind of questionnaire was sent out to provinces to indicate which issues they would like to receive priority at the Lambeth Conference. And the number one issue that was mentioned by practically every province in the Communion was international debt. That was kind of the common factor, the common denominator, which every province mentioned as a highest priority. And indeed, it received very high priority at the Lambeth Conference. Very good resolutions came forth, apart from the discussions that went on during the Conference.

Subsequently, after the Lambeth Conference, and the ACC meetings, HIV/AIDS has always received significant attention. Again, not only at the Lambeth Conference, not only the ACC, but even the Primates. In particularly, the Primates, of late, have taken a very, very strong position as to combating HIV/AIDS. A huge conference was held here in South Africa for the African churches (August 2001 in Boksburg) which released a lot of energy and drive in combating this killer disease. So, HIV/AIDS has received highest attention, I think, in almost all of the members of the Communion. [We need to] always link HIV/AIDS with international debt, which [itself] exacerbates poverty. Poverty of course is a major cause of factors and conditions for HIV/AIDS. Especially when we think of girls or women who can’t support themselves, and therefore they have to embark on lifestyles which easily attract infection by HIV/AIDS. But also HIV/AIDS destroys, I would say, the success of the workers, the health of society. And so you can see how it again causes poverty, in that case, when productivity is affected. So poverty, HIV/AIDS, and international debt, have all received quite serious attention.

Ethan Flad: We’ve talked about how the church works and the importance of speaking to the church. What do you think is the role of the church speaking to governments, and the United Nations, and the powers and principalities? When we talk about poverty, AIDS, and debt, many of those institutions are the decision-makers.

That dichotomy between the secular and the holy ought to be fought against. Because it does blindfold church people from following up events in society, getting knowledge which is important to be prophetic. You can’t be a prophet if you don’t know the context in which your prophecy is to be conveyed.
Simon Chiwanga: My approach when it comes to the church’s relationship with institutions like the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), or the World Bank, or such institutions and governments, is that it is two-fold, there are two tiers, two levels. One is that the church, which is here as a prophet, to be prophetic to society, has got to get itself familiar with what goes on in society. That dichotomy between the secular and the holy ought to be fought against. Because it does blindfold church people from following up events in society, getting knowledge which is important to be prophetic. You can’t be a prophet if you don’t know the context in which your prophecy is to be conveyed. And that’s why I said, this [Anglican] Congress on the environment should help participants who will go to the Summit (WSSD) to know what the Summit is about. So that they can truly enter into reasonable, intelligent discussion with the delegates… if they have a chance to speak to various forums, that they’ll speak from an informed position. But not only to be informed at this Congress. The state of affairs in our daily life, church members should not close their eyes against what goes on in society – national, international, and otherwise – to be able to speak on important issues as a prophet in society. So this is the first level: familiarization of what goes on, bridging the gap between the secular and the holy. We are serving one people, the people of God, who are both religious and also living in this world. They’ve got to live to eat for themselves and be healthy and so forth. So it’s a holistic approach. I’m talking about the church’s involvement in society at the first level.

The second level, of course, is the church’s own in-house agenda. In other words, what the church will speak, to say the World Summit or to governments, should be self-exemplified in its own household. If it is speaking against structures of injustice, then it should fight any structures of injustice within the church itself. If it is speaking about participatory development involving people for their own development, then it should be seen within the church itself that it’s really involving the people. If it is speaking about empowering the people for their own development, then the church should be seen to be empowering its own people for programs within the church itself. So that will strengthen the prophetic voice of the church. Therefore those two rules: follow-up the events of the international arena to be able to speak, fearlessly. Speaking the truth in love, but speak the truth. The second level, charity should begin at home: your own house put in order. And therefore, when you point a finger there, they can’t point a finger to your doorstep.

Ethan Flad: I’d like to finish by asking about your own context in Tanzania. Particularly, what are your hopes about how the Summit will affect your home country?

Simon Chiwanga: Well, as far as the summit’s discussions and conclusions or decisions vis-à-vis Tanzania, it is my hope that the developing countries or leaders at the Summit will push for action, progressive action, rather than the dragging of feet. Which is very, very obvious. Take for example the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. Take for example the agreements that were reached in 1992 at Rio [at the UN Conference on Environment and Development, known as the first Earth Summit]. One would have expected that by this time, we’d be talking about one, two, three steps forward. But what is apparent is that those who matter, those who control the resources, as it were, of this world, tend to – some of them, not all – tend to drag their feet. And, actually, you know, you could even say that we are regressing rather than progressing – when we take the Rio 1992 position or the Kyoto Protocol – we are moving backward instead of forward. That’s one thing.

Secondly, I hope also the developing countries, the poor countries, will press for accountability and responsibility by the first world nations when it comes to the environment, which are really responsible for – when we talk about pollution, for example – they are the most responsible for the pollution we are at. If the ozone layer is perforated, if we suffer from the consequences of climate change, then it’s not the poor countries who are to blame, in the first place, the culprits would be countries of the first world – the United States for example. So, it is important that these countries come to see where they can accept responsibility, and not use the skill they have to push for positions which are neither here nor there. Aiming at decisions which equate the developing countries and developed countries at par. Because there are certain decisions which specifically should be taken by the developed countries because of their responsibility for the conditions we are experiencing now. Some of the conditions they impose — by "they" I mean the first world, some first world countries, the powerful nations — against other countries, developing countries, seem to have a backlash. Take for example the whole emphasis on privatization, or the stress on mobilizing internal resources, to begin with, rather than looking for some external assistance. These, on the surface, are OK, and are coincidentally what the countries themselves should be fighting for. But on the other hand, it can be a way by these superpowers to avoid prior responsibility of a fault that they did in the past.

 

Related Links:

  • Simon Chiwanga was profiled in a March 2000 issue of The Witness in an interview titled "An African Revisioning of Leadership" — contact office@thewitness.org to purchase a copy of that issue, which run under the theme, "By Whose Authority?"