Well, I guess that it's officially begun... :(

This is incredible, ground-breaking news. It will not be good news to all, but it is important news to all. I would expect a variety of other provinces to follow this example in due course. It is also a very interesting move in terms of the communion chess board. Whither COE at such an impasse? Can it affirm a standard for communion that is, in a sense, higher than Canterbury? On the other hand, since the standard is (at least ostensibly) what it stands for--how could it not?

Steven

So it is now official: The Nigerians are gonna lead the schism.
And somebody remind me when Donatism and Fundamentalism became a part of the "Historic Faith?"

He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future.

The historic faith of the Christian Church--even the Western Christian Church--is confusing, complicated, and populated by varying currents in contingent agreement with one another. Promising to abide by the Historic Faith means abiding by whoever invokes it currently says that the historic faith is. Obvious example--you can't hold the 39 Articles *and* the Historic Faith. There is no way that a good faith reading of Article 22 and its condemnations of relics and Saints can possibly be said to be in accord with the Historic Faith of the Western Church.

In this case, abiding by the Historic Faith means nor more and no less than abiding by Peter & Friends' version and woe betide you if they decide they don't like you--the Historic Faith will change to reflect that...

Well put, Derek. Even the XXXIX Articles of Relgion are subject to interpretation. In 1845 John Henry Newman, in Tract XC, showed that they can be re-interpreted in a way that they are not contrary to the teachings of the Council of Trent.

Unlike Lutheranism and Presbyterianism, Anglicans have never seen themselves as a "confessional" Church. The XXXIX Articles have never had the same standing as the Augsburg Confession and the Westminister Confession, respectively.

This is a really, really bad blow. It is the last thing we need, really. Yet, perhaps it is not as bad as it looks? A good bit of charity, choosing to be free from suspicion and "passionate patience" will go a long way here. God knows we need it.

I am encouraged that ++Williams will be invited to the meeting in Alexandria. I think that the biggest problem that there currently is between the South and the West is what it means to the South to be the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church". Hopefully, this meeting will make it clear. I remain unsure as to whether or not the South is really as evangelical as some would claim or if it is really simply more inclined to particular moral statements found in Scripture (and, for that matter, considered binding on most Christians throughout Church history). What of the Creeds, the Fathers, the Sacraments, etc.? How does the South interpret the Thirty-Nine Articles? If they read it like Newman, that is one thing; if they read it like Paul F. M. Zahl, that is quite another.

Best,
benito!!!

Is it legal/ethical to tinker with the constitution of a church/charity/organisation like that? Are there processes that should be gone through before that is done? Did they? Does it matter anymore?

I mean, they can have a constitution that just says 'bleurgh', for all I care; I just wondered if those at the top can just cross bits out and add what they like without some lengthy semi-democratic process.

Ought this to apply?
from http://www.anglican-nig.org/constitutions.htm

CHAPTER XV
AMENDMENT

71. No formal notice for the amendment, alteration or repeal of, or addition to the Constitution shall be received unless it proceeds out of a resolution of the Episcopal Synod, the General Synod, a Diocesan Synod or the Standing Committee of the General Synod.

72. It shall not be lawful to alter, add to, amend or repeal any of the provisions of this Constitution except it shall have been resolved and approved at a meeting of the Standing committee of the General Synod that the alteration, addition, amendment or repeal be agreed to in the session of the General Synod next ensuing and except it shall, before the session of the General Synod, have received the approval of the Diocesan Synods of at least two-thirds of the Dioceses of the Church of Nigeria. Provided that where the approval of the Diocesan Synods of at least two-thirds of the Dioceses of the Church of Nigeria is not obtained, the proposed amendment may be placed before the General Synod, and if the same shall be passed by at least two-thirds of the members of the General Synod the
proposed amendment shall be deemed to be validly passed.

73. A proposal for the amendment of the constitution shall not be deemed to be passed unless it receives the affirmative vote of a two-thirds (2/3) majority of each House voting at a session of the General Synod.

74. (1) Canons I to XVIII of the Church of Nigeria shall be known as "Canons of the Constitution" and shall not be liable to alteration, amendment or repeal and no new Canon shall be added at any future General Synod unless formal notice of such proposed alteration, amendment, repeal or addition shall have been notified to the Primate at least six months before the date fixed for the opening of the Synod.

(2) Such a notice shall consist of two parts namely:

(a) a statement of the reasons why such amendment is desirable; and

(b) the precise amendment proposed and such notice shall be communicated by the Primate not less than four months before the meeting of the General Synod to all the Diocesan Bishops of the Church of Nigeria for the information of the delegates to represent the Dioceses at the General Synod provided that the Standing Committee may submit a proposal for the amendment of a Canon at any time for the consideration of the General Synod.

(3) A Canon may be amended or added to by a two-thirds majority of each House voting at a session of the General Synod.

The Nigerian changes are not all that extraordinary. Even a moderate church such as the Anglican Church of Australia has seen a need to tidy up the formalities relating to its relationships with the rest of the Anglican Communion. The various diocesan synods are now considering an alteration of the Constitution of the Australian church that was passed General Synod last year with this in mind.

The following is proposed to be deleted:

"6. This Church will remain and be in communion with the Church of England in England and with churches in communion therewith so long as communion is consistent with the Fundamental Declarations contained in this Constitution."

And this is proposed to be substituted:

"6. (1) This Church shall continue in communion with the Church of England in England so long as communion is consistent with the Fundamental Declarations.

(2) Unless otherwise prescribed by canon of General Synod, this Church shall continue in communion with churches in communion with the Church of England in England so long as communion is consistent with the Fundamental Declarations.

(3) The General Synod may make canons:

(a) declaring those churches with which this Church is in communion, or
(b) specifying the conditions for entering into communion with other churches.

(4) The General Synod cannot make a canon referred to in subsection (3) in relation to a church unless communion with the church is, or will be if the conditions specified for entering into communion with the church are complied with, consistent with the Fundamental Declarations.

(5) No canon referred to in subsection (3) shall come into effect unless and until at least three quarters of the diocesan synods of this church including all of the metropolitan dioceses have assented to it by ordinance and all such assents be in force at the same time.

(6) This Church shall continue in communion with:

(c) a church the subject of a declaration referred to in subsection (3)(a), or
(d) a church with which communion has been entered into in accordance with conditions referred to in subsection (3)(b),

so long as communion is consistent with the Fundamental Declarations.

(7) Nothing in this section prevents the bishop of a diocese, or the synod of a diocese, from determining, in accordance with the powers, authorities, duties or functions of the bishop or synod, any matter relating to communion affecting the diocese.

The 'Fundamental Declarations' referred to in the Constitution are these:

CHAPTER I. - FUNDAMENTAL DECLARATIONS

1. The Anglican Church of Australia, being a part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, holds the Christian Faith as professed by the Church of Christ from primitive times and in particular as set forth in the creeds known as the Nicene Creed and the Apostles' Creed.

2. This Church receives all the canonical scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as being the ultimate rule and standard of faith given by inspiration of God and containing all things necessary for salvation.

3. This Church will ever obey the commands of Christ, teach His doctrine, administer His sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion, follow and uphold His discipline and preserve the three orders of bishops, priests and deacons in the sacred ministry.

The constitutional changes have been explained to us as being necessary because it is "far from clear which churches are in communion with the Church of England" and that the Australian church should stand on its own two feet and not rely on a hang over from the colonial past.

It seems to me that the potentially debatable question will be whether another church, including the Church of England, is holding to what we in Australia have called the 'Fundamental Declarations'.

Context and the content of the revision is all here.
There are many member churches of the Anglican Communion whose constitution doesn’t mention Canterbury or the CofE.
There is no Communion wide Canon Law.
But at THIS time and with THESE particular revisions Nigeria is making as clear a statement as possible.
What was clear to all before was that Nigeria was delinquent in regard to its previous constitution and had been since it broke communion with churches in communion with Canterbury. I do not believe our attempt to bring this matter to the courts in Nigeria had any impact (or would have done much had they not changed the constitution!) – Our bid to bring this legal case had more to do with our frustration that nothing had been done by others more able to act than we before.
We lacked real standing in this action.
However for those who see the resolutions of Lambeth Conferences as the source of authority for their actions – those resolutions dealing with Canterbury and its place in the Communion will have to be pushed aside if they wish to push forward with any separatist agenda. Indeed there are resolutions of the ACC and statements from the Primates that would have to be ignored too.
But these are early days. I suspect we will have to wait for the “business meeting” of the Global South before all becomes crystal clear.

Vaya con Dios, Nigeria. (and welcome back, in God's Good Time...)

Perhaps someone can help here: does the Anglican Communion prescribe anything that must be in a church's constitution in order for it to be a member of the Communion?

If not, it's not so much a break-away as half-stepping out the door, I suppose. Still, not exactly sociable of them.

Doesn't the Nigerian insistance on the 1662 prayer book and the 39 articles separate them from many of the self-defined 'orthodox' in the U.S? The 39 articles are hostile to Anglo-Catholicism as I have known it and most of the Evangelical churches in ECUSA have adopted the new prayerbook with enthusiasm.

And - further to dimitri's comment - does their committment to the discipline of the 1662 ordinal mean that they are (maybe accidentally) separating themselves from provinces which ordain women?

No Sir, We are just trying to make the situation clear to our members. We remain very Anglican but will also want all to recognise those basic doctrines which join us together. In Nigeria, women seeking ordination are allowed under the permanent Lay Diaconate Ministry.

The changes in canon above are a lot of sound and fury signifying little (if not nothing). It doesn't change the official roster of the member churches of the Anglican Communion (on its website) one bit, nor obviously could it, not being an action of the communion at large.

It seems to me this is just an attempt to downplay the authority of the ABC within Nigeria at a time when the Primate of the church in Nigeria is calling for 'discipline' or 'suspension' of the Church of England. I expect that at some point we will see a declaration of 'impaired communion' (a canonically meaningless designation, if not exactly totally meaningless) on the part of the Nigerian Primate. For all the noise, none of this seems to display a move to leave the Communion - all the more likely to stay in it and to continue to pressure the C of E.

These changes in canon are interesting, however, in light of the Windsor Report recommendations on the ABC as an Instrument of Unity; c.f. http://www.anglicancommunion.org/windsor2004/section_c/p7.cfm
Just a taste:

"109. The Commission believes therefore that the historic position fo the Archbishopric of Canterbury must not be regarded as a figurehead, but as the central focus of both unity and mission within the Communion. This office has a very significant teaching role. As _the_ significant focus of unity, mission and teaching, the Communion looks to the office of the Archbishop to articulate the mind of the Communion particularly in areas of controversy."

But if you're going to tie yourself so absolutely to 1662 and the Articles - a particular point in the history of the Anglican church - and those are predicated on an all-male priesthood it would seem that you have made a problem for yourself?

The Church of Nigeria has stated at its latest General Synod that it has put off "for now" the ordination of women to the priesthood.

It seems to be as laypeople that it sees "the women folk [making] a fundamental mark" as can be seen from its press release at http://www.anglican-nig.org/General%20Synod/gensyd_onitshasept13A.htm

Perhaps this is an example of what Archbishop Akinola likes to describe as "divine condescension": see http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Peter_Akinola

It is also interesting to note the recent ACC designation of the ABofC as the "focus of unity" and designating the other three as "Instruments of Communion." (Resolution 2 of ACC-13) I've not seen this resolution put into very wide effect, nore received much comment, btw; this in light of Nigeria's decision to set the focus of unity or communion upon the Articles of Religion and the 1662 BCP, etc.

Good riddance, Nigeria, and please take Reform and the Church Society and their sympathisers with you.

Interesting that the US conservatives are so very peeved, isn't it - they don;t want to be small pawns in Akinola's Reformed Fundamentalist Church!