"As church leaders from the Global South gather in Cairo, they should recognise that a personal focus of unity is crucial for the Communion."

Can anyone articulate for me why Bridger and Kings are so convinced of this?

Good question Neil. Does this mean that Protestantism was wrong to focus on doctrine rather than an individual (i.e., the Pope) as a source of unity?

Steven, it doesn't have to be a question of focusing on doctrine rather than persons - as so often, it might help to think in terms of doctrine and persons. Meaning, Christian unity is not just adherence to the same set of propositions - it is belonging to the same people. We symbolise that corporate belonging by singling out individuals to represent it: by ordaining them bishops and priests.

If the bishops and priests then teach or act in a way to effectively deny the corporate belonging they are meant to represent, then it might be right to break from them. That after all is what our break with the Pope was all about. The big debate now is whether American, Canadian and English actions do make such an effective denial.

For what its worth, I don't think they do. Supporting the Third Reich might, denying the divinity of Christ might - supporting faithful same sex unions? Even if that's wrong, I don't see it as wrong enough to break a church.

"the Nigerian decision drives a wedge through the vision and spirit of Windsor and of the Primates' meeting in Dromantine, Northern Ireland."

It seems many forget that Windsor, Drommantine etc are all trying to mend the 'wedge' driven into the communion by the unilateral actions of some Provinces 'acting constitutionally' to defy 1998 Lambeth.

"Specifically, Archbishop Akinola should consider returning to the Windsor process. "

Pity Sirs, He never left it. What the Synod did was to make sure that at the end of the process, if the initial wedge is not removed, the Nigerian Church will not be forced along. And please give us some credits. Abp. Akinola is a leader we are proud of, but over 50 members of the Legal profession were delegates at the synod and worked with others on the amendments.

Steven: Yes, Protestantism was wrong. Anglicanism is about focusing on neither doctrine nor an individual as the focus of unity, but rather on worship.

Thank you Tunde. That is helpful.

Thomas, focusing on worship? Do you mean the Book of Common Prayer and the 39 Articles?
If so, they acknowledge the supremacy of the Scriptures. They are totally clear about their doctrinal foundation in the Scriptures. And it seems to me that that is all the Nigerians are doing, being equally clear.

"It seems many forget that Windsor, Drommantine etc are all trying to mend the 'wedge' driven into the communion by the unilateral actions of some Provinces 'acting constitutionally' to defy 1998 Lambeth."

False. "1998 Lambeth", like ALL the "Lambeths" before it, was purely *advisory* as far as the autonomous Provinces of the AC are concerned. ECUSA didn't "defy" 1998 Lambeth, it merely *declined* it (respectfully---which is a lot more than +Akinola can claim).

The Primate and Metropolitan of All Nigeria, Dr. Peter Akinola, has a giant-sized EGO and claims the right to decide who is IN and who is OUT of the Anglican Communion. Now he defines, by changing the Constitution of the Church in Nigeria, Anglicanism along confessional lines -- acceptance of the Old and New Testament (how about the Apocrypha?), the 1662 Prayer Book and Ordinal and the 39 Articles of Religion. Several Anglican provinces have never followed the 1662 BCP, for example, the Episcopal Church in Scotland (its BCP being derived from the 1637 Laudian Prayer Book) and the Episcopal Church USA, which, in 1789, adopted a Prayer Book closely resembling earlier Prayer Books of 1637 and 1549.

It is high time for the instruments of unity within the Anglican Communion - i.e., the Archbishop of Canterbury, the ACC, the Primates' Meeting, etc. - to put Dr. Akinola in his place and distance themselves from his ego-centric actions.

Neil: of course the Scriptures are the doctrinal foundation. I'm happy with that. It is the great slander of Akinola and his ilk that I and my ilk are not paying attention to the Scriptures, or don't care about them.

This is, simply put, the Big Lie. We may disagree with Akinola and his ilk, and disagree about the correct interpretation of the Scriptures, but we have not decided to disregard them.

But by worship I do not mean taking the BCP as a doctrinal formulary. I mean actual common worship together. It is perhaps symptomatic that when I refer to worship you suppose I must mean the XXXIX Articles. No, I mean "worship".

Oh, they are doing much, much more than that. They are attempting to make their interpretation of Scripture normative. While Anglicanism does uphold the primacy of Scripture, no one interpretation of Scripture has ever been held to be a normative interpretation.

Oh, it's quite clear that the Southern Anglican Convention is rapidly losing any idea of what it is to be Anglican and are quicly becoming something else entirely.

The big lie is that Abp. Akinola is some megalomanic who is bent on taking over the Anglican Communion. All the Nigerians have done is to restate their beliefs in a way that does not compel them to be yoked to groups with contrary beliefs. It in no way compels others to believe as they do nor defines for others their relationship within the communion.

Yes, Dave, it does, if those statements mean they are no longer looking towards Canterbury. That means they, and those who follow them, have moved away from being Anglicans.

It may or may not mean they are moving away from being Anglicans. That point is debatable. But some responses seem to suggest that Nigeria's actions in some way affect every other province's Anglicanism as well. And it seems that those who want to say that Nigera's actions on the one hand make them no longer Anglicans are also saying that Nigeria is redefining Anglicanism for the rest of the Anglican Communion.

I also think most Western Anglicans grossly misjudge the man and his intentions. Many conservatives seem to expect him to ride in on a white horse and rescue them from what they see as apostate leaders, while liberals fear he is plotting to take over the Anglican Communion.

I see him in neither role. All I see is a shepherd doing the best he can to lead and protect his own sheep.

I see a puppet, with strings being pulled by interested forces outside - the benefit to him being the promise of a figurehead status.

It is this status of leadership which makes his stance have relevance outside Nigeria. Should he no longer wish to relate to Canterbury, and should he wish to lead others along the same path, then clearly his stance will have an effect upon world Anglicanism.

But as I have stated before, I do not think that Anglicanism is viable as a united force any longer, and I think that we would benefit from a split.

Merseymike, who would benefit from a split? the broad and 'all inclusive', the straight and narrow or both? Seems we are getting close to the point where we ask "can two walk together except they agree?"

I'd say yes! If one is chained and taken along against his /her will.

Another question may be where does each want to go that the other party is preventing? Allow everyone to come and remain as they were? OR allow everyone to come and seek forgiveness plus a transformation in Christ?

"But as I have stated before, I do not think that Anglicanism is viable as a united force any longer, and I think that we would benefit from a split."--Merseymike

I agree. It's time for the Akinolaites to go. Perhaps in 50 or 100 years they will be spiritually grown up enough to rejoin the Anglican Communion. But their departure does not keep me awake at nights.

Does "belonging to the same people" not also mean a shared fundamental belief? Can we then say that in conscecrating an openly homosexual bishop, devising church sanctioned same sex 'marriages' ceremonies that take place in the church by one group while another group is vehemently opposed, could describe ECUSA and CoC as being the same people as the Nigerian Church and others like them? Or is it left to the Northern church to define the rules of the game, i.e. you're the same with me if you agree to everything I do, but don't ever disagree with me and act on that disagreement. To Akinola and others like him, the bishops and priests of the Northern Church have "taught and acted in a way that effectively denies the corporate belonging they are meant to represent" the fact that there is such disagreement is testament to that. Remember the hullaballo over the ordination of women in the 1980's, the Northern Churches, 'consulted' and then 'merely declined' to heed the voices of the South and others, so is this what was supposed to happen this time around? Good on +Akinola for showing that once bitten, twice shy.

The Windsor report at 49 Section B says, inter alia: "Communion is, in fact, all about mutual relationships. It is expressed by COMMUNITY, EQUALITY, COMMON LIFE, sharing, interdependence and mutual affection and respect. It subsists in visible unity, common confession of the apostolic faith, COMMON BELIEF IN SCRIPTURE and the creeds, common baptism and shared eucharist and a mutually recognized common ministry. Communion means that each church recognises that the other belongs to One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ and shares in the mission of the whole people of God. It involves practising a common liturgical tradition and INTENDING TO LISTEN, SPEAK AND ACT ALONGSIDE ONE ANOTHER in obedience to the gospel. In communion, each church acknowledges and respects the interdependence and autonomy of the other, PUTTING THE NEEDS OF THE GLOBAL FELLOWSHIP BEFORE ITS OWN....This does not mean, of course, that each church must accept every theological opinion or follow every sacramental devotion or liturgical practice, characteristic of the other. Such a distinction, between the ESSENTIALS IN WHICH WE AGREE and the non-essentials which do not inhibit communion, is a vital part of life within the Anglican Communion..." Lets take a moment to look at these words carefully and apply then respectively to the actions of ECUSA, CoC, CoE and +Akinola. Then ask do we have that distinction between the essentials in whcih we agree, do we even agree on what those essentials are?

"Perhaps in 50 or 100 years they will be spiritually grown up enough to rejoin the Anglican Communion" Indeed Kurt, but this, I dare say, applies to ECUSA, CoC and CoE and not the 'Akinolaites' for they are very much grown up, can't say the same about the others. Oh yea, they've been around for a long time, but grown up...I don't know!

I certainly don't share the faith of the fundamentalists of Nigeria or Anglican Extreme.

What these arguments are really about are the failure of the broad-church concept. It was nice while it lasted, but....time for bed.