"Because a diocese in accordance with the Constitution of the Church... forms an integral part of the Church..., and therefore any act purporting to withdraw a diocese is unconstitutional and uncanonical as this would alter the very structure and constitution of the Province."

Quite so with relevance to recent discussion, and rather different from Rowan Williams's recent viewpoint.

And this is for TEC, for the near future:

"by notice of their letters had severed relationship, in their own private capacity, with the Province... and were no longer bishops of the Church of the Province..., from the dates on when the letters were written.

We have therefore declared that the Dioceses of... are with immediate effect vacant."

Province deposes bishops. How does this square with Abp Rowan's ecclesiology as expressed in his letter to Bp Howe?

It's very interesting. Though a 'Province' is, to me at least, merely an administrative entity, you still can't just "withdraw" against the canons by which that entity is set up. Yet there is something about all this that reveals a different attitude towards institutional authorty. The West long ago lost faith in the traditional power structures. We look askance at insitutional authority, especially that of the Church because we've been shown that such institutions don't deserve trust. I don't think non-Western societies have been through that loss of faith, and still have the respect and simple acceptance of authority that would have been normal here too a century or so ago. Not saying one attitude is superior to or more "advanced" than the other, just different, and it informs how we deal with issues. "They" have no problem, or at least less of a problem as a rule, with the idea of the Primates having a lot of power, we recoil from what we see as pseudopopes and power grabbers. It is even possible that 'powerhungry' doesn't have nearly as negative a connotation as it does for us. Now societies are not uniform, but there are general attitudes and underestandings of the way the world wags that more or less permeate any society, I think, and I don't think the GS is nearly as mistrusting of centralized authority as we are and is more accepting of and respecting of traditional societal power structures, like clergy, for instance. That might mean that our suspicion of what we see as the power lust of certain primates is meaningless to them, or perhaps seen as a good thing : "finally, someone is taking control!" Just musing.

Ford

They are not unreasonable musings.

Some commentary about Iraq is that Hussein might have been a thug, but at least he kept all the other thugs under control.

Where the rule of law has been rent asunder for centuries, souls rely on a powerful leader to keep things under control.

Some souls like it that way because it gives them a sense of "divinity", a bit like being a little pharaoh in their little realm, along with their little priests to justify their "divine" appointment and authority.

Tyrants never relinquish power willingly, and don't mind instability in their societies because that way they can continue to "lord" it over the unruly minions. They often deliberately do divide and conquer to keep it that way, or target one group for intimidation and use that as an example of what will be done to others if they don't behave.

A bit like what some are trying to do to TEC, don't you think?

Cheryl,
Some [eople like it because it gives them comfort and security. For instance, while I believe NP's heros are power hungry, I don't think NP is. I think what is most important for him is there be a clearly seen law that all follow. This would, in his eyes, bring about lasting concord and great growth to the Gospel. For him the law we must obey is clear, and clearly written. If the law is subtle or nuanced, then he is not comfortable. If someone disagrees with his understandiong of the law, one must give way, since one of them ust be wrong and having both of them respected means the law isn't clear. The suggestion that Christianity is about freedom from law is anathema, since freedom from law is anarchy. Thus, you can't expect him ever to acknowledge that putting all authority in Scripture is not Divinely mandated, because that means his clear source for the law he finds so comforting is suspect. You can't argue for tolerance of difference, since that is to weaken the law. You can't say we are no longer under the law, since he can't understand how one can live a Godly life without law. But he isn't power hungry. He might be a bully, and a lot of other things, but it's not power he wants, it's surety.

Let's try and limit comments to the topic of Zimbabwe shall we?