Wednesday, 4 October 2017

Comments

I fail to see why Mr Welby has been "taken aback" by the hatred directed to the admirable Bishop Michael Curry who prayed for the Las Vegas murder victims. Does he not realise that, to evangelical Christians, the massacre of innocent people is less horrific than a same-sex couple marrying in a Scottish or US church?

Posted by: FrDavidH on Wednesday, 4 October 2017 at 9:13am BST

The Briefing is worth a visit. Sobering.

Posted by: crs on Wednesday, 4 October 2017 at 11:22am BST

Time for questions in Parliament.

When will the established church stop denying the sacrament of marriage to English couples who wish to be married?

Posted by: Jeremy on Wednesday, 4 October 2017 at 12:02pm BST

Judge not lest ye be judged

If only the Primates understood the Bible.

Posted by: Kate on Wednesday, 4 October 2017 at 12:58pm BST

I second the comment by crs. The video is well worth the time it takes to watch it.

Posted by: Simon Sarmiento on Wednesday, 4 October 2017 at 1:03pm BST

The briefing struck me in two ways.
Firstly, the Primates just seem to lack 'grace'. There is little joy, little life, and little sense that this is an 'extraordinary' gathering. I was a BBC religion journalist, briefly, in the 1980s. Archbishop Runcie would have handled such a briefing with charm and grace. Very sadly it just isn't there.

Secondly, this stuff about a 'tear in the fabric of the communion' is just very old. The conservatives said all that about 12 years ago. The differing views are not going to change. The differing views are irreconcilable. So either you work together with that tension - a tension that occurs in other areas of the Communion's life - or you go somewhere else.

What you can't do - and I think the Primates meeting has now shown this - is pretend you belong to the Anglican Communion but have no respect for the Instruments of Communion. So the 'Anglican' Church in North America is not actually Anglican. And it should be clear to all from this briefing that they never will be as they are. They will, of course, always be welcome back.

Posted by: Andrew Godsall on Wednesday, 4 October 2017 at 2:21pm BST

Good response by +Welby on the criticism about +Michael leading the prayer for Las Vegas.

It is very revealing that In the midst of horrific anguish, ACNA's priority is their petty grievance. It would be very difficult to be in communion with that version of the gospel.

SEC, I've got my fiddle warmed up on the naughty step, waiting for you to join us and start the ceilidh.

Posted by: Cynthia on Wednesday, 4 October 2017 at 5:11pm BST

'This afternoon (Tuesday), the Revd Canon Andrew Gross, Canon for Communications and Media Relations for the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), speaking on behalf of Gafcon, said that the decision to invite Michael Curry to lead the congregation in prayer at the Evensong service “put the Gafcon primates in a difficult spot.” Speaking at a press conference in a hotel near Canterbury Cathedral, he said that they were “forced to look like they are walking together when they are not walking together.”'

Can someone explain to me what the problem is here? Is it a problem with Michael Curry in particular, or because he represents the USA church? Surely the discipline ECUSA is under doesn't prevent its leader leading in prayer for a terrible event in his own country?

Posted by: Janet Fife on Wednesday, 4 October 2017 at 5:48pm BST

It may be that in the days of Lord Runcie, the Church of England still mattered so they had competent representatives. There was still room for "reverent agnosticism." The current ABC seems to be a product of the Alpha courses. He refuses to say what he really feels about marriage equality. But right after Runcie, they got Carey, who covered up child abuse. Max Weber may be right after all that the world is now thoroughly disenchanted. Whatever remains of enchantment is postmodern/personalized. Individuals make things up as they go along, such as funerals, whereas the institution seems irrelevant.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Posted by: Gary Paul Gilbert on Wednesday, 4 October 2017 at 9:10pm BST

That briefing video was painful to watch, both for the content and for the awkwardness of the presentation. Surely they could do better than this.

Posted by: Flora Alexander on Wednesday, 4 October 2017 at 9:25pm BST

"is pretend you belong to the Anglican Communion but have no respect for the Instruments of Communion." And who, some years ago, did not follow the warnings of the instruments who warned that the 'sacramental unity of the church' would be "ruptured at the deepest level?" It was ECUSA. Just sayin'.

Posted by: William (Bill) Paul on Wednesday, 4 October 2017 at 10:19pm BST

Possibly meaning different things in saying them, I think most people both of and beyond the church would react to Canon Andrew Gross with just two words: “Jesus Christ!”

Posted by: ExRevd on Thursday, 5 October 2017 at 12:43am BST

Watched the 36 minute press briefing. There is half an hour of my life I won't get back ( :

Bit of a one sided show, a kind of management spin to solicit sadness, shining the light in one direction and away from another in a couple of instances.

At about 7:12 + in, Archbishop Welby, in response to a question about a particular situation, notes you can't have a conversation with only one side in the room. Wow, that is irony!

In any event, for the commitment of the Scottish Episcopal Church to their synodical process we give you thanks O Lord.

From Primates' gatherings as a quasi-curia, good Lord deliver us.

Posted by: Rod Gillis on Thursday, 5 October 2017 at 2:00am BST

"...or you go somewhere else."

This is of course a liberal English sentiment.

For the AC en gros, there is no sentiment to leave. I was in Singapore a year ago and they are not in Gafcon but the GS. They view the CofE as struggling and wish it well. They assume it may decide to break up and if so, the role of the ABC will change. That saddens them but it does not affect their sense of existing in a Communion that is world-wide and has a shared history.

Just so that you are not misled, at this juncture the GS and Gafcon actually agree.

One can see in the briefing that the ABC also gets that. The AB of Australia spoke of a "common doctrine" held by Anglicans worldwide, and he is no conservative.

Those who want the CofE to be a national church and no more need to spend less time conjecturing about who is leaving what and more time insisting that the ABC cease and desist in the roles the AC has given him. That is at least a coherent goal and entails no grand statements about the status of the AC beyond the borders of England.

Posted by: crs on Thursday, 5 October 2017 at 8:33am BST

@ crs, 5 October at 8:33am.

Philip Freier is Archbishop of Melbourne and *Primate of Australia*. One could be Primate without being an archbishop. And being Primate is not the same as being an archbishop. It sounds like a fine distinction, but in terms of Australian Anglican polity it’s an important one to bear in mind.

Posted by: Victoriana on Thursday, 5 October 2017 at 1:39pm BST

Victoriana at 1:39.

Thank you for the correction.

Please refer to the Archbishop as also Primate in my comment.

Posted by: crs on Thursday, 5 October 2017 at 3:22pm BST

'Does he not realise that, to evangelical Christians, the massacre of innocent people is less horrific than a same-sex couple marrying in a Scottish or US church?'

I'm so sick and tired of these slanderous generalizations from FrDavidH about evangelical Christians.

Posted by: Tim Chesterton on Thursday, 5 October 2017 at 7:04pm BST

Bishop Michael Curry is criticised by ACNA for praying for massacre victims. And I am being 'slanderous'?!

Posted by: FrDavidH on Friday, 6 October 2017 at 8:54am BST

Christopher I have no idea if it's a liberal English sentiment or not and I don't see what it matters. All I know is that the Anglican Communion isn't a pair of trousers and so can't 'tear' or be sewed back together again. So this talk about 'tear in the fabric' is sentimental nonsense. The Anglican Communion is simply a group of people who, surprise surprise, don't agree about everything. So there are options. One is that you find mediation to help you get to common ground. (And surprise surprise again, that's what's now going to happen in South Carolina). Or you agree that you can't go on living together. Unless you can think of other options....... ??

Posted by: Andrew Godsall on Friday, 6 October 2017 at 9:01am BST

'Does he not realise that, to evangelical Christians, the massacre of innocent people is less horrific than a same-sex couple marrying in a Scottish or US church?'

I'm so sick and tired of these slanderous generalizations from FrDavidH about evangelical Christians.

Posted by: Tim Chesterton on Thursday, 5 October 2017 at 7:

My problem is, that I greatly fear that this accusation is in fact, true. As a gay person, it has a terrible effect on me. I don't feel Tim, or anyone has addressed it, let alone refuted it.

But Evangelicals are not alone in this terrible regard -- oh no. Even 'liberals' have only began to improve, as far as I am concerned in recent years -- check the date of Civil Partnerships, then marriage equality. Check I was a criminal in the eyes of the law up until 1967.

We have been waiting a very long time -- -- a lifetime ....

Posted by: Laurie Roberts on Friday, 6 October 2017 at 12:43pm BST

'Bishop Michael Curry is criticised by ACNA for praying for massacre victims. And I am being 'slanderous'?!'

Firstly, ACNA is not an exclusively evangelical organisation. Conservative Anglo-Catholics have been part of it from the start. So replying to a news item about ACNA with a blanket slur against evangelicals is not appropriate.

Second, there are many, many evangelicals with conservative views about homosexuality who would never claim that the massacre of innocent people is less horrific than a same-sex couple marrying.

Third, as several people on this site keep trying to remind you, evangelicalism is not monolithic in its views on homosexuality.

Fourth, lets remind ourselves that the largest block of Christians around the world who disapprove of same-sex couples getting married are not in fact evangelical, but Roman Catholic and Orthodox.

Fifth, to justify your own slander of all evangelicals by responding with 'But they did it first, Mum!' reminds me of what my Mum used to say in my days as a little lad in inner-city Leicester: 'Two wrongs don't make a right'.

Posted by: Tim Chesterton on Friday, 6 October 2017 at 3:26pm BST

'I don't feel Tim, or anyone has addressed it, let alone refuted it.'

Laurie, even in the days when I was far more conservative than I am today I would never have said that the massacre of innocent people was less horrific than a same-sex couple getting married (and that has certainly not been the case since I attended my daughter's same-sex wedding).

And there are many, many evangelicals like me (in fact, some of them are much more liberal than me).

http://www.acceptingevangelicals.org

https://www.facebook.com/ProgressiveEvangelical/

Posted by: Tim Chesterton on Friday, 6 October 2017 at 3:40pm BST

I'll fix this:

"Does he not realise that, to [omit: evangelical Christians] [replace with: ACNA and GAFCON] , the massacre of innocent people is less horrific than a same-sex couple marrying in a Scottish or US church?

There. Fixed. No need to paint all evangelicals with the same brush, simply hold accountable those who actually wrote the statement and subscribe to the organizations it represents.

Posted by: Cynthia on Friday, 6 October 2017 at 4:33pm BST

"The Anglican Communion is simply a group of people who, surprise surprise, don't agree about everything."

Facile.

The Anglican Communion is a communion. It doesn't have to "agree about everything" whatever in the world that means. It can agree what about constitutes communion, and what threatens it, and it can and does.

"that's what's now going to happen in South Carolina" -- what?

Posted by: christopher seitz on Friday, 6 October 2017 at 4:55pm BST

"The Anglican Communion is a communion. It doesn't have to "agree about everything" whatever in the world that means. It can agree what about constitutes communion, and what threatens it, and it can and does."

Nonsense. What is a 'communion'? it's a group of people in relationship. That's it. Which is not to say it is unimportant. But don't make it in to some heavenly body.

It clearly does NOT agree about what constitutes communion etc.....

Posted by: Andrew Godsall on Friday, 6 October 2017 at 6:21pm BST

When it comes to the Anglican Communion the reality is both simpler and more complex. The simple part is that there is no "it" to the Anglican Communion, no single entity to which one can point, but instead a group of churches or provinces sharing a common evolutionary history eventually traced back to the See of Canterbury, and representative membership in a Consultative Council, a Conference, and a Meeting. So to say that "the Anglican Communion" has agency in a moral, institutional, or doctrinal sense is to attribute to "it" rather more than can be substantiated.

Some would like to see that changed. The Windsor and Covenant process was one significant effort to reify the otherwise fictive "it." But as "it" stands, Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion remains a de facto and de jure collection of essentially independent entities only sharing communion to the extent the individual bodies choose. It is best to speak of the actions of those bodies (and coalitions of bodies such as GAFCON and ACNA) and the actions of the ABC, Lambeth Conference, ACC, and Primates Meeting rather than to speak of any actions by "the Anglican Communion." All of these bodies can speak for themselves; none of the speak for the Communion as a whole.

Posted by: Tobias Haller on Friday, 6 October 2017 at 9:19pm BST

"But don't make it in to some heavenly body" and "The Anglican Communion is simply a group of people who, surprise surprise, don't agree about everything" are equally fatuous statements. No one has said anything in this vein.

I agree with Haller that given recent debates the Anglican Communion is a reality under negotiation. See my first comment to this point. What it will end up becoming and which bodies will constitute it we cannot now know. It has always been a work in progress.

It could also be the case that those in favor of a national independent church and an association of those who agree could end up calling themselves an "Anglican Communion." Reading the comments here there seem to be two views amongst "progressives" on the matter. One wants the Church of England to pay attention to its local context. The other imagines a federation of independent national churches whose diversities are exciting and to be embraced. Whether either of these is a Communion in the sense of shared eucharistic life is unclear.


Posted by: crs on Saturday, 7 October 2017 at 8:02am BST

Fr Haller

At the end of the day a tension exists between an ABC in a national church and an ABC with a role given to him, or claimed by him, in a worldwide Anglican Communion. This has been finessed. But it may prove unworkable or is in fact unworkable. The national church pressure is considerable and it includes the general english populace, and parliament, in a way without analogy in most of the AC provinces.

An Anglican Communion could evolve with his role differently conceived. I have argued that those in the CofE who resent this positioning of his role should pay attention to that goal and not to theories about what an AC is or isn't. If the ABC had no role of gathering bishops to Lambeth; if he did not chair ACC meetings, or had the role of calling Primates Meetings, then the Communion would be free to think about its identity on other terms.

The irony is that those who want the focus of the ABC to be on the CofE exclusively have only him to turn to for a different CofE and AC both.

The AC would not disappear as a result. It would take different form/s.

One has the distinct sense that the role of the ABC in the Communion is a deeply ambivalent one. Historically the CofE claimed to be the Catholic Church resident that See. The spread of that distinctive catholicism into other regions is an historical fact. Soon the number of Roman Catholics in England will outnumber those in the Church of England. Do the international Primates and Provinces look to the ABC as convener of Communion affairs based upon a distinctive historical charism, rooted in Canterbury and warranting "sacred monarchial" oversight? Or is that now all so much lost-in-the-mist pastness? Is the role of Canterbury simple expedience, given no contending alternative model? Is the Church of England something a 16th century defender of its Catholicity would now recognise in respect of monarch and parliament and modern english public?


Posted by: crs on Saturday, 7 October 2017 at 9:41am BST

Christopher I'm afraid we disagree. But never mind.
I think Beth Routledge has it absolutely right in her article:

"The Anglican Communion is not an autocracy lashed together by rules and regulations, with cross-provincial laws to be followed and punishments to be handed out to transgressors . The Anglican Communion is a fellowship, held together by bonds of affection and a shared history and an understanding that even the best of friends do not always agree with one another."

Amen to that. Church only exists for two reasons. One is to help people worship God through Jesus Christ. The other is to help people love each other. The rest is just padding.

And Christopher do check out what the Primates said about ACNA. It matches what I have said all along. And do check the dates for the mediation in South Carolina. And have a lovely weekend!

Posted by: Andrew Godsall on Saturday, 7 October 2017 at 9:46am BST

If the answer to these questions is No, Probably Not, or Who Cares, then why does the ABC have any role at all? Does he assert it or have others asked for it, or what is the combination? If the role is solely one of expedience or "well, this is what has transpired" how ephemeral is that? My hunch is that the Bishops and Archbishops/ Primates look to the ABC for reasons of historical catholicity. If that claim is not theologically valid or is effectively unrecognised within the CofE itself--perhaps this will be tested when the present monarch ends her reign--then the role of the ABC becomes very unclear beyond simple political entrenchment.

Posted by: crs on Saturday, 7 October 2017 at 9:53am BST

The Anglican Communion has historically had significant diversity in beliefs, practice, churchmanship and many other areas between and within its member Churches. The recent attempts to impose uniformity of belief where it does not exist are an historical aberration and ride roughshod over the expressed desires of many provinces not to endorse the idea of an Anglican Covenant that would allow for disciplinary measures.

Posted by: Jo on Saturday, 7 October 2017 at 11:08am BST

Dear Jo, tell it to the ABC!

Tell him to quit calling the Primates together.

Quit doing things like asking the Primates to agree consequences for the SEC and TEC.

Cease and desist the expense of Lambeth Conference and indeed the "office of Bishop" altogether.

Call off the silly notion of an apostolic succession of Bishops and any significant Canterbury role at all.

These are all unnecessary for an independent association of diversity. Costly and eccentric and unnecessary.

Chief of the culprits is the ABC himself. Let him tend to the national church and the english people grosso modo. Let him take turns with lay administrators. He is the one extending this understanding just by having the central role--Archbishop of Canterbury--that makes the instruments meaningful in any sense anyway. People pull down historical reminders of a past age all the time. Have at it. It would be fully consistent with an association of independent churches doing as diversity demands.


Posted by: crs on Saturday, 7 October 2017 at 2:14pm BST

FWIW, I think the current ABC has moved in the direction of downplaying a central role for himself and his office. He has made it clear that the Primnates' Meeting and Lambeth Conferences are not governing bodies, but opportunities for fellowship between the holders of the respective offices of Bishop and Primate. He has as recently as this week admitted that neither he nor the Primates as a body have any right to tell the Anglican Consultative Council how to manage its own business — although he is its Chair. He readily acknowledges the role of the ABC as "first among equals" in a relational rather than authoritative sense.

In short, the current actions of the ABC point in the direction of maintaining the Anglican Communion as it has functioned since the mid/late 19th century — and as the PR from the ACC office itself describes it — as a fellowship of self-governing churches. The current Archbishop of Canterbury appears unwilling to advance any agenda towards a more authoritative role for himself. The forces that urged such a change, or the establishment of a central institutional structure, in the previous decades, and those who do so now, appear to be on the outgoing tide.

Of course, the tide may turn. But that is how I see the current state of affairs.

Posted by: Tobias Haller on Saturday, 7 October 2017 at 3:20pm BST

No other province or church or Bishop or Primate throughout the Anglican Communion has the role that the Archbishop of Canterbury is exercising at present in respect of other provinces, bishops and Primates outside of England. No one else calls and gathers and chairs non-English bishops, primates, clergy and laity, and sees to things like ‘consequences for TEC or SEC’ or ‘membership.’ If people do not like the notion of an Anglican Communion in which Primates gather and make judgments; or Lambeth 1.10 arises; or requests for “enhanced authority” are made; or covenants get concocted; let the work transpire to bring this role to an end. Without him, these things would not happen.

Let the Church of England determine to make the ABC equivalent to any other Bishop or Archbishop across the Communion, and so properly limit his role to the Church in which he functions and through whose structures alone he comes to his post. The Church of England is the body in which such a role has arisen, and not in any other province. So let the Church of England do the work necessary to limit the role of the ABC in respect of other provinces and insist that his role be like that of all others and so limited to a single jurisdiction. Then one can have a genuine association of independent geographical entities and quit pretending this is so at present. It isn’t.

Posted by: crs on Saturday, 7 October 2017 at 3:47pm BST

"But that is how I see the current state of affairs."

Thank you for your view from rural NY state!

I'd be curious. Could you explain why the ABC--anodyne and in continuity with your wishes; or not--has the role at all? Is there a sacramental reason for this? Why not dismiss him from any role, perhaps to his joy and that of the CofE and the Communion both?

You have your wishes about how he does X and Y.

But why does he have an X and Y role at all, unlike any other Primate? What is the theological and polity warrant vis-a-vis the Communion?

Posted by: crs on Saturday, 7 October 2017 at 5:05pm BST

C Seitz, there are some strange conclusions in your note of 5:05 pm, among them that I have anything to do with rural NY! (I served for many years in NY City, but retired from there to the heart of Baltimore two years ago). You also attribute "wishes" to me, when all I am intending is an accurate expression of the recent past and current reality of the Anglican Communion, as a fellowship of self-governing churches in communion with the See of Canterbury.

You also appear to think that the Archbishop of Canterbury holds his role in the Communion by virtue of some action of the Church of England. The only legal support for this would lie in his ability, in conjunction with York, to determine questions of what churches are in communion with the Church of England.

A brief survey of the history (even the slanted and selective history presented in the Windsor Report) reveals that just as the Anglican Communion has slowly taken what little form it has over the years very much on an ad hoc basis, the Archbishop's role has similarly evolved, without canonical action by the Church of England as near as I can tell. (Even Canterbury's ability to consecrate White and Provoost was granted by Parliament, not Synod.) As the Primate of All England, whose national church was the Mother (or Grandmother) of most of the churches and provinces of the Communion, it is natural the Archbishop be seen as convenor of such meetings as Lambeth and the Primates, as advisory and consultative bodies, without any canonical tasking from an English synod; and that the ACC should arise from this as a programatic arm for mission and cooperation was a natural development.

So this is not a matter of theology and polity but of tradition and history. And most of the member churches of the Anglican Communion are happy to keep it that way.

Posted by: Tobias Haller on Saturday, 7 October 2017 at 6:19pm BST

Ah, the fallacy of the excluded middle. How I have (not) missed thee.

Where the primates, backed by the decisions of their respective Churches have agreement, or where they can find it, it is right for them to declare that agreement to the wider church and wider world. Where they have disagreements it is wrong to try and force and threaten the minority into compliance. Views within the communion do change over time, whether on contraception, communion, the ordination of women, divorce or the place of LGBT Christians in the church. Until now it has been accepted that there can be a diversity of views and different rates of change. Only in the last few years have some primates decided that they want to be the cardinals of an Anglican Vatican. Not to want to do that doesn't involve abolishing Bishops or any such nonsense (you're really going to take that line of attack against the SEC? Seriously?), just a return to recognising that different Churches can reach different conclusions without acting as if the sky is falling, as was managed when women began to be ordained, or indeed when the Lambeth conference first rowed back on contraception.

Posted by: Jo on Saturday, 7 October 2017 at 6:38pm BST

To put it another way, the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Anglican Communion is a result of the Communion and not its cause. Longley was urged to call the first Lambeth gathering at the behest of American and Canadian bishops; the ACC emerged in the last half of the 20th century with a growing awareness of the desirability of cooperation in mission and ministry worldwide. The Primates' Meeting was urged to provide a forum for prayerful discussion in the long interim between Lambeth gatherings.

None of these things absolutely require the agency of the Archbishop, though it is natural that he should be the one to issue invitations. And none of these things is essential to the continued existence of the Anglican Communion as a fellowship of self-governing churches. They were developed to serve the Communion and its members, and one could well regard the Archbishop as chief servant of it all.

Posted by: Tobias Haller on Saturday, 7 October 2017 at 10:00pm BST

"None of these things absolutely require the agency of the Archbishop."

How can you possibly know that?

Why Canterbury and not Alexandria?

Longley's example of being dubious about his role could have taken hold.

"is a result of the Communion and not its cause" No one said the ABC created the Communion. The point is rather that of all the Bishops in the Communion only he exercises a role vis-a-vis others.

That some admixture of "others wanted it" and "he didn't say no" is at play, only makes the reality more questionable.

Posted by: crs on Sunday, 8 October 2017 at 7:35am BST

Fr Haller, for some reason I thought you were out in NY state/Albany diocese.

Obviously there is held to be some special sanctity in the See of Canterbury having to do with the originating logic of catholic anglicanism.

Others like this and the incumbents haven't objected. A nice marriage.

As the role is exercised by an English Archbishop and people regularly object to his not keeping his eyes fixed firmly on the church he inhabits, let them call for the question.

Then the Communion could take a different form. Many would prefer a conciliar model. Others could get on with the association of national entities model.

Have a good day in Baltimore City.


Posted by: crs on Sunday, 8 October 2017 at 7:42am BST

Thank you CRS, I had a wonderful day.

I agree with you completely as to the possible futures for the Anglican Communion. I was simply trying to clarify the past, not to prognosticate or indicate any hopes or fears.

What I have said in terms of the history is easily judged on a factual basis. Nothing I've said is out of step with the Windsor Report (e.g., 7, 48, & 99-105). My point is that the Anglican Communion, like Topsy, "just growed" and that it was natural — due to the respect for the episcopate in a collection of "episcopal" churches — to look to Canterbury as primus inter pares. My point about this not being "required" is just that — there was no canon law forcing Canterbury into this role. Nor do I think it likely the Church of England would amend its canons to deprive the Archbishop of it. (I admit that is a speculation.) In short, I agree with your assessment that this is an outgrowth of a "high" view of the episcopate in conjunction with the historic expansion of the Communion.

Moving forward — and here I express no druthers whatever, but further speculation — I concur that other models could be adopted. The Anglican Communion's member churches could convene a congress and adopt a constitution to be ratified by all of them, and elect a Convenor other than the ABC. There was actually some noise about Alexandria from the GS some years back. Although anything is possible, only some things are likely, and I am not laying odds at this point, or making any wagers!

Peace and blessing to you as well!

Posted by: Tobias Haller on Sunday, 8 October 2017 at 7:13pm BST

"In short, I agree with your assessment that this is an outgrowth of a "high" view of the episcopate in conjunction with the historic expansion of the Communion."

This would explain the attention paid to the See of Canterbury.

I am not questioning the logic so much as asking that people have enough history to appreciate why it is what it is, and why other alternatives have only that logic to blame.

I also believe the job of the ABC is now almost unworkable, threatening as well to tether the Communion to concerns too specifically indigenous to the CofE.

"The Anglican Communion's member churches could convene a congress and adopt a constitution to be ratified by all of them, and elect a Convenor other than the ABC."

This would satisfy those who want the ABC to attend to the CofE only. It would also produce a more conciliar form of leadership. As you note, however, the topsy growth can put down deep roots.

Blessings and good to you as well.

Posted by: crs on Monday, 9 October 2017 at 7:40am BST

"This would satisfy those who want the ABC to attend to the CofE only."

Christopher this is just your particular 'spin' on what you hear about the C of E and I believe is wishful thinking on your part. and I don't think I have ever heard members of the C of E wish that the ABofC attended only to their Church. What is often expressed is the wish that the thinking and mindset of other churches in the Anglican Communion would not have such a peculiar influence on what the C of E decides. Hence the firm rejection by C of E members of the Covenant.

Posted by: Andrew Godsall on Monday, 9 October 2017 at 1:11pm BST

You have made the point quite well.

As you are concerned about the "thinking and mindset of other churches" a very easy solution is to alter the present arrangements. Move the primates meetings elsewhere. Let the chair rotate.

The soi-disant Lambeth Conference can be held in a vibrant part of the Communion, like SE Asia. Or a place of concern, like the Sudan. Lots of very good possibilities.

As Fr Haller notes, "other models could be adopted."

The sees of Antioch and Alexandria once overshadowed Rome. These things need not stay still.

Posted by: crs on Monday, 9 October 2017 at 2:50pm BST

"The soi-disant Lambeth Conference can be held in a vibrant part of the Communion"

That seems a little rich, if I may say so, coming from the soi-disant president of a soi-disant organisation.

I'm sure a conference can be held anywhere. It makes no difference where a conference is held does it? And as the resolutions are simply advisory it doesn't quite work to compare with Rome.

I believe the history is that Canada asked for such a conference. So I presume others would be free to ask for something different. Why not get your soi-disant organisation to write in?

Posted by: Andrew Godsall on Monday, 9 October 2017 at 3:24pm BST

The constant need to personalize is never in doubt with you! Have a good day.

Posted by: crs on Tuesday, 10 October 2017 at 7:14am BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.