I have to admit to some ambivalence about this. On the one hand, a wider sense of the priorities of folks across the Communion might just crack some of the insularity that seems to have surrounded Canterbury generally and the current incumbent particularly. On the other hand, I wonder if this would only reinforce someone's image that there is a worldwide Anglican Church, and not an Anglican Communion of autocephalous churches
This smacks of ecclesiastical imperialism, plain and simple.
What other province would ask the entire world who should lead the province?
What part of primus inter pares does the Church of England fail to understand?
I agree with you Jeremy, but the problem is that if the rest of the Communion were not consulted like this then people would complain that the CofE wasn't being open about the process, and given that the ABC is primus inter pares in the Communion, the Communion ought to have some sort of hand in the process... Couldn't win either way I suppose!
If the Roman Catholic branch of the universal Church can successively elect a Pole and a German as pope after centuries of Italians - who knows who may become the next Cantuar if the net is spread further afield? After all - last time round it was a pretty daring move to look next door to the Province of Wales to rustle up Rowan for Canterbury with all his formidable intellect and holiness.
I think it's a terrible idea. It would support the erroneous notion that the ABC should have some kind of influence over the other provinces of the Communion, but his views are no more important than those of any other bishop. I also strongly oppose the idea that the ABC should come from some other Anglican province (well, Wales is still part of the UK). Let the C of E tend to its own affairs and let the rest of us tend to our own.
James, it's only when the ABC doesn't like the primus-inter-pares concept that it becomes difficult. In other words, it would be easy if the ABC (or the institutions that surround him) would understand, and abide by, his very limited role.
Twenty years ago, all the ABC did was invite people to garden parties. The only reason the CofE "can't win" either way, as you put it, is because the ABC is getting too big for his britches.
Dr. Williams's departure from his office is of a piece with his conduct in it. He wants to justify the office's aggrandisement, so he is doing his best to give his successor more international legitimacy than he had himself.
I have half a mind to write a letter on the lines of, "thanks for the offer to listen to advice, but no such offer can justify curial centralisation of a loose family of churches."
The latest incumbent has shredded much of the goodwill and informal respect that his office commanded. And no stack of letters from individuals can give any worldwide basis to an office that entirely lacks formal international legitimacy.
If the Commission to appoint the next Archbishop of Canterbury is open to the opinions of everyone in the Communion - attractive as this may sound initially - this means that the GAFCON Provinces, which have already distanced themselves from the See of Canterbury, may, by sheer numbers, gain some advantage over the more moderate Provinces who are loyal to Canterbury, and want the future ABC to be less able to be influenced by the bullying tactics of the likes of GAFCON, who have issued their own quasi-Anglican prospectus in the 'Jerusalem Declaration'.
Can one be sure that the Commission will not fall into the same trap as the ACO, in favouring the ethos of a Covenant mentality - rather than the traditional Anglican ethos of Unity in Diversity?
All would be well if the Archbishop of Canterbury were only the Diocesan Bishop and Canterbury Primus. And perhaps, with GAFCON on the warpath, that may soon become his prime responsibility.
However, he is, at this time in our history, the Primus-inter-pares, which, whether this intimation of power is recognised or not, gives the office of ABC great influence over the affairs of the rest of the Anglican Communion.
Time for a nice Desmond Tutu- Una Kroll job share ? This could restore Canterbury's credibility. But only giants of the spirit, like these could do it.
or else abolish the bl--dy thing altogether, as a lost cause.
Or include a lay person in the shared post.
Time to THINK outside the tiny little old sexist classist box !
If you doubt me - think on Jesus' message of radical forgiveness (It is Easter for crying out loud) - then anything becomes possible...
Or maybe the C of E believes in, neither radical forgiveness or Easter !
The CofE could've "won" if their head-boy had kept himself head of his church and not tried to be the Great Welsh Pope.
One other point. Canon Kearon tells us that the Archbishop of Canterbury is "the Focus of Unity for the Anglican Communion."
I thought that a bishop is the focus of unity within a diocese.
Is the claim to being the "Focus of Unity" for the Communion effectively a claim that the entire Communion is the Archbishop's diocese?
If you want this choice position
Have a cheery disposition
Rosy cheeks, no warts!
Play games, all sorts.
You must be kind.
You must be witty,
Very sweet and fairly pretty,
Take us on outings, give us treats,
Sing songs, bring sweets.
Never be cross or cruel,
Never give us castor oil or gruel.
Love us as a son and daughter,
And never smell of barley water.
If you won't scold and dominate us
We will never give you cause to hate us.
Mark, we already have a Nanny State in England - the last thing we need is a Nanny Archbishop. Rather than Mary Poppins as the next Cantuar we need a Shenouda III.
When an English diocesan bishop is appointed, there is wide consultation by the secretariat of the Crown Appointments Commission. Leaders of community organisations, business, other churches, other faiths are all asked whether they have any view on the sort of person needed for the post. Doubtless in the case of an new ABC, the Commission Secretariat feels it right that there should be a global dimension to this. It is not an opportunity for people to press specific candidates - the GAFCON lobby could not achieve the appointment of Nazir-Ali or Okoh simply by shouting louder, but an opportunity for those beyond the diocese to comment on what is or isn't needed in relation to the global dimension of the job. Nor is it about the perceived performance of the individual retiring.
The rather dyspeptic comments (from the usual suspects) are therefore very wide of the mark. If you think the ABC should stick to his last in Kent, write to Canon Kearon and say so. Stop imagining conspiracies. And recognise that someone over the retiring age of 70 isn't going to be appointed, nor is someone who isn't a British citizen, nor, sadly, is a woman, until the legislation currently before synod has passed all its stages, and that ain't going to happen within 12 months.
Episcopal Cafe posted an update, a "clarification from The Rev. Canon Kenneth Kearon..." that affirms the letter seeking opinions from the Anglican Communion on priorities for ministry of the next ABC. Then, the clarification goes on, "In a separate letter to all Primates and Provincial Secretaries the same question about the priorities for the ministry of the next Archbishop is asked, together with a request for nominations, as on previous occasions." So, it is, and evidently has always been, an opportunity to put forward specific candidates. The link to the Episcopal Cafe article is here.
I don't need to imagine conspiracies. Canterbury has interfered with other provinces long enough.
Fortunately, the Church of England itself has now flatly rejected Canterbury's centralizing Covenant.
This latest announcement is merely another, subtler bid for interprovincial legitimacy.
Perhaps it's frustrating for Lambeth's latest machination to be labeled for what it is.
But face facts. Trust in Canterbury, and the ABC's international influence, have both sunk quite low.
It's not a good time for Lambeth to seem to be advancing the same centralizing agenda, just more covertly.
May I say what I have said elsewhere on Thinking Anglicans? The Bishop is the SOURCE of Unity because s/he is the source of Holy Order in the diocese. The bishop is not the FOCUS of unity as we are all allowed to disagree and to have opinions of our own. But it is the bishop who ordains and/or validates those ordained elsewhere. The ABC is a primus inter pares but is primarily a SOURCE of unity in his own Province as the principal consecrator of bishops.
Jeremy is wrong. In the past, Archbishops of Canterbury did much more than invite those of other parts of the Communion to garden parties. An Australian,I remember the warm welcome for Archbishop Coggan in Canberra fifty years ago, or that for Archbishop Runcie in Goulburn at the completion of the cathedral tower. I think, for example, not least of the courteous but courageous visit of our present, distinguished spiritual leader, Archbishop Rowan,only recently to Zimbabwe.
I, too, remember the warmth extended to Archbishop Michael Ramsey (of blessed memory) on his visit to Aotearoa/New Zealand a long time ago. His first Liturgical Reception was held in the Auckland Town Hall; and after his inspirational sermon, he was processed down the centre aisle, in cope and mitre with pastoral staff, and seemingly everyone in the audience knelt for his Blessing. Wondrous days of loving togetherness in the association with the see of Canterbury. Are those days really gone?
I would find it difficult to describe Rowan Williams as a "courageous" spiritual leader. If anything he took a very cowardly road in the shabby treatment of gay candidates for bishop in England and by his deplorable exclusionary position taken over Bishop Gene Robinson's attendance at Lambeth. I believe Rowan Williams was weak in his so called leadership when it came to dealing with the glbt community and women moving to positions of leadership in the Church. I do think Jeremy may have this right. I agree with his assessment of Rowan Williams. It appears Rowan wanted an Anglican type magesterium, which would be similar to the failed imperial model adopted by Rome in the Third Century. Top-down central control is not working and has not worked for several centuries. Rowan seems to have wanted "control" and this to me is very much alien to the principles of the Reformation and Anglicanism in general. How is it possible for those who feel disenfranchised as a result of Rowan dragging his feet and bending over backwards to accommodate Fundamentalists and their narrow views. We do not need an Anglican "Pope" in the guise of Archbishop of Canterbury.
Feel my faith in the Church restored by the Chrism Mass at Southwark.
Guessing that those who thought up and publicized this are not those who will be stuck with wading through and winnowing the replies.
As to whether a magisterium would have developed out of the Covenant, I believe there was a divided opinion on this and that Rowan thought it was not inevitable. His Holiness, I am informed, thought it was.
Even those who have supported this present Covenant and who do not want or hope for a magisterium, then go on to say that "the next step after the Covenant is to find a formula on advising the Communion on what is and what is not adiaphora".
I'm sorry - but that sounds like a group of people telling us what we must do ....... vaguely magisterial?
Egad -- previous Archbishops of Canterbury traveled?
I pray we get a David - a man after God's own heart - rather than a Saul of the people's choice
"Stop imagining conspiracies. And recognise that someone over the retiring age of 70 isn't going to be appointed, nor is someone who isn't a British citizen, nor, sadly, is a woman"
The beatings will continue until morale improves, eh crypto? O_o
I'm ambivalent about this effort, truthfully. It's difficult to object to gathering information (opinions), in principal. It's only the possible outcome---"we've listened your opinions, now Submit to Authority!" (the Vatican model)---which is so potentially problematic.
nothing to do with beatings but with the CoE being an established church and the ABC automatically having a seat in the House of Lords and therefore being part of the legislative bodies of the UK.
Non British nationals cannot be members of the British law making bodies.
And as we don't yet have any women bishops it's 100% impossible for the next ABC to be a woman.
Yeah, I get that, Erika. I was mainly reacting to cryptogram's tone.
Regardless of whether the CofE hears from a mere Colonial like my Yank self on this subject, you will have my prayers as the Church By Law Established makes its choice.
any one COULD be the next abc even a woman or someone from over the seas- if they are wanted !
Where there's a will there's a way !
THE way of Jesus is not about worldly pomp and power.
I would appoint someone who embodies the opposite of what most church pundits pronounce.
Let's have *an unordained person * who is godly and prayerful rather than some prelate -
we've tried the prelates !
* no need to gasp and splutter ! *
that might all be possible if the church was disestablished.
Until then, there simply isn't a way.
The more impotant question, to my mind, is why the historic fact that the ABC is the primus inter pares of the Anglican Communion should not be changed.
If we really want unity and a greater sense of communion, wouldn't it be better if the office was filled by rotation from all the provinces?
Erika, it's a question I've raised from a different angle, before, and, perhaps because of the direction I took, that's why.
My point was that the Bishop of Rome could come from anywhere in the Roman Catholic world, so, how could a position that can only be filled by a person from one particular governance be considered a focus and expression of unity for a worldwide communion? If the ABC is to be head, shouldn't the ABC be subject to being chosen *by* the AC at large and *from* the AC at large, not by a Crown Committee from the UK or Commonwealth.
It makes more sense, of course, to follow your suggestion and make the AC a completely separate thing from the CofE's structure, and make the *primus inter pares* head of the Communion and chosen from the entirety of the Communion, rather than it automatically being the Archbishop of Canterbury.
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.