Thinking Anglicans

formal statements listed

This entry contains, for convenient reference, links to all public statements made by official bodies (above the level of the individual diocese) or by lobbying groups, consequent upon the consecration of the Bishop Coadjutor of New Hampshire. The order is completely random. Requests for additions invited.
Revised 8, 13, 18, 21 November, 4 December, 11 December

Despite reports to the contrary in other places, I have been unable so far to confirm any formal provincial statement from either Rwanda or Central Africa.

The Archbishop of Canterbury
Anglican Mainstream (Philip Giddings and others)
Global South Primates ( Peter Akinola “on behalf of the working committee for the Primates of the Global South”)
Note I have been unable to determine who else signed this statement.
Canadian and American Bishops (read at consecration service, 38 total signatories including 6 Canadian diocesans and 16 ECUSA diocesans)
American Anglican Council
Inclusive Church
Changing Attitude
Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh
Forward in Faith UK
Forward in Faith North America
Primate of Australia
Anglican Church of Canada

Additions made 8 November
Anglican Church of Kenya
Anglican Church of Tanzania
Province of West Africa
Note I have been unable to locate on the web a formal statement by this province to back up this news story (which I have no reason to doubt).

Additions made 13 November
Evangelical Alliance
Church of England Evangelical Council
Primate of Southern Africa

Addition made 18 November
Church of the Province of West Indies

Additions made 21 November
Church of Uganda or this shorter version
Anglican Communion Institute
Church of Nigeria

Addition made 4 December
Province of the Anglican Church of South East Asia or here

Addition made 11 December
Primate of Central Africa

Addition made 5 January 04
Anglican Province of the Democratic Republic of Congo

Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
kendall Harmon
20 years ago
Todd Granger
Todd Granger
20 years ago

I do not understand the rationale behind posting responses from “lobbying groups” and not individual diocesan and episcopal responses. It would seem that our ecclesiology should privilege the responses of bishops and their dioceses above those of lobbying groups, whether progressive/revisionist, confessing/traditional, or other.

Simon replies: it is purely pragmatic, I do not have time to deal with diocesan or other responses below the level of province. At the time I started out, however, nobody else was collecting lobbying groups, so I started doing that.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x