Rift cannot be "patched" - GAFCON leaders
Published Monday, 30 Jun 2008, by Anglican Media
GAFCON Final Statement"While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic see, we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury." [GAFCON]
Gafcon plans a future distant from the Archbishop of Canterbury
Jerusalem: The Gafcon meeting has issued its ‘Jerusalem Declaration’, which sets out plans to create a ‘church within a church’. [Religious Intelligence]
What is the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans?
It is a coalition of bishops, archbishops and lay people from around the world. They hail from churches in the southern hemisphere - Africa, Asia, Australia, South America - but also enjoy the support of unhappy conservative evangelicals from the US, Canada and England. [Guardian]
Anglican rift is about more than sex
Word has got about that traditionalist Anglicans have something against gay people - and that is what is driving the Communion towards disintegration. [BBC]
Anglicans' new group denounces liberalism
The Archbishop of Sydney, Dr Peter Jensen, has joined conservatives in Jerusalem angered by liberal thinking on homosexuality, to back the creation of a global fellowship that challenges worldwide Anglican unity but stops short of a formal split. [Sydney Morning Herald]
Religious condemnation of homosexuals denies human rights
A thousand conservative Anglican leaders met in Jerusalem last week, among them Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria who was reported as saying that Anglicans who preach the inclusion of homosexuals in God's church were guilty of apostasy. He is not alone in this view. In Zimbabwe, the former bishop of Harare, an ardent supporter of President Robert Mugabe, withdrew from the Anglican province in May saying he could not co-exist with so many gays and lesbians in the church. [The Age]
Comments (1)
Post a comment
Your comment will not be visible until it has been approved.
Posted by: Dr Ian Welch on Thursday 7 July 2008 at 11:31am
It is obvious that a British Government appointed Archbishop of Canterbury is no longer an appropriate model for the leadership of the Anglican Communion. It is inseparable from the Established Church traditions of England and, so far, the British Monarchy. It is, politically, the most senior position in Britain after the Royal Family with no popular mandate.
However it is considered, the historic leadership role of the ABC is a residual of the old colonial arrangements under which the Church of England spread abroad, partly through official English chaplaincies abroad and through the commitment of missionaries, many of whom were English but there were also significant numbers of Irish, Australian, Canadian and American Anglicans.
That Canterbury will retain its traditional place as the senior see of the Anglican tradition is not in question, nor should it mean any loss of respect for whoever holds that office. In so far as Canterbury has a spiritual role in leadership, it is likely to continue for many years to come.
The reason this arrangement has lasted so long is, at least so far, the lack of a workable alternative, although perhaps the concept of a rotating presidency of primates along the lines adopted by the European Union might be relevant.
It does not in any way affect the Lambeth Conference or the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury as the person who invites bishops to participate in that Conference. A rotating presidency will change consultation and decision-making in the Communion although it should be noted that Lambeth does not, and has never had, any executive authority. Anglicans worldwide will not view a rotating Anglican presidency as other than a symbolic office. It should point towards a more democratic process, along Australian lines perhaps, in the election of Primates and subsequently in the election of a presiding officer for the Communion.
The titular leadership of the Anglican Communion has never involved authority nor executive power, other than those of personality and natural leadership. Those qualities have varied down the centuries and the present Archbishop of Canterbury cannot, at least in my opinion, be reasonably criticised on either ground. I doubt that any of his predecessors, or any of his successors, should Canterbury continue as the titular leader of the Communion, could have done better.
What is important is that no single power bloc in the Anglican Church, be it the dubious principle of selective primatial leadership proposed by GAFcon and FOCA, should be able to 'capture' the Anglican Communion and provoke the schism that has so far been avoided.
Those familiar with the Diocese of Sydney will be aware of its tightly managed diocesan politics. An attempt to translate that process to Melbourne, some forty or so years ago, was resoundingly rejected by a majority of the evangelicals of Melbourne.
Ian Welch, Canberra