Posted by Dr Ian Welch on Thursday 3 July 2008 at 11:31 am

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

Reply