Why We Need the Archbishop of Canterbury to lead the Anglican Communion
Pope Leo has been in terrific form as a global Christian leader in recent weeks, unashamedly, un-backing-downed-ly, consistently speaking for and praying for peace in respect of current wars. For a sample article on this pacific leadership see here.
It has gotten me thinking a bit about some current analyses and prognoses for global Anglican leadership. You know, the ones that sum up as "We don't need the Archbishop of Canterbury," with the Gafcon version being the hard one, "We really don't need the Archbishop of Canterbury and you shouldn't either if you want to be a Gafcon leader" and the Anglican Communion one itself (according to the Nairobi-Cairo Proposals - still being discussed) being the soft version "We don't need the Archbishop of Canterbury, do we? Well, okay, some kind of role, but let's share Communion leadership round the globe."
But, here's the thing which Pope Leo's leadership in recent weeks highlights: the world pays attention to the Christian leader who bears the title and holds the mana of church office which is both "high" and "historic". The Roman Catholic Church itself pays attention to its high, historic office holder: "the Pope says ..." has impact more than "the Bishop of Oxbridge says ...".
What would be the global impact of, say, "the duty Anglican primate for 2026 says ...".
You're correct: Zilch!
Let's stick with, let's support, let's settle on the high, historic leadership office for Anglicans which is ... the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Important Addendum: since drafting the above paragraphs, I have noticed an article by Paul Avis in Church Times, highly critical of the N-C Proposals. Key citations from that article are:
"Some emphases of the NCPs are welcome: the equality and autonomy of the Churches (“Provinces”) of the Anglican Communion, and the wider sharing of chairing positions. But the Commission’s key proposals are deeply troubling.
The NCPs contain factual errors, both historical and constitutional; and they exhibit an animus against the Church of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury which is uncharitable. The Communion is currently fractured and dysfunctional, but, if the NCPs were accepted, the Communion would not be a “communion” at all, as ecclesial communion has been universally understood: namely, as a eucharistic communion with an interchangeable ordained ministry."
Then:
"THE core proposal is to demote the see of Canterbury and to promote the Primates instead. One goes down, and the other comes up. The NCPs want to delete “in communion with the See of Canterbury” in the benchmark Lambeth Conference 1930 Resolution 49, and insert in its place “a historic connection with the See of Canterbury”, thus removing the reference to “communion” and to the unity of episcopal sees.
This follows from the claim that baptism, not holy communion, should be a sufficient future basis for the Communion, and that “Communion” in the term “Anglican Communion” should be understood as at least baptismal communion. Baptism is the ground of communion, but it comes to fulfilment in holy communion, and that is how “communion” in the Anglican context has been understood hitherto."
And (pretty much my point above):
"Any form of primacy needs to be recognisable and “findable”. Rome is the locus of the papacy, and Constantinople is the locus of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Anglican primacy is located at Canterbury, and so is recognisable and findable. A floating Primates’ Council, which exercises the functions of primacy but has no home, no base, does not do it."
Avis is particularly focused on the proposed change from "communion" to "baptism" as key to gloabl Anglican relationship and rightly points out that this is an ecumenical basis for any and all Christian, inter-church relationships:
"THE proposal that baptism should be sufficient for “communion” rests on a confused cross-over from Anglican relations with Churches with which Anglicans are not in ecclesial communion to Churches with which they are in ecclesial communion. The relationship between the Churches of the Anglican Communion would then be no different in kind from the relationship between the Church of England and the Methodist Church of Great Britain through the Anglican-Methodist Covenant (2003), or between the Church of England and the EKD (Protestant Churches of Germany) through the Meissen Agreement (1991)."
Bonus Easter Reflections
Preparing for yesterday's sermon, focusing on readings, Acts 2:41a, 22-32, 1 Peter 1:3-9, John 20:19-31, got me thinking a little more about Easter in this Easter season of 2026.
1. Simon Peter via Luke's reporting to us says "Nuts" to all those theologians/preachers who attempt to make the case that "It doesn't really matter whether Jesus' body remains in the tomb, Jesus still rose from the dead." In Acts 2, he cites Psalm 16 (Greek Old Testament version), not once but twice"
Verse 27 (=Psalm 16:10): "because you will not abandon me in the world of the dead; you will not allow your faithful servant to rot in the grave." [GNB]
Verse 31 (= Psalm 16:10): "[King] David [writer of Psalm 16] saw what God was going to do in the future, and so he spoke about the resurrection of the Messiah when he said, 'He was not abandoned in the world of the dead; his body did not rot in the grave'." [GNB]
Luke reports Simon Peter arguing that what happened to Jesus' body in the tomb was that it did not rot (that is, in the usual way a body rots when buried following death). By implication the tomb was emptied of Jesus' body when that body was raised to new life: "God has raised this very Jesus from death, and we are all witnesses to this fact." [GNB].
Importantly, Luke also reports Simon Peter strengthening this argument when he makes a plain distinction between David and Jesus in verse 29:
"My friends, I must speak to you plainly about our famous ancestor King David. He died and was buried, and his grave is here with us to this very day." [GNB]
By contrast, everything Peter is saying in this Pentecost sermon is that Jesus died, was buried and is no longer in the grave he was buried in. David's body, in David's tomb could be visited and venerated. Not so with Jesus: rephrasing the last part of 2:31 and 32, "God has raised this very Jesus from death, his body is not rotting in his grave."
2. The three readings for yesterday, from Acts, 1 Peter and John, provide three great themes for resurrection reflections:
- Acts: the resurrection as a question of historical fact, or, "the apologetics of the claim that God raised Jesus from the dead."
- 1 Peter: the appropriate response to the resurrection is Thanksgiving and Praise: "Let us give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!" (1 Peter 1:3).
- John/1 Peter: the resurrection of Jesus Christ is resurrection for us: John emphasises in 20:19-31 (in keeping with Matthew and Luke) that the resurrected Jesus appears to the disciples (and thus also to us his contemporary followers) to direct our discipleship so that we are assured of "Peace", commissioned "As the Father has sent me, so I send you" and gifted the Holy Spirit. All of which is so that "through your faith in him you may have life" (John 20:31 GNB). Peter makes a similar point in his epistle, "... he gave us new life by raising Jesus Christ from death" (1 Peter 1:3 GNB).
No comments:
Post a Comment