In the most recent and second update to the previous post, I linked to an interview with Archbishop Greg Venables, who is not at all as cheery about the recent Primates' Meeting as its communique is.
I note that in the course of the interview ++Greg says this:
"Regarding the way forward we considered, as we often do, the structures of the Communion and the Instruments of Communion and the difficulties encountered when differences arise. There was passing reference to the incongruity that the Archbishop of Canterbury is chosen by the English government and just presented to the Anglican Communion. Now some people are talking about a mechanism for the Primates to choose one of our number to be the Chair, but it would be a Chair that we pick. Archbishop Justin (Welby) even made reference to that when he first came into office, and his openness to it. We also talked about our identity as Anglicans."
The larger section here is "Anglican identity" and a number of other things are said which I am not attempting to discuss here.
I am simply intrigued with whether it makes any difference to the Anglican Communion if the Archbishop of Canterbury is no longer the Chair (of the Primates' Meeting ... of other Communion bodies such as the Lambeth Conference itself).
For the ABC to no longer be the "convening bishop" or the "primus inter pares", would that matter?
For instance, for some of us, including myself, a critical element of Anglican identity is that one (as individual, as an Anglican church) is in communion with the See of Canterbury and I see this as essential to membership of the Anglican Communion.
But would this be a somewhat moot point if, say, the ABC goes to various meetings simply as "one of the bishops"?
It need not, of course, because we could distinguish the historical importance of the See of Canterbury to all things Anglicans from the human body which inhabits the role of Chair of this or that meeting or conference.
Of course, it is something of an oddity that I and others argue that communion with the See of Canterbury is vital to Anglicanism while having no say in which inhabits the See - that being up to the British government, on advice from the Church of England, and only on that advice.
At least when the Pope is elected, Cardinals from all around the globe get to vote!
Monday, January 27, 2020
Wednesday, January 8, 2020
Anglican Communion: alive and, it appears, quite well [UPDATED x2]
UPDATE (2): ++Venables has a some what different understanding of what went on, here.
UPDATE (1): insight and questions here ...
ORIGINAL: A week or two ago I put down this marker for a first post:
While not intending to blog until later in January, I am happy to put down a marker towards that anticipated post by noting this press release about the forthcoming Primates Meeting in Jordan, noting that 36/40 primates intend being there ... which seems pretty significant in the year of Lambeth.
How significant remains to be seen ... perhaps the aforementioned blogpost might reflect thereupon and thereunto!
Actual first post ...
The recent Primates' Meeting in Jordan appears to have gone quite well ... certainly no hiccups or speed bumps on the way to Lambeth 2020. On the one hand, "the usual suspects" chose to stay away (and a few others could not make it) and on the other hand, a large majority of Primates turned up (33/40 provinces represented).
The Living Church has a report here.
The official communique is here.
The report has a few bits to chew on, coming out of a press conference, relative to the situation we Down Under Anglicans are in ...
- an intention not to dwell on the negative of a new Anglican church being established;
- a hint that various doors are open to (so to speak) better futures.
But, the marker in the sand is pretty clear re doors to new futures: the Anglican Communion is what it implies on the tin: a communion of those in communion with the See of Canterbury.
For myself, I fail to see how a definition of Anglican (whatever else it includes) can exclude communion with the See of Canterbury if it is to be a definition which accords with the history of being Anglican which is always about the Church in England (pre H8) and the Church of England (post H8).
Speaking of what it means to be Anglican, ++Cranmer in his blog makes an interesting point or three as he segues from an observation of ++Rowan's ... here.
Relating to all such matters Anglican, however, is a critical matter, as the Jordan reports and communique bring out: within the communion of Anglicans in communion with the See of Canterbury, there are differences, and these differences can be lived with ...
At this current time there appears to be a resolve to live with differences, at least by 33+/40 provinces.
Is this resolve stronger than in 2008?
So, all in all, in the run up to Lambeth, I think we can say that the Anglican Communion is alive and, it appears, quite well.
UPDATE (1): insight and questions here ...
ORIGINAL: A week or two ago I put down this marker for a first post:
While not intending to blog until later in January, I am happy to put down a marker towards that anticipated post by noting this press release about the forthcoming Primates Meeting in Jordan, noting that 36/40 primates intend being there ... which seems pretty significant in the year of Lambeth.
How significant remains to be seen ... perhaps the aforementioned blogpost might reflect thereupon and thereunto!
Actual first post ...
The recent Primates' Meeting in Jordan appears to have gone quite well ... certainly no hiccups or speed bumps on the way to Lambeth 2020. On the one hand, "the usual suspects" chose to stay away (and a few others could not make it) and on the other hand, a large majority of Primates turned up (33/40 provinces represented).
The Living Church has a report here.
The official communique is here.
The report has a few bits to chew on, coming out of a press conference, relative to the situation we Down Under Anglicans are in ...
- an intention not to dwell on the negative of a new Anglican church being established;
- a hint that various doors are open to (so to speak) better futures.
But, the marker in the sand is pretty clear re doors to new futures: the Anglican Communion is what it implies on the tin: a communion of those in communion with the See of Canterbury.
For myself, I fail to see how a definition of Anglican (whatever else it includes) can exclude communion with the See of Canterbury if it is to be a definition which accords with the history of being Anglican which is always about the Church in England (pre H8) and the Church of England (post H8).
Speaking of what it means to be Anglican, ++Cranmer in his blog makes an interesting point or three as he segues from an observation of ++Rowan's ... here.
Relating to all such matters Anglican, however, is a critical matter, as the Jordan reports and communique bring out: within the communion of Anglicans in communion with the See of Canterbury, there are differences, and these differences can be lived with ...
At this current time there appears to be a resolve to live with differences, at least by 33+/40 provinces.
Is this resolve stronger than in 2008?
So, all in all, in the run up to Lambeth, I think we can say that the Anglican Communion is alive and, it appears, quite well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)