Proper Head of the Church of England

[Frodo]

Follow-up on my earlier thread.

[useful idiot]

Neither, at least in the current way things are done.

The way the Archbishop of Canterbury is chosen is pretty ridiculous. It would make more sense to do it Catholic-style and have bishops from around the Communion elect the Archbishop. Because that's not done you have the kind of fissures that are present now. Half of the African bishops won't even listen to the Archbishop, and you have the ACNA and ECUSA as rival jurisdictions in the United States. Willams condemns the ECUSA and then makes no effort to back up his threats to either the ECUSA or to the Africans who support the ACNA. This is the fruit of intertwining politics and religion, politicians in vestments get chosen to lead a floundering denomination.

It'll be far more interesting to see what takes place in a generation or so, when the King's (by that point) headship of the CofE becomes untenable for political reasons, liberal elements within the Communion have become dwarfed by the evangelical elements, and the Anglo-Catholics have packed their bags and all headed to Rome.

It's nice being a Baptist and not having to deal with heirarchy and church/state issues...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Williams hasn't condemned the ECUSA exactly, mainly since it's an open secret that he's in almost entire agreement with them substantively if not procedurally; not all of the Catholics are going to Rome (and there are also Roman Catholics who come into the Communion out of disgust at how Rome does things); and as long as the Church of England is culturally closer to the North American Churches than to the African Churches the likeliest result is an eventual fracture between the liberal/Anglo-Catholic factions and the Evangelical factions, not the Evangelical factions taking over. Honestly, I don't see why we need the Evangelical factions, spiritually speaking; they can just bugger off and become Pentecostals if they keep being ungrateful to the Instruments of Unity for covering for their sorry asses. A Communion run by the Evangelical factions is a prospect that simultaneously baffles, sickly amuses, and terrifies me.

The proper head is of course the Archbishop, and the Queen has no authority whatsoever, even technical, over parts of the Communion other than the C of E.

[useful idiot]

Williams hasn't condemned the ECUSA exactly, mainly since it's an open secret that he's in almost entire agreement with them substantively if not procedurally; not all of the Catholics are going to Rome (and there are also Roman Catholics who come into the Communion out of disgust at how Rome does things); and as long as the Church of England is culturally closer to the North American Churches than to the African Churches the likeliest result is an eventual fracture between the liberal/Anglo-Catholic factions and the Evangelical factions, not the Evangelical factions taking over. Honestly, I don't see why we need the Evangelical factions, spiritually speaking; they can just bugger off and become Pentecostals if they keep being ungrateful to the Instruments of Unity for covering for their sorry asses. A Communion run by the Evangelical factions is a prospect that simultaneously baffles, sickly amuses, and terrifies me.

The proper head is of course the Archbishop, and the Queen has no authority whatsoever, even technical, over parts of the Communion other than the C of E.

His constant warnings to them have gone completely unheeded. Whether he agrees with them theologically is immaterial, he realizes that the actions taken by the ECUSA (and to a lesser extent the Canadians) are the real cause of disunity in the communion. If there were any avenue through which the ECUSA could have been punished it would have been, I don't see how anyone can argue otherwise.

An evangelical takeover isn't a remote possibility, it's almost a near certainty. The ECUSA is dying rapidly and the only vibrant churches in the CofE proper are evangelical (either conservative or "open"). The idea that somehow the ECUSA and the CofE's liberals could somehow form a sustainable communion apart from the evangelicals in Britain and the global south is fairly specious, and would be far more schismatic than the conservatives have been. ACNA is a special case, they're in a kind of limbo right now, no one really knows what's going to happen with them.

The problem going forward for liberals isn't that there are conservative brown people far away in Africa causing trouble, the problem is that there is enough of a contingent in England (and in the US) that sees these people as closer to them than the liberals in their own country. Conservatives like N.T. Wright standing up and saying "nothing justifies schism" is the reason the thing hasn't fallen apart, they've been open to working with everyone in spite of having the ECUSA spit in their faces.

Also, I don't particularly understand your connection of Anglo-Catholics going to Rome and Roman Catholics leaving the RCC to become Episcopalian/Anglican. These two groups' motivations for moving are completely opposite.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The real cause of disunity in the Communion is the sort of thinking that leads to the belief that it's acceptable to threaten the Archbishop, among other things, and who behave like this when they're stuck in a room together. The way the Episcopal Church has been going about things certainly hasn't been ideal but it's certainly not the American churches that are in the main discord with the center, at least right now. That's only maybe a third true or so at best (for example, I agree with the Archbishop that, on political grounds at least, there are things to be said for continuing to ask or recommend, if not require, that gay bishops be celibate for the time being; regardless it was the will of the Church to consecrate Gene Robinson, he was duly ordained, and that should have been the end of it. I don't deny the Church of Nigeria's right to consecrate Peter Akinola even though I think he's a disgusting human being for reasons some of which have nothing to do with politics).

As for the idea that a rump Communion would be more schismatic than the, uh, crypto-Pentecostals who wrecked it in the first place, I...I'm really not sure that would be the case, let's put it that way (see the article I linked above). The near-certainty, if there is one, is kind of sad, deflating decentralization at this point, and probably a majority or at least plurality of conservatives who have come to understand that they're not going to make the churches of the 'Global North' (plus most of Asia and Mexico, actually) undo the steps that have already been taken (I, incidentally, am yet unconvinced, even as an admitted hack for the Affirming Catholicism faction, that further steps are warranted). Nobody wants it but it's better than one side, either side, being 'triumphant' or engaging in a 'takeover'.

I like N.T. Wright, who understands that, while it might not be as nice to him and his as they might like, the ECUSA (and for that matter the Church in Canada and in the British Isles) has (have) been doing exactly what the majority (granted, not a consensus, at least not yet) of the relevant communicants, theologians, and bishops have been wanting to do for quite a while in accordance with the way changes in church policy have always worked--through General Synods. Running roughshod over the ecclesiastical setup for ideological reasons is making it infinitely more difficult for the Communion to focus on the real problem, which is the creeping spiritual vacuity for which the idea that there has to be some sort of enforced unity on these kinds of political issues functions, whether the people who advocate it are trying to or not, as an effective stalking horse.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The groups are complementary. The Roman Catholics leaving the RCC are becoming, for the most part, liberal Anglo-Catholics. My point was that it's not exactly as if we're running out of Anglo-Catholics or something just yet.

Incidentally, if the ECUSA is dying that's not the ECUSA's fault, it's the broader society's. The Church doesn't fail mankind. Mankind fails the Church.

[J. J.]

Williams hasn't condemned the ECUSA exactly, mainly since it's an open secret that he's in almost entire agreement with them substantively if not procedurally; not all of the Catholics are going to Rome (and there are also Roman Catholics who come into the Communion out of disgust at how Rome does things); and as long as the Church of England is culturally closer to the North American Churches than to the African Churches the likeliest result is an eventual fracture between the liberal/Anglo-Catholic factions and the Evangelical factions, not the Evangelical factions taking over. Honestly, I don't see why we need the Evangelical factions, spiritually speaking; they can just bugger off and become Pentecostals if they keep being ungrateful to the Instruments of Unity for covering for their sorry asses. A Communion run by the Evangelical factions is a prospect that simultaneously baffles, sickly amuses, and terrifies me.

The proper head is of course the Archbishop, and the Queen has no authority whatsoever, even technical, over parts of the Communion other than the C of E.

His constant warnings to them have gone completely unheeded. Whether he agrees with them theologically is immaterial, he realizes that the actions taken by the ECUSA (and to a lesser extent the Canadians) are the real cause of disunity in the communion. If there were any avenue through which the ECUSA could have been punished it would have been, I don't see how anyone can argue otherwise.

The problem is that there is no mechanism for the Archbishop, short of breaking off communion.  The Episcopal Church, since the 1783, gives him no role in the church, to the point that the first American bishop was consecrated by the Scottish Episcopal Church.  It was founded, in part, to be separate from control by the Church of England.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A "takeover" would be totally irrelevant at this point.  Yes, the evangelical wing is "vibrant" in its own home.  The US is not one of those homes; I'd doubt that the UK is either.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

There shouldn't be a Church of England (non-Anglican response).

[CatoMinor]

Pope Benedict XIV

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Pope Benedict XIV

I don't think contemporaries of Vivaldi tend to make good leaders for the twenty-first century.

[Lucius Quintus Cincinatus Lamar]

Pope Benedict XIV

I don't think contemporaries of Vivaldi tend to make good leaders for the twenty-first century.

Down with the Chinese Rites!

[k-onmmunist]

There shouldn't be a Church of England (non-Anglican response).

[greenforest32]

There shouldn't be a Church of England (non-Anglican response).