Ship of Fools: Demote Archbishop of Canterbury, elect head instead

Thread: Demote Archbishop of Canterbury, elect head instead Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023072

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

The suggestion was made that the Archbishop of Canterbury should not be automatically the head of the communion and that there should be elections of the chair or head of the primates meetings etc. I'm thinking it is an interesting suggestion and would represent decentralization further of the diverse communion. What do you think?

Here's the link to a Church Times article.

quote:
THE Primates of Nigeria and Kenya suggested this week that the Archbishop of Canterbury should no longer chair the Primates’ Meeting. The chairman should instead be elected by the Primates themselves, they said.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

I imagine the most resistance will come from the more catholic end of the church, where the view of primacy is more one of honour relating to the venerability of the founding see, as with the orthodox and RC churches. Probably not a fatal objection though the proposal arguably represents a continued move towards an administrative model of church.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

As a non-Anglican, could it not be that whoever is elected the head of the Anglican communion, from whatever country, becomes the Archbishop of Canterbury - similar to the way that any cardinal can become the Bishop of Rome?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

So, the conservative bishops got together in Jerusalem and signed an agreement. Based on that agreement, they want to decide who is in or who is out of the Anglican Communion. Apparently, demoting the Archbishop of Canterbury and placing the power in the hands of a chairman of the Primates Meeting is the means by which they plan to enforce their definition of what Anglicanism is all about.

All this nonsense is getting old.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
So, the conservative bishops got together in Jerusalem and signed an agreement. Based on that agreement, they want to decide who is in or who is out of the Anglican Communion. Apparently, demoting the Archbishop of Canterbury and placing the power in the hands of a chairman of the Primates Meeting is the means by which they plan to enforce their definition of what Anglicanism is all about.

All this nonsense is getting old.

I was about to say this. Having the head of the Communion in a country positioned somewhere in the middle of liberal and reactionary factions is one of the few fortunate things holding the whole works together. Imagine if Bishop Jefferts-Schori got hold of the Communion and tried to turn it into some feel-good UN church; or if the Southern Cone or one of the conservative African provinces took the reins and stirred up an inquisition.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
When asked about Primates who would not endorse the Declaration, Dr Wabukala said: “That means self-exclusion. It’s not a covenant to sign to exclude you, but it is the faith that people profess to which you may not be comfortable.” He went on: “Of course, the fact that one [chairman] is elected, that means he is accepted by all of us.”

Now THAT is presumptuous.

Perhaps we should amend the Nicene Creed and the 39 Articles to reflect the GAFCON mission statement.

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

But for only 4 or 5 years terms. Would it be worse that any other electoral system? Many of our countries have elected absolute lunatics and survived.

The Abp of Canterbury has only status as chair/head and thus gets publicity. Can't actually do or make anyone else do anything. I suspect the Anglican Covenant's rejection has a role in this, and also in the current guy's resignation.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Yes, the GAFCON primates want to impose their own version of an Anglican Covenant by fiat. This chairman calls and presides over the Primates Meeting. You think the GAFCON approved chairman will invite the Primates of the Anglican Church of Canada or The Episcopal Church to the Primates Meeting? The chairman will only hold the office for 4 or 5 years. Then? Another primate who toes the GAFCON line will be elected.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

It's not an "interesting suggestion" nor does it "represent decentralization further of the diverse communion." It's a transparent power play from a group of bishops frustrated at their continued failures to get the Episcopal Church kicked out of the Anglican Communion.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

A better suggestion might be to rotate the chair among the Primates. Let each primate deal with the joy of presiding over the Communion.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
But for only 4 or 5 years terms. Would it be worse that any other electoral system? Many of our countries have elected absolute lunatics and survived.

The Abp of Canterbury has only status as chair/head and thus gets publicity. Can't actually do or make anyone else do anything. I suspect the Anglican Covenant's rejection has a role in this, and also in the current guy's resignation.

Ah, but there is the problem of the horror of electoral legitimacy which blissfully prevents any future Canadian senate reform. Once a position is elected, the position acquires more legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Therefore because of the increased legitimacy, the person is freer to exercise greater influence and power.

If the position really has no power, then no one would care how the position gets filled. A powerless position can be decided based on the flip of a coin since the person can't do any damage.

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

I think perhaps an "anarchistic collective" is perhaps the best idea. Wait! That's what we have!

Rewrite of the Monty Python scene from the Holy Grail:

"I am Rowan, Archbishop of Canterbury"
"Archbishop of what?"

Yes, indeed, of what? Given the state of the Communion, perhaps also an "if", eh?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
[...] could it not be that whoever is elected the head of the Anglican communion, from whatever country, becomes the Archbishop of Canterbury [...]?

Not while he gets an automatic seat in Parliament.

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

And not while his primary function is to oversee a province of the Church of England.

For my own part, I maintain that the Anglican Communion only exists, if it actually exists at all, as a federation of autocephalous churches. Thus, we will choose our own head thank you very much. If you don't like that, tough.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

Like most Episcopalians (and probably like most Canadian and Australian Anglicans), I am an Anglophile. Together with my father, who taught English, the church I've been brought up in since age 6 has certainly had more to do with that than anything else. What the English have historically done historically sets the standard for us, and there's no good reason to change that. I have no relationship whatsoever to the southern cone. Most of us don't even know what continent it's on. If the Anglican Communion is no longer Anglican (meaning English), what reason is there to feel any loyalty to it, especially when other members are known to be hostile. It would have become just another bureaucracy.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
we will choose our own head thank you very much.

If only! I know the Crown Appointments Committee has a large say, but ultimately it's down to a (not necessarily Anglican) PM and an unelected Monarch.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Is the ABC technically speaking the 'head' of the Anglican Communion in that he dictates to all and sundry what to do and expresses opinion on behalf of all members of said communion? No; I think not, yet this is precisely what many who want an elected 'head' to do. he is instead a focus for unity among those churches who choose to share a mutual affection in faith and who choose to make that journey - however difficult - together. I do wish the schismatics would do what they always threaten and clear off to their little tin shack bible hut headed by a short man with too big an ego.

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
we will choose our own head thank you very much.
If only! I know the Crown Appointments Committee has a large say, but ultimately it's down to a (not necessarily Anglican) PM and an unelected Monarch.

I'd rather trust them than GAFCON. But then I'd rather trust a hat than the "assembled wisdom" of GAFCON. After all, a negative quantity can only generate a void, surely?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Well quite. (Both to FooloftheShip and fletcher christian)

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Like most Episcopalians (and probably like most Canadian and Australian Anglicans), I am an Anglophile. Together with my father, who taught English, the church I've been brought up in since age 6 has certainly had more to do with that than anything else. What the English have historically done historically sets the standard for us, and there's no good reason to change that. I have no relationship whatsoever to the southern cone. Most of us don't even know what continent it's on. If the Anglican Communion is no longer Anglican (meaning English), what reason is there to feel any loyalty to it, especially when other members are known to be hostile. It would have become just another bureaucracy.

I see no danger in the abstract concept of the head Primacy being an office that rotates among member churches or is elected as long as that office remains an honorary and largely ceremonial one. Anglican to me means the style of worship and indicates its origin, and not so much the location of the central church committees. Thus when the Anglican Church of North America calls itself Anglican, it's not lying, because its worship and doctrine have their origin in the Church of England, whether or not it is in communion with the Church of England or recognized as a member province of the Anglican Communion.

What makes this move objectionable to me is that it is a transparent and cynical political ploy to attempt to force the more liberal provinces from the Communion. It's otherwise immaterial to me whether the head of the Communion is the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, or the Archbishop of Kenya.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
we will choose our own head thank you very much.
If only! I know the Crown Appointments Committee has a large say, but ultimately it's down to a (not necessarily Anglican) PM and an unelected Monarch.

Shipmates know well my predeliction for the Coptic system of choosing leaders by lot. However, the real question, which perhaps the proposers have not noticed, is to what responsibility is the person being selected. If the head of a formally-constituted denomination, then perhaps an election is the way to go-- but I am not sure that the Anglican Communion is that sort of operation. If it is to a more-or-less symbolic chairmanship, then it really doesn't matter how they're chosen, as long as others are prepared to accept it. While Anglicanism is denominationalish, it has no formal legislative or executive mechanism, having long operated on a handshake.

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
While Anglicanism is denominationalish, it has no formal legislative or executive mechanism, having long operated on a handshake.

I hate to mention it, but can this assumption survive the Covenant, assuming it to see the light of day in some form? And do we assume it won't until it does, or that it will until we can actually witness its burial (hopefully of an ecological nature, to offset the carbon dioxide it has generated)?

Posted by Clavus (# 9427) on :

quote:
If only! I know the Crown Appointments Committee has a large say, but ultimately it's down to a (not necessarily Anglican) PM and an unelected Monarch.

This statement is misleading to those not familiar with the way the British constitution works. The PM must 'choose' the first of the two names on the list produced by the Crown Appointments. The Queen must 'approve' the choice. The Canterbury College of Canons must 'elect' him. The Bishops' Commission must 'confirm' the choice. To say that any of these could refuse to do what is required of them may be true in theory but not in practice - that's the British constitution!

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I am glad to agree wityh Beesxwax Altar again. That happens very rarely.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
While Anglicanism is denominationalish, it has no formal legislative or executive mechanism, having long operated on a handshake.
I hate to mention it, but can this assumption survive the Covenant, assuming it to see the light of day in some form? And do we assume it won't until it does, or that it will until we can actually witness its burial (hopefully of an ecological nature, to offset the carbon dioxide it has generated)?

From what I understand, the Anglican Covenant has been rejected by most of the "Northern" churches that have considered it, including the Church of England. If the Church of England, the heart of the Communion, refuses to be bound by the covenant, what real power can it have?

At most it will merely spur the provinces that did sign on to form a "Real Anglican Communion in Exile" organization.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
At most it will merely spur the provinces that did sign on to form a "Real Anglican Communion in Exile" organization.

More likely they'll deliver annual screed about having to live under the same roof as "that hussy" and constantly stand at the door shouting that they'll go if we don't do things their way.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Whilst I am not a GAFCON kinda guy - hopefully my earlier comment made that clear - I would have to observe that describing them as schismatic is meaningless. We are autocephalous churches as already pointed out. A schism is a split within a church.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Whilst I am not a GAFCON kinda guy - hopefully my earlier comment made that clear - I would have to observe that describing them as schismatic is meaningless. We are autocephalous churches as already pointed out. A schism is a split within a church.

That's true. And I think the real question is what, if any, real harm would it do to the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Church of Canada or other more progressive churches if the Anglican Communion split, dissolved, or decided to unfriend us. How many people in the United States know or really, genuinely care what the Anglican Communion is and whether the Episcopal Church is a member?

It might matter to some bishops, a few priests, and might create some headaches for ecumenicalists and visiting clergy, but the average person in the pews is not likely to go join one of the schismatic churches on American soil that might be in the communion in our stead.

If anything, the club benefits the Global South far more than it does us, in that it fosters charitable relationships between churches in rich countries to churches in poor countries.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
That's true. And I think the real question is what, if any, real harm would it do to the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Church of Canada or other more progressive churches if the Anglican Communion split, dissolved, or decided to unfriend us. How many people in the United States know or really, genuinely care what the Anglican Communion is and whether the Episcopal Church is a member?

GAFCON buggering off might not technically be a schism, but it can and has been the occasion for one. We had a schism in the Episcopal Church, and the GAFCON crew is giving ACNA a false sense of legitimacy.

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

Maybe there's another thing here. It's separate from the distaste we may have for GAFCON. It's about how power is exercised within Anglicanism. Does democracy have a role? It certainly does in the election of all bishops in North America. Including national church primates. Appointments are by their nature viewed with suspicion here and garner comments of legitimacy. It could certainly be that the UK gov't can continue to appoint bishops but they may become only local to the country if power is devolved. Makes me wonder where the current of the river of history may flow.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
That's true. And I think the real question is what, if any, real harm would it do to the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Church of Canada or other more progressive churches if the Anglican Communion split, dissolved, or decided to unfriend us. How many people in the United States know or really, genuinely care what the Anglican Communion is and whether the Episcopal Church is a member?
GAFCON buggering off might not technically be a schism, but it can and has been the occasion for one. We had a schism in the Episcopal Church, and the GAFCON crew is giving ACNA a false sense of legitimacy.

The ACNA folks have already flown the coop. Whether they have a false sense of legitimacy, most of the parishes won't last a decade and they'll end up joining the Baptists or converting to Catholicism through the Ordinariate.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
Maybe there's another thing here. It's separate from the distaste we may have for GAFCON. It's about how power is exercised within Anglicanism. Does democracy have a role? It certainly does in the election of all bishops in North America. Including national church primates. Appointments are by their nature viewed with suspicion here and garner comments of legitimacy. It could certainly be that the UK gov't can continue to appoint bishops but they may become only local to the country if power is devolved. Makes me wonder where the current of the river of history may flow.

As I see it, the Archbishop of Canterbury is to the Anglican Communion as the Queen is to the Commonwealth countries. You don't get to have any say in the coronation of a monarch, but it doesn't really matter because she's a figurehead that you use for occasional state visit photo ops and someone's face to put on your money.

The foreign churches get no say in the choice of Archbishop of Canterbury, but he matters even less than your national primate to the day to day operation of your parish, which is to say not at all. Canterbury comes up in our prayers for The Church, and it's neat to think that we're part of some 400-year-old tradition with fancy cathedrals in England, but the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't really MATTER outside of England, and so the undemocratic nature of his selection matters little.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0