|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Breaking apart ABC
|
Dan BD
Apprentice
# 16559
|
Posted
It has been publicly acknowledged by ABCs and others for a little while now that the ABC's communion, national, metropolitical and diocesan roles add up to far more than one person can handle.
Since we've yet to see anything radical proposed from Lambeth Palace or Church House, what practical ideas do we have for an overhaul?
For instance, I think an Archbishop of London (or of Westminster?) to manage the national CofE stuff with Church House would make a lot of sense.
--------------------
DBD
We're here to spread your message, we're leading from the front!
Your word will cross the borders, you'll be in ev'ry coun- -try soon.
Posts: 24 | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
Well - the obvious solution would be for the Primate of England (York) to take over from the Primate of All England the leadership of the CofE, leaving Canterbury with the international responsibilities. He's already largely dropped the diocesan responsibilities, which are delegated to the Bishop of Dover. But the idea of an archbishop of London taking responsibility for the province of Canterbury is a good one as well.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dan BD:
For instance, I think an Archbishop of London (or of Westminster?) to manage the national CofE stuff with Church House would make a lot of sense.
Surely ++Westminster has enough to do managing the national RCC stuff without taking on another denomination as well?
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I think it would be preferable, for historical reasons, for the ABC to remain Primate of all England. I think the leadership of the Anglican Communion should be hived off separately, not least so that it can be shared throughout the communion, rather than being picked up by accident when the CofE chooses a new leader. Perhaps the ABC should be based in Canterbury and Lambeth Palace should be the headquarters of the Anglican Communion.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan BD:
For instance, I think an Archbishop of London (or of Westminster?) to manage the national CofE stuff with Church House would make a lot of sense.
Surely ++Westminster has enough to do managing the national RCC stuff without taking on another denomination as well?
Not to mention persecuting gays. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) (Sorry, I know this belongs in DH)
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
But you thought you'd say it anyway, eh? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
[ 02. January 2013, 22:10: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
poileplume
Shipmate
# 16438
|
Posted
Please can we again revisit the concept of a leader of the international Anglican Communion?
The media and the general public outside the UK regard the ABC as the ‘leader of the Anglican Church’. A leader they see as elected by the ruler or government of the previous colonial power.
Plus any pronouncements he makes on CofE matters e.g. women bishops or gays are interpreted as policy for the Anglican Communion.
--------------------
Please note I am quite severely dyslexic
Posts: 319 | From: Quebec | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
Plus any pronouncements he makes on CofE matters e.g. women bishops or gays are interpreted as policy for the Anglican Communion.
I think as far as the Dead Horses go it's a case of "be careful what you wish for" - that leader is far more likely to be in the mould of Peter Akinola than Katharine Jefferts Schori.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
You might want to taek a look at the demographics of Anglicanism--- they do not favour the churches of the northern hemisphere. It might be as well to keep Canterbury in its place, with perhaps a bit of staff support, or then just relax with one of the many (well-educated, I might add) African bishops.
There might be something to be said for offloading some of the England-related stuff to York who, at any rate, is Primate of England.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
poileplume
Shipmate
# 16438
|
Posted
Arethosemyfeet I appreciate and thank you for your valued counsel. I was wondering about a chairman of an international synod sort of role. That might avoid the problem you pointed out.
There is another problem this is that the Anglican agenda does tend to be reflection of the competing Anglo agenda: US , UK, Australia etc. On purely selfish grounds, I was hoping that someone could steer it away onto more internationally relevant issues and debates.
--------------------
Please note I am quite severely dyslexic
Posts: 319 | From: Quebec | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dan BD:
It has been publicly acknowledged by ABCs and others for a little while now that the ABC's communion, national, metropolitical and diocesan roles add up to far more than one person can handle.
Since we've yet to see anything radical proposed from Lambeth Palace or Church House, what practical ideas do we have for an overhaul?
For instance, I think an Archbishop of London (or of Westminster?) to manage the national CofE stuff with Church House would make a lot of sense.
Forget about the metropolitical role altogether. Eliminate it, in fact. Leave the communion politics up to committee and spokesperson. Keep Dover active as a helper.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Panda
Shipmate
# 2951
|
Posted
I can see the need of a no 2 archbishop, as in York, but is there really any reason to keep England divided into north and south provinces? Does anything actually happen with it, in terms of organisation? Do all the dioceses in the north get together for a conference now and then? What's now the point of the two provinces?
Posts: 1637 | From: North Wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dan BD
Apprentice
# 16559
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
I can see the need of a no 2 archbishop, as in York, but is there really any reason to keep England divided into north and south provinces? Does anything actually happen with it, in terms of organisation? Do all the dioceses in the north get together for a conference now and then? What's now the point of the two provinces?
That is actually a very interesting question. Cheers, Panda.
I'm not sure. I suppose because 44 dioceses is too many for one primate? But then ABC has 30 plus an international role and prominent national role, so how much of a difference would there be? I have previously thought that there should be a few more provinces with an fairly even spread of dioceses... If York's was quite small, (s)he could take a national leader role (and similarly for Cant & international), I suppose.
--------------------
DBD
We're here to spread your message, we're leading from the front!
Your word will cross the borders, you'll be in ev'ry coun- -try soon.
Posts: 24 | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
May interest you Here is the nearest Reformed Equivalent to the ABC Anglican Communion role. Brief analysis
President:- Male African
Vice Presidents: 4 2 Male, 2 Female only one European, the American candidate has comes from Columbia
General Secretary (actually the person with the power, but an administrator not a figure head): male from Africa
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dan BD:
If York's was quite small, (s)he could take a national leader role (and similarly for Cant & international), I suppose.
Yes, it's an anomaly that the northern province is so much smaller. I only realised recently that Derby diocese is actually in Canterbury province: the former Bishop of Sheffield retired there and moved north and south simultaneously.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
I can see the need of a no 2 archbishop, as in York, but is there really any reason to keep England divided into north and south provinces? Does anything actually happen with it, in terms of organisation? Do all the dioceses in the north get together for a conference now and then? What's now the point of the two provinces?
At one point, Lichfield was a metropolitan see, but they reverted back to two provinces. I think that there might be an argument for 4-5 English provinces (the RCs have 4) with regional support admin and programme staff, thereby reducing diocesan curias.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
One might wish to examine the New Zealand 'three Archbishops' model as well.
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
I can see the need of a no 2 archbishop, as in York, but is there really any reason to keep England divided into north and south provinces? Does anything actually happen with it, in terms of organisation? Do all the dioceses in the north get together for a conference now and then? What's now the point of the two provinces?
At one point, Lichfield was a metropolitan see, but they reverted back to two provinces. I think that there might be an argument for 4-5 English provinces (the RCs have 4) with regional support admin and programme staff, thereby reducing diocesan curias.
Well there is a rather cack-handed proposal at the moment for merging three Yorkshire dioceses (Bradford, Ripon & Leeds and Wakefield), which will result in a vast geographical area with one Bishop. I know other parts of the world have much vaster territories but this is diddy England. The problem there seems to be that it might take 2 to 3 hours for people to travel to the diocesan HQ or cathedral. ISTM that it would be better to have smaller dioceses, with local support resources, but that much of the financial and legal admin could be done on a provincial level. It's all very well saying that in the internet age most things can be done online, but a diocese is a family and regular face to face meetings and liturgical celebrations are important.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
I am not entirely convinced that the Anglican Communion needs a 'leader' as such. I would favour a much looser confederation, perhaps with the broad definition 'in communion with the See of Canterbury'.
Perhaps one ought to avoid a pseudo-papal structure, and although the ABC has increasingly appeared Patriarchal, I remain unconvinced that this is necesarily a good thing. I understand that was the opinion of Rowan Williams, at least in the early years.
'Anglican Communion Affairs' tend to include the tautuous, circular and time-wasting arguments about women bishops, homosexuality and Anglican Covenants. It would be better if an Archbishop devoted his time to his diocese and Province, concentrating on his talents for the furtherance of the kingdom. At least Rowanb was able to lecture and teach and write - but not enough.
If one must have a 'leader', and this implies acceptance of a global structure, slightly different from a federation of national or cultural churches, then why not something like the Secretary General of the ACC, and let it rotate, and be for a fixed term like the President of the Methodist Conference or something?
I would wish to resist the mission creep of Anglican Communion to 'Anglican Church'. A looser federation might include the more radical TEC and also 'Continuing' churches. They would be in Communion with the See (rather than just an individual who occupies it) therefore widening the scope for the membership of various factions.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think it would be preferable, for historical reasons, for the ABC to remain Primate of all England. I think the leadership of the Anglican Communion should be hived off separately, not least so that it can be shared throughout the communion, rather than being picked up by accident when the CofE chooses a new leader. Perhaps the ABC should be based in Canterbury and Lambeth Palace should be the headquarters of the Anglican Communion.
I do like this idea. As long as it doesn't evolve into an Anglican pope (like sebby says above), since there's already a pope in Rome. The ABC should always be the first among equals, and have no power in the national churches other than influence.
But if a separate office were created to lead the Communion, and it were based in England, and the holder of the office (whatever it might be called) didn't have any other particular jurisdiction, it would be hard for it not to turn into a pope. Maybe having specified terms would prevent that?
[ 05. January 2013, 19:08: Message edited by: churchgeek ]
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I think the total lack of any power over the members of the communion would suffice to avoid any Papal overtones. A suitable example of powerlessness might be the presidency of the EU.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
poileplume
Shipmate
# 16438
|
Posted
If the international leader was merely the chairperson of an international general council (call it what you will) then it would be prevent them becoming a pseudo pope. Their official role would be to chair meetings and officiate over the agenda, that is no executive power.
The need to set meaningful agendas would necessitate a balanced approach. Thus 1) They would of necessity have to reflect the views of the constituent provinces, if necessary their disparate views. 2) Have to reach out to those who are not in accord with the dominant, conflicting Anglo agendas. As Sebby put it nicely, the “tautuous, circular and time-wasting arguments about women bishops, homosexuality and Anglican Covenants.” Please can we discuss something else e.g. the role of the Anglican Church in areas dominated by other religions or churches?
A chairperson of whatever you want to call it would find in reality that their key role was that of a facilitator of discussion, reflection and compromise which in our case equates to desperately needed development.
A PIECE OF TRIVIA. The Archdioceses of Litchfield was created as a sop to King Offa of Mercia, who was the top Saxon of the time. It got dropped when ‘Mercia rules OK’ no-longer rang though the mead halls of Saxon England.
--------------------
Please note I am quite severely dyslexic
Posts: 319 | From: Quebec | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
But if a separate office were created to lead the Communion, and it were based in England, and the holder of the office (whatever it might be called) didn't have any other particular jurisdiction, it would be hard for it not to turn into a pope.
Forget England. Geneva is headquarters, or mailing address at least, to many world religious organizations.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
Thesre is some residual differentiation between Canterbury and York provinces in that the two Convocations are required to meet and vote separately on some legislation.
The actual geographical bounmdaries are odd in places - at theological college in Nottingham (northern province) I went on placement each week to the southern province -all of 12 miles away!
--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi
"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh
Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
