Ship of Fools: Breaking apart ABC

Thread: Breaking apart ABC 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=024531

Posted by Dan BD (# 16559) on :

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.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

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.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

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?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

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.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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]

(Sorry, I know this belongs in DH)

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

But you thought you'd say it anyway, eh? [Roll Eyes]

[ 02. January 2013, 22:10: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

Posted by poileplume (# 16438) on :

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.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

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.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

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.

Posted by poileplume (# 16438) on :

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.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

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.

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

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?

Posted by Dan BD (# 16559) on :

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.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

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

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

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.

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :

One might wish to examine the New Zealand 'three Archbishops' model as well.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

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.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

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 ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

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.

Posted by poileplume (# 16438) on :

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.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

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.

Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :

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!

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0