Ship of Fools: The end of the See of Canterbury?

Thread: The end of the See of Canterbury? 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=029519

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

The Guardian reports

quote:
The archbishop of Canterbury is proposing to effectively dissolve the fractious and bitterly divided worldwide Anglican communion and replace it with a much looser grouping.

Justin Welby has summoned all of the 38 leaders of the national churches of the Anglican communion to a meeting in Canterbury next January, where he will propose that the communion be reorganised as a group of churches that are all linked to Canterbury but no longer necessarily to each other.

Is this another step towards complete schism?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

The Church Times reports

quote:
The plan was likened by one source to “moving into separate bedrooms” rather than divorcing. It is said to be part inspired by the structure of the Orthodox Church, and is understood to have been discussed with Lord Williams.

Any thoughts on that?

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The Church Times reports

quote:
The plan was likened by one source to “moving into separate bedrooms” rather than divorcing. It is said to be part inspired by the structure of the Orthodox Church, and is understood to have been discussed with Lord Williams.
Any thoughts on that?

For one thing, I suppose, it's the first time I've heard the structure of the Orthodox Church described as inspiring.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

You mean ideologues would no longer be in a position to try and dictate how other members of the Church should believe and behave?

What fun is that?

Why in the heck can't we United Methodists think of solutions like that?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Isn't he simply recognising what is already de facto the case?

It sounds to me like an attempt to avert schism by loosening the reins rather than hastening it by clinging onto them tightly.

My guess would be that it's only a matter of time until the Anglican world fragments. The wonder is that it's taken so long.

In actuality, of course, Anglicanism has been fragmenting for centuries - most of the non-conformist groups in the UK separated from the CofE at some point of other - whether it be the Independents (later the Congregationalists), the Baptists, Methodists or the Brethren. They've all got Anglican DNA.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fausto:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The Church Times reports

quote:
The plan was likened by one source to “moving into separate bedrooms” rather than divorcing. It is said to be part inspired by the structure of the Orthodox Church, and is understood to have been discussed with Lord Williams.
Any thoughts on that?
For one thing, I suppose, it's the first time I've heard the structure of the Orthodox Church described as inspiring.

I'm not sure the Orthodox churches claim they have a structure, though I'd rather an Orthodox shipmate confirmed that. Rather that they are a collection of individual churches that are in communion with each other.

Since the proposal won't address inter-communion - largely because Anglicanism has no fixed idea of what it means - it's probably all irrelevant anyway.

Nothing to see here, just the same old schism.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Isn't the technical term 'autocephalous'? I think that sort of means that the leading bishop of a particular church is neither subject to another bishop nor appointed by another bishop.

As neither the Archbishop of Canterbury nor the collective authorities within the CofE appoint the bishops in other churches, and have not done so for many, many years one could say that this has existed for a long time already. Perhaps it might be better and more fruitful to what is being proposed as more like the CofE recognising the ecclesiastical equivalent of the end of empire.

One could also say that it's a great pity this has been provoked by distasteful arguments about dead horses when it probably should have been addressed years ago when it was not being driven by a quite different destructive and acrimonious controversy.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

In actuality, of course, Anglicanism has been fragmenting for centuries - most of the non-conformist groups in the UK separated from the CofE at some point of other - whether it be the Independents (later the Congregationalists), the Baptists, Methodists or the Brethren. They've all got Anglican DNA.

I want to kick back a bit at this idea. I don't think it is really true to say that all of the above have Anglican DNA for a number of reasons.

First, the notion of a non-conformist religious tendency has been around for a very long time, and there is evidence that there have always been wandering religious mystics in England operation outside of the mainstream religious authorities.

Second, whilst in one sense you are correct in that the Anglican church was for a long time the only legal form of religion in England, you're also completely wrong to assert that there is a straight-line ancestry between modern protestant beliefs and Anglicanism. Where it is true, it was often because of necessity. And using this logic you can also argue that almost all "unofficial" religion in England (and N America) has Anglican DNA (including Satanism etc). That's pretty ridiculous IMO.

Third, not all English protestants have their roots in Anglicanism anyway. There were always distinct movements outwith of the Anglican system which were influential in time.

Clearly some of the movements you've described above did come directly from Anglicanism, such as the Methodists. Some came very indirectly, some had very little influence from the Anglicans, some were set up in opposition to the Anglicans. For example, it is very difficult to argue that the General Baptists had much DNA from the Anglicans.

It is a very messy story, and your soundbite is obscuring rather than illuminating the truth.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Let me take a Reformed perspective. Presbyterianism has been plagued with schism. Congregationalism has rarely had one that has made headlines. Are Congregationalist saints? No way! The fact is that as all congregations are free to leave the central institutional bodies whenever they feel the necessity, they rarely build up the head of steam that is necessary for the explosion that leads to into schism. It is slow drip rather than explosion if you like. On the one hand there is always a low level of grumble upset and stropping around and little attempt to enforce agreement. On the other a fully divisive row is avoided.

So the Congregational choice is less conformity and less schism.

Jengie

p.s. as the See of Canterbury is the for historical reasons primarily the dominant See in the Church of England and only because of historic coincidence head of the Anglican Communion, I would suggest that there is no talk of disolving the See of Canterbury.

p.p.s There is no reason why a communion of churches needs a titutular head, after all, WCRC does not.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:

p.s. as the See of Canterbury is the for historical reasons primarily the dominant See in the Church of England and only because of historic coincidence head of the Anglican Communion, I would suggest that there is no talk of disolving the See of Canterbury.

Well that's true - the Archbishop of Canterbury is the Bishop of East Kent, the Archbishop of Southern England and the overall "chief amongst equals" of the Primates of the Anglican Communion.

The latter role appears to be the one which is under threat, and as far as I can make out, one which takes up a lot of his time. Presumably if Canterbury was just another Primacy (possibly with an elected or rotating head?) then the role as we currently have it would dissolve.

I accept that, depending on your definition and understanding of See, this might not imply a dissolving - but I was using it as a shorthand to refer to Anglicanism as a Worldwide Phenomena (in contrast to, say, the See of Rome).

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

The Church Times article seems to be saying the opposite - the Anglican churches will be in communion with Canterbury but not necessarily each other. In other words the only part of the Anglican Communion that will survive is the connection to Canterbury.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The Church Times article seems to be saying the opposite - the Anglican churches will be in communion with Canterbury but not necessarily each other. In other words the only part of the Anglican Communion that will survive is the connection to Canterbury.

That appears to be what the ABofC wants, but personally I can't see why anyone would want to do that.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
That appears to be what the ABofC wants, but personally I can't see why anyone would want to do that.

Because he doesn't want to be known in history as the Archbishop who dissolved the Anglican Communion?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Because he doesn't want to be known in history as the Archbishop who dissolved the Anglican Communion?

Right, but why would a notorious African Primate want to associate with someone who associates with the North American church? I can't see that this works, I can't see that the different national churches actually gain anything by associating indirectly via Canterbury.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Right, but why would a notorious African Primate want to associate with someone who associates with the North American church? I can't see that this works, I can't see that the different national churches actually gain anything by associating indirectly via Canterbury.

Because I think at some level being part of a multinational body of churches actually appeals - after all, they all continue to be involved in the current much more tightly meshed structure, don't they?

There are various motives for this - some noble, some less so - depending on the particular church.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Right, but why would a notorious African Primate want to associate with someone who associates with the North American church? I can't see that this works, I can't see that the different national churches actually gain anything by associating indirectly via Canterbury.

I can accept that there are people like that, but why do people say 'I won't be friends with you unless you refuse to be a friend of X'?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Because I think at some level being part of a multinational body of churches actually appeals - after all, they all continue to be involved in the current much more tightly meshed structure, don't they?

I guess it depends on what is meant. Several refused to attend the last Lambeth conference, there are various daughter churches in other jurisdictions and so forth.

I'm not sure what the engagement level of all jurisdictions is in the overall (official) Anglican Communion, but I suspect there are large parts who do not engage at all.

Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :

From an American's perspective --- Wouldn't what is being proposed be something like the Commonwealth of Nations in distinction from the old British Empire? They all recognize the British monarch as "figurative" Head of the Commonwealth; they all share a common history; they all relate to one another through the Commonwealth Games and their occasional meetings; but other than that, each country is sovereign and autonomous, and the degree to which they relate to one another depends on how nice they are and how well they're digesting their oatmeal on any given morning.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I guess it depends on what is meant. Several refused to attend the last Lambeth conference, there are various daughter churches in other jurisdictions and so forth.

OTOH Perhaps they wanted the invitation to be there for them to reject?

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
From an American's perspective --- Wouldn't what is being proposed be something like the Commonwealth of Nations in distinction from the old British Empire? They all recognize the British monarch as "figurative" Head of the Commonwealth; they all share a common history; they all relate to one another through the Commonwealth Games and their occasional meetings; but other than that, each country is sovereign and autonomous, and the degree to which they relate to one another depends on how nice they are and how well they're digesting their oatmeal on any given morning.

I think the analogy with the Commonwealth is a fair one. In some ways what is being proposed is like the London Declaration of 1949, which changed the British Commonwealth into the Commonwealth of Nations and allowed republics and sovereign monarchies to be members of the Commonwealth. I suspect the hope is that the new arrangements, like the Commonwealth, will make very little sense on paper, but will somehow 'work'. And Justin Welby gets to stay as the Queen.

Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on :

And what about the Archbishop's having invited a North American schismatic group to this meeting? As an actual North American Anglican, this is offensive. If he gives them a sliver of legitimacy, what's to stop the same sorts of people in the Church of England from demanding their own separate and coterminous Anglican Church.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
And what about the Archbishop's having invited a North American schismatic group to this meeting? As an actual North American Anglican, this is offensive. If he gives them a sliver of legitimacy, what's to stop the same sorts of people in the Church of England from demanding their own separate and coterminous Anglican Church.

We are a schismatic group - all of us Anglicans.

Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on :

No, we're not at all. The only way to figure that is if you take the Roman Catholic's view of history. If you believe that, then surely you believe that we should be working to return all that stolen property in England back to the Holy See, right? [Biased]

Anyway, the legitimacy of the Church of England is a little beyond the scope of the discussion, I think. Even if Anglicans were schismatic, you're assuming that we wouldn't think more of it is a bad thing.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Oh, I think more of it is a bad thing, certainly.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

The ABofC is a very wise man. Think of all the fuss over women bishops, which has now become normality. I can see this loose grouping of groups becoming just as unremarkable very soon. He will find a way.

(Pity he still can't manage to get the takeaway man to deliver....)

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
And what about the Archbishop's having invited a North American schismatic group to this meeting? As an actual North American Anglican, this is offensive. If he gives them a sliver of legitimacy, what's to stop the same sorts of people in the Church of England from demanding their own separate and coterminous Anglican Church.

It's telling that after what I said

quote:
"why do people say 'I won't be friends with you unless you refuse to be a friend of X'?"

which provoke most people on these boards to think of GAFCON, the first person to advocate this approach on this thread is speaking from the opposite ideological end of the argument.

Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on :

I see what you're trying to do, but that's not what I am saying at all. It's also possible that you're unfamiliar with the North American situation, and I'll give the benefit of the doubt in that regard.

My parish has never had a woman celebrate the Eucharist, and it doesn't plan to any time soon; so I don't mind sitting at the table with those who disagree, and I think it's very valuable thing. It's those who have already stomped off, and tried to set up a parallel church whose aim to wholly supplant the Episcopal Church. ACNA holds itself out as the legitimate Anglican body in America and claims to be part of the Anglican Communion. I have no problem with GAFCON bishops being part of the conversation. I do have a problem, however, with their trying to exercise jurisdiction in America in the form of ACNA.

Again, if ACNA is legitimized by Canterbury, what's to stop bishops from other parts of the world from setting up in England "Anglican" parishes and missions that are in opposition to the CofE?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Kick back as much as you like, mr cheesy, but the fact remains that the earliest English Independents and English Baptists had previously been Anglicans

I didn't say that ALL UK or specigically Protestants had Anglican DNA - the Salvation Army don't, neither do the Pentecostals. Those groups which seperated - or were forced out - in the 17th century had been Anglican previously.

As for medieval mystics, they would have been RCs.

The Lollards were medieval seperatists but they were all but extinct by the Reformation and certainly by the early 17th ventury whem the first Separatists or Brownists separated from the CofE. Brown later returned to the Anglican fold and became a vicar.

I am not making any value judgements about either Anglicanism or non-conformity - simply citing historical facts

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Interesting that you say the SA don't have Anglican DNA. IIRC Mudfrog (who should know) said something to the opposite effect somewhere on here recently. Don't forget they came out of Methodism.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Thomas Helwys may have attended an Anglican church, as was the law, but he was not ordained as an Anglican, and fled to Holland begin his baptist church.

The idea that English General Baptists are somehow direct descendants of Anglicans is bogus.

[ 17. September 2015, 21:04: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
I suspect the hope is that the new arrangements, like the Commonwealth, will make very little sense on paper, but will somehow 'work'. And Justin Welby gets to stay as the Queen.

That makes it sound like a face-saving exercise. Th reality is that the Commonwealth matters little now because the only member with the power to make it work decided not to bother.

I have my own particular reasons for not welcoming this development (them being that I'm a CofE expat in NZ). There are already enough oddities about the Anglican Church in NZ despite its being (in theory at least) joined to the CofE in terms of doctrine. Given that outside England it's not very clear what Anglican churches are for I'm not sure they will survive anyway.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Mr Cheesy, arguably they may not have Anglican DNA but the General Baptists undoubtedly do have CofE DNA. They descend directly from those who at the Restoration did not accept the Restoration settlement and were ejected on 24th August 1662.

A fundamental issue in the Civil War was what the CofE was going to be like. Laud tried to swing it sharply away from where it had been in 1603. The Parliamentarians tried to swing it sharply in an Independent direction and for c11 years it followed that way. At the Restoration it was swung back partly in a Laudian direction, but not far enough that a lot of those who had accepted wouldn't live with it. Some wouldn't though. Old Dissent, whether Baptist or URC is descended from those that decided they could not live with the Restoration Settlement.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

I have my own particular reasons for not welcoming this development (them being that I'm a CofE expat in NZ). There are already enough oddities about the Anglican Church in NZ despite its being (in theory at least) joined to the CofE in terms of doctrine. Given that outside England it's not very clear what Anglican churches are for I'm not sure they will survive anyway.

What would you say that the C of E is for then, apart from being the established church?

At the moment, the Anglican Communion is very similar to many of the Eastern Orthodox churches - AFAIK, the Primates are all in communion with each other. Now that ++ Peter Jensen has gone from Sydney, all diocesan archbishops and bishops are in communion with our Primate (I'm not sure about + Ivan Lee, a Regional Bishop in Sydney). The Eastern Orthodox are tested by whether they are in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch. Again, IIRC, most are, but perhaps some of the Russians have still not returned to the fold.

The big difference is that there is no Anglican equivalent to Mt Athos as the ultimate repository of authority on doctrine. My Anglicanism is opposed to a point of reference like that; we value the centrifugal tensions which bind us together. It is that opposition which led to the rejection of the proposed covenant, and one which should be maintained.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

The CofE is the national church of England. That is its role. Despite the fact that the Catholics and Muslims have overtaken it in numbers of regular worshippers, the CofE still has an authoritative and familiar voice in public matters due to the history and traditions of England, and through its physical presence across the country.

No other Anglican church can say the same, as they haven't the history. Here, fore example, the Anglican Church (originally the Church of New Zealand) here made some pretence at a similar role during colonial days, but now it's a very pale shadow. Just as any conscious adherence to Britishness has become out of date here, so the Anglican Church looks like an institution where the atmosphere of the elder generations has remained dominant while society outside its doors has changed.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

So will this conference have facilitated listening? Is it an attempt to bury schism in committee?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Mr Cheesy, arguably they may not have Anglican DNA but the General Baptists undoubtedly do have CofE DNA. They descend directly from those who at the Restoration did not accept the Restoration settlement and were ejected on 24th August 1662.

By that reasoning, every denomination in the West has Roman Catholic DNA. That's a stretch.

quote:
A fundamental issue in the Civil War was what the CofE was going to be like. Laud tried to swing it sharply away from where it had been in 1603. The Parliamentarians tried to swing it sharply in an Independent direction and for c11 years it followed that way. At the Restoration it was swung back partly in a Laudian direction, but not far enough that a lot of those who had accepted wouldn't live with it. Some wouldn't though. Old Dissent, whether Baptist or URC is descended from those that decided they could not live with the Restoration Settlement.

True but largely irrelevant. There were already religious non-conformists outwith of the CofE in the Civil War period - including groups of Quakers, Independents and Baptists.

It is true that many of these sided with the Parliamentarians during the Civil War, but they were not part of the CofE.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
The CofE is the national church of England. That is its role. Despite the fact that the Catholics and Muslims have overtaken it in numbers of regular worshippers, the CofE still has an authoritative and familiar voice in public matters due to the history and traditions of England, and through its physical presence across the country.

Of course that's true, although one wonders whether a breakdown in the Anglican Communion would lead to the disintegration of the Anglican Church into many daughter churches.

There are some who look to GAFCOM, there are some who look to New Wine, there are some who look to Rome. If the international outlook is for a collection of churches who don't really communicate or agree on anything much, then it is quite hard to see why churches who think along the same lines would continue trying to hang things together in England.

It seems to me that the inevitable direction of travel for the Anglican church is a split into 4 or more pieces, because there is almost nothing gained for any of the pieces to stay together.

I'm not sure what will happen with regard to the "national church" aspect, but I guess that will be retained by the Cathedrals - which seem to operate more-or-less autonomously anyway. It seems that this is essentially what happens in the USA with the National Cathedral in Washington being used as a place for major civil events, even though few of those in power are Episcopalian and there is no reason why this denomination should be used rather than a Methodist, Southern Baptist etc church.

The greatest changes are likely to be in the parishes, where I think it is likely some form of NSM will be mostly taking services for one of the daughter Anglican churches. Some larger churches will break off to make some form of congregational church, I think. Quite what will happen to all the buildings, schools etc, I can't really imagine.

quote:
No other Anglican church can say the same, as they haven't the history. Here, fore example, the Anglican Church (originally the Church of New Zealand) here made some pretence at a similar role during colonial days, but now it's a very pale shadow. Just as any conscious adherence to Britishness has become out of date here, so the Anglican Church looks like an institution where the atmosphere of the elder generations has remained dominant while society outside its doors has changed.

I don't know anything about the NZ Anglicans, but my perception is that churches which do well are those which come to terms with the break with Englishness and form their own identity anyway.

There is nothing shameful or embarrassing about being your own thing rather than trying to replicate a British Anglican tradition that died more than a century ago.

And that might just lead to the death of some local national Anglican churches in some places. No biggie.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I didn't say that ALL UK or specigically Protestants had Anglican DNA - the Salvation Army don't, neither do the Pentecostals. Those groups which seperated - or were forced out - in the 17th century had been Anglican previously.

(Emphasis mine.)

As a point of pedantry I would suggest that the percentage of DNA in the Church of Scotland and its various offshoots is probably quite small...

[ 18. September 2015, 09:12: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, I would agree with your point of pedantry, Ricardus and also agree with Enoch on the historical issues.

It may still be a point of pedantry I'm raising with mr cheesy but whilst Helwys wasn't ordained Anglican he'd have been brought up in the Church of England like every one else at that time who wasn't Roman Catholic and a 'recusant'.

All the independent groups of the 17th century period emerged from some general or nominally CofE background - the Quakers, the Independents - you name them ...

The idea that there was some kind of separate thread or strand outwith the national church of that time or the Roman Catholics who would not conform or convert is a myth. Indigenous independency in England didn't exist until the Brownists separated in the early 1600s. Sure, there were Anabaptists about before that - and some were tortured or executed during the reign of Henry VIII but they were largely either incomers from the Netherlands and elsewhere or people influenced by the emergence of radical reformed groups in continental Europe.

To acknowledge as much isn't to defame or denigrate English Independency or the Baptists in any way - it's simply to acknowledge historical conditions.

Neither is it to say that the 'grip' or influence of the CofE was uniform or even that strong in different parts of the country - hence the Prayer Book Rebellion, the Pilgrimage of Grace and so on ... and arguably Protestantism in Wales retained something of a more 'mystical' and somewhat 'Catholic' flavour to some extent well beyond the time we are talking about here.

So, no, I don't think it's that much of a stretch to see RC DNA within Western Christendom as a whole nor indeed to see Anglican DNA within Old Dissent as well as among the Methodists.

I included the Salvation Army and the Pentecostals in my list of groups with less Anglican DNA as they are at one more step removed - ie the Salvation Army came out of Methodism which first came out of the CofE ...

Certainly at the time of Wesley much of the CofE had more in common with Old Dissent in terms of a shared Calvinism than it did with the more Arminian Wesleyan strand of things.

At the time, Whitefield with his Calvinism was the best known 'face' of the Great Awakening - although the Wesleyan strand gradually grew in importance and influence.

Anyhow, I'm at a loss to explain mr cheesy's attempts to deny Anglican DNA within the various non-conformist groups - because plenty of non-conformists I know will readily acknowledge as much. One could conclude that the idea of an Apostolic Succession dies hard and that some independents try to concoct or trace one in order to make up that lack ... [Big Grin]

More seriously, I think it's more a case that the separatist tendency is so strong - 'we don't want to be associated with THEM ...' that separatists tend to push the point of separation further back into history in order to distance themselves from the bodies they broke away from ...

That's Puritanism for you.

[Biased]

And Anglicans do the same thing too, of course, in denying that any real separation took place in their own case and that the RC moved from them and not the other way round ...

As indeed the RCs and the Orthodox claim in terms of their relations with one another ...

We all do it.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

If my memory serves from what I've read, there were around 40 Baptist churches in and around London by the 1640s. Most of them would have been very small groups indeed.

The first sizeable group of English Separatists were the Brownists - and most of the passengers on the Mayflower were of this particular group or persuasion.

It's difficult to date the 'start' of the English Baptists but we're looking at groups forming between 1600 and 1640. These groups were set up by people disillusioned with the CofE - not people who somehow operated outwith it.

As for the Quakers, they didn't arise until the Commonwealth period and many of the often exotic independent groups arose during the turmoil of the Civil War and its aftermath.

They didn't have any prior existence outwith the CofE. Where else would they have come from? They didn't spontaneously generate out of thin air.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Meanwhile, to drop the tangent and return to the main thrust ...

Only 4 pieces, mr cheesy?

[Biased]

I think what we're looking at - at least initially - is the break up of the Anglican Communion internationally rather than within the UK - although that might indeed follow fairly swiftly after any international separations.

FWIW, I wouldn't expect any major spin-offs from the CofE here in England just yet (we are talking the Church of England now aren't we? Not the Church in Wales, the Church of Ireland or the Scottish Episcopal Church) ...

For instance, there wasn't as much of an exodus over either women priests or women bishops as some expected. If Synod ever accepted SSM then there might be more departures but even then ...

An Anglo-Catholic priest I know once observed that the reason that there are more apparent tensions now between the various groups and persuasions that make up the CofE is simply because they've all become a lot more aware of each other.

Time was when you could do your bells-and-smells thang at St Ethelreda's without being unduly concerned about what happy-clappy or uber-Reformed things were going on in the next parish - because there were sufficient punters to go around.

Now, with ageing congregations and numerical decline as well as neighbouring parishes tweeting you every 5 minutes or bombarding you with emails and newsletters, they can't hide from each other any more and pretend that they don't exist ...

[Big Grin]

In the fullness of time, I can foresee some of the more 'successful' charismatic evangelical parishes hiving off into some kind of New Wine-y mini-denomination but I've been expecting that to happen for some time and it's not happened yet.

I agree with mr cheesy about the decline of 'English identity' and church-going as a respectable habit that doesn't frighten the horses - and I can foresee some kind of emergence of 'centres of excellence' - be they cathedrals or evangelical preaching centres or seeker-friendly Willow Creek wannabes ...

But I wouldn't want to lay odds on timescale.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Of course, the Baptist World Alliance has been a federation of individual (and very different) national Baptist Unions ever since its inception in 1905. Things weren't helped though when the American Southern Baptists left a number of years ago - partly IMO because they were miffed that their views weren't always accepted. In a sense it seems that the Anglicans are moving towards this way of working from a model which derived more from both Catholic ecclesiology and British colonialism.

BTW I went to a super Anglican service on Madeira a couple of weeks ago - there's been a church there since 1822. But the congregation appeared to be entirely expatriates (mostly holiday-makers rather than residents).

[ 18. September 2015, 12:25: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Anyhow, I'm at a loss to explain mr cheesy's attempts to deny Anglican DNA within the various non-conformist groups - because plenty of non-conformists I know will readily acknowledge as much. One could conclude that the idea of an Apostolic Succession dies hard and that some independents try to concoct or trace one in order to make up that lack ...

Because it is totally meaningless. Everyone went to the CofE because that was the law at one point. That doesn't mean that there is any kind of succession of thought or practice or theology or anything in the non-conformist churches. This continual banging on about DNA is utterly meaningless.

quote:
More seriously, I think it's more a case that the separatist tendency is so strong - 'we don't want to be associated with THEM ...' that separatists tend to push the point of separation further back into history in order to distance themselves from the bodies they broke away from ...

You can't get much more "I don't want to be associated with them" than leaving, running away to another country, declaring that the national church is the spawn of the devil and being burned at the stake for heresy on the order of a bishop.

In what actual tangible sense do the non-conformist churches have CofE DNA? What actually do you mean by that phrase?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In what actual tangible sense do the non-conformist churches have CofE DNA? What actually do you mean by that phrase?

ISTM that there is a big difference between the "old Dissenters" who consciously rebelled against much of what the CofE stood for, and the "new Dissenters" (i.e. Methodists) who not only saw themselves as contiguous with the Anglican but who, in some cases (the Wesleyans but not the Primitives), followed their liturgies for many years.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

FWIW, I wouldn't expect any major spin-offs from the CofE here in England just yet (we are talking the Church of England now aren't we? Not the Church in Wales, the Church of Ireland or the Scottish Episcopal Church) ...

I've no idea about what would happen in any of those places.

quote:
For instance, there wasn't as much of an exodus over either women priests or women bishops as some expected. If Synod ever accepted SSM then there might be more departures but even then ...

You are right - to an extent. There have been waves of people leaving, not least from the exit to Rome with the former Bishop of Ebbsfleet. Also there are various other destinations that have attracted Anglican-trained clergy.

So I think it has happened, possibly not to a eye-opening extent, but I think the real impact has been when these positions have not been replaced and/or congregations have shared clergy or had NSMs.

quote:
An Anglo-Catholic priest I know once observed that the reason that there are more apparent tensions now between the various groups and persuasions that make up the CofE is simply because they've all become a lot more aware of each other.

That's quite possibly true. And also, I think, because some have barely disguised hatred for one another.

quote:
Time was when you could do your bells-and-smells thang at St Ethelreda's without being unduly concerned about what happy-clappy or uber-Reformed things were going on in the next parish - because there were sufficient punters to go around.

I'm not sure this is just about jealousy, I think some feel that others are "not pulling their weight" and that some large wealthy evangelical congregations are financially supporting liberal ones - who they do not feel are really "teaching the gospel". That's the sense I'm getting.

quote:
In the fullness of time, I can foresee some of the more 'successful' charismatic evangelical parishes hiving off into some kind of New Wine-y mini-denomination but I've been expecting that to happen for some time and it's not happened yet.

That's true too, I'm surprised it hasn't already happened. But the whispers that I hear suggest that the dam is about ready to burst, and that some large New Wine churches are getting more and more aggrieved that the structure is cramping their style.

quote:
But I wouldn't want to lay odds on timescale.

I don't gamble, but I'd be surprised if the status quo remains for very long.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
ISTM that there is a big difference between the "old Dissenters" who consciously rebelled against much of what the CofE stood for, and the "new Dissenters" (i.e. Methodists) who not only saw themselves as contiguous with the Anglican but who, in some cases (the Wesleyans but not the Primitives), followed their liturgies for many years.

Absolutely. A few hundred years later, the Wesleyan churches are some distance from the Anglicans, but there are clear parallels in thought, doctrine and practice.

I don't see how one could say that about most of the other non-conformist churches.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

In one sense, mr cheesy, I think we all share a common or similar spiritual DNA - which is how and why Christians of all stripes recognise one another in the first place. It's a bit like meeting distant relatives or cousins whose parents emigrated to Australia before you were born ... they are different, yes, but they share family characteristics.

I did say that the point I was making wasn't about scoring points or making any kind of value judgement about non-conformists, Anglicans or anyone else.

All I'm saying is that it is a matter of historical record that the various independent groups in this country emerged from within the CofE in some way, shape or form. What's so contentious about that?

As it happens, I do believe that it's possible to recognise certain 'Anglican' characteristics in the various non-conformist groups - it's more evident within some rather than others.

I do think it goes beyond certain cultural commonalities - but I'm not making a big deal out of it. My original point was simply that the CofE has been splitting and dividing for years - and that's how the non-conformist denominations came about.

That's an uncontentious point.

I agree with Baptist Trainfan that there is a difference between Old Dissent and the Methodists in this respect.

The mileage varies of course and a lot depends on churchmanship - an evangelical Anglican parish is going to feel a lot closer to an evangelical Baptist church, say, in terms of ethos and spirituality than it is to a spikey Anglo-Catholic one.

It's a bit of a tangent to the OP and I'll stop 'banging on' about it - but I don't think it's a big deal. I did want to correct some historical inaccuracies in your challenge to my post though.

Having done that, I'm more than happy to drop the tangent. It's an impression about ethos and atmosphere if you like and it's got nothing at all to do with whether I approve or disapprove of non-conformist churches or the behaviour of overly Erastian Anglican bishops back in the day.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I do think it goes beyond certain cultural commonalities - but I'm not making a big deal out of it. My original point was simply that the CofE has been splitting and dividing for years - and that's how the non-conformist denominations came about.

However many times you say it, it is still drivel.

Anyway, whatever.

quote:
The mileage varies of course and a lot depends on churchmanship - an evangelical Anglican parish is going to feel a lot closer to an evangelical Baptist church, say, in terms of ethos and spirituality than it is to a spikey Anglo-Catholic one.

Now this is certainly true, but I'd argue absolutely nothing to do with fallacious ideas about "spiritual DNA" and everything to do with the way that many denominations have dropped most of their differences and converged into a middle which is hard to differentiate. Largely, it seems, because of extra-denominational influences like New Wine, Vineyard, etc. Similarly, the conservative Evangelicals of all denominations have been influenced by Keswick etc.

It isn't because of where they've come from, but because they often see that they have to be very much alike to survive into the future.

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

I don't think it's like separate beds. I think it's more like holding two vicious brats at arms length and letting them swing their pudgy little fists in free air till they get tired and go to bed.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
I don't think it's like separate beds. I think it's more like holding two vicious brats at arms length and letting them swing their pudgy little fists in free air till they get tired and go to bed.

I'm not convinced that the actions of the two sides in this dispute are remotely equivalent.

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

I would agree wholeheartedly.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Overall I share your analysis in nroad terms, mr cheesy - so I'm not sure what we've been arguing about.

I'm not sure which figute in Bsptist history was followed abroad and burned at the stake by tje long srm of Anglican Ersstianism. You seem to be cinflateing the fate of Tyndale with thst of the last chapbto be burned at the stake for heresy in England - a very strange chap with Anabaptist and allegedly more "out there" views who was burned at the stake in Lichfield in 1612 or '15 I think.

As far as I know Helwys and others would have been unlikely to have shared that fate - but they could well have faced prison. They were keenies, whicj is why they sought Separation of course - if they'd simply been nominal they'd have stayed put and not run the risks.

Any how - I think you're right that the middle ground in a pan-Protestant sense here in the UK has largely become homogenised and shaped by the same influences irrespective of which denomination they're in

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Anyway, I just looked up Helwys. Should have done so before posting my previous missive - and should have checked for typos too. I knew a bit about him but not that he'd died in Newgate, poor chap.

Would he have been burned at the stake had he lived?

From what I can gather, Wightman wad burned at the stake not so much for being a separatist or Baptist as such but for some allegedly iffy views on the Trinity and so on - not that this justifies his execution nor the persecution of separatists of course.

Any how, enough of the tangent.

Coming back to the Anglican communion ... what was 'super' about the service you attended recently Baptist Trainfan?

I'm not used to superlatives being applied to Anglican services ...

In terms of how long the status wuo will last ... well, some pundits have the Church in Wales extinct by 2040 and the CofE by 2100 so they haven't got long if those forecasts are right.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Gamaliel

I would suspect that the problem is that you put Anglicanism as the root from which Old Dissent occurred. It is probably more correct to suggest that Old Dissent and Anglicanism both arose out of the splintering of the Church during the religious turmoil of the 16th Century. I would argue indeed that that is also true for Roman Catholicism. Before the 16th Century there was the Western and Eastern Church and the Council of Trent is as much a change from the historic Western Church as the median position of Protestantism.

Jengie

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Strange co-incidence that today we remember Theodore of Tarsus, who presided over the first council of the entire English church.

Jengie, don't forget the Oriental churches. Maybe not as numerous as the Eastern and Western, but a grouping of diverse traditions in Christianity all the way from Antioch through to Kerala. Perhaps beyond.

[ 18. September 2015, 22:17: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think there's something in that Jengie and I think you're right about Trent.

On the Protestant side of things, the radical reformation emerged very closely on the heels of the 'magisterial' ones.

As far as Anglicanism goes it really only settled into what could be considered something like its current form during the reign of Elizabeth I. Her Church of England had a different flavour to that of both Henry VIII and Edward VI.

But I still maintain that you couldn't have had Separatists and later, non-conformists, if there hadn't been an Establishment to separate from or a conformity not to conform to.

Same with the Magisterial Reformation and the radical reformation - you couldn't have had the latter without the former - the one led to the other - which in no way detracts from the grass-roots spontaneity of it.

But these are tangents.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Mr Cheesy, arguably they may not have Anglican DNA but the General Baptists undoubtedly do have CofE DNA. They descend directly from those who at the Restoration did not accept the Restoration settlement and were ejected on 24th August 1662.
By that reasoning, every denomination in the West has Roman Catholic DNA. That's a stretch.

But arguably not an unreasonable stretch? There were no Protestants, or Baptists or [insert denomination here], attending the early Church councils where the creeds, scripture and early dogma and doctrine where canonized and set in stone. Even allowing for Deuter-canonical debates some hundreds of years later.

Still, maybe the expiry date is fast approaching on the Anglican Communion, as a Communion. Maybe there is even some wisdom in recognizing that man's attempt to regulate the work of the Body of Christ on earth - the Church - is, and should be, to some extent a contingent, spontaneous and
responsive work.

Reified, petrified, deified religious institutions have already done so much damage to humankind, and the rest of the creation, maybe we should be happy to learn that some senior church leaders are willing to explore different ways of doing things, if under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Big 'if', I know!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I've long since come to the conclusion that the 'stretchiness' or otherwise of these things lies in the eye of the beholder.

It all depends on where we stand. RCs and Protestants may either emphasise or minimise their differences depending on how well or how badly they get along - whereas to the Orthodox both are two sides of the same coin or same bad penny as it were.

Also, I've found that those who have moved from one tradition to another can be more likely to emphasise the differences rather than the common ground - otherwise why move in the first place?

Even allowing for all that, I don't think it's a whopping big stretch to discern a kind if underlying gene-structure or architecture within all Christian confessions and traditions - heck, Mudfrog has relayed the story a few times here how an RC priest observed to him how the Salvation Army could have made an excellent RC religious order.

Of course, the two are several steps removed in evolutionary terms but they share a common ancestor.

Whatever our ecclesiology we have none of us developed in a vacuum or in splendid isolation.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

What would this change in the Anglican Communion, if it happened, mean in terms of the ability of Anglican clergy from one Province to serve as clergy, either in a visiting or permanent capacity, in another Province?

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :

A few of thoughts:
re the OP - at first glance it seems like a pragmatic decision (which you might expect from a former oil exec?), which recognises the reality of how relationships are between the various Anglican churches. With the mention of consulting with ++Rowan and the influence of a more Eastern Orthodox model of relationship, it seems a more principled way forward that explores how different churches and streams within the same river can relate. Without a dog in the fight it will be interesting to see which impression turns out to be more accurate (I can already hear Gamaliel saying "both/and").

On the spiritual DNA thing: Any group of any sort has to define itself by (and possibly against) it's cultural context to justify it's existence. So therefore, even today, any religious body in the UK will be to some extent in reaction to the dear old CofE.
I came across this quote from Luther (that great fan of Rome) which seems apt.
"there is much that is Christian and good under the papacy; indeed, everything that is Christian and good is to found there and has come to us from this source"

Having said that I'm cautious about Anselmina says here

quote:
There were no Protestants, or Baptists or [insert denomination here], attending the early Church councils where the creeds, scripture and early dogma and doctrine where canonized and set in stone.

because you would have to add that there were no Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox either as these weren't "things" back then. Being Ecumenical councils they belong to the whole church and so we were all there in principal if we embrace historic, universal orthodoxy.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
(I can already hear Gamaliel saying "both/and").

I am surprised ...
[Big Grin]

On the universal orthodoxy thing - yes, I'd think we'd all agree with that Twangist - if we are conservative Protestants rather than RC or Orthodox - in which case we'd be looking for something beyond the broad consensus that exists across small-o orthodoxy as a whole.

Of course, Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy didn't exist as separate entities back then - but they did 'exist' in the sense that they were both part of a pan-Christendom consensus where the terms Catholic and Orthodox were co-terminous.

And yes, I'm aware that we've left the Oriental Orthodox (Copts, Armenians and the various Syriac churches etc) out of the equation here as the split with them happened in the 5th century ...

But yes, to all intents and purposes we were all of us 'there' in terms of our spiritual DNA insofar as whatever group we're in we can trace our roots back to the part of the Venn Diagram where things most closely overlap.

The issue then becomes, to what extent or other are we 'removed' and what concentric circle we occupy. Orthodox (and RCs too, I would imagine) whether they are more conservative or fundie or on the more liberal end of the spectrum (and yes, there are some who are) tend to regard the rest of us as occupying concentric rings that radiate out from their 'centre' and where you'd find Anglicans and Lutherans, say, closer in on the Saturnine rings than Baptists and Vineyardy types - although in my experience they'd certainly regard conservatively theological non-conformist types as 'closer' to in many respects than liberal or Spong-y Anglicans ...

But that's an aside.

Coming back to your main point - yes, I think Welby's operating in a pragmatic way and that it is probably more realistic than trying to compel people to remain bedfellows in an artificial sense ...

Time will tell.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I'm sure there will be Shipmates who will disagree vehemently with this statement, but there wasn't an RC Church in way it has existed ever since until the conclusion of the Council of Trent in 1563.

It, like every other church in Western Europe, has within it the DNA of the Western Church after 1054 when what could until then have been described as the Universal Church sadly split in two.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, but there's also the Oriental Orthodox who separated after the Council of Chalcedon if my memory serves ... or who separated as a result of controversies that span out of that ...

So one might say that there were three portions of the Universal Church after the Great Schism of 1054 ... with the first major split having taken place 500 years prior to that ...

Besides, 1054 is only a convenient date. Some put the Schism earlier than that and a Greek lad with a PhD in theology I met recently reckoned that to all intents and purposes the Schism wasn't really a done-deal until after the 4th Crusade - and even after that there were attempts at rapprochement and some who weren't really clear which side of the fence they were on ...

Howbeit, it takes two (or more) to tango ...

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Given that we still seem to be arguing about this, whilst it is clear that non-conformist religion did not spring into being in England in a vacuum, it does not follow that they are the spiritual relations of the CofE. Indeed, some even stated that they believed the Spirit was doing a new thing to brush away the old corrupted structures and doctrines of the national church.

As an illustration: two boys brought up in 20 century England had a similar Grammar school education. Later they became educationalists and started their own schools. One modelled their education system on the best private schools, the other rejected the existing educational theory and set up a school based on play and discovery.

They were both educated in the same system, but I think it is quite wrong to suggest that their divergent ideas of education contain the DNA of state funded Grammar school education, because one if them has rejected the educational hegemony and instead replaced it with his own ideas - some of which he invented and some he adapted from other sources.

The latter has almost nothing in common with the Grammar school system he attended and the only association is that he decided to use it as a basis of all that is wrong in education.

This harping about religious DNA, which is still undefined, suggests new religious movements are just rearrangements of older beliefs and that marls of the latter can be discerned in the former. That isn't how non-conformism developed in England - some came directly from the CofE, much was entirely novel ideas from a wide range of influences.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
What would this change in the Anglican Communion, if it happened, mean in terms of the ability of Anglican clergy from one Province to serve as clergy, either in a visiting or permanent capacity, in another Province?

Well, until recently, some anglican bishops were not allowed to exercise their orders (if asked) in the CofE. I doubt very much that any female priests from, say, the CofE are currently allowed to exercise their orders (if asked) in several provinces of the Communion which do not ordain women, Sydney for example.

And I would bet -- though I do not know -- that priests ordained in the Anglican CHurch of Canada are currently not allowed to exercise their orders in, say, the Anglican Church of Nigeria, even though the converse is not true.

John

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

There's nothing new under the sun.

Apart from the Quakers, perhaps, I'm struggling to think of anything 'entirely novel' within the CofE, within English non-conformity or any other strand of Christianity within these islands.

Whatever we had or have came from somewhere else in the first place - heck, Christianity itself was an import. Sure, things have developed here in relation to particular circumstances and conditions - and that applies everywhere else in the world too.

With each of the 'indigenous' Christianities whate we've got is a reaction to prevailing circumstances - the CofE reacting to Rome, the non-conformists reacting to the CofE and so on.

I'm not making heavy-weather out of this, I was simply making an observation about the origin of the various 'non-conformist' groups in these islands. The original founders of all of them were pretty keen and full-on adherents of whatever else they happened to be involved with beforehand ...

I'm not arguing for a discernibly 'Anglican' way of doing things persisting down at anyone's local Baptist or URC (although with each I think we can still see and discern elements of more general 17th century religious practices).

I agree that the traces of Anglicanism are clearer within Methodism but even there much of what the early Methodists got up to wasn't entirely unheard of ... there were around 40 'religious societies' of one form or other in London when Wesley set up his first group on Fetter Lane. In the North of England there were plenty of groups meeting informally for religious discussion and instruction at the same time - some of them involving Anglicans, others involving non-conformists, even some involving both.

And even the CofE received influences from elsewhere at that time too, of course, there was a general pietistic movement going on within Lutheranism and the Reformed Churches on the continent.

The later Wesleyans, of course, tended to exaggerate the corruptions and deficiencies of the national church in order to explain why they felt the need to break away. Current scholarship suggests that the CofE in the early 1700s wasn't quite as much of a basket-case as it's been presented in the popular hagiographies.

Nobody's saying that the various separatist groups didn't believe the national church to be deficient. They wouldn't have separated from it otherwise.

No, all I'm saying is that non-conformist religion in the UK generally arose from within an Anglican (or in Scotland, Presbyterian) context.

I wish I hadn't used the fuzzy term 'spiritual DNA' now as it's clearly created a tangent.

FWIW, though, and I've heard Mudfrog say this too, there does tend to be a continuing interest in the CofE - its trials and tribulations, its woes and its joys - among many non-conformists here - and most non-conformists I come across tend to wish it well.

I'm not saying anything here about the desirability of a national church or whether Anglicanism as a whole is good, bad or indifferent.

But when I, in my Baptist days, and other Baptists I know used to pinch bits of Anglican liturgy for our own communion services, whatever that tells us, it may or may not tell us something ...

[Biased]

Of course the various non-conformist churches developed in different ways and worked out their own way of doing things - I'm not saying they didn't. All I'm saying is that the roots of many - if not most of them - lie within the national church as it existed in the 17th and 18th centuries. Sure, they reacted against it, but if you look closely at Old Dissent you'll see that it struggled with (or embraced) various wider trends that affected Anglicanism as well at that time - a tendency towards Deism in some quarters, the questioning of traditional teachings on the Trinity and Deity of Christ and much else besides. There were even times when vast swathes of Old Dissent fell into unitarianism and various ancient heresies - and I'm sure many Anglican clergy privately entertained many of these views too.

They may have been separate from the CofE organisationally but they all inhabited the same space in terms of the broader philosophical milieux.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
.... There were even times when vast swathes of Old Dissent fell into unitarianism and various ancient heresies - and I'm sure many Anglican clergy privately entertained many of these views too. ...

I'm sure that's true, and I've heard educated lay people express ideas not far from Arianism fairly frequently. As for Pelagianism, there's quite a people in CofE pews who, even if you try to explain why, still can't see what's wrong with it.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, I think that's certainly the case, Enoch.

The same would hold true elsewhere. I agree with mr cheesy about the growing commonality across the denominations both in the 'centre' and in terms of what is becoming a kind of amorphous 'spludge' across all major groupings in the UK.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
What would this change in the Anglican Communion, if it happened, mean in terms of the ability of Anglican clergy from one Province to serve as clergy, either in a visiting or permanent capacity, in another Province?
Well, until recently, some anglican bishops were not allowed to exercise their orders (if asked) in the CofE. I doubt very much that any female priests from, say, the CofE are currently allowed to exercise their orders (if asked) in several provinces of the Communion which do not ordain women, Sydney for example.

And I would bet -- though I do not know -- that priests ordained in the Anglican CHurch of Canada are currently not allowed to exercise their orders in, say, the Anglican Church of Nigeria, even though the converse is not true.

John

Just to clarify the current Sydney position. ++ Glenn has said that he will license as a deacon any woman licensed as a priest elsewhere (subject of course to the usual checks). It is then a matter between the woman and the rector and parish council of a particular church just what the woman may do. I know of one such woman who in accordance with these arrangements acts an assistant priest in her parish. I appreciate that this is not the same as priesting women or licensing as priests those priested elsewhere, and that it is dependent upon the whim of a man (the rector of a parish) but it does represent a considerable move forward.

FWIW, I am told that ++ Glenn has made considerable changes in daily conversation in St Andrew's House. He has directed that a woman bishop in another diocese is to be treated with the respect and dignity owing to her; she is not to be referred to as "that woman who thinks she's a bishop" as I'm told occurred beforehand. He also made a moving speech on behalf of all Australian bishops at the funeral of Bp Barbara Darling, clearly recognising and accepting her ordination and consecration.

Posted by Anglicano (# 18476) on :

As far as I know, the Anglican Communion is a loose federation of Churches adhering to the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. The Archbishop of Canterbury is Primus inter Pares. The Communion is very broad church. The only litmus test is membership of the Anglican Consultative Council and being invited to the Lambeth Conference. To try and impose an Anglican Pope would cause all sorts of difficulties.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

In fact, as many/most Shipmates probably know, the 'Anglican Communion' as any sort of entity really only dates from the beginnings of the Lambeth Conference.

Until independent Anglican-outgrowth churches were established, e.g. TEC following the earlier unpleasantness, all overseas Anglican ministry was under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of London (with the exception of the Scottish Episcopal Church). (Thus it was from Scotland that American orders were derived to avoid the oath to the crown.)
As overseas churches grew through the 19th century, most of them were more or less in limbo until the Abp of Canterbury called the first Lambeth Conference. Its ratification of the Chicago Quadrilateral gave a firm platform on which to build.

The anomalous (IMNSHO) Anglican Consultative Council is just a bunch of ecclesiastical climbers trying to be a mini-Curia. YMMV, obviously.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0