KJS and the Standing Committee get to choose a Primate to represent the “Anglican Communion”. Like as not, she will send herself. By my calculation, we will be extremely lucky if there are 4 orthodox Christians on the Crown Nominating Committee out of its 16 members.
WOW! Ignorant me had no idea that the appointment and election ABC was essentially a CofE decision. The rest of the Anglican Communion can merely suggest if the CNC wants to “consult” the wider Anglican Communion. Now we know… sadly.
No. 2: Yes, and as you saw, this link, under Editor’s Notes, provides an amazingly clear numbered list of duties and responsibilities. I tend to think spatially, so I think of AoC in widening concentric circles of responsibility: diocese, province, CofE, AC, ecumenism, society at large, etc.
My coauthor, Andrew Chandler, one of Britain’s best historians among the younger set, and I try to suggest this in the title of our new biography of Geoffrey Fisher, due out at the end of this summer from Ashgate: ARCHBISHOP FISHER, 1945-1961: CHURCH, STATE, AND WORLD. We originally had ____: CHURCH, STATE, AND ECUMENISM. But we decided that ending with a five-syllable word that many people–if the majority of my students are any indication–don’t know would not be great. Anyway, the root of ecumenism is “world,” and “world” has just one syllable. Which helps, too.
What is the current thinking on the salient characteristics of and differences between the two or three leading candidates? What have been their statements to date on the pertinent issues? I’d love to see some informed comments on that. I know more about the CofE circa 1950–and not even all that much about that.
#1 — I noticed this over at Stand Firm, too — why on Earth are people clamoring to give KJS more attention, power and credit than she remotely deserves? She’s become like the Anglican El Nino.
It would appear that the following names have been put forth by various sources as the leading contenders for ABC:
1) Nick Baines (Bradford) – apparently the liberal favorite.
2) John Sentamu (York) – moderate, spoke out against same-sex marriage, but is okay with civil partnerships. Many see him as the favorite at this point.
3) John Inge (Worcester) – don’t know about him, but Ruth Gledhill claims inside scoop that he is a strong contender
4) Richard Chartres (London) – moderate. Gledhill discounts him as a serious contender due to his opposition to women bishops.
5) Tim Stevens (Leicester) – don’t know about him.
Any comments?
Teatime and David Hein – I believe that what tjmcmahon was referring to is that the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion (which is well-known to be stacked with KJS allies) appoints a primate to the Nominating Commission. tjmcmahon is simply pointing out the obvious truth that KJS and her allies will ensure that whatever primate is elected will be a liberal. tjmcmahon is not making this up nor engaging in histrionics. He is simply reporting the likely theological outlook of the primate nominee on the Nominating Commission.
1. John Sentamu (11/8)
2. Tie: Richard Chartres & Christopher Cocksworth (7/2)
3. Nick Baines (6/1)
4. Justin Welby (9/1)
5. NT Wright (10/1)
I think we would be hard pressed to do much better than Richard Chartres, but I believe Gledhill is right that his opposition to women priest & bishops will seriously hurt his chances.
I know Sentamu is the favorite, but he has had several perceived public gaffes of late.
Surely NT Wright said goodbye to an opportunity to be ABC when he returned to academia, though I’d leap for joy if he were the choice.
There is also this to consider regarding age: the ABC is “required” to retire when he turns 70. Of the potential nominees above, Chartres will turn 66 next year, Sentamu will be 64, and Wright will be 64 as well. That means that they would either have to retire before the next Lambeth Conference in 2018, or would barely make it. Unless some rules are changed, I doubt the Crown Nominations Commission would do that. That then leaves Cocksworth, Baines, and Welby from the above list, all of whom are unknown quantities to me.
#7 Jamesw, As has been noted, +Canterbury is foremost a C of E archbishop with primary responsibilities and powers relating to the C of E. He’s mostly a ceremonial figurehead for the AC. KJS and other AC “foreigners” are not going to have pull in the selection as it’s chiefly an English matter. Input, yes, as one of 16 people on the panel, apparently. Influence and machinations? No.
I’m mostly referring to other musings I’ve read about KJS trying to manipulate her way into Lambeth Palace and other silliness. Yes, I realize that much is tongue-in-cheek but, really? I don’t understand why she commands so much attention and thought. She is so very irrelevant to much of the wider Anglican experience and she needs to be left in irrelevance whenever possible, IMO, not invoked at every opportunity.
As for “candidates,” I’m wondering if the Queen is seriously fed up with the liberal muddle in the Church and will “suggest” that a more orthodox ABC be selected to serve. There’ve been all sorts of rumors over the past several years about the Queen not being amused by the goings-on.
Isn’t +Chartres a family friend? IIRC, he has strong ties to Prince Charles and the lads, to the point of being a godparent and one of the executors of Diana’s estate, I think. His sermon at the Royal Wedding was quite impressive and, at the time, he was mentioned as being a possible for ABC. (as in, maybe he was doing a bit of campaigning, lol.) Just some stuff I’ve seen in the secular media.
Sentamu would only be a caretaker. Still that has happened before – Donald Coggan.
Chris Cocksworth has the most academic of backgrounds of those apparently in contention, and is seen as “open evangelical”. Probably the best of the bunch.
Justin Welby is not long in his post – too early to say.
The liberal’s favorite Nick Baines is an intellectual lightweight, given to displays of cloudy leftish angst in his blog, and often on BBC radio in England. His diocese is about to be closed. Baines’s boyhood was Baptist but he’s very much a liberal now in the mold of his old boss, Bishop Tom Butler of South London, though doubtless more sober.
Teatime: Agreed that there was a lot of foolish talk about KJS worming her way into Lambeth Palace. But I would not so easily dismiss the influence of the primate representative on the CNC. That person would not likely be an initiator, but rather someone who would assist and cooperate with the other liberals. For example, if a conservative member voiced concern over the effect of a liberal ABC on the unity of the Communion, the primates representative would likely then speak up in favor of the liberal choice. In contrast, a solid orthodox primate might very well be out-voted, but have tremendous influence holding up the interests of the Communion majority.
Teatime: And for the record, I think that one of the most influential factors in the selection of the next ABC will be David Cameron’s political calculations as he seeks to impose gay marriage in Britain. I would guess that KJS and her liberal allies know this, and so their only goal will be to ensure that the primate representative won’t stand in the way or make it difficult for Cameron to get his way.
jamesw (#7)- “I believe that what tjmcmahon was referring to is that the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion (which is well-known to be stacked with KJS allies) appoints a primate to the Nominating Commission. tjmcmahon is simply pointing out the obvious truth that KJS and her allies will ensure that whatever primate is elected will be a liberal. tjmcmahon is not making this up nor engaging in histrionics. He is simply reporting the likely theological outlook of the primate nominee on the Nominating Commission. ”
Yes, thank you, that is exactly what I meant. Apologies to those who are coming into this relatively cold- I have been engaged in Anglican battles up to my eyeballs for so long that too often I shorthand my comments on the assumption that everyone is familiar with the background.
KJS has on several occasions exercised overt control over the Standing Committee- the appointment of Trisk comes to mind- there is no reason to think that since all but 2 or 3 members of the SC are revisionists, that there will be any outcome other than to appoint a revisionist to this position on the Nominating Commission. My bet is that she will opt for +Brazil or perhaps +Mexico (by all accounts he is much more liberal than his province in general)- although no doubt her first choice would be herself or +Canada- but one hopes ++RW would not let that happen.
++RW sterling job on the progress of the TEc “New Thang” (c) Gozpell certainly suggests that he’ll continue to front for KJS and any nominee she cares to support. That’s why her name comes up. And, as she never let’s anyone forget, she’s already the “leader” of an international entity with a claim on 16 countries. England might be permitted to come under her aegis, moving along as it has recently. (/sarcasm)
tjmcmahon: I think that KJS will do her political calculations and realize that David Cameron has a very strong political interest in having a pro-gay marriage (i.e. liberal) cleric appointed as ABC. This would help him in what is shaping up to be a tough slog in pushing gay marriage on Britain. Thus KJS would realize that the primate appointee need not be someone to push the liberal agenda (Cameron will push it), but only someone who will grease the skids. The primate appointee could have two purposes – one would be to try to block a liberal appointee with threats of Communion break up; or two, to grease the skids and tell the committee that the Communion wouldn’t break up, etc. KJS would obviously want the latter, and a non-white liberal would be much more effectual in that role. Thus, I think that the most likely primate appointee will be a non-white liberal, and you have thoughtfully suggested two possible appointees.
The primate of Mexico actually supports the Anglican Covenant so it is unlikely he would be a safe choice to represent the liberal wing of TEC at the Crown Nominations Commission. That leaves the choice only amongst three possible primates who are under the sphere of TEC: +Brazil, +Canada, +New Zealand.
[blockquote]2. The membership of the CNC is prescribed in the Standing Orders of the General Synod. When an Archbishop of Canterbury is to be chosen there are 16 voting members
……
A member of the Primates Meeting of the Anglican Communion elected by the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.
[/blockquote]
This is a change – the ‘Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion’ is a recent invention – no more than a year or two old and of dubious legal and constitutional validity, not to mention wholly dominated by white liberals from the rump of the Communion to the extent of being risible and irrelevant.
Why not ask the Primates who they want to represent them? Ever heard of email, Skype?
#3—the episode of “Yes, Prime Minister” is “The Bishop’s Gambit.” No Youtube links, but it’s for sale in iTunes for a couple dollars. Well worth it. A plot summary is at [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bishop’s_Gambit]this wikipedia page[/url].
KJS and the Standing Committee get to choose a Primate to represent the “Anglican Communion”. Like as not, she will send herself. By my calculation, we will be extremely lucky if there are 4 orthodox Christians on the Crown Nominating Committee out of its 16 members.
WOW! Ignorant me had no idea that the appointment and election ABC was essentially a CofE decision. The rest of the Anglican Communion can merely suggest if the CNC wants to “consult” the wider Anglican Communion. Now we know… sadly.
Somebody (Kendall?) needs to find the episode of “Yes, Prime Minister” about the picking of a bishop from UTube and post it. It is hilarous.
No. 2: Yes, and as you saw, this link, under Editor’s Notes, provides an amazingly clear numbered list of duties and responsibilities. I tend to think spatially, so I think of AoC in widening concentric circles of responsibility: diocese, province, CofE, AC, ecumenism, society at large, etc.
My coauthor, Andrew Chandler, one of Britain’s best historians among the younger set, and I try to suggest this in the title of our new biography of Geoffrey Fisher, due out at the end of this summer from Ashgate: ARCHBISHOP FISHER, 1945-1961: CHURCH, STATE, AND WORLD. We originally had ____: CHURCH, STATE, AND ECUMENISM. But we decided that ending with a five-syllable word that many people–if the majority of my students are any indication–don’t know would not be great. Anyway, the root of ecumenism is “world,” and “world” has just one syllable. Which helps, too.
What is the current thinking on the salient characteristics of and differences between the two or three leading candidates? What have been their statements to date on the pertinent issues? I’d love to see some informed comments on that. I know more about the CofE circa 1950–and not even all that much about that.
#1 — I noticed this over at Stand Firm, too — why on Earth are people clamoring to give KJS more attention, power and credit than she remotely deserves? She’s become like the Anglican El Nino.
No. 5: Amen.
It would appear that the following names have been put forth by various sources as the leading contenders for ABC:
1) Nick Baines (Bradford) – apparently the liberal favorite.
2) John Sentamu (York) – moderate, spoke out against same-sex marriage, but is okay with civil partnerships. Many see him as the favorite at this point.
3) John Inge (Worcester) – don’t know about him, but Ruth Gledhill claims inside scoop that he is a strong contender
4) Richard Chartres (London) – moderate. Gledhill discounts him as a serious contender due to his opposition to women bishops.
5) Tim Stevens (Leicester) – don’t know about him.
Any comments?
Teatime and David Hein – I believe that what tjmcmahon was referring to is that the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion (which is well-known to be stacked with KJS allies) appoints a primate to the Nominating Commission. tjmcmahon is simply pointing out the obvious truth that KJS and her allies will ensure that whatever primate is elected will be a liberal. tjmcmahon is not making this up nor engaging in histrionics. He is simply reporting the likely theological outlook of the primate nominee on the Nominating Commission.
subscribe
The online betting site Paddy Power (http://www.paddypower.com/bet/current-affairs/archbishop-of-canterbury) gives the following odds:
1. John Sentamu (11/8)
2. Tie: Richard Chartres & Christopher Cocksworth (7/2)
3. Nick Baines (6/1)
4. Justin Welby (9/1)
5. NT Wright (10/1)
I think we would be hard pressed to do much better than Richard Chartres, but I believe Gledhill is right that his opposition to women priest & bishops will seriously hurt his chances.
I know Sentamu is the favorite, but he has had several perceived public gaffes of late.
Surely NT Wright said goodbye to an opportunity to be ABC when he returned to academia, though I’d leap for joy if he were the choice.
There is also this to consider regarding age: the ABC is “required” to retire when he turns 70. Of the potential nominees above, Chartres will turn 66 next year, Sentamu will be 64, and Wright will be 64 as well. That means that they would either have to retire before the next Lambeth Conference in 2018, or would barely make it. Unless some rules are changed, I doubt the Crown Nominations Commission would do that. That then leaves Cocksworth, Baines, and Welby from the above list, all of whom are unknown quantities to me.
#7 Jamesw, As has been noted, +Canterbury is foremost a C of E archbishop with primary responsibilities and powers relating to the C of E. He’s mostly a ceremonial figurehead for the AC. KJS and other AC “foreigners” are not going to have pull in the selection as it’s chiefly an English matter. Input, yes, as one of 16 people on the panel, apparently. Influence and machinations? No.
I’m mostly referring to other musings I’ve read about KJS trying to manipulate her way into Lambeth Palace and other silliness. Yes, I realize that much is tongue-in-cheek but, really? I don’t understand why she commands so much attention and thought. She is so very irrelevant to much of the wider Anglican experience and she needs to be left in irrelevance whenever possible, IMO, not invoked at every opportunity.
As for “candidates,” I’m wondering if the Queen is seriously fed up with the liberal muddle in the Church and will “suggest” that a more orthodox ABC be selected to serve. There’ve been all sorts of rumors over the past several years about the Queen not being amused by the goings-on.
Isn’t +Chartres a family friend? IIRC, he has strong ties to Prince Charles and the lads, to the point of being a godparent and one of the executors of Diana’s estate, I think. His sermon at the Royal Wedding was quite impressive and, at the time, he was mentioned as being a possible for ABC. (as in, maybe he was doing a bit of campaigning, lol.) Just some stuff I’ve seen in the secular media.
Sentamu would only be a caretaker. Still that has happened before – Donald Coggan.
Chris Cocksworth has the most academic of backgrounds of those apparently in contention, and is seen as “open evangelical”. Probably the best of the bunch.
Justin Welby is not long in his post – too early to say.
The liberal’s favorite Nick Baines is an intellectual lightweight, given to displays of cloudy leftish angst in his blog, and often on BBC radio in England. His diocese is about to be closed. Baines’s boyhood was Baptist but he’s very much a liberal now in the mold of his old boss, Bishop Tom Butler of South London, though doubtless more sober.
Teatime: Agreed that there was a lot of foolish talk about KJS worming her way into Lambeth Palace. But I would not so easily dismiss the influence of the primate representative on the CNC. That person would not likely be an initiator, but rather someone who would assist and cooperate with the other liberals. For example, if a conservative member voiced concern over the effect of a liberal ABC on the unity of the Communion, the primates representative would likely then speak up in favor of the liberal choice. In contrast, a solid orthodox primate might very well be out-voted, but have tremendous influence holding up the interests of the Communion majority.
Teatime: And for the record, I think that one of the most influential factors in the selection of the next ABC will be David Cameron’s political calculations as he seeks to impose gay marriage in Britain. I would guess that KJS and her liberal allies know this, and so their only goal will be to ensure that the primate representative won’t stand in the way or make it difficult for Cameron to get his way.
jamesw (#7)- “I believe that what tjmcmahon was referring to is that the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion (which is well-known to be stacked with KJS allies) appoints a primate to the Nominating Commission. tjmcmahon is simply pointing out the obvious truth that KJS and her allies will ensure that whatever primate is elected will be a liberal. tjmcmahon is not making this up nor engaging in histrionics. He is simply reporting the likely theological outlook of the primate nominee on the Nominating Commission. ”
Yes, thank you, that is exactly what I meant. Apologies to those who are coming into this relatively cold- I have been engaged in Anglican battles up to my eyeballs for so long that too often I shorthand my comments on the assumption that everyone is familiar with the background.
KJS has on several occasions exercised overt control over the Standing Committee- the appointment of Trisk comes to mind- there is no reason to think that since all but 2 or 3 members of the SC are revisionists, that there will be any outcome other than to appoint a revisionist to this position on the Nominating Commission. My bet is that she will opt for +Brazil or perhaps +Mexico (by all accounts he is much more liberal than his province in general)- although no doubt her first choice would be herself or +Canada- but one hopes ++RW would not let that happen.
++RW sterling job on the progress of the TEc “New Thang” (c) Gozpell certainly suggests that he’ll continue to front for KJS and any nominee she cares to support. That’s why her name comes up. And, as she never let’s anyone forget, she’s already the “leader” of an international entity with a claim on 16 countries. England might be permitted to come under her aegis, moving along as it has recently. (/sarcasm)
tjmcmahon: I think that KJS will do her political calculations and realize that David Cameron has a very strong political interest in having a pro-gay marriage (i.e. liberal) cleric appointed as ABC. This would help him in what is shaping up to be a tough slog in pushing gay marriage on Britain. Thus KJS would realize that the primate appointee need not be someone to push the liberal agenda (Cameron will push it), but only someone who will grease the skids. The primate appointee could have two purposes – one would be to try to block a liberal appointee with threats of Communion break up; or two, to grease the skids and tell the committee that the Communion wouldn’t break up, etc. KJS would obviously want the latter, and a non-white liberal would be much more effectual in that role. Thus, I think that the most likely primate appointee will be a non-white liberal, and you have thoughtfully suggested two possible appointees.
I would think that the Standing Committee might well delegate +Capetown to serve on the nominating committee.
The primate of Mexico actually supports the Anglican Covenant so it is unlikely he would be a safe choice to represent the liberal wing of TEC at the Crown Nominations Commission. That leaves the choice only amongst three possible primates who are under the sphere of TEC: +Brazil, +Canada, +New Zealand.
[blockquote]2. The membership of the CNC is prescribed in the Standing Orders of the General Synod. When an Archbishop of Canterbury is to be chosen there are 16 voting members
……
A member of the Primates Meeting of the Anglican Communion elected by the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.
[/blockquote]
This is a change – the ‘Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion’ is a recent invention – no more than a year or two old and of dubious legal and constitutional validity, not to mention wholly dominated by white liberals from the rump of the Communion to the extent of being risible and irrelevant.
Why not ask the Primates who they want to represent them? Ever heard of email, Skype?
#3—the episode of “Yes, Prime Minister” is “The Bishop’s Gambit.” No Youtube links, but it’s for sale in iTunes for a couple dollars. Well worth it. A plot summary is at [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bishop’s_Gambit]this wikipedia page[/url].