I think it’s quite evident what is at stake in this meeting: Will we have an Anglican Communion or an Anglican “Federation?”
One choice is for Anglican Churches within a Communion to find their unity in a common confession of faith and order-with “essentials” they can readily recognize in each other””plus relational commitments to strengthen and guard that communion and a commitment to a common good in and for the Church. Perhaps we could even find a scripture for that “common good”-perhaps something like Philippians 2:5 “In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus”¦” A “Communion” with a commitment to having the mind of Christ in the mind of the Church.
The other choice is for a “Federation” of Anglican Churches who may have nothing theologically in common. They may be in impaired or even broken “communion” with each other, but will still share one thing: they will be in relationship with the See of Canterbury. “Aides” of the Archbishop of Canterbury have been quoted as likening this to having members of one family “living in separate bedrooms” and maybe not even talking to each other. But as long as they are ALL talking to “papa”””presumably the Archbishop of Canterbury””it’s ok to live with such loosened ties.
Correct, Canterbury has made it clear that it would like to move to a Communion where each province has a relationship with the ABC but not necessarily with each other.
This does two things:
(i) enables the CofE hierarchy to keep everyone in the Communion without them having a right to criticize the two rogue provinces TEC and ACoC; and
(ii) provides some insurance against the orthodox provinces putting CofE itself into impaired communion when or if it follows down the same path as TEC and consecrates practicing homosexuals as bishops.