The South American primate who has welcomed dissenting Canadian Anglican parishes into his province says he sees the beginning of the end of the world-wide Anglican Communion.
“I believe we’re in the early stages of divorce,” Archbishop Gregory Venables, presiding (national) bishop of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, told a news conference during a meeting of the Anglican Network in Canada from April 25 to 26.
“I think there comes a point when a marriage is no longer a marriage and you have to recognize it,” he said. But Archbishop Venables suggested that Anglican churches could still stay together in some form. “Maybe we can have an Anglican federation,” he said.
In an interview with the Anglican Journal, Archbishop Venables noted that air travel and the Internet have re-structured international networks.
On the one hand, the Archbishop’s protogé +Harvey thanks God that +Venables has allowed ANiC to remain in the Anglican Communion rather than being “simply… a breakaway group,” …
While on the other hand, the Archbishop declares that the Anglican Communion is all but kaput.
Strange world we live in. What is it about the “Anglican Communion” that has this overpowering caché?
This may well be written down as the final year of the so-called Anglican Communion.
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
Rumours of our death are greatly exaggerated.
I disagree my good Pageantmaster. My definition of a communion is one where each of the members is in communion with all of the other members. One can talk (wishfully) about a communion where some of the members are in “impaired communion.” However, we find ourselves in a situation where the TEO is not in communion with Nigeria or Southern Cone as witnessed by the abandonment of communion depositions. The present situation is [i]not[/i] a communion but a federation.
Well by your definition Dr Dr Rob Roy of course the spokes are still connected with the hub but some of the connections between the spokes are missing, which I agree is a less than ideal configuration for a bicycle wheel.
Hmmmmm with TEC so desperate to be THE recognized Anglican body in the US; and with seemingly no ability to recognize the presence of other Anglican bodies or affliations exercising ministry in the US; I doubt it will ever admit that the Anglican communion is ‘divorcing’. To do that would be to admit that there is a problem.
Patti+, TEC yearns to be The Episcopal Communion……never mind “THE recognized Anglican body in the US.” Why else would they consist of at least 14 overseas dioceses and provinces? Their disregard of the opinions of the overwhelming majority of the Communion CLEARLY indicates this!
I am afraid that the good Bishop (or Presiding Bishop) is incorrect. Some folk may leave the AC BUT the AC will remain. There will be a smaller group(s) that is(are) not in fellowship with Cantabury but that does not mean the AC has died.
[blockquote] There will be a smaller group(s) that is(are) not in fellowship with Cantabury but that does not mean the AC has died. [/blockquote]
Minor correction for Eugene:
[blockquote] There will be a larger group that is not in fellowship with Canterbury but that does not mean the AC has died… yet.[/blockquote] [size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
Bet the Episcopal Communion dies before the Anglican Communion. The repro rate is far too low for sustainability, you know. Of course, the CoE may have to join the Episcopal Communion and relocate the ABC to 815, but what’s the diff? It’s just across the pond, right? Maybe, the PB will let the ABC have a nice cushy ecumenical relations sort of job thingy at the UN.
#8 Br_er Rabbit
Right-O! Unless and until the Muslims take of the UK!
#9 dwstroudmd
I had no idea that TEC had formed it’s own Communion! When did this happen? 🙂
RE: “Some folk may leave the AC BUT the AC will remain.”
Hmmm. One wonders if a significant portion of a body departs if that body is the same body.
The legal definition, of course, will remain. After all, if only the COE were to remain “in communion with Canterbury” than there would still be an Anglican Communion. But the “Anglican Communion” would be a different sort of “Anglican Communion”.
Honestly, I agree with Archbishop Venables. Here are a few predictions of my own.
1) Some of the Global South primates will no longer attend two other instruments of the communion: the Primates meeting and the ACC. Howls of shock, surprise, and outrage at this rather obvious consequence of Lambeth will occur amongst some of my fellow ComCons.
2) Chunks of the AC will continue to loosen connections to Canterbury as a whole — he simply won’t be a consideration as others decide on their schedules and priorities.
3) Further building of the “Communion within a Federation” will continue: a covenant of their own, more invitation-only meetings, common regional missions [ie, the Southern Cone and TEC parishes engaged in youth camps, mission trips, etc, etc]. So as the larger Communion drifts farther and farther away with lessening commitments, the smaller group will grow closer and more committed.
4) TEC will attempt to plant congregations [disguised as “mission work”] in the provinces that have done the same thing to them. They won’t be able to get any sheep in those provinces to choose them, but that won’t prevent them from sweeping in and attempting to create new “converts”. A bunch of facades will be set up . . . but it won’t provoke near the outrage that TEC would hope for.
All of this is the choice of Rowan, remember. Because . . . [i]he would rather have happen what is clearly happening — a loose barely held together Federation — than not invite bishops to Lambeth who do not hold with the clear and oft-stated theology of the Communion, as he wrote in his own letter.[/i]
When given the choice between a Communion inevitably growing apart, and disciplining TEC by witholding key invitations, he chose the slower and ultimately far more painful route of a Federation.
Regarding Sarah’s fourth point, we have Section 1 of Article VI:
[blockquote]Sec. 1. The House of Bishops may establish a Mission in any area not included within the boundaries of any Diocese of this Church or of any Church in communion with this Church, and elect or appoint a Bishop therefor.[/blockquote]
In regards to our good Pageantmaster’s
[blockquote]Well by your definition Dr Dr Rob Roy of course the spokes are still connected with the hub but some of the connections between the spokes are missing, which I agree is a less than ideal configuration for a bicycle wheel.[/blockquote]
Well, I differ on what is now the hub. There is ample evidence that Canterbury is now revolving around 815.
When did TEC form its own communion? Oh, I’d say that happened over the years, actually! It isn’t official, of course, but I’d venture to say it started when they began organizing their overseas dioceses in Central America and the Far East……not to mention the Convocation of American Churches in Europe……such as the congregations in Paris and Rome. They all answer to 815.
The Episcopal Church USA announced, sub rosa, the formation of its own communion on the first legislative day of GC2006, when the backdrop for the dais was a collection of approximately 15 national flags…a shot across the bow to those provinces, and their US alllies, who had started ministries in the territorial US.
So actually, it really won’t mean a thing if TEC walks out of the Anglican Communion because, for all intents and purposes, they’ve already done it. They might as well say so and take Rowan with them, unless he grows some spine and tells them all to take a hike. If he doesn’t, then that’s no loss for us.
It might be a gain! Let’s see now……who would make a great Archbishop of Canterbury? +Michael Nazir Ali comes to mind. ++Venables maybe?
Sarah is absolutely correct. This is Rowan Williams’ doing, and his choice. He had the option to apply discipline consistent with the mind of the Communion, and he chose otherwise.
The real problem we are dealing with is this:
‘when is a church not a church?’
If you change the handle then the head of an axe…does the axe remain…yes. But not if the wooden handle is changed into a pencil and the head into a balloon….the point I make is that the liberal provinces are recreating Christianity and it is becoming something quite different,
Thus we are not dealing with how to reconcile two theological viewpoints here (as is often supposed) but with how to deal with those who would change the Gospel.
The Anglican Church will therefore only find peace if it addresses the real question – how do I deal with heresy? Alas its record is poor and it is more likely to ask ‘how do I keep everyone happy.’
It is like the womens ordination debate. The question that must be asked is ‘what IS a priest’. Instead we ask ‘ how do traditional and liberal Christians live togehter’…nothing gets sorted and the splits widen.
Only when we find the backbone and will to deal with the causes and not the symptoms will we find healing in Jesus’ name….but you look at most of the leadership and it aint happening soon.
#11 Sarah – those are some interesting [and not particularly encouraging] predictions.
It seems to me the running sore which neither the ABC or his proposals for covenants nor TEC with its obdurate persecution have addressed is the plight of faithful Anglicans in various provinces. It is this which has created the Communion-wide divisions over future policy [perhaps deliberate on the part of TEC]. Papering over the cracks won’t deal with this and has only got peoples’ backs up.
I don’t understand why this old news (more than a month old) is being recycled now, shortly before GAFCON. Even the first time, I thought it was a bit misleading for the press to headline the claim that Venables predicted the end of the Anglican Communion. It is clear that, even with the divorce metaphor he happened to use during this brief interview in Canada, he was talking more about realignment and renewal. The way this article is being re-used at this time can wrongly suggest that he is predicting a radical break at GAFCON, and I don’t think he has exactly said that at all. He was talking about ANiC and the movement of some Canadian parishes from the Anglican Church of Canada to the oversight of the Southern Cone, thus preserving their place in the Anglican Communion.
By likening what is happening in the Anglican Communion to a divorce, Presiding Bishop Venables casts himself in the role of the other woman.
Moreover, the Presiding Bishop’s easy acceptance that “there comes a point when a marriage is no longer a marriage and you have to recognize it”, is at odds with Mark 10:9.
The question is whether it will be an amicable divorce — like the “Velvet Divorce” which separated Czechoslovakia or a nasty divorce like the War of the Roses.
I’m praying that Kate will chose to lay down her arms and let us go.
See [url=http://tinyurl.com/6qnrpp]Exodus 14:10-31[/url]
#19 Very wise comment.
#20/21 perhaps given that many think of the ‘church’ as the ‘bride’ the imagery is not entirely surprising. However, as Paula points out, I will take what +Venables has to say direct from the horse’s mouth rather than seen through the lens of the Anglican Journal of Canada whose writers are also carried on ENS from time to time.
“TEC will attempt to plant congregations in the provinces that have done the same thing to them. . . but it won’t provoke near the outrage that TEC would hope for.”
I get a chuckle just imagining TEC missionaries trying to spread their ‘gospel’ in GS provinces. There’s a reason that GS primates aren’t all that worried about it. For those who need a refresher: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/80050_87836_ENG_HTM.htm
TEC missionaries may come with lots of money, and as usual function as the quasi-religious wing of the UN, but being incapable of attracting converts on their home soil, they won’t stand a chance in those places where faith costs something.