Extraordinary dramas in Anglicanism are but a part of a greater transformation wrought by globalisation.
There have been grand tensions and international debates within religions and denominations in the past, such as the split between Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox churches in the 11th century.
But never before has communication between factions been so simple and fast. Tracts and polemics are no longer taken by brave riders on horseback along mountain passes populated by barbarian bandits. Instead, an outraged bishop in San Francisco or Kigali can simply post a screed on a blog, which will be read by an audience of millions in hours.
This has created the incredible situation where individual parishes unhappy with local leadership start to wonder, “Why don’t we switch allegiance to that compelling chap on a different continent?”
The answer to that, until a decade a ago, would have been that such an arrangement is logistically impossible. But the neo-miracles of email, podcasting, FedEx and the proliferation of airlines has made this so much easier.
Globalization is making Anglican “Unite in Veritas” easier, transcending cultures, languages and locations. Witness the miracle of GAFCON, not schism but unity, not disorder but order.
Miranda Hassett is worth reading for an examination of this issue in relation to AMIA. Her conclusions should hold good for the FCA, assuming that GAFCON is not a flash in the pan.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com/2008/01/accountability-globalism-wave-of-future.html]See review here[/url]
“…an outraged bishop in San Francisco or Kigali can simply post a screed on a blog…”
So that would be Bishop Marc Handley Andrus and Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini, respectively.
Is this a reference to [url=http://episcopalbayarea.org/joomla/content/view/666/87/]the Andrus Démarche[/url] and/or [url=http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=15316]The Kigali Communique[/url]? Or does Williamson have something specific in mind?
This is actually a good, fairly sophisticated argument.
I find this argument fascinating. In the past, based on Nicea, geographic boundaries of dioceses were the norm other than during conflict in the Church, where border-crossing or multiple lines of leadership existed for a time. Post-Reformation of course, there came to exist multiple denominations, but Anglicanism traditionally has held to the Nicene model of geographically based dioceses and provinces. However now, as the author states, it is becoming clear that diversity of belief and practice among people in similar geographic areas does not mean that they simply have to learn to live with each other in the same church. There are now options.
The question that I would raise is whether or not this is a good thing. On the one hand, it is possible that it will allow different groups with divergent views about the faith to exist and develop those ideas with like-minded folk. On the other hand, it means that those groups (by which I mean everyone on any side of any issue that chooses to go its own way) may descend into a parochialism not dissimilar to the situation in the United States before the ecumenical movement really took root. You had Roman Catholics and protestant churches refusing even to talk, pray, or work together in the early to mid- 20th century, much less explore their common beliefs as Christians. Is that where we are headed again in the 21st century, except on a global scale?
#5
I suspect the answer to your question is yes, but with one big caveat. In the early twentieth century, as you observe, mainline Protestants were the only people to engage in ecumenical dialogue. Today, those with a more conservative theological perpective are seeking to find ways to work much more intimately together without compromising essential truths (as they understand them). We can debate whether J. Gresham Machen was right to describe the essential choice as being between Liberalism and Christianity, but one of the fruits of the post-Vatican II settlement has been the recontextualization of ecumenical dialogue, most notably between conservative Roman Catholics and Evangelicals.