These are the 50 names who will play a key role in this historic period in the life of the Anglican communion, many of whom will feature prominently at this summer’s conference, which happens only once every 10 years and has never been so eagerly anticipated.
The panel [who selected the 50 names] includes: the Rt Rev Nicholas Baines, Bishop of Croydon; Giles Fraser, vicar of Putney; Rachel Boulding, deputy editor, Church Times; Jim Naughton, communications officer for the Diocese of Washington; the Rev Canon Dr Jane Shaw, Fellow and Dean of Divinity of New College, Oxford; Andrew Carey, columnist, Church of England Newspaper.
Hmm, Harmon by a nose over Duncan.
Congratulations Kendall.
While there might be some grumbling here in Pittsburgh about ranking +Bob at only 37, I suppose it’s based on purported ability to broker power. Can’t think of any other reason for listing Bishops Andrus and Chane higher up the list.
It’s hard to differentiate, but I think the list would be slightly different if you asked “Who has had the most influence?” vs. “Who has/will have the most influence?” VGR certainly had an enormous influence and the shockwaves are still being felt, and he gets a lot of media attention, but is he really a top ten player? I don’t think so. Carey feels a bit the same – well-known, but influence decreases almost geometrically with time (but that may be the US-centric perspective).
Won’t KJS’s supporters be estatic: second after the ABC!!! So much influence — even more importantly in the liberal scale, so much power to the leader of a tiny group within the Anglican communion.
We looked at Proverbs 12 in housegroup last night — the following springs to mind:
19 Truthful lips endure forever,
but a lying tongue lasts only a moment.
I wonder if in 100 years time, the list would be drawn up in the same order.
I have commented on my blog about the significance of 5 of the top 10 having been at GAFCON: discoveringthehope.blogspot.com
[blockquote]Check out the list and see what you make of it.[/blockquote]
I know this sounds rather pious but of course the really important question is what does God make of it! Above all I hope that those on the list resist ‘playing politics’ but continue to seek God’s approval and his glory and not their own (Gal 1:10).
J.I. Packer didn’t make it. Perhaps they have a defintion of power.
There’s a good case to be made for the inclusion of Stephen Noll (formerly of Trinity, now of Uganda Christian University) on that list, if for no other reason than as a vignette of the shift in centre-of-gravity from the West to the South. He has trained many lower-tier conservatives in the US — the future of Anglicanism here — and is currently doing the same in Uganda.
Influential doesn’t always require ‘prominent.’
JI Packer for sure should have been on this list as should Paul Zahl.
Although I find this list amusing, the real power in my church is in the hands of the vestry.
We didn’t discuss Lambeth at all, but prayed for the sick, that our parish would grow, and gave thanks for God’s presence in our community. I’m skeptical that God is at Lambeth in any greater sense than in the hands of our parishes.
These kinds of lists are so gloriously entertaining and subjective no matter who they are produced by!
Such lists say more about the makers of the lists then those on the list. Talk show host Hugh Hewett has on most Fridays a guest who does the top ten movies on a given topic (some times a weird topic). Callers then add recommendations for those they think the movie critic missed. It is all in good fun. As to this list the most serious I can take it is; all in good fun.
If the list is to be taken seriously, even a little bit, I would say it confuses power and influence with the ability to make noise. Vicky Gene is a symbol and to his supporter an icon, but it his election to be a Bishop which is the issue, that does not make him a leader. He makes a lot of noise but it is Doctor Schori who is tearing apart the AC. I could say much more, but as I said in the first paragraph, I really do not take the list seriously.
I think the list is interesting. KJS is rightly placed very high because of the power of TEC money and muscle which is too often ignored.
What is also of note is the number of people who claim they have influence but aren’t on the list.
I would sure like to know who came up with the panelists–how were THEY chosen and by whom?
Let’s remember that some are there only because they create lots of “face time” and insert themselves busily into many issues. Influence? If influence means revulsion and the opposite effect intended then yes, several are indeed influencial.
I note with relief that Jesus escaped the limited box of being Anglican. Perhaps the entire Trinity did not make it because the box was too small?!!! ;>)