A Melbourne sociologist, Professor Gary Bouma, said the movement would have little support beyond Africa and some conservative parishes in Canada and the US, and the prospect of losing property and superannuation would bind leaders such as Peter Jensen to the fold.
Despite the “overheated rhetoric” of a church within a church, Dr Bouma from Monash University doubted the movement would amount to more than a vocal sub-caucus within the communion.
“What they are talking about is a group within the Anglican communion. They haven’t left it. If they do, there are consequences. Anyone who does leave would lose their property and their superannuation. Instead, they talk of being a sub-caucus within the communion. There’s more or less sub-caucuses there now. It’s a self-appointed group of people that are arrogating authority to themselves ”¦ Where it has some traction is in Africa where ”¦ a large part of the Anglican population lives. What’s more, these people are a whole lot younger than Anglicans in other parts of the world. In 50 years’ time, this smaller group demographically might be dominant.”
Dr Bouma said the Archbishop of Canterbury’s best option was “to sit quiet and let it happen”. If he gave any more ground he risked losing the support of those moderates and liberals who remained in the church.
The Australian Primate of the Anglican Church, Phillip Aspinall, declined to comment.