Anglican Crystal Ball

Ok—here’s my picks for how things are going down. My best guess is that by next Christmas we’ll have:

 

++Schori as Primate of TEC (Anglican Communion)

++Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury (Anglican Communion)

+Duncan as Primate of All America (Evangelical Communion)

+Nazir-Ali as Primate of All England (Evangelical Communion)

 

I’m actually not going to call where ++Akinola will fit into this whole picture; I think it’s still too soon to guess…

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Anglican Crystal Ball

  1. Gracious Light says:

    I don’t know who Duncan is, but isn’t Nazir-Ali just pushing the issue as sour grapes for not getting the nod for archbishop of canterbury?

  2. LutherPunk says:

    Uh…can’t M just be a bishop yet?

  3. Derek the Ænglican says:

    Uh…no. Not yet.

  4. texanglican says:

    “Evangelical Communion” is a bit too restrictive a title, sir. Don’t forget us Forward in Faith types in San Joaquin, Fort Worth, Quincy and some of the “Continuum” jurisdictions. We make up a pretty fair chunk of the Network, and among traditionalists overseas. Don’t we get part of new name? ;-)

  5. texanglican says:

    “Evangelical Communion” is a bit too restrictive a title, sir. Don’t forget us Forward in Faith types in San Joaquin, Fort Worth, Quincy and some of the “Continuum” jurisdictions. We make up a pretty fair chunk of the Network, and among traditionalists overseas. Don’t we get part of new name? ;-)

  6. texanglican says:

    “Evangelical Communion” is a bit too restrictive a title, sir. Don’t forget us Forward in Faith types in San Joaquin, Fort Worth, Quincy and some of the “Continuum” jurisdictions. We make up a pretty fair chunk of the Network, and among traditionalists overseas. Don’t we get part of new name? ;-)

  7. texanglican says:

    “Evangelical Communion” is a bit too restrictive a title, sir. Don’t forget us Forward in Faith types in San Joaquin, Fort Worth, Quincy and some of the “Continuum” jurisdictions. We make up a pretty fair chunk of the Network, and among traditionalists overseas. Don’t we get part of new name? ;-)

  8. Derek the Ænglican says:

    Well, Texanglican, that was on purpose…

    Note that your own bishop doesn’t appear. I think the hardest thing for the conservative realigned group will be the issue of women’s ordination. And frankly, I don’t think it will be able to hold together. If Pittsburgh allows female clergy I have a hard time seeing how they can deny them the episcopate. Then y’all’d be facing a comparable problem to what you have now.

    If the broad church/liberals get separated out into their own jurisdiction, I don’t think that separate jurisdictions for Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics will be far behind. That is, the Anglican compromise held as long as the three parties balanced one another. Without the third as a buffer, a two-party entity is not long for this world, I think.

  9. Derek the Ænglican says:

    Oh, that’s also one of the reasons that ++Akinola’s hard to call. I can’t see Anglo-Catholics thriving under a thoroughly protestant patriarch…

  10. The young fogey says:

    Interesting. The new development of course is the possible split in England, which unlike the States has a strong Evangelical party. Too soon to tell which side from overseas will be invited to Lambeth. And as you probably know I agree the Elizabethan settlement is blowing up.

  11. Marshall says:

    I see your point, but I don’t know about the English divide. Since the Church is established, doesn’t that make division there even more complicated?

    Or, does it perhaps make it simpler: less opportunity to argue over property?

  12. The young fogey says:

    Good point, Father; I’ve often thought that Establishment has prevented a split/artificially kept the settlement together longer. (And that without state coercion the settlement ultimately doesn’t work: witness America today.) Property issues seem more clear-cut (you leave, you lose). But as has been explained to me the issue is not that the government owns the buildings like the post office – it really doesn’t – but rather, just like in the States, the diocese does. So if +Rochester for example takes his diocese with him out of the official C of E it would be uncharted waters, wouldn’t it? (It sort of happened before with the Non-Jurors but I don’t think they tried to take property with them.) You can argue that Establishment doesn’t mean much today – the notion of one church for all the monarch’s subjects is long gone (as the Prince of Wales has made clear!) – and even it can’t keep the settlement going.

  13. The young fogey says:

    P.S. …but rather, just like in the States, the diocese does…

    Except in Californian corporate law.

Comments are closed.