(Anglican) Archbishops threaten split over gay clergy

[muriel_volestrangler]

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, faced the gravest threat to his authority as leader of the worldwide Anglican communion last night, as nearly half the church's presiding archbishops launched an unprecedented attack on his leadership over the issue of gay clergy.

In terms which call into question the archbishop's continuing leadership of the 77 million-strong church - the third largest Christian denomination - 17 of Anglicanism's 38 primates issued a highly personal letter criticising his personal ability and demanding that he should take action against "unrepented sexual immorality" in the church.

Pointing to the archbishop's personally more tolerant stand towards gay people, they claimed: "We wonder whether your personal dissent from this consensus prevents you from taking the necessary steps to confront those churches that have embraced teaching contrary to the overwhelming testimony of the Anglican communion. We urge you to rethink your personal view and embrace the church's consensus. And to act on it as it is on the clear witness of scripture."
...
The row, which seems to bring schism still closer within the Anglican church - the primates' letter talked of cutting away dead branches that had failed to bear fruit - arises from fundamental disagreements over actions in the US Episcopal church in electing the openly gay diocesan bishop Gene Robinson in 2003 and a decision by a Canadian diocese to bless same-sex partnerships the same year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1644268,00.html

Even though I'm an atheist, I have some sympathy for Williams in this. He himself is fairly liberal, but he's doing his best to hold together the communion he's meant to head, but the intolerant primates, largely from the developing world, seem intent on tearing it apart. I think a split is now inevitable - and if it happens now, I think the UK will side with the USA and Canada. It may end up looking like a 'white' and 'non-white' split - unfortunately.

[Smarmie Doofus]

1. OTOH, "splitting" is what organized religion is all about.

Williams deserves credit for trying to overcome the backwardness of the homophobes, but some things are inevitable and schism is one of them.

Seems to me... he'd be wise to let 'em go.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. Could be, but there's also controversy inside the Church of England

There are probably more conservative types in the Church of England than in the US Episcopalian Church, so a CofE split would be more damaging. While the international Anglican churches are going at it hammer and tongs, England's own problems look smaller. If the CofE splits, he could lose several high-up bishops. The question of who owns assets in an established state church could be very messy.

[grumpy old fart]

3. Ah yes, money, it usually winds up about money........

who winds up with control of the assets, that's the key, of course.

[kwassa]

5. Assets are owned by the local diocese in the US

Those conservative congregations that wish to leave their diocese have to leave behind the buildings and property.

One just did it last week in Virginia, but they were a small start-up congregation that had no building anyway. They left the Virginia diocese, which is quite conservative to start out with. The irony is, of course, is that some of the most conservative and possibly racist church congregations are aligning themselves with African bishops. That has not gone unnoticed.

There is a loud disgruntled minority in the Episcopal Church, but they will ultimately lose this fight.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. In England, the clergyman typically has the freehold of the church

though they are proposing this is transfered to the diocese to hold in trust for the congregation. But if they want to do a reorganisation, or remove a clergyman, it's a lengthy legal process (which can even go to the Privy Council - effectively either the government or the highest court of appeal in England). Potentially they'd have to do this for all parishes - a nightmare. Since churches have received land from a variety of sources, including the state (eg land confiscated from Catholic monasteries by Henry VIII), or may have held it for so long that you can't tell how they got it, it might not be possible to give a blanket solution for all parishes.

Pastoral breakdown
- The diocesan bishop may make a declaration removing an incumbent from his office where there has been a serious breakdown in the pastoral relationship between the incumbent and the parishioners . This can only happen after a lengthy procedure culminating in an enquiry before a specially constituted tribunal. Provision is made for the cleric to receive financial compensation.

Pastoral reorganisation
- A benefice or archdeaconry may be dissolved as a result of pastoral reorganisation within a diocese, in which case the office will cease to exist . Again, this can only happen after a lengthy legal process in which all interested parties have the right to make representations and (ultimately) a right of appeal to the Privy Council. Provision is made for financial compensation.

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/council_accepts_need_to_change_clergy_employment.html

[JerseygirlCT]

4. I know he's hoping to find a way toward some sort of consensus

As the US bishops are also trying to do.

I just, for the life of me, cannot see where it can come from, short of total abdication of our duty, as we promise at every baptism:

Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?


I rather think that calling the bigots on their bluff might do some good. Or perhaps I'm just angry enough to want to go there.

And for heaven's sake -- with all the pain and disease and hunger in the world -- especially the 3rd world -- THIS is what is most important to these archbishops? For THIS, the absolute horror of treating their gay brothers and sisters as full participants in the church, they'd threaten schism? It's really pretty mind-blowing.