In a further indication of a schism in the global Anglican Communion, the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen (pictured), has announced that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, is ‘no longer considered dominant’ as the communion’s symbolic leader.

Jensen made his feelings known at a press conference in Jerusalem, where he is attending the Global Anglican Future Conference (Gafcon). The conference, organized by the traditionalist wing of the church, aims to address the current turmoil facing the Anglican Communion.

Jensen and his fellow conservative bishops blame the ordination five years ago of openly gay American bishop, the Reverend Gene Robinson, for the split.

However, Jensen has hit back at reports that he is planning a direct break with the Communion, instead suggesting that there would a ‘structure within a structure’, which would allow clergy and congregations to opt out of liberal churches and join more conservative groups, according to The Guardian.

Melbourne Anglican priest Father Nigel Wright said that Jensen “is holding himself as the only model of orthodoxy.”

“Part of the damage is that he continues to portray the church as an overall toxic place for people who are not heterosexual,” Wright told MCV. “It’s not the truth. There are many places where GLIBT people can find a home here.”

Wright said that for Anglicanism to survive it must move forward on the issue of homosexuality.

“Change in this area is inevitable. I believe many would be conscientiously wanting to move to an inclusive model,” he added.

Photo: courtesy Anglican Media Sydney

Comments (2)

Show/Hide comments

...
written by Raj , 26 June, 2008

Biblicalism rather than Anglicanism AND Pauline Christology rather than secular psychology AND maximum crucial conceptual unity in the Bible rather than a hypocritical coerced union OUGHT TO BE TOP PRIORITIES.

The Biblical pattern of INDEPENDENT congregations (along with Biblical believer's baptizo, congregational episcopal leadership in accordance to pastoral epistles, memorial agape feasts and evangelical outlook), has been jettisoned by Catholicism, Orthodoxy and it's immediate reformation offspring, the Anglo-methodist, Lutheran, Calvinistic, etc Churches.

It's ABSOLUTELY "no harm" to "break-away" emphasizing Biblical authority. To the contrary, it's edifying to the Corpus Cristi. I hope and pray that this fractionation will be complete (later if not now) and similar phenomena may happen NOT ONLY in the Anglican Churches BUT ALSO in many of the Calvinistic, Lutheran and Methodist (Uniting) Churches, God willing.

Christan love, forbearance and the HS fruits bear relevance ONLY in the Biblical context. HOW can that come around if the differences betwixt the unsaved and the "believer" are NOT much?! The process of burnishing and purification may be painful OR may cause a superficial semblance of pain, BUT IS IN FACT A SPIRITUALLY REJUVENATING process IN THE LONG RUN.

BACK TO THE BIBLE..

...
written by AMP , 26 June, 2008

The Holy Bible is the Living Word of God. This belief is present in both the liberal/revisionist (lr) and conservative/orthodox (co) groups of Anglicans, however with very different interpretations.

For the lr it means that as times, people and societies change, than so to may our interpretation of Scripture. For the co it means that the Holy Bible is meant to be relevant to all people of all times and all places, as part of our daily lives. Herein lays the great divide between lr and co groups. The lr is putting people ahead of Scripture and saying that God should change to better suit us. The co is putting Scripture ahead of people and saying that people should change to better suit God.

The homosexual questions are merely the symptom of this discord. The understanding of the differences in the approach taken by the two groups serves very well to better comprehend why there is such a rift that the Communion is on the verge of schism.

The lr claim that they are inclusive by accepting people as they are, whether they be homosexual seeking to be married, women seeking to be priests, divorcees seeking to be re-married, etc. The lr go on to accuse the co of being non-inclusive (and sometimes even intolerant) because the co continue to identify these things as being against the Will of God (which is the very definition of sin).

The co claim to be open to all people as they follow the example of Jesus Christ, who did not refuse anyone who was willing to give up their sinful ways. The challenge facing the co is that it is very difficult to tell a sinner that they are sinning (just as it is difficult to tell an alcoholic that they have a drinking problem) without coming across as being judgmental and critical. What makes this challenge even more difficult is the co people must acknowledge their own sins. So how does anyone do this without appearing to be a hypocrite?

Ironically, hypocrisy is the fatal flaw for the lr group. For just as they claim to be Christians, they paint themselves into a corner. Christians, by definition proclaim Jesus Christ to be the Divine Son of God (as part of the Holy Trinity of Father Son and Holy Ghost) and thus is God. In Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus states that because God made them male and female, a man shall be united to his wife and the two shall become one. This clearly indicates, straight from Jesus Christ (and therefore straight from God) that marriage is a Holy Union of one man and one woman. How can anyone, be they lr or co, claim to be Christian and at the same time ignore this passage? This is just one example of the hypocrisy that the lr are afflicted with, and it is this hypocrisy that will be the ultimate demise of the lr group; for as a person grows and becomes more knowledgeable in the Faith, the person sees the inconsistency of the lr approach, and becomes disenfranchised. In this way the lr group wanes and declines.

Alternatively, this same person matures in the Faith and in an adult-like manner gains the ability to accept their own shortcomings. The inherent consistency of the co group serves as a supportive foundation upon which to further their own spiritual strength. In this way the co group flourishes and increases.

Evidence of this is in the fact that the lr parts of the Anglican Communion are in rapid decline, while at the same time the co parts are in rapid growth. Whether the two groups remain together, or separate, the eventual outcome will be the same. Although the lr group currently has the historical places of power, and the greatest amount of earthly wealth, its influence within the Anglican Communion is already diminishing, and it has already begun to sell off its capital assets in order to finance its current operating expenditures. The co group is already realizing its increasing importance and has established a more permanent source of resources (that go far beyond money, buildings and land). Eventually the lr group will shrink to the point of no longer being relevant, while the co group will grow to the point of being in complete control.

Show/Hide comment form