BBC asks are we "Heading for Anarchy?"

An article by Alex Kirby posted on the BBC news pages reflects on the future of the Anglican Communion given what happened in Kenya yesterday, and by extension, what is scheduled to happen in Uganda this weekend:

"So when one bishop (in this case Dr Nzimbi [the Primate of Kenya]) acts in a way that undercuts the authority of another bishop, it is the clearest possible way of emphasising the Church's disunity.

What Dr Nzimbi is saying, in effect, is that he knows better than the US bishops about the pastoral needs of their people.

The two new bishops promised to 'serve the international interests of the Anglican Church of Kenya, to serve clergy and congregations in North America under the Kenyan jurisdiction'.

It is a formula which ignores the fact that none of the Anglican Communion's member churches has any international interests of its own.

All are - in theory - united in working for the interests of the Communion itself.

And the claim that there are North American Anglicans 'under the Kenyan jurisdiction' is breathtaking in the way it opens the door to ecclesiastical anarchy.

No doubt Dr Nzimbi believes the consecrations are in the best interests of Kenyan Anglicans, and of their fellow believers elsewhere in Africa.

In fact they look very unlikely to be anything of the sort.

Read the rest: BBC NEWS: Kenya consecration deepens Anglican rift

Posted by Nicholas Knisely on August 31, 2007 11:47 AM | |
Comments (3)

Alex Kirby writes: "What Dr Nzimbi is saying, in effect, is that he knows better than the US bishops about the pastoral needs of their people."

In this case, I think the assumption is faulty.

Kenya elected these two bishops in response to a request from people who have left the Episcopal Church and formed new congregations under Kenya's care.

In other words, these folks have no longer have any interest in pastoral care from TEC bishops.

There is a case to be made against such consecrations, but it's an exceptionally weak point to accuse Kenya of disrespecting TEC bishops with these two consecrations.

Posted by Douglas LeBlanc [TypeKey Profile Page] | September 1, 2007 11:12 AM

Doug,

I looked twice at that statement as well. The assumption you are making, I think, is that it is the job of a bishop to give folks the pastoral care they want rather than the pastoral care they need.

Part of the discipline of being Anglican was that you didn't get to swap out your bishop when he or she no longer suited you. We have folks who are challenging that, um, fundamental pillar of the communion.

Posted by John B. Chilton [TypeKey Profile Page] | September 1, 2007 11:38 AM

John,

I'm not making that assumption. I wish all my fellow conservatives would exercise the spiritual discipline of remaining within TEC and standing up for their understanding of the gospel.

I think it would be better for their souls and for the common life of both TEC and the Anglican Communion if these fellow conservatives would stay.

I'm not defending these two consecrations, although I'm fond of both Bill Atwood and Bill Murdoch. I'm only challenging the faulty assumption that people who have left TEC are still somehow under the pastoral care of TEC bishops.

Posted by Douglas LeBlanc [TypeKey Profile Page] | September 1, 2007 12:28 PM

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Advertising Space