'Obsessed with sex?'

It's not the kind of thing I can necessarily get a news story out of, but as a development it is highly significant. This is where blogging comes into its own. It is possible now to comment and report on things that don't, for lots of reasons to do with the nature of news and current affairs, make it into the msm but are still extremely important within their own direct context. This latest development is the new posting on the Global South website, giving details of the structure being put in place to support this group of Anglican provinces. This supports my theory, which first came to mind when chatting yesterday to Roger Bolton on the BBC's Sunday programme, that there will be no schism in the Anglican Communion.

To my mind, the warring groups of liberals and conservatives are like a married couple who happen to own a beautiful, hugely valuable house in the middle of London. This couple can no longer stand the sight of each other, are massively contemptuous of each other's views on almost everything and any kind of agreement or intimacy on anything is out of the question. Except on one thing. They are agreed that the other party shall under no circumstances get their hands on the house, or any part of it. Not even the flimsiest stick of furniture. The children have grown up and left home, so there is no problem there. They move into separate halves of the house and build a wall, or floor, between them. The sole communication is the occasional bit of loud music, or heavy footstep, that escapes through the dividing brickwork.

The Bishop of Hulme, Stephen Lowe, liked this analogy so much he picked it up and ran with it on GMR Sunday breakfast. I do actually know a couple who lives a bit like this. I believe the analogy goes quite a long way. The Anglican Church is like a beautiful house, "my father's mansion" so to speak. Both sides are determined not to leave, and not to forsake an iota of doctrine or rubric to the other side. Well ok, one side has already forsaken rather a large part of the doctrine, but they're still not willing to get out of the property. It's rather like one party painting the interior of the marital home bright pink while the other party is away for the weekend. (That actually happened to me in one of my marriages.)Neither side really understands the other any more. Sometimes it is as if they do not even speak the same language. 

There is one major difference however. In the Church, there is a child in the house. Both parties are fighting over custody of the Archbishop of Canterbury, so child-like in his innocence at times. How could he have imagined that leaving the door to his soul wide open at the third South-to-South encounter, in particular in his revealing Q&A session, could be anything other than an invitation for a huge great Pythonesque boot, that letter, to come thudding in at him?

But there is hope in the air, and it is in this latest structual announcement from the Global South. It is about 'economic empowerment'. Sex doesn't get a mention, proving that Akinola, Singapore et al are not as obsessed with sex as their detractors believe. 'We elected a leadership team consisting of the Most Rev’d Peter J. Akinola, Primate of All Nigeria as President, the Rt. Rev’d John Chew, Bishop of Singapore as General Secretary, assisted by the Venerable Oluranti Odubogun and Canon Martyn Minns, and the Rt. Rev’d Mouneer Anis as Treasurer. We also established a Primates Advisory Group consisting of the Most Rev’d Emmanuel Kolini, Province of Rwanda, the Most Rev’d Bernard Malango, Province of Central Africa, the Most Rev’d Drexel Gomez, the Province of the West Indies the Most Rev’d Gregory Venables, the Province of the Southern Cone.'  Further implications are drawn out by Simon Sarmiento today.

These primates are all the key players in this drama, one of the most significant appointments being Singapore as General Secretary. The house is divided, not as General Synod would have it, 'decided', but it is still the same house. In a few years' time, they might even build an elevator between the separate floors. But in the meantime, the Global South is starting to get on with the real business of being Church, which is money and mission.

Meanwhile, Dave Walker's depicted my job in cartoon terminology.  Can't fault it really, except I've never been able to throw a dart straight in my life.

And as for Matthew Norman in the Independent today, take that Matthew.

Comments

[Steve Ward]

"That actually happened to me in one of my marriages." ... relates the author, who would have us believe their analogy..."to my mind, the warring groups of liberals and conservatives are like a married couple who happen to own a beautiful, hugely valuable house in the middle of London." ... is a valid summation of the "schism in the Anglican Communion."

In fact the schism referred to can in no way be explained away by comparison to the state of marriage; more especially by someone for whom marriage seems to be a regularly aspired to convenience valued by property and location, who makes statements like "This couple can no longer stand the sight of each other, are massively contemptuous of each other's views on almost everything and any kind of agreement or intimacy on anything is out of the question". A statement such as this reveals the maker to have given no prior thought to their Love, resulting in them entering into a null, hence unsound partnership.

If the Anglican Communion is becoming divided it is because certain bodies within it seek to move away from extra-physical union with God toward physical comprehension of Faith, demanding evermore-material interpretation. Moving from 'XY' to 'XX' if you would like to use that analogy. This has been the issue that has divided humanity from the fall; for only one path can bring humanity back to pre-fall completeness, while the other way animalises human being.

Not acknowledging that there are actual unfortuante children in the houses of many divorcing people Ruth states … "there is one major difference however. In the Church, there is a child in the house. Both parties are fighting over custody of the Archbishop of Canterbury." With these lines the full 'XX' nous of Ruth Gledhill and an entire, ugly mass of similar minded "Christians" is revealed. For the Archbishop of Canterbury, office or man can in no wise be postulated as a "child in the house" [of God]. This is quite simply an awful corruption of the true Christian concern.

It surprises me that such nonsense as quoted above would come from a Mother, which I believe Ruth to be. But then I look at the effect begat by the post sixties feminist movement, which has seen priesthoods populated by their reconditioned male progenies, else infiltrated by those male [and female] materialists who have taken advantage of post world war confusion, and the subsequent religious turmoil.

The Anglican Church as an embodiment of a Faithful tree is dead in the eyes of Creation; this is demonstrated by its problems and by the qualifications of those who lurk about its limbs. Even a Zebra of a man like me spurns the sour leaves of its branches.

[William R. Coats]

Writing from the US I am glad to see you do not feel there will be a split in the Church, in England. Alas in the US the split is already underway, with alternative structures in place, lawsuits over property underway and further mayhem around the corner. That this split was planned for many years ago, might give you pause in your optimism.
Incidentally I welcome the split. It is about time. Oh yes, I am on the (so-called) liberal side.