Make the Destination Clear: “The Episcopal Branch.of the Jesus Movement”, what does it mean?

   Make the Destination Clear: “The Episcopal branch of the Jesus Movement” – what does that mean?

 

The promo on the Episcopal Church web page for the Beloved Community” begins, “As the Episcopal branch of the Jesus Movement, we dream and work to foster Beloved Communities..”  

 

I’ve written about the notion of the Jesus Movement here” http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/2017/06/why-jesus-movement-movement-does-not.html

 

My concerns about the phrase “Jesus Movement” was that it has been used in very sloppy ways by a variety of people and groups that would have found The Episcopal Church to have been decidedly NOT part of its work. Any movement must be defined not just by what it moves away from (say stagnation and cooption) but by what it moves towards. That something towards which it moves is not spelled out, except by reference to fostering Beloved Communities. 

 

Beloved Communities are communities loved by someone, in this case one assumes by God. And the assumption is that by being communities of love ourselves we are reflecting God’s love and are in turn loved by God.  Beloved is a community activity, engaging both God’s actions and ours. 

 

This stuff of doing what the Lord requires - It’s a fine notion, one that I readily affirm. Micah got it, Jesus got it, the Apostles and Prophets got it, and even I’ve got it.  If that is what the Jesus Movement is – a movement fostering beloved communities – great.

 

But about the Episcopal Church being a “branch” of the Jesus Movement, I am unclear and unmoved.

 

The phrase “The Episcopal branch of the Jesus Movement” is an amazing conflation of two very different images of life in Christ – one quite institutional and the other quite individual.

 

Jesus said, “I am the vine and you are the branches.”  It is a stretch to say “branches” had anything to do with churches.  And yet there are amazing numbers of charts that show the church branches that have grown out from the tree of life (i.e. Jesus).  

 

As a teenager in New Orleans, a strongly Catholic town at the time, my priest showed me this chart with Anglican churches clearly labeled as being in continuity with the main trunk of faithful people. With some pride he talked about how we Anglicans were the third largest branch of the Church. So in spite of what those Roman Catholics would say, we are a branch of the true church.  And, just as icing on the cake, he then would reference the “I am the vine, you are the branches” statement, as if that settled the matter.  But of course it didn’t. 

It was a useful image for me as a teenager, in love (as much as I could expresse it) at that time with Roman Catholic young woman. It gave me talking points in conversations about our religious beliefs.  IT kind of gave me a pedigree.

 

The reference, “The Episcopal branch” is a hint back to the assurance that what we are about is both part of the core activity of being followers of Jesus, and being part of the “true” church.  May it be so.

 

But the problem is that the Jesus Movement, which is not apparently an edifice or tree or vine or any other definable organized entity, is that it is not something that has branches.  It is not an organization (like say a bank) that has branch offices. It is not a tree or vine organized as a living organism that has tendrils or new growth extensions.

 

I believe the Jesus Movement is an aspirational and spiritual declaration, and as a result, it is part of the personal side of the baptismal covenant.  The individual (I) joins this movement towards belonging to and engaging with the beloved community. But the beloved community is itself “not of this world.”  It is not an organized entity of any sort. Rather beloved community is found as we gather in a whole variety of ways to live out what Moses, Micah, other prophets, and  Jesus (and a whole host of others) point us towards. 

 

The notion that The Episcopal Church is a “branch” of some ongoing historical organization called “the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” is an institutional claim.  But what is it to say we are a branch of the Jesus Movement? I think it means almost nothing.

 

Fostering beloved communities is not the same as establishing new communities that will somehow BE beloved communities. We can foster beloved communities in every parish in the church, but the funds for such efforts tend to go to “new” work, not to support of already existing parishes so that they become agents of new community. The new work being funded looks increasingly parallel to, but not included in, the ongoing effort to foster beloved community IN parishes.  Giles Fraser in an article posted this week https://unherd.com/2020/08/the-neoliberal-revolution-within-the-church/

points to a similar dynamic in the Church of England.

 

Episcopalians can be, and I hope are, part of the Jesus Movement. I hope I am. I hope we take our baptismal vows seriously. And I believe I am not the vine, but a really small tendril from that vine, one of the followers of Jesus.

 

But the Episcopal Church is not such a branch. People are.

 

So when there is this rush to do “new work” we in the church may be told that this is all about being the Episcopal branch of the Jesus Movement, but don’t believe it.  It may indeed be about doing or supporting very important and good work “fostering beloved community.” Those ongoing communities of faithful people gathered in congregations across the land will be mostly left out of the conversation.

 

Existing parishes will mostly be left to their own devices, the bigger and better off will make it. The smaller and less financially capable will mostly die off.  And new work will be mostly unrelated to the institutional Church at all.  The branch of the tree may whither even as new shoots are planted. 

 

All of this may be part of moving on, and if so let it be. But don’t mutter about the Episcopal part of the Jesus Movement. I am not at all sure that there will be any need for bishops in the Jesus Movement at all, much less The Episcopal Church. 

 

Time to clean up the language, or else, to use Fr. Fraser’s insight)  face into the new-liberal deconstruction of the church as we now know it.

 

I believe we need to make the destination clear.  If the call to be the Episcopal branch of the Jesus Movement is a post-denominational claim or an extra-institutional claim, then be clear that what we are asked to join and support is not new work of The Episcopal Church but rather the work of Jesus people moving on towards the realization of the beloved community. This is the new wine, new wine skin crowd. . If we are The Episcopal Church AS an organization fostering Beloved Community in our own corporate life, perhaps we might better start by helping existing communities to be more like the communities we are called to be. This is the crowd that seeks to be born again, even when old. 

 

Me, I’d like to see the church that perpetually seeks a rebirth of wonder. (To cop a phrase from Lawrence Ferlinghetti).  But if it must be, get a new wine skin for new wine.

 

Either way: Make the path clear.

 

Flogging the dead horse "Anglican Covenant,"

The Living Church, through the Covenant pages, has published an editorial, "Primatial option for the Covenant." Anticipating the February meeting of the heads of the Anglican Provinces (the Primates) and its agenda, TLC argues for new consideration of the Anglican Covenant.  "Everything points back to the main curriculum: mutual responsibility and interdependence; self-sacrificing love; cooperation “on the basis of a common Faith and Order, to discountenance schism, to heal the wounds of the Body of Christ, and to promote the charity which is the chief of Christian graces and the visible manifestation of Christ to the world” (Chicago Quadrilateral of the American House of Bishops, 1886). In short, let the primates preferentially opt for the Anglican Covenant."

So the Anglican Covenant is being touted again as a way forward in deepening communion. Who knows if the Primates meeting will take up again the somewhat tattered and torn text of the Anglican Covenant.  Who knows if that meeting will pay attention to TLC's editorial opinion concerning their work. We shall see.

I believe the replay of the Anglican Covenant, in its current form, by the Primates in particular, is unwise.

There are several really bad ideas that make their way into this essay and its arguments for a preferential option (whatever that is):

(i) The notion of a "Preferential option" by the Primates for the Anglican Covenant makes it appear that somehow the Primates could decide on their own to declare for the Anglican Covenant.  I suppose they could. But they cannot declare for their churches.  Oh, in some Provinces where the Primate exercises extraordinary executive authority, I suppose they could. But most Churches are guided in polity questions by some sort of synodical processes. So a "Primatial Option" would be the opinion of the primates. Unless it were a unanimous vote for support it would simply affirm that the Anglican Communion is no where near a place of agreement on the Anglican Covenant. Most disturbing is the idea that this title puts forth: namely that a "Primatial option" even exists. There is no common agreement that statements by the Primates on any matter stand separate from the ACC and the decisions by the member churches. "Primatial option" is a really bad idea. It smacks of a primatial preemption.

(ii) The Essay quotes the Lambeth Quadrilateral on the need for "common Faith and Order, to discountenance schism, to heal the wounds of the Body of Christ, and to promote the charity which is the chief of Christian graces and the visible manifestation of Christ to the world." This is a worthy end, but common Faith and Order, I believe, did not include any suggestion of commonality in all things. It concerned core Christian belief and ordering of ministry. Thus the Lambeth Quadrilateral's markers for such faith and order were to be found in Scripture, the Sacraments, the Creeds and the Episcopate, described in simple straightforward terms.  

Matters of the interpretation of Scripture, the rites for or teaching about the sacraments, the use of the Creed in worship or changes reflecting ecumenical agreement about the proper wording of any creed, or a particular use of episcopal authority, up to and including the extent to which the "head" of a particular church is understood to be a Primate at all, are without doubt ecumenical in consequence and to be taken with due care, but the ecumenical world (in this instance) includes the world of Anglican Provinces themselves.  

That is, the Anglican Communion is in the first instance an example of the ecumenical union for which the Lambeth Quadrilateral was proposed as a model.  The Anglican Communion is not a world wide church. It is an ecumenical and familial union of churches all who share the signs of union at their core and who form their lives in accordance with the peoples and nations in which they find themselves. 

(iii) The Essay would have us think otherwise. It speaks of unity and diversity and quotes the Windsor Report, which speaks of the limits of diversity. The Essay opines that there is "an important caveat or “fundamental limit,” to autonomy, namely, communion itself. As The Windsor Report said: “Communion is, in fact, the fundamental limit to autonomy” (§ 82)."

None but the truly Anglican nerd types even bother to quote the Windsor Report any more. And one of the reasons is precisely this sort of statement. When the Windsor Report states, "Communion is, in fact, the fundamental limit to autonomy," it is harping on the seemingly commendable notion that the actions of one church, community, province, or whatever, in Christ, ought to put aside its own preferences when such preferences would lead others to sin, a chief sin being to break communion.  Communion (and its continuity) trumps autonomous action on matters even of great concern.  Most of this line of thinking grows from comments about individuals and being stumbling blocks. 

The problem is that this guide for our exercise of freedom in Christ - that we give way in order to maintain communion - was primarily a rule about my behavior and yours as individuals. It works pretty well on that level. But it is less helpful on the level of Church polity.  On the level of church polity it is hopeless.  

Suppose we were to apply the notion that "communion is in fact the fundamental limit to autonomy" to a diocesan convention where there is a heated discussion about capital punishment (currently in the state where that diocese is situated the law of the land).  After much discussion a vote is to be taken, and it appears from polling of delegates that a resolution against capital punishment will pass by a sizable majority. Some one opposed to this, believing that the current laws are appropriate, rises and says, "if this passes there will be a break in this Diocese, and I will lead those who cannot agree out and we will not participate in the life of the Diocese. We will withdraw from communion with this Diocese. The only way to keep us together is to defeat this resolution."   

One could argue that the proponents of the legislation, those opposed to capital punishment, ought to give way until another time, when the arguments might carry greater weight, or new arguments found. This would be placing communion before autonomy.  Autonomy, in this case, is expressed by the representative action and will of the body of the synod - not the consensus action, but the representative action. Of course representative action leads to that awful thing, the autonomous will of the body. Not the totally convinced will, but the will none the less.

In such circumstances the argument for the limits to autonomy in communion being communion itself totally sidesteps the notion that we are not dealing with individuals here, but bodies of people who vote on matters in some representative way.  When decision get made, they sometimes build stronger communion, and sometimes not. But they get made anyway. The Windsor Report needs to be put to rest. Its argument for communion as the limit to autonomy in communion is logic chopping. 


The Primates Meetings have a particular place in the life of the Anglican Communion. They are a late invention, but because they involve the heads of churches they have gradually taken on more and more authority. They have little power but considerable collective authority. They have become the place where the outward and visible signs of communion (or the lack thereof) are most obvious. When some primates refused to receive communion with others, or stayed away entirely, their absence reduced the authority of the Primates common voice. But that authority does not translate well into power. Power has its own venue in Anglican land, primarily in the synods of the various churches. I suspect the authority of the Primates will not find common expression concerning the Anglican Covenant, even if the Archbishop of Canterbury were to push it. But for sure that expression will fall on less sympathetic ears in some Provinces when the Primates views, whatever they are, come home to the synods of the Churches for confirmation, ratification, or whatever one might do with Primatial options.

The Living Church has become a wonderful resource for the whole church and its stances on various matters requires considerable thought. I admire the Editor and his work and the writers of TLC, and consider myself honored by occasional opportunity to write for its pages. I believe TLC's suggestion of a "Primatial option" needs to be read carefully. My critique comes from my esteem. I hope better critique is made, but this is a start.

In sum, whatever else happens to the Anglican Covenant, I hope the Primates will spend as little time in trying to revive the horse as possible and more time in such difficult tasks as looking to common core concerns.

  

The Episcopal Church is a National Church.

The title of this blog is a simple declarative statement.  The Episcopal Church is an national church. Well, yes, of course. The official name, aka known as The Episcopal Church (TEC), is The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America.

In the Preamble to the Constitution of The Episcopal Church it states that this church is "a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, a Fellowship within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces, and regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer."

The Preamble to TEC's Constitution, lifted mostly from the 1930 Lambeth Conference, assumed that "The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America," was a jurisdiction primarily determined by the jurisdiction of The United States of America. The primary "region" of this church is the entity called the United States of America. That is what "in" means.

National history has led the USA to hold various overseas jurisdictions in which TEC began to be active. And through missionary action TEC determined to be present in a number of other countries, building an Anglican presence there. It has always been part of TEC's mission policy to encourage the development of national churches themselves as Provinces, or parts of regional Provinces, in the countries where it has been present.  In that TEC has been mostly successful. Brazil, the Philippines, Mexico, IARCA have become provinces of their own. Other provinces are in formation. 

The missionary objective has been the implementation of national or regional provinces in all those countries where TEC missionary activity has been present.

At the same time there has been considerable affirmation that "The Episcopal Church is a international church."  It is certainly true that we are international, in the sense that we have member dioceses in several countries and a regional jurisdiction in Europe. At a time when our critics were saying that TEC was acting without any commentary from Anglicans in other parts of the world it was useful to remind those critics that the voices of people not from the USA are included in the life of this church.  And it was useful to remind ourselves that we need to include our international dioceses as integral to our own life. But it has also been confusing to others in the Communion and awkward, in that our listing in the Anglican Communion website makes no mention of its location. And yet we are, for all intents and purposes located in the USA and its territories.

In a letter to the Church posted today, Presiding Bishop Kathryn Jefferts Shori wrote, "We are clearer about who we are – a multinational church, with congregations in 17 nations, worshipping in countless different languages, thriving in international, immigrant, and multicultural contexts everywhere, and discovering the abundant life that comes in turning outward to love the neighbors nearby and far away."

The phrase "multinational" is much to be preferred to "international." The first is the reality that fits both the facts on the ground and the canonical sensibilities.

It is time to more strongly reaffirm that we are a church "in the United States of America." And we are THE church in the USA that is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion. 

We need to affirm our "national" identity for several reasons:

(i) In order to maintain the missionary emphasis on encouraging regional and national churches in those places outside the USA where TEC has diocese. We may now indeed be international, but the hope is that our international dioceses will become part of new Provinces of the Anglican Communion. 

(ii) The Lambeth Quadrilateral holds that one of the marks of the Church is 

"The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of His Church."  The determinants of local adaption assumes bishops in synod, which synods involve nations or peoples. If TEC wants to maintain that it shares the marks of the church, its body of bishops, working as the varying needs of the peoples of the United States of America requires, needs a national or regional identity.

(iii) The canons and ecclesastical practices of The Episcopal Church assume a US context. Outside that context they are clearly not the organization of the church in place.

(iv) In what is likely to be an even more complex bit of inter-Anglican life, ACNA is acquiring recognition by more and more Provinces at their "partner" in North America. Understood as an ecumenical partner, fine. But within the Anglican Communion we hold as well as we can the notion that in every nation, region, where there is a Province of the Anglican Communion, there is only one Province, although there may be several partners. A number of Provinces that are aligned with the Global South and have ACNA as their North American "Partner" have not broken ties with TEC or the Anglican Church of Canada, the official Provinces in North America (where do we put Mexico?) So they continue relations with TEC and with ACNA.  This is a pattern which may emerge with other Provinces. Our clarity about being the Anglican Province "in the United States of America," a church rich in religious, cultural and social diversity, is important if we are to maintain the claim that we are the Anglican Communion jurisdiction in the USA.

(v) Most importantly, TEC needs the focus on its primary task, to proclaim the Gospel in ways that will reach the wide diversity of peoples in this place, and to do so with what I would call  "poetic sensibility" of the deeply spiritual life of the peculiar religious community called The Episcopal Church. 



  

What is the Archbishop of Canterbury doing? Mucking about.

It's high stakes time out there in Anglican-land. To wit:

The Archbishop of Canterbury is apparently pushing for direct "in the same room" conversations  between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church in North America.  He has called a meeting of the Primates of the Anglican Communion and has invited the Primate of the ACNA to attend at least part of that meeting.  He has requested that The Virginia Theological Seminary invite representatives of ACNA related seminaries to the celebration of the new chapel at VTS, and  VTS has agreed.

The stakes are high for several reasons: 

(i) The invitation for ACNA to attend part of the Primates meeting carries several risks.  If the Primates of the GAFCON cluster of Provinces attend at all it may be for only for the session where ACNA is present. GAFCON Primates have indicated their unwillingness to be present if the Primates of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada are present. If the invitation to ACNA is meant to encourage the presence of GAFCON Primates, the backfire could take not only the form of continued outright boycott of the meetings but perhaps also the attendance at only part of the meeting.  Either way the ABC will have allowed the GAFCON Primates to upstage his efforts. The GAFCON Primates are meeting on this matter in Cairo.

(ii) If ACNA comes and the GAFCON Primates decide to come as well, then a new course for the Primates Meetings will have been set.  To this point the meetings have been of those heads of churches part of the Anglican Communion, not as determined by the ABC, but by the "schedule" of member churches on the Anglican Consultative Council.  If the ABC can call into this meeting, on a unilateral basis, representatives of churches not part of the ACC, he is acquiring powers no previously his to exercise. The Primates Meeting is supposedly an "instrument of communion" established in the context of the ACC.  If this meeting takes place as planed the Primates Meeting will be an instrument of the ABC and his priorities. If it doesn't then the Primates will be reduced in numbers by the absence of at least eight Primates, and the ABC will less leverage in working for the re-establishment of order in the Communion. Either way we need to ask, "so who gave the ABC the authority to invite churches to send their primates into this circle?" The ACC should be concerned.

(iii)  The reports are that the ABC has asked VTS to invite members of seminaries related to the ACNA to the celebration at VTS. Why?  For possible talks on a Seminary level of Theological Education folk "across the divide"?  It is unclear which Seminaries might fall into this particular subset -  seminaries related to ACNA - and how many of them are already in the invitation list by virtue of being seminaries related to TEC anyway.  (Nashotah House and Trinity School for Ministry come to mind.  One assumes they are both invited anyway.)  The article from Anglican Ink refers only to the inclusion of the Reformed Episcopal Seminary.   

So what's the big deal? It's hard to say. Perhaps the ABC believes he has to intervene in order to get people talking to each other.  Maybe so. But the backfire is this: The ABC is clearly becoming an activist in the effort to get members of  ACNA and TEC (and the Anglican Church of Canada?) in the same room together. This may be a good idea indeed.  But here's the rub.  For the ABC to mess about in his own yard is fine. For the ABC to mess about in our yard, for even the best sorts of reasons, is exercising a ministry of uninvited super - primatial oversight.

Somewhere along the line someone will notice that this represents a serious incursion into the life of a partner church by some one who apparently believes he is "higher up" and knows better what needs to be done, and who is working to effect change. The fact that the change is arguably a good one is beside the point . But we don't know that it is, do we, since we have not the slightest idea as to what he is really about in all this. We might wonder just how the ABC would feel if our Presiding Bishop were to come to England and make a similar request.

The whole thing smacks of new assumptions of pastoral authority by the Archbishop of Canterbury.  

And when did we Churches, members of the Anglican Communion,  either ask for or agree to these possibilities?  Never.

The Anglican Communion not Empire, not Commonwealth, but a fellowship, and probably a historical accident.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has called a meeting of the Primates (the lead bishops) of the national and regional churches that together constitute the churches of the Anglican Communion. The agenda of this meeting will provide a context for rethinking the way in which Anglicans think of their "Communion" as well as the way others understand the Anglican Communion.  The meeting is widely understood to be an effort by the ABC to keep the Anglican Communion going in spite of the disintegration of full communion among its members. 

There have been many responses to this announcement, and in particular to the "meaning" of the meeting for the future of the Anglican Communion and the extension of an invitation for the Primate of The Anglican Church in North America to attend part of the meeting.

Two responses, one an article by Ruth Gledhill and the other a response by the GAFCON (Global Anglican Futures Conference) leadership are of particular importance.  Ruth Gledhill's article in Christian Today is about the best summary of the reason for the meeting from a CofE viewpoint. Read it HERE. 

The GAFCON statement makes it clear, from the viewpoint of those Primates that have broken communion with The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, that they remain committed to the principle that they are unwilling to attend a meeting where The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada are in attendance.  The GAFCON statement can be read HERE.

Full attendance not likely.
 
There one point on which the proposed meeting is likely to fail to materialize as planned. 

The ABC is inviting the heads of all the Anglican Communion members (the list of such members being that promulgated as Anglican churches with which the Church of England is in full communion).  

That list does not include the full participation of The Anglican Church of North America, a church formed from a collection of clergy and people, some of whom left The Episcopal Church because its actions and theology had moved and they had not. Others in ACNA came from other parts of the communion and still others of earlier breakaway groups. The Archbishop of Canterbury's invitation to ACNA is for part of the meeting (which part is unspecified). This signals that ACNA is not a member church of the Anglican Communion by the ABC's standards, or at least that he stands by the niceties of the Anglican Communion as those churches in communion with the CofE. 

The Primate of ACNA knows that and takes his marching orders from GAFCON, the organization of Anglican Provinces that does recognize him, and does not recognize TEC or the Anglican Church of Canada.

The Primate of ACNA has stated that "If my fellow GAFCON Primates accept the invitation, and I am expecting that they will, then I have also pledged to attend."

ACNA then appears positive about going. But the statement from the Primate is an "If - then" statement.  "If GAFCON primates accept... then I accept." 

The GAFCON statement gives a less positive sort of response. 

"We are now a global family standing together to restore the Bible to the heart of the Anglican Communion with a strength and unity that comes from our common confession of the Lord Jesus Christ, not merely from historic institutional structures.

It is on this basis that the GAFCON Primates will prayerfully consider their response to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s letter. They recognize that the crisis in the Communion is not primarily a problem of relationships and cultural context, but of false teaching which continues without repentance or discipline.

Consistent with this position, they have previously advised the Archbishop of Canterbury that they would not attend any meeting at which The Episcopal Church of the United States or the Anglican Church of Canada were represented, nor would they attend any meeting from which the Anglican Church in North America was excluded."

The meeting invites (for a time) ACNA. It also includes (for the whole of the time) TEC and ACoC. Apparently the meeting fails the criteria for purity set down by GAFCON.  

Unless GAFCON leadership changes its tune, some eight or so primates will not attend, nor, if that is true, will ACNA.

Is such a meeting the proper venue for exploration of reunion or reconciliation?

Bringing ACNA into the meeting might well be an effort towards reconciliation, however the focus of such reconciliation rests with the churches where communion is already broken - namely TEC and ACoC, and possibly the Church of England itself - and the Churches aligned with GAFCON. This is not an agenda that can be handled within a Primates meeting. I believe the possibilities for reconciliation rest not at the top, but at the bottom, with local churches finding ways to relate across the divide and ways to reestablish trust.

Matters have already proceeded beyond disagreement among Primates. There are now two distinct communities of Anglican Churches where formerly there was one. Now the efforts towards reconciliation will have to be direct and differentiated: (i) efforts need to be initiated by two groups of churches in communion with Canterbury, but not with each other, an (ii) efforts need to be initiated between ACNA, not in communion with Canterbury and TEC and ACoC which are. Even on the level of provinces the front edge of ecumenical conversations will need to be below that of the heads of churches.

This meeting of the Primates will likely get caught up in thinking of models for the future - Federation, Communion, World Wide Church.  

That is a losing proposition and will be a thankless job, possibly costing Archbishop Welby his spiritual sanity, for most of the models are based on past experiences in the divisions that constitute the Church in modernity. It makes little difference if the churches are in the "first" world or the "developing" world, across cultures and across the world Christianity exists in the modern world of denominationalism and its models reflect denominational concerns for place and power. For the Primates, the question as to what sort of thing the Anglican Communion is to be will be filled with the subtexts of the power issues of the churches as they exist in modernity.

Giles Fraser, in a short and quite fine piece in the Guardian outlines outlines another possibility - that the church of the present and future is based on the  "hypertext church – connected horizontally," based on a model derived from the Internet, and not on hierarchical authority models. This of course will be far from the Primates minds since they are the prime examples (pardon the "prime" thing) of people who get to speak on matters of governance because they govern.  Fraser suggests that they can go ahead and govern as they will, the matter is already out of their hands. True interaction and governance will reflect practice, which is much more based on a neural network and less on a organizational chart. 

This is, of course bad news for episcopal churches (churches with bishops) because we have mostly forgotten any other way of thinking about ecclesial roles than in terms of hierarchy and power. But I believe that can be turned. 

I am an Episcopalian because I continue to believe that the fourth element in the Lambeth Quadrilateral - bishops whose roles are molded to local needs and times - is still of the essence of church. It has nothing to do with bishops as "princely powers." It has little to do with bishops as administrators. It mostly has to do with persons called by God and community to reflect with us on how the Holy Spirit works in our midst.  Bishops might be thought of as pastors or maybe guides, rather than as kings or queens.

In an Internet sort of way we would begin to sort out those who provide this guidance and their ordination would be by acclimation or recommendation or more importantly USE. 

I wrote in "The Challenge of Change: The Anglican Communion in the Post Modern Era," about 20 years ago now, that the Anglican Communion is an organic thing, and as such came into being (about 175 to 200 years ago) and will do its work and will eventually die. At least we can hope it will in its present state, die. 

The future does not belong to a church modeled on the British Commonwealth of Nations any more than a church modeled on the Roman Empire or one modeled on Greek City State ideas.  The future belongs, as does the present, to the church as neural network, with some really fine people emerging as guides while we work out how to be the church in place and for the time to come.

Will there be an Anglican Communion in the future? Yes, but not this one. This one is falling apart. The one to come may consist of people informed out of Anglican Churches by Anglicanism, churches who find their spiritual and social energies informed by the their predecessor church - the Church of England and its pastors and thinkers.  These churches may or may not get along with each other. They may not hold together as one in various jurisdictions. But their members will strive to be members of a way of being Christian, sort of a religious order, one called Anglican, and who we will recognize as cousins, sometimes twice removed.

It will be alright. Really alright.