Anglican schism inevitable ?

Is schism in the Anglican communion inevitable ?

Following GAFCON in Jerusalem last week, conservative Anglicans have announced their intention to establish a new “global Anglican fellowship” and a new province for North America.  This means formalising the schism and brokenness that exists already, whilst remaining in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Guardian report here.

The full press release from Gafcon is here.

Fulcrum (a moderate evangelical Anglican group, including N.T. Wright) are posted helpful responses and comments here.

The most helpful response is that of Graham Kings:

On first reading, there is much to be encouraged about in the GAFCON Final Statement and also some very serious questions which need considering.

Encouragements include:

• No schism in the Anglican Communion – it seems that Peter Jensen, amongst others, has insisted on this
• the tone is serious and not vituperative
• the Jerusalem Declaration sets the controversies in a wide context and is likely to become an important document in the future
• there has clearly been joyful fellowship and worship during the conference
• ‘Fellowship’ is a good word to use in this context, much better than ‘church’ or ‘network’ or ‘federation’

Questions which need considering:

• the substantial authority that the Primates’ Council claims for itself to define who is authencially Anglican – it specifically excludes the Archbishop of Canterbury from such a role, though there is the interesting word ‘necessarily’: ‘While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic see, we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury.’
• who has the authority to gather this new Primates’ Council – ie who will preside? The natural leader who emerged in the planning of GAFCON, and during it, is Peter Jensen. However, he is not a Primate. It is likely, however, that he would be included in the Council – perhaps as its chair or covenor.

Concerning the following quotation:
“We recognise the desirability of territorial jurisdiction for provinces and dioceses of the Anglican Communion, except in those areas where churches and leaders are denying the orthodox faith or are preventing its spread, and in a few areas for which overlapping jurisdictions are beneficial for historical or cultural reasons”.

Would this allow clergy in dioceses of the Church of England who say their bishop is ’unorthodox’ or who is ‘preventing their church planting’ to claim to be under the authority of the Primates’ Council? It seems to open up the potential for grave divisions and the possible license, which some have longed planned for, of importing into the Church of England the divisions of The Episcopal Church. It is here that the real test comes whether this is in fact a ’church within a church’ – or even ‘a church in fellowship’s clothing’…

There may not be schism in the Communion as a whole, but the Primates’ Council is being called upon to authenicate a split in the USA from The Episcopal Church in the very near future. How is a split in one province not a schism in the whole? On the answer to this question much of the future of the Communion depends.