Anglicans have been locked in conflict for several years now over how gays should be treated; before that, they had similar battles over the status and role of women in their church - battles which have not been entirely resolved even now. Efforts to reach some sort of compromise seem to have failed and neither side is willing to back down. Now it appears that splitting up is the only recourse.

It doesn't look like anti-gay conservatives are planning a complete schism because the church structure they are planning would still be in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, even if they aren't in communion with liberal churches. The Archbishop would thus be a linchpin holding the two together. This works if the Archbishop is acceptable to both sides. Who is going to elect the next one, though, and how?

After meeting in Rwanda, archbishops from the 20 African and Asian provinces in the Anglican “Global South” grouping said that they understood the “serious implications” of their decision.

But they added: “We believe that we would be failing in our apostolic witness if we do not make this provision for those who hold firmly to a commitment to historic Anglican faith.”

The primates will now push for a two-Church solution in the US. This could serve as a model for Anglican provinces elsewhere with liberal majorities and strong conservative minorities, such as in England, Wales and Scotland. ...

Their appeal came after the general convention of the Episcopal Church, when a female and pro-gay primate, Bishop Katharine Schori, was elected to succeed Frank Griswold as leader of the Episcopal Church. The conservatives are also angry that the Episcopal Church has stood by the election of the openly gay Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire.

Source: Times

Anti-gay conservatives want a "two church" solution where conservatives are in a minority, but what about where liberals are in a minority? Are they willing to have the same "solution" applied in their own territories? I haven't seen anything on this question but if they resist having parallel liberal churches in more conservative regions, that would be very hypocritical.

It's not clear to me to what degree conservatives are upset with Katharine Schori because she supports he election of gay priests or bishops and to what degree they are upset because she is a woman. Many conservatives still haven't accepted the idea that a woman could have ecclesiastical authority within the Anglican Church and Schori occupies a very powerful position.

Especially curious about all this is that anti-gay conservatives think that creating a parallel church structure where homophobia can find sanctuary is a sign of being very "modern."

An insider said that the Church was moving with the times. “This is taking the realities seriously and saying that Anglican identity is not something to be determined by a single province but is something done globally.

“In a globalised world with new communications, the medieval notion of one Church, one bishop, one territory is totally outdated.

“The Global South primates are saying: ‘Let’s live in the modern world and recognise there are various possible configurations and these should not be determined by geography alone’.”

If the primates from the southern hemisphere really wanted to live in the modern world, they would make an effort to give up ancient bigotries against women and gays. They wouldn't insist that all morality be defined by ancient texts that have no basis on current understandings of human psychology, biology, and behavior. The conservative strategy is no more "modern" than using radio or the internet to spread medieval hatred.

 

Gay Rights, Gay Marriage, and Religion:

• Does Equality for Gays Threaten Religious Liberty?
• Does Religious Liberty Protect a Right to Treat Gays as Unequal?
• Is Religiously Motivated Discrimination Against Gays OK?
• Evangelical Christianity & Homosexuality
• Catholicism & Homosexuality
• Roman Catholicism on Gay Marriages (Christianity - Catholicism)