[...] I’m sure the mendoucheous jackwagons at Raw Story will be all over that. Oh, and Colbert, too. Like lots of liberal elitists, they are all about the common man and the middle class and that sort of thing, except that they despise your bourgeois values. [...]

I’m not too emotionally involved in the choice of the next Archbishop of Canterbury. Whoever he is, he will still have to deal with the very ambiguous situation of the CofE, which has been forced because of its establishment to accommodate the “spirit of the age” on same-sex relations and other matters. One could hope that Sentamu would be more inclined to try to help traditionalists, but even that is a long shot because of his personal support for women’s ordination and the likelihood that Synod will dispose of the issue before he becomes Archbishop.

My other reason is much more basic. If John Sentamu becomes the next Archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglican Communion, a Christian tradition second only to the Roman Catholic Church in worldwide influence, will be led by an African. And the discomfort of the left will be positively off the charts.

I would pay good money to watch that

I’m with Carolyn in wanting to see the entertainment value of the left’s discomfort.

They will regard him as Clarence Thomas with a miter.

Very good way to put it, Rondon. You know what happens to folks who escape the plantation, people like Justice Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Rep. Allan West, Walter Williams and their compatriots. There is no forgiveness, no tolerance, no redemption for them.

“I wonder what kind of idiots the “sources” takes us for.”

Now there’s a line just begging for a snappy rejoinder.

The above are wrong reasons for wanting +Sentamu for Archbishop. I favor +Michael Nazir Ali because his theology is solid and agrees with most of the communion. If they pick an ABC based on what is best for the CoE, say good bye to the CoE and Canterbury Anglicanism.

Two comments:

“If John Sentamu becomes the next Archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglican Communion, a Christian tradition second only to the Roman Catholic Church in worldwide influence, will be led by an African”.

Why not the Orthodox both at their traditional home and among their migrant diaspora? The influence of Anglicanism (supported by the government establishment) has declined in tandem with the decline of British Power and Empire. Even in countries with strong British connections such as the former Dominions (Canada, New Zealand, Australia and of course the USA) the Cof E influence is negligible and declining. The only exception is in some areas of Africa and even those are “at war” with the Western Anglican “establishment”.

And :

“Say no to the North Americans.

Might that cause the US and Canada to bolt, possibly taking the British and European liberals with them?”

But that would be racist, the second greatest sin among the Anglican liberals wherever they may be are after homophobia. (s/-)

Sentamu will be the next ABC in an attempt to co-opt the Africans. It’s as simple as that.

When I was frequenting an Episcopal church, I noticed a strain of dismissiveness towards the Africans. The liberal Piskies viewed many of the Africans as unsophisticated, superstitious primitives who had this quaint, but hopelessly outdated belief that Scriopture meant what it said. (Of course, St. Desmond the Celebrated was the exception who had risen above that primitive magical thinking to reinforce the liberals’ prejudices.) I would not be surprised if the same attitude exists in the CofE.

I don’t think that Sentamu’s placement as ABC would succeed in co-opting the conservative African bishops. If Sentamu continues to ride the Anglican communion off the rails, I would not expect the Africans to follow him.

Have you read the keynote speach to the GAFCON conference? If not, do so. then compare it to the most recent drivel coming out of Kate’s mouth. Then we can discuss who’s unsophistocated.

They will regard him as Clarence Thomas with a miter.

I like him more by the minute.

He is strongly pro-WO; enough reason for me to regard his appointment, if it should happen, as likely to be insignificant in importance and inconsequential in results. In other words, he’s not meaningfully “conservative” or “traditionalist,” even in broadly Anglican terms, let alone in Christian terms.

I tend to agree, Prof, that apart from making the left squirm, Sentamu’s appointment isn’t going to matter much.

Making the left squirm is a good thing, of course, in both Church and State; but even if Sentamu does this (which is aboput the most top be expected from his appointment) one must always remember that he is himself a man of the “center-left” (or “left of center”).

Agreed. I might get a few posts out of watching people like Andrew Brown go bat crap but in the long run, it’s not going to make a difference. The Anglican Communion is finished and the Church of England is probably also on its deathbed as well. About all we can expect from Sentamu is that he might(inadvertently) speed up the process.

“…a Christian tradition second only to the Roman Catholic Church in worldwide influence…”

Did I miss some subtle sarcasm in that bit? I haven’t noticed the Anglican Communion having much influence even within the Anglican Communion, much less any at all outside of it! Would anyone seriously describe the AC as having any worldwide influence that matters, at all?

As much as I wish it weren’t true and think it needs to not be yesterday, Anglican churches still identify themselves as Anglican and claim to be part of the Anglican tradition. Granted, that’s all basically theoretical these days(thanks to Dr. Williams’ leadership cowardice) but it’s still there as much as many of us wish it weren’t. Aside from Rome, no other Christian group can make a claim of being a single Christian entity with worldwide reach.

That’s all I was trying to say.

“…a Christian tradition second only to the Roman Catholic Church in worldwide influence…”

Is it true, obviously true, or even seemingly true, that the Anglican Communion has greater worldwide influence than the Orthodox? Or is it the word “worldwide” that is the key, as the Russian Orthodox Church has more influence in Russia than the Church of England has in England?

In terms of cohesiveness, Anglican influence, thanks to Dr. Williams, is more apparent than real. But I think that “Anglican” churches probably influence more people in more places than Orthodox churches do. A new Metropolitan in Moscow or a new Ecumenical Patriarch, for that matter, just isn’t as much of a story as a new Archbishop of Canterbury. It should be but it isn’t. The British Empire, the English language and all that.

Perhaps you’re right, but I wonder if you’re conflating “newsworthiness” or “media attention” with “influence.” And then there is the by now old suggestion that some media outlets, especially here in the USA, give so much undeserved attention to TE”C” (and sometimes its sisters, or sistern, or, even better, “cistern” in places like Canada) because they want to promote the image of TE”C” as being what the (real) Catholic Church, in their opinion, should be like.

Sorry, but I’m not a fan of Sentamu. Here’s why:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/8481736/Royal-wedding-Archbishop-backs-William-and-Kates-decision-to-live-together-before-marriage.html