Any host will tell you that the guest list can be a ticklish issue. And none could be more so than the Archbishop of Canterbury’s invitations to an important upcoming gathering of the bishops of the 77 million member Anglican Communion, which is currently embroiled in an angry internal debate over the ordination of gay clergy.
Earlier today Rowan Williams, the Canterbury Archbishop and thus the first-among-equals in the global religious group that includes the Episcopal Church in the United States, released a statement that he was sending out invitations for the 2008 Lambeth Conference of active Anglican bishops. Lambeth, which only meets once a decade, is the most important gathering of Communion leaders and the place where its most important decisions are made. Invitations also happen to be one of the few elements under the direct dominion of Williams, whose office is closer to coordinator-in-chief than Pope. The fact that the invitations had been sent was itself news ”” they hadn’t been expected yet. But at a related news conference, the Rev. Canon Kenneth Kearon, a Communion official, dropped a twin bombshell: Williams, he said, was not inviting the Right Rev. Martyn Minns, who is engaged in creating a conservative competitor to Episcopalianism in the U.S., or the Right Rev. V. Gene Robinson, the openly gay Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire.
The exclusions speak volumes. The Communion is currently divided over a variety of issues that have found their fullest expression in a heated debate about the Episcopal Church’s 2003 election of Robinson, an openly gay man, as bishop. The elevation is virulently opposed by a large group of (primarily) developing-world archbishops known collectively as the Global South, some of whom have indicated that they would prefer to break up the Communion rather than accept gay bishops. Of this group, the most outspoken has been Nigerian archbishop Peter Akinola. Of all of Akinola’s many statements and acts of protest, the most controversial has been has been his appointment of Minns as a “missionary bishop” to a non-Episcopal American Anglican group called Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), which has absorbed formerly-Episcopal parishes in Virginia and Colorado.
By disinviting both Robinson and Minns, Williams may have pulled off a remarkable diplomatic feat.
I am confused as to why this invitation decision was made now and not after Sept. 30th. Are they simply trying to float a trial balloon now to see what the reaction will be? If so, I think this will flop badly all the way around. It’s hard to imagine that about 80-85% of the bishops of TEC will be able to attend Lambeth if Robinson has not been invited. Likewise, the Church of Nigeria has already indicated that if any of its bishops are not invited all of its bishops are not invited. Unless the ABC really doesn’t want a Lambeth Conf. next year, I can’t figure out what his strategy is here.
“Remarkable diplomatic feat”??? Seems like a lame “moral parity” thing; violation of clear Biblical teaching and ignoring diocesan procedural manuals are placed on the same level.
Also, TECtoids just love (and have the money and leisure time) to fly around to all these confabs/vacations, while Orombi, for instance, just opined as to how fed up some of the GS are with endless, costly meetings to rehash issues already addressed. So, Williams’ feat might be more partisan than diplomatic; less about preserving the communion and more about advancing LGBT without saying so.
I agree that it may be an incredible diplomatic tack. Obviously Williams has singled out Robinson as the problem; it’s not like the Global South objected to any of the other US bishops. To boycott now would look a little like sour grapes. Minns is a good sacrificial lamb on the other side.
The other potential coup is that this is a huge carrot for TEC to steer back towards the AC by Sep. 30. Up until now, it seemed a lot like no dice, but there is still a carrot and a stick very much in play here. If the US bishops snub the AC again, then they will have a rougher time of it in Lambeth.
This chess match is quite fascinating, really.
Remarkable nothing. ABC has shown that he refuses to stand for anything, so he ends up standing for nothing. He didnt make the hard but right choices while he had a chance, and this current action, far from “shaming” those disinvited and their allies into imbracing ABC’s vision of “unity at any cost”(what WAS he thinking?) has simply accelerated the breakup of the communion, and made it unnecessarily messy. William Rowan is learning plain scriptural truth the hard way-that there are no agreements to be made between Christ and Belial, a believer with an unbeliever, righteousness with unrighteousness, light with darkness(1 Cor. 6:14,15)-and woe to those who will not make those distinctions(Is. 5:20,21)!
This really bad decision by the the ABC may finally spell the end of Canterbury-based Anglicanism and a decisive shift to the Global South. ++Abuja has previously indicated his patience is waring thin and that there might be an alternative global Anglican conference next summer to compete with Lambeth, possibly in Alexandria, Egypt. This blunder by the ABC may be just what it takes to launch an orthodox Anglican alternative to Lambeth. The ABC really seems to be testing the limits of his own relevance in this decision.
Re: “…..Williams may have pulled off a remarkable diplomatic feat.”
I say, NO!!
William may have done one of the most stupid (with all due respect) things so far in his archbishopric.
1. Who does he think he is fooling by requiring the RSVP from the invited bishops get to him (or made) by July 31st, considering the fact of the September 30th response date from the Primates to EcUSA/TEc?
2. Does this mean that no matter the response from EcUSA/TEc to the Primates’ Communiqué/demands, EcUSA/TEc is still in full communion in/with the Anglican Communion and no action is anticipated from the ABC and the Primates if the EcUSA snob and intransigency continues?
3. Does this mean that the September 30th date from the Primates to EcUSA/TEc is meaningless?
It’s obviously not the best outcome for the orthodox position. However, it is more than I was expecting from ABp Williams, who has strong reappraiser ties and history and seems to have the inability to make any hard decision, academic that he is.
Taken from this perspective, it is significant in that Williams is willing to do something that might actually be a modicum of discipline. It is a signal that he does reluctantly understand the difference between a college classroom and a Church. Kind of a big step for him, in my opinion.
It would be a good idea if Williams disinvited those bishops who teach the goodness and beauty of homosex by precept, as well as those who teach it by example.
#6 Spiros says:
The Dar es Salaam Communique did not link the Sept. 30th deadline to Lambeth invites. The relevant section is here:
The “three urgent needs” are spelled out around the issue of interventions by other provinces in the U.S.; essentially the Primates requested a clear response from the HOB unambiguously supporting the Windsor moratoria, and a “robust scheme of pastoral oversight” being in place, in exchange for ending the interventions.
But those “urgent needs” are all explicitly an interim response until the Covenant process is completed — and that process is that “a revised draft will be discussed at the Lambeth Conference, so that the bishops may offer further reflections and contributions. Following a further round of consultation, a final text will be presented to ACC-14, and then, if adopted as definitive, offered to the Provinces for ratification. The covenant process will conclude when any definitive text is adopted or rejected finally through the synodical processes of the Provinces.”
The “interim response” is required “in the period until the Covenant is secured.” But it is otherwise independent of the Covenant process, which is what the Lambeth invitations are relevant towards. So no, the Sept. 30th deadline from the Primates is not meaningless; it has the same meaning that the DES Communique ascribed to it originally:
Relationships are clearly still “damaged at best.” The “full participation” clause was interpreted by some to mean “invited to Lambeth”… but in the context of the Communique, which is largely concerned with the Covenant, it seems more natural to interpret it to mean “signatory to the Covenant.” Despite all the fussing about whether it’s membership in the ACC or participation in Lambeth or communion with Canterbury that currently defines who is or is not “in” the Anglican Communion, once the Covenant is in place it will certainly be the Covenant that defines it. The whole question of Windsor moratoria, interventions, and pastoral oversight is meant simply to tide things over until that happens.
From my vantage point, this was/is a brilliant move by the ABC. One of the possible scenarios out of HOB was to give a tepid response that put the ball back in the Primates or ABC’s court. With this announcement, the HOB cannot give lukewarm fudge. They almost certainly have to make a statement of solid repentance or a statement of prophetic disobedience. Either way, their future is in their own hands and is clearly their own responsibility. Mimms seems to understand this–and remember that only diocesans and coadjuters are invited. AMIA and CANA do not yet have these specifically recognized roles–they are currently missionary bishops in missionary districts. Now if HOB walks apart, then ABC might invite the missionary bishops and recognize them as bishops with full diocesan responsibilities. So again, as I see it, the ABC has raised the stakes of the Sept 30 date and has thrown down the gauntlet, will the HOB keep their mouths shut and effectively abandon Bishop Robinson, which of course would be completely unacceptable, will they repent and so lead with courage, or will they intentionally walk away from Lambeth and enter a new prophetic era? The re-asserters however must wait patiently and steadfastly if the ABC’s challenge is to be effective.
Thank you Ross (#9) for that useful input.
However, I have a question (for you and for others):
If the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops (by the Primates’ DES Communique) cannot in good conscience be given (by the EcUSA/TEc Hob), would that not show EcUSA/TEc as not intending to honor the Covenant?
#11 Spiros says:
A valid question, certainly. I think the only possible answer at this stage is: it depends on what the Covenant actually says by the time that Lambeth ’08 and ACC-14 are done with it. So far all we have is a draft and a lot of speculation.
Remember, it was KEARON who said that Williams said Robinson and Minns would not be invited. Kearon has been caught with his pants down before. If Williams confirms it then its the truth.
I’m not sure why so many reasserters have their knickers in a twist. If there were only 800 invitations issued in this first round, only the bishops with jurisdiction (diocesans and coadjutors) have been included. There would be 1200 or more if the guest list included suffragan and assisting bishops, and much more than that if retired bishops were coming.
As I understand it, the CANA and AMiA bishops are not diocesan bishops with jurisdiction in any Anglican province, but missionary bishops who are suffragan to their respective primates (like the TEC Bishop for Chaplains and the Bishop of the American Convocation in Europe). They wouldn’t be included in this first round of invitations in any case, so the umbrage of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) and American reasserters is misplaced.
That leaves only three bishops actually excluded—the Bishop of Harare (who probably couldn’t get a UK visa), the Bishop of New Hampshire, and apparently one additional unnamed diocesan bishop whose attendance would be problematic. The Archbishop’s letter makes it clear that there may be subsequent rounds of invitations (certainly to include newly-consecrated diocesans, if nobody else) and possibly exclusions of some who have been invited. This therefore seems to be an absolute win for reasserters. What is their problem that I am not seeing?
Dale
Thoughtful and incisive as ever.
On reflection I can’t help but agree: if the missionary/convocation bishops without a specific territorial authority were not entitled to an invitation anyway, they were never in a position to be invited and therefore there is no question that they are being “dis-invited”.
However the reason for the current perception can be traced back to the words of the AB’s statement as “explained” in the ACO briefing.
Lambeth really must sort out its communications professionally. That means bringing in professionals, issuing WRITTEN briefings, not lippy off-the-cuff oral responses capable of mis-interpretation and having one person only, preferably a professional responding at one time.
The current system seems hopeless and causes a great deal of mischief. The AB’s spokesman must be that and only that. Dual roles do not work.
In the instant case, notwithstanding the gracious responses of both Akinola and Minns, clearly damage has been done with relations with the church of Nigeria, totally unnecessarily and to what end? 26 million Anglicans deserve better.
I certainly agree it’s a win for reasserters. And there’s the obvious point that it’s not just about bishops: it’s also about the reduction in representation of the many liberals (in the US, Canada, UK etc.) who support Gene Robinson’s bishopric and of the many, many ‘orthodox’ who do not regard this as a communion-breaking issue. So personally feel disinvited (in a way). I can’t see how this will mean anything other than open war (OK, even more open war), including in Rowan Williams’ own backyard. Very interesting – but also monumentally depressing.