Another AP Article on the Lambeth 2008 Invitations

Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori issued a brief statement to U.S. church leaders urging calm in response to the announcement Tuesday, reminding the bishops that “it is possible that aspects of this matter may change in the next 14 months.”

Anglican leaders have given the U.S. denomination until Sept. 30 to step back from its support of gays or risk losing its full membership in the communion. The Episcopal bishops will meet next on Sept. 20 in New Orleans.

“This decision places the vast majority of American bishops along with others throughout the world in an embarrassing position,” said the Rev. Martin Reynolds of Britain’s Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement. “If they accept their Lambeth invitations this might appear to support bishop Robinson’s victimization, while if they reject the invitation they will abandon our communion to the homophobes.”

In 2004, Robinson said that he told Williams he would be willing to attend Lambeth “in a diminished capacity” such as an observer if that would help bring conservatives to the table. Canon Kenneth Kearon, the communion’s secretary-general, said Tuesday that Robinson still could be invited as a guest.

“The question of Gene Robinson … I think has exercised the archbishop of Canterbury’s mind for quite some time,” Kearon said. “However, for the archbishop to simply give full recognition at this conference would be to ignore the very substantial and very widespread objections in many parts of the communion to his consecration and to his ministry.”

Robinson said in a statement Tuesday that “it makes no sense to exclude gay and lesbian people from the conversation.”

“It is time that the bishops of the Anglican Communion stop talking about gay and lesbian people and start talking with us,” he said.

Kearon said Williams is not considering a guest invitation for Minns, who was installed May 5 as head of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America.

Read it all.


Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, Lambeth 2008

24 comments on “Another AP Article on the Lambeth 2008 Invitations

  1. Words Matter says:

    Why not invite all irregular bishops as “guests”, since the category seems to be in play? It might make for real dialogue.

  2. ruidh says:

    Well, I suspect that TEC bishops will get another opportunity to be disinvited in September when Abp. Williams comes to visit and asks who is going to sign onto the covenant not to authorize SSBs.

  3. Crazy Horse says:

    Maybe that is what Rowan is trying to do–rub everyone’s noses in the problem of not inviting this or that personand, offending both sides by these two choices—to convince both sides they need to come.
    Or maybe he doesn’t want to do all the work involved and wants to cancel due to lack of participation from anyone who has any sort of brass about them.

    What has been interesting today is to see the people of conviction one way or the other sepak out and all the panty wastes remain as always, silent–including the always silent Windsor Bishops.

  4. David+ says:

    Whetever happened to ++Rowan’s statement that he was going to allow the Primates to determine who comes to Lambeth? If he has gone back on that, which it surely appears to be the case, he has screwed things up royaly!

  5. ruidh says:

    I thought he said he was going to consult with them, not give them the invitation list to mark up. Apparently the consultations are complete.

  6. Crazy Horse says:

    This is not Rowan–it is simply simple Kenneth Kearon, and he willl retract this like he has everything else he has said as the house bad boy when daddy is out of town.

    Kearon is the darling of the homosexual lobby–and he is all about favors…ask Tom or Rob or Chip…

    These two invitations were most likely put in the mail late this afternoon–because the Communion big daddy is about to whip Kenny real good for this disastor.

  7. Crazy Horse says:

    That is Bishops Tom, Rob, and Chip–just so you are clear who to ask…

  8. Cousin Vinnie says:

    Rev. Martin Reynolds of Britain’s Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement: “If they accept their Lambeth invitations this might appear to support bishop Robinson’s victimization, while if they reject the invitation they will abandon our communion to the homophobes.”

    I will readily acknowledge that it may be a problem in my Christian walk, but I have no interest in sharing a pew with folks like the Rev. Reynolds, who slings epithets like “homophobes” at people who have the temerity to be Bible-believing Christians. The very thought of rubbing shoulders with them turns my stomach.

    Still, if the current dispute is really about Scripture, doctrine and authority, and not just about homosexual sex, it is not just +VGR who should be excluded from Lambeth, but all those who enabled, affirmed, supported, celebrated and condoned his activities, and awarded him the pointy hat. They are equally guilty of any heresy that we can pin on +VGR.

  9. Dale Rye says:

    Re #6: The press release, including the text of the letters to the invitees, is on the Lambeth Palace website. I doubt that Canon Kearon has the authority to forge the Archbishop’s signature.

  10. Milton says:

    “and all the panty wastes remain as always, silent–”
    Panty wastes could make for a messy cleanup! Pantywaists are another matter altogether. I guess it will “all come out in the wash” during October. :^P

  11. rugbyplayingpriest says:

    +Robinson really does seem the worst type of slimy toad. He states: ‘it makes no sense to exclude gay and lesbian people from the conversation’ which is so true but that is not why he is being excluded AND HE KNOWS IT!!!
    His exclusion is for deliberately breaking the rules of the covenant and behaving in a manner which fractured the communion. So come on Gene- stop spinning lies and using victimhood to push your agenda…

    start speaking the truth that we might actually find a way through this mess.

  12. naab00 says:

    Rowan is playing a high risk game of bluff isn’t he. How shocking! He clearly doesn’t believe what CAPA said in “The Road to Lambeth”. Having vascilated for months as usual, it seems he’s concluded his best option is to stake his authority on his own right to invite or not invite to Lambeth.

    If CAPA mean what they’ve said, he’s put himself in a position of being mightily humbled when he either has to reverse decisions he’s already made or he finds his Canterbury meeting eclipsed by a rival somewhere in the Global South. And I can see that without even thinking of the implications of the 30th September deadline. I can’t quite believe he’s sent out the invitations as he has at this point. 🙁

  13. john scholasticus says:

    I don’t think any Anglicans should label other Anglicans ‘slimy toads’, certainly not in public, I really don’t.

  14. rugbyplayingpriest says:

    re # 13
    Though I probably ought to remove the log from my eye before having a go at +Gene I make no aology for stressing my point with such language…after all my Lord addressed the self seeking clerics of his day by a similar anaolgy that of a brood of vipers. I am sure some thought he had overstepped the mark too.

    But is my anger not justified? Why is Gene Robinson claiming his exclusion is due to his exual identity and not even paying lip service to the fact that his consecration was illegal and provocative?

  15. john scholasticus says:

    Why the ‘probably’? You’re not Jesus. Times have moved on (I know you mightn’t accept that). Whether Robinson’s consecration was ‘illegal and provocative’ is precisely the point at issue. And what of his many supporters? Not just the American bishops (most of them) but some C of E bishops and (I betya) most practising Anglicans in the UK. I personally find Gene Robinson somewhat narcissistic but I don’t think one should talk in the terms you do.

    As for ‘anger’. There is such a thing as justifiable anger (Jesus often, classical texts often), but please recognise that liberals such as myself also feel anger: because we think that the reaction to Gene Robinson’s consecration has been altogether disproportionate.
    Who has the ‘right’ here? You are absolutely convinced (for reasonably good reasons) it is on your side. I am absolutely convinced (for, I believe, better reasons) that it is on my side. This being so, I still believe that a generous ‘live-and-let-live’ policy might have worked. It often does work: in individual parishes and between parishes. Pity Rowan Williams didn’t have the balls to stand up for it.

  16. Br. Michael says:

    15, But John they won’t let “live and let live” apply to us. At every point, WO being the best example, what is now permissive will later become mandatory. The BCP another. We have belatedly learned that lesson to our bitter cost.

  17. Peter dH says:

    There’s a point beyond which a ‘live and let live’ policy starts to break down, John. If not, we would all still be Catholics.

    If in all honesty you have to come to the conclusion that a different gospel is being proclaimed (in the Gal 1:6 sense of the word) then I’d say that point has been reached. Just my UKP 0.05.

  18. rugbyplayingpriest says:

    Hmm why don’t I trust the liberals plea to ‘live and let live’?

    could it be because just that request was made to the opponents to woemn’s ordination alongside a promside that all those opposed would be treated fairly.

    The reality has been a growing hatred against Forward in Faith – and a refusal to promote any of its members to seats of power.
    When the liberals learn to be liberal (ie playing consecration by the rules re Gene Robinson) they may begin to merit honest dialogue.

    Sadly in recent years the olicy has been to do what the hell you want and make out those you hurt are full of hatred and less enlightened. You can’t have it all ways John

  19. Jennifer says:

    16, 17, and 18 said it. I watched the pain of one of my relatives and one my most beloved priests over the whole women’s ordination thing. Permissive becomes mandatory all too soon.

  20. Kevin Maney+ says:

    Reynolds declares:

    “If they accept their Lambeth invitations this might appear to support bishop Robinson’s victimization, while if they reject the invitation they will abandon our communion to the homophobes.”

    I note the temperate, objective, and charitable language coming from this spokesperson.

    #13 JS, you have every right to take someone to task regarding the language he/she uses (and I happen to agree with you that Christians, not just Anglicans, should refrain from using intemperate language about any person–on the other hand, ideas and behaviors are fair game). Just be consistent in doling out your criticisms. Doing so will make them more credible.

  21. john scholasticus says:


    I try to be consistent. When I lose it, I try to apologise.
    We are all at fault here. We are all suffering. If this thing called Anglicanism falls to bits, it will be dreadful and I personally will have nowhere else to go.

  22. ruidh says:

    Why is Gene Robinson claiming his exclusion is due to his exual identity and not even paying lip service to the fact that his consecration was illegal and provocative?

    It was provocative, but it certainly wasn’t illegal.

  23. Kevin Maney+ says:

    #21 JS. While we almost never agree on things of theology, I am with you on this. You and I are in the same boat. It’s tough being all dressed up and nowhere to go.

  24. Dale Rye says:

    Re ##21 & 23: Me too. Three men in a boat with countless others.