Since 1867 it’s been the Archbishop’s personal bash. Does it have to be a Big Boys Business meeting for it to be worth my while? I am just not self-regarding enough to mind. If Rowan wants a Vatican Council Theme Party, fine. If he wants to partay by showing us his Simpsons Videos, fine. It’s his party, not mine. There is a self-important little prat in me who feels business meetings matter more than parties. Jesus disagrees. The Sanhedrin has business meetings on Thursday nights. Jesus has a meal with his friends. This is a matter of substance as well as style. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer says how grievous and unkind a thing it is, when a man hath prepared a rich feast, decked his table with all kind of provision, so that there lacketh nothing but the guests to sit down; and yet they who are called (without any cause) most unthankfully refuse to come.
Read it all (Hat tip: SS).
I don’t understand.
Good attitude. I like this Bishop.
It was said [blockquote] If I overcome my pride and we sit down together, I can listen to their side of the story, learn whether what people say about them is true anyway, and then we can pray together, and God will help us both to help each other to walk faithfully as disciples in our different circumstances….
Why can I not sit down with my colleagues? Hannibal Lecter could talk with Agent Starling. Less facetiously, Ian Pasley can work with Gerry Adams, and F. W deClerk could talk to Nelson Mandela. Thank God. One reason they could, was because Jesus sat down at the Last Supper two along from Judas Iscariot.[/blockquote]
Perhaps it is because you did not invite them. There was no invitation to the American bishops of Uganda, Rwanda or Nigeria. By inviting some of the members of a family and not others, you do not have much reason to complain when the whole family doesn’t show up. Too much pride to invite all, I suppose. Oh, and not suing them would probably help, too.
This man is deluding himself. He has lost all touch with reality if he seriously thinks the Bishops of the Anglican Communion are turning out for a party in Rowan’s honour. It is depressing……
I like this Bishop. A good article
pendennis88
The Lambeth Conference is only for bishops of the Anglican Communion. If my sister is invited to an event related to her work, I would not expect an invitation.
There has been no debate about who tore the fabric of the communion. The unending chain of meetings (Lambeth 98, Windsor, Dromantine, DeS) make a mockery of each of the preceding. Those who defy the past meetings but then ask to show up to Lambeth 08 are very much analogous to the inappropriately dressed guest in Matt 22:11-13. And what happened to him? [blockquote]’Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'[/blockquote]
And I hope that +++RW has the wisdom of Matt 22:14…
[blockquote]For many are invited, but few are chosen[/blockquote] and he withdraws invitations.
I’m not an Anglican for the sake of being an Anglican, but in order to be a Christian. You always need a higher vision of the kingdom than of the Church, or you cannot begin to understand how to be Church.
I think this is a particularly insightful comment. The focal point of the arguments has been about who is part of the Anglican Communion. While I think this is the critical issue, this does help put some perspective on the reason why.
[i]I am just not self-regarding enough to mind.[/i]
I think he’s self-regarding enough for most purposes.
He is indeed self-regarding enough to think it worth posting a mocking, bigoted blog about just how enlightened he thinks he is compared to Africans; it is an un-self-critical obliviousness quite typical of his ilk. His selective attention to his favorite Scriptures to advance his views…. yikes! And the fact that people applaud this 21st century gospel as though it would be consistent with the 1st century Apostles’ teaching…. yikes! yikes!
What do we do when Christians, not just society in the West, become post-Christians?
One doesn’t need to go to Lambeth to party. When the needs of so many are so great, how could a 3rd world archbishop justify the expenditure of funds to ship all his bishops there for a party?
Christoferos, I was also offended at…
[blockquote]They say some of my African brothers are systematically breaking the Ten commandments, indulging with their governments in envy, false witness and theft.[/blockquote]
Care to elaborate? (The Zimbabwe primate is not invited.) Or just bearing false witness against African clergy in general? Well, my friend, at least he didn’t make charges of polygamy.
Following up on my comment #6: I wonder why he referenced the BCP 1662 rather than the original source of Matt 22:1-14. Was it to avoid the reference to the inappropriate guest (i.e., those who are not “dressed” in the appropriate clothing of repentance for tearing the fabric of the communion by ordaining Gene Robinson.)
With bishops like this, who needs an enemy of the Cross. I thought this was a joke until I read this bishop’s blog, including the comments and his responses.
This bishop, and those who think like him, see themselves as being cool and on the cutting edge. But, in truth, all they are doing is making a mockery of the Gospel by using half truths and nice sounding phrases to hide their true color, which is the color of darkness.
Yes, darkness, I say. I don’t see the Light of the Lord which leads to repentence and LIFE, and not to simply having a good time at the expense of the TRUTH.
The Light of the Living Lord calls ALL to repentence, and NOT to dancing and partying where even Angels do not dare to tread. The ABC, Bishop Alan, and their cohorts are making light of a very grave situation. Why is it difficult for them to see that we are in a deep crisis as some members of the Anglican Communion are demanding the Church bless that which is condemned by God, Christ, and the Prophets.
Going to Lambeth just to sit at table and have fun is not what Christ is calling His bishops to do at this time. (I doubt these bishops even know who they are working for/ representing).
Nothing short of total condemnation (not to talk of blessing) of the idea and practice of intimate homosexual relationship (SSU or whatever) should be the goal of any gathering of the Anglican leaders at that time, be they Bishops or priests, if they are to remain faithful to their vows and their office as shepherds and preservers of the Truth and Word of the Lord.
Looking at this bishop and a whole host of others like him – theologically speaking – I see the truth of Christ’s words: “many are called, but few are chosen.”
I am afraid. Worse still, my hear breaks for what these men and women are doing to centuries of hard work, blood, tears, sweat, and limbs and lives that were given by those who wore the collar before us. This is not getting any better.
Fr. Kingsley+
Arlington, TX
This bishop has a rather myopic understanding of the origins, nature, actions and intents of Lambeth decennial meetings. Did he get his history from the same locus as the American bishops? e.g., cobbled together from some vaguely remembered historical datum overlain with personal preferrences and twisting of what little actual data existed.
On the other hand, in the right hands, this could have been a very lively social commentary skit from either Saturday Night Live or Mad TV. Are they looking to cast at the BBC for such writers? This missive could go in as a precis.
But if he was serious, I should think he wouldn’t get a job except perhaps as resident fellow on the stool in the corner with the sharp (doubly) pointy hat.
[blockquote]Ian Pasley can work with Gerry Adams, and F. W deClerk could talk to Nelson Mandela. Thank God. One reason they could, was because Jesus sat down at the Last Supper two along from Judas Iscariot.[/blockquote]
I know the text is from a blog but this level of ananlysis not just theologically and politically deficient but untruthful.
Calling the Conference ‘the Archbishop’s personal bash’ either reduces the Anglican Communion to ABC’s social club or elevates the ABC to papal status. If the other Primates do not have equal authority with the ABC, he is not ‘first among equals.’ The Pope consults his Cardinals and Magesterium before publishing his decisions. ABC should be announcing group decisions, not his own, however guided.
ABC’s title is ‘Primate of All England,’ not ‘of All Anglicans.’
The most amusing part about this for me is that the Bishop of Buckingham recognizes the important political implications of folks not coming to Lambeth and so hauls in Jesus to explain why knowing about the political implications is so Very Very Wicked, and why all those nasty folks who are messing up the political implications of the meeting should ignore the political implications while agreeing to attend a “nice big social party” . . . so that the political implications that the Bishop of Buckingham hopes for will be fulfilled rather than denied.
; > )
“Self important little prat” seems an accurate description. LM
Perhaps if I were able to HEAR this spoken with a posh British accent it would sound like a mature and thoughtful response to the current issues.
All the allusions to the Gospel would be stronger if the bishop could really say that the Church of England *has* some manifestation of the Wedding Banquet described there; the Kingdom of God. That Kingdom is manifested in the Church as the Eucharist. It doesn’t have the faith of those who believe that, and so it means nothing. It’s just a play on words.
robroy #11, since you ask:
“Following up on my comment #6: I wonder why he referenced the BCP 1662 rather than the original source of Matt 22:1-14…”
The intent of the words from the Communion service in the 1662 BCP (and the same or similar in the 1552, and maybe the 1549) was an encouragement to receive Communion. Archbishop Cranmer and the compilers of succeeding Prayer Books were concerned that people weren’t receiving Communion as often as it should be a Christian’s habit to receive it. (They were also aware of the dangers of receiving Communion in an unworthy manner, but that is addressed in a different part of the service.)
So supposing Bishop Alan knew what he was doing when he cited the 1662, my guess is he’s stressing the importance of receiving Communion together. The BCP words allude to Matthew 22, but Matthew 22 doesn’t explicitly refer to the Eucharist.
Pax, Chuck+
“I am just not self-regarding enough to …..”
Hey everybody – look at my HUMILITY!
[blockquote] The Lambeth Conference is only for bishops of the Anglican Communion. If my sister is invited to an event related to her work, I would not expect an invitation.[/blockquote]
Perhaps you did not read what the bishop wrote. He said it was just a party as when “Jesus has a meal with his friends.” You say it is a business meeting and only those necessary are to come. You can’t have it both ways. Don’t loudly say that Jesus invites all, and then say that only some of your work friends are invited.
But let’s go with that business analogy. The division head wants to have a picnic two hours away on a Saturday. The boss decides that it is social but family is not invited. Guess what? A lot of people will not show up. You can blame those rude workers all you want. Most will think it is the boss who made the misjudgement.
Or a division head invites some other peer division heads to a meeting to kick off a new project. He does not invite others. He can possibly expect that those who are not invited into the project will not support it. They may even work at cross-purposes if they are more concerned about pleasing the CEO than their division head colleagues. And it is also very possible that some of those other division heads do not think much of the project in the first place, and may not show up for the meeting or opt to participate in it.
Anyway, if your analogy of Williams to the boss of a company is to hold water, you must recognize that management requires judgement and diplomacy and has consequences. It is not a party. You have to work with people – you can boss some of those under you around, but you also have to work with your peers. There can even be mismanagement.
Williams can invite whoever he wants. Who he invites will have consequences. His fellow division heads, indeed, the whole company, are watching to see how he manages.
At the last supper – when Jesus is having his “partay”, Jesus invited even Judas. In Heaven Lucifer was the worship leader before he convinced 1/3 of the angels to worship him instead of the Lord.
In both cases God allows someone he knows is going to make a bad choice a position of intimacy. What does that mean here?