Received with thanks from the diocese of Utah–KSH.
October 27, 2007
The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
The Episcopal Church Center
815 Second Avenue
New York NY 10017-4503
Dear Katharine:
With reference to your letter of October 17 inviting us to comment on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent and urgent request of you, The Episcopal Diocese of Utah””Bishop, Deputation, Diocesan Council, Standing Committee and Diocesan Convention””make the following recommendation in the “next steps” part of the request:
We urge you to ask the Archbishop to cancel the Lambeth Conference for 2008.
EXPLANATION:
”¢ The Communion is in such disarray over who recognizes whom, and the participation of “irregularly consecrated” bishops, that little good can come from the fragmented gatherings sure to take place at the Conference, and even attendance at common worship is unlikely.
”¢ We are unclear about the “other issues” being raised around the Communion, although the Archbishop suggests they are “very specific.” Within the constitution and canons of our church we have responded faithfully and courteously to the demands of others, even though questioning their authority to set the conditions of our continued participation in the Communion.
Ӣ We are leery about using the occasion of the Conference to present a Covenant that is exclusionary, that centralizes authority, or that adds to the core doctrine of our faith.
Ӣ The cost of holding the Lambeth Conference under the present circumstances is disproportionate to its benefits, and to the good we can do elsewhere in the mission of the church.
Ӣ Given the disarray we referred to above, we think that a Lambeth Conference in the near future would be disastrous to our public image around the world.
We send you our love and prayers, rejoicing in your strong and grace-filled leadership in these challenging times.
Faithfully,
Carolyn Tanner Irish (The Rt. Rev.)
10th Bishop of Utah
CTI/mkw
While I tend to think that the Lambeth Conference at this point would not be in everyone’s best interests, but the comments on the Covenant are interesting. As I read the proposed Covenant it merely codifies Anglican doctrine, it does not add new core doctrine to the faith — unless, of course, one excludes all the definitive Anglican statements of faith, probably including the Nicene Creed!
I turned on my Universal EpiscoTranslator, and this is what came through the static:
“We shouldn’t go to Lambeth because they’ll just tell us what to do again, and I’m tired of being told what to do!”
The Church in Uganda won’t come to Lambeth if those who consecrated Canon Robinson come, and now the Church in Utah suggests Lambeth 2008 be cancelled. And after a year’s study the Presiding Bishop inhibits the Bishop of Pennsylvania and threatens the Bishop of Pittsburgh with deposition for abandonment of the communion of THIS church. Interesting times.
FrKew #1, I think +Irish’s mention of “… the core doctrine of our faith” refers to the Second Avenue Quadrilateral:
* The Millennium Development Goals
* The Dennis Canon
* The Op-Ed page of [i]The New York Times[/i]
* The Kinsey Report
It is telling that they reject the very same discipline that they impose on others. They want to be subject to no one and bound by nothing. Why then do they want to be part of a larger Communion that, of necessity, imposes limits on what the individual communion members can do, whether by doctrine or custom. That is the very nature of belonging to an organization.
As long as she’s talking about Bennison, Robinson, that dreadful Covenant process, and other disciplinary issues impacting TEC’s bishops, let’s add another very specific issue to the mix – why do we have a bishop in the TEC whose only baptism (never renounced) was in the LDS church?
The Anglican communion in North America is dieing. I hope and pray that the Common Cause will birth a new, revived Anglican communion.
#6 out of curiosity which Bishop was only baptized in the LDS church?
So, the bishops of the Anglican Communion cannot/should not even meet for a ONCE A DECADE council? That tells the world that this confederacy, previously understood to be a “Communion”, is totally broken. Maybe it is time to tell the truth about that and let folks move into new realities and associations instead of trying to extend the life of the lie by not meeting. Or….meet as a council of all the church’s bishops and re-claim the previous reality.
[blockquote] We are leery about using the occasion of the Conference to present a Covenant that is exclusionary, that centralizes authority, or that adds to the core doctrine of our faith.[/blockquote]
Liberals don’t worry about additions to core doctrine. They worry about the establishment of definitions. Liberals can give lip service to the Creed only so long as they can make the words mean precisely what they want the words to mean. But they cannot abide the stricture of the historic faith. Demand they affirm the physical resurrection, and the whole shoddy game is exposed. They can’t do it. They won’t do it.
carl
DeeT – Bishop Irish of Utah.
“Cancel” rather than “delay” Lambeth may well be good advice, even though the source is suspect. It will take 5 years (at least) for all the civil suits to run their course, and that does not take into account the future for Canada. It will take 10 years, perhaps 20, before the two halves of the former Anglican Communion can be on speaking terms with each other. After such a time, these two distinct religions can begin to explore how they might have relations with one another.
“we think that a Lambeth Conference in the near future would be disastrous to our public image around the world.”
At least they acknowlegde their audience…
Their audience of One is not well pleased.
Br_er R (#12), “cancel” is probably, as you say, good advice, but only if the alternative is inviting everyone except VGR and +Minns (as is currently the apparent intention) and possibly also excluding the half-dozen or so North American bishops who have openly and vociferously defied I1.10 (as may well be the outcome of +++Rowan’s current consultation).
If, on the other hand, the alternative is disinviting all of TEC and then making some special provision for Network/Windsor bishops, canceling would not be the best idea, since under those circumstances Lambeth would strengthen both the Communion and the American orthodox (the latter especially in their legal position vis-a-vis 815). This doesn’t look terribly probable at the moment, but one can always hope. And pray.
Second Avenue Quadrilateral – LOL! You should trademark that one Craig.
I think they want to cancel Lambeth because they know they will get creamed if it happens. I mean, they did not like taking it on the chin at Lambeth ’98, Dromantine, Tanzania, etc and they know there is more in store at Lambeth ’08.
If you don’t want to hear what someone (i.e. most of the Primates) has to say, you will make every attempt to avoid them.
“With reference to your letter of October 17 inviting us to comment on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent and urgent request of you,”
What letter is this? Elves, or Kendall, did this get posted or is this news?
If I missed it, can you tell me where it is?
Correction, #4, it’s the editorial page that is the third Instument of Unity, not the op-ed. The op-ed has nasty, knuckle-dragging conservative troglodytes on it every now and then.
Her leter is ian exellent reason why the conference should take place. It is manipulative and deceitful, as anyone can see. It should take place, and its members should be free of TEC and all it handiworks. Time to call a third strike an out, and be done with this batter who wants to call the pitches herself. Yer out! LM
I, too, enjoyed Craig’s quadrilateral. Given the premise of the letter, I might have called them the non-Lambeth Quadrilateral.
Chris wrote, “If you don’t want to hear what someone (i.e. most of the Primates) has to say, you will make every attempt to avoid them.” I guess they didn’t like being lectured to by ABp Mouneer Anis!
Good point, robroy. I suspect that if Lambeth is held, ABp Anis will be there with bells on.
My “Second Ave” quadralateral would also include
* mandatory belief in the ordination of women
* mandatory tithing
Recusant, that would be a hexilateral.