By a vote of 299-79, clergy and lay delegates voted to approve an amended resolution calling for the 2008 Lambeth Conference to be postponed “until the listening process is more complete.”
This resolution was submitted by Bishop Suffragan Nedi Rivera after convention began. The wording of the resolution will comprise the text of a letter sent to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori over the signature of bishops Greg Rickel and Rivera. This letter is to serve as the input requested by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, who asked for advice from the House of Bishops on how to respond to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has asked the primates for their advice as he weighs a decision on the House of Bishops “response ”˜to questions and concerns raised by our Anglican Communion partners’.”
The text approved by the convention said, “We are leery about using the occasion of the [2008 Lambeth] Conference to present a Covenant that is exclusionary, that centralizes authority, or that adds to the core doctrine of our faith. The cost of holding the Lambeth Conference under the present circumstances is disproportionate to its benefits, and the good we can do elsewhere in the mission of the church.”
[blockquote] “until the listening process is more complete.†[/blockquote]
Doesn’t that phrase have a nice Orwellian tone? I wonder how anyone will be able to determine when “the listening process is more complete.” No, I don’t wonder at all really. The whole process might be compared to a diode. Current is only allowed to flow one way.
carl
Unbelievable. +KJS sends +Duncan a letter telling him to get in line or face the consequences. At the same time, certain quarters of TEC act like spoiled children who don’t wish to be scolded anymore, calling for “postponement” of an event where they will surely hear the same message they have heard for the past five years: get in line or face the consequences. The bald-faced hypocrisy is breathtaking to behold.
The listening process of Windsor was over in 2006.
“… resolution calling for the 2008 Lambeth Conference to be postponed ‘until the listening process is more complete.’â€
Yes, ironic indeed. Where was the “resolution calling for the [2003 General Convention] to be postponed ‘until the listening process [and the theological / biblical / philosophical / and ecumenical inquiry] is more complete [or had even begun]'”?
“… the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has asked the primates for their advice as he weighs a decision on the House of Bishops ‘response “to questions and concerns raised by our Anglican Communion partners”.'”
But if it’s about “listening,” then doubly ironic that some TEC dioceses do not want to show up and make their case. How do they think they can participate in a conversation if they’re not there? Hard to infer anything other than that TEC thinks the conversation is over and the rest of the AC simply needs to play catch-up: WE talk, YOU listen.
The text approved by the convention said, “We are leery about using the occasion of the [2008 Lambeth] Conference to present a Covenant that is exclusionary, that centralizes authority, or that adds to the core doctrine of our faith. The cost of holding the Lambeth Conference under the present circumstances is disproportionate to its benefits, and the good we can do elsewhere in the mission of the church.â€
I agree that TECUSA should stay away from Lambeth until it learns to listen. Those provinces and bishops who can and do listen to the Church and to Holy Scriptures should be invited to Lambeth. Those who don’t shouldn’t be invited.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Seems to me this is similar to a political candidate calling for elections to be postponed because he hasn’t yet garned enough support. If the leftists believe their cause is just they should not fear the outcome, but then, perhaps that’s the point. My concern is that they have a sympathetic ear on the throne of St. Augustine.
No. 6: Yes, “a sympathetic ear” but a catholic heart and mind? We should have a better idea soon.
The Living Church’s report is accurate but incomplete. It failed to mention the whiney person from Oak Harbor who acted like a pouty little girl who wants what her bishop gave to someone else. Also, the Convention called for the vote-count on the Resolution in question so TEC knows it is more than just one or two of us who disagree. The article points out that this was a “six hour” resolution, one that came in during the Convention and was put on the floor just prior to the closing worship service. Timing.
I was disappointed at Nedi’s point that the bishops SHE represents had complied with the listening process but that no one else had–i.e. the other side had not “heard” their reasonable requests.
The Convention was an odd combination of welcoming Bishop Rickel (he of the wooden talking stick crosier) and the persistent whining of those who want more of their own way.
And then there was the horrible embarrassment of USING two young Hispanic people to push the passage of a resolution urging the Church to push for more compassionate undocumented alien policies; the young woman begged us to pass it so that she could go on to college–as if that would pave the way for her. It was bad.
It would be interesting if this call was heeded. I believe that it was Kendall’s proposal, oh so long ago. (Six months?)
Is this the “O, crap, they mean business in the Anglican Communion, so we’d better pull out now while we can without definitive embarassment” resolution”? Seems so. Or, could it be the “They really mean ‘NO’ so we’ll gather up our toys and stay home if we don’t get our way” resolution? It’s probably both.
[blockquote] … adds to the core doctrine of our faith.[/blockquote]
This one persistently intrigues me when used by reappraisers. Core doctrine? You mean there is one? And are you able to articulate it?
Don’t hold back, drjoan — tell us how you really feel 🙂
I voted against this resolution, on the grounds that I don’t see the point of waiting until some hypothetical time in the future when we all like each other again to get together and try to hash out our differences. But somehow, the debate on this resolution seemed to be treating it as though it were a referendum on the support of full inclusion of LGBT people, which made its passage in this diocese all but assured.
Either way, however, it seems largely irrelevant. I doubt that a letter from one diocese of TEC is going to sway the ABC’s decision on holding or not holding Lambeth.
FWIW, my blog postings on this convention are here and here.
Thanks for the info Dr. Joan and Ross. It’s always helpful to get firsthand accounts from our readers who attended the convention. We appreciate your taking time to comment.
On the other hand,
why is it bad coming from ++Akinola: http://www.tribune.com.ng/05112007/news/news8.html
and good if suggested by Olympia(ns)?
Inquiring minds want to know!
[i]Touché[/i], dwstroudmd.
#14 dwstroudmd:
Well, as I said, I voted against it; so I think it’s a bad idea no matter who it comes from 🙂
Ross, I suspect you have common sense since you voted against it. What I want to know is why reappraisers think it so terrible if it comes from anyone other than themselves and why what is good for them is necessarily bad from others. In short, what form of Pharisaism do they go by?
dwstroudmd, to answer your question we’d first have to find some reappraiser who is on record both as decrying ++Akinola’s call to postpone or cancel Lambeth, and as supporting this (or similar) calls from reappraising TEC bishops to postpone or delay Lambeth. Then you could ask them to clarify their position.
Right now, you’re observing that “some reappraisers criticized ++Akinola for wanting to cancel Lambeth” and “some reappraisers are supporting calls from TEC bishops to cancel Lambeth,” and you’re assuming that both of these represent reappraisers in general. We’re no more a monolithic bloc in lockstep on every issue than reasserters are.