Bill Carroll: I would not go to Lambeth, would you?

If I were a bishop of the Episcopal Church, I would not go, until all my brothers and sisters were invited. And I would write the people of my diocese, the Presiding Bishop, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, politely explaining my absence. I don’t see it as a boycott per se, so much as a temporary suspension of any participation in the life of the Anglican Communion, which has clearly become toxic and which doesn’t want the Episcopal Church to participate as we are. Katharine Grieb of Virginia Seminary suggested as much at the House of Bishops, and it is time to consider her idea carefully. I would devote myself to the human and divine relationships that form the fabric of real communion, and stop worrying about large, expensive meetings of bishops. There is no equivalence between Gene Robinson, a duly elected bishop of the Episcopal Church, and Martyn Minns, part of a schismatic attempt to break our fellowship apart and realign (i.e. destroy) Anglicanism into a fundamentalist shadow of its true self.

My own bishops may choose otherwise, as is their right. They have a duty to interpret the vows they took, including their vow to “be merciful to all, show compassion on the poor and strangers, and defend those who have no helper.” (BCP, p. 518) But going to Lambeth, unlike going to General Convention, is a purely optional act. The only reason to go is to advance the mission of the Church, and I don’t see any way that it could advance the mission, if our bishops go to discuss Bishop Gene and the fallout over his consecration IN HIS ABSENCE. It is a pity that a meeting that is meant to be a Godly convocation to discuss matters of mutual concern has to be turned into an occasion for making symbolic statements, throwing the homophobes a little red meat of exclusion. And it is pity that the Archbishop of Canterbury fails to show ANY leadership. If this is really what his office requires of him, he should abandon it, and the office itself should be abolished. I think the non-violent option is to refuse to play these games and to refuse to lend Lambeth any legitimacy by the presence of our bishops.

Read it all.

Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, - Anglican: Commentary, Episcopal Church (TEC), Lambeth 2008

29 comments on “Bill Carroll: I would not go to Lambeth, would you?

  1. Rolling Eyes says:

    Who is this Bill Carroll fellow, and what planet is he from?

  2. chips says:

    I wonder what the “violent” option would be. What does he mean by physical violence against GLBT Anglicans? I assume it is just bad rhetoric – or does he really equate “I do not agree with your theology and/or behavior” with actual violence.

  3. Phil says:

    The HOB just spent several days discussing how to deal with orthodox Anglicans like me, IN MY ABSENCE. Of course, “listening,” can only be permitted to go so far. Tell us why the Church has had it wrong for 2,000 years, of course, step right up, we must listen! Tell us why the Church must stick to the Apostolic witness, well, sit down and shut up, you’re just trying to turn “Anglicanism into a fundamentalist shadow of its true self.”

  4. Philip Snyder says:

    “Fundamentalist” Noun, a person who takes the historical and moral teaching of Holy Scripture to be more binding than the person using the word “Fundamentalist.”

    Phil Snyder

  5. PadreWayne says:

    Phil #3: The HOB just spent several days discussing how to deal with orthodox Anglicans like me, IN MY ABSENCE.
    No, you are wrong and you should not be allowed to lead others astray with this rhetoric. Discussion was held “in your absence” only if “orthodox” bishops absented themselves of their own volition. The HOB meeting was open to all bishops, from (on a continuum, I suppose) +Iker/Duncan/Schofield to +Robinson/Chane/Bruno (or however you want to place people). Therefore your comment is erroneous, and you know it.

  6. HowieG says:

    <...the Anglican Communion, which has clearly become toxic and which doesn't want the Episcopal Church to participate as we are. >

    That is THE problem with the Episcopal Church. It wants to call ALL the shots no matter what the rest of the Communion says. It is the absolute arrogance of TEc(Cult) that has gotten the AC to the point where it is today. Finally, Rowan has begun to call the errant US province to task. Unfortunately, there are many more Bishops that should not be invited until they whole-heartedly agree with the Teachings of the Church.


  7. Rolling Eyes says:

    “does he really equate “I do not agree with your theology and/or behavior” with actual violence.”

    There can be little doubt that he really does believe that. It is the trend among the modernist/revisionist/left-leaning that anything short of full endorsement of their opinions and beliefs is equal to hate, personal attacks, and bigotry. That’s why they never/are unable to participate in any logical discussion about these things.

  8. PadreWayne says:

    Phil Snyder #4: HAHAHA! Thanks for the grin this morning!

  9. Phil says:

    Oh, really, Padre Wayne? Did you know that Arius was discussed, IN HIS ABSENCE, at First Nicaea?

  10. Phil says:

    My goodness, come to think of it, we have reason to believe the Virginia parishioners that voted to leave ECUSA were discussed IN THEIR ABSENCE by KJS and David Booth Beers.

  11. Pb says:

    Throwing red meat to homophobes. I have thought that reasserters need some new perjorative words like fundaphobic and bibliophobic. Then we can join in thie dialogue.

  12. Fred says:

    Bill Carroll is absolutely right. My hope is that our bishops will heed his call not to go. My fear is that they will buy into the “we must go to stay at the table” argument. There is a much more sound argument to stay home: Jesus taught ….” just as you do it to the least of these…..” If +Gene Robinson is banned from the table by those purporting to follow Jesus, it is the height of hypocracy. There is no sound justification to go to Lambeth! It’s also time to rethink membership in the Communion. I’m over it!!!!!!

  13. Gator says:

    For #1 Bill C. is a priest in Ohio and formerly an instructor at our school of theology at the University of the South. He is widely recognized among reappraisers as a brainy guy.

    His words “red meat” for the “homophobes” makes me cry out for the split in whatever form it takes. Please, soon, so we can all get to what we understand to be our mission.

  14. ChristopherLambart says:

    I was at the last diocesan convention in Upper South Carolina that Bill Carroll was a part of. It was the same convention where they passed the Windsor Resolution making that diocese a Windsor diocese.

    Voice trembling with “moral outrage” he declared that the passing of the Windsor resolution was an act of violence against gay people.

    I suspect most people, recognizing the faux drama, just rolled their eyes or said “huh?”.

  15. Rolling Eyes says:

    Fred: “If +Gene Robinson is banned from the table by those purporting to follow Jesus, it is the height of hypocracy.”

    Can you, or someone, explain how that comment is supposed to make any sense?

  16. HowieG says:

    Fred, since you brought up the table analogy, let me bring up another: the wedding feast parable. A guest shows up at a wedding without the proper attire. When asked why we didn’t dress properly, he remaind silent. He was immediately thrown out of the feast. The message is that many are called, but few are chosen.

    This message can easily be applied to TEc(Cult). It wants to come to the table and be accepted exactly as it is. It refuses to acknowledge, and thus reject, the expectations placed upon it by Jesus, Himself. The EC has demonstrated its arrogance in the face of the AC, lied to the Communion by signing off on Lambeth ’98 and the Tanzania Protcols, and then refusing to abide by them. In other words, it remains un-repentant. It seems you, like the EC, missed the part of the worship service where it calls for repenting of ones Sins prior to coming to the Communion Table.


  17. dwstroudmd+ says:

    Histrionic. And, IMHO, there is the proverbial snowball’s chance in hell that bishops will abstain from Lambeth in solidarity or principle. There is such a thing as moderation in all things, you know! Watch and see.

  18. Thunder Jones says:

    You can accuse ++RW of a lot of things, but bigotry or violence is not one of them. I’m afraid that those of a reasserting and moderate mindset will respond with the same tactics of division that are already wounding the AC.

  19. Fred says:

    #15 – I’ll be happy to explain. Jesus welcomed ALL to the table. And He said, “Just as you do it to the least of these, you do it to me.” If +Robinson is excluded, they exclude Jesus as well…….Jesus,who said nothing about homosexuality but lots about welcome and love. It’s all about welcoming the stranger not judging the stranger. Jesus must be weeping!! There is no theological justification for the exclusion of Robinson. The only justification that I can fathom is bigotry…pure and simple. Frankly, I don’t know why any of our bishops would want to go to Lambeth under these circumstances. I hope they stay home.

  20. john scholasticus says:

    Something I think should be more widely recognised among reasserters (it is recognised by doughty chaps like Lawrence Morse): people like Bill Carroll are principled.You can reject their principles. What you can’t do is dismiss them as snivelling capitulators to contemporary fashion.

  21. dwstroudmd+ says:

    JS, Bill Carroll’s not a bishop with an invitation to Lambeth, is he? He may very well be principled. My point in #17 is that I do not think the bishops voting for or consecrating VGR will be. Lambeth or support for the VGR/LGBTQ agenda? Hmm. Even the questionably Pauline instructions to Timothy will come back with a vengeance as justification or, better yet, the dissimulation of going to the table to “convert or evangelize” for the GLBTQ agenda. It will be rich fudge. The best I can think of will be those who go with the claim they want to be part of the Covenant process as justification. Their actions already refute that line of rationalization. But that never stops those conversant with Episcobabble.

  22. Rolling Eyes says:

    #19, your simpleminded post is amusing. Your ignorance knows no limits.

    “There is no theological justification for the exclusion of Robinson.”

    Wait, that’s not ignorance. That’s outright stupidity.

  23. Rolling Eyes says:

    Wait, I get it: Fred is a plant. It’s all a joke to get a rise out of people. Honestly, no one in their right mind could REALLY believe that nonsense! Well, you got me, “Fred”. Very funny!

  24. Cennydd says:

    I have to agree with HowieG in poth of his posts. Well-spoken, Howie!

  25. Irenaeus says:

    “I would not go to Lambeth”

    Please don’t.

  26. DavidBennett says:

    Maybe if the liberal ECUSA bishops don’t go to Lambeth out of protest, something might actually get done there.

    Honestly, I think a good chunk of Episcopalians (like Bill Carroll) are going to get to the point when they have no concern for remaining Anglican. They can get back to being a bunch of educated, old, rich, white folks doing their own thing (see the demographic post on this blog) without the bother of dealing with poorer Africans and Asians who have yet to become as enlightened as they are. Personally, I’d take the diversity that is worldwide Anglicanism over this any day.

  27. Cousin Vinnie says:

    Fred calls Bp Robinson “one of the least.” Just for context, let’s remember that we are talking about a white male in a very white state, high socio-economic level, high education level, the Episcopalian bishop of NH, darling of the media, and one of only a hundred or so individuals in possession of both the Episcopalian pointy hat and shepherd’s crook. If this is one of the least, Fred clearly travels in more rarified social circles than I. As hard as it is to believe, none of my friends received an invitation to Lambeth, either.

    The assertion that there is no theological reason to exclude Bp Robinson from Lambeth seems silly. (Are all heretics entitled to an invitation?) But, perhaps Fred means there is no sound theological reason to exclude Bp Robinson while inviting the rest of TEC’s bishops. Bp Robinson is only doing what the majority of TEC bishops have promoted, authorized and cheered. Sure, invite the godfathers, but exclude their trigger man.

  28. CharlesB says:

    This guy is obviously not married! How are you going to tell your wife, “Honey, we’re not going to London next year.” Yeah. Right. Fat chance of that happening.

  29. Cennydd says:

    Bill Carroll, pardon me while I get my hanky and wipe my eyes. Your story made me laugh so hard it brought tears to my eyes!