Conservative Anglican leaders are secretly planning a meeting next summer for the hundreds of bishops expected to defy the Archbishop of Canterbury by boycotting the Lambeth Conference, The Daily Telegraph has learned.
The unprecedented event will be widely seen as an “alternative Lambeth”, further damaging Dr Rowan Williams’s hopes of averting a formal schism over homosexuals.
Aides of the Archbishop said that any such gathering, which is due to be held just before the official conference, would be perceived as a symbol of division and would send out a “negative” message.
really “hundreds of bishops” will boycott? Can someone comment on this?
I’d also like to know. I did not get the impression that this pre-Lambeth gathering was meant to replace it.
Re #1: All it takes is for a few of the largest African provinces to boycott Lambeth, and you can easily get to “hundreds of bishops.” Nigeria alone has 113 dioceses, not counting suffragans and missionary bishops. Most Global South provinces are strongly centralized and it is hard to imagine that any individual bishop would ignore a direction by his Primate to pass up a trip to Kent.
In contrast, the Western provinces have more dispersed authority, so it is easier for an individual to take a different tack than the majority of local bishops, whether to attend or otherwise. Of course, most of those in the US, Canada, and other Western provinces who might boycott Lambeth out of opposition to Lambeth 1998 Resolution I.10 and the Covenant process will not be welcome at the alternative conference. Maybe they can hold their own and make the dissolution of the Communion into three or more pieces even more visible.
A quite usual information source for Jonathon Petre is Canon Chris Sugden, Executive Officer of Anglican Mainstream. Perhaps he may be an organiser of this alternative?
++Rowan said something like not coming to Lambeth is refusal of the cross, and therefore also the resurrection. So I guess these people are in trouble 😉
Seriously though, do we really believe a Telegraph article?
Following the Advent Letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury and news of these preparations for a conference, see my comments in June this year on the Lambeth Invitations:
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/3629
[on the link to the Fulcrum thread, scroll down to Wednesday 13 June 2007 – 11:48pm]
For comments on Chris Sugden’s view of the Archbishop of Canterbury and of the Lambeth Conference, see:
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/8002
If this conference being planned is a pre-Lambeth preparation gathering on the theme of mission, that sounds sensible. If it is being planned as an alternative to the Lambeth Conference then – in the light of the remarkable Advent Letter – it seems to me to be fissiparous. The organisers should be encouraging bishops to go on to the Lambeth Conference and not be left behind or on the margins.
Only an Anglican could use the word ‘fissiparous’ and get away with it.
From the [url=http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/comments/communique_of_the_global_south_primates_shanghai_october_30_2007/] Shanghai Communique[/url] of Oct. 30, 2007:
Is this the secret?
Nigeria, Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda and South Cone said very clear that without invitation for their American bishops, they will not be there. And if they don’t go, it means that the majority of Anglicans will not be represented at 08 Lambeth. Because anyone knows that CofE doesn’t have 24.000.000 members, but just about 950.000 members and TEC instead 2.200.000 members, it has just 780.000 “regulars”. Akinola doesn’t cares about what Rowan thinks.
Shhh, Mark, you’re spilling the beans.
I disagree with Paulo statement that ABp Akinola “doesn’t care what Rowan thinks.” ABp Akinola is charitable and gracious (despite the slander from the left). See the interviews of him by Ruth Gledhill on her blog site or read ABp Akinola’s letter to RW before Bp Minns installation ceremony. I will try to get links.
Not going to Lambeth, especially after Rowan’s Advent letter, seems to me to be arrogant, contentious and disdainful. Not showing up to participate in the process of reconciliation and or amicable seperation between family members is awful. The Holy Spirit may yet surprise us all if He be not quenched.
Archbishop Rowen needs to do something. His choices are to lead or to follow or to get out of the way. He serves no use by continuing to act as the appendix within the body Anglican.
There is room for Akinola to still attend Lambeth even if Minns is not invited if Rowan agrees not to block discipline of TEC from the agenda. If reconciliation is still a sincere goal, we are at (quite beyond, really) the point where loving discipline is needful. In fact, to deny such action for reconcilation from the Lambeth agenda would be a clear refusal of the Cross. Perhaps the ABC could be made aware of this lest he inadvertenly refuses our Lord’s holy Cross. In that same vein, if Akinola finds that discipline will not be on the agenda, there is no way he should go to Lambeth. His polite letter of regret should include the idea that for him to attend under these circumstances, without the necessary escalated offer of holy reconciliation, would be a refusal of the Cross and a trampling of His Blood.
Now is too late for reconciliation. TEC has chosen its way.
#12 With ‘appendix’, do you mean the mysterious thing in your gut or the appended folios at the end of a book?
TR – Of course, I mean to compare the incumbent ABC with the entirely useless thing in one gut that seems only to exist to give us harm when it becomes inflamed or bursts. An appendix found in books can be quite useful and therefore has nothing in common with +++Rowan regarding his handling of current events.
However, the Rev Giles Fraser, the vicar of Putney and founder of the liberal Inclusive Church group, said: “This is a retreat. The reason these bishops won’t come is that they know their attitudes will be subjected to ridicule in this country.
“In places like Britain, they’ve lost the argument.”
………………………………………………………………………………
More liberal “tolerant and inclusive” behavior from the left. I’m amazed these people don’t choke on their tongues. Reminds me of a saying from my neighborhood: “Never wrestle with a pig. You’ll both get dirty and the pig likes it.” Why would conservatives want to go to Lambeth to “listen” some more. The libs have no ears else they might have already heard the conservative orthodox. I say boycott Lambeth. The die has been cast!
[i]”if Akinola finds that discipline will not be on the agenda, there is no way he should go to Lambeth. His polite letter of regret should include the idea that for him to attend under these circumstances, without the necessary escalated offer of holy reconciliation, would be a refusal of the Cross and a trampling of His Blood.”[/i]
His Blood left Him the judge, not us. “Discipline” is a funny word for Christians to use so freely and with barely hidden glee. RW Advent letter is truly Christian in tone and content. We ought to be also.
I wish the orthodox Bishops would show up at Lambeth in STRENGTH and stand up there once again. If a split happens formally in the Communion, let it be said clearly at Lambeth who it is that is walking away from historic, Scriptural, Christianity. Perhaps a number of Global south Primates can cause a coup to rightly steer the Communion away from the cliff it is heading towards. But, they can only do this for the benefit of the Anglican Communion if they show up with a plan and with a “never say die” attitude.
Albany (18),
Read 1 Corinthians 5 & 6 and then reflect on what you have written above. It sounds pious, but it isn’t apostolic Christianity. And “glee”?
It seems to me that ++Williams has consistently attempted to undercut the orthodox primates. The panel of reference was a sham. The clear requests of D. e S. were shoved to one side with a curve back to Windsor “process.” He apparently never responded to the pleas of +Cavalcanti. His attempt to identify attendance at Lambeth with the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus is an attempt at psychological arm twisting. I believe he does not understand at all the point of view of the true believer whose faith is entirely based on Scripture. There can be no reconciliation between two entirely opposite points of view. Neither side is going to budge. His entire letter is a sort of “whistling in the dark.” He admits some points, such as Lambeth ’98 being widely ignored by the “new thing,” but does not realize that makes Lambeth no longer a possible instrument of unity. If TEC gets to ignore the resolutions made at Lambbeth ’98, what point is there to Lambeth any more. He does not recognize that a good many folks need a safe haven now, and will leave for Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, or some other, rather than remain yoked to heresy, and therefore is totally unpastoral toward them.
No. 21 – Ann – Specifically what heresy or heresies are you talking about? Thx.
This discussion about the planned conference prior to/instead of Lambeth 2008 also relates to the Common Cause meeting today, in a hotel near Orlando airport.
The Anglican Communion Institute has just published a crucially perceptive article on this Common Cause conference: ‘”We Know What Hour It Is”: A comment on the Advent Pastoral and Common Cause.’
It is worth reading in full, for it gives some important background information.
http://anglicancommunioninstitute.com/content/view/124/1/
It is also published on the Covenant site, where there are significant comments on it:
http://covenant-communion.com/?p=353
When I read the ACI piece last night I almost fell off my chair at this sentence:
We are many years into this crisis. It is way past the time to talk about the need for alternatives. “You can’t beat something with nothing.”
The ACI response is interesting. I think an important piece of it is the following:
[blockquote]We are aware that similar—likely coordinated—efforts are underway to meet separately in the context of Lambeth Conference itself. It remains unclear if the Common Cause movement—even where its vision is coherent and shared—has a theological vision fundamentally at odds with Windsor. [i] Without an obvious alternative for conservatives in TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada, with clear Communion connection, this Common Cause movement will declare ‘victory’ by simple virtue of its being the only option for many.[/i] The consequences for Communion health and the ability to find a resolution to the present crisis are considerable. Is there any way to send some kind of warning into the Orlando meeting about the consequences of forming a separate ecclesial jurisdiction at this time?[/blockquote]
Well, I agree with the italicized bit. But the ACI has not come up with any alternative. Indeed, it appears resolutely to have chosen not to come up with an alternative. When alternatives have been raised, from the panel of reference (“a matter of urgency”), to Dromantine, to the Dar es Salaam’s proposal, to a meeting of primates before Lambeth, they have rejected by Lambeth, and as near as I can tell, then discarded by the ACI as well. If the ACI truly wishes to avoid the communion falling apart in the present crisis, it does not need to send a warning to the common cause partners – we all know what is going on – it should send an alternative. Is there any way we can get a warning to the ACI about that?
And as to the consequences for communion health, without any alternative, most of the orthodox will simply be forced out of TEC over time anyway, and it is that which will make the ACI’s desired solution impossible. So I still don’t understand, nor have I seen the ACI explain, how whatever the common cause partners may do makes things any worse for creating a new church with a connection with other Anglican primates than it does by all of them joining the PCA, the RCC or something. I only see how it may make life easier for TEC and Canterbury if the orthodox leave quietly rather than complaining loudly.
#25: Just guessing, but the ACI may believe that the Anglican Covenant project is the only responsible, mutually accountable way for the entire AC…including TEC and the Canadians…to move forward together. I believe that they are profoundly wrong about that. However, they have good intentions. Now… my daddy had a saying about good intentions and the destination to which they paved the way…?
#26 – In no way do I doubt the ACI’s good intentions, though I must say that I have always been a little disconcerted by what I perceive to be little more than academic interest in the needs of individual parishes and lay people in revisionist diocese. It is that there will be no covenant, at least not one worth anything, if there is no viable protection for the orthodox in the communion in the interim, for the orthodox will not be there to support such a covenant, nor will they be around any longer to be protected by the covenant. At least, if they are still in existence in a second province supported by some of the primates, there will be some pressure that an adequate covenent can bring the communion back together at some time. Sometimes things have to get bad enough for people to take the actions they need to take.
#20 The issue is delight in punishment. The posts too often reek of it.
Greg Griffith has just announced on the Stand Firm site – insisting that ‘our source for this is, as they say, impeccable’ – ‘Common Cause Not Announcing New Province’.
Stand Firm site, 18 December 2007, 2.52pm:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/8470/
Interesting…
There are several possible explanations, including these three questions:
Is a new Province still being planned, but not being announced? ie the plans are not being publicised because earlier statements about the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury were a common cause of considerable discussion
or
Are some people genuinely surprised by the new opportunity afforded by the Advent Letter and thinking again?
or is there a power struggle going on for the leadership of Common Cause between someone already invited to Lambeth 2008 and someone who has not invited?