The Archbishop of Canterbury told a national radio audience on December 19 that the gist of his Advent letter was that he “wanted to encourage bishops around the world to come to the Lambeth conference because I think that it is better to meet face to face and talk about these things rather than dealing with them at right angles or through other people or through slogans.”
He said he intended his Dec 14 Advent letter to ”˜set out what I thought were the basic minimum conditions for staying in a close relationship as a world wide church. I wanted to suggest some practical steps in the next few months to make some conversation happen and get some facilitated meeting moving among the Anglican Communion’s disparate factions.’
Plans to hold a pre-Lambeth meeting for conservatives did not signal disloyalty, Dr Williams said, as such a meeting ”˜would not have any official status as far as the Communion is concerned’.
That’s right, Your Grace. You go ahead and hold to the “official status” stuff and let the millions of “orthodox” Anglicans around the world deal with the genuinely important elements of our Church.
Thank you Dr Williams. Time to tone down the rhetoric, and stop demonising every action the conservatives take. Some are very close to closing the door on the AC from reading some of the comments from senior bishops on StandFirm. Time to say sorry and welcome them back again and start showing some charity, even when their actions are suspect. The survival of the whole communion is at stake, because if they leave, the balance in the communion is going to swing so far to the left, and so far away from the foundations of the faith, that the whole church will eventually die.
And I can’t comment on the “31 Bishops” thread as comments are now locked, but thank you Dr Seitz for your comment #37 in that thread. Its good to see some unity at last between the ‘staying conservatives’ and the ‘leaving conservatives’. That unity is critical at this point in time, as if the defenders of the faith all divide at this point, the whole thing is going to crumble. I would urge you to join the Jerusalem meeting, even though I understand your organisation has real reservations about that meeting. It can become a meeting of disunity where those fed up with the whole mess make plans to leave or it can become a meeting where the defenders of the faith unite together in staying and taking action to say “here we stand, and we will not permit this church to move any further to the left”, it all depends who shows up.
[i]Feel free to send us comments for the 31 bishops thread by e-mail. We just didn’t want to have to watch that one thread like a hawk all night given the possible tone that was developing. Easier for us to review comments by e-mail tonight. Thanks for understanding.[/i]
The account that appears on Anglican Mainstream is a portion of the article on page 3 of the Jan 4 issue of The Church of England Newspaper. The full article can be read here:
http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2008/01/04/archbishop-defends-letter-cen-10408-p-3/
#2–In the nature of the case, most of us have no idea what the state of a ‘Jerusalem meeting’ might be. But thank you for your comment in general terms. Our work is with Primates and Bishops who likewise have given us no coherent ‘head’s up’ on this matter…they are as confused/bemused/unaware as we are. So this is not really about ‘real reservations’ but about just not knowing what the state of a meeting is. Clearly lots of key primates (SE Asia among others) are totally silent. +Venables has himself on a blog said that prayers in a wider sense are necessary as this meeting and attendance at Lambeth ought not be in competition. I am unsure whether ACI really represents a ‘staying’ option over against a ‘leaving’ one. I would have put the difference differently: ACI is for communion discipline by the communion, so as to determine which family members wish to abide by family decisions. The alternative, as best I can see, is: 1) federal alliances because of a desire for this; 2) federal alliances because a decision has been made that discipline will not/cannot happen; or 3) some sense that emergency actions are necessary to keep things in a pressure position, without any polity implications.
Would I or ACI colleagues be invited to Jerusalem? I doubt it. Do I think such a meeting will happen? Yes, but how many bishops will attend is unclear. Do I think +RDW is wise not to get in a position of condemning a meeting which has every right to meet? Yes.
Kind regards-C
Observing refers to ABp Venables comments on Lambeth. Anglican Mainstream has collected the postings of the good ABp [url=http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/index.php/2008/01/03/presiding-bishop-venables-blogs-on-why-he-is-going-to-gafcon-and-not-lambeth/ ]here[/url].
RW backed away ever so slightly from the offensive “refusal of the cross” and modified it to the still offensive “people who refuse to meet and honestly confront their difficulties together are walking away from the cross.” This still constitutes demonizing the orthodox in my book.
So RW is going to set out “minimum requirements for attending Lambeth.” I imagine the criteria will be about as stringent as those set out by Edwin Edwards of Louisiana in his race for governorship in 1983.
Robroy (#5),
Thanks for the great observation. I totally agree with you on the offensiveness of RW’s “refusal of the cross” statement in his Advent Letter. I pointed that out in one of my comments at SF.
Honestly, at this point, what the ABC says and does carry very little weight with most orthodox Anglicans worldwide.
I pray the ABC is wise enough to see the handwriting on the wall- the Jerusalem wall next summer, that is.
Bottom line: With or without the ABC’s “blessing”, the Jerusalem event is taking place. Period.
On another matter, many thanks to Bishop Iker and the other faithful bishops for their support for +Schofield. Bold and courageous!!
Fr. Kingsley+
Arlington, TX (Diocese of FW)
“However, Dr Williams ‘denying the cross’ imagery touched a nerve for some Global South leaders, who noted that it was ironic that Dr Williams placed such a premium on having face to face meetings of bishops, yet had stoutly resisted all calls for a primates’ meeting.”
Is it ironic or something else?
In the Church of England draft of the Anglican Covenant, the Primates are subordinated to the Lambeth Conference – they are its “Executive Committee”. The suggestion that the covenant link might be between diocese and Communion (as in the Catholic church) rather than province and Communion also bypasses the Primates.
The Primates will all meet face to face in just a few months time at the Lambeth Conference (except those who choose not to attend). The Archbishop rejected the suggestion that the Primates should meet but other bishops should not when he rejected the suggestion that he should cancel the Lambeth Conference (thereby excluding the bishops) but have a Primates Meeting instead (thereby including only Presiding Bishops).
According to Rowan does [b]anything[/b] have “official status” in the Anglican Communion?!? I thought that he does not have authority to make anything happen, nor the other “instruments” or whatever.
What the heck, go have lots of meetings. Lambeth, Jerusalem, Joe’s pub down the street. Nothing really matters. At all. Ever.
Blah. blah. Blah
Well played by the AoC. Calm the waters.
Peace,
P.S. I trust backchannels assured him it really wasn’t a constitutional convention for the new improved Anglican Communion.
[i]The Archbishop of Canterbury told a national radio audience on December 19 that the gist of his Advent letter was that he “wanted to encourage bishops around the world to come to the Lambeth conference because I think that it is better to meet face to face and talk about these things rather than dealing with them at right angles or through other people or through slogans.â€[/i]
But I thought the agenda Dr. Williams planned for Lambeth was arranged to [i]avoid[/i] talking about ‘these things’?
Great move if you want more talk, meetings, and the “listening process.”
Libraryjim #11 – Re: “But I thought the agenda Dr. Williams planned for Lambeth was arranged to avoid talking about ‘these things’?”
Jim,
You seem to be forgetting that the ABC is better known for contracting or canceling just about any significantly meaningful statement he makes, even before the ink dries on the writing, or before the words are barely out of his mouth.
I need not waste space and time tabulating the numerous statements the ABC has made since the early days of this Same-Sex horror “theology”, and how he almost instantly back-tracked, modified, or even totally changed positions whenever any one tried to take his “profound†words to the bank.
I will continue to be as respectful to His Grace as possible, but it is becoming increasingly difficult for me (and I suspect, for most orthodox) to be excusing what I see (imho) as a purposeful malfeasance on the part of His Grace.
I believe the ABC knows what game he is playing. Yes, he is playing a game of let’s-keep-talking-perpetually. I am saddened by the thought.
Fr. Kingsley+
Arlington, TX
Rowan, his friends liberals and the Evangelical centrists(on the fence) can say what they want, those in the conservative side (follows of Akinola and Jensen) have made their minds. I surer that idea about the Jerusalem meeting was a idea of the archbishop of Sydney. They are showing with this meeting that they can organize a international meeting of Anglican Bishops without TEC’s Money.
My suggestion for an alternate venue is Ephesus. Look at the history of the second council held there in AD 449 to see why. The council was called without the participation of the central instruments of orthodox communion. Any bishop who did not agree with the preordained agenda of the organizers was cast out, thus producing exactly the desired result. The council is generally known today as the Latrocinium (“Robber Council”).
[blockquote]”I wanted to suggest some practical steps in the next few months to make some conversation happen and get some facilitated meeting moving among the Anglican Communion’s disparate factions.”[/blockquote]
Why didn’t we think of this earlier? We could give it a snappy name, like [b]The Windsor Process![/b] Maybe it could issue a [strike]meaningless[/strike] report or two, over the next – say – four or five years.
😉
(If the ABC’s advisors are suggesting that it will be helpful for him to make comments such as these, then IMHO, he is poorly advised.)
[blockquote] from #6: Honestly, at this point, what the ABC says and does carry very little weight with most orthodox Anglicans worldwide.[/blockquote]
Back in 1977 Michael Ramsey was my guest for lunch in our apartment at DeKoven Foundation, in Racine, WI. He had asked me earlier in the day if Americans had any regard for the Archbishop of Canterbury, and (gathering all of my wisdom accumulated during seven or eight months as a priest!) I said “In general, no. If their priest pushes it or if they have visited Canterbury, maybe.” During lunch, our airedale puppy circled the table looking for food, and Joan Ramsey asked “What do you call your little dog?” We answered “Canterbury”. Michael Ramsey laughed heartily and said “I ask if there is any regard for the office of Canterbury, and that very day I meet a man who calls his dog by that name!”
The importance of this meeting is captured by an observer that David Virtue quotes on his site: “It is abundantly and painfully clear that the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has granted safe conduct and passage for the liberal heretics and apostates to continue undisciplined. Therefore, the heresy and apostasy will continue to flourish, spread, and embed itself further into the fabric of the Anglican Communion whilst the liberal apostates and the conservative Institutionalists debate, dither, and delay over issues such as the meaning and interpretation of unitive ecclesiology, Scripture, the Authority of Scripture, the deliberately ambiguous sections on discipline in t! he Draft Covenant, ad infinitum.”
Yes,
let’s meet face to face and try to determine which of Rowan’s two faces to talk to.