Seventh Week of Easter
May 23, 2007
Dear Friends:
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Thank you for the amazing outpouring of love and encouragement that so many of you gave by your presence at the Service of Investiture on Saturday, May 5. It was a glorious celebration and I know that the Lord was honored and thousands of people were blessed through it. It is, as the primate reminded us, a first step in this amazing adventure called CANA. We are producing a DVD with highlights of the service and will be making it available to you but until then there are a number of websites with short video clips of the service.
As a wonderful sequel to the service Bishop David Bena and Richard Crocker met this past weekend with twenty prospective candidates for ordination. All of them were eager to step forward and present themselves for service in Christ’s church. The future for CANA is very bright.
Earlier this week there was a lengthy news release from the Anglican Communion Office concerning invitations to the Lambeth conference scheduled for Canterbury in July 2008. As you well know this conference has been the subject of considerable speculation for several months. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the host and usually invites all Anglican bishops and their wives to this once every ten years event. In his statement he acknowledged that because of the current tensions in the Communion “there are a small number of bishops to whom invitations are not at this stage being extended whilst Dr Williams takes further advice.” His stated reason being “I believe that we need to know as we meet that each participant recognises and honours the task set before us and that there is an adequate level of mutual trust between us about this. Such trust is a great deal harder to sustain if there are some involved who are generally seen as fundamentally compromising the efforts towards a credible and cohesive resolution.”
At a subsequent press briefing by Canon Kenneth Kearon, the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion Office, he suggested that there would be three separate categories of bishops for whom invitations were being presently withheld: Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, CANA and AMiA bishops and also the Right Rev’d Nolbert Kunonga, Anglican Bishop of Harare. This news produced a flurry of media headlines mostly having to do with the exclusion of the Bishop of New Hampshire. It should be noted that this methodology of a carefully nuanced statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury together with supposed specifics from a spokesman gives maximum flexibility for future developments.
In response to various media inquiries I issued a brief statement as follows: “I have read the statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury’s office regarding next year’s Lambeth Conference. While the immediate attention is focused on the invitation list, it should be remembered that this crisis in the Anglican Communion is not about a few individual bishops but about a worldwide Communion that is torn at its deepest level. This point was made repeatedly at the Primates’ meeting in Dar es Salaam. Depending on the response of The Episcopal Church to the Primates’ communiqué by September 30, the situation may become even more complex. One thing is clear, a great deal can and will happen before next July.”
I was encouraged by an almost immediate response from Archbishop Akinola, “In response to requests for comments on the Lambeth Conference invitations, Archbishop Peter Akinola reaffirms that the Church of Nigeria is committed to the CAPA commissioned report “The Road to Lambeth”
Since only the first set of invitations has been sent, it is premature to conclude who will be present or absent at the conference. However, the withholding of [an] invitation to a Nigerian bishop, elected and consecrated by other Nigerian bishops, will be viewed as withholding invitation to the entire House of Bishops of the Church of Nigeria.” Archbishop Akinola is clear that CANA is as much a constituent part of the Communion as any diocese and so this unprecedented action to exclude one part of the church will be firmly resisted.
What does all this mean? First of all it is clear that the Archbishop of Canterbury faces an impossible task ”“ he is confronted by two irreconcilable truth claims. This has been the presenting problem from the beginning ”“ that is the key issue with which the Windsor report wrestles. What Archbishop Rowan has chosen to do now, however, is to ignore the underlying issue and elevate process over principle.
Second, all of the various efforts at discipline resulting from several meetings and communiqués have been ignored. The Lambeth Conference has been reduced to a meeting where bishops and their spouses simply gather for group bible study, prayer and shared reflection. These are significant activities but hardly justify the enormous expense of such an extended and world-wide gathering. They also presume a shared understanding of what the Bible is, who Jesus is and what he has done for us. Without any such agreement how can there be a coherent gospel to present to a hurting world?
Third, the Windsor Report and the Dar es Salaam Communiqu̩ clearly recognized that the various pastoral provisions for orthodox Anglicans within the U.S. Рespecially CANA Рare in response to the defiant and unrepentant actions of the Episcopal Church since 2003. There is no moral equivalence between immoral living and a creative pastoral provision. To ignore this reality and to pretend that by simply excluding one or two individuals we can have business as usual is decidedly shortsighted.
Finally, we need to remember that all this confusion is simply one more phase of a global conflict for the soul of the Anglican Communion. I have no doubt that there will be many more media moments and decision points in the coming months. It is a profoundly important battle that has eternal significance. We would do well to reread Ephesians chapter 6 and remember that in the heat of the battle our call is to pray and stand firm!
One final observation: Nowhere in the announcement was any mention made of the unprecedented court battle that commenced in January and continues for eleven CANA congregations in Northern Virginia. This action, initiated by the Diocese of Virginia and the Presiding Bishop of TEC, continues in direct defiance of the Primates’ recommendations in Dar es Salaam; it is shameful behavior by those who declare themselves to be Christian leaders committed to reconciliation.
We are hopeful that the lawsuits will eventually be settled in our favor but this may take a very long time. It is a costly process that diverts needed energy and funds from vital ministry initiatives. One thing is clear, because of all the publicity we have almost unlimited opportunities to witness to the transforming love of God. We can all take heart in remembering that CANA was the place where Jesus transformed a disaster into a celebration ”“ I believe that it still is, the miracle continues, and we will see a similar transformation in the coming days.
Pray for CANA. Pray for the church. Pray for our beloved Communion.
In Christ,
The Rt. Rev’d Martyn Minns
Missionary Bishop
Piffle!
Bless him!
CANA’s hopes of receiving greater recognition than AMiA seem to have been dashed – and I am a little surprised that Minns has attacked Williams instead of trying to persuade him to change his mind.
Which has more members, CANA or AMiA? I know AMiA has more bishops.
badman, CANA is under ++Akinola, so that in and of itself differentiates them from AMiA. they are a far more significant player in the AC, as is evidenced by Minns high visibility in AC affairs and that by comparison few people (even here) know who heads up AMiA.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
I am making a guess that Minns expected that he would be excluded. This whole situation is really sad. Williams’ is putting the Anglican Communion at serious risk by doing this. The only hope in all of this is that the liberal extremists in TEC react strongly to this and decide to take extreme action.
I personally think that Williams would have been much wiser at this point to set out the conditions for attending – being specific adherence to the Windsor/Dromantine/DES agenda, and then – and ONLY then – indicating that the CANA and AMiA bishops will be invited if either (1) TEC formally rejects the DES Communique, or (2) if TEC accepts the DES Communique and CANA and/or AMiA have come under its auspices by Lambeth time.
What he has done is virtually guarantee that Lambeth will be a complete and utter public disaster. As Minns says – gathering together for Bible study is all well and good, but it certainly doesn’t justify the massive cost of the Lambeth Conference.
I think that this is Rowan Williams first major blunder in handling the situation. I’m not saying he’s handled it particularly well to date, but this has “MAJOR BLUNDER” written all over it.
Think about the numbers, folks. If the Archbishop invites the CANA and AMiA bishops, who are not diocesan bishops, then how does he exclude all the other Anglican bishops who exercise jurisdiction only as a suffragan, auxiliary, or assisting bishop to someone (a diocesan bishop or metropolitan) who personally exercises jurisdiction? I suspect the reappraisers would gladly trade Bp. Minns for an extra hundred or more Western suffragans, many of whom share their point of view.
A few things:
–First, it is incorrect to say that this action was “unprecedented.” +Minns is a missionary bishop, as he clearly indicates by so signing this letter. ++Carey and the primates at Oporto decided that missionary bishops were not to be invited to Lambeth. In fact this is precisely the precedent cited by Canon Kearon for
++Williams’s decision. This does not necessarily mean that +Minns or any of the AMiA bishops are being “snubbed,” or that they are not recognized as Anglicans. It simply means that they are missionary bishops. I think this is an over-reaction on the part of +Minns and Nigeria. The archbishops of Uganda and Rwanda have not reacted this way about AMiA, and I think they are correct to refrain from doing so. One hopes that this can be cleared up before it sets in motion processes that could be hard to stop once started. I am sure that our friends at Truro and the Falls Church (and etc.) do not want to make the delicate processes of Communion decision-making more difficult than they already are.
–Second, I don’t think the speculation that the Lambeth Conference has been reduced to a Bible study and story-telling time is accurate. Unless I am very mistaken, it is my understanding that the agenda includes discussion of the Draft Covenant, which then is to be sent on to ACC-14 for further discussion and approval. That’s quite important! Really, it’s the thing on which all else depends. Of course they’re going to do important work on it at Lambeth– it absolutely must be worked into a form everyone generally approves of before it can be sent to ACC-14. And beyond that, ++Williams is right to say that this Lambeth will be slightly different. The way in which Lambeth is to be authoritative for our life together in Communion is precisely a matter of discussion– that’s a big part of what the Covenant is about. It doesn’t make sense to make legislation without the Covenant in place. That’s part of what got us into this whole mess in the first place. We could pass Lambeth resolutions until we’re blue in the face, but it wouldn’t make much sense unless we also agree in a Covenant that we’re all going to live by them. That’s what Williams is saying, I think– we’re going to focus on the Covenant and trust-building this time around, not legislation. Makes sense to me. So I don’t honestly see the force of +Minns’s criticism here.
–Finally, I’m not comfortable with the criticism of Archbishop Williams: that he has chosen to elevate “process over principle.” I don’t find that to be all that fair. He’s said many times that he is deeply committed, for theological reasons, to the catholicity of Anglicanism– to life together in communion. I understand that it might be difficult from an evangelical perspective to get inside his shoes here, but I think we ought to make an effort to try. From everything I can tell, Rowan Williams believes in the most principled way possible in the catholic substance of Anglicanism. It’s fair game to criticize his tactics or his theology, but I don’t think his character should be in question. I’m sure that’s not what +Minns meant to do, but nevertheless I think it’s a needed caution. Too many liberals are cricizing ++Williams’s character and principle right now– we don’t need to join our voices to that crowd.
If anyone’s here from CANA in Virginia, I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.
A wonderful letter from a Christ centered man. Dale Rye hits on the head, though.
I think the best we can hope for is that extremists on both sides will exclude themselves out of outrage at one of their number being excluded and allow the center to have free space to speak. It might just save the Communion from both sides of the conflict.
Can someone elaborate one the type of bishops that are not invited to Lambeth? Are missionary bishops unique in this regard? Are only diocesan bishops (the ordinary of a geographic diocese) invited?
There appear to be two categories. (1) Bishops who are validly ordained to a recognized jurisdiction, but who cause concern to the rest of the communion. This group includes VGR and the Bishop of Harare. The other group (2) is bishops who’s ordinations are irregular or who have been installed in a juridiction not recognized by the ABC. This group includes Minns and the bishops of the AMIA.
In other words, are Coadjutor bishops or Suffragan bishops invited to Lambeth?
A desperate cry from a man who tied his ship to the wrong star.
Suffragan bishops were first invited in 1998. I believe they are invited again. I don;t know about coajutors — whether they get their own invitation or the outgoing bishop has the option of passing his invitation along, but I suspect they are invited as well.
Bishop Sandy Millar is a British-born missionary bishop consecrated in the Anglican Church of Uganda and serving in London. He’s going to Lambeth.
bb
:long: Lambeth 2008? What’s the point of going. 1998 brought agreements (RES 1:10)which TEC(ecusa) whined about for 5 years and then saw fit to disregard by the election and consecration of Vickie Gene. The point of Lambeth is to converse and develop consensus on theological issues and mission goals. TEC has no use for it. Why should Nigeria, or any other orthodox province for that matter?
Jordan Hylden #6
Thank you for the analysis you have provided about the invitations. I am unable to verify what you have said, but I would find it profitable if other listers would interact with your points. Is there someone out there who knows enough to say if Jordan’s analysis is right or not?
I hadn’t noticed this before, but it is on Episcopal Cafe
A spokesman for the ACC noted Bishop Robinson Cavalcanti of Recife would not be invited either.
In 2005 Bishop Cavalcanti and 32 of his clergy were deposed by the Primate of Brazil for contumacy.
They and over 90 per cent of the communicants in the diocese transferred to the jurisdiction of the Province of the Southern Cone under the jurisdiction of Archbishop Gregory Venables
Looks like those who break away are just not going to be recognized.
A couple of comments on missionary bishops:
1. All dioceses began as mission – I don’t know how many of these were started by missionary bishops, but the MB represents bishops at their apostolic best.
2. The burgeoning Anglican Church of Nigeria (gasp, horror) follows the strategy of missionary bishops STARTING new dioceses from scratch, with a new batch just consecrated this year. ISTM that CANA has started a missionary diocese in North America (with rather more resources than Nigerians usually start with).
#17 Cavalcanti et al aren’t invited? One wonders what Greg Venables makes of that?
This is absolultely appalling.
The quicker the Global South just take over and set up their alternative Lambeth, the better. The more we learn about what Rowan is doing, the more of a farce it becomes.
#13 ruidh are you sure?
See #26 below:
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/3054/
Who is right?….
#14 BabyBlue, that is very interesting.
Sandy Millar is also an assistant bishop in the diocese of London, but if Phil Snyder is right (and he sounds as if he knows what he talking about), he would not be entitled to an invitation on that basis. He must be going because, although he is a missionary bishop consecrated and sent to England by the Church of Uganda, he has gone through the proper channels and has the blessing of the local (English) bishop.
Rowan Williams isn’t against parallel mission. He even declined to discipline a London clergyman who could not get his choice of ordinands licensed, and so had them ordained by an out-of-communion South African Anglican bishop.
We need to see his exclusion of Martyn Minns and AMiA in that light.
The letter of Chris Seitz and the the posting of Jordan Hylden show that the ACI can be called Rowan’s boys. Mr. Hylden writes, “Finally, I’m not comfortable with the criticism of Archbishop Williams.”
The ABC is trying to run a via media course between the apostates and the orthodox. The is a sad and twisted distortion of the Anglican notion of via media. Orthodox, like myself, think the Episcopal church has been hijacked by a bunch of Unitarian terrorists, but Brazil is even worse. The treatment of Bp Cavalcanti and the actions, in general, of the province of Brazil (a veritable lackey of the TEC) are beyond shameful. That the ABC would side with shows he chooses unity above integrity.
Sorry bout the typos. You should be able to get my drift (or you can see a corrected version here.)
#22 robroy – All Archbishop Williams is doing is supporting the inside strategy and discouraging the outside strategy. As Archbishop of Canterbury, and Focus of Unity in the Anglican Communion, you can’t seriously expect him to do anything else. Archbishop Carey did exactly the same when he was in office, when he rejected AMiA. What matters is that neither supported what you would call “the liberal agenda”.
If by choosing integrity over unity you mean to join the comet tail of Continuing Anglicans sticking with their version of the “faith once delivered” and listed here , to which CANA must surely now be added, you are entitled to do so – but your impact, and your mission, are not likely to benefit.
Why can’t Martyn Minns, even now, try and get himself into the same position as Sandy Millar? If this is about principle, and not power, what is stopping him from making peace and getting on with his mission? If he thinks his local manifestation of the Anglican Communion is apostate and irreformable, however, then he is well out of it, but if he is out of it, he can’t complain about not being in it, can he?
There are two irreconcilable truth claims – but both exist within the CofE and whilst that remains the case, RW is hardly going to act in a way which would exclude members of his own church.
His aim will always be to keep as many there as possible.
I could very well be wrong. I was going on the observation that the number of bishops invited this time, some 800, was a little higher than the number at the last Lambeth Conference, on the order of 750, which did invite suffragans.
The ABC is trying to run a via media course between the apostates and the orthodox. The is a sad and twisted distortion of the Anglican notion of via media.
Apostates may become Christians – it seems to me that the archbishop is trying to be a good shepherd and keep the sheep that were given to him. I have doubts about this being possible, but I appreciate his approach far more than I do that of our presiding bishop, who seems to prefer slash and burn. (i.e., she regards some of her sheep as utterly disposable and ready for market). Mixing metaphors with a vengeance this morning, sorry.
As I posted on Stand Firm –
Hmmmm. So, when presented the choice between heresy and schism, the AC chose NEITHER. Briiilllliant.
I guess I’m with the anglicancentrist’s view on this one.
Anyone else want to press their heresies or schismatic tendencies? The dis-invitation will be in the mail.
On a more inclusive note –
On this feast of Jackson Kemper (and Nashotah commencement day) may God grant the wisdom, spirit and Christian leadership of that fine example of Christian leadership and missionary zeal upon all who hold the title of missionary bishop in our present day.
May God also grant those who graduate this 162nd commencement day from the seminary Bishop Kemper founded grace and loving guidance upon the ministries the are now called to fulfill.
In Christ’s name, AMEN.
At the end of the day, the invitations and the defacto recognition of valid and invalid bishops rests with ++Williams. The problem is that he disagrees with certain strategies and maneuvers that are being used in the Anglican Communion and will not accept them as a valid and regular part of Anglican polity. I am curious to see what will happen in ++Williams refuses to cede the ++Akinola’s threats and I hope that TEC doesn’t use the same threat technique against ++Williiams.
Those who are certain of the validity of their position and the demonic nature of their opponents have a hard time settling for the broad catholic view of the AC that ++Williams seems to recognize in his Lambeth invitations. The sides seems to be set up as:
Polemics and certainty
vs.
Charitiable discussion and humility in belief
Reasserters (or whatnot) believe that charity and humility in belief equate to idolotry to the false god of cosmopolitianism and the reappraisers (or whatnot) believe that such certainty will make Anglicanism transform into a strict curial system and diminish the role of Anglicanism as a broad church.
#24, Thanks for the link to the continuing churches. From there I went to one of them (one known to me) and then followed one of their links to a new group here called the Federation of Anglican Churches in America. The AMIA, Reformed Episcopal and a few others have joined together, so this appears to be ‘another’ group, province, whatever to be considered. What does this mean, if anything?