Read it all.
Archbishop Akinola’s remarks in Lagos yesterday are also cited and make depressing reading for those of us who are communion conservatives (or communion conservatives with reservations, like myself).
I see nothing wrong with the principle of GAFCON (though I wish they had chosen a more neutral location than Jerusalem) and I recognize that it may well form the basis for a separate entity, but what precludes setting an agenda there, going to Lambeth and presenting the choice formally to all?
If the rest balk at giving the Covenant teeth and formal protection to First World orthodox dissidents, then the proponents of GAFCON can truly say they tried and failed. If they don’t, one will always wonder if Lambeth 08 could have been different. If TEC’s actions have ramifications for the whole Church don’t those of Nigeria also?
“Those of us who will abide with the Word of God, come rain come fire, are those who are in GAFCON. Those who say it does not matter are the ones who are attending Lambeth. There might be a view, for whatever it is worth, that they want to be there to observe what is going on. But Uganda, Rwanda, Sydney, Nigeria: we are not going to Lambeth conference. What is the use of the Lambeth conference for a three weeksâ€™ jamboree which will sweep these issues under the carpet.”
Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy.
[blockquote]What is the use of the Lambeth conference for a three weeksâ€™ jamboree which will sweep these issues under the carpet?[/blockquote]
Akinola & others keep asking this question – and they answers they get are weak to none! These 21 bishops, as well as other ComCons who truly believe that there might be something in Lambeth, must put their money where their mouths are. They need to tackle Rowan & guarantee that no other business comes before the Windsor process. They need to rally evangelicals & Anglo-catholics in other provinces that remain silent. And they need to pay the tickets of those they want to come.
Talk is cheap – it takes money to by whiskey. Put your actions and your euros – not just your letters and hand-wringing – forward, and you might get a result. You are not going to convince Akinola et al with more empty rhetoric.
#1: If Rowan Williams was more of a leader, your strategy would make more sense. Heâ€™s not! Unfortunately even if the dissenting bishops attend, the result may ultimately just sweep the issues under the carpet, anyway, and be a PR win for the progressives and a loss for the Faith. The other danger is that just one more year of this and more of the adherents of traditional Anglicanism will just find another denomination in which they may feel safe.
God is the not the God of the Third World, or of the First World, or of the Global South, or of the “Global North.”
Those who seek to worship The Lord MUST worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. BUT those who are more interested in worshipping themselves, their “processes”, or the god of their own invention, have a choice to make.
What we are hearing from the organizers of GAFCON and other faithful and God-honoring courageous people of God is “as for me and my family, we will worship The Lord.”
The ultimate question that we need to be asking our ABC is, “Do you think all the faithful Primates, the Bishops, the Priests, the Deacons, and the Laity in this Anglican Communion are all idiots and babies?”
Some of the soundly-faithful Bishops the world over may not attend the GAFCON and may very well attend Lambeth, but that is alright -as far as they also respect the Primates, Bishops, and others who are not going to Lambeth, but to Jerusalem.
On the choice of Jerusalem as the location for the pilgrim, where better?
And the beat goes on.
Fr. Kinglsey Jon-Ubabuco
I agree with your practical suggestions, particularly covering the costs. If ACN (or some other body) starts a fund to pay the expenses of GS bishops to attend, I’ll subscribe.
Rowan Williams is not the leader I would have chosen, but there are other leaders in the Global South to whom I would prefer to look for leadership before Archbishop Peter. We don’t have that choice, however; we’re called on to work with what we’re given. I’m frustrated with Canterbury, but I’m also disturbed by the apparent inability of many of the GS primates – who share a common theology – to work in a more conciliar fashion. That tells me something about our prospective future and it’s not something I relish.
Alexandria would have been far better, for a whole host of reasons.
The problem that I see with Lambeth is the undue influence exerted by The Episcopal Church…….with Canada tagging along behind and in agreement with what they do. Until this situation changes, we can’t expect anything positive to come out of the Conference.
Just MY opinion, of course.
Nothing here from the bishops of Chester, Liverpool, Lewes, or Rochester.
Can anyone say what is the point of Lambeth ’08 if it’s essentially a big Bible study/prayer meeting in one of the most expensive coutnries on earth?
Re: #6 “Alexandria would have been far better, for a whole host of reasons.”
But we know that if it were to be Alexandria, then the cry from the usual suspects will be: “Akinola and his Africans are hijacking the Communnion and are ‘making an African statement’.
Yes, we all know the history of Alexandria, BUT no one is unaware of the spin-masters’ unending distraction to the working of the Holy Spirit – NOT “that” spirit – in this matter.
Christ had to go to Jerusalem, even though He knew how “unsafe” it was for Him. Today, GAFCON can do no better. Jerusalem is far safer for GACON than it was for Christ.
By the way, Cennydd, welcome to Titusonenine.
You have no idea how much I have valued your input (from that other great blog site) over the past several years.
God Bless you, my brother.
re 7: Given the track of the last Lambeth, I don’t see why anyone would think that the “undue influence” of the Americans is going to prevail this time. Anyone who thinks that Cantuar is ECUSA’s ally in this simply has not been listening. Indeed, it seems to me that it’s going to take all the resolution-writing the English can muster to keep the Americans from being summarily tossed out as soon as the conference begins.
FWIS, I think the folks who won’t go to Lambeth, are not so much worried about any coercion or interference at the Conference per se, but rather believe that NO MATTER WHAT THE LAMBETH CONFERENCE DECIDES, Rowan Williams and the ACO will nullify it.
Think of the Anglican Instruments of Unity as analogous to the brances of government. The Lambeth Conference would track to the House of Representatives/Commons. The Primates Meeting would track to the Senate/House of Lords. Together they are the legislative branch.
The ABC and the ACO would track to the president/PM and the executive agencies (i.e. the executive branch). Typically in government, the legislatures pass the laws and the executive implements them.
It is my supposition that the Lambeth boycotters would argue that the Rowan Williams (the Executive branch) has sufficient warrant from the Primates’ Meetings and previous Lambeth Conference (i.e. sufficient legislative authorization) to bring order to the Communion. The problem is not that we need more legislative decisons, but rather, that the legislative decisions need to be acted on by the executive.
Accordingly, holding yet another legislative session is pointless if the executive branch has demonstrated that it is unwilling to carry out the legislative decisions. And that unwillingness and its realization by the members of the legislative bodies are what is causing the “breakdown in trust” that the boycotting Primates feel towards Rowan Williams and the Communion process.
Now, I would still urge all to attend Lambeth, simply because I think it is important for all Anglican bishops to continue pressing the call for more action, but I understand why the boycott is happening.
The whole process reminds me on an American football game. Fourth quarter, fourth down and less than a minute on the clock. The orthodox still have control of the ball and are a few points behind. Do they punt with the wildest hope that the opposition fumbles instead of running out the clock? What is necessary to save their game? Maybe a bold action.