We think it is important to let you know our reasons for not acceding to your request, and also to make them public since your letter is public. We have a number of concerns.
First, the Lambeth Conference is not a two hour seminar discussing a contentious issue. It is three weeks in which we bishops and our wives are called to share together our lives, our prayer, our bible study, our meals, our worship and the Lord’s Supper, to be a family together.
You will know that some of us have not been able to take communion with the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church since February 2005, – a period of about three years. The reason is that TEC took an action to consecrate Gene Robinson as Bishop in 2003 contrary to the resolution of the Lambeth Conference, an action of which they have not repented. The consecrators of Gene Robinson have all been invited to Lambeth, contrary to the statement of the Windsor Report (para 134) that members of the Episcopal Church should “consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion”.
You will know that some of those who objected to this consecration in the United States and have made arrangements for orthodox oversight from other provinces including ours have been charged with abandonment of communion. Their congregations have either forfeited or are being sued for their properties by the very bishops with whom you wish us to share Christian family fellowship for three weeks.
Great news! The Global South has just disenfranchised themselves. I do take some exception to a few statements though:
contrary to the statement of the Windsor Report (para 134) that members of the Episcopal Church should “consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion”.
It is only contrary if TEC did not consider withdrawal. They considered it and decided to attend-at ++Rowan’s invitation
and yet excludes bishops of our own provinces, of Rwanda, Nigeria, Kenya and Uganda who teach and practice Biblical faith. As constituted, the invitations suggest that institutional structures are superior to the content of the faith itself.
Since the bishops are not bishops of the Anglican Communion, why should they be invited? No one would argue that Pope Benedict XVI does not “teach and practice Biblical faith” yet he did not receive an invitation.
We would be the continual target of activist campaigners and media intrusion. In these circumstances we could not feel at home.
Now this is the height of hypocrisy!
In 1998, we had great difficulty in making our case heard in the face of the process of the conference.
Then how did Lambeth 1.10 pass?
As you may or may not know, I have been critical at times of the African Bishops not coming to Lambeth. However, this letter, with its clarity and conciseness, helps me to be much more comfortable with the decision. Thanks, Archbishops.
No hypocrisy, Brian. IIRC, the original agenda of Lambeth 1998 made no provision for the discussion of sexuality issues nor for any explicit doctrinal statement by the conference. By dint of a great deal of effort and parliamentary maneuvering, the Global South representatives succeeded in changing the agenda to allow such a discussion to move forward.
The letter does not say “in 1998 we were altogether denied the opportunity to make our case”; it only says that they did so with great difficulty. There was indeed “great difficulty,” which the Global South overcame through great effort.
Since the bishops are not bishops of the Anglican Communion …
Each such bishop was canonically elected by a province in full communion with the See of Canterbury, and duly consecrated by bishops in full communion with the See of Canterbury. As such they are bishops of the Anglican Communion. One may make a case that their exercise of jurisdiction and episcopal ministry within North America is irregular or uncanonical; but to say that they are not bishops of the Anglican Communion is ridiculous. Certainly ++Cantuar has pointedly declined to say that they are not valid Anglican bishops.
BfT19,
What the homosexualists in ECUSA had hoped to gain from Robinson’s consecration as Bishop of New Hampshire was a strong foothold of ‘respectability’ within the middle and upper class social structure of the USA. They were willing to put the whole Anglican Communion at risk in order to gain this status. Their quotes can ‘dug up’ and cited to support this point of view. They felt supremely confident since they had managed to co-opt and control most of ECUSA’s leadership. They also felt that the vast amounts of money that ECUSA could either supply or deny to the poorer primacies, the more needy people, of the Anglican Communion would force those primacies to accept their radical innovations of “the Faith once given,” whatever they happened to be.
Now they are faced with a regurgitation by a large part of the Anglican Communion of the spiritual heresy, yea apostasy, that they have been trying to force down the throats of those who ‘hold to’ “the Faith once given.”
Ahhh, excuse me, Brian, but just exactly WHEN did these bishops and primates of the Gllobal South “disenfranchise themselves from the Anglican Communion?” I’ve neither seen nor heard anything that indicates to me that they did! MY bishop, +John-David, certainly didn’t…….and neither did our diocese!
I think we are seeing the huge price that has been paid in Dr Williams’ credibility. Over half the Communion are not playing along. There is a lot of work for him to do. Otherwise it seems likely that there will be further ructions. Which would be tragic.
This is all tragic. A decision not to receive communion as a statement is just the reverse of those who use the Eucharist to make statements. The spirit of the age is alive and well on both sides of the divide.
The establishment of cafeteria communions in the US is another example of post-modern individualism and multiple choice. No doubt after the Conference these very primates will feel free to negatively criticize developments they played no constructive part in constructing. It’s all politics.
Ahhh, excuse me, Brian, but just exactly WHEN did these bishops and primates of the Gllobal South “disenfranchise themselves from the Anglican Communion?†I’ve neither seen nor heard anything that indicates to me that they did!
They didn’t and I am not sure what you are quoting above, but it isn’t me. I said they disenfranchised themselves. They gave up their voice at Lambeth.
MY bishop, +John-David, certainly didn’t…….and neither did our diocese!
Your bishop is not recognized by ++Canterbury. Neither your Bishop nor any members of his breakaway church are members of the Anglican Communion. Are you all Anglican? Sure-in polity. Are you part of the Southern Cone? Sure. Are you a member of the Anglican Communion, defined as being in communion with the See of Canterbury? No. Chris Jones may want you to be and there is no doubt that certain bishops are misrepresenting the factto you, but the ABC does not consider them bishops of the AC. Are they bishops? Absolutely. Just not Anglican Communion bishops.
AnglicanFirst
Now they are faced with a regurgitation by a large part of the Anglican Communion of the spiritual heresy, yea apostasy, that they have been trying to force down the throats of those who ‘hold to’ “the Faith once given.â€
I think you are correct, but the question remains as to what practical effect that has. We still attend Lambeth and all of the Councils of the Church. Our bishops are still recognized by Canterbury. The practical effect is nothing. The people holding the Faith once given are the ones who are losing out. Their attempts are thwarted at every single turn. I admire them for taking a stand and having the strength of their convictions. It comes at great cost.
Do give up trotting out this tripe and piffle, Brian.
Now there’s a good chap.
Reply to BfT19 (#9.),
Maybe the focus of the orthodox of the Anglican Communion will no longer be Canterbury.
Maybe there will be a new focus of the Anglican Faith that will remain solidly part of the Church Catholic, establish excellent ecumenical credentials with Rome and the Eastern Orthodox and may soon come into ‘communion’ with the rest of the Church Catholic, all without Canterbury. All without ECUSA.
Maybe ECUSA will become a paraiah within the Church Catholic. Maybe all that ECUSA will be left with will be ‘faithless’ liturgy and a bunch of clergy wearing fancy outfits.
Pageantmaster
I’ll give up the tripe as I’ve never had the stomach for it! Get it? But I’ll hold onto the piffle since it is the same piffle spoken by the ABC.
AnglicanFirst
I think you are correct. I think a division is inevitable. But it will more likely be along the lines that +Duncan describes – a First World vs. Third World division with orthodoxy centering in Africa or the Global South. The Anglican remnant will indeed be small, but it will remain the Anglican Communion because of its Anglican link. The new orthodox communion which remains part of the church catholic will not have an anglican connection because it will not be connected to England. It may be the Global Communion with an Anglican style of worship, but if you change the focus from England to Uganda, it is no longer Anglican. It’s like the Roman Catholic Church leaving Rome and still wanting to be Roman Catholic – by simple definition it can’t be.
It was my understanding that there was to be no voting at Lambeth 2008. In that case no one is enfranchised.
I don’t take this letter to mean they are leaving the Anglican Communion. Nor has Archbishop Rowan indicated that he sees those unwilling or unable to attend as out of communion.
Doubtless Brian will be aware (especially as the letter kindly mentions it) of the state of imapred or broken communion which exists between several Provinces of the Communion and the Episcopal Church.
BfromT19 writes about +Schofield, “Your bishop is not recognized by ++Canterbury.” Hmm, still has an invite to the tea party. It has not been revoked. Also, the oversight plan by Venebles was described as “reasonable” by RW prior to its implementation. Also, RW stated the diocese is the center of Anglican authority. Ah, but perhaps Brian had a personal audience with the old ditherer and knows more than we.
[blockquote] It may be the Global Communion with an Anglican style of worship, but if you change the focus from England to Uganda, it is no longer Anglican. [/blockquote]
And when there is no more CoE? What then? RW has chosen to cast his lot with TEC. I have understood he would do this since he betrayed his hand at Dar Es Salaam. He could not lead where his own church leadership would not follow. But the consequence of this division on theological lines will not be isolated from the UK. The CoE will become embroiled in the struggle, and begin to devolve. TEC will emerge as the de facto leader of (what remains of) the Anglican Communion, and push it in even more radical directions. One by one the more orthodox provinces will peel themselves off.
This is not the end, Brian. This is the beginning. It is the beginning of the end of the Canterbury-centered Anglican Communion.
carl
Hmm, still has an invite to the tea party.It has not been revoked.
Do we know this to be true?
Also, the oversight plan by Venebles was described as “reasonable†by RW prior to its implementation.
Actually, this was a lie or misrepresentation spread by ++Venables and +Lyons, who quickly corrected themselves when the ABC sais:
The view that has been expressed by all the Instruments of Communion in recent years is that interventions are not to be sanctioned.
The fact that this misrepresentation is still believed and quoted shows how people have been influenced to leave the Anglican Communion by being told they are still members in it.
Also, RW stated the diocese is the center of Anglican authority.
In a completely different context. But assume that is the case, the recognized diocese is the center of Anglican authority. These breakaways are not recognized – TEC is.
Brian, your glee is unseemly. And premature.
Doubtless Hell does not recognize Heaven, and considers its denizens to be the “breakaways”. But Hell is still Hell because it wants to make up its own rules.
Every Saint – [i] every Saint [/i] – of the Church, and Scripture too, denounces your position. Does that not give you homosexualists pause?
Wilfred
I’m not a homosexualist (at least as far as my understanding of that term, which is someone who actively promotes homosexuality).
Does the fact that Scripture and Tradition denounce my position give me pause? Yes. That is why I take the issue so seriously and contribute to this blog. In fact, I specifically visit Stand Firm and T19 to see what the arguments are of ‘the other side’ to see if I need to change my position. So again, yes, it gives me pause. That being said, I don’t necessarily see my position as a contradiction of Scripture and Tradition, but rather as complementary to Scripture and Tradition. Anew understanding of Scripture and appreciation for the culture of Tradition.
“Does the fact that Scripture and Tradition denounce my position give me pause? Yes.”
Condemned from your own mouth, my friend. No serious Christian asks: ‘How far can I differ from what has been received as the Word of Christ?’ but ‘how can I be more faithful to it?’. Believe your beliefs and doubt your doubts.
So Brian from T19 in your understanding:
The “Anglican Communion” will continue with those who don’t believe what Anglicans believe but who are nevertheless in some way focused on a bloke in Canterbury? This is the constantly-declining, first world version – I guess by definition this is the best, after all it is Western and mainly white.
Meanwhile, something called the “non-Anglican Communion” will continue with those who do believe what Anglicans believe (this is now merely a “style of worship” apparently) and who focus on Christ but don’t formally relate to Canterbury? This is the growing third world version – note, it’s third world and third rate….
Me thinks you are deceiving yourself.
naab00
Deceiving yourself is believing that you can change the meaning of a word because you want to. The word Anglican originates in ecclesia anglicana, a medieval Latin phrase dating to at least 1246 meaning the English Church. See, English Church – Church of England – get it?
As for your belief that the First World is better than the Third World, I can’t really agree. I see it as different, not better, but you are entitled to your opinion.
Brian, you said:
“The people holding the Faith once given are the ones who are losing out. Their attempts are thwarted at every single turn.”
If the orthodox are the ones holding the faith once given by Jesus and the early church, why Brian, are you not one of the orthodox? Revisionists no no longer hold that position but live in a post Christian, relativistic society. How can you choose the latter, knowing the former? The words of Jesus give the lie to those who dismiss the veracity of His words.
BTW Brian, attendance at Lambeth is not a prerequisite for membership in the AC. It’s a get-together, a party. Guests may choose to attend or not attend; that is their prerogative. Their reasons for non-attendance may not please some (or may please some) but non-attendance has happened before for reasons of conscience.
“Your bishop is not recognized by Canterbury.” Since when, may I ask? And by extension, “Your Church is not recognized?” Seems to me the Province of the Southern Cone IS recognized…….and HAS been since its founding. I detect confusion here.
[i] This is not Brian’s blog. Please return to discussing the post. [/i]
-Elf Lady
The choice to not attend by these Provinces is certainly one of conscience. But they do so at a great cost, as I think they know from the letter they have written. I don’t believe it is an easy choice (again the letter shows that much thought/prayer went into it). But their voice is silenced. As they said above:
In 1998, we had great difficulty in making our case heard in the face of the process of the conference.
Now they have no chance of being heard. One could argue that silence is a statement I suppose. But without their voice they lose something powerful. I think they are correct in saying that there is still time to be heard on the covenant, but this is a major opportunity for interaction and it will not be in this form until 2018 (when presumably the AC will look very different).
“It may be the Global Communion with an Anglican style of worship, but if you change the focus from England to Uganda, it is no longer Anglican. It’s like the Roman Catholic Church leaving Rome and still wanting to be Roman Catholic – by simple definition it can’t be.”
Bingo. Anglican means English.
Maybe those who go to Canterbury in July should have that as number one on their agenda for discussion and decision? Let’s put it to the vote around the Communion: when you come to Canterbury and say you’re members of the Anglican Communion, are you claiming to be English?
There is absolutely NO doubt what the outcome would be – totally and utter denial.
Do you think Dr Williams would claim to be English? Now that would be something.
“”We would be the continual target of activist campaigners and media intrusion. In these circumstances we could not feel at home.””
Now this is the height of hypocrisy!”
No this is not hypocrisy at all. It is wise. It is exactly what happened in 1998: as all the sensational photos of Peter Tatchell with a Nigerian Bishop show: Orthodox Anglican confronted by campaigner and media circus.
And
“” In 1998, we had great difficulty in making our case heard in the face of the process of the conference.” Then how did Lambeth 1.10 pass?”
By God’s grace and sovereignty. Thanks be to God.
On the topic of +Schofield and his invitation to Lambeth, I’m pretty sure that +++Rowan will wait at least until the HOB makes a ruling before he decides whether to rescind the invitation or let it stand.
On the topic of the “Anglican” Communion, I’m going to hazard a guess that the GS Primates represented by this letter aren’t going to sweat too hard over whether they’re entitled to the name “Anglican” or not. The largely-GS, African-centered Communion that many of us think is one of the likely outcomes of this journey may call themselves the Southern Anglican Communion or the Orthodox Anglican Communion or the African Anglican Communion or the Communion Formerly Known As Anglican if they want to, or they could drop the word “Anglican” from their name entirely; they’ll still be a groups of churches rooted in the Anglican tradition. As will TEC still be, even if it should come about that we get booted from the Canterbury-centered Communion.
The tie that our various churches have to England is a bit of historical trivia. The relevance of the Anglican Communion is that despite our disparate cultures and languages we share a recognizably common way of being Christians, which we dub the Anglican tradition by reason of that bit of historical trivia. The crisis facing us is not whether we or Nigeria or whomever still have ties to England or not, it is rather — as +++Rowan said in his Advent letter — whether we still share that recognizably common way of being Christians, by whatever name we want to call it. If we don’t, then it may well be best for us to go our seperate ways. No doubt every faction going separate ways will claim to be the only one honoring the true tradition of the Anglican way of being Christian, but that’s human nature.
The Church of England itself will have to figure out which branch of the forking tradition it wants to follow — or whether it will divide and go multiple ways — and while the Church of England will always be Anglican by one definition, people will have different opinions on whether the C of E is staying within the tradition that most truly represents the common-way-of-being-Christian known as Anglicanism. In that sense, you could have people arguing without absurdity that the C of E is no longer really Anglican.