By George Conger
BISHOP Gene Robinson is not coming to Lambeth. The New Hampshire bishop, CANA Bishop Martyn Minns and Bishop Chuck Murphy of the AMiA and his suffragans will not receive invitations to the July 16 to Aug 4 gathering in Canterbury of the bishops of the Anglican Communion, Canon Kenneth Kearon, the secretary of the 2008 Lambeth Conference said this week.
Invitations to the 2008 conference have been mailed to over 800 bishops by the Conference’s host, the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams. Invitations to two other diocesan bishops, including the controversial Bishop of Harare, Dr Nolbert Kunonga, have been held pending further “consultation,” said Canon Kearon, the ACC secretary general. Dr Williams is “seeking further advice” on inviting Dr Kunonga, Canon Kearon told The Church of England Newspaper but noted his case and that of “one or two others” had “nothing to do with the Windsor process.” In 2002 the EU banned Dr Kunonga from travel to Europe in response to his complicity with the crimes of the regime of Zimbabwe strongman Robert Mugabe.
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.
In a letter accompanying the invitation, Dr Williams stated he hoped the meeting would be “a place where we can try and get more clarity about the limits of our diversity and the means of deepening our Communion, so we can speak together with conviction and clarity to the world.”
He noted that Lambeth would not be “a formal Synod or Council of the bishops of the Communion” nor does attending the Conference commit a bishop to accept “the position of others as necessarily a legitimate expression of Anglican doctrine and discipline, or to any action that would compromise your conscience or the integrity of your local church.” Dr Williams said he had reserved the right “to withhold or withdraw invitations from bishops whose appointment, actions or manner of life have caused exceptionally serious division or scandal within the Communion.”
Canon Kearon stated there was “no question that Gene Robinson had been duly elected and consecrated” Bishop of New Hampshire in 2005. However, paragraph133 of the Windsor Report recommends the Archbishop “exercise very considerable caution in inviting or admitting him to the councils of the Communion,” he said.
The “archbishop recognises the widespread objections in many parts of the communion to [Bishop Robinson’s] consecration and to his ministry,” said Canon Kearon. However, the “Archbishop intends to explore the possibility of inviting [Bishop Robinson] to Lambeth as a guest or observer,” he added.
The Bishops of the Anglican Mission in America would not be invited to Lambeth because of the decision taken by Archbishop George Carey in 2000. Archbishop Carey “wrote to them saying he could not recognise their ministry” and that their “consecrations were irregular,” Canon Kearon explained. This decision was “confirmed at Oporto” by the Primates in 2000 and the “decision was already fixed” by Dr Williams’ predecessor.
The case of CANA Bishop Martyn Minns exhibits “no difference” from the AMiA and he falls into the same category, Canon Kearon said.
Dr Williams has been under intense pressure to act upon the Lambeth invitations. While the Conference has no juridical powers, it is seen as the symbolic centre of Anglican identity ”” and the arbiter of who is and is not an Anglican. The Primate of Canada, Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, urged Dr Williams to postpone Lambeth to forestall the political confrontation
expected.
A number of American and British bishops had suggested they may boycott Lambeth should Bishop Robinson not be invited.
However, on May 15 the Primate of the West Indies, Archbishop Drexel Gomez told The Church of England Newspaper the Global South Primates had written to Dr. Williams saying that if Bishop Robinson were invited to Lambeth, the Global South bishops would not attend.
–This article appears in the May 25, 2007 edition of the Church of England Newspaper
Remember friends, this is Kearon’s take on things while the Archbishop is out of town.
I think one ought to ask George Carey if Bishop Minns’ ordination is the same as the AMiA ordinations. If Martyn’s consecration was irregular, that would be news to Archbishop Akinola and could actually the mean that all consecrations were irregular or at least not recognized around the communion–making us a federation, not a communion at all without even a shared ministry–and what would this say even about baptism.
OK, this solves the question of who the third diocesan bishop (aside from New Hampshire and Harare) is. Bp. Cavalcanti is not recognized by the Episcopal Church of Brazil as a diocesan bishop, and has been deposed from the valid exercise of episcopal orders within that province. While he has been accepted as a bishop (without letters dimissory) by the Province of the Southern Cone, the Anglican Instruments of Communion have not yet recognized the existence of a Diocese of Recife within that province. Doing so would prejudge the question of whether one province can establish a diocesan hierarchy within the territory of another without the consent of either the local province or the Communion generally. Since that is likely to be one of the matters under discussion at Lambeth with reference to TEC, leaving the question open until “further consultation” seems wise.
Re #1: I suspect Abp. Carey would say that they are the same. The initial AMiA bishops were consecrated by overseas provinces as bishops of those provinces to serve as Anglican missionaries to America, just like Bp. Minns. The issue is not whether all these consecrations are valid or irregular in sacramental terms; everyone concedes that Rwanda, South East Asia, and Nigeria can consecrate whoever they like as their own bishop in accordance with their own canons. The question is whether a bishop consecrated under those circumstances and serving in the College of Bishops of one province can validly exercise jurisdiction within another province without that province’s consent. Since only bishops with jurisdiction have been invited to this Conference (so far, and with two or three exceptions), issuing invitations to these bishops under these circumstances would be to settle in advance the very question that the Conference and the other Instruments of Communion need to settle,
Looks like the Communion will be falling Apart on +++William’s watch after all. I applaud the Global South primates on their stand for truth.
Zechariah
“The Bishops of the Anglican Mission in America would not be invited to Lambeth because of the decision taken by Archbishop George Carey in 2000. Archbishop Carey “wrote to them saying he could not recognise their ministry†and that their “consecrations were irregular,†Canon Kearon explained. This decision was “confirmed at Oporto†by the Primates in 2000 and the “decision was already fixed†by Dr Williams’ predecessor.”
If Carey was the one that they are “blaming” for the exclusion of AMIA, why can’t this be undone? Is seems to me that if they recognize the AB of Rwanda, they would have to recognize AMIA, as it is a part of that.
Given Kearon’s letter to Louie Crew and his already expressed (on several occasions) disdain (contempt?) for Rowan Williams, one wonders why he is still functioning as the “Secretary-General”. This man should have been asked to clean out his office a year ago.
This is unadulterated Anglican fudge. Since it comes from the easterly side of the pond, I assume it is sprinkled with English walnuts.
Non-fudge translation: “We’re having a conference. But don’t worrry, the conference does not mean anything and we’re not going to actually DO anything, so all you chaps can come and not worry about your trifling objectons to one another’s theologies or ecclesiologies or Christologies or….
I need to head over to the laffin’ patch for a spell. This is getting to me.
Clarification: when I said “validly exercise jurisdiction,” I did not mean to imply that the bishop’s own province could not recognize his jurisdiction as valid. Plainly, they can. However, it is quite another thing to say that one province’s determination must be recognized by every other. By analogy, women bishops have been elected by four Anglican churches, but the state of impaired communion that has existed since Hong Kong began regularly ordaining women in the 1970s means that they can serve in their own four churches but perhaps not in the other forty (certainly not in the ones that have specifically disallowed women bishops). Similarly, the fact that the AMiA and CANA bishops can serve in their own provinces does not bind the Communion to recognize any jurisdiction outside those provinces.
Dale Rye said:
How can they legitimately bring such matters up for ‘discussion’ in a venue which has no standing as “a formal Synod or Council of the bishops of the Communion†???
5/24/07
“CANA Bishop Martyn Minns and Bishop Chuck Murphy of the AMiA”
Maybe Bishop Minns and Bishop Murphy and other extra territorial Bishops should consider a conference for Anglicans not invited to Lambeth (i.e. Continuing Bishops, etc.), to be held concurrently with Lambeth 2008?
I would like to thank Fr. Chapman for his insight into how Pittsburgh is viewing the situation and the 4 views he mentioned as being discussed. His insight into timing was also insight, patience vs. action. It is clear that, on strategy, which I think he is very good at articulating, there does not appear to be a common mind.
I am very interested in the fact Cavalcanti was not invited to Lambeth, nor mentioned in the interview. I believed that he and his priests had “transferred†to Southern Cone. Does his lack of invitation imply anything at all about how ++Williams may view such “transfersâ€? Is the “transfer†itself the presenting issue that led to the the decision not to invite, or something personal to +Cavalcanti? If the issue is the “tranfer,”, does this have implications for Pittsburgh, San Joaquin, Ft. Worth etc. Given that the network dioceses are likely to argue that they are the legitimate members of the Anglican Communion in the US, based on the “constituent†member reference in the TEC constitution preamble, is there any kind of signal that can be gleaned from the Cavalcanti situation? Just tea leaf gazing
Emilyh, I am afraid that “transfer” is not the problem for +Cavalcanti. Rather it is turf. ++Venables is impinging on the turf of Brazil without Brazil’s permission, just as CANA and AMiA are doing on TEC’s turf.
Historically, parishes, dioceses, and provinces were geographic entities. If you lived there, you belonged. Consequently, some 1800 years worth of church legislation and precedents (tradition, if you will) have set out the rules for a church organized in that manner. Primarily, they provided that jurisdictions could not geographically overlap and that the authorities in one area could not act in another area without the consent of the local authorities. There were quite specific rules going back to the Council of Nicaea in 325 for how clergy could transfer (essentially, only with the consent of both jurisdictions) and when clergy could exercise their orders outside their jurisdiction (only in an emergency or with consent from both jurisdictions).
Lately, there have been changes to the geographic model. Parishes have increasingly operated as affinity groups rather than geographic units; only those who worship in the parish church are regarded as members, but all the worshipers can be members regardless of where they live. Since not everyone in a locality belongs to the same denomination anymore, we take it for granted that the denominations will have geographically overlapping jurisdictions. In the case of Anglicanism, there cases of both dioceses that overlap (everyplace in New Zealand falls within the boundaries of three overlapping jurisdictions) and provinces that are not neat geographic packages (TEC is not just in the US but in parts of Asia and Latin America, and there are a significant number of Church of South India parishes within the US).
However, all these changes have occurred with the consent of all the jurisdictions that are affected. What is new about the AMiA, CANA, and Recife situations is the effort by one province to exercise jurisdiction within the geographic bounds of another over the local province’s strenuous objections. That is a situation that clearly cannot continue within a single Communion. There are several possible solutions: (1) expel the province that has provoked the border-crossing; (2) expel the province that has done the border-crossing; (3) stop both the provocations and the border-crossing, with a promise of expulsion in the event of noncompliance [this is essentially the position taken by the Windsor Report and subsequent acts of the Instruments of Communion]; or (4) reorganize the Anglican Communion along non-geographic lines.
The difficulty with the last of these is just how to structure the transition without turning dioceses into voluntary associations of like-minded parishes and provinces into voluntary associations of like-minded dioceses. Even that isn’t a problem for those who think that parishes should be free to run themselves without authoritative oversight, but it is hard to reconcile that notion with Anglican doctrines of the church.
“turning dioceses into voluntary associations of like-minded parishes and provinces into voluntary associations of like-minded dioceses” could only be called Anglican if there were a set of limits on what ‘Anglican’ must mean, i.e., a ‘confession’ or an authoritative interpretation of the 39 articles, etc.
It seems that +++Williams is adamant that his 2008 invitational gathering shall not be used for any such purpose as setting limits on what the bounds of ‘Anglican’ may be.
This report ignores the more recent statements of the primates that indicate that the AMIA and CANA are fully members of the Anglican Communion which means that their bishops ought to be invited to Lambeth.