House of Bishops statement on the Lambeth Conference

As the Lambeth Conference approaches, we believe we have an enormous opportunity, in the midst of struggle, to be proud of our heritage, and to use this particular time in a holy way by affirming our rich diversity. The health of such diversity is that we are dealing openly with issues that affect the entire global community. Thus, even as we acknowledge the pain felt by many, we also affirm its holiness as we seek to be faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ.

Even though we did not all support the consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire, we acknowledge that he is a canonically elected and consecrated bishop in this church. We regret that he alone among bishops ministering within the territorial boundaries of their dioceses and provinces, did not receive an invitation to attend the Lambeth Conference.

Read it all.


Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, Episcopal Church (TEC), Lambeth 2008, TEC Bishops

39 comments on “House of Bishops statement on the Lambeth Conference

  1. Pageantmaster Ù† says:

    I have noticed with passive-aggressive behaviour that having done something absolutely atrocious, that people will then seek to claim some other justification: that they are guided by prayer, the Holy Spirit, pastoral concern, or acknowledgments of ‘pain’ as in presumably ‘this is hurting me more than it is hurting you’.

    We have seen the House of Bishops’ true colors today; arrogant, unrepentant, vicious and spiteful in their treatment of poor bishop Cox in particular as well as of another bishop of our Communion, Bishop Schofield. We have seen the same from Bishop Ingham in his treatment of that wonderful man of god Rev Packer.

    Gentlemen – it is not what you say but what you do that we all look at – and I would be careful of praying in aid the Holy Spirit. Our God is a jealous God and one should fear taking His Name in vain.

  2. Christopher Johnson says:

    Episcopalians. We say less longer than anyone in Christendom..

  3. Randy Muller says:

    A fatuous statement that can be translated as follows:

    “We’re right to do it because we can do it (although not all of us wanted to do it) and nobody can tell us we’re wrong. Live into it.”

    The Bishops quote St. Francis, but they fail to adopt either his humility or his character.

  4. Phil says:

    I apologize in advance, but this just makes me angry.

    Lord, have mercy.

    This disgrace of a House, after working hard to rip the 500-year-old Anglican Communion apart, has the gall to moan that Gene Robinson, alone among their number, didn’t receive a Lambeth invitation? They’re partly right: many more of them shouldn’t be going, either.

    And yet, these frauds have stood by, without saying a damn thing, while Jack Spong slurs our Faith? While Gaia masses and clown masses go on? While the sacrament of our Lord’s Body and Blood is profaned across this province? While some of their own members get before microphones and lie to everybody’s face about whether gay “marriages” are sanctioned in ECUSA? While Vince Warner laughs it up over a Muslim “priest” in his diocese? While Charles Bennison gets away with his antics in Pennsylvania until Schori needs a convenient scapegoat to balance out today’s actions? While they spit on a Godly man, like William Cox, who has dedicated his life to the church they cavalierly blaspheme? While their Presiding Bishop denies the divinity of our Lord, God and Savior?

    And among those issuing this statement are the “Windsor Bishop” frauds?

    To paraphrase Joseph Welch, Let us not assassinate this church further, bishops. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency? For God’s sake, have you no shame?

    Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me, a sinner.

  5. BillS says:

    Given Schori’s expressed concerns over global warming, aren’t the bishops concerned that all of the carbon dioxide that they will generate flying to England will melt the ice caps and swamp their South Pacific neighbors?

    Or are restrictions on carbon only for other, less important people to worry about, because they, after all are IMPORTANT! With IMPORTANT things to do, and meet about, and talk about, because they are BISHOPS, going to LAMBETH, which is too IMPORTANT to pass up because of concerns over Global Warming.

    Of course, Bp Robinson will make his contribution to carbon reduction by staying home, because he is not invited anyway.

    TEC has truly become the theater of the absurd.

  6. Harry Edmon says:

    What in the world does this mean:

    our unity in the comprehensiveness of diversity.

    Lord, help us!

  7. Bill Melnyk says:

    I must say I’m disappointed. The entire US House of Bishops should have declined to attend a gathering at which one of their number is not welcome.

  8. pendennis88 says:

    Somehow, I doubt the Franciscans view “daring charity” to include a scorched earth litigation strategy. But that probably just emphasizes the difference between the theological views of St. Francis and those of an episcopal bishop.

  9. Harry Edmon says:

    Bill Melnyk – but then they would not get to look important and try to run their own agenda at Lambeth. If you are looking for a group that stands on principle you have to look to places like Nigeria. For TEC it is whatever advances their agenda no matter what.

  10. jayanthony says:

    I eagerly await the so called Camp Allen/Windsor Bishops minority report; or will this be met with the silence that has already been more than deafening?

  11. Jackson says:

    I just put this through the 815 to English Translator.

    Result: Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah and a lot more Blah.

  12. seitz says:

    Kendall Harmon–I wonder what the general ground rules are on gratuitous and unrelated responses focussed on what CA Bishops ought or ought not do — including of course your own bishop?

  13. Chancellor says:

    [blockquote] In union with Christian tradition through the centuries, we are willing to face challenges that precipitate struggle as a means towards reconciliation. [/blockquote]

    Truly Orwellian doublespeak. They “face” “challenges” which “precipitate struggle”—so they did not cause any of the current troubles; instead, the struggles are a natural physical consequence of the challenge they took on to ratify the election of a practicing gay Bishop in defiance of the advice of a Lambeth resolution!

    Moreover, sticking that rejection of their resolution in the face of the Anglican Communion was [i]not [/i] an act that would “tear the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level”—oh, no, far from it—it was simply “a means toward reconciliation”!

    (As was their attempt to “depose” two Bishops no longer members of TEC, but under the jurisdiction of other Provinces, no doubt.)

    Doublespeak like this is not Christian; it is pagan. The only comment that can be made in the face of it is: “Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.”

  14. The_Elves says:

    Dr Seitz, in the future it might be better to address such queries offline? If you are referring to #10, I’m not sure how wondering aloud whether there will be a minority report is a gratuitous attack? And certainly there has been silence from the Camp Allen bishops before (notably New Orleans). I don’t see anything to rule out of bounds, but I’ve forwarded your query/concern to Kendall. Perhaps he’ll chime in or e-mail you.

    I fear my intervention here may inflame this thread, but for now, I don’t see any comments that raise the flags along the lines of the concerns you cite.

    Please may I ask that any future interaction about Dr. Seitz’s remark or my follow up be conducted by private message or e-mail. They will be ruled off-topic on this thread.


  15. The_Elves says:

    Matt Kennedy+ left a comment which was posted as my #14 was being posted. He could not have seen my warning and I was originally set to leave it on the thread. But I’m realizing I can’t leave it without inviting further discussion of something we’ve ruled off-topic, so I had to delete it. Sorry Matt+

    As I said above, any future comments re: Dr. Seitz’s query to Kendall will be deleted. Thanks.

  16. seitz says:

    The basic issue is this. This is a thread about a HOB statement. It is not a thread about people’s enthusiasm for condemning CA bishops. I understand that SF is a blog where this kind of emotional and non-substantive comment is the name of the game. So Matt is spot on. And, he has already said as much. On SF. Time and time again we see the kind of comment made by him spiral into ad hominem, and a majoring in personal attacks. ‘Inconvenient comments’ — now there is a circumlocution.

  17. RevOrganist says:

    “Proud of our heritage….” Just what heritage are they proud of? They have trampled their heritage, traditions, and faith to death so that their forbearers would not recognize them. They have torn the Communion apart, and yet they remain proud and defiant. There is no humility or sorrow in anything they do or say.

  18. wildfire says:

    I wonder if there will be a more general statement or communique to come from the HOB. So far, all I have seen are this one on Lambeth and the equally enlightening one on Schofield and Cox, which has not been posted here but is on ENS. Is that all?

  19. robroy says:

    Is there going to be a minority report?

  20. The_Elves says:

    The Statement from the HoB re: the deposition of Cox and Schofield which Mark is referring to in #18 is here:

    The full text reads:

    The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church
    Meeting at Camp Allen Conference Center, Navasota, Texas
    March 12, 2008

    Calling on the reconciling love of our Lord Jesus Christ and mindful of our call to be servants of one another and of the mission and ministry of the whole church, we have taken the action of consenting to the deposition of our two brother bishops, John-David Schofield and William Cox. This outcome was is the painful culmination of a lengthy process of conciliation and review led by two Presiding Bishops. While earnest voices were raised asking if there were other alternatives at this time, the conclusion of the House of Bishops is that this action is based on the facts presented to us and is necessary for the ongoing integrity of The Episcopal Church. We seek also to respond to the needs of the people of the Diocese of San Joaquin. We are saddened by what we believe to be this necessary action and we have taken it only after deep prayer and serious conversation. We also wish to express our continuing commitment to work for reconciliation with our brothers and the People of God who have been the recipients of their pastoral leadership and care through the years.

  21. Pageantmaster Ù† says:

    Is there something missing from the HOB statements? Some acronym or other – CCCP or something – oh well never mind.

  22. jamesw says:

    Let’s examine carefully what is said in one of the more important paragraphs:

    Even though we did not all support the consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire, we acknowledge that he is a canonically elected and consecrated bishop in this church.

    I think that most conservatives will acknowledge that VGR was elected and consecrated within TEC’s canons.

    We regret that he alone among bishops ministering within the territorial boundaries of their dioceses and provinces, did not receive an invitation to attend the Lambeth Conference.

    Yes, and the liberals regret that “HE alone” was not invited, and think he should receive an invitation. And conservatives regret that “he ALONE” was not invited, and think that those who consecrated him should also be disinvited.

  23. Bill Melnyk says:

    #9 ~
    Nigeria? You mean the place where they still practice polygamy and female circumcision?

  24. Chris Hathaway says:

    [i] Edited by elf. [/i]

  25. Chris Hathaway says:

    [i] Edited by elf. [/i]

  26. Brian from T19 says:


    While #23 may be a bit gratuitous, he does have a point. Nigeria is certainly not an example of a group that stands on principle. You would be better off using ++Orombi.

  27. DaveG says:

    Spoken like a true Druid

  28. TomRightmyer says:

    Some of the bishops of the Episcopal Church – those who supported the consecration of Bishop Robinson and those who permit same-sex blessings – had an opportunity to decline their invitations to Lambeth. Had they done so they would have made the way clear for other bishops to attend. They could even have offered to pay their way. But the American bishops declined. Pity.

  29. Philip Snyder says:

    [blockquote]During our meeting we have been praying for a “daring charity and courteous understanding.” With this intent and guided by the Holy Spirit, we go to the Lambeth Conference spiritually united and praying that God will sanctify our struggles and unify us for Christ’s mission to a hurting world.[/blockquote]

    I am beginning to doubt the effecacy of prayer given the HOB’s “daring charity and courteous understanding” with regards to bishops Cox and Schofield.

    I am very angry right now at our HOB. I pray that God will deal with me and with the HOB. It is logically and morally wrong to insist on the ancient respect and traditions regarding bishops on the one hand and deny the ancient faith and traditions regarding morality with the other. May God have mercy on them and on us.

    Phil Snyder

  30. Little Cabbage says:

    #4 Phil: Thanks for your sadly correct comments! Right on, brother! What a FARCE!

  31. Bill Matz says:


    You concede too much. Numerous comments from NH have pointed to the fact that the VGR election was anything but fair, but was instead orchestrated by Bp Theuner. I cannot say definitively, but there is at least an honest question about the legitmacy of the election.

    There can be no question about the consecration invalidity. Abp Gomez clearly articulated the theological case. The canonical case is simply that VGR had knowingly, openly, and willingly violated the doctrine, discipline, and worship of TEC for years and could not, therefore, honestly take his consecration vows to uphold same.

  32. Cennydd says:

    If this House of Bishops really meant what they said in this statement, they never would’ve done what they did to two faithful Anglican Christian bishops, nor would they have gone along with the unbiblical innovations of the past few years.

    I’m sorry, but I don’t believe a word of what they say, and I don’t trust them…slightly edited.

  33. BrianInDioSpfd says:

    If one expects redeemed behavior from unregenerate folk, one is bound to be disappointed. I pray for the bishops of TEC to meet Jesus. As we pray this week in the collect:

    Almighty God, you alone can bring into order the unruly wills and affections of sinners: Grant your people grace to love what you command and desire what you promise; that, among the swift and varied changes of the world, our hearts may surely there be fixed where true joys are to be found; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

  34. Larry Morse says:

    Is no one else growing deathly tired of hearing the catchword “diversity” used over and over as central to identity? This little disease ought by now to have run its course, and we should have built anti-bodies against it long ago. Why are we still infect ed and contagious? LM

  35. Newbie Anglican says:

    #4: Amen, Phil.

  36. Choir Stall says:

    ..we have been praying for a “daring charity and courteous understanding.”
    Sounds like business as usual to me. Each bishop leaves the others to be individualists without critique – that is until somebody questions the malaise status quo, or ruffles of feathers of revisionists. When THAT happens, look out, because IT’S ON!

  37. David Keller says:

    Here is what I find amusing–everyone in this debate, on this blog, in TEC, Integrity etc., etc., etc. seems to assume that simply because the magic words were said and hands were laid that somehow Gene Robinson is actually a bishop in the Church of God. My bishop clearly thinks that once a medeval ceremony has been said over you, only God can hash it out in the next life. That sort of notion is right up there with indulgences. Only God can make a bishop (or any other minister for that matter). Just because the paper work is in order doesn’t mean a thing. Eikman’s defense was he had no choice because the paper work was in order! God has neither blessed nor ordained VGR. If he had, the Anglican Communion wouldn’t be coming apart at the seams. Those of us who are orthodox believers need to start admitting that an error was made by us and we need to correct it. The paper work is in order, but that simply is not sufficient.

  38. Bill Matz says:

    David, I already agreed; see #29.

  39. David Keller says:

    #36, Bill–Thanks.