By George Conger
Bishops attending the Lambeth Conference will be asked to affirm their willingness to abide by the recommendations of the Windsor Report and work towards the creation of an Anglican Communion Covenant.
A spokesman for the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams told The Church of England Newspaper that letters affirming support for Windsor and the Covenant process had not yet been mailed, but would go out presently.
Bishops attending Lambeth must have a “willingness to work with those aspects of the [Lambeth] Conference’s agenda that relate to implementing the recommendations of [the Windsor Report], including the development of a Covenant,” Dr. Williams wrote in his Dec. 14 Advent pastoral letter.
The Windsor Report calls for a ban on gay bishops and blessings and discouraged violating the diocesan boundaries of bishops in opposing theological camps. Affirming the recommendations of the Windsor Report may cause difficulty for US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and other progressive American, Canadian, Brazilian and British bishops who have given either their formal or informal support to moves to normalize homosexuality within the life of the church. It also closes the door on full participation in the conference of the Bishop of New Hampshire, the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson.
Overseas primates who have backed the violation of diocesan boundaries by African-consecrated American missionary bishops, could also fall afoul of Dr. Williams’ dictate. However, as the principle provinces backing overseas missionary bishops-Nigeria, Rwanda and Uganda-will not be at Lambeth, the warning is a “moot point”, one overseas primate told The Church of England Newspaper.
Approximately 600 of the Communion’s 716 diocesan and 171 suffragan and assistant bishops have stated they would attend Lambeth, and more responses are expected to arrive in the coming weeks, a member of the conference team said.
Dr. William’s Advent letter warned against campaigning by the bishops on the disparate issues dividing the Communion. Attendance at Lambeth was predicated at avoiding “the present degree of damaging and draining tension arising again. I intend to be in direct contact with those who have expressed unease about this, so as to try and clarify how deep their difficulties go with accepting or adopting the Conference’s agenda.”
Speaking to the Fulcrum Conference in Islington last week, the Bishop of Durham, the Rt. Rev. N.T. Wright said “when the Archbishop issued his invitations, he made it clear as I said that their basis was Windsor and the Covenant as the tools to shape our future common life.”
“Those bishops who might be thought particularly unsympathetic to Windsor and the Covenant” would be asked by Dr. Williams “whether they were really prepared to build on this dual foundation. “
“Many will say this is far too little, far too late – just as many others will be livid to think that the Archbishop, having already not invited Gene Robinson to Lambeth, should be suggesting that some others might absent themselves as well,” Dr. Wright said. “But this is what he promised he would do, and he is doing it.”
–This article appears in the April 18th, 2008, Church of England Newspaper, page 1
It strikes me that Rowan Cantuar may indeed finally have decided to take some action, but I have to agree with Dr Wright that it may be “too little too late.” He has been “fiddling while Rome was burning.”
My speculation, and it’s just that, is that he is disturbed by the numbers who are pledging NOT to attend due to the present situation with the US and Canadian wings of the Anglican Communion. I see this as a way of saying, “please come, we WILL put something on the agenda to help out!”.
Peace
Jim Elliott <><
“Ultimatum”?
Somehow I doubt that. A letter to everyone will be meaningless. The ABC did that in his Advent letter.
What happened to the idea of specific letters to specific bishops detailing specific Windsor-related problems? Was that a dream or misunderstanding I had?
Katherine Jefferts Schori who has admitted to lying to the other primates in her sworn deposition in the Virginia trial is going to tell Rowan, “Yes, I really am serious about the Windshear document and that Anglican Covalent.”
Carol Tanner-Irish, who has said nothing favorable about the covenant, will promise to work hard on developing it (by removing all substance from it, replacing with only fudgeable).
How many times will the orthodox be taken in by Rowan Williams? He simply is not trustworthy. He, himself, only gives lip service the Windsor Report while enabling the prevarications and procrastinations of the TEO and ACoC. He should exclude himself from Lambeth, being the number one obstruction to fulfilling Windsor.
Let’s see. Those who need to unpack are:
Chane of Washington
Bruno of Los Angeles
Andrus of California,
and…
I stand in support of the Windsor Report and Process
and in personal prayers and support of the ABC.
If the letters go to the conservatives, it won’t matter cause most of them aren’t going anyway. If the letters go to the lefties, maybe Lambeth will be empty!!!
Well, ultimatum, schultamatum, this is no such thing. GC must be overtired.
Does RW truly think more than a few bishops will actually turn against their statements and behaviors in order to attend Lambeth.
I’ll say one thing, the letter is truly inclusive. By, virtue of the language of WR, it also includes more than a few members of the Global South bishops, and others who have gone against the WR, and they have made statements that they will not cease as long as Christians need succor against their reappraiser overlords.
Do you suppose these letters will go out to EVERY bishop invited to Lambeth? Personally, I think he knows that only the truly faithful will decide to stay away, and what about those who go, and shouldn’t?
Not an ultimatum by any means, at least IMHO.
Gloria in SC
Rowan is writing to western bishops in an ecclesial culture where words seldom have concrete meanings, and where theological formation is often a series of mental exercises designed to answer the question, “How can I say the Nicene Creed when I don’t believe a word of it?” Most of them should have no trouble affirming, to their own satisfaction, whatever they need to affirm.
RW is far too bright not to understand this. Who benefits from this charade?
I think it is a step in the right direction, but he really needs to do something to get Nigeria et al there. Maybe invite the “missionary” bishops (note that the word missionary is in quotes) and ask them to abstain from voting. Just like he’s asking politely for people to not attend if they don’t support WR.
I think the ABC has done enough that the Akinola & Co. should just attend. I mean, while I’m conservative I have to say that the Global South seems very rigid and inflexible right now–which is not helpful to anyone.
Since TEC has announced that it is “Windsor compliant” and since the Archbishop, through the committee report he pushed through, has declared that TEC has “done enough” to comply, TEC bishops will sign this letter even though many of them have no intention of ever accepting or teaching traditional Christian beliefs. My opinion is that this, and the covenant process, are exercises in futility.
Let’s not forget about Rowan’s subcommittee report by which he wanted to hijack the DeS meeting and give blessing to the TEO’s “Windsor compliance.” (A report that even one of its own subcommittee members hadn’t even seen before RW tried to foist on the primates’ meeting.)
I agree with robroy that if all that is required is a promise to participate, then the letters lack meaning.
We ought not lose sight of the fact that the letter are explicit support for both the covenant and the WR. And as noted above, many of the “boundary crossers” were not coming anyway. In his heart of hearts the ABC is only acting as those reasserters still within TEC, hoping beyond all human hope for the reappraisers to recognize the error of the direction they are taking TEC, to repent, and to enter into the process of reform created by the primates of the AC (WR and the convanent). However, personally, I have concluded that it is a false hope because the critical words of the creeds have lost common meaning. +Schori and the bishops of TEC will come to Lambeth fully believing that they are the aggrieved party and that TEC is following a “new leading of the Holy Spirit.” I have the same sick to the stomach feeling I use to get as a kid in the fun house hall of mirrors.
This latest move by ++Rowan Williams is just more of the same old same old: more stalling, more indeciveness, more placing polity above doctrine, more collusion (in effect) with the revisionists while feigning support for the orthodox. And the result will be the same, more distrust of him, more of a vacuum left at the AC’s center.
But vacuums don’t last long. Others can and will step in to lead (on BOTH sides) where Cantaur refuses to lead. Canterbury appears immobilized, paralyzed, unable or unwilling to act in any decisive way. And that may, in the end, be a blessing in disguise. The Global South’s bold leaders (like ++Akinola and ++Oromobi) aren’t so hesitant. Canterbury’s dithering actually accelerates the necessary breakup of the old AC, in order that a NEW KIND of Anglicanism may emerge from the ashes of the old one. And in that, I for one rejoice.
Reformations are always traumatic and highly divisive. They always create winners and losers. But Reformations are sometimes necessary. The original Protestant Reformation was indeed “a tragic necessity” (in the apt phrase of Jaroslav Pelikan). And so is this New Reformation of the 21st century.
David Handy+
NRA – As a member of NRAFC I must say here that I want no part of another Protestant Reformation such as that envisioned by most Reasserters, headed by Orombi, Akinola, et al. Thx.
So maybe Archbishop Nebulous writes a letter asking TEC bishops to affirm the Windsor Report. And if they don’t respond or respond in the negative, THEN WHAT?
Then again, just to point out the obvious, there’s bishops out there like Shaw of Massachusetts, who send out letters to the clergy asking them not to solemnize gay marriages, but clergy in that diocese(Carter Heyward, for one) DO solemnize marriages all the time without penalty. Shaw himself celebrated the Eucharist immediately after a gay “civil” ceremony that took place in one of Boston’s TEC churches–the New York Times neglected to say exactly which post-Communion prayer was used; I guess that would qualify as “hairsplitting” vs. “solemnizing”.
Plus, in reality, “please don’t ‘solemnize'” translates into passing out New Westminster’s service of blessing(or whatever it is) at clergy meetings with the words, “oh, by the way, please feel free to use this”.
All to say that hypocrisy rules and what TEC bishops write on paper vs. what is really going on in their dioceses are two vastly different things. And, if the AB of C doesn’t plan on clarifying such or disciplining anyone or anything, his letters and “requests” are simply moot.