Says Bishop Mouneer of those planning to boycott Lambeth 08:
[b]The absence of any of your voices will be a great loss. God has spoken to me through the Book of Jonah. So I decided not to withdraw but to go and speak the truth, and leave the rest to God. Please remember that there will be bishops who are not fully aware of the seriousness of the situation. They need to be alerted. Your presence would be a help, as indeed it was in 1998.[/b]
Please GAFCON participants — heed the request to attend Lambeth. This may be the last one you can attend — but for those of us hanging on — please attend.
O.K. so Anis is playing “good” Jonah to GAFCON’s “bad” Jonah. I think we all hope and pray that Lambeth will repent like the inhabitants of Nineveh. I, however, do not hold out a lot of hope here. My bigger concern is that someone has convinced Anis that those nasty, IRD-funded conservatives in the North and West want to hijack the Global South for their own selfish, schismatic purposes.
You know, it’s not like the revisionists going to Lambeth are unknowing heathens who will repent and turn to God’s Word once they hear it clearly proclaimed. They are the priests and scribes of their generation who know better and yet choose to knowingly disregard and disobey God.
Bishop Mouneer has said that he is praying for GAFCON, that he shares their hopes for advancing mission and that he welcomes any recommendations they may make. He does not claim that GAFCON is a “bad” thing, but merely asserts a biblical rationale for what he intends to do. He too is concerned about unity:
[b]I appeal to you . . . to be careful not to make binding decisions which may result in dividing Anglicans in the Global South and elsewhere.[/b]
GAFCON may well evolve into the new orthodox Lambeth Conference, but it isn’t that quite yet. How much better if it were to serve to inform a “Nineveh” moment this June. I can’t believe that most of us wouldn’t prefer that; it’s just that it’s hard to imagine at this juncture.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
I don’t understand why there has not been more coordination between the faithful archbishops, bishops, and other traditionalist and historically orthodox leaders of the Communion to ensure that Lambeth will have at least a slim majority of faithful orthodox voices. I think it is far more powerful to show up with a small contingent and make certain principled stands both verbally and symbolically.
As an anglo-catholic, I have been deeply moved by the catholic spirit and sacrifices of so many of the more evangelically-minded leaders from Africa and South America, but all of their efforts appear to have done very little to bridge a number of the historic divisions within traditional/conservative Anglicanism. I have seen growing solidarity between the various groups of faithful orthodox Anglicans – inside and outside of TEC/usa, and outside of the official Anglican Communion – here in Southern California. But is that rare?
Apropos to the Middle East discussion, I will be going to school for four years in Tel Aviv, Israel. Does anyone know of a conservative Anglican (preferably Anglo-catholic) church in the area?
Mouneer Anis, who is also treasurer of the Global South Anglican movement, maintains his strong criticism of recent actions of The Episcopal Church, but also appeals to the organisers of GAFCON:
[blockquote]For this reason I appeal to you to take the above statements fully into your consideration and to be careful not to make binding decisions which may result in dividing Anglicans in the Global South and elsewhere…
I would respectfully add that the Global South must not be driven by an exclusively Northern agenda or Northern personalities. The meeting of the Global South in ’09 will be critical for the future, and the agenda will need careful preparation ahead of time.[/blockquote]
Frankly, I think EVERY conservative bishop from around the Anglican Communion should attend Lambeth, and stage a sit-in at the first full-group meeting (after the opening ceremonies), and refuse to budge until the US and Canadian situation is addressed and a firm, binding decision is reached.
If there is hedging, or an attempt to silence/ignore them, then a walk-out and press conference should be an option, but no boycott.
Nothing is accomplished by a boycott. Ask DisneyCorp how the Baptist and Catholic boycotts affected their ticket sales. Answer: not one cent was missed.
I am torn by the positions of ++Anis and ++Orombi, believing they both have merit and are principled. I think we also need to realize that, according to ++Anis:
We also stated: Through our conversations together and clarifications made, we are led to understand and appreciate the principled reasons for participation in GAFCON (June 2008) and Lambeth Conference (Jul 2008). Even if there are different perspectives on these, they do not and should not be allowed to disrupt the common vision, unity and trust within the Global South.
This says to me that there has been thoughtful discussion and decision making on all parts. ++Anis’ letter should be seen as more apologetic than evangelical.
Re: ++Anis – “Please remember that there will be bishops who are not fully aware of the seriousness of the situation.â€
As far as any reasonable person may see, any bishop who at this point does not fully grasp the seriousness of the situation is NOT worthy of the purple shirt.
That I am disappointed with Bishop Anis is an understatement. I had thought much better of this gentleman until I read, re-read, and pondered on the implications of this letter.
Why would ++Anis not attend both conferences? What in the world is going on with these men (men?)?
Rowan Williams has subverted the will of the orthodox at every stage. This indaba baloney is designed so that there will not be further condemnation of the TEO. (Did Chane or Bruno think it up?) Participate in this sham? The Anglican Communion is suffering from a dearth of consequences. There needs to be consequences for the TEO, but there also needs to be consequences to the ABC.
“There will be bishops who are not fully aware of the seriousness of the situation” —Mouneer Anis
“I believe that is impossible, at this point”
—Tridentine Virginian [#11]
At least one such bishop resides in Lambeth Palace.
Others continue paying homage to De Nile.
Any orthodox bishop who spurns GAFCon for the blandishments and siren-songs of Abp. Williams ought to have a very solid reason for doing so. I sure don’t see one here.
The clue to the letter by Mouneer Anis, it seems to me, is in the sentences I quoted above at #10, particularly about ‘northern agendas and northern personalities.’
Some of the organisers of GAFCON are clearly planning a non-Canterbury centred Communion.
The secretary of GAFCON, Chris Sugden, has written in ‘Not Schism but Revolution’:
[blockquote]In other words, since the Archbishop of Canterbury has not provided for the safe oversight of the orthodox in the United States, he has forfeited his role as the one who gathers the Communion.[/blockquote] The article itself was published in [i]Evangelicals Now[/i] in September 2007, and was on the Anglican Mainstream site too, though it does not seem to be there now.
On the GAFCON website there is the key article,
[url=http://www.gafcon.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=15]’The Global Anglican and Anglican Orthdoxy'[/url] by Stephen Noll.
On Stand Firm there is the key article,[url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/8727/] ‘CCP and GAFCON: What does it all mean?'[/url] by Matt Kennedy.
I discussed the dangers of setting up a non-Canterbury Centred Communion in both [url=http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=270]’Subtance and Shadow'[/url] and [url=http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=301]’Faith and Fellowship in Crisis’.[/url]
Mouneer Anis, it seems to me, does not wish the Global South Anglican movement to be run by the ‘Global Anglican Future’ movement. He points to the key conference of the former movement in 2009. Before that, is the key conference at Canterbury this summer.
There is still time for bishops from the Global South to attend Lambeth 2008. Presence is more powerful than absence.
“I discussed the dangers of setting up a non-Canterbury Centred Communion” —Graham Kings [#19]
There’s a huge difference between separation and building a lifeboat.
Abp. Williams has proved himself unworthy of trust. He has roped himself to the apostate leadership of ECUSA, shielded ECUSA from effective discipline, repeatedly subverted Anglican primates’ decisions to which he (as well as ECUSA) had agreed, overseen a whitewash of ECUSA’s noncompliance, and structured Lambeth 2008 to protect ECUSA.
More broadly, why should the future of Anglican Christianity depend on the whims of British politicians increasingly unsympathetic to orthodox Christianity?
The only way to keep Rowan Williams honest is to have some alternative to fall back on if he continues down his path of revisionist-friendly expediency.
#20 Irenaeus, Rowan Williams also wrote in the [url=http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2007/12/14/ACNS4354] Advent Letter 2007 [/url]:
[blockquote]While argument continues about exactly how much force is possessed by a Resolution of the Lambeth Conference such as the 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution on sexuality, it is true, as I have repeatedly said, that the 1998 Resolution is the only point of reference clearly agreed by the overwhelming majority of the Communion. This is the point where our common reading of Scripture stands, along with the common reading of the majority within the Christian churches worldwide and through the centuries.
[/blockquote]
I think this shows that it is not as black and white as some reallignment folk would like us all to believe. I hope Uganda and Nigeria will attend Lambeth, and I hope that all “orthodox” Episcopalians will remain in TEC and be the church where they are, instead of hoping to found a “pure church”
“Rowan Williams…wrote in the Advent Letter 2007 . . .”
Fr. Graham [#21]: Abp. Williams says many things. His deeds often fail to match his words.
For example, as I wrote in #20, Williams has “shielded ECUSA from effective discipline, repeatedly subverted Anglican primates’ decisions [relating to ECUSA, and] overseen a whitewash of ECUSA’s noncompliance.” Do you disagree?
The stakes, of course, transcend the fate of one North American churchlet. ECUSA’s defiance of scripture, tradition, and the demands of international Anglican leaders squarely presents a larger choice between fidelity to the gospel and following the Spirit of the Age.
I am neither pleased nor disappointed with Anis’s decision. I will say this about the Lambeth boycott. I used to argue that all should attend Lambeth. I now support the Lambeth boycott. IF there was a realistic chance of the majority bishops demanding immediate action respecting TEC and IF there was a realistic chance that something would be done to that end, I would encouarage attendance. But neither will happen.
The ABC, the ACO, and every other power-that-is in the Lambeth organizing group has made it clear that nothing will happen at Lambeth. What will a boycott accomplish? Three things. 1) It is a clear sign to the ABC and the rest of the Communion that things are not “business as usual”. If there were full attendance at Lambeth and the ABC again succeeded at derailing disciplinary efforts, the ABC could claim that all was well. He cannot now. 2) It delegitimizes the Lambeth Conference as an Instrument of Unity. The boycott effectively undermines any claim for Anglican Communion unity and undermines any claim of credibility for any action taken by Lambeth. 3) It prevents the conservative bishops from becoming targets in a high-profile harassment and smear campaign by gay activists. This is one of the key strategies on the homosexual activists’ side, make no doubt about it. The conservative boycott reduces the press attention at Lambeth and reduces the press attention to the homosexual activists’ little games.
The best result, I think, is for some conservative bishops to attend Lambeth, but for the large Provinces to continue their boycott. This provides for a solid conservative voice at Lambeth (thanks to Anis, Venables, Duncan, Iker, and (hopefully) Schofield). But it also makes it abundantly clear that the Communion remains sorely divided (thanks to the boycott).
P.S. – Libraryjim – this isn’t an economic boycott and so the comparison is like apples to oranges. The Lambeth boycott is not meant to economically hurt the ABC, but rather to undermine its credibility.
Please let us NOT forget that this is NOT about Bishop Anis boycotting Lambeth; it is about the good bishop NOT ATTENDING (boycotting) GAFCON.
My question still remains: Why wouldn’t ++Anis attend both Lambeth and GAFCON?
The principal on which certain bishops decided to boycot Lambeth have not changed…..I, a simple peasant, hope they stick to their guns and not attend. I, a simple peasant, hope Iker and Duncan go, speak up, and walk out…….enough is enough
I would love nothing more to have our conservative bishops attend Lambeth and thoroughly lambaste Schori & Company and their friends and allies……and then walk out! But then I don’t think they’ll do that, will they? Of course, one can hope……..
No. 22 – Eugene – The only voice of sanity here. Actually, the most important issue that should be taken up by Lambeth is the question posed by Cardinal Kasper – Is the Anglican Church Catholic or Protestant? Maybe time for a split on those lines instead. The alliance of Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals here is temporary and tactical only.
[blockquote]I am torn by the positions of ++Anis and ++Orombi, believing they both have merit and are principled…This says to me that there has been thoughtful discussion and decision making on all parts. ++Anis’ letter should be seen as more apologetic than evangelical.[/blockquote]
This is one of your best posts of late, Brian, and one with which I wholeheartedly agree. Thanks for this and for not defaulting to the party line.
I grow increasingly convinced that this does not have to be an either/or proposition but rather one that is both/and. I believe God calls folks to take both positions and will take care of the rest.
The only voice of sanity here. Actually, the most important issue that should be taken up by Lambeth is the question posed by Cardinal Kasper – Is the Anglican Church Catholic or Protestant? Maybe time for a split on those lines instead. The alliance of Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals here is temporary and tactical only.
rob k, if the only voice of sanity here is that of Rome, aren’t you in the wrong church? Anglicans decided the reformed/catholic question years ago. We’re both.
Spiro: The one advantage is that it potentially broadens the conservative base. The fact is that GAFCON is seen by a significant portion of moderate/conservative bishops in the Global South as divisive and unduly influenced by American conservatives. Whether this perception is fair or not is beside the point, it is there. By not attending GAFCON, Anis can better speak to these moderate/conservative bishops. That, for me, is worth it. This allows both the “bad cop” GAFCON attenders AND the “good cop” non-GAFCON attenders to play with the same message, but just two different approaches to rally different troops.
The key is that all conservatives stick together and maintain their overall purpose and unity, and Anis’s letter makes it clear that he fully intends to do so.
It was always going to be difficult for an Egyptian bishop to go to Jerusalem, occupied as it by the Jooos. The Muslim fundamentalists make life very difficult for Egyptian Christians and are not above kidnaping and murdering them.
Meanwhile the June Bride and his lover will be grandstanding outside the Lambeth conference, aided by the gay luvvies of the UK entertainment scene (Gandalf etc). Now I imagine THOSE pictures will certainly do the rounds of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood next time they want to stir up illiterate Egyptian fellahin to burn down a church. A lose-lose situation for Egyptian Christians.
Well, I have a fair idea how Athanasius of Alexandria would have dealt with such a question and how a *real council of the Church would have responded.
[blockquote]Any orthodox bishop who spurns GAFCon for the blandishments and siren-songs of Abp. Williams ought to have a very solid reason for doing so.[/blockquote]
Ireneaus,
Bishop Mouneer has said he has made his decision based on reading the Book of Jonah. That means he is comparing the Lambeth Conference to . . . Ninevah. A man who said [url=http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/comments/bishop_mouneer_anis_reflections_on_the_joint_standing_committee_jsc/]this[/url] about his experience on the Joint Standing Committee has no illusions about either Lambeth or Rowan Williams.
RE: “Some of the organisers of GAFCON are clearly planning a non-Canterbury centred Communion.”
I would say that some of the organisers of GAFCON recognize that many of them cannot be a part of a Communion that is undisciplined, and so sadly will need to be a part of something else.
The Communion — as has been made very very clear by Rowan Williams — will not discipline the erring TEC and Canada. And so . . . some of the GS do not wish to be a part of such a communion.
RE: “I discussed the dangers of setting up a non-Canterbury Centred Communion in both ‘Subtance and Shadow’ and ‘Faith and Fellowship in Crisis’.”
I am sure that there are many dangers in such an enterprise — but some of the GS no longer wishes to be a part of the current undisciplined Communion.
RE: “There is still time for bishops from the Global South to attend Lambeth 2008. Presence is more powerful than absence.”
How? They were present in 1998. And now it is ten years later. And the Communion is riven because the Communion will not discipline TEC or Canada. Nor does the Communion intend to discipline TEC or Canada. And so . . . some parts of the GS no longer wish to be a part of such a Communion. If that is the case, why on earth should they wish to attend Lambeth which has been repeatedly announced to have no interest in disciplining TEC or Canada?
Not to dispute the facts in your comment, but you ask the question why should they [i]wish[/i] to attend? Might an answer be that Lambeth 1998 proclaimed a standard openly violated five years later, but it did not state the consequences of such a move. That was left to the Windsor Report and the Primates.
Yes for the most part they’ve been ignored, but no Lambeth Conference has had the opportunity to affirm or repudiate their pronouncements. Would it not be better to make Lambeth the setting in which the bishops are given the chance to speak corporately? If it fails, the onus of schism will be on those who failed to respond to the call to repentance, not on those who ensured that Lambeth 2008 was a foregone conclusion.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
I have heard from the mouth of one of the GAFCON primates that there is no intention to leave the Anglican Communion. Rather as I see it, this is a difference in strategy about how quickly to abandon the current Instruments of Unity as workable to maintain a disciplined, unified Communion. It is my sense that the GAFCON advocates still plan to give formal lip service to the ABC, but will essentially ignore the Instruments of Communion as they build a new Communion within what they consider to be a defacto Anglican “Federation”. The GAFCON advocates believe that the “Global South” organization should be tailored to having that as its foremost goal. I think that Anis is not yet ready to give up on the current Instruments of Communion. Whilst he believes that the ABC and the Instruments have badly let down – and even “jerked around” – the Communion recently, Anis seems to still believe that the Anglican Communion can be saved by following the “ACI Plan” of rallying the orthodox bishops to Lambeth and passing a Covenant. Anis opposes the “Global South” organization morphing into becoming primarily a vanguard for a “Communion within the Federation”, but should be an advocate for GS concerns within the current Anglican Instruments of Unity.
Contrary to BabyBlue’s beliefs, I don’t think Anis is calling for the GS primates to abandon the North American orthodox. Rather, I think that Anis is calling for the Global South to remain true to what it was originally created to be, and for the Global North orthodox to band TOGETHER to forge their own interest group. I don’t see him opposing the GS protection of the North American orthodox, but rather expressing concern about leadership boundaries within the GS organization. An anaology: Anis does not oppose the Ship of GS from picking up the GNO survivors out of the lifeboats. What he is concerned about is when the GNO survivors (he feels) are starting to take control of the GS wheelhouse. (BabyBlue, it’s not a matter of thinking the African archbishops easily influenced, its just that the North American orthodox leaders can be very strong personalities, and their presence on the GAFCON leadership team is out of proportion to the numbers of Anglicans they represent). So I would suggest that if you look at the GAFCON leadership team, I think his concern is at least partially justified.
JamesW (#34) it was a pleasure meeting you Saturday.
That is a fascinating analysis of the words of “one of the GAFCON primates”. Some years ago (decades?) ++Rowan suggested a two-tiered Anglican Communion, in one of his few moments of leadership. He has been unable to deliver on that plan, nor to chart a course that might lead to such a plan.
It appears that the GAFCON leadership is going to take that problem out of his hands. There will indeed be a two-tiered Anglican Communion, and that plan will be set in place at GAFCON. It is understandable that leaders such as ++Mouneer might be distinctly uncomfortable with who might end up as the administrators of such a plan.
Bre’r Rabbit: I think that most of the GAFCON attendees have made it also clear publically that there is no intent at all to leave the Anglican Communion as such. Why would they? This talk that GAFCON intends to set up a *seperate* non-Canterbury Communion is, I think, completely misunderstanding what they are doing, and there is no evidence in anything that they have said that they will do so.
The GAFCON folks believe that the “Anglican Communion” is already a defacto federation and are responding as such. Their intent is to create the “inner tier Communion” and that inner tier will not include the ABC, at least not to begin with. That does not imply that they are leaving the “Anglican Communion.” Rather I think it implies that they believe that the GAFCON inner tier Communion will gradually swallow the wider Anglican Communion/Federation as the liberal churches die out.
I think that Anis and some others believe that while parts of the Instruments are corrupt, including the current ABC, they nevertheless think that there is a chance of pushing through a communion-restoring Covenant. They believe that GAFCON is moving too quickly and too unilaterally and that this poses great risk of disrupting the unity of the orthodox Global South. I think that Anis believes that this hastiness and unilateralness is attributable to the impatient North Americans. In his talks at the Anglican Mens’ Weekend, even Orombi alluded to the fact that the GS sees the Americans as being impatient and demanding of instant reaction (and Orombi is amongst those GS primates most allied with the North American conservatives).
JamesW, regarding the unity of the Global South, I think your sentence in #38 is on point: [blockquote] The GAFCON advocates believe that the “Global South†organization should be tailored to having that as its foremost goal. [/blockquote] This probably directly subverts the goals for the Global South as understood by ++Anis and others.
#42 JamesW. Thanks. You say:
[blockquote]The GAFCON folks believe that the “Anglican Communion†is already a defacto federation and are responding as such. Their intent is to create the “inner tier Communion†and that inner tier will not include the ABC, at least not to begin with. That does not imply that they are leaving the “Anglican Communion.†[/blockquote]
It may be worth remembering Humpty Dumpty’s attitude to words in Alice through the Looking Glass:
[blockquote]’When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’
‘The question is’, said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean different things.’
‘The question is’, said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that’s all.'[/blockquote]
RE: “Might an answer be that Lambeth 1998 proclaimed a standard openly violated five years later, but it did not state the consequences of such a move.”
Jeremy Bonner, why would a bishop want to attend Lambeth — which is now a living icon of an undisciplined and corrupt, failed Communion, thanks to TEC’s participation — in order to “state the consequences of such a move.”
As has now been thoroughly proven by the ABC, it does not matter is a particular instrument of the Communion “states the consequences of such a move” — the consequences will not be enacted and the non-discipline will continue.
Further, as the ABC has made [i]crystal clear[/i], Lambeth no longer exists as an “instrument” that is to make any sort of decisions. It exists for bishops to meet in small groups and dialogue. I don’t understand why on earth a conservative bishop would want to waste his time doing that with the hundred bishops of TEC proudly present. What would meeting in small groups accomplish?
RE: “Would it not be better to make Lambeth the setting in which the bishops are given the chance to speak corporately?”
It certainly would have been nice for the Lambeth Meeting to be such an instrument of union. But now it is not — Rowan Williams decided that it would be a small group discussion meeting and that it shall be.
RE: ” . . . not on those who ensured that Lambeth 2008 was a foregone conclusion.”
Which would be Rowan Williams. After all . . . were the Lambeth Meeting to be an instrument that could actually make decisions and speak with a corporate voice, there will still be plenty of bishops who are conservatives to pass those decisions by a huge majority. The loss of the bishops of four provinces would not prevent such actions — were they allowed.
Fair enough if you assume that those bishops present will simply submit to the agenda that Rowan Williams appears to wish them to follow. Many people did not anticipate the outcome of Lambeth 1998, but it still came to pass.
Unlike the other Instruments, Lambeth has yet to speak on the past decade. Yes, all could be accomplished without Nigeria and Uganda, but if we are to move to a new model of Communion relationship, I would rather that together we could first say that we had exhausted even the more forlorn of hopes.
Graham Kings: I guess a lot of this depends on the meanings of words and do the people who speak the word really mean what they say? Rowan Williams speaks a lot about Communion – he has written some great letters…..but then proceeds to act in a fashion which undermines what he says.
We can call the “Anglican Communion” a communion, but I no longer think that it objectively functions as one. And accepting that reality is something we will need to do, in order to move on. I don’t think the GAFCON folks are intending any sleight of hand here in redefining words – what they are doing IS trying to build a true communion in the midst of a true federation. The problem is that they are moving too quickly and too unilaterally in so doing – moving at an impatient American pace.
RE: “I would rather that together we could first say that we had exhausted even the more forlorn of hopes.”
I am sorry, Jeremy Bonner, but it seems clear that for the conservatives there will be no chance of all of us agreeing that we have “exhausted even the most forlorn of hopes.”
After Lambeth — no matter how much a debacle it is, nay even were Lambeth 1.10 to be overturned in a cloud of obfuscation — there would be many many cries of “what — you’re leaving, and only a month after our big Lambeth Meeting — can you not even allow for all of the processes to play themselves out in this most important post-Lambeth season? Surely you can make such decisions after our Global South 09 meeting . . . and after the TEC 09 GC! Why must you be divisive prior to so very important a meeting as the Global South 09 meeting. And there’s the next Primates meeting as well where the Primates will have opportunity to reflect and receive the indaba discussions. Not to mention that the Covenant is up for approval at the upcoming meeting of the ACC. No, in so hectic a season of decision making in the upcoming months, it is premature to be planning some new grouping.”
Following that reasoning (and I’m sure you’re right that rhetoric of the sort you mention will surface after Lambeth), then the conveners of GAFCON should have the courage of their convictions and declare GAFCON the reconstituted/orthodox Lambeth (or some other epithet) Conference. Why have they not done so?
Even at Dar-es-Salaam, as I recall, the Global South Primates were not in lock step about strategy, even while they agreed about the failings of the Global North and the need for action. What I fear is not division into two, but into multiple confederations of Anglican-derived bodies. I get the sense that those on the Protestant end of the spectrum accept this as a necessary evil (or even no evil at all), but my ecclesiology finds the prospect less than appealing. For me, it’s not about whether there is a strong possibility of change at Lambeth – I fear there is not – but about allowing all the Instruments the opportunity to speak (even by not speaking).
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
No. 31 – If the Church is essentially a Protestant body that happens to have liturgical worship then, yes, I’m in the wrong church. Otherwise maybe other people are in the “wrong” church. If I thought that the Anglican Church was not essentially and substantively Catholic (capital C) I wouldn’t be in it. It’s Protestantism is only accidental, not substantial. Do you, to take a couple of issues, think it is OK to believe that there is not difference between an Anglican priest and a Protestant minster in the same ecclesiatical body, or that it doesn’t matter whether the presence of Christ in the eucharist is objectively real and not dependent on your faith? Questions such as these are more fundamental than the issue of homosexuality. Historically speaking, some Reformed views were forced on the Church at the time of the Elizabethan settlement.
Says Bishop Mouneer of those planning to boycott Lambeth 08:
[b]The absence of any of your voices will be a great loss. God has spoken to me through the Book of Jonah. So I decided not to withdraw but to go and speak the truth, and leave the rest to God. Please remember that there will be bishops who are not fully aware of the seriousness of the situation. They need to be alerted. Your presence would be a help, as indeed it was in 1998.[/b]
To which I say Amen!
Please GAFCON participants — heed the request to attend Lambeth. This may be the last one you can attend — but for those of us hanging on — please attend.
I echo Jeremy Bonner’s and SAJ’s sentiments.
Watch Archbishop Orombi’s interview at AnglicanTV here for his explanation of why Uganda is not going.
Hopefully, GAFCON will inspire more bishops to attend Lambeth and speak out instead of skipping out or attending just for the tea parties.
O.K. so Anis is playing “good” Jonah to GAFCON’s “bad” Jonah. I think we all hope and pray that Lambeth will repent like the inhabitants of Nineveh. I, however, do not hold out a lot of hope here. My bigger concern is that someone has convinced Anis that those nasty, IRD-funded conservatives in the North and West want to hijack the Global South for their own selfish, schismatic purposes.
You know, it’s not like the revisionists going to Lambeth are unknowing heathens who will repent and turn to God’s Word once they hear it clearly proclaimed. They are the priests and scribes of their generation who know better and yet choose to knowingly disregard and disobey God.
Daniel (#6),
Bishop Mouneer has said that he is praying for GAFCON, that he shares their hopes for advancing mission and that he welcomes any recommendations they may make. He does not claim that GAFCON is a “bad” thing, but merely asserts a biblical rationale for what he intends to do. He too is concerned about unity:
[b]I appeal to you . . . to be careful not to make binding decisions which may result in dividing Anglicans in the Global South and elsewhere.[/b]
GAFCON may well evolve into the new orthodox Lambeth Conference, but it isn’t that quite yet. How much better if it were to serve to inform a “Nineveh” moment this June. I can’t believe that most of us wouldn’t prefer that; it’s just that it’s hard to imagine at this juncture.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
I don’t understand why there has not been more coordination between the faithful archbishops, bishops, and other traditionalist and historically orthodox leaders of the Communion to ensure that Lambeth will have at least a slim majority of faithful orthodox voices. I think it is far more powerful to show up with a small contingent and make certain principled stands both verbally and symbolically.
As an anglo-catholic, I have been deeply moved by the catholic spirit and sacrifices of so many of the more evangelically-minded leaders from Africa and South America, but all of their efforts appear to have done very little to bridge a number of the historic divisions within traditional/conservative Anglicanism. I have seen growing solidarity between the various groups of faithful orthodox Anglicans – inside and outside of TEC/usa, and outside of the official Anglican Communion – here in Southern California. But is that rare?
Apropos to the Middle East discussion, I will be going to school for four years in Tel Aviv, Israel. Does anyone know of a conservative Anglican (preferably Anglo-catholic) church in the area?
This letter is very significant indeed.
Mouneer Anis, who is also treasurer of the Global South Anglican movement, maintains his strong criticism of recent actions of The Episcopal Church, but also appeals to the organisers of GAFCON:
[blockquote]For this reason I appeal to you to take the above statements fully into your consideration and to be careful not to make binding decisions which may result in dividing Anglicans in the Global South and elsewhere…
I would respectfully add that the Global South must not be driven by an exclusively Northern agenda or Northern personalities. The meeting of the Global South in ’09 will be critical for the future, and the agenda will need careful preparation ahead of time.[/blockquote]
It is worth reading closely.
Anis – “Please remember that there will be bishops who are not fully aware of the seriousness of the situation. ”
I believe that is impossible, at this point.
Frankly, I think EVERY conservative bishop from around the Anglican Communion should attend Lambeth, and stage a sit-in at the first full-group meeting (after the opening ceremonies), and refuse to budge until the US and Canadian situation is addressed and a firm, binding decision is reached.
If there is hedging, or an attempt to silence/ignore them, then a walk-out and press conference should be an option, but no boycott.
Nothing is accomplished by a boycott. Ask DisneyCorp how the Baptist and Catholic boycotts affected their ticket sales. Answer: not one cent was missed.
Peace
Jim Elliott <><
I am torn by the positions of ++Anis and ++Orombi, believing they both have merit and are principled. I think we also need to realize that, according to ++Anis:
We also stated: Through our conversations together and clarifications made, we are led to understand and appreciate the principled reasons for participation in GAFCON (June 2008) and Lambeth Conference (Jul 2008). Even if there are different perspectives on these, they do not and should not be allowed to disrupt the common vision, unity and trust within the Global South.
This says to me that there has been thoughtful discussion and decision making on all parts. ++Anis’ letter should be seen as more apologetic than evangelical.
Re: ++Anis – “Please remember that there will be bishops who are not fully aware of the seriousness of the situation.â€
As far as any reasonable person may see, any bishop who at this point does not fully grasp the seriousness of the situation is NOT worthy of the purple shirt.
That I am disappointed with Bishop Anis is an understatement. I had thought much better of this gentleman until I read, re-read, and pondered on the implications of this letter.
Why would ++Anis not attend both conferences? What in the world is going on with these men (men?)?
Fr. Kingsley Jon-Ubabuco
LibraryJim #12: Spot on.
LibraryJim #12: I concur with Laocoon. Isn’t that what a council of the Church is [b]supposed[/b] to do?
Rowan Williams has subverted the will of the orthodox at every stage. This indaba baloney is designed so that there will not be further condemnation of the TEO. (Did Chane or Bruno think it up?) Participate in this sham? The Anglican Communion is suffering from a dearth of consequences. There needs to be consequences for the TEO, but there also needs to be consequences to the ABC.
“There will be bishops who are not fully aware of the seriousness of the situation” —Mouneer Anis
“I believe that is impossible, at this point”
—Tridentine Virginian [#11]
At least one such bishop resides in Lambeth Palace.
Others continue paying homage to De Nile.
Any orthodox bishop who spurns GAFCon for the blandishments and siren-songs of Abp. Williams ought to have a very solid reason for doing so. I sure don’t see one here.
The clue to the letter by Mouneer Anis, it seems to me, is in the sentences I quoted above at #10, particularly about ‘northern agendas and northern personalities.’
Some of the organisers of GAFCON are clearly planning a non-Canterbury centred Communion.
The secretary of GAFCON, Chris Sugden, has written in ‘Not Schism but Revolution’:
[blockquote]In other words, since the Archbishop of Canterbury has not provided for the safe oversight of the orthodox in the United States, he has forfeited his role as the one who gathers the Communion.[/blockquote] The article itself was published in [i]Evangelicals Now[/i] in September 2007, and was on the Anglican Mainstream site too, though it does not seem to be there now.
On the GAFCON website there is the key article,
[url=http://www.gafcon.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=15]’The Global Anglican and Anglican Orthdoxy'[/url] by Stephen Noll.
On Stand Firm there is the key article,[url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/8727/] ‘CCP and GAFCON: What does it all mean?'[/url] by Matt Kennedy.
I discussed the dangers of setting up a non-Canterbury Centred Communion in both [url=http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=270]’Subtance and Shadow'[/url] and [url=http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=301]’Faith and Fellowship in Crisis’.[/url]
Mouneer Anis, it seems to me, does not wish the Global South Anglican movement to be run by the ‘Global Anglican Future’ movement. He points to the key conference of the former movement in 2009. Before that, is the key conference at Canterbury this summer.
There is still time for bishops from the Global South to attend Lambeth 2008. Presence is more powerful than absence.
“I discussed the dangers of setting up a non-Canterbury Centred Communion” —Graham Kings [#19]
There’s a huge difference between separation and building a lifeboat.
Abp. Williams has proved himself unworthy of trust. He has roped himself to the apostate leadership of ECUSA, shielded ECUSA from effective discipline, repeatedly subverted Anglican primates’ decisions to which he (as well as ECUSA) had agreed, overseen a whitewash of ECUSA’s noncompliance, and structured Lambeth 2008 to protect ECUSA.
More broadly, why should the future of Anglican Christianity depend on the whims of British politicians increasingly unsympathetic to orthodox Christianity?
The only way to keep Rowan Williams honest is to have some alternative to fall back on if he continues down his path of revisionist-friendly expediency.
#20 Irenaeus, Rowan Williams also wrote in the [url=http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2007/12/14/ACNS4354] Advent Letter 2007 [/url]:
[blockquote]While argument continues about exactly how much force is possessed by a Resolution of the Lambeth Conference such as the 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution on sexuality, it is true, as I have repeatedly said, that the 1998 Resolution is the only point of reference clearly agreed by the overwhelming majority of the Communion. This is the point where our common reading of Scripture stands, along with the common reading of the majority within the Christian churches worldwide and through the centuries.
[/blockquote]
I think this shows that it is not as black and white as some reallignment folk would like us all to believe. I hope Uganda and Nigeria will attend Lambeth, and I hope that all “orthodox” Episcopalians will remain in TEC and be the church where they are, instead of hoping to found a “pure church”
“Rowan Williams…wrote in the Advent Letter 2007 . . .”
Fr. Graham [#21]: Abp. Williams says many things. His deeds often fail to match his words.
For example, as I wrote in #20, Williams has “shielded ECUSA from effective discipline, repeatedly subverted Anglican primates’ decisions [relating to ECUSA, and] overseen a whitewash of ECUSA’s noncompliance.” Do you disagree?
The stakes, of course, transcend the fate of one North American churchlet. ECUSA’s defiance of scripture, tradition, and the demands of international Anglican leaders squarely presents a larger choice between fidelity to the gospel and following the Spirit of the Age.
I am neither pleased nor disappointed with Anis’s decision. I will say this about the Lambeth boycott. I used to argue that all should attend Lambeth. I now support the Lambeth boycott. IF there was a realistic chance of the majority bishops demanding immediate action respecting TEC and IF there was a realistic chance that something would be done to that end, I would encouarage attendance. But neither will happen.
The ABC, the ACO, and every other power-that-is in the Lambeth organizing group has made it clear that nothing will happen at Lambeth. What will a boycott accomplish? Three things. 1) It is a clear sign to the ABC and the rest of the Communion that things are not “business as usual”. If there were full attendance at Lambeth and the ABC again succeeded at derailing disciplinary efforts, the ABC could claim that all was well. He cannot now. 2) It delegitimizes the Lambeth Conference as an Instrument of Unity. The boycott effectively undermines any claim for Anglican Communion unity and undermines any claim of credibility for any action taken by Lambeth. 3) It prevents the conservative bishops from becoming targets in a high-profile harassment and smear campaign by gay activists. This is one of the key strategies on the homosexual activists’ side, make no doubt about it. The conservative boycott reduces the press attention at Lambeth and reduces the press attention to the homosexual activists’ little games.
The best result, I think, is for some conservative bishops to attend Lambeth, but for the large Provinces to continue their boycott. This provides for a solid conservative voice at Lambeth (thanks to Anis, Venables, Duncan, Iker, and (hopefully) Schofield). But it also makes it abundantly clear that the Communion remains sorely divided (thanks to the boycott).
P.S. – Libraryjim – this isn’t an economic boycott and so the comparison is like apples to oranges. The Lambeth boycott is not meant to economically hurt the ABC, but rather to undermine its credibility.
[size=1][color=gray]Subscribe.[/color][/size]
Please let us NOT forget that this is NOT about Bishop Anis boycotting Lambeth; it is about the good bishop NOT ATTENDING (boycotting) GAFCON.
My question still remains: Why wouldn’t ++Anis attend both Lambeth and GAFCON?
Fr. Kingsley
The principal on which certain bishops decided to boycot Lambeth have not changed…..I, a simple peasant, hope they stick to their guns and not attend. I, a simple peasant, hope Iker and Duncan go, speak up, and walk out…….enough is enough
I would love nothing more to have our conservative bishops attend Lambeth and thoroughly lambaste Schori & Company and their friends and allies……and then walk out! But then I don’t think they’ll do that, will they? Of course, one can hope……..
No. 22 – Eugene – The only voice of sanity here. Actually, the most important issue that should be taken up by Lambeth is the question posed by Cardinal Kasper – Is the Anglican Church Catholic or Protestant? Maybe time for a split on those lines instead. The alliance of Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals here is temporary and tactical only.
[blockquote]I am torn by the positions of ++Anis and ++Orombi, believing they both have merit and are principled…This says to me that there has been thoughtful discussion and decision making on all parts. ++Anis’ letter should be seen as more apologetic than evangelical.[/blockquote]
This is one of your best posts of late, Brian, and one with which I wholeheartedly agree. Thanks for this and for not defaulting to the party line.
I grow increasingly convinced that this does not have to be an either/or proposition but rather one that is both/and. I believe God calls folks to take both positions and will take care of the rest.
The only voice of sanity here. Actually, the most important issue that should be taken up by Lambeth is the question posed by Cardinal Kasper – Is the Anglican Church Catholic or Protestant? Maybe time for a split on those lines instead. The alliance of Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals here is temporary and tactical only.
rob k, if the only voice of sanity here is that of Rome, aren’t you in the wrong church? Anglicans decided the reformed/catholic question years ago. We’re both.
Spiro: The one advantage is that it potentially broadens the conservative base. The fact is that GAFCON is seen by a significant portion of moderate/conservative bishops in the Global South as divisive and unduly influenced by American conservatives. Whether this perception is fair or not is beside the point, it is there. By not attending GAFCON, Anis can better speak to these moderate/conservative bishops. That, for me, is worth it. This allows both the “bad cop” GAFCON attenders AND the “good cop” non-GAFCON attenders to play with the same message, but just two different approaches to rally different troops.
The key is that all conservatives stick together and maintain their overall purpose and unity, and Anis’s letter makes it clear that he fully intends to do so.
ECUSA’s errors affront both catholicity and classic Protestant doctrine. “Protestant” is not synonymous with Liberal Protestant.
It was always going to be difficult for an Egyptian bishop to go to Jerusalem, occupied as it by the Jooos. The Muslim fundamentalists make life very difficult for Egyptian Christians and are not above kidnaping and murdering them.
Meanwhile the June Bride and his lover will be grandstanding outside the Lambeth conference, aided by the gay luvvies of the UK entertainment scene (Gandalf etc). Now I imagine THOSE pictures will certainly do the rounds of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood next time they want to stir up illiterate Egyptian fellahin to burn down a church. A lose-lose situation for Egyptian Christians.
Well, I have a fair idea how Athanasius of Alexandria would have dealt with such a question and how a *real council of the Church would have responded.
[blockquote]Any orthodox bishop who spurns GAFCon for the blandishments and siren-songs of Abp. Williams ought to have a very solid reason for doing so.[/blockquote]
Ireneaus,
Bishop Mouneer has said he has made his decision based on reading the Book of Jonah. That means he is comparing the Lambeth Conference to . . . Ninevah. A man who said [url=http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/comments/bishop_mouneer_anis_reflections_on_the_joint_standing_committee_jsc/]this[/url] about his experience on the Joint Standing Committee has no illusions about either Lambeth or Rowan Williams.
RE: “Some of the organisers of GAFCON are clearly planning a non-Canterbury centred Communion.”
I would say that some of the organisers of GAFCON recognize that many of them cannot be a part of a Communion that is undisciplined, and so sadly will need to be a part of something else.
The Communion — as has been made very very clear by Rowan Williams — will not discipline the erring TEC and Canada. And so . . . some of the GS do not wish to be a part of such a communion.
RE: “I discussed the dangers of setting up a non-Canterbury Centred Communion in both ‘Subtance and Shadow’ and ‘Faith and Fellowship in Crisis’.”
I am sure that there are many dangers in such an enterprise — but some of the GS no longer wishes to be a part of the current undisciplined Communion.
RE: “There is still time for bishops from the Global South to attend Lambeth 2008. Presence is more powerful than absence.”
How? They were present in 1998. And now it is ten years later. And the Communion is riven because the Communion will not discipline TEC or Canada. Nor does the Communion intend to discipline TEC or Canada. And so . . . some parts of the GS no longer wish to be a part of such a Communion. If that is the case, why on earth should they wish to attend Lambeth which has been repeatedly announced to have no interest in disciplining TEC or Canada?
Sarah,
Not to dispute the facts in your comment, but you ask the question why should they [i]wish[/i] to attend? Might an answer be that Lambeth 1998 proclaimed a standard openly violated five years later, but it did not state the consequences of such a move. That was left to the Windsor Report and the Primates.
Yes for the most part they’ve been ignored, but no Lambeth Conference has had the opportunity to affirm or repudiate their pronouncements. Would it not be better to make Lambeth the setting in which the bishops are given the chance to speak corporately? If it fails, the onus of schism will be on those who failed to respond to the call to repentance, not on those who ensured that Lambeth 2008 was a foregone conclusion.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
I have heard from the mouth of one of the GAFCON primates that there is no intention to leave the Anglican Communion. Rather as I see it, this is a difference in strategy about how quickly to abandon the current Instruments of Unity as workable to maintain a disciplined, unified Communion. It is my sense that the GAFCON advocates still plan to give formal lip service to the ABC, but will essentially ignore the Instruments of Communion as they build a new Communion within what they consider to be a defacto Anglican “Federation”. The GAFCON advocates believe that the “Global South” organization should be tailored to having that as its foremost goal. I think that Anis is not yet ready to give up on the current Instruments of Communion. Whilst he believes that the ABC and the Instruments have badly let down – and even “jerked around” – the Communion recently, Anis seems to still believe that the Anglican Communion can be saved by following the “ACI Plan” of rallying the orthodox bishops to Lambeth and passing a Covenant. Anis opposes the “Global South” organization morphing into becoming primarily a vanguard for a “Communion within the Federation”, but should be an advocate for GS concerns within the current Anglican Instruments of Unity.
Contrary to BabyBlue’s beliefs, I don’t think Anis is calling for the GS primates to abandon the North American orthodox. Rather, I think that Anis is calling for the Global South to remain true to what it was originally created to be, and for the Global North orthodox to band TOGETHER to forge their own interest group. I don’t see him opposing the GS protection of the North American orthodox, but rather expressing concern about leadership boundaries within the GS organization. An anaology: Anis does not oppose the Ship of GS from picking up the GNO survivors out of the lifeboats. What he is concerned about is when the GNO survivors (he feels) are starting to take control of the GS wheelhouse. (BabyBlue, it’s not a matter of thinking the African archbishops easily influenced, its just that the North American orthodox leaders can be very strong personalities, and their presence on the GAFCON leadership team is out of proportion to the numbers of Anglicans they represent). So I would suggest that if you look at the GAFCON leadership team, I think his concern is at least partially justified.
(#35) Dr. Witt, we can assume, I think, that Anis is heading to Lambeth with a similar reluctance.
JamesW (#34) it was a pleasure meeting you Saturday.
That is a fascinating analysis of the words of “one of the GAFCON primates”. Some years ago (decades?) ++Rowan suggested a two-tiered Anglican Communion, in one of his few moments of leadership. He has been unable to deliver on that plan, nor to chart a course that might lead to such a plan.
It appears that the GAFCON leadership is going to take that problem out of his hands. There will indeed be a two-tiered Anglican Communion, and that plan will be set in place at GAFCON. It is understandable that leaders such as ++Mouneer might be distinctly uncomfortable with who might end up as the administrators of such a plan.
Br_er Rabbit
Sorry, my post was in reference to #38.
Bre’r Rabbit: I think that most of the GAFCON attendees have made it also clear publically that there is no intent at all to leave the Anglican Communion as such. Why would they? This talk that GAFCON intends to set up a *seperate* non-Canterbury Communion is, I think, completely misunderstanding what they are doing, and there is no evidence in anything that they have said that they will do so.
The GAFCON folks believe that the “Anglican Communion” is already a defacto federation and are responding as such. Their intent is to create the “inner tier Communion” and that inner tier will not include the ABC, at least not to begin with. That does not imply that they are leaving the “Anglican Communion.” Rather I think it implies that they believe that the GAFCON inner tier Communion will gradually swallow the wider Anglican Communion/Federation as the liberal churches die out.
I think that Anis and some others believe that while parts of the Instruments are corrupt, including the current ABC, they nevertheless think that there is a chance of pushing through a communion-restoring Covenant. They believe that GAFCON is moving too quickly and too unilaterally and that this poses great risk of disrupting the unity of the orthodox Global South. I think that Anis believes that this hastiness and unilateralness is attributable to the impatient North Americans. In his talks at the Anglican Mens’ Weekend, even Orombi alluded to the fact that the GS sees the Americans as being impatient and demanding of instant reaction (and Orombi is amongst those GS primates most allied with the North American conservatives).
I enjoyed meeting you also, by the way.
JamesW, regarding the unity of the Global South, I think your sentence in #38 is on point: [blockquote] The GAFCON advocates believe that the “Global South†organization should be tailored to having that as its foremost goal. [/blockquote] This probably directly subverts the goals for the Global South as understood by ++Anis and others.
I have posted some of your comments over at BabyBlue.
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
#42 JamesW. Thanks. You say:
[blockquote]The GAFCON folks believe that the “Anglican Communion†is already a defacto federation and are responding as such. Their intent is to create the “inner tier Communion†and that inner tier will not include the ABC, at least not to begin with. That does not imply that they are leaving the “Anglican Communion.†[/blockquote]
It may be worth remembering Humpty Dumpty’s attitude to words in Alice through the Looking Glass:
[blockquote]’When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’
‘The question is’, said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean different things.’
‘The question is’, said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that’s all.'[/blockquote]
RE: “Might an answer be that Lambeth 1998 proclaimed a standard openly violated five years later, but it did not state the consequences of such a move.”
Jeremy Bonner, why would a bishop want to attend Lambeth — which is now a living icon of an undisciplined and corrupt, failed Communion, thanks to TEC’s participation — in order to “state the consequences of such a move.”
As has now been thoroughly proven by the ABC, it does not matter is a particular instrument of the Communion “states the consequences of such a move” — the consequences will not be enacted and the non-discipline will continue.
Further, as the ABC has made [i]crystal clear[/i], Lambeth no longer exists as an “instrument” that is to make any sort of decisions. It exists for bishops to meet in small groups and dialogue. I don’t understand why on earth a conservative bishop would want to waste his time doing that with the hundred bishops of TEC proudly present. What would meeting in small groups accomplish?
RE: “Would it not be better to make Lambeth the setting in which the bishops are given the chance to speak corporately?”
It certainly would have been nice for the Lambeth Meeting to be such an instrument of union. But now it is not — Rowan Williams decided that it would be a small group discussion meeting and that it shall be.
RE: ” . . . not on those who ensured that Lambeth 2008 was a foregone conclusion.”
Which would be Rowan Williams. After all . . . were the Lambeth Meeting to be an instrument that could actually make decisions and speak with a corporate voice, there will still be plenty of bishops who are conservatives to pass those decisions by a huge majority. The loss of the bishops of four provinces would not prevent such actions — were they allowed.
They are not allowed however.
. . . But I repeat myself.
Sarah,
Fair enough if you assume that those bishops present will simply submit to the agenda that Rowan Williams appears to wish them to follow. Many people did not anticipate the outcome of Lambeth 1998, but it still came to pass.
Unlike the other Instruments, Lambeth has yet to speak on the past decade. Yes, all could be accomplished without Nigeria and Uganda, but if we are to move to a new model of Communion relationship, I would rather that together we could first say that we had exhausted even the more forlorn of hopes.
Jeremy
Catholic and Reformed
Graham Kings: I guess a lot of this depends on the meanings of words and do the people who speak the word really mean what they say? Rowan Williams speaks a lot about Communion – he has written some great letters…..but then proceeds to act in a fashion which undermines what he says.
We can call the “Anglican Communion” a communion, but I no longer think that it objectively functions as one. And accepting that reality is something we will need to do, in order to move on. I don’t think the GAFCON folks are intending any sleight of hand here in redefining words – what they are doing IS trying to build a true communion in the midst of a true federation. The problem is that they are moving too quickly and too unilaterally in so doing – moving at an impatient American pace.
RE: “I would rather that together we could first say that we had exhausted even the more forlorn of hopes.”
I am sorry, Jeremy Bonner, but it seems clear that for the conservatives there will be no chance of all of us agreeing that we have “exhausted even the most forlorn of hopes.”
After Lambeth — no matter how much a debacle it is, nay even were Lambeth 1.10 to be overturned in a cloud of obfuscation — there would be many many cries of “what — you’re leaving, and only a month after our big Lambeth Meeting — can you not even allow for all of the processes to play themselves out in this most important post-Lambeth season? Surely you can make such decisions after our Global South 09 meeting . . . and after the TEC 09 GC! Why must you be divisive prior to so very important a meeting as the Global South 09 meeting. And there’s the next Primates meeting as well where the Primates will have opportunity to reflect and receive the indaba discussions. Not to mention that the Covenant is up for approval at the upcoming meeting of the ACC. No, in so hectic a season of decision making in the upcoming months, it is premature to be planning some new grouping.”
Can’t you hear it? ; > )
I can!
I can write this stuff in my sleep now.
Sarah,
Following that reasoning (and I’m sure you’re right that rhetoric of the sort you mention will surface after Lambeth), then the conveners of GAFCON should have the courage of their convictions and declare GAFCON the reconstituted/orthodox Lambeth (or some other epithet) Conference. Why have they not done so?
Even at Dar-es-Salaam, as I recall, the Global South Primates were not in lock step about strategy, even while they agreed about the failings of the Global North and the need for action. What I fear is not division into two, but into multiple confederations of Anglican-derived bodies. I get the sense that those on the Protestant end of the spectrum accept this as a necessary evil (or even no evil at all), but my ecclesiology finds the prospect less than appealing. For me, it’s not about whether there is a strong possibility of change at Lambeth – I fear there is not – but about allowing all the Instruments the opportunity to speak (even by not speaking).
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
No. 31 – If the Church is essentially a Protestant body that happens to have liturgical worship then, yes, I’m in the wrong church. Otherwise maybe other people are in the “wrong” church. If I thought that the Anglican Church was not essentially and substantively Catholic (capital C) I wouldn’t be in it. It’s Protestantism is only accidental, not substantial. Do you, to take a couple of issues, think it is OK to believe that there is not difference between an Anglican priest and a Protestant minster in the same ecclesiatical body, or that it doesn’t matter whether the presence of Christ in the eucharist is objectively real and not dependent on your faith? Questions such as these are more fundamental than the issue of homosexuality. Historically speaking, some Reformed views were forced on the Church at the time of the Elizabethan settlement.