Before the 2008 Lambeth Conference begins, it’s well worth recalling why the 1998 version proved so controversial. Many readers will remember the pictures on every front page of Richard Kirker, the homosexual activist, being ”˜exorcised’ by Bishop Emmanuel Chukwuma of Nigeria ”” a moment which it seems for many captured the ”˜agony’ and ”˜shame’ of the whole ”˜debacle’.
However there was more than enough shame and blame to go round on all sides. Bishops in 1997 and 1998 in the run-up to the conference were universally agreed that the subject of homosexuality should not dominate proceedings. These comments were reflected in all the regional meetings which were organised as ways of prioritising what should be part of discussions. I spoke to large numbers of bishops around the world before the conference and they were determined that what they saw as largely an American issue should not be forced down their throats.
So what happened? Well, the tone was set by Bishop John Spong who sent out a ”˜White Paper’ to all Anglican bishops worldwide slamming ”˜pre-scientific’ attitudes to homosexuality, and lambasting the leaders of the Communion, reserving particular vitriol for the statement of the Kuala Lumpur ”˜South-to-South’ event. He compounded this with a pre-Lambeth interview with me, in which he kept returning to the theme of how the American Church (so prophetic in its search for social justice) was not going to be dictated to by people who were barely one-step removed from animism. It did not help that he had just released a book ”˜Why Christianity must change or die’, and 12 so-called ”˜Theses’ which ditched the central tenets of Christianity itself.
He was not to play a large part in the subsequent conference himself, but his words caused great hurt and consternation and provoked an inevitable reaction. Then there were the jibes repeated increasingly throughout the Lambeth Conference that African bishops were being ”˜bought’ by chicken dinners laid on by rich American conservatives.
Years, if not centuries, of being patronised by the Europeans and Americans it seemed were coming to a head just at a point where Anglicans in Africa and throughout the developing world were organising and meeting together against a background of extraordinary church growth and new-found confidence.
So is there any truth to allegations that the Africans were somehow ”˜bought’, or manipulated by American conservatives? There’s no more truth in this than in suggesting that their hitherto, relative silence in the communion had been bought by the largely liberal leadership of the US Church in previous times. There is something distasteful (if not racist) about suggesting that the whole class of leadership in particular countries is somehow particularly susceptible to bribery or manipulation. But the question is whether money changed hands?
Of course, it did. Masses of money changed hands. Most of it on the quiet. I heard that bishops were helped with spending money while they were in England. Spouses were bought children’s shoes for when they returned to poverty-stricken situations like Southern Sudan, and many people offered kindnesses to each other throughout the duration of the Lambeth Conference. Such charitable and friendly giving face-to-face should be a private matter. It is true, in addition, that the Bishop of Dallas, Jim Stanton, head of the American Anglican Council at the time, took over a headquarters at the Franciscan Studies Centre on the campus where he aimed to help bishops from the two-thirds world gather in friendship, have access to fax machines, photocopying, phones, meeting rooms and computers. These sorts of facilities could not be offered effectively by the official organisers, and at previous conferences, many bishops were unable to be in contact with dioceses and family back home. Interestingly, rooms at the Franciscan Studies Centre also hosted the special sub-section of the conference devoted to homosexuality, when the official venue proved unsuitable.
So was there any bribery? Clearly not. But did American conservatives help to organise the voices of bishops from the two-thirds world? Undoubtedly so. Was there anything sinister about this? I’ve never thought so.
This sort of effective organisation outside the official structures of the conference is unlikely to happen at this summer’s conference. American conservatives have fragmented into various groupings such as Anglican Mission in America, the Anglican Network, CANA and other acronyms and for the most part are reserving their energies for the so-called GAFCON meeting in Jordan and Israel before Lambeth. However, there will continue to be lobby groups of every description at the Lambeth Conference. The conservatives will be less of a formidable force this time, but under the auspices of the Inclusive Church network, liberal Anglican ”˜lobbyists’ are determined to influence proceedings just as effectively as their counterparts did 10 years ago.
In the wake of growing ”˜green’ awareness, the 2008 Lambeth Conference, even in its current depleted form, may be the last big Anglican jamboree ever. It’s more likely that smaller regional meetings become the norm for the future, especially in the light of the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury is trying to pare down his flying to a bare minimum. In early May on his visit to Rome for the seventh Building Bridges Seminar and a private audience with the Pope, he travelled more than 1,000 miles by train.
The Times ”˜People’ column (Rowan on the rails, May 1 2008) mischievously suggests that while most of the year will be flight-free for the Archbishop, the result is likely to be greater scrutiny of whether his plans mean that more clerics have to travel by plane to meet him.
–This article appeared in the Church of England Newspaper, May 9, 2008 edition on page 14
American imperialism is not limited to GWB, is it? Seems that “liberals” are far less than that, given their forcing the issue on the whole communion and ripping it to shreds in the process despite the warnings form all over in that regard. Proverbs couldn’t possibly be correct in that old reaping/sowing saw, not now, not today, not in these enlightened Western Enlightenment fulfilled postmodern days? How gauche to even suggest it! How very premodern and quaint.
They call the Florida-Georgia game each year the “world’s largest cocktail party.” Not so sure it deserves the honor in years when there is a Lambeth Conference.
How is that TEC failed to elect Spong as its PB?
ICXC NIKA
John
Easy on the cynicism there John in #3.
Carey is to be thanked for refreshing our memories about 1998.
[blockquote]This sort of effective organisation [i](by conservatives)[/i] outside the official structures of the conference is unlikely to happen at this summer’s conference.[/blockquote]
…One of the saddest prospects in this entire Lambeth mess.
w.w.
The organization by conservatives outside the conference this time is called GAFCON. See you there!
What, if anything, will be accomplished at Lambeth? This is what we need to be asking. If Lambeth is to be simply an exercise in information exchange, then lo, we who are truly Anglican, regardless of where we hang our hat, must move Anglicanism forward, lest it will certainly continue it’s steady decline.
Indyanglican @#7,
Unless the Orthodox ban together and force the issues NOTHING will be accomplished at Lambeth. That is how it has been designed.
RSB
Why play at a poker table when you know several players are in cahoots and have marked the cards? The indaba format seems to be perfectly crafted by the TEO so that there won’t be a repeat of Lambeth 98. Is Rowan Williams a dupe of the Americans or is he a cleverly playing the fool?
Good question indyanglican (#7 above). I’m not sure that any particular human agenda will be advanced at Lambeth next month, but surely God’s purpose for the Anglican Communion will be. I think it’s just another step in the very long process of Anglican renewal and realignment. It’s been going on for about half a century or more already, and it clearly has a lot more to run. This is all moving on God’s timetable, not ours. I’ve outgrown wondering what each meeting or conference will bring, and I’ve stopped seeing any one event as decisive or final. Taken collectively and seen in retrospect, one can see that something indeed is happening, very slowly but equally surely. Anglican Christianity is evolving to meet the many challenges of modernity. It has evolved quite a bit over nearly 500 years, and it is in the midst of a real big change right now. One thing I think will be clear after Lambeth is that such gatherings, once every decade, dominated by the leadership of ever-shrinking flocks in the West are relics of a bygone era. The action has already shifted to other venues and mechanisms. It will be interesting to see in 10 years hence which, if any, of the current so-called “instruments of unity” are of relevance. I think Anglicanism on the global level looks quite different today than it did in 1998, and it’s likely to look even more different in 2018 than it does right now. The changes are very slow and incremental, but they are happening! Once we get past the phase of holding our breaths for the next meeting or next conference to resolve everything, we begin to get a more long-range and realistic appreciation for what’s happening. Changes of this magnitude do not happen in the framework of months or years they take many decades, perhaps even a century or more. Once we accept that and put our trust in the Lord, it all becomes a bit more bearable on a daily basis!
Well, if there are a number of bishops who buy these http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/13224/ to wear in solidarity with VGR in a silent outloudproud protest,
I can imagine a severe controversy over the matter of taste in attire.
Doctrine, not so much. One must concentrate on the major things, you know. Inadaba/ubuntu this, but not unity, subsidiarity, accountability, or whatever-that-other-Windsor-thingy was.
AMEN Mr. Taylor (see #10); which brings us to the point, if Lambeth does nothing, then why shouldn’t the rest of the Anglican community (especially laity) continue the re-evolution of Anglicanism. While I agree that this process will evolve on God’s timeclock, I see nothing wrong with putting in some overtime.
God Bless all.
Re #4
Cynicism… Qui moi?
#10; Change can indeed be slow and incremental, like the gradual cooling of water, but you reach a point where the ice crystals ‘suddenly’ appear. We are now seeing that in Anglicanism, because Williams failed to act as he should have in 2003. Anglicanism must now realise it is like other Protestant bodies in the world, like the Presbyterians, Lutherans and Baptists, with orthodox and liberal streams, all flowing off in different directions.
Andrew Carey father Archbishop George Carey was one of the main architects of what became resolution 1.10. As Stephen Noll wrote on 12 August 1998: “With the help of Archbishop Carey and the cooperation of the African bishops, the strong final Resolution was crafted on the floor of the Conference after three sweaty hours.” It is revisionism of the highest order to give all the credit to Bishop Spong.
American conservatives have fragmented into various groupings such as Anglican Mission in America, the Anglican Network, CANA and other acronyms and for the most part are reserving their energies for the so-called GAFCON meeting in Jordan and Israel before Lambeth.
“so-called” GAFCON meeting? Does it have any other name, or is Carey simply refusing to dignify it by using its name properly? A petty and needless slap by the, shall I say, so-called author of this piece.
RE #14. Badman, I said the ‘tone’ was set by +Spong. This is hardly giving him credit for Lambeth 1.10 (which in any case, is only a restating of the Anglican view on human sexuality).
RE #15. Sorry, I was just expressing my impatience with acronyms. However, it’s no secret that my view is that it’s a mistake to hold GAFCON before the Lambeth Conference. All bishops should be attending Lambeth and then conservatives and global south can hold a meeting afterwards especially if they need to issue an alternative ‘minority’ (or is it ‘majority’ report).
Will someone spell out for me what Lambeth is taking place for? Even if it is nothing but talk, there must be some goal toward which the chatter tends. Is it now nothing but window dressing? This is what it looks like, after all. And if it is, why is any Anglican participating in it? Don’t we have any real work to do? When do all the real Anglicans left in America get together and lay plans for becoming a single, organized body? Larry
#17 Larry, the Archbishop of Canterbury says “The focus of all we do is meant to be strengthening our Communion and equipping all bishops to engage more effectively in mission” and “We want to see this year’s conference as an occasion when Bishops learn how to be better Bishops”.
I’m with you, w.w. and Andrew Carey. The place for the conservatives is at Lambeth. GAFCON is fine, but it shouldn’t be an either/or sort of thing. By all means attend both like ++Venables will be doing.
There are two good reasons to hold GAFCon before Lambeth. First is a show of power and solidarity (not perfectly unified, but still strong) and the second is for koinonia, to just be together and refresh and encourage one another before the attendees of Lambeth show their hands formally or informally.
TEc is certainly displaying both their hands (SSB instructions, etc.) and their ‘hineys’ (the lawsuits, violations of canons) flagrantly right and left.
At least their intentions are not veiled and their words obfuscated.
It is hard to determine who’s in charge of Lambeth or the ‘so-called’ Anglican ‘communion’ and who originally ‘gave place’ to the devil of the pansexual agenda, the CoE or TEC. It’s enough to say they are cojoined twins.
Sorry 19, it’s all a waste of time. There is no reason for the orthodox to go except to give the status quo their blessing. Lambeth will be orchestrated to approve TEC’s direction. It’s better to stay away.
Many readers will remember the pictures on every front page of Richard Kirker, the homosexual activist, being ‘exorcised’ by Bishop Emmanuel Chukwuma of Nigeria and the sprinkling of salt to ward off demons by Koscheski+ at GC2000 are 2 of my favorite stories of idiots in religion. Christian Science, Scientology and a Pentecostal friend who believed that the Holy Spirit had given him the power to heal machinery round out the Top 5.
While Ad Orientem’s question may seem facetious, it is actually a very good one considering the article. It points out the damage done by deciding that extremism is ‘harmless.’ Look at the huge impact that +Spong had on that convention – he got the ball rolling on the single largest focus of Anglicanism today. And yet, he remains a bishop and uses that title to help bolster sales of his books. Many people blame reasserters for not pushing for his deposition, but look what revisionists who have ‘left him alone’ have brought down on themselves. It is a clear demonstration of what happens when we ignore a problem instead of dealing with it head-on. A ‘White Paper’ by a man that everyone wants to see as a ‘fringe’ element has lead us where we are today. Certainly he is not the reason behind it, but his actions were the magnifying glass that set the ant ablaze.
What, if anything, will be accomplished at Lambeth? This is what we need to be asking. If Lambeth is to be simply an exercise in information exchange, then lo, we who are truly Anglican, regardless of where we hang our hat, must move Anglicanism forward, lest it will certainly continue it’s steady decline.
Also a good question. I think we must look at Lambeth as the true Council of our Chruch – even though ++Rowan chooses to make different claims. If this is the case and we have memebers who will not attend, then the split of Anglicanism has already occurred. Those in attendance will set the direction of the Communion. The problem with that is that it is not a solution, but rather a way to make the split permanent.
BfT19, isn’t that what the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC set in motion with its supercilious imperialistic imposition of “adiaphora” by its lights in 2003 and persisted in against the warnings of the Anglican Communion. Since this is the desired and foreseen result by Tec-ites in all their western postmodern enlightened stages above animism, how can you complain that the “split (is) permanent”? This is EXACTLY what Edmund Browning and Frank Griswold and all their enablets, particularly the DioNH engineers and General Convention 2003 bargained for. Long live the episcopal communion! the only true source of the spirits’ leading. They have split the communion.
RE: “All bishops should be attending Lambeth and then conservatives and global south can hold a meeting afterwards especially if they need to issue an alternative ‘minority’ (or is it ‘majority’ report).”
No no . . . because as we have learned, any meetings by conservatives held *after* Very Important Meetings are always deemed too “hasty” and it is announced that they should not meet prior to the Very Next Important Meeting which will be no doubt another Primates Meeting or, say, the 2009 General Convention.
The resistance to meetings amongst those parties who have given up on the Instruments actually doing anything really interests me. It’s almost as if they don’t want those parties who have given up on the Instruments to actually get together.
As a person who has no interest in Common Cause, I still find it interesting that some of those like me don’t want Primates who have surrendered on the idea of Communion discipline to get together.
dwstroudmd
Not sure I am complaining – just analyzing. I also have to disagree that this is what TEC wanted. With the exception of ++Katharine, I think that most people in TEC leadership value membership in the AC. They thought (IMO) that each Province could move forward as the Spirit led. When they were told that it would tear the fabric of the Communion, I imagine that they thought it would be no more of an uproar than women’s ordination – which they were removed from by a few decades. So I believe thay though that by 2036 most AC Provinces would have gay clergy and a few gay bishops. They appear to be wrong-time will tell.
I originally thought that orthodox/conservative bishops should go to Lambeth, if just to rebutt the message put oput by the revisionists. After thinking it through, I came to the conclusion that it was all a waste of time and money. The TEC has taken control of Canterbury and Rowan Williams. For all practical pourposes, the see of Canterbury has been vacated and then moved to 815. KJS now calls the shots for the “official” Anglican Communion. Well, she can have it. The TEC along with the AC of C and the Archbishop of Canterbury have descended into a post Christian relationship. Why should we continue to carry out any ‘conversation’ with them. They only converse with those that agree with them. If you don’t agree, you are sued, slandered, shunned and generally abused. The so called ABC has not had the substance to stand up to revisionist Schori and her minions, and in doing so has capitulated the communion to a non-christian, blasphemous witch and her lapdog lawyer. Maybe someone will send her some striped hose in the right colors so she can dress the part of the wicked witch of the west that she is. She could even borrow some shoes from Vicki Gene.
The value placed by ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC on membership in the Anglican Communion is obvious, BfT19. Your analysis merely needed what you completed to be most full and accurate, i.e., that TEC-ites thought it’d all blow over just like WO (which is far from a done issue, by the by). American imperialism…again…(but it’s only bad when GWB does it). When the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC does it, it’s the leading of the spirit. At least, that’s the propaganda line. Amazing that THE UGLY AMERICAN vested in the episcopacy is still as ugly as when imperializing elsewhere, isn’t it?
Too bad reality didn’t swallow the propaganda.
21. Br. Michael, you have hit the nail on the head! It has already been demonstrated that Lambeth is still another soft berth for bishops and their wives/husbands/’partners’. It has NOTHING to do with folks back home in the pews, except to rob their pockets of the $$$ needed to attend. The ‘conversation’ is over, and the American imperialists ‘won’ because THEY HAVE THE MONEY!!!