There is much that suggests I am wrong. In the past few years leading up to Lambeth 2008, there has been incredible tension building. Many declarations have been made, many reflecting egos in need of power rather than gospel imperatives. Threats, intimidation, bullying and attempts to control people’s lives have dominated the pre-Lambeth landscape.
But now that the conference is upon us I am sensing a new determination from Canadian bishops and others that I have spoken with around the Communion. There is a resolve to make this work. It is simply too important a time in the life of the Church to get bogged down in rhetoric and motions. Not only are the bishops saying that they owe it to the church ”” the whole people of God ”” but they are also recognizing in their prayers and hearts that the call from Christ is to faithfulness rather than to worldly concepts of winning and losing. Those who have deliberately chosen to boycott this conference will not succeed in destroying it.
Lambeth is about building new relationships, about listening and learning and this will happen with or without those who have stayed away. The design of small Bible study groups (about eight) moving to larger groups (aboout 40) for conversation is a brilliant plan that creates an environment fertile for growth.
Read it all. If Archdeacon Fendley is really interested in conversation as he says, he could start by characterizing those who disagree with him fairly. Those who have chosen out of conscience and conviction not to come to Lambeth are not seeking to destroy Lambeth–indeed I would challenge him to cite an instance where they say they wish to do so. In any event, read it all.
It seems reasonable to infer from this article that the liberal mind is made up, that conservatives are out to destroy Canterbury. This sounds like a non -inclusive satement if there has ever been one. The conservatives are not out to destroy anything other than the hold placed on people by sin. What the liberal side of TEC and ACocC advocate is not freedom or Christian. Christian freedom is the freedom to do what is right to further the kingdom of God no matter what the secular world sees. Freedom to wallow in sin is not freedom, it is slavery to sin, brought on by unlimited license to try to change what the Church has taught since the time of Christ. God says he is the same and will be with us always. I guess that takes out the argument that God is doing his “new thing”. If Canterbury or any province of the Anglican Communion strays so far from what the Bible authoratatively teaches, then they destroy themselves from within.
The leadin is enough, Kendall. It’s more and more painful to realize that they listen but do not hear, look and do not see. In fact, the question “Why bother?” comes to mind. Really, “threats, intimidation, bullying and attempts to control peoples lives” and who is perpetrating? I’ve got to go rest; maybe if I sleep on a rock, I’ll see Angels ascending and descending and find hope, a ladder I might be able to use myself and escape this madness.
Oh, watch out for “building new relationships.” This is jargon for “emphasis the touchy feeling and do nothing concrete, esp do not act.”
This is the language of vacillation and endless qualification – and, when we get to the “love” part, sheer bathos. Here is TEC’s tactic which has worked so well in the past. When, when do we get tired of this, so tired that we refuse to allow it, refuse to listen, refuse to be lead by the nose, – and maybe punch a head or two for good measure. This would be worth some time in jail. Why are we such suckers? Larry
Larry, I think the good news is that less and less of us ARE suckers.
GAFCON, along with the marginalizing of the complete non-event which is Lambeth 2008 has demonstrated this amply. So all the left can do is whine nonsense, such as Bible believing Anglicans being “egos in need of power rather than gospel imperatives. Threats, intimidation, bullying and attempts to control people’s lives have dominated the pre-Lambeth landscape”- the tragedy of this, of course, is that this characterization perfectly fits the revisionistas.
What blindness! They cannot discern the movement of the prince of this world from that of the Spirit of the Living God, much like the Pharisees who thought that Christ was casting out demons by Beelzebub.
Said above: Lambeth is about building new relationships, about listening and learning and this will happen with or without those who have stayed away. The design of small Bible study groups (about eight) moving to larger groups (about 40) for conversation is a brilliant plan that creates an environment fertile for growth.
The problem is such a scheme would appear to avoid the critical issues of the day. This is supposed to be a meeting of a synod of bishop, albeit, the synod does not have specific authority. This is supposed to be a meeting where the mind of the Church is determined. This whole process at best will yield a subjective paper that expresses a wide range of ideas.
Those who are not attending have equated the conference to a pleasant tea. It is rapidly looking more like that than a real meeting of bishops. With the internet today, there is little to be gained by publishing a paper which collects the ideas of a group of people without making any real decisions. Whatever value there is in these small groups in aiding discussion is more than offset by the abrogation of responsibilities to lead.
Ten years ago it was the mind of the synod to uphold traditional teaching on sexual relationships. It was also the mind of the house to listen to those whose lifestyle was not in keeping with that teaching. The first part of the mind of the house was doctrine and the second pastoral. The Church in Canada and the United States has chosen to ignore the first part, and with the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury and staff now has a meeting of bishops which cannot by its very structure address the willful disobedience.
This is not a brilliant plan to create a fertile environment for growth, but rather a lack luster plan to avoid meaningful discernment of some member of the body acts of willful disobedience or heresy.
I concur with our host. There seems to be an epidemic of deliberate misrepresentation – from a wide variety of quarters, including some from reasserters – of GAFCON and those bishops staying away.
When a critic resorts to misrepresentation and hyperbole, it is reasonable to conclude that the critic lacks any better argument. I will weigh Archdeacon Fendley’s comments accordingly.
😉