———
[b]UPDATE:[/b] See Comment 4 below for a more substantive report from Bp. Howe sent to the Central FL clergy listserv and shared with permission.
–elfgirl
———
[b]UPDATE:[/b] See Comment 4 below for a more substantive report from Bp. Howe sent to the Central FL clergy listserv and shared with permission.
–elfgirl
This from the guy who left the field at the height of the battle.
[i] Edited by elf. [/i]
Re: “building relationships”
Dear Bishop,
The relationship that matters most is the one with The Father. No amount of faux building and papering over cracks will take the place of THE Relationship that is so evidently lacking at Lambeth and amongst most of your fellow purple shirts therein gathered.
Yes, your “room is comfortable”, but ……….
You and your cohorts need our prayers.
And I mean it.
You need it.
Fr. Kingsley Jon-Ubabuco
Arlington, TX
orthodox bishops are shunned, bishop Howe withdraws from the ACN before going to England, TEC lobbys to have Robinson “seated”; the scent of betrayal is in the air.
Bishop Howe wrote a longer more substantive message about Lambeth to the Central Florida listserv which we’ve received by e-mail, along with permission to share it. Here it is, below. Thank you Bishop Howe. — elfgirl
—————————————
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
The first full day of the Lambeth Conference (and the second and half of the third, as well) consists of a full-fledged retreat in Canterbury Cathedral, led by Archbishop Rowan Williams himself. Between this morning and Saturday noon, he will have given five major addresses.
I am quite certain this is unprecedented in Anglican history. (For that matter, I cannot imagine a Pope or Patriarch attempting this.) Among the Bishops and Primates are many extremely well educated, intelligent, gifted people, and not a few “type A” personalities. To call the Bishops of the Communion together for a two and a half day retreat, and then to personally lead that retreat strikes me as something of a tour de force!
Sadly, it is equally unprecedented that more than one in four of the Bishops have chosen to boycott the Conference entirely. We are very conscious of their absence.
These two facts are uppermost in my mind at the end of the day.
Ostensibly, the reason many have stayed away is their anger and dismay that – even though Gene Robinson was not invited – those who were involved in approving his election and even more so, those who participated in his consecration, WERE invited, and, indeed, they are here.
My own sense is that there are a number of other issues in addition to that one. The GAFCON Conference last month, and the Jerusalem Statement it produced, seem to me to be an expression of the desire to throw off the “shackles of colonialism,” and I have to wonder whether that desire might not have found expression, sooner or later, with or without Gene Robinson.
As I said in this month’s Central Florida Episcopalian, I am totally in favor of the attempt to draw together the “fragments” of Anglicanism (and those bodies that consider themselves Anglican whether or not they have ever been officially part of the Communion).
But I am very wary of the proposed “new ecclesial structure” that could easily become an alternative Communion, and thus end Anglicanism as we have known it. I think we are probably in the most vulnerable moment of our history since the Reformation.
The Archbishop’s meditation this morning focused on Galatians 1:15, 16, which, he took pains to point out, clearly says, “God…was pleased to reveal his Son IN me…” – even though “some translations lose their nerve” and make it “…TO me…” He asked us to consider what it means that God wants to reveal his Son IN each of us, and then he pressed the issue in terms of what it might mean for Bishops, in particular.
What do people see of Christ in us? (A great question for all of us!)
This afternoon he drew us to 2 Corinthians 11:28, 29 – the “daily pressure of Paul’s anxiety for all the churches” and what that means for a Bishop – or a Pastor – to have Christ manifest in us in the midst of the suffering and stumbling of our people.
I think it is a remarkable beginning to our Conference, and I am eager to see where he goes in completing the program.
I will give you a sense of the schedule, and then I will sign off for today:
6:30 AM Morning Prayer
7:15 The Holy Eucharist
8:15 Breakfast
9:30 Bible Study
10:30 Depart for the Cathedral
12:00 First Meditation
1:00 Lunch
2:30 Second Meditation
4:30 Evening Prayer
5:30 Back to Campus
7:00 Dinner
8:00 Optional Special Programs
9:45 Night Prayer
(No, one doesn’t have to “do” all of it.)
Warmest regards in our Lord,
The Right Rev. John W. Howe
Episcopal Bishop of Central Florida
YaDaYaDaYa . . . This is not a Bishop, but someone who is blown by the winds of popularity. He serves not God, but self. Something comes to mind about not being hot nor cold, but lukewarm. And being spat out. You can get a bad rash sitting on that fence. Ouch!
Re: “The GAFCON Conference last month, and the Jerusalem Statement it produced, seem to me to be an expression of the desire to throw off the “shackles of colonialism,†and I have to wonder whether that desire might not have found expression, sooner or later, with or without Gene Robinson.”
Dear Bishop,
I think it is very unfair for you to chuck up the reaction of the faithful Anglicans who are appalled at the unholiness-in-high-places and the celebration-and-blessing-of-abominable-deeds in the Anglican churches of the West as a desire to throw off “the shackles of colonialism”.
It is very insulting to the intelligence (oh, pardon me. I forget there is no intelligence beyond the West) of these honorable bishops and others who are more concerned with respecting and honoring the word of God than with hanging out with the mockers of God in the guise of a conference that was purposefully designed to achieve nothing substantive.
I think you need to apologize to a lot of people, not the least of which is Bishop Minns, for this insult.
By the way, why are we forgetting that America was also once a colony, just as much as Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, etc. once were. Or, does colonialism apply only to the Africans?
It is very funny indeed that we, the American church, are forgetting our own history. It is even worse, considering the fact that Samuel Seabury was not protesting some theological heresy or fighting to hold on to the Faith once delivered when he went to Scotland.
The Lambeth Conference is less than a day old, and yet we are already witnessing a bunch of sad jokes!?!?!
Lord Have Mercy!
With all due respect,
Fr. Kingsley Jon-Ubabuco
Arlington, TX
“But I am very wary of the proposed “new ecclesial structure†that could easily become an alternative Communion, and thus end Anglicanism as we have known it.” I’m afraid that “Anglicanism as we have known it” has already come to an end, but that’s not a bad thing. Anglicanism has undergone many transformations over nearly five centuries. The latest stage in its evolution is a needed response to the failure of the old arrangements to avoid being subverted to a powerful, largely secular global culture originating in and dominated by Western Europe and North America.
I appreciate Bishop Howe sharing his impressions of the first day.
[blockquote]My own sense is that there are a number of other issues in addition to that one [Robinson’s election and consecration]. The GAFCON Conference last month, and the Jerusalem Statement it produced, seem to me to be an expression of the desire to throw off the “shackles of colonialism,†and I have to wonder whether that desire might not have found expression, sooner or later, with or without Gene Robinson.[/blockquote]
And thus even a seemingly conservative bishop assists in co-opting the honest objections of those who vehemently disagree because they seek to proclaim the Gospel. In my opinion, the bishop’s point is valid *but*only*secondarily*. To give it primary prominence (he did say “with our without Gene Robinson,” so this assertion must be more important than the issues involving Robinson) in his argument is, in part, to deny that the willful abuse and untrue teaching of the Gospel is paramount in this entire controversy. It’s *not* just about sex, your Grace, and it has little to do with overthrowing colonialism, either.
At the risk of confusing two points, I go on: I can’t help but shake my head and laugh in wonder at the incongruity of this line of reasoning. I thought the liberal Anglican movement sought to release the prisoners from their chains. Aren’t their former “shackles of colonialism†just such chains? Shouldn’t Robinson, KJS, Russell, and the whole cast be working as furiously as possible to aid them in their freedom which you stated is expressed in the Jerusalem Statement? Shouldn’t they affirm the Jerusalem Statement now, at the imperitive of Christ Jesus’ command? Thank you, your Grace.
Fr. Jon-Ubabuco,
With all due respect, I think you are misreading Bp. Howe. Perhaps it could have been put better, but I think that, by the phrase, “Throw off the shackles of colonialism,” Bp Howe simply means that indeed, many Anglican provinces…really all Anglican provinces…are the product of colonialism. And leadership in the Anglican Church has not always been kind to those in the countries they colonized. Indeed, while I can’t quite recall the exact wording I read, one C of E bishop recently referred to the boycotting Africans in terms of petulant children…a very paternal, very colonial, very annoying attitude…don’t you agree? Gafcon is a good thing, but don’t deceive yourself, as much as it was about restoring some sort of orthodox order to the communion, it was also about sharing the authority and power (such as they are) of Lambeth with the provinces that carry the weight of sheer numbers, whose bishops hold more earned PhDs than the TEC HoB, and who are likely far more spiritually mature than most western bishops give them credit for.
“. . . and thus end Anglicanism as we have known it.”
This begs the question. If Anglicanism “as we have known it” has served its purpose and is no longer viable, is it not time for a new form or structure to take its pace?
Howe is nothing but honest that his goal is to preserve “Anglicanism as we know it” and that he is very wary of anything that would disrupt such a goal.
I can’t help but wonder, though, if “Anglicanism as we know it” may not always be the most worthy goal; or can it be equated with the worth of Christ?
“What do people see of Christ in us? (A great question for all of us!) ”
IMHO nothing! Not if the bishops (not Howe, but so many in attendance) repudiate the gospel, deny Jesus for who He says he is.
Prepositions are curious (yet invaluable) agents of the nuances of grammar and can get quite complicated–especially in translation. So, for instance, Pentecostals preferred to speak of baptism “in” the Holy Spirit, Wesleyan-Holiness folk preferred Baptism “with” the Holy Spirit, but both came to reject the older baptism “of” the Holy Spirit, since that suggested that the Holy Spirit did the baptizing, when Jesus does the actual baptizing, etc., etc…. “He who began a good work ‘in’ you” is not quite the same as “He who began a good work ‘among’ you”–and on and on we could go.
I’m totally with Archbishop Rowan here, with “God…was pleased to reveal his Son IN me…†and I wonder, what preposition should fill the blanks of “Christ ____ GAFCON” and “Christ ____ Lambeth?” In? At? Behind? Within? Over? Through? Amongst? Against (God forbid!)?
Following on a point made above by Fr. Jon-Ubabuco (#5), how should we write “Christ ____ Seabury-going-through-Scotland?” And how about “Christ ____ Celtic Church” along with “Christ ____ Augustine of Canterbury?” And of course (though out of order), “Christ ____ “The English Reformation?”
Many of us prayed earnestly for GAFCON and we believe that we saw the hand of God. Let us also pray earnestly for Lambeth. The Future can look back and then fill in the best prepositions.
Thank you for reading this.
William Shontz
http://www.willsho.org