Dr Williams said: “There is a question about the legitimacy, so to speak, of what emerges from this. It’s a point I put as strongly as I can to the people who are not here in fact; that if they want their voice incorporated in this, this is the way to do it.”
One of the three English Bishops boycotting the conference, the Bishop of Willesden, the Rt Rev Pete Broadbent, said: “If Rowan wants to put that point to me, he should ask me himself.
“It’s not a question of who’s there and who’s not. It’s a question of does anybody feel that what Lambeth does is a definitive statement of what the Anglican Communion believes, because thus far it’s not been the case that people have held to agreements made.”
Bishop Broadbent also rejected the suggestion that by not being there, he could not have his voice incorporated: “I don’t think anyone’s ruled themselves out of the right to comment on the Conference’s conclusions. The bigger question is will Lambeth produce any definitive solutions to the problems of the Anglican Communion, and even if they do, will the Churches in North America take any notice?”
++Rowan, I think, knows TEC and the ACoC are charging ahead with their revisionist agenda come Hell or high water. If he allows plenary sessions and resolutions at Lambeth, TEC and the ACoC will likely be rebuked and/or told no more sexual innovations and to backtrack on the ones they’ve ginned up…or else. So it’s important to the leadership of the AC, such as it is, to make sure no resolutions are passed so TEC/ACoC cannot be seen to be violating them.
We’re just running out the clock here.
Bishop Broadbent is correct. All the orthodox bishops were at Lambeth in 1998, they spoke clearly and with a unified voice and look where it got them. The credibility of Lambeth and the ABC was not put into question by the decision of so many orthodox bishops not to attend this conference, credibility was destroyed for both the Conference and the ABC by the failure of the ABC to exercise the powers he DOES have to enforce the clearly articulated will of the Communion. He’s not a pope, but he’s also not powerless. He should have withheld invitations to all those bishops who consecrated Robinson and he should not have done what he did in New Orleans last September. The blame for the failure of the Communion lies squarely with him.
The elepahnt as it were! +Rowan please remove the wax from your ears so you may here and the flim form your eyes that you may see these very true words. If Lambeth was truly legitimate then Resolution 1.10 would have been up held and we wouldn’t be where we seem to be at this moment in history.
I fully agree with the good bishop from Willesden!
Lambeth is a failure: not just this Lambeth, but Lambeth as an historical institution, as an instrument of unity. It is a failure. It has achieved nothing towards the renewal of the church. Rather, it has drifted with the culture, and the periodic stands it has taken against the forward edge of that drift have done nothing to stem the drift. Check the history of its deliberations and proclamations of women in ministry from Lambeth 1920 on toward Lambeth 1978.
Lambeth is not a failure. It does not matter what the official statement says. It has been a tremendous success for the conservatives because TEC is being exposed. The rest of communion is waking up and that means victory.
This is the fundamental issue regarding the devaluation of the instruments of unity. The Lambeth Conference has already spoken on the issue (Res. 1.10), and separately gave the Primates’ Meeting enhanced authority for addressing such issues.
When TEC rejected Res. 1.10, the Primates’ Meeting met to respond. It is clear that the ABC (for whatever reason) subsequently impeded the adjudication of the DES Communique by the one body having authority over the communique – the Primates’ Meeting. What happens when an instrument of unity acts against other instruments of unity? They are all devalued.
(Some try to accuse GAFCON with causing the devaluation of the instruments, but that accusation simply ignores history.)
Now, the bishop is correct that “[t]he bigger question is will Lambeth produce any definitive solutions to the problems of the Anglican Communion, and even if they do, will the Churches in North America take any notice.” If the instruments are collectively unable to teach and govern the communion, then they simply lack value for those functions.
🙄
The rest of communion is waking up and that means victory.
Hmmmm. Is this victory going to be a “product” of Lambeth, or is it something achieved in spite of Lambeth? If the former, I would love to see how. If the latter, I do not see how you can then claim Lambeth to be a success. The resolutions of the last Lambeth have not been followed. Are the resolutions of this Lambeth going to be followed better? (well, of course there aren’t going to be any resolutions).
No. The success you seem to be pointing to is not a success of Lambeth, it is a success of the conservative realization of and reaction to the failure of Lambeth.
Chris, that is exactly what I mean. We all know that the battle for the communion is bigger than Lambeth. We also know that statements from Lambeth have no force. The best we can hope for is that the communion realize and discipline TEC despite this. I am not sure how this can happen, but I trust the vast majority of the communion which is orthodox to eventually find a way. Does Sudan seem like it about to drop the issue? How about Uganda, Nigeria, Kenya, and the rest?
What I hear from most of the commentators here is that they have a lot of anger towards Lambeth- perhaps because people are actually talking with each other. Any covenant will need to be collaborative rather than coercive.
Its interesting that people want Victory. Why? For God? Isn’t he going to win anyway? God will work within Lambeth, and possibly within Gafcon. But it probably won’t be in the way everyone wants. Which makes sense. It behooves us to remember we are not, ourselves, Gods.
It was always clear that Lambeth had the very strong potential to “succeed” only for the two destructive parties. Obviously the American hierarchy wants it to fail to deliver that church a significant rebuke, but more importantly, to fail to offer any legitimacy to American dioceses who want to be free of liberal control. The GAFCONites, on the other hand, need Lambeth to fail to rebuke the Americans in order to legitimize the confessional schism towards which they are obviously working. Their refusal to participate is a means, intentional or not, of ensuring that this rebuke doesn’t happen. All of this seems deliberately designed, frankly, to leave everyone else in the lurch.
9, John you and I talk. And I have heard enough from you to realize that talking is pointless. I consider you a false teacher. I don’t say this in anger, but to point out that at some point positions are clear and further talk is a waste of time. It’s time to separate.
Rowan is shifting the blame for his own failures in leadership.
[blockquote]What I hear from most of the commentators here is that they have a lot of anger towards Lambeth- perhaps because people are actually talking with each other. Any covenant will need to be collaborative rather than coercive. [/blockquote]
I think the frustration and yes, anger, are due to the manipulations of the Lambeth planners who have so fastidiously compartmentalized and steered discussion as to make the entire conference an exercise in not accomplishing anything, not because people are “actually talking with each other.” Please be honest once in a while, John.
Ms. Lindsley, what leadership do you think any archbishop could provide, under the circumstances? You yourself stand as an object example of someone who rejects his leadership, not because of his person, but simply because of his office. Do think he could have personally excommunicated the American church, and have had it mean something? The baldly obvious problem in all of this is that ECUSA refuses any kind of external direction, and that now another party has arisen which for all intents exhibits the same flaw. There is nobody on earth who could lead this thing, it seems to me.
Not that I would ever answer for Ms. [i]Linsley[/i], but Rowan Williams had ample opportunity to lead the Anglican Communion and punted each and every time. He could have upheld Lambeth 1.10 by threatening non-attendance at Lambeth when VGR was elected…he didn’t. He could have upheld it when consecration loomed…he didn’t. He could have acted boldly after…he instead appointed a commission to issue a ponderous report.
He then chose to outsource the compliance determination to that report when it was obvious that there was no compliance, then meekly mouthed agreement to the pre-determination. When Primates with actual spines objected to that farcical view and drew a line in the sand, he promptly erased that line by sending out invitations to Lambeth early, declaring the deadline was not really a deadline.
No, Rowan had plenty of chances to be a Christian leader, and he chose timidity, inertia and bureaucracy instead. Now a tiny cut to the Communion has blossomed into a gangrenous limb that threatens our existence. And what does he do? Plans the last chance at discipline as an exercise in rudderless meandering.
Rowan is a sad, incompetent excuse of a leader who deserves whatever opprobium is heaped upon him.
15 said it well.
If he had made such a threat, do you seriously think they would have backed down? I think there is not only not the slightest chance, but given the way the canons are being used these days, I would expect that the next step would be to threaten anyone who accepted an invitation with removal from office.
And amen, Br. Michael. the ABC had the time, the opportunity, and the traditional authority to lead, and he balked at the rails again and again.
The evidence is simply t here in front of our eyes. LM
With respect to the previous commenters, I would take things a slightly different direction. IMHO, the ABC is not guilty of inaction. On the contrary, he has chosen to act vigorously in a certain way to prevent the instruments of communion from dealing with TEC/ACC.
>Consider his appointments to communion offices, the Panel of Reference, and even the Eames Commission
>Consider the misleading report in DES
>Consider the actions that interfered with adjudication of the DES Communique, nullifying actions of the instruments over several years
Although I suspect he does not like the circumstances he is in, I believe that he has chosen and acted to bring the communion to where it is today – that is to say, broken and dysfunctional (i.e., the instruments being nearly completely devalued) but with TEC in full status.
Based on his actions, he must believe that this state of the communion is better than if he had not acted.
🙄
Brother Michael, it doesn’t really matter if you think I am a false teacher or not. You state you know my position, but I doubt you could actually articulate it. I eagerly await a post from you that is more than sloganeering. And in love. One way is to first try to articulate what I’m saying, and then respond. But you are very good at name calling. I do sense your petulance, but I could be wrong.
You don’t need to come to my church. I won’t ever make you do that. I gather that you would try to stop others from coming from my church, and that you’d want to stop people like me from attending yours. And you would really like bishops to stop talking with each other, even if they disagree. Why is that? Shouldn’t they feel free to speak with who they want?
Re: #17,
“If he had made such a threat, do you seriously think they would have backed down? I think there is not only not the slightest chance, but given the way the canons are being used these days, I would expect that the next step would be to threaten anyone who accepted an invitation with removal from office.’
Yes — and so? You mean, you think that this would have been a “bad thing?” If so, then I beg to differ.