(ACNS)
The first invitations for the 2008 Lambeth Conference, to be held in Canterbury next summer, are being sent out today by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams. The gathering, which is set to be the largest Lambeth Conference in the history of the Anglican Communion, brings together bishops from the Churches in the 38 Provinces of the Anglican Communion together with ecumenical and other invited guests.
The 2008 Conference is intended to comprise nearly three weeks of shared retreat, common worship, study and discussion. It differs from previous gatherings in that the bishops will begin the conference with a period of retreat and reflection. It is planned that much of this retreat time will be held in and around Canterbury Cathedral.
The first set of invitations are being sent today to over 800 bishops of the provinces of the Anglican Communion. In his letter of invitation the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, pays tribute to the Conference Design Group whose members, led by the Archbishop of Melanesia, have, with his full support, proposed a programme with an emphasis on fellowship, study, prayer, the sharing of experience and discussion, all aimed at equipping bishops for their distinctive apostolic ministry:
“Their vision and their advice has been an inspiration at every stage so far. I am hugely excited by the possibilities the programme offers for a new and more effective style of meeting and learning, and for greater participation, which will help us grow together locally and internationally. ”¦ it will also be an opportunity for all of us to strengthen our commitment to God’s mission and to our common life as a Communion. In connection with this latter point, we shall be devoting some time to thinking about the proposals for an Anglican Covenant, and about other ways in which we can deepen our sense of a common calling for us as a coherent and effective global Church family.”
“The Conference is a place where experience of our living out of God’s mission can be shared. It is a place where we may be renewed for effective ministry. And it is a place where we can try and get more clarity about the limits of our diversity and the means of deepening our Communion, so we can speak together with conviction and clarity to the world. It is an occasion in which the Archbishop of Canterbury exercises his privilege of calling his colleagues together, not to legislate but to discover and define something more about our common identity through prayer, listening to God’s Word and shared reflection. It is an occasion to rediscover the reality of the Church itself as a worldwide community united by the call and grace of Christ.”
Mindful of the speculation that has surrounded the issuing of invitations to the Conference Dr Williams recalls that invitations are issued on a personal basis by the Archbishop of Canterbury and that “the Lambeth Conference has no ”˜constitution’ or formal powers; it is not a formal Synod or Council of the Communion”, and that invitation to the Conference has never been seen as “a certificate of doctrinal orthodoxy”. Nevertheless Dr Williams recognises in his letter that under very exceptional circumstances an invitation may be withheld or withdrawn. Under this provision, there are a small number of bishops to whom invitations are not at this stage being extended whilst Dr Williams takes further advice.
Other invitations ”“ to ecumenical representatives and other invited guests ”“ will be sent out in due course. Bishops’ spouses are being invited to a parallel conference; invitations for this will be sent later in the year by Mrs Jane Williams, who is the host.
The text of the Archbishop’s invitation is below:
”˜Dear Bishop,
I am delighted to invite you to the Lambeth Conference of 2008 and I very much look forward to our gathering together as bishops of the Anglican Communion.
The dates of the Conference are 16 July-4 August 2008 and I trust you will already have heard something of the vision for the Conference as it has been unfolding. It will focus on our equipping as bishops for leadership in mission and teaching, and it will also be an opportunity for all of us to strengthen our commitment to God’s mission and to our common life as a Communion. In connection with this latter point, we shall be devoting some time to thinking about the proposals for an Anglican Covenant, and about other ways in which we can deepen our sense of a common calling for us as interdependent members of the body of Christ.
This will be my third Lambeth Conference and I am very confident of the quality of the programme being developed for it. I want to offer my warm public thanks to all those from across the world who have worked so hard at planning this ”“ especially the devoted Design Group under the Archbishop of Melanesia, those who attended the St Augustine’s Seminar last year, and our Conference Manager, Sue Parks. Their vision and their advice has been an inspiration at every stage so far. I am hugely excited by the possibilities the programme offers for a new and more effective style of meeting and learning, and for greater participation, which will help us grow together locally and internationally.
Because there has been quite a bit of speculation about invitations and the conditions that might be attached to them, I want to set out briefly what I think the Conference is and is not.
The Conference is a place where our experience of living out God’s mission can be shared. It is a place where we may be renewed for effective ministry. And it is a place where we can try and get more clarity about the limits of our diversity and the means of deepening our Communion, so we can speak together with conviction and clarity to the world. It is an occasion when the Archbishop of Canterbury exercises his privilege of calling his colleagues together, not to legislate but to discover and define something more about our common identity through prayer, listening to God’s Word and shared reflection. It is an occasion to rediscover the reality of the Church itself as a worldwide community united by the call and grace of Christ.
But the Lambeth Conference has no ”˜constitution’ or formal powers; it is not a formal Synod or Council of the bishops of the Communion, which would require us to be absolutely clear about the standing of all the participants. An invitation to participate in the Conference has not in the past been a certificate of doctrinal orthodoxy. Coming to the Lambeth Conference does not commit you to accepting the position of others as necessarily a legitimate expression of Anglican doctrine and discipline, or to any action that would compromise your conscience or the integrity of your local church.
At a time when our common identity seems less clear that it once did, the temptation is to move further away from each other into those circles where we only related to those who completely agree with us. But the depth and seriousness of the issues that face us require us to discuss as fully and freely as we can, and no other forum offers the same opportunities for all to hear and consider, in the context of a common waiting on the Holy Spirit.
I have said, and repeat here, that coming to the Conference does not commit you to accepting every position held by other bishops as equally legitimate or true. But I hope it does commit us all to striving together for a more effective and coherent worldwide body, working for God’s glory and Christ’s Kingdom. The Instruments of Communion have offered for this purpose a set of resources and processes, focused on the Windsor Report and the Covenant proposals. My hope is that as we gather we can trust that your acceptance of the invitation carries a willingness to work with these tools to shape our future. I urge you all most strongly to strive during the intervening period to strengthen confidence and understanding between our provinces and not to undermine it.
At this point, and with the recommendations of the Windsor Report particularly in mind, I have to reserve the right to withhold or withdraw invitations from bishops whose appointment, actions or manner of life have caused exceptionally serious division or scandal within the Communion. Indeed there are currently one or two cases on which I am seeking further advice. I do not say this lightly, but I believe that we need to know as we meet that each participant recognises and honours the task set before us and that there is an adequate level of mutual trust between us about this. Such trust is a great deal harder to sustain if there are some involved who are generally seen as fundamentally compromising the efforts towards a credible and cohesive resolution.
I look forward with enthusiasm to the Conference and hope you will be able to attend, or your successor in the event that you retire in the meantime. My wife Jane will be writing with an invitation to the Spouses Conference which will run in parallel to the Lambeth Conference. Further communication to bishops will follow soon from the Lambeth Conference Office, including details of the costs and a reply slip on which you can respond formally to this invitation. It would be a great help if these replies were received by 31 July 2007. In the meantime, should you have any queries about the Lambeth Conference itself, or if you will be retiring before the Conference, please contact the Lambeth Conference Manager at invitations@lambethconference.org or consult the Lambeth Conference website www.lambethconference.org.
I trust you and your diocese will join with me in praying for God’s gracious blessing of our time together.
Yours in Christ,
Rowan CANTUAR
As a former mathematician, I am going to miss the dreaded math question. NOT!
My questions: who got an early invitation? (The website said that invitations would go out late in 2007.) And, does arrogantly defying a direct and unanimous request of the primates constitute “very exceptional circumstances”?
What does it take?
Slightly edited.
So, do we know yet who *hasn’t* been invited?
Here are the 34 comments that have been left on this post over on the old blog. Thought it would be helpful to copy them here.
1. Fr. Christopher G. Phillips Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:28 am
“…I have to reserve the right to withhold or withdraw invitations from bishops whose appointment, actions or manner of life have caused exceptionally serious division or scandal within the Communion.â€
According to those standards, The presiding Bishop and the leader of New Hampshire Episcopalians should be relegated to a noninvitation category, looking at the party from outside.
2. seitz Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:36 am e
“The Instruments of Communion have offered for this purpose a set of resources and processes, focused on the Windsor Report and the Covenant proposals. My hope is that as we gather we can trust that your acceptance of the invitation carries a willingness to work with these tools to shape our future†— this is a key line.
Can non-Windsor Bishops agree to this without offending their ‘prophetic consciences,’ support for +New Hampshire?
Also, as noted in #1, some will not be invited. Their supporters will demand that others stand alongside them, etc..
3. Charlie Sutton Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:43 am e
Abp Williams says, “I believe that we need to know as we meet that each participant recognises and honours the task set before us and that there is an adequate level of mutual trust between us about this. Such trust is a great deal harder to sustain if there are some involved who are generally seen as fundamentally compromising the efforts towards a credible and cohesive resolution.â€
I wonder if he means Bp Robinson or Abp Akinola as he speaks of those who are seen as “fundamentally compromising the efforts towards a credible and cohesive resolution.†It could be either; it could be both.
It will be interesting to see whether anyone will be left out — or if any invitations are retracted.
4. seitz Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:56 am e
#3–I understand that ‘both’ is the answer to your last surmise.
5. Brian Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:11 am e
Also, as noted in #1, some will not be invited.
reserve the right to withhold or withdraw does not mean that anyone will not be invited, although it is an ominous indicator
6. seitz Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:12 am e
Not to confuse, both ‘left out’ and ‘withdrawn.’ But we will now get a lot of evaluation and a tsunami of response from Bishops supportive of +VGR. And others. I would go slow, but this is unlikely…
7. Philip Bowers Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:21 am e
My bet is that every single bishop of the Anglican Communion will be invited. When push comes to shove, Rowan+++ will exclude no one.
8. Reason and Revelation Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:31 am e
I agree. Williams does not have the desire to define boundaries anywhere other than nondoctrinal polity lines. It’s just not in him.
9. seitz Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:36 am e
We shall see…
10. Randy Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:40 am e
According to the Washington Post quoting Kenneth Kearon, neither Robinson or Martyn Minns will get an invite.
11. seitz Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:54 am e
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/22/AR2007052200411.html
12. Randall Stewart Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:58 am e
Thanks Seitz. So far, ++Rowan is being consistent.
Kendall-off topic-new site looks good.
13. Brian Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:59 am e
“Robinson may be invited to attend the Lambeth Conference as a guest, but
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is not contemplating inviting Minns,
Kearon said.â€
14. Brian Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:21 am e
What will be interesting to see are the reactions from:
1. Liberal TEC Bishops
2. ++Akinola to the official non-recognition of CANA
and
3. The VA. courts to the fact that CANA is not an Anglican entity.
15. Ron + Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:22 am e
Many think that those not invited to Lambeth 2008 will include VGR,Schori,Bennison ,Chane, etc.
I know this is a long shot on this race in 2008 but I would place my $2.00 trifecta bet that it will be Orombi,Akinola, and Minns who will not be invited.
Would any here be surprised ?
16. Brad Page Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:22 am e
In terms of “Anglo-bishopspeak†we’ve been here a million times before. While the Archbishop “reserves the right†to issue or not issue invitations, and while this or that bishop “may†or may not be invited, I’d bet the cathedral that Dr. Williams will invite them all. To exclude one or two would effectively exclude the bishops who travel in the excluded bishop’s theological/political entourage.
And you can bet he’ll wait until the last possible moment to be clear on his intentions…and even then it may take a while for us to work out what he said.
17. ANR+ Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:32 am e
“Katie and her sidekick Vicki Gene â€
Isn’t this a little out of line here? No matter what you think of their theology, this is inappropriate.
Agree, comment has been changed-ed..
18. seitz Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:36 am e
Ingham, VGR, Harare would be my surmises.
(I doubt RDW believes he is *excluding* the bishops in the category ‘extra-territorial’ and so is not inviting them on principle. But I am sure we shall in time hear the explanation.)
Yes, how VGR supporters react to this will be the key dynamic in the US regions.
19. Athanasius Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:37 am e
ANR, inapproriate by whose atndars? Yeeeeesh!!
20. Alan Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:39 am e
Withdrawing an existing invitation is practically and psychologically much more difficult than simply not issuing one, but also has more impact. While this is the normal time frame to issue Lambeth invitations, it would not be that much of an imposition for him to wait until October. At that point, the obvious would be made definite.
If +++Rowan had a track record leadership, this would be a great method and opportunity to show it. As it is, it is more likely a case of, in Lady Thatcher’s words, “Consensus is the absence of leadership.â€
21. Sarah Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:42 am e
Guess the Primates weren’t going to be involved in deciding who should come after all.
22. kendall Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:55 am e
#17 is a fair comment can we please ease off on this kind of unnecessary language. It does not communicate respect.
23. Rick Killough Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:56 am e
I’m no theologian, but I see a double-standard here, and I’m not talking about the non-invitation of Bishop Minns.
Isn’t it true that Bp. Robinson is a consecrated Anglican bishop?
To exclude him based on the fact that he has caused division, while including those who consecrated him and supported his episcopacy, appears to be unfair. I mean, who is more at ‘fault’? Those who had the responsibility to safegaurd the succession, or the one who took it?
Before I get flamed, I’m a traditionalist, but I don’t see the wisdom in the choice of who is in and who is out. I hope there is better discernment ahead.
24. kennjon Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:03 am e
According to David Virtue, neither Bishops Minns or Robinson will be invited. I suspect this is probably second-hand knowledge gleaned from the Washington Post.
25. admin Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:05 am e
Please self-moderate your comments and use restraint today. We elves are busy trying to learn all about the new blog software and identify and work out kinks over there. That greatly limits our availability to review comments either here or on the new blog.
It is obviously going to be a BUSY day on the comment threads with this news. We truly need your help, patience and forbearance and thoughtfulness in the comments today. Thanks in advance –elfgirl
26. Stuart Smith Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:20 am e
My guess is that everyone will get their invitation to the tea party.
The current ABC is so worn out from the whiplash effect of reactions within the AC, that he is in no mood to buy more trouble by “un-inviting†anyone.
In fact, the right to not invite makes a nice preparation from magnanimously including everyone. It makes the not so subtle point that no one is consider outside the circle…everyone is “at the tableâ€, etc.
There is no more important truism in the modern church than this: all must be accepted as they are! The iconic biblical text from 40 years ago was this: “God so loved the world….†(Jn 3:16). Now, at least amongst the younger two generations, it is this: “Judge not, that you be not judgedâ€. Therein lies the tale!
27. Faithful and Committed Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:26 am e
Although most of the discussion on this board has focused on the invitations, I think another significant aspect of the letter from Archbishop Williams is the marker he lays down about the limits of a Lambeth Conference. I note especially his point that the bishops who will gather lack legislative authority. That would seem to be a commentary on the way that the Lambeth 1.10 resolution from 1998 has been touted as being authoritative. Perhaps, the Archbishop is backing away from his own observation that Lambeth 1.10 represents the teaching of the communion.
28. stephen bates Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:30 am e
In the interests of quelling speculation, Canon Kearon has told me that Bishop Robinson has not been invited to participate, but consideration is being given to inviting him as a guest of the archbishop.
AMiA and CANA bishops, including Martyn Minns, have not been invited on the basis of George Carey’s refusal to recognise the AMiA consecrations in 2001. Bishop Nolbert Kunonga has not been invited either because his standing is in doubt, nor have a handful of other, unnamed, bishops for similar reasons. 880 invitations have been sent out, 40 more than in 1998.
29. kendall Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:35 am e
My thanks to Stephen Bates for the comments which accord with what I have been hearing with this one note: CANA was not ruled on by George Carey, but is apparently being seen in a similar vein at this time.
Also please note that the current non-invitations are provisional according to Rowan Williams’ words above. He is still seeking advice, it is not yet final.
30. John scholasticus Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:49 am e
Of course, though this is nominally about bishops (and archbishops), it’s also – symbolically and representatively – about all of us Anglicans. So the non-invitation of Robinson (even if there in a private capacity) would entail the disenfranchisement or non-representation of all those who support Robinson’s bishopric: rather a lot of Anglicans, at least as from the US, UK, and other well-known places.
31. Ian Montgomery Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:50 am e
Surely the Sept 30 date/deadline might influence things? I know it may be a foregone conclusion as to how that decision will go in our HOB. However until there is a sound and somehow “official†rejection of the DES communique then the status quo is to invite. After Sept 30 there might be reconsideration of invitations. Who knows!
32. papajmh Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:40 pm e
Prediction: A significant number of TEC revisionist Bishops will boycott Lambeth in support of Gene Robinson’s not being invitied. This action will be consistant with comments from the March HOB about the autonomy of TEC from the AC
33. pendennis88 Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:41 pm e
All very peculiar in a sad way. I would have thought he’d invite everybody, and let people decide to attend or not. With this step, however, the ABC has managed to put both sides in the position of taking fairly precipitious action prior to Lambeth. He pleads too much; his words only underscore that by attending, a bishop is taking a position on whether he or she can live with what has been done to their fellow bishop or not. All while seeming to throw out any effect of the primates meetings or the DES communique.
A lot will happen between now and Lambeth. I think that this has just increased the odds of the communion spinning apart before then.
And it is odd, too, that he emphasizes what Lambeth cannot do – he makes a good case for not going. And if he is to disregard the will of the primates by acquiescing in TEC’s rejection of the DES communique – not to mention TEC’s persecution of the orthodox – well, there will be some primates who will have further reason not to trust him.
Sometimes I wonder if the global south primates will just look at things and conclude that if the ABC won’t do anything, and primates meetings are meaningless, they should just proceed to meet among themselves and do what they want. Not formally leave the AC, in effect, but just cease participating, or listening to it. What will Williams do, discipline them?
34. Larry Wilson Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:43 pm e
It would appear to me that Williams has insuted the Primates by ignoring the 30th request for an answer from the TEC. When Augstine, the first ABC, insulted the Celtic Church he insured they would walk away. Perhaps he wishes the problem to be solved by a similar reaction by those Primates of the growing churches to leave the moribund western churches with their shrinking membership but large endowments. Perhaps the global south will do as he wishes.
The ABC may have just managed to send out invitations to a party that absolutely NO ONE will come to. His strategy here seems remarkably ill-conceived. ++Abuja has already announced that he doesn’t need to go through Canterbury to reach Christ. Likewise, I don’t see how ++Schori or the vast majority of TEC bishops could possibly attend if +Robinson is not invited. So much for English tact!