In his second Presidential Address, the Archbishop stated that he hoped that Lambeth 2008 would ”˜speak from the centre’, which is not ”˜the middle point between two extremes’, but ”˜the heart of our identity as Anglicans’, which ultimately is that ”˜deepest centre which is our awareness of living in, and as, the Body of Christ.’ He went on, riskily and imaginatively, to enter the world of the ”˜innovator’ and the ”˜traditionalist’ concerning sexuality and tried to describe them from the inside and their respective calls for generosity. Surprisingly, and perhaps deliberately, he left little room to develop the depth of the ”˜centre’.
This was left for the Concluding Presidential Address, on the last Sunday. At the end of a conference without ”˜resolutions’, it was magisterially resolute. The Archbishop not only held the Communion together but moved it deeper into Christ and forward in intensification. Intriguingly, he used the phrase ”˜Anglican Church’ several times, and time will be needed to elucidate this hint.
Bishops from The Episcopal Church USA who wanted to press ahead with their ecclesial sexual inclusion project and ignore the Windsor Process and the Anglican Covenant, had been carefully ”˜minded’ by their media advisers not to react in anger. They went away tight lipped. They were angry, but not in public. Their thoughts were expressed by Susan Russell, the President of Integrity USA, when she called this address an ”˜11th-hour sucker punch’.
The Archbishop lucidly expressed the mind of the Lambeth Conference, drawing on the reflections from the indaba groups, and clearly articulated the central way forward, which is the continuation of the Windsor Process and the Covenant. On the two key subjects of sexual ethics and ecclesiology, he reiterated the vital importance of three moratoria: on the authorisation of same-sex blessings, on the consecration of bishops in same-sex unions and on cross provincial interventions.
These interventions by some conservative Primates from Africa and the Southern Cone of Latin America had been declared by them, from the beginning, to be ”˜temporary’ until something officially was set up. Something official has now been announced and is being urgently set up – the Pastoral Forum, ”˜strengthened by arrangements like the suggested Communion Partners initiative in the USA’. There is no real need for them, on their side, to be angry or tight lipped. In fact, there is encouragement in the Archbishop’s final words concerning inviting ”˜those absent from Lambeth to be involved in these next stages’ and of looking for ”˜the best ways of building bridges’ with GAFCON.
Thanks for the comments on ‘Patience and Urgency’ on this other thread, [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/15552/]here[/url].
The question raised there was: are we in the same position post-Lambeth as we were pre-Lambeth? I believe that we are in a different position.
The Archbishop of Canterbury now has the authority of the Lambeth Conference 2008 to proceed with the urgent call for the 3 morotoria. These morotoria now have all four of the Instruments of Unity behind them, not three, which is new.
He has the authority of the Lambeth Conference to proceed with the Anglican Covenant. This is new.
His Presidential Addresses were not merely ‘unilateral’, as someone commented on the earlier thread. He was not speaking as Rowan Williams but as Archbishop of Canterbury, President of the Lambeth Conference and with the weight of the bishops’ comments from the indaba groups behind him.
Let no one doubt his resolution to proceed in the direction he delineated in his [url=http://www.lambethconference.org/daily/news.cfm/2008/8/3/ACNS4511]Concluding Presidential Address[/url], which really is worth reading again. The weight of the groups behind moving ahead on this trajectory was enormous.
The question was asked about whether TEC would co-operate with the Pastoral Forum. Again, we are in a new position post-Lambeth. As well as the Primates’ Meeting at Dar es Salaam – where something similar was mentioned – there is now the added authority of the Lambeth Conference in the setting up of the Pastoral Forum. I think it would be likely that private discussions took place at the Lambeth Conference with various bishops of the TEC before such an announcement was made.
Yes, we are in a grave situation as the GAFCON Primates’ Council meets in London now and the Pittsburgh decisions loom. This calls for ‘gravitas’, and that is what was provided by the weight of the Lambeth Conference. Let us continue to pray and pray for God’s wisdom in these decisions.
‘Marcus’, on the Stand Firm [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/15568/#269101]thread[/url] on ‘Patience and Urgency’, has posted a perceptive comment, which echoes the ‘Communion Liberal’ and ‘Federal Liberal’ designation I outlined [url=http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=310#diagram]here[/url] and the ‘Institutional Revisionists’ and ‘Ideological Revisionists’ designation Sarah Hey outlined [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/15164/]here[/url]:
[blockquote]The really interesting battle, of which we are only beginning to see the first whiff of shot, is going to be between those who consider themselves liberal (/inclusive/prophetic) first and Anglican second and those whose Anglican identity takes priority.
What changed at Lambeth is this – it’s not that there was a vote which the liberals lost. That they could always have ignored: they did in the past and they would have done again.
It’s that liberal bishops (mainly) from the American churches came face to face, honestly and with Christian charity with bishops from across the world and realised that they are not mindless homophobic bigots; that TEC’s actions really did cause hurt and harm to Anglicans across the globe; and that there is a significant majority within the communion who disagree with them and are prepared to bind themselves within a covenant with or without the American Church in order to make sure this doesn’t happen again.
By forcing the Americans to come face to face with what they’ve done, Rowan Williams has left them no room to hide.
One prediction about the oncoming liberal civil war: A lot of previously liberal bishops will line up on the Communion/Canterbury/covenant side; the other side will be made up of powerful lay figures who (self evidently) did not have the Lambeth Experience. [/blockquote]
Mr. Kings: I submit that Lambeth is the opening shot in a showdown battle between those who choose “inclusive” over self discipline, and those who favor the establishment of standards – and therefore the reestablishment of self-discipline – over self-indulgence. It is time for this showdown to begin. Talking and procrastination have only made the contrast more bitter and more apparent. GAFCON is going to provide ammunition to one side; contemporary American culture has already armed the other. There can be no prisoners here. LM
Where has Graham been? On Mars? Well, he is still there. I do not think the folks in England understand what has really happened in the US. I also find unrealistic Neal and Dan’s points because they have been protected in the cocoon of non-persecuting dioceses. The liberals have prevented the “pillars” of unity from working for so long there is no trust in any one of them, and the ABC is a part of the problem. Now we have one “pillar” trying to show the way. All of the final suggestions of Lambeth have been discussed and found wanting, except for the big covenant (the littler covenants have been dashed to pieces for the last 20 years). The Americans post Lambeth still do not get it. It is because they refuse to have a pastoral solution which was always in their hands. It is now too late. To think otherwise is just plain wishful thinking. There is no new situation. And the same thing is happening in England; dejavu
all over again. Methinks the English better have a care for their own house.
“The Archbishop of Canterbury now has the authority of the Lambeth Conference 2008 to proceed with the urgent call for the 3 morotoria.”
==================================================================
Somehow, some key people seem to think that there is a moral equivalence between the Lambeth moratorium against crossing borders to provide shelter, relief and protection to orthodox Anglicans who remain true to “…the Faith once given…” and the other two moratoria which are directed against unilateral actions taken to implement heretical practices regarding human sexuality.
Making this equivalence aids and abets the establishment of a ‘sham’ logic of equivalency being promoted by the North American revisionist-progressives.
[blockquote]The Archbishop of Canterbury now has the authority of the Lambeth Conference 2008 to proceed with the urgent call for the 3 morotoria. These morotoria now have all four of the Instruments of Unity behind them, not three, which is new. [/blockquote]
Doesn’t the absence of a vote at Lambeth weaken this statement somewhat?
Well, I read all the various articles and they all have their own logic and point of view. I am not convince by Graham. Frankly, until the ABC acts more than talks, then the reality on the ground and the front lines remains the same. Sadly, people are being hurt and there are some/many who are no longer willing to wait. Of course, whether you are inside or outside in this epic struggle the reality is we work together. As has been mentioned on the various threads, sometimes our choices hurt each other but that is not the intention. The intention is to be faithful to God and Christ and spread the Gospel throughout the world. This is the hope that we share and that binds us together. May God bless us all no matter where we are in or out……
Thanks, Francis #3. I’m quite keen on Mars Bars though have not been on Mars. Over the years I’ve have had long discussions with conservative people in liberal TEC dioceses.
Thanks, Anglican First, #4. Bishop Bob Duncan has raised [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/15573]a similar point[/url] concerning the morotoria.
I do not think there is a moral equivalence between the calls for the first two morotoria and the call for the third morotorium.
The first two morotoria concern sexual morality: the third morotorium concerns ecclesiology. The first two are about morals: the third is about doctrine. Therefore there cannot be a moral equivalence.
I wish that the Lambeth Conference had deliberated in meaningful way about the conflict in the AC. But by design, it did not.
With respect, the “mind of the Lambeth Conference†as unilaterally divined by one instrument – the ABC – is not exactly a concrete and binding procedural step. The reflections are merely anecdotal. No business was conducted at the conference. Even if the ABC appoints a forum, nothing at all has been “officially†set up with respect to the other instruments or the provinces.
Let us examine where we stand procedurally. In violation of accepted rules of order, the ABC subverted the deliberative effort of the Primates Meeting (DES) to enforce a resolution of Lambeth Conf. 98 (1.10), when the Lambeth Conf. had authorized the Primates’ Meeting to address such issues. This was a procedural violation and a breech of trust by one who is theoretically an equal.
Within that context: (a) we have a Windsor Continuation Group that was unilaterally appointed by the ABC, when it was the Primates Meeting that requested the Windsor Report – which means procedurally that all that the WCG can do is to make a report to the ABC; (b) no business was conducted at Lambeth – the non-deliberative format and extra-procedural collection of indaba reflections at the conference are necessarily of less stature than resolutions; and (c) without deliberation/voting or even the production of a record/minutes, notions of a majority or general support for moratoria are anecdotal at best.
Some appear to be arguing that an extra-procedural collection of reflections of the participants, and one instrument’s unilateral (i.e., non-conciliar) acts and statements should be treated as more significant than what they are. These actions have no weight within accepted rules of order. Why should the rules be tossed out and customary practices short circuited?
Any proposals flowing from Lambeth will have to be ratified by the instruments of the communion in order to become “official†in the framework of good order. The delay caused by such need for ratification is certainly unfortunate. It certainly could have been avoided. However, if good order and trust are to be restored among the instruments, then ratification must be pursued.
🙄
Sorry for the typo: “than
whatthey are…”I think that one point which Marcus makes (in the quotation given by Graham) is TEC’s experience at Lambeth. Most American conservatives believe that TEC liberals would consider a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the Anglican Communion to be a victory. I think that this IS true for liberal institutionalists, but not for the liberal extremist/prophetic types. It is the latter who control the machinery of GC and 815 right now.
When TEC went to Lambeth, they figured they had it made. They figured that the battle terrain was all in their favor – the most conservative bishops were absent, the ABC had appeared to be weak and indecisive, the ACO seemed easy to bend to their will, they had invested in major “message control” and a spin campaign, and the Gene Robinson Travelling Circus was ready to roll. If you look back at Chris Seitz’s essay on Enlightened American Episcopalianism, you can read that the TEC liberals probably thought that given the right environment and their publicity offensive, working over the moderate Anglican bishops would be like slicing a knife through warm butter.
But it didn’t work. Their main target of the TEC charm offensive, the Church of Sudan, spoke out. We all know that Gene Robinson seemed to drop off the radar screen midway through the conference. Clearly, the TEC liberal extremists realized that their charm offense was a dismal failure. The very best they can hope for is “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
But the liberal extremists want more then “don’t ask, don’t tell”. They want to openly and loudly proclaim to the world that homosexual behavior is good and blessed in the eyes of God. Nothing less will do. Prior to Lambeth, I think the liberal TEC extremists believed that they had a chance for this within the Communion. Post Lambeth, I think they realize that they do not.
Now, I also agree that much depends on whether Rowan Williams acts seriously on the WCG plan. But if he does, and if GAFCON throws its support behind that plan, I seriously do think that the TEC liberal extremists will choose to walk from the Communion. And that will open up a nasty fight within TEC between the liberal institutionalists and the liberal extremists. And that fight, my friends, is good news for us.
That is why I would hope that Pittsburgh, Forth Worth and Quincey could find a way to put their plans on hold for now. If Duncan explicitly said that he would call for the plan to be put on hold if the deposition plans against him are dropped, then Duncan is appearing as the reconciler. I am not saying that these conservative dioceses should pretend like it is 2003, or be naive. No, they should keep their guns loaded, their powder dry, their bayonets fixed, and stay in formation. But wait for it. Wait for the right time.
I have no doubt – no doubt at all – that within a year or two one of two things will happen: Either (1) TEC will explicitly confirm its move to ignore the moratoria by a sizeable majority and then these dioceses can leave in no worse a position then they are right now; or (2) TEC will be rent assunder by a civil war between the institutionalist liberals and the extremist liberals, with the former wanting to stay full Anglicans and the latter choosing to leave, with the division so close that a negotiated parting of the ways comes to pass. If it is #1, these dioceses can either appeal to come under the Communion’s protection (or GAFCON’s if RW doesn’t act). If it is #2, then these dioceses can depart in a much more orderly manner.
GRaham Kings,
Perhaps the phrase “been on Mars” is a reference to the BBC show “Life on Mars” where a policeman in a coma believes he is back in the 1970’s?*
Not that I think you are there, but many who preach ‘patience’ think the situation is not as grave as it is, that we are in the feel-good era of the 70’s where things could still be worked out with discussion.
It turned out that even then the deck was being stacked, and the reasserters were being edged out gradually, like the proverbial frog in the sauce-pan.
Peace to you
Jim Elliott <>< *"Life on Mars" is being re-made for American audiences, with the script Americanized, but essentially the same as the BBC version.
Perhaps one thing which needs to be teased out a little is the idea that because the Lambeth Fathers didn’t take a vote and there were no set piece debates, the Conference therefore did not decide or determine anything.
There are a number of issues which I think need development.
1) The problems with previous Lambeth Conferences were manifold, but the biggest two seem to have been (a) that people retreated into self-selecting ideological groups and only really interacted in set piece debates when (b) there was a tendency towards thoroughly unchristian behaviour (such as booing and hissing).
What this meant was that people were able to walk away from Lambeth and completely ignore any votes taken or “decisions” made.
Anyway, enough decisions had been made in previous conferences which were then completely ignored for those who disagreed (in whole or in part) with a motion, to continue the habit of disregarding what they don’t like.
2) Decisions are not always made by vote. They might be easier to disseminate to the outside should a vote be taken, but that isn’t the same thing. The way ahead (covenant etc) was mapped out very clearly with everyone accepting that there was a significant majority in favour of going in that direction. The absence of a vote or a resolution doesn’t alter this fact, which is recorded in the reflections document.
3) The Lambeth Fathers didn’t claim to themselves any powers which they didn’t have. They didn’t “pass” the covenant because it isn’t in their remit. What they did do was discuss the current draft, suggest ways of making it more palatable and demonstrate in indaba group after indaba group that the vast majority of the bishops of the Communion wanted to take the process further.
4) The conference removed an awful lot of dissembling from the table, particularly on the liberal side. They simply couldn’t go away and claim that those with theological differences were mindless bigots. Similarly they couldn’t go away claiming that the majority of the rest of the Communion wouldn’t sign up to the Covenant. There was, it seems, significant learning on the other side too – especially about the value of homosexuals as individuals and Christians.
5) In conclusion, while the absence of a vote makes it more difficult for the laity to know exactly where everything stands, what the Lambeth Conference did was decide significantly to move forward with the Covenant process with or without the Americans. It is now up to the various bodies which can actually make decisions on these matters to do so.
These are my thoughts, although they probably need somebody wiser to disentangle them!
Dr Kings
Thank you for your explanation at #1 of where you believe things are at the moment with TEC and the proposed Pastoral Forum, CCP and moratoria.
Thank you also for drawing my attention to the ABC’s third presidential address where I noted that on 3rd August he said: “I shall look within the next two months for a clear and detailed specification for the task and composition of a Pastoral Forum”.
Presumably by now some initial action has been taken on this and contact has been made with TEC and all the Primates on taking this forward given the urgency expressed. I expect it would be very helpful if people were able to know that things are moving on this front and if we could be updated as soon as possible [not of course expecting that this is within your abilities, great at they are].
As you mention we are in a grave situation. It seems to me that people have been very patient and there is now extreme urgency. I will join you in your prayer for God’s wisdom in these decision.
Thanks, JamesW, for #11. Very perceptive.
Thanks, LibraryJim, for #12. I had not known about the TV programme and merely thought I was being accused of being on another planet…rather than back in time.
Thanks, Marcus, for #13. Very perceptive indeed. I’ve copied your comment, and your earlier one on Stand Firm, onto the Fulcrum thread on this subject [url=http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/forum/thread.cfm?thread=8328]here.[/url] Celinda (on Fulcrum) and Matt Kennedy (on Stand Firm) are having an interesting discussion across web sites (but not on the same one)…
Thanks, Pageantmaster for #14. I would be surprised if the process for choosing the Pastoral Forum were not continuing with dispatch.
As to general contact – rather than the Pastoral Forum – here in London with the GAFCON Primates’ Council, I would be surprised if an invitation had not been issued to Archbishop Henry Orombi to meet for discussion… Let us pray that the invitation is accepted.
The Lambeth Conference may have done worthwhile things, such as Bible study or fellowship. However, it did not conduct business. Even the ABC characterized the conference as non-deliberative. Why should a collection of comments from such a conference be construed as a decision on the way forward or a resolution granting authority?
There are a host of problems with trying to rely on the collection of reflections: (i) it is a document of uncertain standing in the context of the customary practices of the AC – it is not a resolution, not a report, not a record, not a poll, not a survey; (ii) it was extra-procedural, which means that the protections provided by the rules of order were unavailable – such rules provide fairness, openness, notice, etc.; (iii) how many bishops voted on the procedure for creating the document; (iv) how representative is any one statement; (v) how are conflicting statements within the document to be construed?
I could go on.
(I can make up new procedures for doing things, but that does not mean that they should be authoritative.)
So a document of uncertain weight or authority is produced through some extra-procedural process designed to collect a variety of statements without assurance of representation. Why should this be considered the mind of the conference, or otherwise be treated like a resolution?
What I hear is that some believe that a single instrument – the ABC – should be able to jettison customs of practice and rules of order for a second instrument – the Lambeth Conference – and shepherd a process to produce an unusual document, and then be able to proclaim that the document is some some super-resolution granting authority to the ABC. I’m sorry, I just do not buy it. As some in the US might say, it is putting lipstick on a (procedural) pig.
I say this as a reasserter who wants strong, enforceable procedures in dealing with wayward provinces. If any action is ever taken, does anyone think that those provinces will shrink from pointing out defects in decision-making?
The ABC acts unilaterally when he does not cooperate with or lead the other instruments within the strictures of good order. I would have liked for there to be multilateral or cooperative efforts of the instruments. It would make our post-Lambeth communion a much more reliable and predictable community. Perhaps the ABC will explain his actions to the primates at the next PM, and seek their forgiveness and ratification of his proposal for a way forward. Until then, we have mere statements.
🙄
[u]Some Odds and Ends:[/u]
*FWIW, misbehavior in an assembly is no grounds for departing from rules of order. A chair has the responsibility to maintain good order.
*As for provinces disregarding Lambeth Resolutions, well, I would say that the DES Communique was intended to address an example of that. As I have noted above in an earlier comment, the process was subverted.
*The notion of a covenant was presented to the PM in the Windsor Report, which was accepted by the primates (equals) in conciliar fashion within the Dromantine Communique.
Need I remind everyone that the ABC has made some encouraging noises in the past, only to crumble each time when corresponding action was to be taken? Sure, it provided revisionists, particularly those of the hardcore variety, opportunity to wail, gnash their teeth and rend their garments, but when the dust settled they discovered their agenda untouched and advancing apace.
The challenge isn’t crafting moratoria or even a covenant, it’s putting teeth in them and then being willing to bite. So far, I do not see any evidence of that happening.
#15 Dr Kings
[blockquote]I would be surprised if the process for choosing the Pastoral Forum were not continuing with dispatch.
As to general contact – rather than the Pastoral Forum – here in London with the GAFCON Primates’ Council, [b]I would be surprised if an invitation had not been issued to Archbishop Henry Orombi to meet for discussion… Let us pray that the invitation is accepted[/b][/blockquote]
Well now – that would be interesting. If that had happened and were it to be accepted I would certainly pray that concrete results were forthcoming.
But of course I suppose this is just speculation on my part.
[blockquote] These interventions by some conservative Primates from Africa and the Southern Cone of Latin America had been declared by them, from the beginning, to be ‘temporary’ until something officially was set up. Something official has now been announced and is [b]being urgently set up[/b] – the Pastoral Forum, ‘strengthened by arrangements like the suggested Communion Partners initiative in the USA’.[/blockquote]
I have asked and and have failed to get an answer on how the Pastoral forum will differ from the feckless Panel of Reference. Recall that there was an “urgent call” for Rowan to make appointments to the PoR. It took Rowan 6 mos to appoint the worthless Carnley, and a year after that the PoR finally produced its first document – one that said to the orthodox in New Westminster, “do what Ingham tells you to do and try better to get along.”
Mr Kings actually thinks that the “Communion Partners Plan” provides necessary protection of the orthodox in America from Ms Schori and Mr Beers??? The plan is basically an exchange of email addresses – maybe they should get up to date with it and make each other facebook friends – that would strike fear in the 815 lawyers! Yep, I can see it now: John Howe and ABp Mokiwa of Tanzania are now facebook friends, so, Anglican District of Virginia, hand over the keys to Peter Lee. Or Gary Lillibridge and ++Burundi are now myspace pals, so, Pittsburgh, Fort Worth and Quincy, you need to cancel your upcoming votes.
The obsequiousness towards Rowan Williams is embarassing. “Rowan was magnificent!” “Nobody can dither like Rowan can!” “He’s my hero.” If Rowan is serious about this newest reincarnation of the Panel of Reference, why didn’t he make his appointments to the previous reincarnation, the DeS’s Pastoral council? Give me a break. This time Rowan won’t pull away the football…really. Rowan squandered any meaningful addressing of the problem by his invitation of all (including consecrators, thereby disinviting the GAFCon-ners).
Mr Kings writes in the [url=http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/forum/thread.cfm?thread=8328 ]discussion[/url] of the essay:
[blockquote] The Archbishop of Canterbury now has the authority of the Lambeth Conference 2008 to proceed with the urgent call for the 3 morotoria. These morotoria now have all four of the Instruments of Unity behind them, not three, which is new. [/blockquote]
Firstly, it is very questionable whether one can take from the jamboree’s lovefest document a clear affirmation of anything including support of the moratoria. Secondly, if the TEC defies the unanimous request of the primates, does Mr Kings think that adding the muddled indaba-do voice to the call give pause the the revisionists? Of course not. The moratoria against SSUB’s were violated the day after Lambeth. B033 will be repealed at GC09.
Time to move on, folks. This newest Panel of Reference is another kicking of the can down the road.
I recently told my spouse that, intentional or not, +++RW’s indaba format gave TEC the opportunity to sell their “prophecy” to the world, if the world was willing to buy it. It’s not, and I think that fact may have resulted in +++RW’s third presidential address AND KJS’s subsequent not-so-pleased body language.
Get out your popcorn–the movie’s going to get REALLY interesting soon…
It may be wise to consider the tendency of Episcopal bishops to set themselves in the middle of whatever the extremes are in a given setting. Some of them have a strong campaigning agenda, but many others more or less follow the crowd.
Following Lambeth 1998, I believe it was the late Herbert Thompson, Bishop of Southern Ohio who made the point that even if ALL of the African bishops had voted against Resolution 1.10, it would still have passed. The Episcopal bishops by a large majority voted in favour of it. The moderate position at the conference later looked extreme back at home. There may have even been bishops who voted for the resolution but then signed a statement against it, but I cannot recall with certainty.
My impression is that when the bishops are face to face with their brothers from other countries, they become more moderate in their statements. This would seem to indicate that the indaba groups were a success. However, when they get home, many or even most of them will (sooner or later) disavow the general “spirit” of the conference. The faces of the bishops in their small groups will fade, and the new moderate position to adopt will be between the warring factions in their diocese, or the larger Episcopal Church.
I think this is how successive Presiding Bishops have been able to sign statements at Primates’ Meetings, which they then undermined through words and deeds almost as soon as their plane touched down in the States. The actions and statements by Presiding Bishops Griswold and Schori following the Dromantine and Dar es Salaam communique’s boggle the mind, unless we account for this human dynamic of being in the uncomfortable position of facing down a faithful group of bishops who exhibit an obvious strength of Christian faith and conviction in leadership.
The above is a tentative observation — to grant that these bishops are sincere in their desire to serve the Church, but lack the fortitude and consistency in life, doctrine and witness they so admire when face to face with, for example, a Sudanese, Kenyan or Tanzanian bishop.
So with respect to Graham Kings (I am his former student), Episcopal bishops and their statements at Lambeth must be understood with the sincerity yet weakness with which they are made (at least in view of the actions that follow).
The Great Divorce seems to describe this tendency well:
[i] Having allowed oneself to drift, unresisting, unpraying, accepting every half-conscious solicitation from our desires, we reached a point where we no longer believed the Faith. Just in the same way, a jealous man, drifting and unresisting, reaches a point at which he believes lies about his best friend: a drunkard reaches a point at which (for the moment) he actually believes that another glass will do him no ham. The beliefs are sincere in the sense that they do not occur as psychological events in the man’s mind. If that’s what you mean by sincerity, they are sincere…But errors which are sincere in that sense are not innocent.[/i]
Nothing in Graham’s article or comments suggests he is a fool about American bishops; but his descriptions do make me wonder if he and many other friends in the Church of England who look across to the USA understand the near schizophrenic behavior of bishops who desperately want to get along with those who are in the room at the time. God can work great miracles — and to have the Episcopal bishops’ moderated statements at Lambeth be matched with action in the coming years would be a great one indeed. Pray on for it, but prepare that God may do otherwise!
(Apologies for a long entry from a first-time participant).
#21 Clifford Swartz
Welcome to Blogworld. An outstanding maiden post and contribution – I will look forward to your next one.
PM
It looks as if the pace set for getting the Pastoral Forum up and running according to +Handford here with a meeting of the WCG in December is just all going to be far too slow to be of any real use. Indications are that unless anything changes, that attempts to remove Bishop Duncan will proceed in September and votes to leave TEC by dioceses will proceed, rendering what is left of the moratoria in tatters. I welcome signs of activity from Lambeth Palace but unless people get their skates on it will all be pointless; unless of course people are happy to just sit back and let the chips fall where they may.