It is true that the Conference passed no Resolutions, offered no Teaching Statements, and took no votes ”“ on anything. But, on the final afternoon, in his Third Presidential Address, Archbishop Rowan Williams (in the words of one of the senior English Bishops) “decisively tipped the balance for the first time in the Conference.”
Another of the Bishops put it this way, “The Bible Studies and the Indaba groups provided the backdrop for the Archbishop to speak on behalf of the whole Conference. And he did so with remarkable clarity and forcefulness.” Unequivocally, he:
*
Affirmed the uniqueness of Christ as “the Way, the Truth and the Life” (not “my way,” or “a way”!);
*
Reaffirmed Resolution 1:10 (from the 1998 Conference)1 as the teaching of the Anglican Communion regarding sexual behavior;
*
Reiterated the Primates’ call in the 2007 Communique from Dar es Salam for moratoria on the blessing of same-sex relationships, the consecration of priests in same-sex relationships, and the crossing of diocesan borders by Bishops of other jurisdictions; 2
*
Endorsed once again the development of an Anglican Covenant as “the way forward”….
Of course, all this means nothing, since the most glaring omission in all the words spoken by the A of C is any suggestion that the lawsuits initiated by the institution formerly known as ECUSA must cease immediately. Empty words carry empty hopes.
Affirmed, reaffirmed, reiterated, endorsed, etc. Great words, but merely words.
Js. 2:14 – “What does it profit, my bretheren, if a man says he has faith, but has not works?”
Js. 3:1 – “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness”
All motor, no transmission.
That’s all swell, but Rowan Williams has no authority to reaffirm Resolution 1.10. The full Lambeth Conference certainly did, and probably would have, if Rowan Williams hadn’t neutered it’s ability to take concrete actions. The latter speaks louder to me than the empty rhetoric of the former.
I respect +Howe and have consistently supported him when he has been attacked by my fellow reasserters, but I think he’s got it wrong here. I see very little to take heart in in the outcomes of Lambeth. Communion breaking matters beg for resolution and they were not addressed.
As they say, “He simply does not get it!”
But if your motive is to hold the AC together at any price, to include avoiding a decision, the ABC has done that.
Words are cheap, Bishop Howe. This Lambeth was ‘deja vue all over again’ — words, words, words — and NO ENFORCEMENT. Two California bishops publicly announced they would again ignore the fancy words. And they will continue to do so, with total impunity from the purple-shirted wonders who have led TEC into a theological and moral ditch. The core problem is that TEC’s House of Bishops refuses to hold each other accountable. Lambeth did ZERO to change that. Millions and millions of dollars were spent to send TEC bishops and families to England for a picnic with other purple-shirted wonders (oh, and many stayed on for a European vacation, what the heck, why not, their hard-pressed diocese already paid for the plane tickets). What a WASTE! The folks in the pews need to stop financing this crazy behavior!
Please allow a little tangent on my part, but I find it intriguing that the link is to centralflorida.anglican.org and not cfdiocese.org. What are the folks at anglican.org doing, duplicating the entire Dio CFL website?? Just wondering…
You know, I think there is one reason and one reason only that Bishop Howe was happy over the Lambeth Conference.
And that’s because the ABC in his final plenary and in the press conference “turned” the conference towards a perspective with which Howe agreed.
Had that last plenary and press conference not occurred, we wouldn’t be reading this.
I myself am glad that the ABC took the turn he did . . . but unlike Bishop Howe, I don’t believe that any action that helps will occur from him.
“And that’s because the ABC in his final plenary and in the press conference “turned†the conference towards a perspective with which Howe agreed.”
Yes, and did that only occur because Dad saw it was time to give the unhappiest of the hungry children a crumb?
On to the next child; meanwhile, everyone, on the whole, stays at the table, and unity remains restored.
:-/
#11,
What unity?