The press asked who was running the conference. The Archbishop of Canterbury gave five retreat addresses, three presidential addresses, chaired the five evening plenary presentations from guest speakers, and preached the final sermon. The press were told he was the common figure in meetings of the Design Team, the Anglican Communion Office and Lambeth Palace Staff meetings.
He did not consult the primates before indicating at the final press conference that the future agenda was the moratoria and the pastoral forum. Some bishops noted that the pope always speaks with his bishops rather than to his bishops. There was much speaking of people’s respect, loyalty and affection for Archbishop Williams. If people say that of a primate in Africa, this is regarded as fawning on an autocratic tribal chief. The Lambeth Conference Network in the Anglican Communion seems to have have been overtaken by celebrity culture. Is this style a reaction to criticism of lack of leadership?
The Culture of Lambeth was of Inclusive Church. The opening service was on the theme of diversity in unity. Most self-select sessions were from the liberal perspective. The market place was dominated by gay organisations.
The Archbishop said in his second presidential address: ”And the answer, I hope, is that we speak from the centre. We should try to speak from the heart of our identity as Anglicans; and ultimately from that deepest centre which is our awareness of living in and as the Body of Christ.”
What is the centre which is the heart of our identity as Anglicans? Is it defined by the faith, or is it defined by inclusion?
Traditional Anglican liberalism was founded on core Christian truths and commitments. Secular liberalism denies that truth is possible and urges the equality of every person and their views. Therefore all views can contribute and must be at the table.
Secular liberalism places the value of inclusion over against faithfulness and faith. The claim to speak from the centre must face the challenge of whether the faith that defines the centre is the centre of faith, or the centre of the secular vision of inclusion?
[blockquote]”The Conference Reflections say “There is much discomfort about the role that the Primates’ Meeting now finds itself exercising. Many fear it is trying to exercise too much authority. Perhaps their key role is in supporting the Archbishop of Canterbury.†One overseas primate believes that this resistance is based on racial prejudice…”[/blockquote]
I find it highly curious that this “discomfort” has arisen, given that past resolutions of Lambeth Conferences gave the Primates’ Meeting such authority. I also find it equally curious that the proposed solution to this discomfort appears to be to take such authority away from the Primates’ Meeting (contravening the Lambeth Resolutions) and to give it to the ABC. How does that make sense?
🙄
Well, at least these are only reflections or statements, which of course, everyone will agree – do not rise to the level of binding resolutions.
😉
Tired: Yes, you are right. They are only reflections or statements. By your implication, I thank that you are right that, nonetheless, these reflections, as they are repeated by the +++ABC will miraculously rise to the status of being binding. I know that is what the TEC spin will eventually be.
“Traditional Anglican liberalism was founded on core Christian truths and commitments. Secular liberalism denies that truth is possible and urges the equality of every person and their views. Therefore all views can contribute and must be at the table.”
And so we see the need for indaba group reporting. Inclusion of all views possible as being equal. This was a conference for secular liberalism, then, not of faith. Those who boycotted were prescient and faithful, apparently. God bless them.