Fulcrum logo graphic
 | login
Fulcrum strapline graphic
   Feedback/Contact help icon printer icon
 home   news   articles   forum   links   my account 
thread index | create new thread | bloggers

Forum Thread
Lambeth absentees?

The opinions expressed are the authors, and not necessarily those of the Fulcrum leadership team. Messages are subject to approval before they appear online.

You are not logged on and so have only read access to the forum.
Please Login, or Sign up for a free account so you can post replies and start new threads.

Messages (newest first): [Sort by Oldest first]
 Page 3/3 | First Page | Previous Page | Next Page | Last Page
 Posted by: Roger Harper Tuesday 12 June 2007 - 09:22pm

Thanks, Graham for these pieces by Ephraim Radner and co. Here is a long response. Please reply! You seem to be commending Radners views. I hope you will explain why and add your own.

 

The first piece is critical of Rowan W and others for not following through the resolutions of the Primates meeting in Dar es Salam. This is an important point made forcibly and maybe merits a thread of its own. (There is also a delightful typo about the leavers of power in the American Episcopal Church.)

 

As for the Lambeth conference they write that the invitations issued have generated speculation about the character of the conference& speculation capable of generating unease and reaction that is not always constructive.

 

I am not sure what they mean by this. The problem is not only possible speculation about the conference, and how fellowship and disfellowship will be expressed, but what the invitations issued mean. They seem to mean that the Liberal Americans are counted in irrespective of their response to the Primates proposals. Even if this is only the personal opinion of Rowan W, expressed in his personal invitations, it is still a problem for our Communion. Will Rowan W say that their invitations can be withdrawn depending on their response to the Primates?

 

The second piece, now on this website, expounds at length the view that good Christians do not separate from other Christians despite their alien and scandalous life, or heretical teaching. The primary point& is that Christians have been given a divine narrative and vocation that insists upon engaged suffering as a means of witness rather than upon departure and beginning anew as a means of protest and self-protection. Thus the prophets and Christ suffer among their people. They do not leave to form another people. Radner explains that early Councils included Arius and other heretics.

 

Radners view here can be challenged in several ways:

          Why is he not a Catholic? He has repudiated the Reformation departure and new beginning as unchristian. Anglicans have as part of our foundation the acknowledgement that there are times when we have to walk apart from fellow Christians. Christians have as our foundation knowing that we have had to separate from the Jews.

          Who is the one insisting on staying together? Does God withdraw His Spirit from those who walk apart? Or does He still pour His Spirit on Christians in different parts of the divided Church? History tells us the latter. And if He is pouring out His Spirit on us as schismatic Catholics, He is certainly not insisting that we cease our separation. Rather the Spirit comes with the affirmation that those who receive Him are indeed children of the Father with whom he is pleased. He will be even more pleased when we are one, but He does not insist on His own way. It is heavy handed of Radner to write of God insisting on unity.

          What about Jesus telling His disciples to flee when they see the abomination of desolation set up where it should not be? Jesus original followers did indeed form another people. It is more important that we do what Jesus tells us to do (Matthew 6) than that we engage in somehow imitating Him. What about other New Testament commands to separate from false teachers? If Radner wants to appeal to Evangelicals he needs to base his arguments more on the Bible.

 

Radner also calls on the Conservative Africans to come to Lambeth on the understanding that Local and wider councils or "synods"& must find their place and finally be shaped by and submitted to the full range of conciliar decision-making that happens over time. But what when people, such as the Liberal North Americans, steadfastly refuse to accept this view of Lambeth? They have said and demonstrated that they are not shaped by nor submitted to anyone outside themselves. Radner himself says that his view is that the Americans should not come to Lambeth. Despite Conservatives being a worldwide majority, as Radner recognises, they see the West as more powerful. It seems that the Americans are allowed to go their own way and still be counted as part of the communion, in a way that would not be tolerated in others.

 

It is not only a matter of meeting at Lambeth. The Ugandan Bishops have declared TEC out of fellowship. Formal visits have stopped, funds from TEC are no longer accepted. It seems indeed that there is a parting of the ways in the Anglican Reformation tradition.

 

Now, despite the above, I do believe that it is right to hold together at the moment, not because it is never right to separate, but because the issue of same sex marriage is not of such importance. This is where I see Conservative and Open Evangelicals differing. Conservatives rate same sex marriage as a primary issue and therefore one that it is right to separate over.  Ugandan Anglicans particularly find it hard to see homosexuality as anything other than primary. The first Anglicans in Uganda were pages at the Baganda kings court whom he wanted to use for his homosexual pleasure. They refused and were martyred. On these martyrs the church was built. For Ugandans welcoming homosexuality seems tearing down the foundation of their church.

 

Despite strong personal links with Uganda, I believe strongly that same sex marriage is not a fully primary issue. It is not dealt with in the Gospels, nor the creeds. It is a Corinth issue rather than a Thyatira issue. Paul disagreed with the Corinthians and called them to change, while remaining in fellowship. He is at pains to state that he does want to be with them although he would rather it was without argy bargy. This is the kind of situation we are in now. We Evangelicals should continue to make every effort to maintain unity, and continue to treat the Liberals as brothers and sisters in Christ. We do not break fellowship.

 

This does not mean that we have to welcome their teaching or even them teaching. If their life is indeed alien and scandalous we need to recognise this, counting them very wayward brothers and sisters. We need to find ways of saying both You are part of us still and We cannot share some of your attitudes. We need to find ways of structuring a fellowship that is impaired but not broken.

 

The Communion has reached the point when it cannot stay together as it has been. Either we have a clear separation into separate churches. Or we find some way of having separate spaces in the one fellowship. Those of us who believe the former to be unbiblical, need to work out the latter. Carrying on as we have been is not an option. Hoping for another Lambeth Conference as united as previous ones is unrealistic. We need to devise new ways of expressing both our diversity and our unity. A new type of Lambeth Conference with different categories of participants expressing the differences between us could be explored.

 

I agree with Radner that it is important to meet together and keep talking even when no-one can see how we can stay together. This allows room for a miracle which no-one can foresee. M. Scott Peck in The Different Drum explores in detail how this is a common process in forming any kind of true community. But let us also recognise our differences and how serious they are, and mark these differences in the way the Lambeth Conference is set up.

 

 
 Posted by: Graham Kings Friday 8 June 2007 - 01:05pm

Together with the Anglican Communion Institute Inc site, we have just published on Fulcrum Ephraim Radner's article 'Lambeth can be what it want to be'.

He is Rector of the Church of the Ascension, Pueblo, Colorado, senior fellow of the Anglican Communion Institute, Inc and will be moving soon to teach historical theology at Wycliffe College in Toronto.

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=211
 Posted by: Graham Kings Tuesday 5 June 2007 - 10:30pm

Thanks, Roger, for reposting your comment. It was great to see you at the Fulcrum conference. It may be helpful to read the following two insightful articles by members of the Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.

Christopher Seitz, Philip Turner and Ephraim Radner, 'Enhanced Responsibility: What Happened? Three Points and Four Questions in Our Present Season', ACI Inc site, 4 June 2007. A short summary of the key issues.

http://anglicancommunioninstitute.com/content/view/87/1/

Ephraim Radner, 'Lambeth Can Be What It Wants To Be', ACI Inc site, 5 June 2007. This is a profound and prophetic theological article, which draws on the important precedents of the Councils of Nicaea and of Constantiople.

http://anglicancommunioninstitute.com/content/view/88/1/
 Posted by: Roger Harper Friday 1 June 2007 - 08:46pm

This thread seems to have taken over from the Lambeth 2008 one, so I repeat the comments I made there:

I wish I could be as suportive of Rowan Williams over the Lambeth invitations as Graham has been.

Both Liberals and Conservatives will find the singling out of Gene Robinson for exclusion difficult to say the least. What of the people who voted for him? This is not about individuals but about one Province which has deliberately moved away from the rest.

What will happen at Comunion services in the Conference? RW has effectively said that the Liberal Americans are still full members of the Communion, despite a contrary view expressed by other Primates. They will have to find other ways of expressing their view.

Above all, why send out invitations now? The Primates have given ECUSA the Sept 30th deadline. There needs to be time to consider their response. But RW has cut across that process by declaring that ECUSA, whatever they say by Sept 30th, are 'in.' There could have been discussion about different categories of attenders - full speaking and voting members, speaking members who could not vote, observers who could neither vote nor speak except when invited, etc. But RW has ruled out these nuances  Everyone knows the dates and will keep them free. RW could have waited to the New Year to issue formal invitations - with the cooperation of the Primates.

All in all RW appears to have acted in an uncharacteristically Papal way, and has thereby gone against the Anglican consensual unity he wants.

It is not surprising that the Primates of Uganda and Nigeria are speaking as they are. RW does not appear to have listened to their view that the Liberal N Americans have gone ahead in their own direction so far that they are beyond the worldwide Anglican fellowship.

Is it possible somehow to start again, and for the Primates to come to a collective view on Lambeth - who comes, maybe in different categories of fellowship, and what happens there?

Roger Harper
 Posted by: Graham Kings Thursday 31 May 2007 - 12:22am

Abraham Yisa is the chair of the trustees of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA):

http://www.canaconvocation.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=36

An article in the Nigerian Tribune, 26 May 2007, entitled, 'Akinola Threatens To Boycott Anglican Meeting' includes the following quotation:

Mr Abraham Yisa, Board Chairman of CANA , who was in the U.S. three weeks ago to attend the enthronement of Minns told [the Nigerian News Agency] "that Canterbury had no right to choose who goes to the Lambeth or not'.

http://www.tribune.com.ng/sat/26052007/news/news14.html
 Posted by: Graham Kings Wednesday 30 May 2007 - 10:15pm

Both the provenance and the authority of the CAPA report 'Road to Lambeth' are worth noting. The report

www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/comments/the_road_to_lambeth_presented_at_capa/

is being used as an excuse by the Primates of Nigeria and Uganda to state that the bishops of Nigeria and Uganda will refuse the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Lambeth Conference 2008.

www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=1709      Nigeria

www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=1740      Uganda

1. Provenance of the CAPA 'Road to Lambeth' Report

Stephen Noll, the American Vice-Chancellor of Uganda Christian University, Mukono, Uganda, commented on the website titusonenine on 22 September 2006:

Stephen Noll Says:
September 22nd, 2006 at 4:12 pm

Let me clarify one thing regarding 'The Road to Lambeth,' from the CAPA Primates. Abp. Ndungane (link in #52) has released an earlier version of the draft report from May of this year. The final version, which makes reference to the General Convention, will be officially posted on the Global South Anglican website imminently. As to the attribution to Abp. Okoh, Bp. Niringiye and myself, this is true: we were commissioned to draft the report. However, when the CAPA Primates received and commended it, they in effect took over the responsibility for authorship.

http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=15316#comment-988937     comment 53

2. Authority of the CAPA 'Road to Lambeth' Report amongst the Global South Anglican Primates

Dr Michael Poon contrasts the authority of the 2006 Kigali Communique of the Global South Anglican Primates with their 'more reserved view' on the 'Road to Lambeth' Report. 'They shied away from endorsing the particular solutions the Report offered':

I begin with an observation on the status of the Report.  The Report states in its Preamble that it was commissioned by CAPA Primates in February 2006.  CAPA Primates received it 'with gratitude' on 19 September 2006.  They did not say they approved it; rather they  'commended [it] for study and response to the churches of the provinces in Africa'. 

The Kigali Communique takes a more reserved view on the Report.  In sharp contrast with the enthusiastic language used on the Anglican Covenant processes earlier in Section 7 of the Communique, the Global South Primates stated that they 'receive' the Report. They noted that 'it highlights the crisis that now confronts us' and 'commend this report for wider reflection'.  In other words, they recognized the depth of the crisis that called for faithfulness.  However, they shied away from endorsing the particular solutions the Report offered.

What then is the status of the Road to Lambeth? A CAPA commission drafted it and presented it to their Primates in September.  CAPA Primates now officially recommends it for wider study.  They have not mentioned how they will follow it up. The Global South Primates takes note of it as a document from CAPA, and commends it for wider reflection within the Communion.

The Primates are wise in their decisions. We need to read The Road to Lambeth against the official document Kigali Communique, and indeed not the other way around. They are not two parallel statements from Kigali that bear the same authority.

www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/comments/quo_vadis_questions_along_the_road_from_lambeth_a_response_to_capa/
 Posted by: Kevin Ellis Wednesday 30 May 2007 - 08:56pm

Jeremy

I have to say that I have the utmost respect for Archbishop Rowan. I hope he stands firm. People too often though claim that he is bullied because he chooses to side with a position with which they do not agree. Dr Williams has a high theology of the Church and its unity. This is, I think, because he is influenced by the early Church Fathers and Mothers. As a result, unity in and of itself becomes a theological principle, worth defending. This is something that many in the CofE have forgotten.

Best, Kevin
 Posted by: decbass Wednesday 30 May 2007 - 02:00pm

I see Anglican mainstream has annouced that all the Ugandan bishops will not be attending Lambeth 08 http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=1740

And Andrew Brown writes in the Grauniad http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_brown/2007/05/stand_up_for_yourself_rowan.html

about the capacity of ++R to be bullied. How will he react to this kind of thing, I wonder? I, personally, hope he holds firm. His inviting must have been done in some kind of principled way - if others choose to read another set of principles into the list and to absent themselves accordingly then that is something to be regretted - but ultimately it is their decision to, in the classic phrase, 'walk apart'.

 Page 3/3 | First Page | Previous Page | Next Page | Last Page
you are not logged in