Forum Thread
Lambeth absentees?

I'm not sure anyone knows anything at the moment, David. Your guess is probably as good as anyone's! "Up in the air" would seem a kind description.

Does any one know what percentage of the bishops are currently expected to attend?

David

The above photo is at the top of the webpage concerning the recent consecration, in Virginia, of four suffragan bishops for the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA)

http://www.canaconvocation.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=35

Does this mean that the Archbishop of Canterbury is still seen, by CANA, as the gatherer of the Anglican Communion?

See:

http://covenant-communion.com/?p=320 

Suggestions for a caption for this photo?

There are two sides to this. If the Lambeth conference is to be meaningful both bans and absanteeism need to be avoided. I would add that the conference should be extended and kept away from the media if any ageement is to emerge. There is some wisdom in RC proceedures for choosing a new pope.

David

Since writing earlier today I have looked at other posts you have written, Pete, about CEEC and what to do about it. So the answer to my last question is 'become involved in the DEF!' See other threads...

It was disheartening to read that many on CEEC hold to the 'Covenant.' Have they responded to +Tom's critical assessment? For many in Fulcrum it feels that +Tom blew the Covenant out of the water. It shows how separate we are from our fellow Anglican Evangelicals.

Thanks, Pete, Jody and Graham.

It is good to know the full motion. I can only agree with Graham and Jody - except that the leaning towards not attending is more than implicit. It is only those who are not attending who have the explicit support of the CEEC and the CEEC counsels Bishops to consider not attending. It is couched in polite churchy language but the message is as reported in the Press.

This motion gives the impression that all Church of England Evangelicals would rather their bishops not attend Lambeth. I think this is far from true. To me it seems that the 'Open' voice has been ignored.

Did no one on CEEC have the view expressed by Graham and David Gitari? Would it not be more honest to say that we Evangelicals are divided? CEEC doesn't need to produce a united statement on everything.

And the wider question is still important: How can Fulcrum ensure that Open Evangelicals are recognised and represented on CEEC, albeit as a minority?

Thanks, Pete and Jody. I think that the CEEC statement, however carefully worded, is, at heart, discouraging bishops from attending the Lambeth Conference in 2008 and that this is unwise in terms of timing, strategy and ecclesiology.

First, timing. We are still awaiting the response of the Archbishop of Canterbury concerning his consultation with Primates from around the world after the New Orleans meeting. Since the CEEC meeting, however, we have had his letter to Bishop John Howe of Central Florida which mentions 'Episcopal Church Bishops who want to be clearly loyal to Windsor.’ This language is important.

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/forum/thread.cfm?thread=5193 

Second, strategy. I have recently returned from a two week holiday in Kenya and saw many previous colleagues and friends. Many bishops are still undecided but David Gitari, the former Archbishop who was chair of the resolutions committee at Lambeth 1988, is encouraging them to attend because putting one's case at the table is much more influential than walking away and being absent.

Third, ecclesiology. The Windsor Report is still central to the Communion and that affirms the four instruments of communion. The CEEC discouragement of bishops from attending Lambeth in effect reduces those four to two: the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lambeth Conference are ignored and that leaves only the Primates' Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council - and even the latter is viewed with great suspicion by many members of CEEC, so that leaves really only one.

If evangelical bishops, or african bishops, do not attend the Lambeth Conference, then that is a loss of evangelical and african influence at a crucial meeting and also a loss to the Communion of evangelical and african insights.

Hi Pete

reading that paragraph as you suggest does put a different spin on it.  however I do think that the emphasis on the support of those who choose to absent themselves from Lambeth is not equaled by, say, a line of support for those who choose to attend.  In this way there feels to be an implicit leaning towards those who would choose not to go.

:-) Jody

It is of course slightly more complex than that.

No, Fulcrum is not represented on CEEC.

No, CEEC is not dancing to Mainstream's tune. The CEEC motion was crafted by a number of people from a variety of backgrounds, and debated in plenary. It says

"We support those Bishops who have said that under the present arrangements they cannot attend the Lambeth Conference. We invite those English dioceses who are twinned with dioceses and provinces overseas to consult with their companion dioceses about whether to attend the Lambeth Conference. We prayerfully counsel Church of England bishops to consider whether in the light of TEC′s response they may wish to absent themselves."

The implication is that we need to listen to our partner dioceses. That some will take the decision to attend, and some will take the decision not to do so. And that attendance or not should not be seen as a litmus test of orthodoxy...

And, I guess, that we need to be mature in not suggesting that there is a "line" on how to respond to all this. Prayerful debate and discussion of the pros and cons of attendance should be the order of the day.

The Bible Society Newswatch reported from the Daily Telegraph: The Church of England Evangelical Council has urged English bishops to stay away from next year’s Lambeth Conference in protest over the issue of gay priests. What is the Fulcrum view of this? Is Fulcrum part of the CEEC? Has Fulcrum dissented? How can we stop CEEC singing uncritically to the tune of Mainstream?

Roger

I've just read Sydney's reaction to the Lambeth invitations, they're not happy (well I guess that would be expected) and this is their response:

(a) respectfully requests the Archbishop of this diocese to communicate to the Archbishop of Canterbury our dissatisfaction at the attempt to maintain union with the unrepentant while continuing to refuse fellowship to faithful and orthodox Anglicans such as the Church of England in South Africa,

(b) respectfully requests the Archbishop and bishops of this diocese not to accept the invitation to Lambeth without making public in protest, speech and liturgical action, both prior to and at Lambeth, our dioceses principled objection to the continued participation of those whose actions have expressed a departure from the clear teaching of scripture, and who have consequently excluded orthodox Anglicans from their fellowship, and

(c) respectfully requests the Archbishop and bishops of this diocese to approach other orthodox bishops of the communion with the purpose of meeting in England at the time of the Lambeth Conference for Christian fellowship and the planning of joint action within the Anglican Communion to contend for the faith of the Apostles once delivered to the saints.

I particularly like point C.  What might this joint action look like I wonder - also who might they deem to be the 'orthodox' bishops......