Updated again Thursday evening
The Living Church has a further report, Presiding Bishop Urges Calm Approach to Lambeth News.
Reuters has African Anglicans could boycott summit over gays by Paul Majendie.
Associated Press has Archbishop of Canterbury still considering Lambeth Conference invitation for Harare bishop.
Affirming Catholicism has issued a press release, Disappointment at Lambeth invitations.
Changing Attitude has also issued a press release, Changing Attitude England regrets that bishop Gene Robinson has not been invited to the Lambeth Conference 2008.
ACI, Inc. issued Response to the Statement of the Archbishop of Canterbury Regarding Lambeth Conference Invitations.
Ruth Gledhill has links galore to other people at Bishops Gene and Martyn ‘not invited’ to Lambeth.
CANA has issued a 2007.05.23 Letter from Bishop Minns.
InclusiveChurch has issued a second press release (first one here) which appears in full below. It is now also available at InclusiveChurch.
Anglican Mainstream has published a list of Exactly who has not been invited.
An article by George Conger from the Friday, May 25, 2007 issue of the Church of England Newspaper has been published by Episcopal Café, see Cavalcanti not invited to Lambeth either.
Another CEN article is on Religious Intelligence at Anger as gay bishop snubbed for Anglican summit by Ed Beavan.
Doug LeBlanc has written at GetReligion about the US press coverage: Archbishop Williams: Bishop to G7.
AMiA has issued a statement.
ENS has Individual bishops respond to Lambeth Conference invitations announcement.
InclusiveChurch Press Release
InclusiveChurch has received a certain amount of adverse comment about the statement we released yesterday in response to the Lambeth Conference invitation announcement.
Our assessment was more positive than the statements of some of the organisations with which we work closely. It is our strong belief that although the situation is by no means perfect and the Bishop of New Hampshire should be there as a full member, the Lambeth Conference will offer an opportunity for serious dialogue on many subjects.
We are in a transitional stage in the life of the church and as we move towards the full inclusion of all people the cost is very high for those who are still excluded. The continued sacrifice demanded of lesbian and gay people, especially those in relationship, cannot be underestimated and we look forward to the day when sexuality is no longer the destructive issue it presently is.
Across the world, both in the Global South and in the rest of the Communion, lesbian and gay Christians are a significant part of the life of the church; we need to recognise this so that we can communicate afresh the Gospel truth of the inexhaustible love of God for the world.
It is our continued hope and prayer that all bishops will receive invitations to the Lambeth Conference. We especially hope that Bishop Gene Robinson will receive a full invitation, so that he can engage with the other bishops of the Communion. Should Bishop Robinson not receive a full invitation, we hope that, as the only openly gay bishop, he will be at the Conference. And we hope that the American bishops of the Episcopal Church will be there to witness to the full inclusion of all people as expressed so clearly in its understanding of the Baptismal Covenant.
The Archbishop of Canterbury affirmed in his letter of invitation that “An invitation to participate in the Conference has not in the past been a certificate of doctrinal orthodoxy. Coming to the Lambeth Conference does not commit you to accepting the position of others as necessarily a legitimate expression of Anglican doctrine and discipline, or to any action that would compromise your conscience or the integrity of your local church.”
We hope that this chance for gracious engagement between bishops of very different theological hues is not missed so that the Communion can continue to grow in its welcoming inclusion. Successive Lambeth Conferences in 1978, 1988 and 1998 have requested genuine engagement with lesbian and gay Christians. We trust that the 2008 Conference will be part of the listening
process called for many times in recent years.
Bishop Chane of Washington:
http://www.edow.org/news/media/releases/2007/lambeth08.html
There is no point repeating ad nauseam that discussion must continue with those that have been flagrantly going against the teaching of the AC……Lambeth 1.10 stands and the revisionists have failed to convince many that on biblical grounds it should be over-turned.
I think that this effort to show even-handedness by not inviting Gene R. is not effective. Surely the quarrel is not with Gene R. as an individual but with his consecration as bishop, that is, the quarrel is really with all those who consecrated him and approved his consecration. Making Gene R. himself the token scapegoat is arbitrary. Also there is an asymmetry — at least in common perception — between his alleged offence, already a few years old, and the more recent church-breaking action of Minns and his consecrators (all of whom, too, should logically be disinvited), in that… Read more »
Enough are convinced that Lambeth 1.10 does not “stand” other than a rushed plenary from a body with no legal standing of making anything approaching Church law or docttrine. And one thing the Archbishop says is about keeping people around the table and discussing. Which is why it would have been unsatisfactory but best to have invited everyone to Lambeth whatever they have done, whereas singling out individuals whilst allowing others to go is even less satisfactory.
But discussion is to continue, NP. Do you really think that RW is prepared to face the exclusion of a third of his own church?
I’m not sure how useful the ‘listening process’ is either, but you must realise that the views promoted in the ‘Road to Lambeth’ will not win majority support in the CofE? The CofE is not about to defy British law nor cause a severe internal split, as much as Reform or Anglican ‘Mainstream’ may want it to!
As church councils go, Lambeth 1998 falls short, clearly. First of all, nobody gathered that Lambeth together as a juridical body even if it was called into being like all the other Lambeth’s to date as a prayerful and reflective one. We lack just the exclusive juridical bodies, ACC aside, that Lambeth and the Primates Meeting is supposed in retrospect to be according to dubious conservative Anglican realignment thinking. Wishing, and talking loudly will not turn Lambeth or the Primates Meeting into that sort of council. And ACC has so far been about common mission, rather than policing Anglicanism and… Read more »
How about a +Gene Robinson, Davis Maciyalla double bill sponsored by Changing Attitude in London at the same time as Lambeth? Perhaps some of the progressive Anglican bishops might find that a more interesting venue than listening to some archbishops torture logic to make it exclude while including, while others try bully the rest of the Communion into submission with heavy Bibles covered with spikes.
Father Joe,
“Also there is an asymmetry — at least in common perception — between his alleged offence, already a few years old, and the more recent church-breaking action of Minns and his consecrators (all of whom, too, should logically be disinvited), in that Gene R.’s offence resides massively in alleged private sexual activity whereas Minns’ offence concerns primarily a public breach of church order.”
Didn’t the consecration of Gene Robinson constitute a breach of Church order? Wasn’t/isn’t there a restriction upon the consecration of a practicing same-sex orientated person?
Merseymike – I think the ABC knows he can carry the CofE liberals with him as he seeks to keep the AC together. You can see this in his handling of the JJohn affair. Then, if you look at Dromatine, TWR and Tanzania, his direction is very clear and even more so now VGR is not invited to Lambeth 08
But Lambeth 1.10 DOESN’T stand, does it, NP. It has never stood.
And your hero, the Prince Bishop of Abuja, is one of the leaders in defying Lambeth 1.10 in that he has refused to listen in any way to the experience of homosexual persons – which, whether you are prepared to admit the truth or not, was an integral part of the resolution.
Please spare us the desperate repetition that you believe Lambeth 1.10 is authoritative. Quite apart from the juridical weakness of your argument (Lambeth has no such authority), you really don’t believe it’s authoritative anyway.
NP wrote: “Lambeth 1.10 stands and the revisionists have failed to convince many that on biblical grounds it should be over-turned.” Perahps NP is under the misimpression that the Angel Moroni, or some other imagined spirit, appeared to the bishops assembled at Lambeth, and gave them gold tablets, inscribed with a new heavenly message, further defining the Christian Church. However, I do not accept the Book of Mormon, and I certainly reject NP’s wish to redefine the Anglican Church. Neither Joseph Smith, nor NP, are true prophets, and Lambeth is not even close to being the equivalent of the Council… Read more »
Fantastic idea, counterlight.
If we all start contributing now, Changing Attitude might have enough funds to sponsor Davis in 2008.
John: I have to disagree about the nature of VGR’s “offense” (your term not mine): It is very public, and ongoing. I say this without intending to weigh it in any other way against the “offenses” of others that you cite. Steven PS-It will be interesting to see how this plays out. From a “votes” standpoint, TEC will lose whether it comes or not, but the GS could only lose if it boycotts. The winner or loser in terms of who determines the AC future could well be determined by this one question. The TEC is in the process of… Read more »
well Malcolm et al – I was simply listening to the liberal ABC who says that Lambeth 1.10 represents the “mind of the communion”
NP, most reappraisers don’t care about the “mind of the Communion” since they are the minority there. In their polity, democracy is only valid if they carry the votes. That’s why decisions at TEC General Conventions are honored, but decisions in local parishes or decisions made by the collective primates are worthless in their eyes.
Steven – the Anglican Communion without the liberals (including the USA, Canada, England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Europe and South Africa) would be diminished, impoverished – and ignored.
I don’t see how that would help anyone. Unless you think that the Anglican Communion is such a basket case that oblivion would be a relief. I don’t think the Archbishop of Canterbury or a majority of Primates are quite there yet.
As a member of the House of Lords, I presume that Rowan knows exactly what it means to talk about “the mind” of an organization. Parliamentary bodies have a process called a “mind of the House” resolution which sets forth the considered opinion of the body. However, such a resolution has no legislative efect. Rather like a Lambeth resolution, really. I have no doubt that 1.10 represents the mind of the Communion. It still has no legislative authority despite your increasingly desperate attempts to claim it does. But perhaps you and your friend in Abuja might have the integrity to… Read more »
>>>Please spare us the desperate repetition that you believe Lambeth 1.10 is authoritative.
If you forbid NP desperate repetitions, he will have nothing to contribute.
“There is no point repeating ad nauseam that discussion must continue with those that have been flagrantly going against the teaching of the AC……Lambeth 1.10 stands and the revisionists have failed to convince many that on biblical grounds it should be over-turned.”
Well, NP, I guess that’s the last we’ll hear from you, then! Have a good life!
NP “was simply listening to the liberal ABC who says that Lambeth 1.10 represents the “mind of the communion”. But that is the w h o l e of Lambeth 1998 1:10, NP, not just part of it. Only as whole it can be “the mind” of the Communion (in 1998 ;=). Cut in half it is nothing – and your hero of Abuja is the first to cut it in half. Consequently it is not worth the paper it’s written on. John asked: “Didn’t the consecration of Gene Robinson constitute a breach of Church order? Wasn’t/isn’t there a restriction… Read more »
Also, with the ABC’s letter accompanying the invitations, we (= you) have returned to square 1:
Lambeth conferences are not Synods of the Church and do not make descisions.
Malcolm
I don’t think “Mind of the House” is such a widespread legislative concept as you suggest. A quick Google search on the phrase turns up *only* references to resolutions of the ECUSA House of Bishops. But I would be happy to be corrected on this point.
badman said,
“the Anglican Communion without the liberals (including the USA, Canada, England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Europe and South Africa) would be diminished, impoverished – and ignored.”
I’d argue that the TEC – as currently run by the liberals – is being increasingly ignored by Americans.
Let’s face it, EVERYONE has ignored the entirety of Lambeth 1:10, as it is so blatantly contradictory. It pays lip service to gays by declaring, “We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons”. However, at no point since the resolution was passed have the powers that be “listened to the experience of homosexual persons” when making important decisions concerning the ministry of gay people and their faithful relationships – the Windsor Report, Dromantine, Dar Es Salaam et al are proof of that. Gene Robinson’s exclusion, as a corollary of Windsor, increases my suspicion of the integrity of… Read more »
Are any other bishops going to boycott Lambeth in solidarity with Gene Robinson? You’d sort of hope that at least a few would, ideally a few CofE ones.
The term is used in Commonwealth Parliaments at least, and I am aware of “mind of the Commons” resolutions in Canada. That said, it is Parliamentary minutiae. I suspect +Rowan would be aware of it because he is a) a bright lad and b) a member of such a body. Fair enough, though, that the term is likely to be obscure to anyone who isn’t a follower of such minutiae. However, it still does not justify the argument which NP keeps harping on that a) 1.10 is authoritative and all Anglicans are required to submit to it and b) that… Read more »
This is a tad off topic, but related to many similar discussions. There’s an absolutely fascinating discussion (and a very long one) of many of the issues that pertain to this topic on:
http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=145
It’s probably worthy of a post of its own.
I’m sure ++Canterbury’s intention was to sweep all the unpleasantness and conflict under the carpet by keeping away a few pesky problematic bishops. In the case of +Robinson, when ++Williams snubbed him, ++Canterbury might as well have dressed +Gene up in sequins, downed the houselights, and shown a spotlight on him. It looks like (as of this moment) that +Robinson will be going in some sort of diminished capacity as a “guest”. When he steps off the plane at Heathrow, he will be a star. He will be the one that everyone stares at and talks about. He may even… Read more »
Come on, Hugh. Just because someone believes homosexual activity to be sinful doesn’t make him/her a homophobe. It just means the action is sinful in their understanding. Lambeth 1.10 and Windsor are faithful and ethical in the understanding of many learned and faithful Anglicans. They are not so in your view and many others. We simply have two irronconcilable truth claims. Your view is trying to change the teachings of this church, and that effectively takes my church from me, and requires me to leave to find the theology that was in this church and brought me to know Jesus… Read more »
Chris says “NP, most reappraisers don’t care about the “mind of the Communion” since they are the minority there. “
Really??
TWR, Tanzania, VGR’s exclusion from Lambeth 08……seems like what you think is a minority is getting its way despite the liberal ABC “leading” the process.
Doug
Thank you, separate post follows shortly. Please save comments on this document for that post.
ooops – sorry – I misread Chris’ statement…..but he makes an interesting point nonetheless….so, Chris why not leave the Communion to those who do care about it and stock ripping it apart?
Badman:
The diminishing Western liberal wing of the Church is already largely ignored, particularly in the U.S. On the other hand, the GS Churches are booming, encompass many 10s of millions of people, are definitely not ignored where they are located, and are certainly not being ignored–given the current brouhaha–in the West either.
However, I don’t think there will ever not be a U.S., English, etc. presence in the AC, though it might not be the anglican bodies currently in place in those locales.
Steven
Harvard man wrote: “Just because someone believes homosexual activity to be sinful doesn’t make him/her a homophobe. It just means the action is sinful in their understanding.”
I suggest you spin that to your local ambulance team, or emergency hospital – and see who will get hit on the head ;=)
“Sinful” is carelessly applied in this case, harvard man. What’s sinful about two people of the same sex falling in love, and wanting to share a life together? What does this threaten? Oh, yes, I forgot, it’s about certain “unnatural” sexual acts. It shows how sex-obsessed the whole debate has become on the right, while ordinary same-sex couples concern themselves with the banal practicalities of daily life. Gene Robinson has been singled out as representing a more serious category of sinfulness than any of the other bishops who were invited. Can you imagine what it must feel like to be… Read more »
Thanks, Hugh. You did a fine job validating my point. Your claim to truth and mine cannot be reconciled. And sex outside of Christian marriage is considered sinful in most Christian teaching, as you know. That you disagree with that doesn’t change the teaching. It is not about the sex act, but about our ordering our world in our view vs a Godly view. As I understand it, same sex sexual activity is outside that Godly view. You disagree. I am ok with you having your own opinion, but not with you changing the practices of my church to bless… Read more »
You must have amazing friends, harvardman. If any of my “friends” told me that they believed my love was an expression of original sin and that my condition was broken (more than theirs as fellow human beings), I would certainly question how they truly love, cherish and support me.
True friendship implies the deep acceptance of the other as a whole human being, not charitable yet judgmental “love”.
Could you imagine that through your friends God is trying to bring you the clarity that this love is not actually wrong?
Presumably, most of the time, harvard man, you keep your opinions to yourself in company with your gay friends, or they tell you to perhaps after a “thank you very much but no thanks.”
harvard man, just suppose one of your gay friends wanted to enter into a civil union and have a church blessing. What would you do then? Would you decline the invitation to the ceremony on the basis that your friend was going against your view of the church’s practices and teachings? Or would you decide that friendship was more important and turn up? “For the love of God is broader Than the measure of man’s mind; And the heart of the Eternal Is most wonderfully kind. But we make his love too narrow By false limits of our own; And… Read more »
Harvard Man, have you noticed how often you use the phrase, “my church”?
“I am ok with you having your own opinion, but not with you changing the practices of my church to bless something that it has traditionally taught is unholy.” harvard man: ignoring the patronizing nature of the first part of your statement [so you won’t burn me at the stake? Thanks!], the more important second part is FACTUALLY INCORRECT. There is NO “traditional teaching” regarding same-sex marriage, much LESS that such supposed church teaching declares it “unholy”! “Can you please understand that, if I believe same sex attraction is a broken state, a form of original sin, that accepting it… Read more »
I just love this blog. Post an opposing view, and it’s all talking at me. Not sure I hear any ‘listening’ going on, re: perhaps I can hold a different view and be respected for that while in disagreement. I am as broken, if not moreso, than any other man/woman I meet. And thankful for Jesus’ grace in saving me from that sinful state, even while I’m still a mess. Same sex attraction is just one of many broken states, in my understanding. You see it differently, and I appreciate that. But asking the church (the one I am a… Read more »
Harvardman, if you didn’t want us to engage with your views, why post them? I did listen and comment on your original post, so did JCF and JPM. Maybe you’d like to repay the compliment and answer the points made? You’re welcome to your view, I just don’t happen to share it. And I find some of it very hurtful. Sex outside marriage is sinful? Well, then accept that we love as fully as you do, and allow us to marry. As for your comment that your friends know you as Christian and therefore are likely to know your views:… Read more »
And Harvard Man, how would you purport reconciliation with scripture and your beliefs, once it is determined by science than LGBT sexuality is genetic in nature, and can be classed at least a naturally occurring derivation?
I will buy the argument that God intends us to us what we are given properly, and not to the detriment of others. Can’t you see this?
Homosexual relationships are probably sinful, if they are abusive, jealous-riddened, manipulative and hurtful. However, I believe that true loving relationships of such are not. Why do you engage scripture into a sweeping fallacy?
choirboy, well, scripture doesn’t seem fallacious to me on this issue. Sorry we disagree, but trust we can do so in a respectful way. Erika, I am sorry you interpret my comments as judgemental. I have tried to say that I see myself as a sinful mess, no different from you. I can and do love my brothers and sisters in Christ, when we agree and when we don’t. Sometimes seems more Christian when we don’t, and have to live with it. I ask you both: what is the point of this dialogue? Have we not demonstrated over the years… Read more »
Harvardman, We could both hold our positions prayerfully and respectfully and loving those that disagree. And I keep repeating that I have no problem worshipping side by side with everyone who calls themselves Christian. My problem comes when people believe they are better sinners than I am. Otherwise – why the need to split the church into “my church” and the others? Why set yourselves up as those who uphold truth and are more worthy, against those of us who deny truth and continue living in deliberate sin? Unless that kind of understanding changes and people develop a GENUINE respect… Read more »
Erika says “And I keep repeating that I have no problem worshipping side by side with everyone who calls themselves Christian.”
I am sure you would not be able to accept some people who claim that title for themselves despite their beliefs and actions, Erika…..but anyway, we have been told very clearly that not all who call themselves Christians, are genuine – and we have been told repeatedly in the Bible not to compromise with or accomodate such people, as I am sure you know (eg letters to Timothy and many other places)
Havardman: “well, scripture doesn’t seem fallacious to me on this issue. Sorry we disagree, but trust we can do so in a respectful way.” I did not say that scripture is fallacious. Read my last statement again. It is our use of it that leading to falsehoods about the human population. Many are holding judgement over others when it is clear that there is much to be learned of God’s creation. Using scripture to fortify personally held beliefs and superstitions is a form of blasphemy. I think the history of a town eighteen miles northeast of your alma mater (Salem)… Read more »
choirboy says “Sorry… but it is my bretheren that you are trying to exclude, judge and insult, and I resent it being done under the guise of knowing more than our Creator.”
So, your solution is to ignore the revealed will of your creator?
NP,
“So, your solution is to ignore the revealed will of your creator?”
Leaving selective bible quoting aside, you have so far failed to make a convincing scriptural case for your view that our creator would create people who are innately distined to sin unless they deny themselves the life and love the majority takes for granted.