Bill Bowder in the Church Times reports Lambeth absentees press on as letters wait to be sent out:
A MONTH after the Lambeth Conference, the 230 or so absent Anglican bishops have not yet been contacted in order to “build bridges” with them. In the mean time, their leaders have stated that they have heard nothing from Lambeth to give them pause as they seek to form a new North American province.
The Archbishop of Canterbury and Canon Kenneth Kearon, the secretary general of the Anglican Communion, committed themselves at the Lambeth Conference to ensuring that the absent bishops were kept fully informed of what had taken place, and of the process expected to lead to the Anglican Covenant…
Meanwhile, the Guardian reports Archbishop accused of marginalising homosexuals and republishes the article by Bishop John Chane to which this refers under the title Scapegoats of the Anglican communion.
Archbishop Peter Jensen wrote this: Trusting God at GAFCON.
“The Archbishop of Canterbury and Canon Kenneth Kearon, the secretary general of the Anglican Communion, committed themselves at the Lambeth Conference to ensuring that the absent bishops were kept fully informed of what had taken place …” Maybe if those absentee bishops had been willing to show up in the first place and associate with those whom they deem outcasts, unclean and impure, they would know what had taken place. But, as it is, they can’t risk contamination by association, so they demand to be informed by various forms of communication in order to determine if the Lambeth Conference measured… Read more »
I don’t see how it can be correct that “the 230 or so absent Anglican bishops have not yet been contacted” as suggested.
It was announced on 26 August 2008 that the Archbishop of Canterbury had that day “sent a letter to the bishops of the Anglican Communion, setting out his personal reflections on the Lambeth Conference.”
In case any copies were lost in the post, the text is available on the internet at http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1942
The letter makes it clear that it is addressed both to those who were at Lambeth and those who were not.
On the road to getting where Rowan now wants us all to be, period, he has preached some dodgy and dubious particulars – (1) that dioceses have independent relations with Canterbury (a view as difficult to implement inside CoE as elswhere?) (2) that bishops count for more in church life than lay people, (3) that weaponized doctrines against target groups like the current hot button favs of queer folks and uppity women and modernity in general are serious Anglican theology – such that we are boldly encouraged not to ever look behind those conservatively realigned sacred narratives to see who… Read more »
The story doesn’t, in fact, happen to be true. Kenneth Kearon has written to non-attenders.
Impossible not to be cheered by this. ‘This’ = both the continuing feisty integrity of liberal Anglicans and the continuing evidence that many, many Evangelicals do not want the gay issue to be a communion-dividing issue. Anglicanism lives!
How very odd that TA should republish via the Guardian newspaper on Friday a precis of what was posted on Wednesday.
“Overwhelmingly, the Communion is still opposed to the sexual revolution which sparked this crisis. Both GAFCON and Lambeth have made that clear. Yet there are powerful forces which will not retreat when it comes to the ‘sanctification of sin’ as Jim Packer calls it” – Archbishop Peter Jensen. What a gross mis-statement that ‘the Communion is still opposed to the ‘sexual revolution’ which sparked this crisis”. It must by now be quite obvious that this is not the view of the main-stream Church. If Jensen had bothered to attend the Lambeth Conference, he might have understood that the majority of… Read more »
Question about Fr Ron Smith’s comment: It was agreed to that 3 moratoria were to be recognised as the way forward …
I thought nothing was ‘agreed to’ at Lambeth and that 3 moratoria were proposed. In most Anglican provinces agreements can only be made in synod.
“One does wonder whether Archbishop Peter Jensen is shaping up for a division of the Australian Anglican Church, which would pit the Sydney Archdiocese against the rest of the Dioceses in the Anglican Church of Australia.” Lay presidency is a fact, in spite of Jensen’s failure to make it legal. Church planting from Sydney in almost all of the Australian dioceses is also a fact, regardless of the issues it raises — Jensen is delightfully oblivious to the idea that his actions might need to be governed by process. He doesn’t want to hear the legitimate objections of another bishop,… Read more »
Father Ron Smith wrote: “The fundamentalist view of Scripture must give way to the discipline of a modern hermeutical process, which allows for modern scientific and other social and cultural experiences to be brought into the equation – under the influence of Hooker’s three-fold Scripture, Tradition and Reason basis of discernment. To base theology on only one of these – the Scriptures – is to overlook the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit in the contemporary Church.” Buy it doesn’t. Instead the Modern American form of 1610 Arminianist Inerrantism have grown more strident in late modernity. In fact, claiming to… Read more »
Sara, You are almost correct when you say that ‘nothing was agreed to’ at Lambeth – implicitly. However, the tenor of the final communique was that the moratoria would be presented to the Churches as ‘The Way’ to a resolution of the present conflict. You are right, of course, about the fact that there is moral, but no legal persuasion from the Lambeth conference for the Provinces to agree to the moratoria (as has been proven already by the GAFCON promates stating that they will not abide by their particular moratorium – to withdraw from missionary endeavours into other provinces).… Read more »
“Lay presidency is a fact, in spite of Jensen’s failure to make it legal.”
Really? Sydney Anglicans are actually doing this, now? If so, why? I read somewhere that Sydney ordains far more men to the priesthood than they actually need to staff their churches…?
“Sydney Anglicans are actually doing this, now? If so, why?” Reportedly. As far as I can see from what I read, there are two reasons: it reduces the argument that we need ordained women to make up for a shortage of priests. Not a good argument anyway, but I guess their position is that there is nothing wrong with a layman “celebrating”, but a lot wrong with female headship, which says a lot. Second, Sydney is very Evangelical and anti-Roman. Having a layman “celebrate” is a strong political statement of “non-Romish” beliefs. The dean of the catheral is on record… Read more »
“I read somewhere that Sydney ordains far more men to the priesthood than they actually need to staff their churches…?” This is also true, but the reasons are purely power-based in two ways. Lay presidency is based on a notion of delegated authority — the priest is still in charge, because any lay person presiding at the “communion” has to be appointed by the parish priest. Of course, it does beg the question that, if a lay man (and it will be a man) is sufficiently qualified to preside, why not just ordain him? However, the second reason is a… Read more »
Sydney Anglicans are actually doing this, now? Yes, they are. Primarily in congregations which they have transferred to “independent ministries” so as to render them beyond jurisdiction, but in more than a few “Anglican” congregations as well. If so, why? Because they can, because they see themselves as above external canonical law and answerable only to a “higher” doctrinal understanding, and because they are utterly ruthless when it comes to silencing internal dissent and criticism. And because no external bodies have taken steps to stop them. It’s interesting that those dioceses most likely to object to Sydney’s lay presidency, namely… Read more »