The 2022 Lambeth Conference opens on 26 July.
Anglican Communion News Service A message from the Archbishop of Canterbury to bishops attending the Lambeth Conference
Religion Media Centre
Explainer: The Lambeth Conference
Sexuality and schism: do bishops have to agree on everything to stay in the Anglican family?
Church Times
Guide to the Lambeth Conference
Draft Lambeth Conference ‘call’ threatens to reignite 1998 row over homosexuality
Lambeth ’22 can resolve divisions if you are gracious and bold, Anis tells Global South bishops
Andrew Goddard The Living Church Lambeth in Retrospect: Part One Part Two
John Harvey Taylor Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles The Bishop’s Blog: Bait-and-switch Lambeth Conference
Church of England press release Living in Love and Faith Next Steps Group Statement on the Lambeth Calls
clarkinholyorders The Commonwealth of Heaven The mind of the Anglican Communion?
Kirk Petersen The Living Church Bishops Object to Lambeth Proposal on Sexuality
Mary Frances Schjonberg Episcopal News Service After LGBTQ+ resolutions smoothly moved through #GC80, Anglicanism’s human sexuality debate returns ahead of Lambeth Conference
Jennifer A Reddall Episcopal Diocese of Arizona The Lambeth Calls for Whom?
Marcus Green The Possibility of Difference Lambeth Walking?
Kelvin Holdsworth The Lambeth Conference: Homophobic by Design
Updates
David Hamid Eurobishop The mind of the Communion
Stephen London Anglican Diocese of Edmonton Bishop’s Statement on Lambeth Calls
Susan Brown Snook Episcopal Diocese of San Diego Lambeth Calls
Bishops of the Church in Wales Draft Lambeth Call “undermines and subverts” LGBT+ people – Bishops
Colin Coward Unadulterated Love An Open Letter to the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England
Mark D W Edington The Convocation of Episcopal Churches in Europe Lambeth Stuff
Andrew Nunn Reflections from the Dean of Southwark Lambeth calling … London calling
Colin Coward Unadulterated Love Lambeth Call on Human Dignity draft didn’t include Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10 [includes statement by Bishop Kevin Robertson]
Bishop of Ely and Bishop of Huntingdon Lambeth Conference 2022 – Pastoral Letter to the Diocese of Ely
Religion Media Centre Fury at inclusion of same sex marriage ban on Lambeth conference agenda
Affirming Catholicism Open letter to the archbishops and bishops attending the 2022 Lambeth Conference
Church Times Lambeth Resolution 1.10 ‘was not discussed’ in human dignity drafting group
Barbara Gauthier Anglican Mainstream Lambeth Calls: Can a Church truly deal with the brokenness of the world if she herself is broken?
The Guardian The Guardian view on the Lambeth conference: don’t make it about sexuality
The Guardian Motion to oppose same-sex marriage forces rethink of Anglican summit
Michael Curry The Episcopal Church Statement from Presiding Bishop Michael Curry on Lambeth Calls
Bishop Tim Thornton Chair of the Lambeth Calls Subgroup Statement on Lambeth Calls
Church Times Lambeth attempts to head off sexuality row in Canterbury with new draft
Colin Coward Unadulterated Love Revisiting the Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10 plenary session
Modern Church The Lambeth Conference: Modern Church’s Response
See also this from my bishop, Stephen London: https://edmonton.anglican.ca/news/bishops-statement-on-lambeth-calls
Would the last one out of the Victorian Garden please close the gate. I sent this off to my bishop this morning, copied to our primate. Copy follows here. “I will be keeping you in my prayers while you are participating in the upcoming Lambeth Conference. However, in addition to piety I also wish to sound an activist note. At this juncture, as a ‘Joe citizen’ in the church, I regret the participation of the Canadian Bishops in this event. I note the sad and shabby treatment of some of the bishops/bishops’ spouses. I note as well the ‘call’ to return… Read more »
Has the Canadian province formally disavowed 1:10?
Is it 1.10 or I.10? I can never get that straight.
Mr Chesterton, in the 1998 resolutions the first set are prefixed I and the second set are prefixed II, and so on. The use of Roman numbers, while acceptable to those with Romanist tendencies, may be less acceptable to those who feel that Arabic numerals are more authentically Protestant. It is perhaps to be accepted that even the reference to the resolution is controversial!
T, my problem is not with Roman v. Arabic, but with aging eyesight!!! I have to look really hard to tell the difference between an ‘I’ and a ‘1’!
The Canadian province has not. However, a motion to amend our marriage canon received 80% approval at our last Geenral Synod. Sadly, it still did not pass, because it needed a 2/3 majority in all three houses. It fell one vote short in the house of bishops. Since then, the majority of dioceses, like ours in Edmonton, have proceeded with equal marriage anyway.
The sacrament of marriage is available to same sex couples in our diocese of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island also.
Not formally disavowed, but an attempt to codify it at General Synod in 2004 was amended, with the final version affirming “the sanctity and integrity” of committed same-sex relationships, and committing to further study and discussion. Some of the bishops supporting the original motion read a protest statement and walked out after the amended resolution passed.
Jim, don’t forget the General Synod of 2019 and the message from the House of Bishops at that same General Synod. We have now the principle of subsidiarity which allows each Canadian diocese to make its own decision. I’ve attached a link (below) from coverage in Anglican Planet at the time , a conservative publication, but which in this case provides pretty good reporting. ( I know this will be somewhat arcane to folks in other provinces, especially the C of E. ) Basically, a motion to amend a Canon on marriage failed in the order of bishops; but afterwards… Read more »
Thanks to Tim for this quote from his bishop (see above): “I do have to say I was extremely disappointed to see in the resolution about Human Dignity that there is a call to reaffirm Lambeth resolution I.10, from 1998, which is against marriage equality for our LGBTQ+ community. This goes against what I thought we were doing in speaking where we find we have a common mind as a communion. It is clear that there is no common mind on this issue. There are groups working already to remove this from the Lambeth Call, and I will work to… Read more »
The fact that in 2022 the majority of the Anglican bishops in the world think that we discover ‘the mind of the Anglican Communion’ by a resolution passed by a group of bishops, with no participation from laity and clergy, is telling in itself. This is top-down authoritarianism at its worst.
It may be an uncomfortable truth but the fact is the Church of England is an Episcopal Church. Doctrine is the responsibility of the Bishops.
Bishops often appear as unhappy about it as the laity but that is the reality
Thankfully doctrine in the Church of England is not determined by other Anglican Provinces. We sort out doctrine collectively in the Church of England. Bishops, as servants, try to listen and discern, because we are no longer living in the feudal system. Bishops have to try to understand, “What is the mind of the Church?” as its members live in a changing world, exercising conscience and conviction. The ‘Mind’ of the Church is not just the bishops. And of course, we believe God plays the main part, speaking to consciences, guiding us individually and collectively. Bishops could, of course, ride… Read more »
Susannah, I think you outline the key issue. Is doctrine received and inherited or is it discerned by each generation.
My personal conviction is that it is received, but that is not the reason I characterise the constitutional position of the Bishops as those with responsibility for doctrine. That is just the actual reality of it.
If the Elizabethan settlements had established the Church of England as a congregational church we would be in a very different place.
The Elizabethan settlements may be relevant to the Church of England but they are entirely irrelevant to the rest of us.
Also, even in the Church of England the bishops do not get to decide on these things by themselves. If they did, why did the change to allow ordination of women have to be voted on at General Synod and the Diocesan synods?
The ordination of women did not change the doctrine of the church
It was a political compromise. I think you will search in vain to find anybody – for or against the ordination of women – who thinks the resolution was a principled theological outcome
If no change of doctrine ( at least in some sense) was involved why did 400 or so priests and some bishops leave the C of E with an official “payoff”. That suggests they thought a significant doctrinal change had happened. Or were they just theologically uninformed?
“In Christ there is neither male nor female, Greek nor Jew, free nor slave” … “And God created man and woman in God’s own image.” The Deacons of the early church, the first witnesses to the Resurrection…
Oh yes, women’s ordination is certainly principled theologically. Absolutely.
The point I was making is that the settlement around the ordination of women was a political compromise not a redefinition of the doctrine of the church.
Nowhere in the Creeds is the ordination of women established as a cardinal Christian belief. Nor could it be.
Of course, those such as yourself who support the change believe you have a theological basis to your view.
That does not alter the doctrine of the church.
Well, nothing in the Creeds supports a male-only clergy either. Plenty of early church leaders were women, described as deacons. The male-only bit comes from patriarchal culture, not doctrine. It’s no surprise that the early female standouts were wealthy and that women’s ordination didn’t become a thing until women had more rights… This is all culture and not doctrine. So no “change in doctrine” was really required for WO. Unless you all have documents that we don’t consider doctrine, we just have the Creeds and Scripture.
“Unless you all have documents that we don’t consider doctrine”
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I think you are having a hard time because because you think “doctrine” is received, not revealed and I think it is received and open to new revelations. Since you think it’s crystallized, I’d like to know what is contained in those crystals? I keep saying that in TEC, our only doctrine consists of the Creeds and Scripture. Everything else is our interpretation of those, mishna, if you will. If you are also talking about doctrine being the Creeds and Scripture, and not decisions made by your bishops, then we need to acknowledge that it’s possible to prayerfully and thoughtfully… Read more »
I have never said doctrine is received not revealed. I have never used the term crystallized. Your reference to “what is contained in those crystals” is incomprehensible.
You really need to be addressing your comments as general comments. This is a facility at the top of the Comments section above.
There is no sense at all in which your comments are a reply to me.
Sorry we’re not understanding each other. You’ve written on “doctrine.” That it’s in the purview of the bishops. That WO was a political compromise, not a change in doctrine, that people “would search in vain to find anybody – for or against the ordination of women – who thinks the resolution was a principled theological outcome.” And yet, there’s ample evidence that it is highly principled, theologically, which is the view in TEC. And the same principles apply to LGBTQ+ inclusion. “All the sacraments for all the baptized,” is the short version. It makes no sense to me that you… Read more »
The CofE may still be a “top-down” organization (as are many of the Anglican churches of Africa). But many Anglican churches are not. And such top-down control of Lambeth is not going to fly. The Anglican Journal (Canada) had a good piece this week about our Primate’s reflections after a meeting of ARCIC in Rome. The meeting focused on what it means for the church to be “synodically governed”, especially in light of Francis’ calling of a Synod. For her, it was a chance to share some of the strengths of our Anglican system, while also reflecting on some of… Read more »
I understand the sentiment behind the language of “top down” and “authoritarianism” if you are unhappy with Anglicanism.
However it is far from the reality. It is perfectly clear many Bishops are deeply uncomfortable with their role as guardians of Doctrine. Far from being “top down”, their governance style is one of avoidance.
I cannot see how we help ourselves by pretending we are being pushed around by the Bishops. That is not the problem
In TEC, bishops alone do not determine doctrine. We have years-long discernments that include scholars and laity, in addition to the clergy. And it comes about through prayer and sharing. None of us signed onto an authoritarian Anglican body, least of all one that lets itself be dominated by human rights abusers (see how many of the GAFCON bishops support “Jail the Gays” and even “Kill the Gays” laws in their countries).
Christian Doctrine is received not discerned.
If every generation discerns its own version then they can call it whatever they like but it is obviously not apostolic Christianity
Scripture, tradition, and reason certainly tells us that doctrine can be discerned. In Biblical times they thought that the male seed was planted in a woman who was merely a vessel. Women were treated as chattel, a condition that continued until roughly 1972. Many aspects of “the Law” had to do with sanitation and hygiene.
You have changed the manner in which you are using the term discernment.
We do not discern doctrine by talking to the widest possible circle of people and then amalgamating what they think into a notion of doctrine. That is at least a reasonable inference of your meaning regarding TEC bishops.
Doctrinal or not, we believe that the Holy Spirit continues to inspire. You’re saying it’s received, which is how I was raised in the Greek Orthodox Church. But what we’ve received comes from a pre-scientific culture and reason tells us that their understanding of the world shaped the faith, as ours does now. What does it mean to love all your neighbors in 2022? In the context of horrific climate disaster, war, disease, etc? Saying that “doctrine was received” not to be re-examined is like saying we can’t use 21st Century technology to combat COVID, we have to use 1st… Read more »
You continue to infer that I have said things I have not said
At no point have I said doctrine is not to be examined
Well said, Jim.
I’m not talking about the Church of England. I’m talking about the Anglican Communion.
I am aware of the difference. My point is you are being censorious when the reality is that The Anglican Communion is not a democracy.
The Anglican Communion is not an authoritarian entity. It has NEVER had the power to dictate anything to anybody. They can just be rude about things they disagree with. The end.
Your comment bears no relation to anything I have said.
You seem to be saying that the Anglican leadership, whoever they are and however they are chosen, are the “guardians of doctrine.” And yet, the only doctrines we have are the Creeds and Scripture, everything else is policy. The AC has no authority to determine policy for other provinces and it’s a disaster when they try to assert false authority.
It begs the question, how are you defining “doctrine?” Who created the “doctrine” you’re talking about? Even the Creeds and the books from Scripture were determined by committee.
The New Testament – not me – is clear that Bishops are guardians of the Gospel
The Gospels themselves, however, do not use the word “bishop.”
The KJV has that word only in 1 Peter (funny that), 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus.
The word “archbishop” does not appear at all, nor is there any concept of any national or international province of the church.
So the New Testament says very little about how bishops should conduct themselves with respect to jurisdictions not their own.
The silence on denominations does not nullify the clarity that exists on the duties of bishops
Andrew Goddard rails against “diluting, perhaps even abandoning, the historic vision of interdependent life in communion articulated in Windsor and the Covenant.” Well yes, because that articulation is incompatible with the reality of divergent views on (for example) sexuality. The Covenant was rejected in England. What Andrew opposes as “a privileging of autonomy” is simply the reality that the Anglican Communion cannot impose sexuality positions on the English Church which its members do not agree with. That’s simply the emerging reality. Andrew’s articles appear to me to be an exercise in wishful thinking. Any Anglican Communion that imposes uniformity on… Read more »
Everything I’ve read about the Lambeth Conference reminds me of addiction. Addiction is best described as doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. This ongoing fascination/addiction with human sexuality screams addiction. Those who enable this addiction are as guilty just like a family, when one member is addicted, those who enable get drawn into the maze of an addiction as well. In two years our national church will once again meet for our legislative convention. I would urge our church to cut off funds (over 2 million dollars are sent to the office of the… Read more »
From the Episcopal Bishop of San Diego: https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Lambeth-Calls.html?soid=1101649887417&aid=dOM-PL27QU4.
I expect many more. The fact that the only options are voting “Yes” or “Not yet” is deceit by design. The mind of the communion is not unified and none of the churches practicing marriage equality are going to re-litigate it — it is not up for discernment and so “not yet” is not an honest answer.
Climate change, war, poverty, migration, misogyny, racism, greed, the list of keen issues for the church is long and dire, and Welby wants to divide and distract with this deceit? Unbelievable.
The “Living in Love and Faith” statement is insanely infuriating. You can’t affirm human dignity and Lambeth 1.10 simultaneously. 1.10 is an affront to human dignity that is not ameliorated by saying “nonetheless we shouldn’t abuse them.” The affront is the CAUSE of the abuse. The “bait and switch” at this late date is just nasty and as the Bishop of LA said, there should be no room for deceit in Christ. So the deceit tells us how separated this despicable tactic is from the love of Christ and the deceit is an obstacle to doing the important work of… Read more »
The motto of the Anglican Communion is, “the Truth shall set you free.” That means engaging with the reality of disagreement, not pretending it isn’t there; or worse, pushing a fiction that there is a “common mind” when there isn’t one. I served on the Indaba Reference Group meeting in London for five years, and learned that engaging honestly with difference is much more productive than pretended agreement.
Such a good comment. Maturity.
“…engaging honestly with difference is much more productive than pretended agreement.” It is the “engaging honestly” piece that is missing in this instance. This whole maneuver smacks of politically motived manipulation.
Rod, I agree it appears at best manipulative; and I intend my comment on part as a critique both of that aspect of the approach and the content. Not only is the assertion of a “mind of the Communion” false (as even the Subsection Report back in 1998 acknowledged!) but the way it was shuffled in at the last moment (unnecessary in a decennial gathering, surely!). Engagement with both aspects is still, in my opinion, the best way through.
Just seeing this now, sorry I missed it earlier. Thanks. I agree. My approach to these things, for better or worse, is existential. I was raised in a community that was divided by religion. I know about the pain of division, how it may impact lives profoundly. Ecumenical dialogue made huge gains, both in terms of resolving differences, and living peacefully with the important differences that remain. It is sad that ecumenical gains have now been over shadowed by in house polarisation. I can’t think of one major initiative in the church that has not produced some measure of acrimonious… Read more »
“Sam Margrave has submitted a Private Member’s Motion calling for the Archbishops’ Council to prohibit the flying of the Pride rainbow flag on church buildings.” ** long, saddened, resigned sigh *” Here in the former Colonies (USA version) and I also assume across the Pond, private, governmental, and religious institutions fly a variety of banners and flags promoting various good causes, and never is heard a discouraging word. But let someone fly a rainbow flag, and there is a disturbance in the Force, people are outraged, chests are puffed out, hot air pours volcanically forth, and people such as Mr.… Read more »
Limiting this reply only to the subject of flags, your assumption about flags on C of E churches isn’t correct, I’m afraid. There are rules – it isn’t a free for all – but I guess the rules aren’t always followed, maybe sometimes from ignorance rather than deliberate flouting. Here is the link to the C of E guidance. You will see there is some latitude, but some rules like those for the Union Flag and the form of the St George Flag are mandatory (in the same way as respect for the US national flag in your country). The… Read more »
I think that’s a rather optimistic view of the issue of flags on churches in the USA. I’s only six years ago the the Southern Baptist Church voted in Convention to “call our brothers and sisters in Christ to discontinue the display of the Confederate battle flag”, for example.
But the point at issue is that Mr Margrave rather obviously does not view the Pride flag as a “good cause”.
I’d keep away from flags altogether (St Geo excepted) – they’re more trouble than they’re worth. From Sir Bufton Tufton’s ‘Vicar, why isn’t the Union jack flying? It’s Her Majesty’s birthday don’t you know,’ to the Northern Irish rector in a strong Orange Order parish hoisting St Paddy in the marching season. While the former might harrumph out of the 8 o’clock; the latter is likely to face an exodus.
Flags can be a welcome diversion amongst all the divisive comments about GS and Lambeth Conference.
Westminster Abbey has its own ‘rules’:
https://www.westminster-abbey.org/events/flag-days
of course, it is a Royal Peculiar.
I have noticed that for Irish snooker players and golfers television captions tend to use the English Cross of St George instead of St Patrick’s. I wonder why. Anyway, it’s good to see that Westminster Abbey marks St Patrick with the correct flag.
In the main, I don’t recall RC churches having flagpoles, except Westminster Cathedral which flew the Papal flag for the visit of Benedict XVI.
I suspect it’s because the snooker players and golfers are from Northern Ireland. Hence the Ulster flag in which ‘the bloody hand of O’Neill’ is superimposed on a St George Cross.
If I recall correctly, the Southern Baptist objection to the Confederate flag was part of a campaign in reaction to a mass shooting. A picture of the gunman emerged holding a Confederate flag in his left hand and a gun in his right. To many in the UK, it seemed the real problem was in the right hand rather than the left.
Sounds as though the people running the Lambeth Conference are using their power to structure the agenda (especially the power to “package” agenda items) to stuff “calls” with language that is discriminatory and therefore evil. This being so, bishops from affirming provinces should vigorously exercise their own procedural rights. Depending on the parliamentary system, any individual bishop might have the power (if seconded) to do the following: Move to recommit the call to whatever body drafted it. (This could have the effect of kicking the call into the Lambeth long grass for the next decade.) Amend the objectionable language to… Read more »
I think it has pretty much been decided that the Archbishop Canterbury has full control over invitations. I suspect he also has final say on the agenda: it is his party. I think by now it is clear that he isn’t likely to withdraw the calls. And because the sexuality bit has been bundled with other aspects of human dignity the neutrals will vote for it. It’s a desperately underhand move. And then, once the call is accepted, that will be used in LLF to prevent any change in the CofE position. Politically it is ruthless. And schism – both… Read more »
Though schism may indeed occur at the international level of the worldwide Communion (though that’s not certain), I don’t think this ‘Call’ will trigger schism in the Church of England. The bottom line is that these ‘Calls’ have no authority over individual Provinces. So I think here in England, we carry on as before, in the Interim phase that is LLF, trying to get to grips with the way that the ‘Mind’ of the Church of England has changed and is changing, on human sexuality. I don’t personally think the English bishops are all ‘hoorah-ing’ this proposed reaffirmation of 1998… Read more »
“I suspect he also has final say on the agenda.”
Usually the assembly as a whole gets to determine its agenda. This is a basic principle of parliamentary procedure.
Is the following statement evil? “In view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage”. If so what possible point is there in the LLF process if one side describes the position of the other as evil?
“what possible point is there in the LLF process if one side describes the position of the other as evil?”
Or what possible point if one ‘side’ describes the ontology; the created, lived reality of the other ‘side’ as sinful, intrinsically disordered, unscriptural and an abomination?
So the LLF process has no purpose!
For most people, things are not as polarised as that. There is also live and let live. And agreeing to disagree. And we can do that and, ideally, love one another, and get on with parish life – most of which is NOT about sex. Indeed, the main lesson this Church needs to learn in these disagreements – I suggest – is respect for another person’s conscientious view. And that principle then needs to be developed across the whole life and practice of the Church. I admit it’s not easy when there’s hurt. And I admit I have at times… Read more »
The purpose is to look like the C of E is trying hard to be nice, while maintaining the homophobic status quo.
I suppose the purpose is to find some way to reconcile quite divergent positions about sex and sexuality, to enable those holding them to live together in the same church. Some of the comments here seem to take it for granted that this would be a bad thing.
“in the same church”
There’s the mistake, right there. Different provinces are different churches.
Bob’s question, on which I was commenting, was about LLF, so the specific “church” in question was the Church of England. But my comment applies at the level of the Anglican Communion as well. If the Communion, as a collection of independent provinces, is trying find some way to reconcile quite divergent positions about sex and sexuality, to enable those holding them to live together in the same Communion, why take it for granted that this would be a bad thing?
I’m not taking anything “for granted” about how the _Communion_ is “finding its way.” The way that certain bishops just chose to find was to attack many existing marriages, solemnized by several provinces over the past decade or more, as “impermissible” and not advisable. I think you are conflating the Communion situation with the CofE situation. If LLF has not been derailed entirely by this draft call, then yes, the CofE will continue to try to find some way to reconcile divergent positions. But other provinces are much further down the road in that process. They have made very different,… Read more »
We all know that each of us individually has a created nature that is sinful. Probably every single one of us commits acts every day that are sinful, intrinsically disordered and abominable. If we do not confront that primary fact, then we are not going to have a useful discussion here.
Just a thought – what does this statement imply about those who are divorced, remarry with a partner still living? Or does life long union only apply to the person you may be married to now? The deception around this statement and the exclusion of same sex spouses and the lies around the LLF process in my view are evil. This statement is one more example of a game being played with people’s lives.
When these Yes/nearly Yes (ie no option to vote No) votes are cast in this process does anyone know if the details of who voted and how they voted be published or not? (So many emotive adjectives and phrases omitted by in in asking that question! My festering rage is just not showing signs of settling) For my part I would like to know and hold my diocese and bishop to account as it keeps using the terms inclusion and diversity in its strategy which just feels like the biggest lie of all. (Actually lets say one of the biggest… Read more »
This is where publicity becomes important. I doubt that the Lambeth Conference itself will publish any vote result. So bishops who choose to vote “no” (or to try to vote no) will have to record their votes in some other way. Press release seems most likely–“The following bishops tried to vote no, but their votes were not allowed.”
Can you imagine the uproar?
And one other thing. Of course bishops may vote “no,” even if not permitted to do so by the electronic device. You simply stand up and announce your vote out loud. You might assemble in line to do so, for ease of speaking in order. You also issue a press release that lists which bishops voted no, and that notes that their votes were not counted by the Kremlin’s vote-clickers. Such a press release might actually embarrass Canterbury the most in his own province. It highlights the deeply controlling nature of the “voting” arrangements, and the sham of setting up… Read more »
I have been preoccupied with other concerns over the last couple of weeks – so I may have missed something that was published/publicised during that period. But as far as I understand it the final version of the Lambeth Calls have only been publically made available (? to bishops as well as the rest of us) last Friday – 22 July (St Mary Magdalene’s Day as it happens – there could be a sermon or two in that). If that is indeed the case then I think it is utterly cack-handed and bizarre. Whatever one may think about the reference… Read more »
This seems very true, Marian. I believe – to use your word – people have been ‘bounced’. To spring this on people, when such a proposal could have been raised 6 months or 12 months ago, so people could consult, reflect, and prepare… would simply be a more open and transparent way of doing things, and would draw in more people’s thoughts and advice. The proposal itself is obviously divisive, since it’s well known to be the ‘elephant in the room’. The Church of England cannot possibly – in the current ‘mind’ of its members and direction of LLF –… Read more »
It seems to me that there are people in both camps who are willing to see the Communion split on this issue. If that’s the mood of the times, then the argument is about which camp gets to keep the “brand”, for whatever that’s worth. That may explain the increasingly acrimonious tone of the discussions.
The “brand” in England is established (literally). What other provinces choose to do about framing the ‘Anglican’ branding or re-branding is up to them. In England, the Church of England is the Church of England. To quote your very good point higher up this page, I suspect the Church of England will decide to “reconcile quite divergent positions about sex and sexuality, to enable those holding them to live together in the same church.” And no, that will not be a bad thing. It will be a good thing. A number of people, who insist that only their own view… Read more »
There’s a lot being said here about the importance for some provinces of their autonomy in matters of doctrine and liturgy. They are free to decide whether to prioritise that autonomy over keeping in step with the four instruments of communion. But I’m struggling to see what is left in terms of its global Anglican identity when a province or diocese declares itself to be unconstrained by one or more of the instruments.
“I’m struggling to see what is left in terms of its global Anglican identity…” Why struggle to achieve any fictive unity that ecclesiology cannot support? That’s a fruitless errand. And ultimately a damaging and abusive one. Just admit that the provinces are independent of each other, autocephalous, and self-governing–with very different styles of self-governance. This debate over marriage keeps happening because some people can’t accept doctrinal differences with provinces that they have no control over at all. So the debate keeps arising in Communion fora that are powerless to settle the issue, in terms of identity or otherwise. This is… Read more »
First of all, one of the “instruments” is really a lie. The “Calls” were not developed in a Communion-wide manner, these are a backroom deal and the “vote” to be taken is profoundly dishonest. Being joined in dishonesty to degrade others is not of God and not a requirement for communion. Second of all, there’s just no theological universe in which marriage equality is so central that we can’t co-exist. It isn’t in Scripture and frankly, some of the strongest homophobes are coming from contexts where jailing or killing gays is the law of land, supported by the church. That… Read more »
So if the instruments of communion can’t or don’t keep the global Anglican family together any more is it time to define a new way of enabling the Anglican network to thrive? Or better to let the global fellowship go altogether?
Why can’t we agree to disagree (or at least allow other views), and STILL have fellowship? People are starving, the poor are in pitiful need, children are dying daily of malnourishment… we can still work prayerfully together to help so many needs, and do it in fellowship. It’s not all about sex. A lot of this is predominantly men with status, playing power games. Who says we can’t have fellowship, and share service of the needy, and be a network wherever we see needs we can address together? Certainly here in England, most people in most parishes want to keep… Read more »
Yes I suppose the international expression of Anglicanism could become a looser fellowship, with less doctrinal cohesion but some shared ministry opportunities. But without something like the instruments of communion there is no way to join or leave the global Anglican family, nor guarantee sacramental communion. Until reading the statements and commentary I hadn’t realised how willing Anglicans were to let that go.
“Sacramental communion”?
I was not aware of any such thing in the Communion as it exists now.
Is a same-sex marriage performed abroad recognized in the Church of England?
Or is it only ordinations that ought to be valid across jurisdictions?
‘Sacramental communion’. I found this on the psephological blog: ‘Rowan Williams…wrote to the Primates in 2002 that “the Lambeth resolution of 1998 declares clearly what is the mind of the overwhelming majority in the Communion, and what the Communion will and will not approve or authorise. I accept that any individual diocese or even province that officially overturns or repudiates this resolution poses a substantial problem for the sacramental unity of the Communion”.
Well said. Here in ordinary old parish life, there are loads of issues more important than sex. From all the furore, you’d think that most of the 60 pages of Lambeth Calls was about sex, rather a single clause which takes up less than 1/5 of 1 page. It’s almost like we prefer to focus on what divides us.
Families are NOT kept together by rules, they are kept together by love. We believe in Christ who was love, who died for love, and who told us to love all of our neighbors as ourselves. It is absolutely false that we can only be “held together” by agreeing to abuse and degrade some of our members. That is a repellant theology.
I’m trying to imagine what the Anglican Communion looks like if there are no rules governing, for example, how to become a province of the Anglican Communion, or which primates of churches with an Anglican heritage can attend the Primates Meeting, or who invites bishops to the Lambeth Conference. But then no instruments of communion would be necessary if no one can define what Anglicanism is and what what love is. I am puzzled by where all this is going and how quickly global Anglicanism is unravelling.
I’m trying to imagine why some provinces, suddenly circa 1990’s, decided that they could impose rules on others.
What Susannah Clark talked of was agreeing to disagree. That is not the same as agreeing to hold the same position: in fact, it is the exact opposite.
I think you meant to reply to someone else? I’m completely in agreement with Susannah Clark. I’m questioning the assertion that the Anglican Communion has some hierarchical power to impose doctrine on other provinces. It doesn’t.
I’m responding to the point you made that appeared to equate agreeing to disagree with someone holding a position that you regard as abusive on the one hand, and agreeing with that position as such, on the other.
I’m saying that if we truly follow the Way of Christ, we would be held together in love, a love that transcends differences.
Thanks. Let’s hope something good will emerge from the conference.
Given that one of the instruments is the Archbishop of Canterbury I would hope and expect that every province and diocese would not feel itself constrained by him (and thus far it has always been him). Be open to dialogue, listen carefully to concerns raised, yes. Be constrained? No. When the communion was established part of the point was that the ABC was not head of a global church, and had no more authority among the bishops of other provinces than does a diocesan bishop over a neighbouring diocese. In fact, the use of meetings of primates to bypass the… Read more »
Is it that the instruments of communion are currently being used wrongly, or that they have never worked?
Instruments of Communion are a fairly recent development. Until the 70s or so the Communion was defined as Churches in communion with the ABC.You could say the Instruments as a foursome were devised to give ( or try to give) the Communion some structure. Given the failure of the Covenant that’s the best show in town. But it is surely the fact that Communion as in Anglican Communion means a lot less sacramentally and ecclesiologically than the term communion would to Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
Thanks. We now watch and wait.
I’m not sure they were ever meant to be more than a framework for discussion. In that sense I suppose it is the case that they’re being used wrongly – to try and impose a uniformity that doesn’t exist. It seems to me that the goal in the past was to make a good Anglican fudge that everyone could agree to, but some provinces (or parts of provinces) are no longer content with that approach and want to force other provinces into compliance. Whether that is genuine conviction, arrogance, thirst for power or local politics the result is that the… Read more »
With the four instruments broken or at breaking point maybe there will be a new vision for how Anglicans can relate.
I see that one of the Calls will be on the subject of Science and Faith. It will formally launch the Anglican Communion Science Commission, “building the connections between faith and science”. I wonder whether we may assume that its work will include furthering the efforts of its co-chair the Bishop of Oxford to embed the tenets of paganism and the Green Party manifesto into Anglican belief.
I look forward with no great pleasure to watching the Commission tackle further contentious issues such as the position of modern science on the reality or otherwise of biological sex.
The Green Party manifesto is probably closer to the Gospel in terms of stewardship of the earth, liberation for the oppressed, and care for the poor, than most. What is your particular objection? And what exactly are you accusing the bishop of Oxford of here?
Perhaps you could enlighten us also on what you think “modern science” says about “biological sex”.
I’m referring to Oxford’s adding statements which seem merely party political to the baptism service, seen as an obstacle to joining the church by people who prefer to make their own decisions on matters of party politics, and seen as pagan by others. The issue about biological sex is that what old-school science taught us about biological sex has been contradicted, rather vocally, by some people over the past few years. I’m not making a case for either position, merely pointing to the existence of a controversy over a scientific issue. Perhaps the Commission will see it as part of… Read more »
While I don’t think the baptism service should stray beyond the creed in terms of required assents, stewardship of the earth is a basic Christian duty and is neither particularly pagan nor party political.
Quite so. It seems we agree that a specific, tendentious, paganised, politicised statement about it should not be inserted into the baptism service. My gloss on this is that to do so is to create an obstacle to joining the church.
From the Bishop of Connecticut:
https://www.episcopalct.org/news/a-message-from-our-bishops-prayers-for-the-lambeth-conference-of-bishops/
This is especially insightful because +Ian (full disclosure: he was one of my seminary professors) was on the drafting team of the Calls, and feels betrayed: “During the drafting of the Call on Reconciliation, I was never led to believe that the bishops gathering at Lambeth would have to vote on the substance of the Calls.”
Janet Marshall, now of the Diocese of Toronto, has been involved in facilitating pre-Lambeth discussions among Bishops. She also feels betrayed and ashamed to have been a part of the sham.
Thank you for posting this, Jim.
I’m surprised that people are surprised. Archbishop Welby has proved himself over the years to be singularly maladroit. This is sadly just the latest of many blunders during his term of office. The inclusive bishops should arrive in Lambeth bend the ear of the Archbishop, and then get the next plane home to Canada and the USA. The Welsh and Scottish bishops will presumably get the train. They could form a choir and sing Gracie Fields’ song ‘Wish me luck as you wave me goodbye’ before their departure, including the line ‘with a cheer, not a tear, make it gay’.
In this letter https://www.facebook.com/IowaEpiscopal/ Bishop Betsey Monnot points out that all the lead writers of the ‘calls’ at Lambeth are men…
That does indicate that we know who the lead writer of the call on Human Dignity with the troublesome passage on same gender marriage.
**Who is the lead writer of this call, please?**
Before I forget, I want to acknowledge David Hamid’s excellent contribution in one of the links, “The mind of the Communion.” Apparently, in 1998 the infamous 1:10 did not come from the group studying human sexuality, that group’s report said: We must confess that we are not of one mind about homosexuality … He adds: Resolution I.10 did not originate from the bishops in the section where the discussion on human sexuality issues took place. So the offending language wasn’t the mind of the Communion even in 1998, but Welby and company are using the political maneuvering from 1998 to continue the… Read more »
I’m really not sure Justin Welby welcomes this initiative to re-affirm I:10, but he is not the Pope, or a dictator who can reject the collective action of others elsewhere in the Communion. I suspect the ‘fail’ is in allowing a process where something like this could be sprung on the conference so late in the day. That suggests loose planning and insufficient care to ensure everyone has time to review the ‘Calls’ and have voice / offer feedback well before the proverbial hits the fan.
Announcing this proposal just days before the Lambeth Conference is ludicrous.
“That suggests loose planning and insufficient care….”
To the contrary, I think this was very deliberately and carefully kept secret until after General Synod met.
But why would he want all this controversy to blow up? He’s been trying to just get the Conference over the line, so he can breathe a sigh of relief. I don’t really see how this helps him. I’m neither championing Justin, nor condemning him on this last-minute development. I just don’t see the motivation (and what he has to gain) if he’s linked to a conspiracy narrative. I think it’s just blown up in his face. Today he is having to handle emergency meetings, and I reckon it’s the last scenario he wanted just before the Conference.
Completely agree Susannah.
I think it’s the Bishop of Toronto who worked on the Human Dignity Calls and has written that he’s just shocked that 1.10 was inserted in there, it never came up in the drafting. So someone inserted this in a way that is outside of the process. We don’t know who blindsided the group that worked on the Human Dignity Call, we just know that when it left their computers, whenever that was, it got added.
Kevin Robertson is actually the area bishop of York-Scarborough in the Diocese of Toronto. The Bishop of Toronto is Andrew Asbil.
Well, if he knew that controversy would blow up anyway, then sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof, no?
Push it off as long as possible.
Then let it happen, and try to manage it, when it cannot be delayed any longer.
It may be helpful to recall that Justin Welby was one of the nine bishops who voted for Lord Dear’s wrecking amendment on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. One of his many attempts at justifying that action was the statement “The concept of marriage as a normative place for procreation is lost”. That statement is not about the treatment of gay people. It is an absolute assertion that the place of women is to get married and have children. I have no doubt that the majority in the US Supreme Court who recently overrode Roe v Wade would entirely… Read more »
It is an absolute assertion that the place of women is to get married and have children. Not at all. It is an assertion that the place to bring up children is within marriage, and that one man and one woman are required for that to happen. You may or may not agree with that, but that’s what was being said there. It says nothing about what else either of the parties should be doing. Arguing on the basis of a guess about what some other people might think about it doesn’t do anything to make the argument sound. It… Read more »
I appreciate that the construction of language differs from person to person, and that most people are fortunate in not having to read Hansard; I was not so blessed in my life. However, you are not construing that sentence; you are making up a different sentence to construe. There is, for example, nothing in the sentence recorded in Hansard which says anything at all about the numbers involved; you have conjured up the one man and one woman from nowhere because you do not wish to accept what he was actually saying. If you wish to try and understand why… Read more »
With a ‘call’ to re-affirm the sinfulness of gay and lesbian sexual intimacy, and the need for lesbian and gay people to remain celibate all their lives, spare a thought for the students, lecturers, and staff of Kent University, who witness the lives of their fellow students, colleagues, families, colleagues, friends’ lives being vilified as ‘sinful’ if they are living gay or lesbian sex lives.
What sort of message does that send out to young people there, and the university community?
Perhaps Lambeth 2022, with dissident Provincial Bishops withholding their presence on issues of gender and sexuality, will the ideal occasion for Bishops faithful to the call to Lambeth to declare their faithfulness to the Gospel by acting to rescind the homophobia and sexism of Lambeth 1:10, which was a Resolution offered to appease conservatives in our Churches who still cling to an outdated etiological misunderstanding of gender and sexuality. Gafcon’s Primates have already declared their determination to continue their schismatic intention to raise up rival ‘Consenting Anglican‘ churches in otherwise official A.C.C. jurisdictions’ – their clear and open declaration of… Read more »
Bishop Kevin Robertson, an area bishop of Toronto, who also has a same-sex spouse, has written the following. He was on the drafting committee of the Human Dignity Call and was very surprised to see the inclusion of Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1:10 in the Call. The drafting committee was not consulted. Here is what Kevin has to say (shared with permission): Dear Facebook friends, Like many of you, I have been shocked and dismayed by the Lambeth Call on Human Dignity which, in part, calls upon the bishops to reaffirm Lambeth Resolution I.10 (1998). That 24-year-old resolution, for which there… Read more »
There is a very important tweet expressing the thoughts of Bishop Kevin Robertson (York-Scarborough) who is gay and married. It’s worth reading in full.
Bishop Kevin was on the group which drafted the Human Dignity call and the reference to Lambeth 1.10 was NOT part of the wording the group agreed.
https://twitter.com/RevDaniel/status/1551377568070307841?t=voKPglIIp7tw6QDVD0LPkA&s=19
With just a twenty minutes left before the witching hour here on the east coast of Canada, I’m reflecting at the remains of the day. The day began with the parish Communion liturgy. By all accounts at church, you’d never know there was a Lambeth Conference . Afterwards I engaged someone in conversation about the category five tempest in a teapot surrounding Lambeth and the call to reaffirm the infamous 1998 resolution. The response? “Rod, why are you worrying about that? The church is sliding into the sea. No one in the real world is that interested in what these… Read more »
I am in the Diocese of Montreal, and for us the Anglican Communion is most visible in the interchange of clergy from around the Communion (TEC, CofE, CPWI, Eglise Anglicane du Congo, Diocèse d’Haïti, Tanzania, Hong Kong, Central Africa, Ceylon), and in people (my own parish includes members from Uganda, Nigeria, the UK, China, Zimbabwe, the US, and a dozen Caribbean nations). Lambeth doesn`t mean anything. Regardless of what winds up being voted upon, the Pride Mass at the cathedral will take place on the 31st, LGBT+ clergy will continue to serve, same-sex marriages will continue to be celebrated, and… Read more »
Thank You Jim. I have had opportunity to worship in some of the parishes in Montreal, including as a delegate when GS was hosted there back in the 90s.
Very rich and interesting experiences. I totally agree about Lambeth.
The ten draft ‘Calls’ that the Lambeth Conference will soon be discussing cover a wide range of issues. They are well worth reading. Movingly written, they offer a wonderful, informed Christian vision of commitment to a troubled world and its transforming. So it is hugely frustrating that one particular, brief, inaccurate paragraph somehow inserted into the draft about human dignity should now distract from a vision we would all support – but very understandable that it does. Even within that Call, the statement about Lambeth 1.10 sits awkwardly and out of context within a broader and inclusive vision of humanity.… Read more »
David … given the fact that we are now being told that at least one member of the drafting group for the Call on Human Dignity never signed off on a version of the Call which included the reference to Lambeth 1.10 I think there are serious issues of truth, trust and moral integrity at stake here. Clearly it is important to discover who exactly it was that added this text, and whether they were pressured by anyone else to do so. It feels as though this might need to turn into a resigning matter for someone
Marian. I agree this needs investigating. But my point is more about holding on to what good here. I hope you have had a chance to read these draft Calls.
Thank you this David. Good to be reminded of the big picture, the context, and proportionality. The Communion has potential for so much continuing good. I say that as the parent of an Anglican working in a context of often desperate human need in Uganda. Bottom line = we need each other. For that reason, I am glad English bishops are attending Lambeth (notwithstanding the disgraceful exclusion of the spouses of gay and lesbian bishops). I want their voice with regard to so many of the needs and challenges implicit in these calls. More than that, to try to build… Read more »
The “Calls,” with one glaring exception, are beautifully done and I fully support them. Unfortunately, the dishonest, shocking, and deceptive way 1.10 was inserted into the document promises to suck the air out of the room. I hope that it is simply removed, or that they simply decide not to vote, after all, there can’t be much disagreement on the rest of the “Calls.”
Two other procedural points: The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops has–very wisely, in my view–scheduled a meeting of the House of Bishops in Lambeth this week. This meeting might enable TEC bishops to vote against the Call on Human Dignity at the Conference, after having voted in favor of the unobjectionable language in the TEC House of Bishops (say) the night before. In other words, TEC bishops will have an alternative forum that is not subject to the pro-1.10 power to package language together. Perhaps other affirming provinces might consider scheduling formal meetings of their bishops for the same purpose?… Read more »
Actually no priest of the Church of England takes an oath/ affirmation etc which includes the words Anglican or Anglican Communion at all.
We’ve seen many US and Canadian bishops expressing disquiet about the Lambeth Conference call, and I believe the Scottish Episcopal Church bishops have all made a joint statement.
Has ANY English bishop publicly committed themselves to expressing disquiet by putting pen to paper? If not it is a disgrace that not one has.
diocese-of-ely—bishops-pastoral-letter—25072022.pdf (d3hgrlq6yacptf.cloudfront.net)
The Bishop of Ely and the Suffragan Bishop of Huntingdon have together issued a thoughtful Pastoral Statement and rather embarrassingly the LLF Next Steps Group have had to say something, being completely wrong-footed by the shenanigans, rather hopefully concluding that “the LLF process is a gift that the Church of England offers to the Anglican Communion as it responds to the Call for the ACC to expand its work on gender justice.” But don’t hold your breath on all other dioceses issuing a statement. It would help if a diocesan bishop (just one even) threw her/his toys out of the… Read more »
The arrogance that the C of E is offering a gift to the Anglican Communion. Brazil and Scotland did it so much better!
LLF a gift? Poisoned chalice, more like.
Thoughtful, yes. And I appreciate that they have quoted the Calls document at length, to fully contextualize it.
Compared to what is coming from TEC, Canada, and Scotland, however, it is rather bland.
The bishop of Ely/acting bishop of Lincoln has done so. (Cosigned by suffragans)
My bishops — of the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina — have issued a statement in response to disclosure of the proposed revisiting of Lambeth 1.10. The full statement is here <https://www.episdionc.org/blog/bishops-ask-for-prayers-ahead-of-lambeth-conference/ but it reads, in part One proposed “Call” addresses marriage in a manner that is giving us great pause, particularly because it contradicts the canons of The Episcopal Church. Until these documents arrived in our inboxes, we had no idea such plans were being put together for votes to be taken. Both of us feel misled as well as disappointed to realize there was this particular agenda revealed… Read more »
More for Simon. From our Presiding Bishop, ++Michael Curry: https://www.episcopalchurch.org/publicaffairs/statement-from-presiding-bishop-michael-curry-on-lambeth-calls/?mc_cid=7f623633d0&mc_eid=UNIQID&fbclid=IwAR07_rL_5FLUkChpV4dk-bgfY3x4tplieoyTHnLtaLujejefxzCjFYgZRo0
And my bishop +Kym Lucas, Bishop of Colorado: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in1BIKwu5EY
Does anyone know who is attending Lambeth? Or if the ‘vote’ is only going to be recorded if a bishop is physically present? Canadians on FB are welcome to join “Canadian Anglicans” where the discussion continues to be lively, informed and prayerful.
The Lambeth Conference has published a statement about the Lambeth Calls, by Bishop Tim Thornton, Chair of the Lambeth Calls Subgroup, for The Lambeth Conference. It is online here and I have copied it below. The Archbishop of Canterbury invited bishops to the Lambeth Conference to listen, pray and discern together. It is an opportunity to listen to one another as Christians, sometimes across deeply-held differences. Over recent days we have listened carefully to the responses of bishops to Lambeth Calls: Guidance and Study Documents that was released last week – and especially in relation to the draft Call on… Read more »
And so the backtracking begins–both on the substance of the “call” and on the attempt to control bishops’ responses to it.
Future Archbishops of Canterbury would do well to note how the present Archbishop’s convening tactics have caused anger, and indeed defiance, among bishops from around the world.
Has it really been a century since Laurel and Hardy? “Another fine mess you have gotten us into”. The bafflegab just keeps on giving.
This seems like a conference of contradictions. If nothing that emerges from the LC has a bearing on the Provinces a means of responding to the Calls is unnecessary. A redraft of Human Dignity is unnecessary if a ‘not for me’ response is now possible. The redraft at this late stage is likely to appease no one. If the mind of the Anglican Communion cannot be discerned by the LC a vote is pointless. If any consensus around human sexuality has no bearing on the Provinces why should any other Call, even if affirmed by the LC, influence any shared… Read more »
I don’t think the ‘not for me’ response fully works to deal with the Lambeth 1.10 issue.. There is actually a lot in the document on Human Dignity, based on the concept of human beings created in the image of God that I imagine most bishops would want to and should affirm. It would be a pity if because the Lambeth 1.10 was still in the document they felt unable to do so. Better to remove it – and probably also truer to the intentions of the original drafting group.
Bishops of The Episcopal Church will be able to affirm all unobjectionable language, if they so choose, when they meet separately as their own House of Bishops. Then they may vote no, against this call, if any “revision” (which we have not yet seen) remains unsatisfactory. Section 3.3, in particular, seems to license the Anglican Communion Office to work on sexuality issues, as well as gender. In a perfect world, this might be a good thing. In the Anglican Communion today, section 3.3 does not seem a good thing. Similarly, section 3.1 seems focused on redemptive work around slavery. Perhaps… Read more »
A lot of us think that the redraft is a pretty accurate reflection of the varied mind of the Anglican Communion. It truthfully acknowledges that some Provinces are totally against marriage equality and finally acknowledges that some Provinces do marriage equality and that it is the result of a reflective process. This is huge in that it finally admits that we come by it through our faith, not through secular culture (which can be pretty homophobic, actually). It’s a fair and accurate statement and I would not feel undermined if my bishops vote for it as it now stands, though… Read more »
“The drafting group for the Call on Human Dignity will be making some revisions to the Call”
That’s a thoroughly disingenuous statement as they weren’t responsible for the problematic wording in the first place.
A pretty fundamental question is who actually put the Lambeth 1998 I:10 section into the ‘Call’? Was it a group decision by the drafting team? Allegedly not. Was it one individual? Was it one individual who did it, after taking advice/reference from someone else? How did it happen? And wasn’t it checked by anybody, or questioned, before it went public? It’s very well to say “The drafting group for the Call on Human Dignity will be making some revisions to the Call” a day before the Conference starts. But it must have been blindingly obvious that the insertion of 1998… Read more »
I have registered my concern over the editing of the Reconciliation Call with 5.4 and 5.6 almost identical. My theory is that one is an early draft of the other, but I am not sure which is which – which is important as I chair the Peace and Justice Network.
Thanks Phil. I must say, I did like this part of the declaration: ” Our differences embodied in the Anglican Communion both challenge and deepen our experience of God in the other. As we join in God’s mission of reconciliation through Jesus and in the power of the Spirit, our differences are celebrated and redeemed, as we are made whole in the body of Christ. In that diverse whole, we more fully reflect the image of God.” There’s profound truth there. What are your views on the call for an Anglican Congress focussing on reconciliation? I agree 5.4 and 5.6 do… Read more »
One might ask what if any influence Emma Ineson had in all this?
I thought Tim Thornton was assisting with the smooth operation of the Lambeth Conference. Certainly, his name, as ‘Lambeth Calls Subgroup Chair’, is associated with the statement issued yesterday saying that there will be an option for bishops to say that “this call does not speak for me”.
Am I remembering rightly that Tim Thornton had a hand in the design of the ‘apportion no blame’ review into the tragic death of Fr Alan Griffin? ‘Smooth operation’ is probably a good description. I would bet good money that heaven and earth is being moved to prevent any detail about how this debacle surfaced from ever being made public.
His role was as a member of the Review Steering Group:
Richard Gough, General Secretary of the Diocese of London
Joanne Grenfell, Bishop of Stepney
Zena Marshall, Interim National Director of Safeguarding
Tim Thornton, Bishop at Lambeth (alternate Richard Sudworth)
Tim Bishop, independent member of the London Diocesan Safeguarding Steering Group
Quite likely wouldn’t you say?
http://www.unadulteratedlove.net/blog/2021/4/22/bishop-to-the-archbishops-opposed-to-equality-of-lgbtiq-people
Good catch. Thank you. I shall remember her name and her statement a year ago.
There is also a Lambeth Conference press briefing video which reflects support for the inclusion of the 1998 I:10 section (Bishop Emma Ineson 47:24 to 48:34) and the disagreement with its inclusion (Bishop Eugene Sutton 46:20 to 47:24):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC6QaZqMybA
I find this video truly shocking. From her own lips, and without a hint of embarrassment, Bishop Ineson restates as fact something which wasn’t even true in 1998 and has subsequently been consigned by many to the dustbin of history.
Given her central role in co-ordinating the build-up to the conference, this leaves little doubt as to where the unwarranted restatement of 1998 I.10 came from.
Whatever gave the Archbishops the idea that someone holding such polarised views would be a suitable person to act for them as their bishop?
The thing is, we don’t seem to know who inserted this Lambeth 1998 clause. It infuriates me. Why does there never seem to be transparency? We’ve been told today that it will be ‘reviewed’ or ‘revised’. But the shambles has already happened. Who, specifically, decided it should ever be inserted? There never seems to be accountability. Was it a group decision? Was it an individual intervention? Was it checked and okayed? If the drafting team reports it was not agreed by them (was it?) then is the design of these ‘Calls’ just down to the preferences and prejudices of certain… Read more »
Thank you for this. The fact that there has now been a revision is progress. However, the real point is that someone or some group thought that the originally published form of words would be acceptable and could be put to the conference. Equally shambolic that the voting was for Yes or Yes.
The lack of accountability and dishonestly is shocking. This privileged group is totally out of touch and shows not a shred of humanity never mind dignity
Susannah. Permit me one factual correction to your comments. The revision to the Call to Human Dignity has been issued a week before it it is discussed – on Tuesday 2nd August. Not the day before.
Thank you David, and you are of course correct. One week away, not one day. My apologies to all – a brain fuse…
It’s reassuring to see that one of the Church of Ireland’s bishops has called the decision to include Lambeth 1.10 at a late stage as ‘murky.’ The lack of clarity, not to say accountability, will only fuel unhelpful conspiracy theories. The impression given is not only one of theological and diplomatic illiteracy; but an easy willingness to treat fellow members of the body of Christ with total contempt.
The revised text of the Calls has now been released. https://www.lambethconference.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Lambeth-Calls-July-2022.pdf?fbclid=IwAR15ZNXKzC_xSzjpxQZFJAOeR0rx9cQnqg3UNxKWhSiqkoYSTTX8dokZKx8 The paragraph in question now reads: ‘Prejudice on the basis of gender or sexuality threatens human dignity. Given Anglican polity, and especially the autonomy of Provinces, there is disagreement and a plurality of views on the relationship between human dignity and human sexuality. Yet, we experience the safeguarding of dignity in deepening dialogue. It is the mind of the Anglican Communion as a whole that'”all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation are full members of the Body of Christ” and to be welcomed, cared for, and… Read more »
Thanks be to God. I wonder if that is the original language, before the ungodly tampering with 1.10?