Lambeth - News but mostly
views
2.
The Times
July 17, 2008
Bishops 'weakening body of Christ' in row
over gays and women
The Archbishop of
Cantebury, Dr Rowan Williams, in Canterbury yesterday as he began a fightback
against critics
Ruth Gledhill,
Religion Correspondent
Conservative
bishops have been accused of breaching their duties and damaging the welfare of
Christians as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, fights back
against his critics.
Anglican
bishops arriving for the Lambeth Conference yesterday were told to stop their
backstabbing and in-fighting if they were not to “weaken the body of Christ”.
A
background paper distributed to 650 bishops and archbishops attending the
ten-yearly conference in Canterbury told them to remember that their
relationships with each other were “fragile and tainted by sin”.
Anglican
rows over ordaining gay priests and women bishops were damaging for “all the
baptised”, it said. But the most stinging criticism was for conservative
bishops, of whom 230, mainly from Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya and Rwanda, are
boycotting Lambeth.
The paper,
commissioned by Dr Williams, made clear that bishops who had transgressed
diocesan and provincial boundaries in search of “orthodox” primacy were
considered guilty of undermining collegiality. An even worse sin, it suggested,
was boycotting the conference.
The
warning was published in the Lambeth Reader, a document intended only for
delegates but seen by The Times. “Given the present state of the
Anglican Communion it is the special collegial responsibility of the bishop to
be at prayer for and with fellow colleagues,” the paper said.
“This
is particularly relevant for those bishops who are in conflict with one
another. Their failure to attend fervently to this ordinal vow weakens the body
of Christ for which they have responsibility. This in turn weakens the bonds
that all the baptised share with one another.”
The
paper, written by the Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission,
represents the start of the fightback by Dr Williams, who has been accused of
showing inadequate leadership.
His
strategy at Lambeth has been to draw up an agenda devoid of controversy to
avoid further splits and to use allies in a counter-attack based on theology
and tradition.
It
concedes that there are occasions when a church “falls out of sympathy” with
its bishop on matters of doctrine and conduct. But it demands that the ease of
modern communication and travel does not excuse choosing a leader in another
province to become “chief pastor”. This is a reference to the 300 US parishes
that have sought oversight from provinces including Southern Cone, Rwanda,
Nigeria, Uganda and Kenya.
The
Right Rev Errol Brooks, Bishop of North Eastern Caribbean and Aruba in the West
Indies, defended the conservative stance. He said: “On issues of homosexuality,
people make choices but they should not try to foist these on others.
Homosexuals are God's children. We have to love them. But when they have made
certain choices that are not in keeping with biblical ethic, we have to try and
see if we can come to some common ground.”
Dr
Chris Sugden, executive secretary of the Anglican Mainstream lobby group,
criticised the paper as inadequate. He said: “This is incomplete in its
presentation of the New Testament teaching of what bishops should do in the
case of continual, systematic teaching of false doctrine.”
About time Rowan
Williams began standing up to the conservative bullies.
Mike Homfray,
Liverpool,
It is the renegades of
FOCA who have been fomenting schism, while the American and Canadian churches
have been patient, temperate, gracious, but the Abps rebuke is too little too
late and too intellectual. He needs to be much firmer and more direct in
disciplining them
Doug, Melbourne,
Australia
Between war, poverty,
crime, rape and persecution, the opposing bishops still think that LGBTs are
the biggest threat to Christian values? I did not choose to be gay, and don't
accept that God would rather I stay single than graciously accept his gift of
romantic love for another man.
Samuel, Swansea, Wales
Biblical Christians I
presume follow the Bible.
Tony, Limerick,
Dr. Williams is the
one who has weakened the body of Christ. Because he holds pro-homosexuality
views himself he has been unable to empathise with the very strongly-held views
of the traditionalists, has underestimated the strength of their beliefs and concerns
and has lost their trust.
Deborah Pitt, Penarth,
Vale of Glamorgan
It is sad to see the
politics of religion overpower the message of true FAITH.
To hear the words such as CONFLICT, FIGHTBACK and GUILT bandied about in the
context of the leadership of the Anglican Church will do far more to undermine
the church than gay issues ever could.
Nick, Eastbourne, UK
".. modern
communication and travel does not excuse choosing a leader in another province
to become “chief pastor”
What an unbelievably blind and cruel thing to say, considering the shoddy
treatment many of these hundreds of congregations have experienced from the
liberal leadership of TEC.
Bill Channon,
Francestown,
this terrible
archbishop is the guilty one. he is a placeman for his government
masters.
he is not fit to lead anyone. he and his liberal followers sicken honest
Christians.
i only hope he gets a good wage for apostasy.
neil, lisburn, ireland
How can a Christian
Anglican remain in a church led by a presiding bishop who does not believe the
central tenets of Christianity. Exemplified by this quote from +Schori:
"Jesus is (only) one of the ways to God". Not exactly what the Bible
says!
Astounding that the ABofC says nothing about this.
Bill Channon,
Francestown,
I am a Christian, and
I don't feel that my welfare has been threatened by this argument. Satan hates
God and the people of God and is always working to destroy him. This is just
another day in the battle between good and evil. Stand firm and see the salvation
of the Lord!
Mark, Maidstone,
England
OOOOO
9c.
Theological Education
- IATDC
The Anglican Way: The Significance of the Episcopal Office for
the Communion of the Church - October 2006
Preamble:
At
this time in the life of the global Anglican Communion tensions and rifts
between Provinces – and bishops -- have seriously impaired the fellowship
(koinonia) of the baptised. The reasons for these difficulties are complex and
no one would imagine that it is an easy matter to restore fellowship across the
churches of the Communion. In such circumstances we can forget that our life
together is a gracious gift bestowed by the Lord. It is a gift that serves the
mission of God in the world and directly impacts on the integrity and power of
our witness to the gospel.
How
can we proclaim one Lord, one faith and one baptism when the gift of koinonia
seems to be so easily set aside for a supposedly greater goal? What can be more
fundamental to our life on earth than our essential interconnectedness with
others and the world.[1] This koinonia or oneness is given by
God in creation and renewed in Christ and the Spirit. It is a gift which
subsists in the whole body of Christ prior to its embodiment in an ‘instrument
of unity’ or particular ecclesial office. Furthermore, like all gifts of God,
it can only be a blessing as it is faithfully received and shared by all.
It is critical for this truth to be grasped by an often anxious and fearful
Church that seeks heroes and leaders to heal its inner life.
Bishops
bear a particular responsibility for the maintenance and nurture of koinonia.
Their actions impact upon the whole body of the faithful for we are all
‘members one of another’ (Romans 12:5). The ordinal is clear that bishops of
the Church have a great and grave responsibility to the Lord of the Church for
the fellowship of all the baptised. Accordingly we offer these ten theses on
the role and responsibilities of bishops for the well-being of the communion of
the whole church. In the theses that follow it should be abundantly clear that
the maintenance of koinonia is not an optional extra or luxury for the
episcopate. Rather, at this time in our history the furtherance of koinonia
bears directly on the peace and freedom of the baptised. It is they who have
been called by God to bear witness to the glorious gospel of Christ in a broken
and violent world hungry for peace, freedom and healing.
The
following theses identify the bishop’s ministry in relation to the gifts and
responsibilities that nurture and grow communion. Thesis One sets the
episcopate within the life of the whole church. Theses
Thesis One: The Bishop serves the koinonia of the gospel into
which the baptised are incorporated by God the Holy Spirit
Through
the gospel God calls all people into relationship and establishes a covenant of
love, mercy and justice. By baptism the people of God become participants in
the visible body of Jesus Christ. The bishop is called to serve this new
fellowship by actively fostering the koinonia of the Body of Christ. Just as
the eucharist is the focal event which connects communities of faith together
so the bishop is the focal person who links communities of faith not only to
one another but to the wider Church. As a result the bishop has a universal and
ecumenical role. This fundamental theological truth challenges all parochial
conceptions of the episcopate that fail to transcend ethnic, social, and
cultural realities in which the episcopate is, by nature, necessarily embedded.
Bishops
of the Anglican Communion have primary responsibility for Anglicans. However,
the nature of the episcopal office means that bishops are called to lead the
Church towards a deeper koinonia amongst all God’s people, and in so doing
represent the wider Christian community to the diocese. This universal and
ecumenical ministry belongs to the bishop’s role as a symbol of unity.
Yet this symbol is ambiguous because the Church is divided and torn. In this
context the bishop is a sign of a broken Church looking to its Lord for healing
and hope through the power of the Spirit.
Thesis Two: The bishop’s evangelical office of proclamation and
witness is a fundamental means by which those who hear the call of God become
one in Christ
Bishops
in the Anglican Communion are called to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ and
provide oversight for the witness and the mission of the Church in all its
aspects. This evangelical office of the bishop is founded upon the good news (evangelion).
The bishop encourages all God’s people to be bearers of the good news of Jesus
and practice personal evangelism through words and actions. This evangelical
office includes a prophetic element through which the bishop gives voice to the
concerns of a world that seeks justice and a creation that needs care and
renewal.
The
bishop is called to cherish and nurture the evangelical office always
bearing in mind ‘how beautiful are the feet of the one who brings good news’
(Romans 10:15, Isaiah 52:7). At the heart of this witness is a threefold
injunction: to know Christ; to know the power of his resurrection; and to enter
into the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings (Philippians 3:10). This
dimension of the office gives a fundamental unity to all mission. It is
symbolised in the eucharist where the bishop gathers and sends the people to be
witnesses to the ends of the earth. Through this office the kingdom of
God expands and people discover their oneness in Christ the Lord and
Saviour. Given its centrality for the establishment of communion for all
peoples it is clear that the nature and character of the bishop’s evangelical
office will occupy a significant part of the collegial life of the episcopate.
Thesis Three: The bishop is a teacher and defender of the
apostolic faith that binds believers into one body
Bishops
vow to guard the apostolic faith. The historic succession in the episcopate is
a sign of communion with the apostolic Church through time and space. As
witnesses to the ‘faith once delivered to the saints’, bishops are expected to
be more than guardians intent on preserving orthodoxy; they are looked upon to
be teachers who are able to bring the Scriptures and the creeds of the Church
to life in the present day. Their effectiveness as teachers will depend upon
the strength of their own educational formation and upon their openness
to the questions and concerns of their contemporaries. Very often it is when
the Christian tradition interacts with new ways of thinking that previously
forgotten or unexplored aspects of Christian truth are disclosed. Growth in
theological understanding thus requires a lively memory of the Christian
inheritance and capacity to use this to interpret new facts and fresh
experiences. In this interaction new insights arise for faith. A bishop’s
vocation as a teacher is intertwined in a life of prayer and spiritual
discipline. This is the crucible in which wisdom is formed and courage
found to apply it to everyday life.
Bishops
have a special responsibility to encourage attempts to translate the historic
faith into the language, ideas and stories of the people. The aim of this
is to foster a genuine inculturation that produces both worship and theology
that are accessible to the people. Unless this happens the gospel is not
understood, the Church does not put down deep roots, and communion is weakened
as apostolic teaching is misunderstood and distorted. When it does happen, the
flourishing of true faith fosters genuine communion across cultures.
In
licensing clergy and lay workers, bishops signify that those whom they license
are faithful ministers of the Word that gathers and sends the people of God.
This means that they must be well equipped theologically for this ministry and
mission. The bishop must ensure appropriate theological education and
ministerial formation for the diocese. Bishops do well to raise up and support
the work of theologians within their dioceses, and to make continuing
theological education a high priority for their clergy and lay leaders. A
scripture-formed people needs teachers and theologians to help build up the
faith of the community and provide resources for the discernment of the Spirit
in times of confusion and spiritual hunger.
Thesis Four: The Bishop has oversight (episcope) of the
household of God for the good order of the Church
Bishops
are commissioned and sent to be stewards or overseers of God’s household within
their jurisdiction. They call the people of God into the full expression of the
diverse gifts and ministries given by the Holy Spirit. They oversee
processes of discernment and selection of candidates for holy orders, ensuring
they are well prepared for their ministries, supporting them pastorally and
practically, and providing for the good order of ministry in the diocese.
Oversight
includes sharing of responsibilities among clergy and lay people. This involves
mutual accountability, good communication and willingness to learn from one
another. This reciprocity between bishop and people is reflected in the
decision making processes of synodical life. This pattern of working together
is empowering for all and is a gift to be nurtured at all levels of the life of
the Church.
The
bishop has to ensure the well-being (e.g., spiritual, social, economic) of the
diocese in service of its mission. Harnessing resources, fund-raising and
financial management of diocesan affairs involves complexities of oversight
requiring specialized ministries. Providing episcope in this area highlights
the administrative and managerial character of the work of a bishop, somewhat
akin to a CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of a large organisation. Bishops ought
not to underestimate the distorting effects on their oversight of management
models associated with the global market economy. This can lead to a management
ethos focussed on strategic plans, goal setting, tasks, competition and
successful outcomes. This is appealing because it seems to offer clarity
and control but the price is often loss of the personal and relational
dimension of ecclesial life. The bishop who manages well is one who is
aware of the danger of management becoming the basic lens through which
episcope is practised. This issue raises a question of how bishops handle
matters across diocesan and provincial boundaries. At these levels even
koinonia may become a thing to be ‘managed’ at a distance (i.e., avoiding
face-to-face relations) rather than resolutely pursued together with patience.
Thesis Five: The bishop is called to coordinate the gifts of the
people of God for the building up of the faithful for the furtherance of
God’s mission
The
bishop has the duty of coordinating and encouraging the gifts and talents of
all the baptised. The Spirit gives varieties of gifts to all God’s people to
build up the church for mission. In the secular context of many cultures,
success in life is mostly determined against a background of ruthless
competition and individualism. In the church ‘we are all members one of
another’ (Romans 12:5), and gifts are not the property of any one person but
reside in the whole body for the purpose of strengthening the Church to serve
God’s mission.
Sometimes
bishops – like all people -- are threatened by the gifts of their brothers and
sisters in Christ. They can become jealous, guarding all power and
responsibility to themselves, and thereby thwarting the work of the Holy
Spirit. Personal prayer and discernment of one’s own gifts, however, turns one
to the nurture of the gifts of others. When a bishop’s life is marked by joy in
the ministry of others that bishop will be able to share in ministry with other
bishops in a non-competitive and generous manner. This is a key to the
building of koinonia beyond the local diocese. Specialized training in team
building and collaborative leadership is critical.
Thesis Six: The bishop serves the koinonia of the gospel through
care, encouragement and discipline of the pastors of the Church
To
facilitate care of the people of God is fundamental to the episcopal office. To
do this the bishop has to know and be known by all. Face-to-face
relationships of generosity and graciousness are vital for this is where trust
is nurtured. Communion in Christ involves sharing in holy friendship, in
counsel, prayer and guidance as well as visitation of parishes on special
occasions, such as confirmation.
It
is clearly not feasible for a bishop to be able to get to know everyone.
However, the bishop has a special responsibility to care for the pastors who
share in the bishop’s episcope. Caring for the pastors includes attention to
their welfare including practicalities of life as well as their spiritual and
vocational health, ensuring continuing ministerial and theological education
and ongoing formation. One of the most important ways in which the bishop cares
for the pastors is by being an example in the development of habits of
self-care and attention to the spiritual disciplines. Such a witness
draws people together and raises their sights to new possibilities for freedom
in the Spirit.
A
bishop’s responsibility for the encouragement and discipline of clergy is built
upon an exchange of trusts that only comes through patient companionship with
others. This is the context in which the bishop can offer guidance and
admonition, and call the pastors to honesty, care and mutual accountability.
What is true in diocesan life is true at the level of the Communion. Mutual
accountability at the international level is the result of a genuinely shared episcope,
exchange of trusts and mutual accountability at the diocesan level.
Thesis Seven: The bishop serves the koinonia of the gospel
through a ministry of mediation to recall the broken and conflicted body of
Christ to its reconciled life in him
Dealing
with conflict is a significant feature of a bishop’s work. Most obviously the
Church is made up of frail and foolish people. The upward call of Christ
presumes we are sinners in need of God’s grace, forgiveness and mercy. In this
context, koinonia is necessarily a partial and vulnerable reality. A bishop’s
vocation involves tending this koinonia through the wise handling of conflict.
A ministry of mediation in situations of conflict is relevant at local and
wider levels of the church’s life. The challenge for bishops is how to harness
conflicts so that through this process a deeper koinonia in the gospel
emerges. Learning to be a reconciler is a life-long task and bishop’s may
benefit greatly from special training in mediation.
Thesis Eight: The catholicity of the episcopal office connects
the baptised across boundaries of culture, class, gender, race and lands and
enables the church to realise its oneness in Christ
Catholicity
means that the apostolic faith is expressed in the diverse contexts of the world.
The gift of God in Christ is for all people, and the Trinitarian faith
expressed in the doctrine and worship of a particular church is to be that of
the whole church. The bishop embodies this catholic character of the
gospel. This means that a bishop has particular responsibility to strive
for a reality in which the eucharist in a diocese is one celebrated by and for
the whole church. It is ironic and a cause of sorrow that the sacrament
of unity is an occasion of division.
The
catholicity of the office means the bishop is an agent of the fullness of the
one faith expressed through myriad local forms. Inculturation that is authentic
plumbs the heart of the Christian faith. This requires active engagement
with the local cultures so that any stumbling blocks to the hearing, receiving
and enacting of the Gospel be removed. When this occurs the gifts of the
people are harnessed for authentic mission in that time and place. A bishop
must truly know the local cultures and values of the people that the bishop has
been called to serve and lead. This can be a real challenge, for the bishop is
chief pastor within and across particular ethnic, racial, and cultural
contexts. Yet in this role the bishop has to ensure that the one catholic
faith finds expression through these particular identities without becoming
subsumed by them. The catholicity of the office requires a way of life
that is constantly in dialogue with others (especially including other bishops)
across many boundaries.
Catholicity
also means that the decisions that come from any local place are not simply
‘local’ decisions, but affect all. Bishops have a particular responsibility to
bring the church catholic into local processes of discerning the apostolic
faith. They also have a responsibility to represent their diocese to the rest
of the church, to interpret to the Communion the realities of their local
place. This means explaining not simply the end results of decisions
reached, but being able to give theological explanation of the discernment of
the Gospel in the culture, and of the catholicity of such decisions. Bishops
need the courage and wisdom to be able to hear the voice of others whether
within or outside their contexts.
Thesis Nine: The bishop serves the collegial life of the Church
through the nurture of strong bonds with bishops of the Anglican Communion and
those who share episcope in other Christian churches
The
episcopate is by nature and calling collegial. An Anglican bishop participates
in an episcope shared with all other bishops. In the first instance this
occurs between the bishops in a diocese (i.e., diocesan bishop, assistant
and suffragan bishops). Therefore all are called into open
relationship with each other in the Communion and with those called to exercise
episcope in the wider church. Collegiality means more than working with those
with whom one has an affinity. Rather it involves seeing one’s ministry not as
one’s own but as shared with others. At a Provincial level, collegiality
involves many practical aspects of cooperative work, study and prayer, and
shared responsibility with Synods in Provincial governance. It has particular
importance in contexts where the Christian church is in a minority or in a
multi-faith context. The patterns of local collegiality-in-communion are a gift
to the wider Anglican Communion.
As
bishops seek counsel, journey with each other, and pray with and for each
other, real relationships grow. But such solidarity is a costly gift. Real
relationships are fragile and tainted by sin. If relationships amongst some
bishops within a Province are fraught with tensions, refusals of dialogue or
other patterns of manipulation undermine collegiality. It is no surprise that
these weaknesses show up at the international level. Yet it is of the essence
of the episcopate that bishops give themselves over to collegial mutuality in
the service of communion. Given the present state of the Anglican Communion it
is the special collegial responsibility of the bishop to be at prayer for and
with fellow colleagues. This is particularly relevant for those bishops who are
in conflict with one another. Their failure to attend fervently to this ordinal
vow weakens the body of Christ for which they have responsibility. This
in turn weakens the bonds all the baptised share with one another.
Thesis Ten: A diocesan bishop is given responsibility for
episcope in the particular place where the bishop is principal Pastor
It
is important for the coherence of the mission of the Church that in one place
there should be only one principal or chief Pastor. Within particular and complex
circumstances (for example, where indigenous people have been subjugated), it
may be necessary, with the consent of the chief Pastor, to provide a specific
pastoral ministry of support to a section of a population. However, sight
should never be lost of the desirability that a Christian church in a
particular place should be a single assembly of people of all kinds.
There
are occasions when a church falls out of sympathy with its bishop on a matter
of doctrine or conduct. It must not be the case that the mere fact of ease of
modern communication and travel becomes the excuse for choosing a leader in
another territory to be one’s chief Pastor. In the case of serious and
extensive conflict, it becomes the duty of a diocesan bishop to provide
pastoral support in particular congregations. When a diocesan bishop
fails to undertake this duty the matter becomes a provincial responsibility.
Conclusion
The
theses outlined above cover the broad range of episcopal
responsibilities. There will undoubtedly be matters that have not been
dealt with that are significant for bishops in the exercise of their daily
office. The intention throughout has been to reflect on the nature of the
episcopate in relation to the issue of communion. This focus has been
explored at the diocesan level and in relation to the Communion. We are
convinced that how a bishop handles the complex and delicate issues surrounding
the koinonia of the Church at the local level of the diocese will influence the
way a bishop nurtures communion beyond the diocese.
We
have tried to offer a brief outline for a theology of the episcopate that is
grounded in the received wisdom from scripture and tradition and also alive to
the realities that bishops face as they serve the Church’s koinonia in the gospel.
The theses are incomplete and are currently being developed more intentionally
in relation to the scripture tradition and the ordinal. Where relevant we
have also tried to indicate areas that might become subject of training and
professional development for bishops. More detailed work is currently
being conducted in this area by other bodies in the Communion.
We
offer this present document as a work in progress. We hope that we have
provided a small resource to promote discussion and learning concerning the
character of the episcopate. Throughout the diversity of episcopal
practices, attitudes and ways of leadership we wonder if there might be room
for reflection on the idea of an ‘episcopal character’ along similar lines to
what has been referred to as the ‘baptismal character’? We hope and pray that
the bishops of the Anglican Communion may find it useful in their difficult but
sacred calling to serve the Lord of the Church who desires that all may be one
in Jesus Christ.
[1] The terms
‘koinonia’ and ‘communion’ can become so much a part of the discourse of a
fractured and divided church that they loose their force and
significance. Koinonia has to do with a fundamental connectivity between
God, the world, and all living things, including of course human life. The
African word ‘ubuntu’ captures something of this primary oneness. In the
Genesis story human beings are called ‘earthlings’ or ‘groundlings’ (Genesis
2). This underscores the fact that we are ‘of the earth’ and are
intrinsically related to other living things, the whole created environment and
God. Such koinonia is encoded into the very being of creation. The story of redemption
is a story of Christ rejoining people, races and the rest of creation.
This is the good news which overcomes sin and broken bonds. There is no other
community on the earth with a mandate to bear witness to the remarkable miracle
of our oneness in the triune God. What is even more remarkable is that
God invites the body of Christ to become the new experiment in the communion of
the Holy Spirit. Bishops serve this koinonia which is nothing less than the way
of creation, salvation and the life of the world to come.
OOOOO
9d.
IATDC - Inter Anglican
Theological and Doctrinal Commission
The
current Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission was set up in 2001
and given a mandate to study the nature of communion, and ways in which the
relationship between the autonomous churches which make up the Anglican
Communion could be sustained and strengthened. In this it was seen to be
developing the work of its predecessor Commission which had produced The
Virginia Report and associated statements on Women in the Episcopate.
Subsequent controversies, which have led to a potential or actual 'impairment'
of the relationship among the churches, have directed the Commission's
attention to ways in which the renewal of a common Anglican theological
tradition must accompany any discussion of the renewal of the Communion's
common life.
A Report of their last meeting in Sept 2007 (at which
Lambeth documents were prepared) is here: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/ministry/ecumenical/commissions/iatdc/docs/2007communique.cfm
Those present at that meeting were:
The Rt Revd Professor Stephen Pickard (Acting Chair),
Anglican Church of Australia
The Revd Canon Dr Philip H E Thomas (Assistant to the Chair), Church of
England
The Revd Dr Victor R Atta-Baffoe, Church of the Province of West Africa
The Rt Revd Dr Samuel R Cutting, Church of North India
The Rt Revd Tan Sri Dr Lim Cheng Ean, Church of the Province of South East
Asia
The Revd Dr Bruce N Kaye, Anglican Church of Australia
The Revd Canon Luke Pato, Anglican Church of Southern Africa
The Rt Revd Paul Richardson, Church of England
The Revd Dr Nicholas Sagovsky, Church of England
Dr Eileen Scully, Anglican Church of Canada
Dr Jenny Te Paa, Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand & Polynesia
The Rt Revd Hector ‘Tito’ Zavala, Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of
America
OOOOO
9e.
For a comprehensive discussion of this
paper and its connection with Ruth Gledhill's article above, see:
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
10.
Lambeth Diary: the 'Clean and the Unclean'
My
suspicions have been alerted by the helpful comment from 'anon' on the previous
post. At Lambeth, the journos have been divided into the 'clean' and 'unclean'.
You can guess which mob I'm corralled in with, and some of you probably think I
deserve it. See my latest here. But pause to think for a
moment. After dealing with a thankfully long-gone staff member at Lambeth
Palace, a former senior editor at The Times told me, his voice shaking with
stunned incredulity: 'They're just like the Communist Party.' He meant the Communist
Party before the wall came down. Read and believe if you like the official
stuff trickling in a tghtly-controlled way out of Jim
Rosenthal's entirely independent press operation operating from a place I've
yet to track down somewhere on the university campus. This is where the 'on
side' 'journalists', many of whom seem by coincidence to wear episcopal
clerical collars, are permitted to hang out. I am sure the citizens of the
former
There's
nothing like a Lambeth Conference or two to swing me back into the conservative
camp. Here I am, separated from the leaders of the Anglican Communion, of which
I happen to be a covenanting member, by a ten foot wall. I've helped pay for
this! Oh it makes me so cross.
Ok
then, it's not a wall, merely a security fence. And it's probably closer to
eight feet than 10, a closer inspection today has established. It comes
complete with security guards. The wire lacks barbs but I'll try and supply
those. I guess David Virtue, George Conger and Riazat Butt and I, all equal in
our exclusion, are the 'terrorists'. I'm telling them, a three-foot fence of
hurdles, or even a green line made of ribbon, would have been enough. Or even,
they could have just asked us not to go in the Big Blue Top. But no. Forget
simple human means of exchange. The staff running the Anglican Communion Office
have moved beyond that. They're probably wearing bomb-proof vests under their
copes in case my pen is loaded with a bullet. Pathetic.
No
wonder a quarter of the Anglican Communion's bishops have stayed away. It can't
be any coincidence that the boycotters are, by and large, the ones who
understand how to talk to a fellow human being with dignity, and not turn their
backs on them and shun them, as one of the more liberal primates did in the
registration queue yesterday. Inclusivity, yes, but only if you're 'on
message'. Maybe this is why the Telegraph hasn't bothered to show up yet. I
consider it my duty to be here, though, and report the disgraceful shambles my
Church is descending into. How long I can bear to remain a member of it myself
remains to be seen. I'll let you know in three weeks. But I will probably
follow the example of the most excluded of all, Bishop Gene Robinson,
whose blog of what is going on here is a far
more accurate reflection of the truth than the weak propaganda trickling out of
the Anglican Communion office. He's staying in to fight the good fight. I'll be
joining him on Sunday at St Stephen's Church in
On
result of all this is that I am starting to see Gafcon, where all these photos
were taken by the BBC, in a more positive light.
Watch
BBC 2's This World: ‘
Here's
what the Beeb says about it: 'With the worldwide Anglican Church on the brink
of an historic split. Ben Anderson goes behind the scenes with the key
players in the splinter movement – called Gafcon – in the run up to their conference
in
And
here are some of the juicier quotes:
Peter
Akinola, Nigerian primate, Lambeth boycotter:
'Gafcon
is a rescue mission – it is our duty to rescue whatever is left of the church
from error. From all those. Whoever they are, who have chosen to mutilate, to
distort and to even deny the Gospel and to preach something different from what
we know.'
Benjamin
Kwashi, Archbishop of Jos, Lambeth boycotter, likely successor to Akinola:
'At
Lambeth 98 we were looking for a place where we can cry our hearts out and pray
and look for the support of the wider Church who would bless us and pray for
us. You don’t need much money you just need some words of encouragement, those
things were absent.'
'Respect
is earned. When it is thrown away, gathering it can be difficult. From the
Mother Church of England, there is the assumption that therefore we can do
anything and Africans will automatically come with us, or respect us. I think
that is an insult.
'So
now Gafcon is an alternative to that where we can cry together, look at our
struggles, HIV and Aids problems, infant mortality, - all those issues that
dehumanises us as Africans…The wider Anglican world if you ask my opinion don’t
want to listen to us.'
Bishop
of Washington, John Chane, leading liberal and a good guy among the rest:
'I
think it’s really very dangerous when someone stands up and says I have the way
and I have the truth and I know how to interpret holy scripture and you are
following what is the right way. I think it’s really very, very dangerous and I
think it’s demonic…the Episcopal Church has been demonised. It has been a
punching bag and I’m sick of being a punching bag as a Bishop and I’m sick of
my church, my province being a punching bag. Do we deserve criticism,
absolutely. No question about it.'
Technorati
Tags: Anglican
Communion, Gafcon, Lambeth
Conference
POSTED BY RUTH GLEDHILL ON JULY 17, 2008 AT 11:28 AM IN ANGLICAN COMMUNION, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, GAY DEBATE, SUMMER OF SCHISM | PERMALINK
|
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 11. Today
at Lambeth: Thursday 17th July 2008 This is the first of regular daily
blogs which will come live from our support team at Lambeth. You will
get to know us as the days go by. We are sharing accommodations with two
bishops and their wives who are reflecting with us on their experience of
this global gathering. We begin with
the visuals and the physical impact of the site. The main plenaries
are being held in a large blue ‘big top’ circus tent on the The Welcome
Meeting (for the Bishops and their Wives) took place on Wednesday evening and
consisted mainly of logistical arrangements, introductions, and choir
practice. Archbishop Williams’ introduction did not shrink from
recognising the pain of missing brethren. Thursday morning began with
Eucharist (without a homily) followed by Bible study based on the Gospel of
John. The bishops then were taken by coach to Canterbury
Cathedral for two addresses by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Our
discussion with orthodox bishops thought that this was what he did
best: leading a spiritual retreat at which people could have listened to
him for hours. Our bishops’
question was whether this would lead to any substantial result. It is
already rumoured that TEC bishops are planning a popular move among the
indaba groups to call for Gene Robinson to be seated as a full member of the
conference. Two absentees
were public news today, Bishop John David Schofield was technically
disinvited though the language used in relation to this skates over this
fact. Bishop Ed Salmon formerly of Moreover, a
bishop from The bishops are
clearly valuing the focus on worship, Bible study and spiritual input in a
historic cathedral setting. This is obviously a very good place to
start. But where is it all going?
The Mainstream Team at Lambeth OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |
12.
Riazat Butt
Latest blog posts
Americans are calling the shots - with gusto - at Lambeth
conference
There are times when
you're not in the mood to see people - you're having a fat day, you're
exhausted, upset or simply antisocial - but you have to.
However difficult it may
be to drag your sorry self away from the house there are always more advantages
to going out than staying in. If only someone had told the Gafcon bishops this.
At the
Lambeth conference, few are bemoaning the absence of traditionalist
Africans - except journalists scuttling around to make bricks out of hay - and
the Americans are
left calling the shots and, boy, are they doing it with gusto.
Not content with bringing
a battalion of pro-gay lobbyists to the sprawling
They are also blogging as
if their lives depended on it. It's great for
gossip-starved media, but bad news for organisers who were praying for a
non-eventful event. There are some African churchmen who have defied their
boycott, but there is a case for strength in numbers. The absentees have
inadequate representation at the conference, but they could have made their
voices heard had they bitten the bullet and come to
Bishop Gene Robinson is
not invited, but he is coming anyway, ensuring that his viewpoint and beliefs
remain at the forefront of peoples minds'. At Gafcon, the African bishops were
with likeminded individuals, effectively preaching to the converted, but at
Lambeth there are far more hearts and minds to be won. There is still
time.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
13.
Archbishop of
By Martin Beckford, Religious Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated:
The Archbishop of
Dr Rowan Williams is to be lobbied by liberals who are
dominating the ten-yearly Lambeth Conference, because more than 200
traditionalist bishops have boycotted the gathering as a result of divisions on
gay clergy and women bishops.
He will be told that the process of conservative American clergy
opting out of their national body and becoming bishops in African and South
American churches goes against tradition and must be stopped.
Dr Williams will also be urged to prevent orthodox Anglicans,
who believe the Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong, from setting up a
new province in
The Most Rev Katharine Jefferts Schori, the
Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, has vowed to ask Dr Williams "to
encourage other parts of the Communion to cease their incursions" while
they are together at Lambeth.
She said: "It's totally opposed to a traditional Christian
understanding of how bishops relate to each other. That's the biggest
difficulty. They're setting up as something else in the same geographical
territory."
Since the Rt Rev Gene Robinson, who is openly gay, was elected
Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003, several conservative American clergy have
become bishops in Nigerian, Kenyan, Ugandan and South American churches while
remaining living in their dioceses in the
Dozens of Episcopal parishes have now voted to split from the
national church, triggering bitter legal battles over the rightful ownership of
their church buildings.
At the Gafcon meeting of orthodox Anglicans in
The conference then ended with a call for the creation of a new
North American province which would be separate from the Episcopal Church.
Dr Williams has already described the solutions offered by
Gafcon as "problematic".
But conservatives say they intend to remain within the Anglican
Communion regardless of what Dr Williams and Dr Jefferts Schori say about their
new structures and the adoption of American parishes by Global South churches.
The Rev Canon Chris Sugden, one of the organisers of Gafcon,
said: "The liberals are obviously taking the opportunity to advance their
agenda at Lambeth. I think they want to take over the Communion and they want
orthodox Anglicans out. They talk about diversity but it's so obviously
contradictory."
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
14.
|
LAMBETH: Traditionalist
TEC Bishop Holds Little Hope for Reform of Ang.Communion Posted by David Virtue on 2008/7/16 LAMBETH: Traditionalist TEC Bishop Holds Little Hope for
Reform of Anglican Communion READERS' COMMENTS
|
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
15.
Issued by the Global
Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) 2008
Press Release
For Immediate Release
|
GAFCON responds to
the Archbishop of Canterbury |
|
On faith and false teaching. We warmly welcome
the Archbishop's affirmation of the Jerusalem Statement as positive and
encouraging and in particular that it would be shared by the vast majority of
Anglicans. We are however concerned that he should think we assume that all
those outside GAFCON are proclaiming another gospel. In no way do we believe
that we are the only ones to hold a correct interpretation of scripture
according to its plain meaning. We believe we are holding true to the faith
once delivered to the saints as it has been received in the Anglican
tradition. Many are contending for and proclaiming the orthodox faith
throughout the Anglican Communion. Their efforts are, however, undermined by
those who are clearly pursuing a false gospel. We are not claiming to be a
sinless church. Our concern is with false teaching which justifies sin in the
name of Christianity. These are not merely matters of different perspectives
and emphases. They have led to unbiblical practice in faith and morals,
resulting in impaired and broken communion. We long for all orthodox
Anglicans to join in resisting this development. On the uniqueness of Christ. We are equally concerned to
hear that 'the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God'
is 'not in dispute' in the Anglican Communion. Leading bishops in The
Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, and even the Church of
England have denied the need to evangelise among people of other faiths,
promoted and attended syncretistic events and, in some cases, refused to call
Jesus Lord and Saviour. On legitimacy. In the current
disorder in the Communion, GAFCON came together as a gathering of lay
leaders, clergy and bishops from over 25 countries on the basis of their
confession of the common historic Christian faith. They formed a Council in
obedience to the word of God to defend the faith and the faithful who are at
risk in some Anglican dioceses and congregations. GAFCON, where the governing structures of many provinces were
present, affirmed such a Council of the GAFCON movement as its body to
authenticate and recognise confessing Anglican jurisdictions, clergy and
congregations and to encourage all Anglicans to promote the gospel and defend
the faith. In their primates and other bishops, the assembly saw a
visible connection to the catholic and apostolic Church and the evangelical
and catholic faith which many have received from the Church of England and
the historic see of Canterbury. It is this faith which we seek to affirm. On authority. As the Virginia Report notes, in the
Anglican tradition, authority is not concentrated in a single centre, but
rather across a number of persons and bodies. This Council is a first step
towards bringing greater order to the Communion, both for the sake of
bringing long overdue discipline and as a reforming initiative for our
institutions. Whilst we respect territoriality, it cannot be absolute. For
missionary and pastoral reasons there have long been overlapping
jurisdictions in Anglicanism itself – historically in On discipline. Finally, with regard to the
Archbishop's concern about people who have been disciplined in one
jurisdiction and have been accepted in another, we are clear that any such
cases have been investigated thoroughly and openly with the fullest possible
transparency. Bishops and parishes have been given oversight only after the
overseeing bishops have been fully satisfied of no moral impediments to their
action. We enclose a response to the St Andrew's Draft Covenant. (See
separate post). We assure the Archbishop of Canterbury of our respect as the
occupier of an historic see which has been used by God to the benefit of his
church and continue to pray for him to be given wisdom and discernment. Signed The Most Rev Peter
Akinola, Primate of The Most Rev Justice
Akrofi, Primate of The Most Rev
Emmanuel Kolini, Primate of The Most Rev
Valentine Mokiwa, Primate of The Most Rev
Benjamin Nzmibi, Primate of The Most Rev Henry
Orombi, Primate of The Most Rev Gregory
Venables, Primate of The Southern Cone |
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
16a.
|
Changes between the |
|
BRIEFING PAPER from the Theological Resource Group of GAFCON
5.
The exploration of legitimate development in Christian understanding found in
the Nassau Draft is likewise excised by the St Andrews Draft which provides
no test for what is faithfulness and what is deviation. 6.
There is no reference in the St Andrews Draft to the circumstances which
provoked the need for a covenant despite the fact that an explanation of
those events is an important part of the Nassau Draft. Once again a vital
element of any proper response has been removed. 7.
The 8
The 9.
The 10.
Similarly the St Andrews Draft ignores entirely the Nassau Draft’s insistence
that new structures are necessary to support many parts of the Anglican
family who have ‘remained faithful to Anglicanism as a valid expression of
the church of the Apostles’. B. Additions 11. While the
ecclesiology in the Nassau Draft attempted to correlate the universal church
and the local churches, the St Andrews Draft introduces the new notion of
‘autonomous in communion’ and constructs its proposed solutions on this
notion. 12. The ACC is
introduced into the |
OOOOO
16b.
|
Response of GAFCON
to the St Andrew's Draft Text of an Anglican Communion Covenant |
|
Many attempts have been made to address the breach of
relationships caused by the setting aside of biblical teaching by some
provinces, dioceses, and individual bishops, beginning at Kuala Lumpur in
1997, at the Lambeth Conference in 1998, and culminating recently, after
consistent efforts in the intervening years, in the Primates’ Meeting in Dar
es Salaam in 2007.
Any covenant document has to recognise fully the mischief it
seeks to address. This document makes no mention of the crisis which has
generated the call for such a remedy, which is a crisis of obedience to
Scripture. Further, it fails to recognise that in the eyes of many the
‘instruments of Communion’ (3.1.4) are themselves part of the problem. This
means that trying to use such failed instruments as arbiters of a future
solution is problematic in the extreme. Put bluntly, this covenant will not
allow the real issues to be addressed. 2. An illegitimate notion of autonomy The understanding of the individual Churches of the Communion
throughout this document is fatally ambiguous. The language of autonomy in
communion is introduced in 3.1.2., but there has been no justification
produced for this concept in the preceding sections. More seriously this
language is unqualified and so fails to distinguish between matters on which
Scripture is silent (and where there may be legitimate liberty and indeed
diversity) and matters on which Scripture has spoken definitively (and where
autonomy is therefore a euphemism for sin). Our obedience to Scripture and
our responsibility to each other must significantly qualify all talk of
‘autonomy’ with reference to any congregation, diocese, province or, indeed,
the Communion itself. 3. No biblical theology The entire document, and particularly the statement concerning
‘the inheritance of faith’ in paragraph 1, is detached from the Scriptural
narrative of salvation and redemption from sin, which Churches in the
Communion have seen realised. The principal concerns of Scripture are ignored
as the document concentrates on matters which are dependent and consequential
upon those concerns. The unity of Christians flows out of the redeeming work
of Christ and the incorporative ministry of the Spirit. Any attempt to
generate or sustain such unity on our own terms and by our own institutional
efforts without reference to this prior and determinative reality must be
judged sub-biblical. 4. A faulty anthropology An Anglican Covenant is primarily concerned with the doctrine
of the church. However, any doctrine of the church presupposes a doctrine of
humanity. The anthropology implicit in this document fails to capture the
reality of any Christian’s life in this world as this is explained by
Scripture. Christians are those who are redeemed by Christ but who remain
sinful until God’s purposes are brought to their completion when Christ
returns. This twofold reality has very significant implications for the life
of the church. The reality of temptation and sin, a reality experienced by
all no matter what their office in the church, needs to be taken seriously. 5. An absent eschatology This document fails to adopt an appropriately biblical
eschatological perspective. Its preoccupation with institutional processes is
at the expense of a proper sense of our corporate and individual
accountability to God on the Last Day for proper custodianship of the deposit
of Faith. There is no reference to sin, judgement, ‘the coming wrath’ or to
God’s provision of a remedy in the cross of Christ and the forgiveness of
sins which attends faith and repentance. 6. Neglect of obedience Throughout this document an attenuated view of biblical
authority is presented. A critical element of the Christian response to God
and his Word is missing. The Church is called not merely to treat God’s Word
respectfully (1.2.4.), but to obey it. The absence of the language of
obedience to the Word of God throughout the document is one of its most
serious flaws. 7. An isolated and vacuous appeal to unity Throughout An Anglican Covenant, biblical values are not
treated in their mutual relationship. In particular the biblical injunctions
to unity are in effect disconnected from the equally serious injunctions of
Scripture to preserve the truth given to us. Paragraph 3.2 deals almost
exclusively with perceived threats to the unity of the Communion rather than moral
and doctrinal error, once again ignoring that our current disunity is the
result of departures from the truth taught in Scripture in both of these
areas. Conclusion Given the profound and fatal difficulties identified in the
draft covenant, the legal framework of the appendix will likewise be open to
overwhelming objection. The proposed legal framework in any event exhibits
the same flaws as the parent document, notably in the way unity is abstracted
from biblical faithfulness and no account is taken of the possibility that
the instruments of Communion themselves might be the focus of objection. Two
other objections must be mentioned. First, the document describes four
instruments of Communion, which it proposes will provide solutions to
disputes. It fails to recognise the disproportionate influence of the
Archbishop of Canterbury, who invites to the Lambeth Conference, chairs the
ACC and calls the Primates’ Meeting. The problem of this undue influence is
compounded by the lack of formal accountability on the part of the Archbishop
and the prominence the document envisages for this Primate is frankly
colonialist. Secondly, the prominence given to the Joint Standing Committee
of the ACC and Primates raises problems in increasing further the ability of
the Archbishop of Canterbury and the ACC to exercise disproportionate
influence over the Primates, thereby tending in effect to silence dissentient
primatial voices. In the light of
these considerations we find that the St Andrews Draft of An Anglican Covenant
does not meet our expectations or hopes for restoring the broken sacrament of
Communion. |
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO