Oh dear. Bishop Wright thinks that ECUSA and the ACC have not complied with the Windsor Report and Archbishop Eames thinks they have.

His very strict reading of para 134 of the Windsor Report (which may be correct) seems a little harsh, in that it requires a confession of guilt from parties who may not, in fact, accept the charge against them.

His article is also somewhat one sided in that, for all its strong criticism of Archbishop Akinola and his supporters, he does not assess whether others may be in breach of the Windsor recommendations (for example, in relation to cross provincial interventions) and, if so, what the consequences should be for them.

Bishop Wright seems to me greatly to oversimplify the implications of the Windsor Report with regard to invitations to the Lambeth Conference.

On his "logic" point, I don't think it is right to say that a non-binding resolution which has not been followed by those who disagreed with it can be said to have been disregarded by them. No doubt the resolution and its implications were considered very carefully and the consecration of Bishop Robinson was not undertaken lightly. Bishop Wright seems to be suggesting that the Lambeth Resolution should be regarded as absolutely binding with retrospective effect, which is simply wrong.

On his "process" point, the suggestion in para 144 of the Windsor Report that "those who took part as consecrators of Gene Robinson should be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion" falls a long way short of obliging the Archbishop of Canterbury to withhold invitations to the next Lambeth Conference. On the contrary, it leaves questions of participation to the conscience of the persons concerned. No doubt their consciences will be affected by subsequent events, such as the vote that was pushed through at the ACC when they did, indeed, voluntarily withdraw from it. Also, this paragraph does not seem to have been directed at the Lambeth Conference because it does not, for example, say anything about withdrawal by Bishop Robinson himself.

Dr. Wright prescribes the right medicine. Let's hope that ABC has the gumption to take it himself and pass it along to others.

Is it just me (I admit---in light of threads below---to not be the most unbiased person here ;-p), or is +Wright's CT piece just about the most *nonsensical* thing they've ever read?

Doesn't he enjoin the ABC to do *precisely* what he critiques the GS signatories of: "the attempt, based on apparently wilful misunderstandings of relevant issues, to require bishops or archbishops to sign up to, or indeed to renounce, certain positions"? [Only +Wright believes the ABC should make the "requirement" of ECUSA's entire General Convention]

I'm gobsmacked.

Maybe all the bishops of the Communions should heed the call of ++Canterbury and go to Lambeth to work together to do the work of the Master. This is what we are supposed to be doing.

"Jews demand signs and Greeks demand wisdom but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the Wisdom of God."

"But I belong to Cephas! But I belong to Apollos!' "

Are people not listening to what ++Rowan has been lately reminding us all of?

"The unity of the church is not cultural; it is in Christ – one Lord, one faith, one baptism – and any number of languages and costumes."

Dear me, I actually take to heart this sort of thing!

If Archbishop Rowan were to withhold invitations from all American bishops, all Canadian bishops and all others who've been involved in what Windsor identified as naughty activities (including trespassing in dioceses not their own), methinks Lambeth would be significantly reduced and impoverished.

I think it has to be all or nothing. All the bishops including the chidden, or all the unchidden bishops only, but Rowan ought not to pick and choose among.

I find it interesting that +Wright refers to lay presidency at the eucharist while trying to make a rather jesuitical point about actions of autonomous churches in relation to gay people.
Has everyone forgotten about Sydney? While they egg on the GS, they've passed a synod motion declaring that no disciplinary action will be taken against clergy who permit lay presidency. I'm gobsmacked that we should let the bedroom habits of a relatively small number of people distract us while a more serious breach of Anglican tradition and order occurs in one of the most powerful dioceses in the world. What would happen if all the gay people in the Church left? Would the lay presidency thing be dealt with then?
Or would this grubby saga be seen for the sad power play that it really is?

I feel compelled to second badman's comments right down the line -- again "cannot recommend" is simply not a prohibition & the resolutions from Lambeth have never been considered authoritative teaching -- more in the line of a "mind of the house" statement.

This is a power play of manipulating symbols & people for the preservation of patriarchy. It is doomed to fail, but it will do great damage along the way (especially if the counsel of +Durham is followed).

Dear Badman, Prior Aelred, et al

To repeat: Active homosexual practice is contrary scripture and traditional church teaching, as well as to the two authoritative Church of England statements on the issue of homosexuality (General Synod resolution of 11 November 1987, House of Bishops Statement of 1991 'Issues in Human Sexuality'). It is also contrary to Resolution 1.10 of the Lambeth Conference 1998, which is the official teaching of the Anglican Communion on the subject, and which has been recently reaffirmed by the Primates at their meeting in Ireland in February 2005 and by the Anglican Consultative Council at its meeting in Nottingham in June 2005.

ECUSA and DoNW ignored (no, rejected) the mind of the communion. Their determination to introduce the acceptance and blessing of sinful sexual relationships (and other rejections of Christian beliefs and morality) initiated this crisis.

I think that many liberals need to learn a lesson from Gareth, a recent contributor who was a priest in Wales but decided to be honest about his gay partnership and leave the church rather than live a lie. If you don't really believe or follow Christian and Anglican teachings, why not do us all a favour and start your own religion/denomination ?

Thank you, Prior Aelred. Collegial decisions such as those made by Lambeth can only have effect on those members of the collegium who support them. That is why the language of "cannot advise" is as far as Lambeth can legitimately go. No "mind of the house" resolution can be held binding if it falls short of unanimity; and clearly Lambeth 1.10 was a very contentious matter, on which I am told, in the voice vote, at least 100 of the bishops present did not vote, so troubled were they by one or more sections of the resolution; a few also voted in favor of it based on the "curate's egg" theory that at least some of it (the call for dialogue) was a positive step -- though one would hope that bishops had long since outgrown the insecurities of the timorous curate! So as a "binding resolve" it is a house of straw built on a foundation of sand.

The Windsor Report, ironically, advances the old collegial principle "What touches all shall be decided by all" without recognizing that to see the Lambeth 1.10 decision as anything more than advisory would be to violate that very principle: "all" does not mean "large majority" when one is speaking of rights inherent in each member of the collegium as an individual: in this case, the rights of bishops to ordain those they discern to be fit for ministry. It is all in Althusius, who wrote extensively on the importance of the unanimous mind of the collegium on such matters. Bartolome de las Casas also used the argument to protest the enslavement of people in the new world against their unanimous will.

So we are left in our gobsmacked state; and I continue my support contra Wright for an Open Lambeth to which all Bishops of the Anglican Communion be invited. This is, as the bracelet says, "What Jesus Would Do."

I do think that both the Anglican Communion and the Church of England need to split. However, I don't think that is very likely if the sort of approach taken by Dave is adopted, which classes only conservatives as both christian and Anglican, and refuses to accept that there are differences of view on the matter

All that sort of approach will do is to make sensible appraisal of our differences less likely. I could just as easily make comments about bigoted, outdated fundamentalists and the irrelevance of their religion outside the premodern world, but that wouldn't be helpful either.

Personally, I wouldn't wish to be an employee of an institutionally homophobic organisation, but for the moment at least, I'll stay put. However, that is simply with a view to a likely future split, because there is nothing about the current Anglican 'communion' which makes it worth being part of.

k1eranc,
There was a proposal to bring a motion such as you describe to the Sydney Synod in 2004. It did not pass, and my recollection is that it was not even put to synod as opposition within the diocese was fierce.

Merseymike wrote "Dave .... classes only conservatives as both christian and Anglican"

Dear Mike, I have several times said that I define Christian and Anglican by what people believe and do about Jesus Christ, and whether they adhere to Anglican beliefs (which are pretty flexible compared to most churches...).

I do object to people claiming to be Christian but rejecting belief, trust and obedience to Christ and the teachings of the Apostles. Similarly to people who try to redefine Anglican based on new criteria (eg what the Bishop/GS says, whether you agree with the current ABofC etc).

I certainly don't think that people (including my friends in my church) who approve of, or are involved in, same-sex relationships are not Christian just because of that error/sin.

Maybe I'm more flexible than you! Wouldn't you prefer that approving of same-sex relationships be a necessity for all clergy and laity ?

Dave:

I agree with your posts overall, but disagree with your approach to a split. This is not because your approach lacks foundation, but because I believe this approach, if taken by one side, will be reciprocated by the other. This, in turn, will inevitably lead to an un-Christian debacle of litigation, confusion, and uncharitable actions. The end result of this could easily be a greatly diminished and weakened Anglican Church and outreach. Thus, my promotion of an amicable and possibly mediated parting, division of property, etc. is based on trying to avoid the "bloodbath" that is currently brewing as well as trying not to bring the name of Christ into disrepute by our actions. It's worth a think.

Steven

Dear Steven, There are debates on several levels here. As for a "split" I expect that the liberal CofE hierarchy would want to lose the minimum number of churches - hence you could just end up slicing away more conservative groups from the church, (and national churches from communion) - rather as happened in ECUSA I think..

Hence I prefer the idea of reorganising Episcopal authority away from the ancient Civil/Roman model to a network model (as already in effect for conservative Anglo-Catholics in the UK). That has the advantage of putting the work of maintaining unity at the level of Bishops, rather than between Bishops and a very diverse group of local churches.

We could get away from having Bishops who are defensive, or downright suspicious, of some of the churches in their geographical diocese.. And some churches that have for decades effectively recognised the authority of senior preachers teachers and leaders above their local Bishop (in all but name) could get on with their calling without having to look over their shoulders ...

However, it would mean Bishops having to find enough churches that actually wanted their oversight though!! I wonder whether even the TA Bishops Broadbent and Walker would feel attracted by that challenge!

Although we are delighted to have his contributions from time to time here, Bishop Pete is not in fact a member of the Thinking Anglicans team.