Updated again Saturday morning
The Anglican Communion News Service has published Anglican Communion Leaders to meet in Tanzania. There will be several new faces: from Ireland, USA, Scotland, Brazil, Australia, Korea, Japan, Indian Ocean, Aotearoa, New Zealand, Southeast Asia and Burundi.
More official material is here. An official list of the primates with biographies can be found here or another unofficial set of profiles can be found here.
A highly informative article by Graham Kings, originally published in the Church Times about Singapore: Intellectual Centre of a Movement can be found at Fulcrum’s site.
Another Living Church article Nigerian Primate: Consensus on Sexuality Necessary Before Lambeth Conference suggests that the outcome of this meeting may affect the willingness of some to attend the 2008 Lambeth Conference.
Update
George Conger has a report in the Church of England Newspaper reproduced at titusonenine: Primates will spend only four hours discussing Windsor. This includes the following detail:
The Primates will also travel to the Cathedral Church of Christ, also known as the Cathedral of the Universities Mission in Central Africa, in Zanzibar. In deference to the theological divisions within the Primates’ ranks, the Cathedral service will be a choir office. A daily Eucharist will be held at 12:15 during the week, but these have been designed as optional services, as the members of the Global South coalition stated in their September communiqué from Kigali they would not break bread with the American Presiding Bishop.
And this paragraph from George’s earlier report in the Living Church should not be overlooked:
Whether the primates will follow the agenda crafted in London by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is uncertain. The agenda for the 2005 primates meeting underwent significant changes as the meeting progressed, and similar changes are anticipated for this meeting. A pre-meeting strategy session for the African primates and other American and international church leaders will be held Feb. 10 in Nairobi, Kenya.l
There are three types of Anglican Christians. Those who believe consensus about sexuality is necessary before the 2008 Lambeth Conference. Those who believe that consensus about sexuality is necessary but that it won’t come until after the 2008 Lambeth Conference (or perhaps after 2018, if there even will be a 2018 conference). Those who believe that consensus about sexuality is unnecessary. I fall somewhere between position two and position three. I feel no great need to reach consensus quickly. Any Anglican Communion worth having can live with these differences. I do think we need a much quicker consensus on civil… Read more »
The comments of Peter Akinola of course constitute an effort to blackmail the Communion into going along wiht his way of seeing things.
“…as a result of the fellowship, praying together, studying the word of God together,” the bishops at Lambeth come to a “consensus of opinion, which we now commend to the provinces for further actions.” Peter Akinola
His view of Lambeth Conference and its authority sounds modest and realistic. Perhaps he is mellowing ? !
Commend away Your Graces ! Commend away !…..
As many of you across the pond know, +Duncan and the Diocese of Pittsburgh released a copy of a letter presented to the primates of the Global South in Falls Church Virginia requesting primatial oversight 1 1/2 days ago. This request was released along with a press release from the diocese. Although this document was released voluntarily, its release was compelled by court order and due to litigants by January 31. To view the document: http://www.pgh.anglican.org/news/local/primatesdocument012907 Although the Diocese provided a press release in June when it requested APO, that release stressed the theological concerns that the Diocese had. This… Read more »
And based on recent history, it may well be a successful effort.
What do you mean Peter Akinola is blackmailing the communion? He is just simply stating what the position of the Church is and always has been since time immemorial. I wish folk would just be honest about this and those who seek a change accept the fact that they are reading scripture and the tradition in a way that it has never been read before and that by introducing new doctrines they (and they alone) are responsible for tearing the communion apart.
I believe ACNS missed one of the new Primates in its list of those who are new since Dromantine. My research indicates that Joel V. Mal, the Moderator of North India was elected in October 2005. So that makes 12 new Primates (and Abp. Sentamu’s presence means that 13 of the 39 attendees are new since Dromantine).
From his other writing, Bill Carroll who argues here that there is no need to reach concensus about sexuality in the Communion, also believes that candidates who reject women’s ordination should not become priests or bishops in TEC.
Does this mean that where the progressives do not have the numbers (as in the communion) there should be room for a range of views, but where progressives are in the majority (as in TEC)their views should be mandatory?
Obadiahslope,
Presuming you have reported Bill’s views faithfully — a presumption I proceed on with some trepidation — what you suggest is a clear Non Sequitur.
First, some conservatives support women’s ordination along with progressives — a fact you seem to ignore, but one disconfirming your inference.
Second, WO is just one issue inter alia. To suggest that support for WO be a necessary condition for assent to episcopal election is not at all equivalent to making support for all progressive causes a necessary condition for consent.
Alas, the perils of hyperbole!
Is the Akinola interview a serious indication that he is prepared to pick up his toys and head off to play in his own sand-pit if he fails to get his way in Tanzania and, by extension, at Lambeth?
“What do you mean Peter Akinola is blackmailing the communion? He is just simply stating what the position of the Church is and always has been since time immemorial. I wish folk would just be honest about this and those who seek a change accept the fact that they are reading scripture and the tradition in a way that it has never been read before and that by introducing new doctrines they (and they alone) are responsible for tearing the communion apart.” Not so easy — the consensus has clearly broken down because of (a) the witness of gays, lesbians… Read more »
“I wish folk would just be honest about this and those who seek a change accept the fact that they are reading scripture and the tradition in a way that it has never been read before and that by introducing new doctrines they (and they alone) are responsible for tearing the communion apart.”
It takes two to tear.
You seem to be of the opinion that expressing a new doctrine is somehow forbidden to Christians. Do you find such a position in Scripture? I don’t.
When you say to the Communion, either you accept my definition of orthodoxy or I will tear the Communion apart, that’s blackmail.
Athos, Actually it is a most modern view to single out gays and lesbians for special discrimination in the Church. Although the Church has had less than a stellar record with respect to minorities and women, there have been times of considerable tolerance and moderation. If anything, TEC’s view of a loving and inclusive Jesus is closer to the original Gospel message than the venom emanating from other quarters. On another topic, I’ve noticed that progressive blogs seem to be quite open to ranting from all quarters, but if you cruise on over to Stand Firm and similar blogs, you’ll… Read more »
Obadiahslope, You rightly point to an unresolved tension in my thinking on these questions. I don’t think its a contradiction, but I’m not sure how I will resolve it either. Let me make a distinction. There is a difference between a church, such as the Episcopal Church or the Church of England or the Church of Nigeria and a communion of churches, such as the Anglican Communion. Both are bodies that claim to be expressions of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church without exhausting that sacred mystery. Since I don’t view my relationship with other Anglicans as anything more… Read more »
What is so entirely awful and creepy about having educated, gifted, intellegent, and maturely spiritual women help me listen to and follow God by following Jesus of Nazareth? I just keep forgetting.
Athos wrote: He is just simply stating what the position of the Church is and always has been since time immemorial.”
1966 is hardly “time immemorial”, unless one’s memory is very short.
also: “I wish folk would just be honest about this and those who seek a change accept the fact that they are reading scripture and the tradition in a way that it has never been read before and that by introducing new doctrines they (and they alone) are responsible for tearing the communion apart.”
You can read that again, sonny.
“I wish folk would just be honest about this…”
Y’know, Athos, there’s a part of me that would LOVE to give you everything you ask for above (and I could even throw in a cackling “Mwahahahah!” at the end ;-/)
…but I have to be faithful, above all, to the *Truth* (as Jesus is “the Way . . . and the Life”), so I just can’t give you the satisfaction you seek. Sorry.
*****
BillC, that’s a wonderfully useful typology—and kerygma: thanks! 🙂
*****
Prayers for all the Primates— (and even the *pretend* Primate, +Duncan)
Scotist,
I guess Bill can answer for himself, but I am refering to his recent postings at “Jake”. I appreciate your trepidation – I attempt to take care when describing the opinions of others, but it is good to be reminded.
As I am a conservative who supports women’s ordination I am aware of that possibility!
It seems I was not clear enough. I believe there is a tension between saying there is no need for consensus in the communion (on sexuality) while agreeing with the PB of TEC that the period of reception on WO (in TEC) is over.
Athos gives an honest account of the facts of the situation.
The fabric of the communion was knowingly and deliberately torn by TEC in 2003 despite many around the world and in the US begging for restraint and warning clearly of the consequences for the AC……we are now living with those consequences.
I think I would be happy if we could just reach consensus on retiring the “tearing the fabric of the Communion” metaphor. All those in favor please shed a tear.
Sheila says “I think I would be happy if we could just reach consensus on retiring the “tearing the fabric of the Communion” metaphor. All those in favor please shed a tear.”
I’m in. Can we also retire “walking apart”.
here’s my tear for one, sheila
laurence
NP: “The fabric of the communion was knowingly and deliberately torn by TEC in 2003 despite many around the world and in the US begging for restraint and warning clearly of the consequences for the AC.” TEC/ECUSA knowingly and deliberately elected a sinner as a bishop – just like every bishop before and since. His ‘way of life’ may be unacceptable to many members of the Communion – but so is the way of life of many bishops who support and have supported repressive governments and legislation (such as ECUSA’s early refusal to get involved in the civil rights struggle).… Read more »
Father Joseph writes: “Similar rereadings of Scripture have occurred in connection with abolition of slavery, torture, capital punishment, women’s rights, religious tolerance and so on..” But he forgets that it was never the position of the whole church universal from time immemorial to encourage slavery, or torture, or capital punishment, or to deny women their rights ect. But it has been the position of the Church Universal since time immermorial to limit sexual activity to one man and one women in the covenant of marriage. So you are not comapring like with like. I suspect that Fr Joseph first genuflects… Read more »
While we’re about it, I passionately wish to retire ‘Catholic’ when misused, as a synonym for ROMAN Catholic, by many who should know better.
(The Catholic Church is important to my spirituality –and I don’t mean the RC denomination — do you ?)
‘Unum Catholicam..’
(as the BCP Latin text puts it..)
“I wish folk would just be honest about this and those who seek a change accept the fact that they are reading scripture and the tradition in a way that it has never been read before and that by introducing new doctrines they (and they alone) are responsible for tearing the communion apart.” In fact, it is the neocons and biblical literalists who are reading Scripture in a novel way. Biblical literalism and inerrancy are inventions of the late 19th and early 20th century. See Karen Armstrong’s “The Battle for God,” an excellent history of the rise of fundamentalism in… Read more »
Athos reminded us But it has been the position of the Church Universal since time immermorial to limit sexual activity to one man and one women in the covenant of marriage. And, of course, to prohibit divorce! But it was also the “the position of the Church Universal since time immermorial” to prohibit the charging of interest, was it not, until Someone Changed The Rules. If authority existed in the late mediaeval to wreak violence on centuries of Christian tradition, what’s different about this one? I’m genuinely puzzled why the gay issue raises so many hackles when the interest one… Read more »
Cynthia
I do not think yo can honestly say that the traditionalist interpretaion of Scripture re the gay issue is a product of the 18th and 19th centuries!! Church teaching on this goes back to the earliest times. Please lets be honest in this debate and stop obfuscating the issue. I am getting the impression that you are afraid that you theological arguments are so weak that you keep on hiding behind pseudo-intellectual fig leaves.
“The Nigerian support for anti-gay legislation is unacceptable and is grounds for breaking communion.”–Bill Carroll
Right on, Fr. Bill!
Cybthia, There is a mythology among the more extreme fundamentalists that God allowed the Church to die after the Apostolic Age and did not revive it until after the Reformation, I am not sure when exactly. I’ve never heard Anglican Evangelicals openly subscribe to this, but it sometimes seems to be assumed. It exists in milder form in the belief, which I HAVE heard Anglican Evangelicals express, that the Reformation was a return to the Christianity of the Apostolic Age. Now, given that post Reformation Protestantism for the most part bears little resemblance to anything that went before, it is… Read more »
Richard M …..because the gospel is not about compromise eg Ac4:12 and many, many other verses….there would have been no need for a cross if compromise with sin was possible. Sure – every bishop is an ordained sinner but there is a difference between that and justifying a sin, calling it good, holy asnd blessed……that is not telling the truth about the clear and consistent message we have (without authority for the innovation) We do not worship Anglicanism, pragmatism, history, settlements, resolutions, democratic votes, constitutions……and compromise (fudge) is not something which is always and everywhere good…..appeasement has got us into… Read more »
Cynthia: “it is the neocons and biblical literalists who are reading Scripture in a novel way”
– so if the conservative viwe is “novel”, are you seriously suggesting that Paul, Peter, James and all the early church would be supporting TEC’s actions in 2003??
Seriously?
I thought Bill Carroll’s first post quite sound & his reply to obadiahslope perfectly adequate. I think that it is possible for persons opposed to the ordination of women to have a place in The Episcopal Church, although I agree that it is a challenge. Bishop Montgomery of Chicago was opposed to the ordination of women, but he recognized that his belief was not that of The Episcopal Church & he allowed his suffragan, Bishop Primo, to ordain women. A sometime rector of my hometown parish was opposed to the ordination of women. Before taking up the post he was… Read more »
Richard M: re Anglicanism as compromise. The Elizabethan settlement is hardly relevant, not being concerned with sex! Unless you are trying to argue that on the basis that Anglicanism made a compromise then (in one particular phase of its history) it is fated to accept compromise over any and every subsequent matter. I don’t really see why that follows. Anglicanism has always been confessional. If confesses the faith revealed in Scripture, set forth in the catholic creeds, and witnessed to in the historic formularies. I would like to know what possible form ‘non-confessional’ Christianity could possibly take: it sounds like… Read more »
“It is devilish and satanic. It comes directly from the pit of hell. It is an idea sponsored by Satan himself and being executed by his followers and adherents who have infiltrated the church.” Anglican Church of Nigeria (as earlier reported by the New York Times) Wow, that is in response to the consecration of Bishop VG Robinson at TEC…interestingly, VG Robinsons response to this vileness of Nigerian Anglican Church spewing and the Akinolan Anglican “takeover caper” at CANA is to “love them anyway.” Who are the healthy Christians and who are the emotionally/spiritually “disturbed” and LOUD and “greedy” manipulators… Read more »
“… it was never the position of the whole church universal from time immemorial to encourage slavery, or torture, or capital punishment, or to deny women their rights ect.”
Wasn’t it???
Not that I am terribly old, but I do happen to remember the teaching of “times immemorial” – for I do think that the unanimous teaching a thousand years (from the mid 900s to 1966) of Byzantine and European Academia qualifies for such an epithet, although now happily forgotten. It was not anti-gay, it was anti-heterosex. Chastity for all, Abstinence for those that could manage it, Mandatory Celibacy for the ordained (whether they did in fact manage it or not). Marriage was a lesser celibacy for those week in the flesh – Oh, they have done it 3 times! Masturbation… Read more »
Dear Athos
Unfortunately, it has been the position of the church from time immemorial to both condone and encourage capital punishment (or else what happened to the heretics?) and to restrict the rights of women (or did the churches, without being recorded, have a secret history of campaigning for women’s suffrage, for example?) Only in recent years has its position changed. The same can therefore be said of homosexuality: readings of scripture change, and have done since Apostolic/Patriarchal times.
Athos’ claim that “it was never the position of the whole church universal . . . to encourage slavery, or torture, or capital punishment, or to deny women their rights” . . . but “it has been the position of the Church Universal . . . to limit sexual activity to one man and one women in the covenant of marriage” reflects the remarkable human capacity to rewrite history to fit the needs of the present moment. The history of the Church is littered with slave-owning bishops, torture and execution as antedotes to “heresy,” and the confinement of women to… Read more »
“But he forgets that it was never the position of the whole church universal from time immemorial to encourage slavery, or torture, or capital punishment, or to deny women their rights ect.” Actually, Athos, I’m not even sure THIS is true (just depends at what *moment in time* the “from time immemorial” is being looked at). “But it has been the position of the Church Universal since time immermorial to limit sexual activity to one man and one women in the covenant of marriage.” Well, they did such a ROTTEN job of “limiting” that even IF true, the point is… Read more »
Cynthia wrote
idologies
A typo, but a happy one, suggesting as it does the idolatry of text which can underpin ConsEv Christianity.
“I think I would be happy if we could just reach consensus on retiring the “tearing the fabric of the Communion” metaphor. All those in favor please shed a tear.”
Oh please God, yes.
So who is reading the Bible in a novel way? A useful resource for examining how the Bible was read by early Anglicans is Ashley Null’s “Biblical Authority in the Thirty Nine Articles” which can be found here: ucu.ac.ug/gsi/downloads/Null.pdf
Sean Doherty —
I believe your early termination of the anonymous quotation is rather telling, IIRC, it goes something like , “It is written, but I say unto you…”
Ford Elms —
Many of the reformers searched for the “true church” among the heretics — not only Waldensians, but even Albigenisans were included in “Foxe’s Book of Martyrs.” Of course, ignorance of history & Scriptural obscurantism are essential components of Conservative Evangelicalism.
Again, Athos and NP, it is easy to say that “such and such has been the teaching of the Church since time immemorial” or that “orthodox” churches are “strong and growing.” These make useful memes, but where is the evidence? We have little from earliest times with respect to the former issue. There is evidence of the acceptance of same-sex unions in both the eastern and western Churches (Boswell). Different Churches in different locations had surprisingly diverse approaches to sexuality and family. Concerning the latter issue, a useful fact is that in the past year of record, TEC actually grew… Read more »
‘Richard M: re Anglicanism as compromise. The Elizabethan settlement is hardly relevant, not being concerned with sex! ‘ Sean Docherty
There would have been no ‘ Elizabethan Settlement’ and no separate anglican church, but for the (somewhat rampant ) sexaulity of Henry V111…..
“are you seriously suggesting that Paul, Peter, James and all the early church would be supporting TEC’s actions in 2003?? Seriously?” :-0 Y’know, when I see a question like this, I’m always left gob-smacked. Yes, NP. Yes. Yes. Yes. A *Million* times YES!!! Alleluia! 😀 [Whereas GC ’06 had B033, which would, at minimum, have left the “cloud of witnesses” glumly rolling their eyes: “How long, Lord, will those fools below delay YOUR justice on Earth?”] How, NP, can you think we DON’T have faith in our Lord Jesus—that we in TEC follow where *he* leads, and NOT the sinful… Read more »
Athos is right – the scriptures clearly say and mean something much closer to the position of the AC (aknowledged in certain Lambeth resolutions for example) We never see a persuasive case from scripture showing the “liberal” position is and always has been what was intended, good, right and holy – good arguments have a basis and are not just emotive. I know liberals cannot make such a case so have to resort to talking about rights or psychology etc etc but this does not lower the bar on what is required to convince most of the AC that what… Read more »
Ford Elms wrote: “from the other side of the street.”
That one was gloriously wicked!
(wasn’t there a Wall cutting off the view as well?)