Amidst all that divides Martyn Minns and Gene Robinson they have one factor in common - they are the two bishops whose episcopal consecrations were opposed explicitly in advance by one of the Instruments of Communion. For me that is enough to suggest that there are grounds for them not being invited to participate in one of the other Instruments.

If other bishops feel implicated in the criticism of those two consecrations then that is a matter for their own individual consciences. But I wouldn't want to add to the list of non-invitees...

... except that there may be a case for not inviting an individual bishop on quite other grounds, should his or her ministry/lifestyle have led to widespread concerns and inadequately resolved disciplinary issues. I can think of one such example, and it is nothing to do with sexuality or theological orthodoxy.

David

Out of fairness to all gay clergy/bishops, I believe that all heterosexual people who wish to be ordained, should be interviewed about their attitudes to all kinds of heterosexual sexual behaviour. I am sure that the Church would be anti some of the antics up to which some straight Christians get, and should have the opportunity to judge the candidates' call to ordination in the light of their responses. However I don't think the Church would be able to afford that kind of approach. It is cheaper to keep bashing gay bishops I suppose.

Our first taste of what Rowan Williams described as a "welcoming" rather than "inclusive" Church?

The vast majority of the world's news headlines have "Conference snubs gay bishop" rather than "Conference snubs Robinson and Minns".

The latest phase of the Windsor Process is yet another public relations disaster for Lambeth Palace.

Good point, David Walker.

But Minns' consecration was not opposed explicitly in advance by any instrument of Communion (assuming that you would not claim that general resolutions against border crossing amount to such explicit and specific opposition). The Archbishop of Canterbury made no public statement at any time, and his unpublished letter to Akinola objected only to the installation, which was long after the consecration. The Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council were also silent and the Lambeth Conference, of course, was not in session.

So I'm not sure the analysis quite fits the facts, although it would be a very clear and fair policy going forwards - we as a Church reserve the right to signal disapproval of episcopal consecrations in advance, and to exclude the bishops in question from the Lambeth Conference if they go ahead. It would fit the collegial/communion model of episcopacy which Williams has supported, i.e. that bishops are not just a local matter. It would be fairly moderate, in that it would be a right to object, not a right to command, and would not even be a right to prevent. It would provide a degree of clarity as to what the boundaries are. But it would require a longer period of time for reaction than the 8 weeks or so that fell between Minns' totally unexpected election on 28 June 2006 and his consecration on 20 August 2006.

Typical compromise, no one is happy.

Anybody who uses this rather tiny list of non-invitations as an excuse to pull an entire constituency out of Lambeth will have decided upon this as a strategy long ago.

RR

And the snub extends to the AMIA bishops and Cavalcante, formerly of Recife and lately of Southern Cone.

But it wouldn't be the first time that mainstream papers have misinterpreted the significance of church events.

Did anyone notice the link in Ruth Gledhill's article to a survey "religious people back equal rights"?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1826629.ece

Apparently, 8 out of 10 religious people disagreed with the statement that "homosexuality is morally unacceptable in all circumstances" and nearly 9 out of 10 wanted to see and end to discrimination against people.

More than 6 in 10 said they would be happy if their local vicar or other relgious representative was gay, and more than half said the prejudice against homosexuals as caused by religious attitudes.

The poll was commissioned by Stonewall.

It is true that if an official split should take place, it will be viewed as a division all about the gays. That, at this point, seems inescapable based upon how the media is portraying the issues in it's headline. But for all those who read the text they will also learn that CANA is "not recognized by the Anglican Communion." And Minns' consecration is seen by Canterbury as "irregular" in the same way as the Rwanda et al. bishops have been. Nothing new or distinctive there. Akinola may wish to cover over this brute reality, but it too now is inescapable.

I am way out on the liberal wing and imagined that I would feel very outraged if +VGR was not invited. I too would want a boycott. Now that it's happened, I feel strangely at peace with the situation. The AofC has challenged both sides and both sides have to decide whether they would be better off staying away and letting the other side take control of the Communion. Expressions of outrage aren't going to be very constructive at this time.

I think that +VGR will be in a very strong personal position if he attends as a guest, and so will his supporters among the other bishops. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if Bishop Robinson HAD been invited, he should have declined to attend in a formal capacity, which would have given him and TEC the moral high ground. As it is, his voice will be heard loud and clear at Lambeth, more so than if he was just part of the herd.

Of course, if later in the year the invitations to the other TEC bishops are withdrawn, that will be a very different situation in which a widespread boycott could well become appropriate.

I understand that in order to keep the conversation going (I know, some minds will never change), the ABC had to do what he had to do. I think inclusive bishops need to show their strength by speaking up, and loudly.

There is a part of me that says the situation is seriously flawed. It's like saying to someone who is special needs, "we are going to have dinner in the dinning room, you will have to eat on the back porch," or telling someone who's black or Muslim, "I'm having a party at my house. You can come to my house but you can't come into the house. Some people will come outside and talk to you, if they wish." If being "clean" is a prerequisite then none of the 880 bishops need be invited.

I hope The ABC knows how badly he has hurt the GLBT community and those who support them. I'm not surprised but this atmosphere gives young GL Christians the impression that there is something seriously wrong with them. A re-inforcement of "your broken, an abomination."

Yes, the situation is flawed. Did we ever expect that a struggle like this would go off without a hitch? But what's really happening should be acknowledged.

Rowan Williams has just firmly rebuked Akinola; he refuses to recognize Minns. This seems like a nonstarter to us, since Minns is illegal - but try to imagine what this is like from the Big Pete's point of view. He has been told that the consecration was entirely out of order. And if Gene Robinson is invited as ++Williams' personal guest, that will be a second rebuke; imagine Akinola's reaction at that point.

This all wasn't going to happen in an instant; we still have some convincing to do. In the end, it will be better for every gay person in the world, not just in America, if we continue to work at convincing people; let's be generous about this. Let's continue to argue for what we believe is right; let's just go to Lambeth and do the work that needs to be done.

Akinola is slowly being marginalized, something he is actually accomplishing himself; he now has perhaps 8 national churches who support him, I understand, down from 22. Things are good, even though this seems like a slap to Gene Robinson (which it is, although the "personal guest" thing is an attempt to correct it) - but sometimes you have to take a slap to get where you want to go. This is an acknowledgement that, as I read this morning, "Gene Robinson is a genuine bishop of the Anglican Communion, but a stumbling-block to the weaker brethren."

Let's be generous about this, and give people time.

There is little to criticize in the painful strategizing about who is/is not invited to Lambeth 2008. From the beginning of this controversy, and caught in the media spin pincers of the realignment campaign, Canterbury has always presented in public as being rather at a loss as to what to do to enact the traditional Anglican big tent approach in common prayer, theology, and the multiple layers of connectivity through which life blood flows besides Primates Meetings.

But there is much to lament, especially as the continuing institutional legacy which claims to encourage dialogue with the LGBTQ+friends communities - a rather large and growing global group, would not we estimate? (see the survey?) - at the same time hews carefully to statements/acts of exclusion as needed according to the legacy negative views.

The agonized dilemma quite nicely demonstrates just the difficulties of the mistaken legacy views.

We are saying to committed Out/Partnered/Parenting couples: Well, yes, personally I know you are quite a good and decent person, and yes, you are making considerable contributions to the whole society by good work and parenting and so forth; but you see I believe these entirely awful and nasty things about you, presuppositionally, based on a very ancient legacy reading of my sacred texts.

So, my dears, no, no, no.

We just cannot have you around at special religious occasions which are high profile instances of Anglicans getting together to pray and reflect and grow in spirit. By legacy these admittedly special and intentional global gatherings are reserved for two groups, exclusively straight married people, and people who believe that everything else is wrong, wrong, wrong, ... and probably dirty, to boot. We prize our toilet-training approach to human sexuality, and it represents the very best of high thinking about what God intended sex to be.

You do understand, don't you?

We have to do this. We cannot change our understandings of the Word of God because that never changes.

P.S. See you all at work on Monday, because goodness knows your contribution to solving the tricky problems we are having with viral load problems in patient XYZ have so far been just the ticket and we already know we prize your efforts on the care team. Ta-ta.

It's only a Lambeth.

Agree with you, BLS.

Sorry, here's the link to that quote.
http://emberdays.blogspot.com/2007/05/just-because-all-your-friends-are.html

"Let's be generous about this, and give people time." bls

Exactly...and we've got time, all the time in the world because, finally, we've become comfortable being the self-examining Christians that God created us to be (and it's time to help others up and out from self-loathing and the terror of being demoralized, marginalized and victimized by ignorant despots wherever they may be).

Times is on our side and so is religious enlightenment.

I must be simple, but surely if ABC says with one breath that he is not going to invite VGR to Lambeth then how can he say with the next that he will invite him as a guest. As others have commented above, VGR's presence, whatever his status there, will be high profile and disruptive. I suspect that there is far more to come out in the run-up to the September deadline for TEC and beyond!

What young LGB Christians?

If there are any, they certainly don't go near the Church. They no longer need the gay subculture of anglo-catholicism, and they hear the blatant homophobia of the church - as a result - they do not, from what I have seen, want anything to do with the Church

And until the split, that's exactly my view. I have no intention of darkening the door of a church again until we are free of the conservatives.

Sweetest BLS,

It was never ever 22, it was never even 20.

That is Spin produced using all these notoriously un-signed Global "South" Communiqués.

Mersymike wrote:

"I have no intention of darkening the door of a church again until we are free of the conservatives."

I'm sure it would make the conservatives very happy if we all did likewise. However, personally I have no desire to make conservatives happy.

I take your point Brian, but I simply cannot give support to institutionalised homophobia any longer.

Bls: Bravo.

Merseymike: I agree with much you have to say, but I'd wish you'd have a weak moment and get to Evensong this Sunday afternoon. Staying away isn't going to help things, and you don't stay away from us at TA, do you now?

I note - since I don't think it should be overlooked as it is being in this discussion, the following paragraph in Stephen Bates' report:
"Nolbert Kunonga, the bishop of Harare, accused by his parishioners of inciting murder against opponents of Robert Mugabe's regime, has also not been invited."
A little more is going on here than one issue alone.

+Cantuar is giving +Abuja the opportunity to walk apart.

He has been quietly clear about CANA (once it changed from a legitimate chaplaincy into an incursion) describing the consecration of Minns as "unhelpful" and urging against his installation. So it should come as no surprise to anyone that Minns is not regarded as a "legitimate" bishop but rather as "irregular." +New Hampshire, on the other hand, is legal but a source for anxiety; butas others have noted his invitation as a "guest" amounts to an invitation _tout court_, since +Cantuar is also clear this is not to be a legislative assembly, but rather more what +Abuja has called a "jamboree."

So it appears to me that this current action is a rather subtle diplomatic move that gives +Abuja every reason to refuse to remain in Communion with Canterbury.

"So it appears to me that this current action is a rather subtle diplomatic move that gives +Abuja every reason to refuse to remain in Communion with Canterbury." - Tobias Haller

Which gives me some hope, finally, that while Williams appears spineless, he may simply be brilliantly subtle.

The broad inclusive global Anglican Church appears poised to return to its traditional roots. Praise God.

A very charitable interpretation, to be sure.

But what of the mislaid honour?

Tobias - when Rowan says in October that the TEC bishops involved in "consecrating" VGR are uninvited, I look forward to hearing your spin on that too....

Then, when TEC finally walks apart (unless Rowan gets them to row back before Sept 30th so he can make a covenant fudge), will you be claiming that it was a brilliant plan to create a liberal church?

I expect Rowan will be able to persuade VGR and the TEC HOB to accept VGR's diminished status in the AC and follow the strategey of talking the AC to death while doing exactly what they want to do in TEC anyway......the question is whether he can persuade the important Archbishops of the Global South to accept the hypocrisy and double-speak in the AC