Thinking Anglicans

American statement on Lambeth Conference

The House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church issued this House of Bishops statement on the Lambeth Conference.

It includes this:

Even though we did not all support the consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire, we acknowledge that he is a canonically elected and consecrated bishop in this church. We regret that he alone among bishops ministering within the territorial boundaries of their dioceses and provinces, did not receive an invitation to attend the Lambeth Conference.

20
Leave a Reply

avatar
3000
20 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
15 Comment authors
Jerry HannonMalcolm+Ben Walcolm+JCF Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Margaret
Guest
Margaret

I really liked this:

“We appeal to the faithful of the Episcopal Church and the faithful in the wider, global Anglican family, to focus and celebrate our unity in the comprehensiveness of diversity”

as we have just this week demonstrated through our generous celebration of our diversity through our actions concerning Bishops Schofield and Cox.

JCF
Guest
JCF

I admit, that’s a distressingly WEAK statement: only “regret”?

Where’s the OUTRAGE, over this attack on God’s JUSTICE???

I fear, as +Gene lamented, he WILL be forgotten…

…all the more reason for clergy and LAITY, especially if LGBT, to lift up +Gene, and nonviolently OVER-RUN Lambeth! Maranatha!

Ms. Cornelius
Guest

Well, I’m not exactly comfortable with +Robinson as a bishop in my church– he seems to have manipulated things at every turn. But he is a canonically elected bishop, and the refusal of an invitation to Lambeth just encourages those who refuse communion with our Presiding Bishop and other sorts of unChristian behavior. Not to mention that it shows a lack of courage to deal with the controversy and makes +Robinson a martyr besides. I mean– really– inviting him to the exhibition hall? Very droll. Perhaps some of our ultra-conservative friends could be on exhibit as well, once they get… Read more »

Cheryl Va.
Guest

Bravo Luke 18:7-8 “And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?” Hebrews 11:6 “…without faith it is impossible to please God…” Matthew 25:40-44 ““The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’ “Then he will say to those on his… Read more »

Terence Dear
Guest
Terence Dear

Will Bishop Robinson definitely be coming to the UK for the duration of Lambeth? What events are being planned to welcome him? Could somebody publish a programme? I need to know soon if I am going to book time off work. Hopefully, we ordinary folk will be able to make up for the rejection by his peers.

counterlight
Guest
counterlight

There are a lot of people who would like to make +Gene Robinson a martyr. Guess which bishop has to have round-the-clock security and wear a bullet-proof vest in public?

It ain’t Mr. Schofield.

Leonardo Ricardo
Guest
Leonardo Ricardo

as we have just this week demonstrated through our generous celebration of our diversity through our actions concerning Bishops Schofield and Cox.
Posted by: Margaret on Thursday, 13 March 2008 at 12:17am GMT

Margaret, they both “resigned” and ran off into the Sunset…stop the twisting of fact to accommodate your silly, yet ongoing, fear/hate-mongering campaign against “Loving God and Loving Your Neighbor”…it’s the same thing.

drdanfee
Guest
drdanfee

Just to clarify a bit for the spin that Margaret – and perhaps other conservative believers – may wish to put on Schofield being deposed. That is, spinning it as a failure of inclusiveness, leeway, and Big Tent Anglicanism. But in fact, the facts show otherwise. JDS was deposed, not for being a conservative believer or bishop – he had vigorously been all of that for decades without having charges brought against him. In the end Schofield was deposed because of his sad and mean-spirited efforts to deny space for other believers in TEC who conscientiously disagreed with his conservative… Read more »

Cynthia Gilliatt
Guest
Cynthia Gilliatt

“Bishops Schofield and Cox.”

Both of whom declared themselves beholden to and under the aegis of other bodies.

To my simple mind it seems like if you denounce TEC and leave in a huff for another province, you have abandoned TEC.

This is why I don’t understand the stealing the property bit.

I am about to retire from my university, and am taking home or otherwise disposing of my books and knick knacks from my office. I will not attempt to take home the unversity’s desk, chiars, bok cases, fie cabinet, and computer.

Ben W
Guest
Ben W

drdanfee, You speak of “Big Tent Anglicanism,” where is it? No room for it in your attitude! I only discern contempt for those who disagree with your interpretations. Much to be preferred is the stance of someone like J I Packer who has recently come out for “realignment”(though there would be things I would want to say differently), he sets out a clear basis for the differences without the dripping contempt evident here. Just sadness that after years of patience in seeking some recognition in the diocese for respect on wider AC agreements, this has become necessary if one is… Read more »

Merseymike
Guest
Merseymike

But conservatives expect liberals to be co-opted into their agenda – demanding ‘repentance’ for what liberals believe no less.

The problem with conservatives is that they will not remain in a big tent unless everyone else signs up to their idea of ‘truth’

JPM
Guest
JPM

But Anglicanism *is* a big tent! Just look–there’s clowns and poop everywhere!

Mark Bennet
Guest
Mark Bennet

Perhaps the ‘moderate’ tone of the TEC response reflects an understanding that not even the Lambeth Conference is the Eschatalogical Banquet! But using the meal metaphor, Jesus seems to have been prepared to sit down with anyone – the Bishops who aren’t there may in fact be a powerful symbol to those who are of how much there still is to accomplish. Absence has meaning as well as presence – and remember that story about what happened when those who were invited wouldn’t come … absences have varied meanings. The theology here is deep – just as well we are… Read more »

Ben W
Guest
Ben W

mm,

Talk about reading with blinkers! In the Vancouver diocese who was disregarding wider standards and agreements? Bishop Ingham or Packer? Packer lived in the diocese for years even while this practise of diregard continued.

What brought things to a head was the attempt to strongarm people and push this on Packer’s home church. Looks as though this is wrong on both counts: 1)who is actually trying to co-opt whom? 2)it is Packer who remained and was prepared to remain as long as there was room to be true to their own identity. So much for “big tent liberalism.”

Ben W

Cheryl Va.
Guest

Ben W’s question highlights that there are two definitions of big tent Anglicanism. It parallels the biblical understanding of Jesus’ role as counseller and prince of peace to all the peoples of all the nations. There is the theological imperialist model which works on the presumption that there is the imperial religion with its figurehead that has power and authority over all others, and thus the right to choose what may or may not be manifested and articulated, and in what forms, and by whom, Closed systems that should have predictable outcomes and lead to end point resolutions. There is… Read more »

JCF
Guest
JCF

“a clear basis for the differences without the dripping contempt evident here”

BenW, you REALLY don’t want to get into a “who has experienced more dripping contempt?” contest w/ a queer person (I’m not boasting: it’s a simple statement of fact)

alcolm+
Guest

“the attempt to strongarm people and push this on Packer’s home church”

I believe the technical term to describe this statement is “lie.”

No parish in the diocese of New Westminster is compelled to bless same sex unions. Indeed, the onus is on parishes which wish to do so to seek specific permission. (And I believe there is even a moratorium on new permissions, IIRC.)

To suggest that such a thing was being “forced” on packer’s parish is simply another “conservative” lie.

Thing about lying is, not only is it wrong, but it never works.

Ben W
Guest
Ben W

alcolm, It would be helpful to have a conversation and real points instead of throw-away-lines. On the situation with Ingham and Packer Andrew Goddard at Fulcrum has made the pertinent obervations: Saying that David Short and Dr Packer have reached the stage when, like some other parishes in other dioceses, “they believe they must depart from the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC) is a sign of just how serious the situation has become certainly in some dioceses of the ACC… The fact that St John’s has stayed so long within New Westminster when other parishes left some time ago is… Read more »

Malcolm+
Guest

That some conservatives and “conservatives” have chosen to leave the jurisdiction of the Anglican Church of Canada is perfectly true. That some conservatives (like Packer, as far as I can tell) have done this reluctantly and after having made, as they see it, a serious effort at reconciliation is also true. What is a lie was the claim that this had to do with “the attempt to strongarm people and push this on Packer’s home church.” No parish in the Diocese of New Westminster has been strongarmed or had same sex blessings pushed on them. No parish is obligated to… Read more »

Jerry Hannon
Guest
Jerry Hannon

Further to Malcolm’s post, identifying several specific lies being posted on TA by some fundamentalist Puritans who wish to twist the historical Anglican Communion into something they would favor.

It rather reminds me of the old joke which goes:

Question – How do you know when a politician isn’t lying?

Answer – His lips aren’t moving.

Perhaps there are some parallels to what Malcolm is addressing.