Thinking Anglicans

phone calls not letters

Remember that business about letters from the Archbishop of Canterbury to selected bishops? See for example, this earlier article.

Well, now read this in the Living Church Canterbury Calling: Archbishop on the Phone for Lambeth

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams’ Pentecost letter to the bishops of the Anglican Communion was not the anticipated communication in which he reportedly would ask bishops to predicate their attendace at the Lambeth Conference this summer upon their willingness to accept the recommendations in the Windsor Report.

A spokesman said Archbishop Williams had modified his plan to write to bishops whose stated positions ran contrary to the colleagial gathering of equals he envisions for Lambeth. Instead, Archbishop Williams has been in telephone contact with a number of bishops, asking that they honor the integrity of the meeting, the spokesman told The Church of England Newspaper

7 comments

  • JCF says:

    And the SPIN just keeps on comin’… :-/

  • Pluralist says:

    I’ve written about this here.

    http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2008/05/hello-its-rowan.html

    It closes this episode; it weakens the Covenant and its original intention yet again.

  • christopher+ says:

    “A spokesman said Archbishop Williams had modified his plan to write to bishops whose stated positions ran contrary to the collegial gathering of equals he envisions for Lambeth.”

    One has to wonder to whom this refers….

    It does not refer, of course, to Bishop Robinson of New Hampshire. He is less equal and not invited – unlike those attempting the theft of properties in other provinces and claiming authority outside their jurisdiction.

  • Maybe we should be a little wary of the “source” in this instance. We have seen this before.

    Being printed on Diarrhea-coloured paper doesn’t make spin less spin.

  • Here’s what Bishop David Anderson thinks about this letters business:

    http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2008/05/17/bishop-david-anderson-the-present-state-of-affairs-16-may-2008/

    On the international scene, we remember that it was only a few weeks ago that the Rt. Rev. Tom Wright, was telling everyone that a “get tough” letter was coming from Lambeth Palace to the TEC bishops who didn’t support the Covenant and were part of the group who consecrated Gene Robinson. Many of us wondered whether Tom Wright was going to be “wrong again” or whether, given his close contact with Lambeth, maybe he was onto something – or then again, maybe he was being used. The long-awaited Lambeth Letter has come out, and it is a “cream puff” of a letter. What went wrong? Why did Wright get it wrong?

    Bishop Tom may have gotten it right to start with, but when a large number of liberal revisionist English bishops told Rowan Williams that if he excluded those Americans, they wouldn’t come either, it appears that the Primate of Primates caved in and changed the letter. Tom Wright was left with the ground cut out from under him. Wright could have gotten it right if the left hadn’t muscled in. Apparently, the revisionist English bishops are less afraid of pushing back than their orthodox colleagues; why is that?

  • drdanfee says:

    The coming Lambeth media blitz – a welcome sight as global media are not all that interested, usually, in Anglican church life goings on? – will surely further reveal the simple fact: VGR and all those related to him in good conscience – is still on the outside looking in. At least, if we look through institutional lenses so recently dusted and polished by Canterbury in favor of negative traditions and legacies (against folks just like VGR all around the world to some extent).

    It is especially nice that Canterbury and the conservative realignment have spent some time refurbishing the traditional: Queer-folks-are-less -than-us-but-we-promise-not-to-hit-them-in-public -when-people-are-watching Line. Thus VGR and all those alternatively conscienced Anglicans whom he somehow represents as a hot button offender are pretty much left in the status of runaway slaves. They somehow got free of where tradition placed – and enchained? – them, and even more amazing, did so against all the big odds and powers levied, and we must all bow down to that high altar.

    Instead of this being a fiesta of how differing Anglican believers nevertheless manage to live in peace, it will yet again show off to the secular and varied religious citizens that we have considerable difficulty, like almost everybody else in times of great transition, and that nobody is at all sure in conservative believers realms what in the world to do with uppity slaves who persist in acting as if they are free and equal.

    From whence did that arise, if not the freeing powers of the real creation orders, of the real gospel and of the real relations queer believers have with Jesus of Nazareth?

    So far as DA and AM are concerned, I think they live on planet conservative so airlessly that they have sincerely fallen for their own spin doctoring of the right leave with every old silver fork or platter in the TEC family inheritance. Again for the record: Nobody disputes any believers right to leave one church or communion or fellowship of provinces for another. What we dispute is the claim that once a conservative has touched the family silver, God says it exclusively belongs to him or her or them.

  • EPfizH says:

    On the subject of letters dimissory, David Anderson is an expert. As I wrote about a year ago: “David Anderson, as reported by The Episcopal News Service, has “transferred his canonical residence” to CANA. I assume he received letters dimissory from the Diocese of Springfield, where many who have been called categorized “conservatives” or called themselves “orthodox” have canonical if not physical residence. (Cf. Diocese of Springfield for a clergy listing). The Church of Nigeria, by its choice is not in communion with TEC, nor, as +Lee states, the Anglican District of Virginia in communion with TEC (+Minns suggests it is through CANA) It appeared that Anderson+ has only been canonically resident in Springfield since 2/16/06 although his physical residence and position as head of the American Anglican Council has not changed?” In other words, Anderson, now CANA Bishop Anderson, transferred to Springfield because +Beckwith would give him the right paper transfer trail. +Beckwith sat on the ACC Board. He never changed jobs. He never moved from Georgia. I assume that +Beckwith gave him the tranfer papers to a church, self-identified, as not in communion with TEC.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *