on Friday, 25 July 2008 at 6.03 am by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as Anglican Communion, Lambeth Conference 2008
Church Times leader: Wheat and tares in Canterbury
Economist Going their own way, by God
Comment is free Theo Hobson The Anglican communion has never been stranger
International Herald Tribune Chloe Breyer The Anglican Church’s shifting center
The Church Times Leader article puts the spotlight on the inability of Abp. Deng to tell the truth. He stated that up to 500 bishops were present at a meeting of the conservatives at the university campus; whereas, in fact, the C.T. reports a gathering of ‘from 150 to 200’. How seriously, then, should we take Abp. Deng’s statement that they all supported his statement about the bishops of Sudan on the question of homosexuality and the need for Bp. Gene Robinson’s resignation. It must be accepted by the Press Department of the Conference, that the ill-timed criticism by Bishop… Read more »
An interesting series of comments. Here’s some preliminary thoughts on the articles by Breyer and Hobson: (1) Chloe Breyer is in a dream world seeking to mollify very adamant adults with gestures that are nice, but in this context are equivalent to offering a handful of beads to pacify the natives–sorry Chloe, it will take more than this to make peace. (2) Theo Hobson discusses the loyalist liberal/ evangelical and the itchy liberal/evangelical. Just so you’ll understand the difference, the loyalists are, so to speak, “take it slow and wait for the Holy Spirit to make it happen” types, while… Read more »
I thought Hobson’s was interesting and encouraging as coming from ex-Anglican who’d more or less given up on C of E and Anglicanism in general.
“This is the “unofficial official” line of the conference: reform must come, but slowly-slowly, so that the cause of global evangelism is not harmed, and Anglican unity not further broken…This is why so many evangelicals have boycotted: they knew that this tacit reformist agenda would be present…So the whole event is an incredibly delicate exercise in long-distance liberalism.”–Theo Hobson I think that Theo has it more or less right. Certainly GAFCON shot themselves in the foot big-time by their boycott, and the next 10 years will not be able to turn back the clock. In fact, we can probably look… Read more »
Re: the Breyer article — I was under the impression that the original plan was to hold this Lambeth is South Africa, but this was rejected for financial reasons — anyone else remember anything about this?
Mind you, I don’t think a change of venue would make the slightest difference.
Almost all of these news articles have, to some extent, fallen into the narrative presuppositional traps already laid for all of us when we try to wend our ways around the going hot button issues. Facile tagging of liberals and conservatives, biblical believers versus … well, all the others whose daily life is opposed so fiercely by those who most often claim they are biblical. The list goes on, the realignment drum beats go on. None of this helps. The whole point of locating someone on the various Anglican continuums used to be so that we could start the next… Read more »
Theo Hobson is quite right: “So why aren’t the liberals itchier? This is the big question. Is it because they are too weak to form a protest lobby? No: the answer is more complex. The reason is that the liberals have a deep trust that the communion’s position on sexuality will liberalise, given time. Of course they cannot say this – because it contravenes the existing orthodoxy, and also because it would sound colonial – “let’s wait for the developing nations to catch up”. In other words, they follow their leader’s example: bite your tongue and wait for the Holy… Read more »
drdanfee, You do make a great show of being “inclusve,” but your language betrays you. Far from it, you merely pursue your standard line about the “conserevatives” and in the language of contempt exclude others. The bishop from the US Peter Beckwith takes some responsibility with some staight-talk below and makes the relevant point: “The Episcopal Church is not representing the scriptural authority of Christ. In the Episcopal Church, the biggest lie of all is that sexual morality doesn’t matter, or that it’s changing, that God is doing a new thing. Yet prophetic voices in our history have always taken… Read more »
“loyalist liberal/ evangelical and the itchy liberal/evangelical” But why is the approach that we must wait to see what the Spirit will say called “loyalist” while the idea that the Spirit is already speaking is considered “itchy”? What is so particularly loyal about not wanting to do anything because we’re just not sure, not what God is saying, but if God is actually saying anything? Loyal to whom? People see this as a justice issue. To whom are we being disloyal by wanting to “do justice and love mercy”? Are we not being loyal to the Gospel in that desire?… Read more »
Per Theo Hobson: I do think it . . . strange, that the notion of “developing nations”—so much a GIVEN in political or economic venues—is verboten in an Anglican context. Surely, there ought to be no shame in being (or declaring one’s self) a representative of a developing nation? A dignity born out of one’s need (and RIGHT) to catch-up? With an accompanying need to LEARN FROM the developed (BOTH their achievements, as well as their mistakes)? What would the World Bank look like, for example, if the developing nations demanded that the developed nations “run your economies as we… Read more »
Should the Liberals wait for a sign from on high?
From an historical (Biblical) point of view, we know that God actually got impatient with the lack of justice in Israel – towards ‘outsiders’, amongst others – and sent his only-begotten Son into the world. For what reason? To save sinners -and that’s everyone of us, including the Bishops at Lambeth – not just the bishops at GAGFCON.
Jesus told his disciples that: “The kingdom of God is among you”. What are we waiting for?
My understanding is that the proposal to hold Lambeth 08 in South Africa was kayboshed by the CAPA Primates because the South Africans don’t hate gays enough.
Ben W makes the sensational (but not in the circumstances un-expected) claim: ” In the Episcopal Church, the biggest lie of all is that sexual morality doesn’t matter, or that it’s changing, that God is doing a new thing. Yet prophetic voices in our history have always taken us back to basics.”
So the Gospel of God’s Righteousness in Christ isn’t “basic”???
Who would have thunk…
Goran, In accord with the past record you are wrong on more than one count. First, the point you qoute is from bishop Peter Becckwith from the US. I have confidence that he is able to read the pulse of TEC more closely than you do in far away Sweden! Second, on righteuousness even M Luther would have found it strange to think that “God’s righteousness” is in contrast to or excludes the moral teaching of scripture. To affirm God’s righteousness as basic is not to negate the moral teaching as included in the basics. Rather, to fail to see… Read more »
“Civil, Ceremonial and Moral” is a categorical confusion we do not “do”.
In fact, no one outside Platonising Academies should “do” it!
There are no such categories in the Bible.
What about my Question? Is it Basic or no?
Ben W wrote: “Rather, to fail to see the connection is to see the coherence within the Christian life (Rom 6:1-6).”
You don’t see it?
“would have found it strange to think that “God’s righteousness” is in contrast to or excludes the moral teaching of scripture.” But, what is the “moral teaching” of Scripture, Ben? For you, it would seem, it’s about sex. Yet the moral teaching of Scripture talks of love, mercy, acceptance. Scripture speaks of doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with God. Frankly, it seems that both sides have gotten obsessed with sex, either elevating it to the level of the Trinity, or diminishing it to the level of eating a meal. What is most glaring to me is that, leaving… Read more »