Thinking Anglicans

What about Resolution 19?

Bishop David Rossdale asks this question: If resolution 1.10 is important, what about resolution 19?

The more I read the final Lambeth Document, “Capturing Conversations and Reflections”, the more I rejoice that we did not go down the road of resolutions and votes. To have a ’snapshot’ of the engagement between the Bishops is probably of far more worth, than adding to the fossilised remains of earlier conferences, which leave skeletal resolutions disconnected from the tissue of conversation lying behind them as some sort of guide to the heart and mind of the church.

Much has been made of Resolution 1.10 from the 1998 Conference, as though this is an enduring and unerring piece of truth. It has become almost a test for orthodoxy. But if this resolution has such enduring status, then all resolutions of the Lambeth Conference must be given the same status. So what about Resolution 67 from 1908? Very importantly it states…

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
21 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pluralist
13 years ago

Rather pleased that in taking the intercessions this morning that I made reference to his blog as part of the reflection back.

http://www.vary.freeuk.com/religion/20080810intcess.html

john
john
13 years ago

Amusing, spunky piece. How good it is to see that liberals aren’t going to roll over.

Bob in SW PA
Bob in SW PA
13 years ago

What I don’t understand is what about what the laity think? This isn’t Rome. In some of our member churches laity have a say. Lambeth 1.10 maybe be what bishops at that time felt important but what about those of us who choose a vocation other than the holy orders??? We can’t have a say?

James
James
13 years ago

I have to say, I completely support all of those resolutions. I don’t see any conflict in doing so. Nor does it seem to me that there is any problem between 1.10 and the final resolution. It would seem to be a difficult argument to make that blessing homosexual practice is a local custom while at the same time saying that those who don’t accept it in other parts of the world are ‘homophobic’ rather than simply culturally different, as well as considering such blessings ‘prophetic’.

Jerry Hannon
Jerry Hannon
13 years ago

The Bishop of Grimsby, within the English Diocese of Lincoln, has hit the proverbial nail right on the head. How absurd it is, and how disingenuous, for the ultra-right wing fundamentalists of the Anglican Communion to data-mine Lambeth resolutions to suit their fancy, yet ignore resolutions which might be inconvenient for them. But, they do the same thing with Scripture (which parts of Levitticus shall we keep, eh?), so why should anyone be surprised by the hypocrisy. A few days ago, in responding to Kurt’s posting on another thread, where he posited Provinces of the Anglican Communion (not to be… Read more »

Treebeard
Treebeard
13 years ago

O puleeeze !

Everyone knows that Resolutions which do not condemn gays are not binding !

Get real !

Bob in SW PA
Bob in SW PA
13 years ago

I have to agree with you Jerry, the good bishop has hit the nail on the head. I wonder if we can’t do the same for some parts of the good book so many in this communion worship, as if it were the living creator of all. What amazes me with the Duncan’s, Nzimbi’s and Vernerables is that they pick and choose whatever suits they needs. They do it with Lambeth resolutions and with the bible itself.

Of course this would never be fight for power and control???

Craig Nelson
13 years ago

I really like the binding resolution referring to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and protections for human rights defenders and am glad this is a binding law on the whole Communion.

I am particularly glad that the Universal Declaration is just that, universal and therefore covers LGBT people and includes rights to private life, freedom of speech, freedom of association and peaceful assembly.

I think it would be a good thing to analyse adherence to the Lambeth Conference Human Rights resolutions across the Communion by both governments and Provinces.

JCF
JCF
13 years ago

“It would seem to be a difficult argument to make that blessing homosexual practice is a local custom while at the same time saying that those who don’t accept it in other parts of the world are ‘homophobic’ rather than simply culturally different, as well as considering such blessings ‘prophetic’.” – Posted by James FALSE analogy, James. While I, and many (most?) Episcopalians would consider “blessing homosexual” ***couples*** “prophetic” (and refusal to do so “homophobic”), TEC’s ***POLICIES*** vis-a-vis the Anglican Communion, is to regard it as a local choice of *autonomous* national churches. TEC isn’t excommunicating ANYBODY for their treatment… Read more »

Father Ron Smith
13 years ago

Jesus did actually countermand the Jewish Law that advocated stoning for the female party in the act of adultery (I wonder what was the sanction for the man involved?).

If Jesus saw that as an act of religious institutional injustice; can not the Church (in Jesus’ Name) overturn the injustice of Lambeth 1.10? Or is it written in stone, like the original Ten Commandments – which, incidentally, did not mention anything about gay relations? – Neither did Jesus, for that matter.

James
James
13 years ago

JCF, a surplus of stars and capital letters does not a good argument make.

I see your distinction, but don’t see the merit in it. My impression from the GCs I have attended and the TEC bishops I’ve met is that the policy changes are motivated by a prideful belief in the ‘prophetic’ nature of TEC, and opposition in other parts of the world is regarded as something which will disappear when the developing world develops. So-called homophobia is considered a feature of ignorance, not culture, by those making the policies.

Göran Koch-Swahne
13 years ago

James wrote: “So-called homophobia is considered a feature of ignorance, not culture, by those making the policies.”

Can you develope this?

JCF
JCF
13 years ago

“My impression from the GCs I have attended and the TEC bishops I’ve met is that the policy changes are motivated by a prideful belief in the ‘prophetic’ nature of TEC, and opposition in other parts of the world is regarded as something which will disappear when the developing world develops.” I (and my punctuation) surrender to your “impression”, James. {snark/OFF} Quoth St. Malvina Reynolds: “It’s not nice” to block the doorways, “It’s not nice” to go to jail. Well, we’ve tried all the nice ways But the nice ways always fail. “It’s not nice.” “It’s not nice.” You’ve told… Read more »

James
James
13 years ago

Göran, Develop it how? If you mean sources, as I said, it comes from private conversations, which I didn’t record at the time, as well as attendance at committee sessions at General Convention 2003, I’m not sure if transcripts are available or not. I don’t expect you to take me at my word, and without quotable sources I’m not expecting to convince anyone, but then again, if I did have quotable sources I don’t think I would convince anyone here anyway, as such I’m not going to do a whole lot of research to find in print what I’ve heard… Read more »

Ford Elms
Ford Elms
13 years ago

“I have never personally met anyone who advocates such things for practising homosexuals” That’s as may be, but there are many on the right who do. +Akinola has advocated jailing us. Ahmanson has publically stated he would be in favour of stoning us. Overt calls for violence against us are not all that rare in non-Anglican circles, actually, and are quite common in cultures like Jamaica. Where is Drexel Gomez from, and what has he done to oppose such things in his own country? The Primate of Sudan can claim publically that there are no gay people in Sudan, conveniently… Read more »

James
James
13 years ago

Ford, You have put together a long list of wrongs, much of which may be true, although I don’t agree with your interpretation of some of it. For example, an evangelical saying that practicing homosexuals are ‘sinful rebels against God…’ is no more than they (or at any rate, no more than I) would say about any fallen human being. Further, the classical evangelical position is that all people deserve punishment and death, and as homosexuals are people they fit into that category, but it is the salvation offered by Christ that opens the way to eternal life. Any attempt… Read more »

Ford Elms
Ford Elms
13 years ago

“an evangelical saying that practicing homosexuals are ‘sinful rebels against God…’ is no more than they (or at any rate, no more than I) would say about any fallen human being.” “the classical evangelical position is that all people deserve punishment and death” Well, you can convince yourself of the first statement, but the practical application of it, and this is very evident in what sinful rebellion Evangelicals will tolerate and which ones they won’t, is that gay people are on an entirely different order of rebelliousness and deserving of far worse than anyone else gets. After all, I don’t… Read more »

James
James
13 years ago

As to your first point, you may well be right that evangelicals react to the issue at hand to rashly, although really what they react to is making acceptance of an at best controversial position church teaching. The church doesn’t teach from the pulpit that it’s ok to exact usury. On the second point, I agree that this model of atonement should not be taken on it’s own, and that there are many others in the New Testament which deserve equal or more weight, but nevertheless, the concept of sin as deficit and God as judge who extracts payment are… Read more »

Ford Elms
Ford Elms
13 years ago

“pretending that this is not a valid interpretation” But, of course no-one is doing that. It is Evangelicals who are trying to claim for it a centrality it does not deserve. Perhaps the problem is the I am turning all my sinful anti-Evangelical bigotry on you and assuming you have a position you do not actually hold. It is not uncommon for me to do this. Perhaps your beliefs are more nuanced than I expect, or get, from the average Evangelical I meet. If so, I apologize. I don’t like it when Evos consider me a liberal, after all, just… Read more »

James
James
13 years ago

Ford, I suppose in the examples you mentioned I am at odds with what might now be the accepted church positions; I am against usury, remarriage after divorce, and the taking of human life (I would add – pre or post natal). Further, my father, a minister now part of Church of Nigeria and in attendance at GAFCON, would agree with me on all of those. (As I have said before, I find talk of all these bigoted evangelicals difficult to understand simply because I haven’t met many.) I have to add, although I do consider myself an evangelical, I… Read more »

Ford Elms
Ford Elms
13 years ago

“what is the orthodox Christology overturned at GAFCON?” 4 Ecumenical councils? There were 7. Assuming the three they couldn’t affirm were the last three, they cannot oppose Monothelitism or Nestorianism, and their differentiation from Monophysitism becomes vague. Marriage and Biblical authority have never been considered definers of orthodoxy, Christology is. It is important because the Incarnation is central to the faith. I feel that this is so easy for some to ignore because, for them, the Incarnation was merely about God providing a victim to be punished in our place. That was one aspect of the Incarnation, but certainly not… Read more »

21
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x