Friday, May 9, 2008
Total visitors right now (TitusOneNine & Stand Firm): 297
Matt Kennedy
Anglican Journal: Bishops press conservatives to attend Lambeth Conference
Tuesday, March 25, 2008 • 6:09 am

Anglican Journal: Bishops press conservatives to attend Lambeth Conference
hat tip: Transfigurations
...In a letter to the primates of Nigeria, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda and the Southern Cone, the bishops said they longed to “stay with you in fellowship and in celebration at Lambeth.”

Bishop Mauricio Andrade, the primate of the Episcopal Anglican Church in Brazil, also expressed regret at the primates’ boycott and said in a letter to members of his church that the bishops of his province are participating “because we are certain that this is the space for unity, and we know that unity does not mean uniformity.”

The primates, however, responded in a letter that they could not accede to the request. They said that since 2003 they have chosen not to take communion with the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States because of the American bishops’ decision to consecrate an openly gay man, Gene Robinson, as bishop of New Hampshire. It is, the primates said, “an action of which they have not repented.”

The Church Times reported that the evangelical bishops’ letter said that staying away from the conference, scheduled July 16 to Aug. 3 in Canterbury, England, “would inevitably split apart those who share an equally high regard for scriptures [sic] and for the historic faith of the church.”

...more

Comments:

Methinks these “bishops” are a bit late in their concern about unity.  They want it both ways.  They want to engage in their innovations and apostasies and yet want everyone to pretend that doesn’t destroy unity.

[1] Posted by Newbie Anglican on 03-25-2008 at 07:43 AM

Ah yes, Brazil, that bastion of orthodoxy within a law-abiding paradise. And possibly the inspiration of Shoria oven mitts…
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/81808_95081_ENG_HTM.htm

[2] Posted by Dazzled on 03-25-2008 at 07:50 AM

Being in impaired Communion with most of the American Church and the inability to enter into whole-hearted worship, unable to receive funds (help to bear the cost of the meeting) because they do not know where the funds come from, the absolute and total lack of support by the ABC for those in the Communion who hold to Anglican ethics (Old Recife, AMiA, CANA) when there is clearly little place in their church for recognition of any kind, the continued participation of the American Church through their PB in international councils when specifically asked not to, the clearly unchristian behavior of dragging US conservatives to court and the manipulation of themes and events at the Communion level by the ACO is an impressive list of reasons why it cannot be business as usual.

[3] Posted by francis on 03-25-2008 at 07:51 AM

Spare me the crocodile tears from +Andrade.
The Rabbit.

[4] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 03-25-2008 at 08:16 AM

Spare me the crocodile tears from +Andrade.

I think he’s genuinely regretful. Since when has a reappraising bishop ever passed up an opportunity to let us know how hateful, hurtful and bigoted we are? If the reasserters do not show, he and his pals will be denied one of their favourite pleasures.

Celebrate Easter the Episcopalian way: Grill some burgers!

[5] Posted by mousestalker on 03-25-2008 at 08:23 AM

Is this the same Primate that attempted to wrest control of dio Recife from Bp. Robinson Cavalcanti? or his successor?
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/Dec05/missioncrisis.html
btw, Bp. Cavalcanti will be teaching at Anglican Men’s Weekend in southern California May 16-18. Registration forms available on AAC, ACN, and Western Anglicans websites. (another shameless plug)

[6] Posted by Keith Bramlett on 03-25-2008 at 08:35 AM

Could not find the source of the letter. One has to remember that in England, Gene Robinson can be considered to be “evangelical.”

Katherine Jefferts-Schori (to Andrade) - “Yes, another check is in the mail. You naughty, little tramp, you.”

[7] Posted by robroy on 03-25-2008 at 08:37 AM

I have been unclear for sometime about exactly what the GS requires for attendance
1 Windsor compliance?
2. Not an expression of “regret” per Windsor but “repentance” for the consecration of +Robinson?
3.  Revocation of Lambeth invitations to
a. +Robinson
b. All those who partcipated in his consecration
c.  All those who consented to his consecration?
4.  Lambeth invitations issued to irregularly consecrated bishops consecrated for service in the US?

All or some of the above? 

To me there is an irony here.  As the +Robinson consecration recalls for Uganda incidents of great pain in its history, for the British, the politics of accomodation and appeasement recalls specific memories in its history.  Rightly or wrongly, those who employ such pressure tactics with ever increasing demands are likely to be seen as bullies by those who have experienced them before.  As TEC might have been wiser to consider how +Robinson’s consecration might affect those in the GS particularly Uganda, the GS might want to re-think how its tactics are likely to affect others.  So far they have not proved successful beyond its core.  That core may be strong enough to build a a “Church” based on its new Catechism the 39 articles, etc.  But, who will run the new church is pretty clear (cf. most recent GS Steering Committee letter) and a picture of how it will be run is becomming ever clearer.  It will be interesting to see, in the end, which primates and national churches buy in.

[8] Posted by EmilyH on 03-25-2008 at 08:48 AM

The Windsor document was pretty clear about what is required. Which part, specifically, did you not understand?

That is to say ‘understand’ as opposed to ‘disagree with’. wink

Celebrate Easter the Episcopalian way: Grill some burgers!

[9] Posted by mousestalker on 03-25-2008 at 08:51 AM

they nonetheless “have no reason to suppose that ... we should seek to abandon the work you and many others have put into seeking a way forward under God.”

How about ongoing violations of Lambeth 1.10 and the dismantling of the DeS communique?  This simply proves that any orthodox clarification at the upcoming Lambeth Conference would once again be dismissed because the ABC and the ACO have no will to carry out the discipline of the WR.

[10] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 03-25-2008 at 09:19 AM

Prayers for both GAFCon and Lambeth can be found here and here.

[11] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 03-25-2008 at 09:27 AM

Liberal revisionist attendees to Lambeth do not have any reconcilitory motives in them. They want the conservatives there so the can push their agenda down throats. Noting Christian going on there....so why spend the money on something that is already DOA!

[12] Posted by One Day Closer on 03-25-2008 at 10:50 AM

I think that most reasserter bishops realize that the deck is stacked against them, and has been since liberalism seized control.  Therefore, I believe they’d be going into battle with one hand tied behind their backs if they attended Lambeth.  Should they surrender?  NO!  Should they seek counsel among themselves and find a way to continue to do Christ’s work separately if need be?  If it should prove necessary, YES!  Does it mean the reformation of Anglican Christianity?  I certainly hope so!  The “Second Anglican Reformation” has quite a ring to it.

[13] Posted by Cennydd on 03-25-2008 at 11:50 AM

Let your yes be yes and your no be no.

The listed GS leaders have said “no”, based on clearly disclosed “Road to Lambeth” criteria.  People who are not used to living a life of integrity (little “i") are astonished that they are sticking to their word.

[14] Posted by Going Home on 03-25-2008 at 12:49 PM

I think I could figure out pretty easily what it would take for these bishops to attend Lambeth.

Hint: it is not a letter.

wink

[15] Posted by tired on 03-25-2008 at 01:47 PM

++Akinola and ++Venebles and the rest not going to Lambeth made their statements and are sticking by them.  They are men of integrity.

The time for talking (and listening) is over...has been for at least 4 years.  There is a great divide that cannot be reconciled in the Anglican communion.  And Rowan isn’t enough of a man of God to put a line in the sand and say “enough - repent or you are out”.

[16] Posted by B. Hunter on 03-25-2008 at 04:07 PM

Since they know the reason the GS isn’t attending, I’m sure there’s also a letter going to Schori and her GCC imploring the Robinson consecrators to stay home so as to avoid fracturing the Communion - right?  I mean, the authors of this letter are strictly fair to the concerns of both sides - aren’t they?

I guess that second letter hasn’t made it into the press yet.

[17] Posted by Phil on 03-25-2008 at 04:18 PM

If it hasn’t, I wonder what’s taking so long?

[18] Posted by Cennydd on 03-26-2008 at 10:48 AM

Political animals, such as the TEc apparatchiki and their allies, believe in saying anything that may sound sweet to the ears of all, but at the same time actually doing what they wish.  This is in order to advance their Integrity.

Thus corrupted by their politics, they are truly amazed and brought up short, whenever they face someone who has true integrity and holds to their theology.

The honour of those who’s integrity gives them the strength of character to hold publically to a position under attack by Integrity, is simply beyond the comprehension of those who are pushing Integrity.

Sadly, I have now come to the conclusion that +Cantaur has entered the lists, wearing the colours of Integrity and has parked his own integrity somewhere, out of town.

[19] Posted by Scotsreb on 03-26-2008 at 04:55 PM

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.