Breaking from ACNS: First Invitations to Lambeth Go Out

Does arrogantly defying a direct and unanimous request of the primates constitute “exceptional circumstances”? What happened to the primates deciding?

so perhaps one or two invitations have been “withheld”. Probably VGR and perhaps the guy from Zimbabwe.

Is this enough?

KJS et al, appear to have been invited despite their rejection of Tanzania.

This should be a tipping point.

There does seem to be an inconsistency. If Bishops (NOT only in the USA as many CofE Bishops actually do support Gene Robinson and TEC in their stance) who support the progressive cause are invited, but not Gene himself, what justification can be made for this?

Perhaps the thinking is that both TEC and conservatives in the Global South will still be prepared to go should only a small number are excluded? I have my doubts, from both sides.

The operative term here does seem to be “very exceptional” circumstances.  At this point I would surmise that +Robinson, +Minns (+Bena?) have all been invited.  There is no doubt that the convening power of Lambeth is the archbishop’s.  Interesting that he does not see it as “legislative”.  For Rob Roy above, it appears we are still in a wait and see posture, but, if +Robinson gets one, it will be a strong signal to the GS that, on the face of it, ++Rowan has accepted the decision of the people of NH.  If +Minns gets one, it will appear that he has accepted the decision of +Akinola to consecrate a bishop for the church of Nigeria.  It will be interesting to see how AMiA bishops (and others operating outside provincial boundaries who were not approved by Lord Carey) will figure into the equation?

Archbishop Orombi stated that the Ugandan house of bishops have voted to not attend Lambeth if the U.S. bishops attend.

“I have to reserve the right to withhold or withdraw invitations from bishops whose appointment, actions or manner of life have caused exceptionally serious division or scandal within the Communion.”

SHADES OF B033~~~!  He must have liked that resolution! 
Of course, there are several archbishops, whose actions….. have caused serious division” 

This man should have been a tightrope walker, he’s very good at what he considers a balancing act..

Grannie Gloria

And as for “withdrawing” any invites, a bit of a hammer on Sept 30 huh?

The fact that he said that Lambeth is not a legislative body is significant.  It may mean that the primates’ council is the decision-making body, if he is being even remotely consistent with his desire that the Anglican Communion have a doctrinal core, as stated a week or so ago.  I do think he is being consistent at least in his own mind.

I certainly would agree that Lambeth does not seem like anything remotely close to a legislative event.  It’s just not set up to be that.  If Orombi does not go, I guess it will not be the end of the line, because Lambeth is mostly just an episcopal jamboree, the ABC is implying.  However, if the primates are not allowed to eject or demote TEC at some point post-Sep. 30, that will be the end of the line for some provinces, I think.

I’d expect +VGR, +Murphy & +Minns may not be invited, as the ABC would prefer no waves that could farther upset the AC. There already is fun with just inviting the bishop of London & Suffolk of the UK, so opposing view will be represented, but +++RW character seems to desire conflict avoidance, so +VGR on one side, boarder crossing on other, but I could see +Lyons being invited, since he is not resident in the USA.

(BTW - look at us! This is almost like the Anglican Oscars or something   )

What a tease. Who???

We should now expect to hear modest, indirect hints from U.S. bishops who are invited. Hard left: “As I consider accepting my Lambeth invitation, I must consider whether brother Gene got one. If he’s not invited, I must stand in solidarity with him.” Middle/muddle: “I’ve accepted the Lambeth invitation because we need to have as many voices at the table (tm) as possible. Too bad about Gene.” (Real) Windsor bishops: “Since the Bishop of NH has been invited, I….....????”

I wonder what “the first set of invitations” means. Could that be 100 invitations or 798? Inviting the clear majority of bishops from around the world will not be controversial.

But to invite the TEC bishops now, before Sept. 30, is indeed probably a tipping point. Those invitations would tell TEC “You have won; it doesn’t matter what your response is to the Dar Es Salaam communique”. I would be surprised if the ABC did this given his stated intention to avoid making public decisions for as long as possible. It would also be a curiously indirect way to trigger the schism; the real issue (TEC’s apostacy) is not the motion on the floor.

The revisionist blogs and the ENS will trumpet the invitations to the Presiding Bishop and other TEC bishops as soon as the invitations are received. Expect rather ugly gloating. If TEC bishops have been invited in this round, we won’t have to wait long to hear about it.

According to UK news media its Robinson and Minns who haven’t been invited.
I can’t see that pleasing either side - there seems no indication that anyone else has been excluded (hence the ‘one or two cases’)

MM—How about a link to the news?

sorry, there isn’t one to the UK source, but try this

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/5/22/apworld/20070522200614&sec=apworld

RE: “Coming to the Lambeth Conference does not commit you to accepting the position of others as necessarily a legitimate expression of Anglican doctrine and discipline, or to any action that would compromise your conscience or the integrity of your local church.”

What a weasely statement here.  “Coming to the Lambeth Conference” as anything more than a “visitor” or “guest” commits you to being a part of the Anglican Communion, for heaven’s sake.  Which therefore commits you to far more than “accepting the position of others”.

It’s confirmed.  “One or two” people will not be invited, at most.  And folks, you are dreaming if you think any Primates of the Global South won’t be there.  Why?  Because they haven’t given up on the AC.

Which means there is no discipline for the AC.

I’ll be visiting churches soon that are far far far away from Anglicanism.

“Robinson may be invited to attend the Lambeth Conference as a guest, but Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is not contemplating inviting Minns, Kearon said.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/22/AR2007052200411.html

MM’s link above states “Bishops V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire and Martyn Minns of the breakaway Convocation of Anglicans in North America were not among more than 850 bishops invited, said Canon Kenneth Kearon, secretary-general of the Anglican Communion.”

Well, this is just making the spouses activities easier to handle.  Don’t invite Gene, you don’t have to deal with his partner.  +Minns gets ‘sacrificed’ as the quid pro quo.

I admit that I am confused as to why these invitations are going out to US bishops prior to September 30.  That seems to muddy the already muddy waters of how we do communion.  The Instruments of Communion appear, at least at this point, to be playing different music pieces.  It is not communion that I hear but cacophony.  Sigh.

Question of inviting Minns is key—which is why I’m disturbed by the use of “appointment” in the letter up there right next to “manner of life.”  So a question for the historians:  have missionary bishops traditionally been invited to Lambeth?  And general question:  if Minns and Bena are not invited, does that push Akinola into not attending?

Why do I think that the better strategy would have been to have found the poorest orthodox diocese in the Global South and ask to come under that authority?  That might have led to a very difficult conversation at Goodwin Proctor partnership meetings.

I agree with Matt’s comment that the Archbishop’s “one or two” comment would suggest VGR and the Kunonga only are being excluded.  Bishop Gray’s highly placed source was correct.

Sarah, I wouldnt be so sure that Archbishops Orombi and Akinola, and their Bishops attend.  How many will follow them, I don’t know.  But I have never known +Orombi to fudge, and he went out of his way to reiterate the decision of his Bishops in the recent interview.

It will, ironically, be many among the US orthodox thinkers/strategists that privately and publicly urge them to reconsider and attend, arguing that in their absence the liberals will have a hay day.  Instead, it would be much better if the orthodox in the US, inside and out, would get fully behind a boycott or alternative meeting, perhaps conditioned on a final passing of the US compliance deadline.  Make it a big deal, require Primates to choose.

Correction—after seeing the article it is even more sad. Open the door for inviting Robinson as a guest—then exclude that possibility for Minns.

Even if I discount this to take into account Kearon’s bias, it demonstrates cowardness and lack of conviction.

Someone should remind Cantuar of something which Lady Thatcher said:  “Consensus is the absence of leadership.”  He is illustrating that point rather well.

T19 has a NYT article up saying that it’s two +VRG & +Minns:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Britain-Anglicans.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

I take too long, I see Brian from T19 beat me to it ... 

What will be interesting to see are the reactions from:

1. Liberal TEC Bishops

2. ++Akinola to the official non-recognition of CANA

and

3. The VA. courts to the fact that CANA is not an Anglican entity.

I admit that I am confused as to why these invitations are going out to US bishops prior to September 30.  That seems to muddy the already muddy waters of how we do communion.

  True, but I do like the comment within the invitation:

At this point, and with the recommendations of the Windsor Report particularly in mind, I have to reserve the right to withhold or withdraw invitations from bishops whose appointment, actions or manner of life have caused exceptionally serious division or scandal within the Communion.

If I were a revisionist bishop, I wouldn’t be performing or authorizing any SSBs about now.  And I would be thinking twice about my votes in the upcoming HoB meeting.  The word “withdraw” is the key word here- either come around enough so the GS can sit in the same room with you, or you may find yourself on the outside.  Or, maybe TEC will finally openly declare that they will walk apart, and if VGR doesn’t get a seat, they won’t go.

I’d say that 1. will depend very much on Gene Robinson himself and how he reacts.

But I think it may be more about the general invitation to those who support Gene which may rile Akinola and Co. as well as the decision about CANA

I think the non-invitations were really quite predictable…

If it is true…that VGR and MM are excluded…then the twin poles of the debate have been clearly identified and rebuked.

VGR is the action that broke the ‘truth’...
MM is the action that broke the ‘unity’...

TRUTH AND UNITY.  The ABC may be trying to sacrifice the ‘ends’ to save the middle.

About the AMiA…I don’t know…any news there??

DHR

The timing of this along with the failure to include Minns would seem to have a negative impact on CANA’s position in the Virginia property cases. It also seems like it may be a long haul for those who left TEC for CANA to get the recognition they want, and possibly the recognition many thought they already had.

RE: “The timing of this along with the failure to include Minns would seem to have a negative impact on CANA’s position in the Virginia property cases.”

Not really—as has been stated continuously, the property arguments are going to be made based on Virginia property law and have nothing to do with who is in or who is out of an international body.

RE: “It also seems like it may be a long haul for those who left TEC for CANA to get the recognition they want, and possibly the recognition many thought they already had.”

There’s good news here, though, and that is that those who departed TEC for CANA thought the risk of not being recognized by the communion was well worth being out of TEC.  They had already said “you know, it’s just not important enough to be in the communion”—as opposed to what I and others still in TEC have been stating.

Just two different value systems, and so with that in mind, I don’t think it will hurt all that much for those in CANA.

Folks, on Martin Minns, it isn’t over until it is over.  Should a Primatial Vicar emerge between now and Lambeth, and should +Minns put himself (hopefully with ++Peter’s blessing) under said PV, who knows, things might change.  Also, should 70% of the HoB tell the ABC where to go in September, things will change.  I can’t imagine that ++Rowan didn’t do some shrewd negotiating before sending out the invites.  And he withheld to himself the right to add or withdraw invitations as time goes on.  By extending the invitations now, he has held out the carrot to the HoB.  This preempts the argument that some would have put forth that ++Rowan might withhold invitations from some of them even if they went along with him on Windsor come September.  This way, the fence sitters will be included if the acquiesce, but those who go off and do their own thing after Sept. 30 may have their invitations withdrawn.

“as has been stated continuously, the property arguments are going to be made based on Virginia property law and have nothing to do with who is in or who is out of an international body”

I think you are mistaken. CANA has banked its claim to the property on being a member of the AC, recognized by the AC and a split off from TEC under applicable Virginia property law.  Without the recognition of the AC, the congregants will have merely left TEC to join another church and in such cases Virginia property law will allow TEC to keep their property to do with as TEC determines.

I think placing hope in a PV or Sept 30 is misplaced. This action of sending invitations after Tanzania Communique and schedule, after the HoB first response but before Sept. 30 is a powerful indication on the ABC future action towards TEC. I do think SSB & consecration of any future GLBT bishops might “pause” as per ++KJS’s words, but I seriously do not expect too much action from Canterbury. ++Akinola & ++Orombi might split off before then, but that’s probably a risk the ABC has accounted for in his planning process.

I would think that the AMiA bishops would be in the same boat as +Minns—whatever the destination of that boat might be. 

There is a distinction between being recognized by the AC and being invited to Lambeth.  The AC still recognizes the diocese of NH.  There is plenty of documentation (such as the DES communique) that the AC recognizes CANA.

Well, well, well…...This should be interesting. I have heard that several TECusaCORP bishops have said they would not attend if +VGR wasn’t invited. Several GS bishops have said that they would not attend if TECusaCORP bishops were invited. And we haven’t even gotten to September 30 yet.

the snarkster

There is plenty of documentation (such as the DES communique) that the AC recognizes CANA.

The communique mentions AMiA & CANA, it does not recognizes them. Granted that’s a huge step for AMiA from ++Carey’s denouncement, but the mention does not legitimize them. (A step but not full communion).

How early do these invitations usually go out?  Is this just a stirring of the pot?

Hosea,
Whatever we assess the probability of a good outcome to be, we must remain hopeful.  If the ABC has not done some careful negotiating with the GS, this is going to blow up in his face and the AC will dissolve before his eyes.  I hope that he indeed prepared everyone for this before the release of the invitations, and that ++Akinola and ++Orombi and others are on board with whatever the scheme is.  Of course, there are any number of things that could go wrong in the coming months that would derail even the best plans and intentions.  There are all kinds of dark scenarios.  But I HOPE that we see a good outcome.  Otherwise, I may have to go to Nashotah, sneak off to find a continuing bishop willing to ordain me, and start my own church.

I think what we need to remember is that RW’s idea of a good outcome is to keep as many at the table and within the Communion as possible, and any decision will have been taken with that in mind.

I do not know what to think, but if true, it is invidious for VGR and Minns to learn of their invite status and its reasoning through one of Canon Kearon’s chats with the press.  Better it had been faced up to in writing.  Timing could not have been less helpful for the Va position if it had been deliberate.

Timing could not have been less helpful for the Va position if it had been deliberate.

Some others think it’s a straight property law question, and this doesn’t matter.  If it does, though, doesn’t this prove there is a split in the denomination?  It might not be over yet, but it sure seems like a split.

Pageantmaster: Now you’ve done it. I have this mental image of +VGR standing by the mailbox like Charlie Brown waiting for a valentine, looking in vain for the invitation that will never come.

the snarkster

The Communique was not at all unsupportive of interventions. It speaks clearly to the need for them and not simply in the one para that recognizes CANA and the AMiA. The refusal to invite Minns will probably mean the unraveling of the Communion.

This will be especially true if KJS and the American bishops who rejected Tanzania will be invited as well.

Let’s hope this is a warning shot at those bishops suggesting that they get on board by Sept 30th. If it is not, and I have NO confidence that it is, then all is lost.

I suspect this will simply be a replay of the last ACC meeting, in which those revisionists not invited showed up anyway as gate-crashing “observers.”  VGR can’t lose this opportunity to milk his victimhood.  He’ll be there, one way or another, in order to court the press.

I also find it interesting that the ABC virtually ignores the DC, and Dar Communique in this invitation and goes right back to the raw WR as it stood unapproved by the primates and its more negative view of interventions.

The ABC is setting himself apart from the GS primates.

If it is not, I have NO confidence that it is, then all is lost.

No, no, no, Matt, you’re supposed to be the optimist & Sarah or myself more of the pessimist. You’re getting the roles all mixed up.

All is still not lost, even in if worse case scenario plays out in September. The Lord is still in control! It took a long time to get here, it may take an equal amount of time to get back. The Lord may have a path we do not see from this spot in history. Maybe God’s remnant is not as pure as He will bring through these trials.

We should continue to work, but the Lord has called us to faithfulness above all else (though despair does look like a very attractive option frequently [*wink*]).

Hosea,

Of course I do not mean “all is lost” as in “Christendom” but I do think we are coming close to the point where all is lost in terms of Canterbury based Anglicanism.

The ABC showed himself to be untrustworthy in Tanzania, he has given us further evidence of that now.

I await word from Abuja

C.B., I think you’re wrong on your analysis.  The Virginia law references a division in a denomination; I expect they will construe that to mean ECUSA.  The Anglican Communion will not figure prominently in the equation.

I don’t know, Matt—note that ++Williams did say “withhold or withdraw”: thus at least leaving the door open to withdrawing invitations.  My sense is that Williams, and indeed the Primates as put forward in the Tanzania Communique (and ++Orombi in his recent interview), want to give ECUSA one more opportunity to “walk together” with the rest of the Communion—thus, the ultimatum and the Sept. 30th deadline, and Williams’s upcoming visit this September.  I imagine that the possibility of dis-inviting those bishops who choose to reject Communion guidance is being contemplated.  Note that there are two Windsor bishops meetings this summer.  I assume that there will be ample opportunity over the coming months for the ECUSA bishops to make their minds known: some with the Communion, and some (a la Prof. Grieb’s address to the HoB) choosing to “fast for a season.”  This actually seems very intelligent of Williams, to my mind.  If the ECUSA HoB says this September that it has decided to “fast for a season” from the Communion, then Williams comes off looking golden: he did the polite thing, gave them a chance, invited them, but in essence they decided not to go.  And so he regretfully accepts their actions as disinviting themselves from Lambeth.  But of course, the Windsor bishops will have (and already have) made it clear that they intend to live within the bounds of Communion.  And so, they accept their invitations to Lambeth.  This I think would be a situation that most of the GS will be able to live with—hence, they’ll show up.

This is all armchair prognosticating on my part, but I actually think this is quite good news.  I may be wrong, but I think we have reason to be hopeful right now.

Jordan,

TEC has already rejected the stipulations of Dar when they rejected the pastoral scheme. The AbC is treating rebels and heretics as if they have room to negotiate terms. And, moreover, he is treating them in the same way that he treats CANA which completely ignores all the primatial communiques since Windsor’s release in 2004. This is telling.

This is a sign that the AC itself is beginning to lose last of the three marks of the Church, discipline.

If Kate Schori and company haven’t caused “serious division or scandal,” then I don’t know what it is.  If after all these years of meetings, persecution of the faithful, communiques, etc. nothing is done except disinviting two or three bishops from Lambeth, then maybe it is time for the communion to split up.
As I’ve said before, if you don’t care enough about truth to discipline, then you don’t care enough about truth.

I am curious as to the status of +Bena.

Am I missing something here? Like did we fast forward to 10/1? What happens between now and then is infinitely more significant than these invitations which can be withdrawn at any time. What we do know is that the GS, almost without exception, will not attend Lambeth if Schori, a non reformed TEC and or VGR are there. Period. Is there anyone out there that thinks ++Orombi, ++Akinola, ++Gomez and the rest have told a Schori? That they will go back on their refusal to work with TEC as it now is, to overlook Mrs. Schori’s amazing latest encounter with the truth to placate +++Williams? I suggest that ABC simply will not exchange 75% of the Communion for the likes of Bennison, Bruno, VGR, and Schori. I agree with TJ. +++Rowan has, or plans to, cook a deal with the GS prior to 9/30. The deal: TEC do what it was told to do or throw the invites in the trash. We know what the Primates want. I think TEC better be ready. I’m pretty sure the GS is.

It’s interesting to me, in a tragic way, that in the end both the fedcons and the neocons have ended up with the same outcome. I don’t think the outcome would have been any different with subtle tweaks in the strategy or timing of either group. While I agree, technically, with Sarah’s disappointment at Ft Worth’s movements, they really have to take care of themselves, and “strengthen the things which remain”.

It has been my experience that in difficult negotiations or relationship problems, poker games, etc, you are strongest when you know what you are prepared to sacrifice, regardless of predictions of what your friends or enemies might do. I find that when I am holding on, taking hits, hoping that someone else will do the right thing in the end, that I am actually enabling their behavior. It becomes codependant and enabling behavior on my part. It is better to act with decision and principle, rather than make threats hoping that you can leverage someone else into doing what you think is right. Most of the time, leverage only works for a short time and you never have trust.

At times it is difficult to tell the character of another, but over time it becomes clear and further delay only delays what has become inevitable.

As Matt said, we await word from Abuja. Akinola et al has just as painful of a choice as the American orthodox, but the Americans need to prepare for the worst at this point. I suspect that Williams realizes that Abuja may call his hand by walking out of the meeting in 08 or perhaps after that, and has already decided that he is willing to pay that price. In that sense, Williams is very strong because he already knows what he wants and is prepared to sacrifice the communion to get it.

For C.B.  On the Va and property thing.  I doubt that VA or TEC would argue anything about CANA being in or out of “constituent membership” in the communion.  It is not in TEC’s best interest to argue, or imply,  that any authority higher than the General Convention has any power in the US.  My assumption is that +Duncan et alia will argue that, assuming that the preamble of TEC’s constitution is judicable (big question), that in accordance with the highest judicatory in the denomination (the primates in the GS reading), TEC has violated its constitution and the rump remaining, the Network dioceses, are the legitimate “episcopal” churches in the US.  If TEC were to argue that the ABC has already said CANA is not a constituent part of the Anglican Communion based on the ABC’sLambeth invitation, it might be giving credence to the argument that TEC acknowledges the existence of something above itself in the hierarchical model, the ABC.  I can’t see that it will want to argue that such an entity exists because, if it does, it will be judicially es topped from arguing in other litigation the opposite.  Need more “scribe” input here.  I don’t have a JD, just their genes.

We did not fast foreward. Lambeth is the ABC’s show. He alone decides who comes and who does not. He has, obviously, shown his hand. He has not been favorably disposed toward the primatial decisions of the past 3 years and he is not going to give out invitations in a way that is consistent with them.

He wants to go back to the raw Windsor Report and use that as the tableau to reverse the disciplinary trend of the last several primate’s meetings. He will go along with the majority when he is with them, but in this case, when he has the authority to determine things, he shows that his heart has not been in it all along.

TEC is not going to face any discipline so long as the ABC has any power to thwart it.

I read Jordan Hylden’s comment after writing this; I hope he’s right.

But, I lean strongly to Sarah’s position.  What this apparently means, being done in advance of September 30th – so far in advance that we can still flirt with the fantasy that the Pittsburgh Pirates won’t lose 100 games again this year – is that there is no coherence to the Anglican Communion.  It is in a state of anarchy.

Just three months ago – closer in time than September 30th – the Primates of this “communion” (it’s time to start putting that in scare quotes) hammered out a very hard won package asking ECUSA to do specific things, by a specific time.  What’s more, this was more or less the third or fourth time ECUSA had been asked to do those things over a period of years.

Overnight, Rowan Williams appears to have rendered it all a waste of time.  By removing the last discipline point in a long line of largely missed ones, he cut every single primate who worked, and prayed, and fought within the process at Dar-es-Salaam off at the knees.

If you are an orthodox Anglican in the United States, you seem to have now been abandoned.  For the crime of standing in the middle of historic Anglicanism, you have now been read out of the Communion.  The thin and wobbly umbrella being held over your head against the storm of bitter and angry ECUSA institutionalists just blew away.  Or, more accurately, Williams knocked it out of Peter Akinola’s hands when he wasn’t looking.  If invitations are rescinded later, and the umbrella is sheepishly handed back to Akinola, we are all still going to be very wet, very angry and much worse for wear.

With all the flying hoo-hah around the DeS meeting I cannot find the press announcement I am wanting. I may be imagining it, but I am rather certain the Sept. 30 date was chosen specifically because:

1. The Primates wanted to give TEC as much time as possible (i.e., pushing the date out as far as they could)

2. Invitations to Lambeth needed to go out before the end of the year and there was a dependency of TEC’s invitations upon thier requested response to the DeS communique.

Anyone else recall that?

If I remember rightly, does this mean the ABC has voided the agreement to wait until after Sept 30? Does this mean the other Primates are off the hook, if they choose to be, in awaiting Sept 30 before making any pronouncements about TEC? Seems to me if ABC can thumb his nose at an agreement he entered into, that lets everyone walk away from the agreement without staining their honor and promised word.

Then again, I may just be imagining this.

I have no confidence that the ABC has negotiated a deal with the GS or that his invitations are part of a maneuver to coax TEC’s bishops to submit on Sept. 30. Of course, that explanation is possible. These invitations are a procedural move that create bureaucratic facts on the ground. In this, the ABC’s invitations are like the report he submitted to the Primates’ meeting saying that TEC had complied. That report was defeated with great difficulty, as widely reported.

I cannot understand why the ABC would choose to align with the rotting, dying husk of TEC, whose every feature evidences spiritual death. I cannot.

But perhaps we have to accept that the ABC is aligning with TEC. He chooses,for reasons I also do not understand, to lead by bureaucratic, procedural, and legalistic measures, rather than by simply saying that he agrees with TEC on the merits. This is poor leadership for our times.

If these reports are correct, the Communion will disintegrate, starting here in the US and later throughout the world.

Just think of all the rogues who will be there:  Bennison, Bruno, Smith, Howard, et al.

I just had to delete my post per the warning.  Where can I go to whine and freak out?

I am interested to see which 850 bishops were invited.  I will admit that I don’t know the protocol here.  Do they invite anyone with a pointy hat (with the 2 exceptions noted so far)?  Ordinaries and notables only?  Retired bishops?  My guess would be that if you throw in every living bishop (suffragans and retired included), TEC has over 300 all by itself.
How about +Cox, does he get an invitation?

Actions speak louder than words. ABC’s actions support TEC, and always have. Even though his words at times appear conciliatory, his ACTIONS speak otherwise. We are disrespecting him by ignoring his actions and trying to read into his words what he will NOT do.

Other than his attempt to declare TEC in compliance at Tanzania, I generally don’t regard him as a bad person. He has been quite clear, over and over, that he wants to keep as many people talking for as long as is possible, by any means necessary. This is unnacceptable to the orthodox, and I hope to the GS.

People are way too confident about Akinola et al NOT being at Lambeth 08. I, for one, don’t think a boycot, threatened or otherwise, would change ABoC’s resolve. In an odd way, that could play into a decision by Akinola et al to remain in the communion for longer, hoping for an improvement.

It seems logical to conclude that the AMiA bishops will not be invited but no mention of them in the press does make you wonder if they fall in a different category in the ABC’s eyes.  Perhaps, his reasoning goes, +Minns’ consecration can be construed as a ‘presenting issue’ in the current crisis, whereas AMiA is, by contrast, an ‘old issue’ and more deeply ensconced in the affairs of the Rwandan province.  I believe that +Chuck Murphy met with the ABC in Lambeth palace (a year ago or so).  It bolstered AMiA’s expectations of invitations alongside the other Rwandan bishops because +Murphy and other AMiA reps were (apparently) recognized by ++Rowan as Rwandan bishops.

Under this provision, there are a small number of bishops to whom invitations are not at this stage being extended whilst Dr Williams takes further advice. 

  I am just guessing here, but could it be that Cn. Kearon only mentioned 2 specifically because he was only ASKED about 2 specifically.  Might it indeed be that there will be some other empty mailboxes at the end of the week, pending a closer look at such things as diocesan approval of SSBs or those who have directly stated that they have no intention of abiding by B033.  Not to mention, of course, the occasional outright heretics who crop up now and again here and abroad, Spong, for instance.

EmilyH - It’s referred to as arguing in the alternative. I was positing that the argument concerning the AC being the overarching religious structure to which both CANA and TEC belong would be one that CANA would assert. TEC would, of course, first argue that in the first instance the AC is not the denomination to be acknowledged -it is not like the Roman Catholic Church for instance, but in the alternative even if the court sees merit in CANA’s argument, CANA is not recognized by the AC.  It will be interesting to see CANA’s initial briefs this summer, to see where it has come out on how best to persuade the Court of it’s claim to the property.

There is a rumor floating about that Bishop Robinson Cavalcanti will not be invited…if this is true, we have a whole new ballgame…this not only offends Nigeria but the Southern Cone as well.

Does anyone have any hard info on +Cavalcanti?

A link perhaps?

Matt—

Actually, I do think I’m on firm ground here.  Listen again to ++Orombi’s interview.  He said that the Sept. 30th deadline was meant to give ECUSA another opportunity to walk together, and if they did not do so, then they would be of their own volition choosing to walk apart.  And ++Williams’s language did say: “withhold or withdraw.”  Look at +Robinson’s just-released statement.  Obviously he is not happy.  And neither will be his allies.  This means that a portion (likely a majority) of the HoB will decide to reject the Primates’ Tanzania requests in September.  Then recall Prof. Grieb’s presentation to the HoB—a voluntary “five-year fast” from the councils of Communion, until such time as the rest of the Communion decides to accept +Robinson and ECUSA as an equal.  That likely means that their crowd will decide to disinvite themselves from Lambeth—“if Gene isn’t going, then I’m not going either.”  But the Windsor bishops will. 

This is the carrot period of diplomacy.  The ECUSA bishops really are being given a chance to turn things around on Sept. 30: even ++Orombi says as much.  And if they don’t, the Tanzania communique spoke of consequences.  ++Williams said “withhold or withdraw.”  They have until Sept. 30th—of course they’re being sent invitations now.  That says nothing about whether they’ll choose to accept them by their actions this September.  I imagine ++Williams will make that very clear on his visit to the HoB.

(P.S.—I know I’m sort of Mr. Sunshine around here, but really: I think this is simply the most reasonable judgment to make.  No need to bring out the sackcloth and ashes just yet.)

Jordan, I understand why the deadline of September 30th was given. My point is that the Episcopal Church has already rejected the Communique. The ABC is simply acting as if that has not happened.

He will also, I have no doubt, after September 30th, act in accordance with the Subgroup report and not withdraw his invitation to KJS, Bruno, et al. That invitations have already been extended to these bishops is a failure of leadership and discipline.

And the invitation left unextended to +Minns (and possibly Cavalcanti) is utterly inconsistent with every primatial communique since 2004. Kearon, you’ll note, is very very happy.

C.B.  You and I are in agreement as to how the Va property thing might go down. and how TEC is likely to argue.  I had said +Duncan et al. would argue that the highest tier of the hierarchy was the Communion and the Network was its rea; “constituent” member based on the preamble.  It will be interesting to see the briefs.  Does anybody have access to the filings?

It seems logical to conclude that the AMiA bishops will not be invited but no mention of them in the press does make you wonder if they fall in a different category in the ABC’s eyes.  Perhaps, his reasoning goes, +Minns’ consecration can be construed as a ‘presenting issue’ in the current crisis

  I think we might construe +Minn’s consecration as no big thing (nobody made a particular issue of it at the time, at least publicly), it was his public installation that was a presenting issue.  Therefore, the AMiA bishops are more acceptable- they have been out there for years, but definitely lower profile.  In a similar sense we KNOW that there are several homosexual bishops in the church, and have been for years.  Homosexuality per se is not the presenting issue, with VGR, it is the pride he takes in it and the fact that he is openly flaunting the violation the sacrament of marriage and equating his behavior with proper Christian behavior that makes it an issue.

Let’s see if Akinola remains silent.  If he does, that tends to support Jordan’s argument, in my mind.

But, I’m on record as saying Martyn Minns would be invited, so that’s what my thoughts are worth!

Well, per the news posted on the other thread, I stand corrected on speculations on the AMiA bishops.  They are not going.

RE: “I had said +Duncan et al. would argue that the highest tier of the hierarchy was the Communion and the Network was its rea; “constituent” member based on the preamble.”

Actually, Duncan won’t be involved in the Virginia lawsuits—and after years of progressives like yourself screeching that the hierarchy only extends to the General Convention of the Episcopal church, it’s a bit rich for you to now be hoping that the hierarchy now extends beyond that and that this will have an effect on the VA suits.

Nope—I’ve been on record for years now.  The Anglican Communion situation will have no ultimate bearing on the disposition of property within the USA, either negatively or positively.  It will be decided based on state property laws.

But does this mean that folks like EmilyH are now concerned about whether state property laws will allow the Diocese of Virginia to keep the parish’s property and are now desperately grasping at Anglican Communion theory?  I find that most interesting!  ; > )

As I understand it, Matt, +Minns isn’t a diocesan bishop—he’s a missionary bishop.  Read the Living Church article.  ++Carey and the Primates’ meeting at Oporto decided that the AMiA bishops weren’t to be invited to Lambeth.  So, as Canon Kearon explained, the decision not to invite +Minns follows directly from this previous decision of the Primates.  Diocesan bishops get invited; missionary bishops don’t across the board.

So, really, the most serious decision here is not to invite a diocesan bishop: +Robinson.  The fact that there are, it seems, only three such diocesan bishops not invited—Robinson, plus Mugabe’s pal +Kunonga and one other unnamed—actually looks like rather a big step. 

So I think.

yes Jordan, and Oporto was a long long time ago and CANA is not the AMiA. Again, the ABC is ignoring everything since 2004. The primatial direction of the last three years has been toward the discipline of TEC and the regularization of intervening bodies.

Emily H-

Virginia Complaint

[url=“http://www.trurochurch.org/files/TruroChurchReportofCongregationalDetermination.pdf”>Motion to Consolidate</a>

<a ]Truro Church Report of Congregational Determination[/url]

Truro Church Petition for Approval of Report of Congregational Determination

Anne ; thats because the ABC does not want to throw anyone out - because his priority is to hold the thing together as long as he can.

This is largely because of the possible effect any split will have on the Church of England.

“Listen again to ++Orombi’s interview.  He said that the Sept. 30th deadline was meant to give ECUSA another opportunity to walk together, and if they did not do so, then they would be of their own volition choosing to walk apart.  And ++Williams’s language did say: “withhold or withdraw.” “

Mr. Hylden, you are reading ++Orombi and ++Williams statements together as if they are acting in concert. They are not.  The ACB’s act of the invitation after the preemptive rejection of the Communique by the HOB makes it clear that they will not be barred if they do not reverse course in September.  It is also inconsistent with the one of the basic premises behind the Sept. 30 deadline, which was to ensure that invitations could be issued to Lambeth between Sept. 30 and the end of the year. 

It is grasping at straws to believe that the invitations to TEC’s non-Windsor Bishops will be withdrawn. 

They don’t need my advice, but I hope that the GS leaders will swiftly and clearly say that they will not attend a Lambeth involving TEC Bishops unless TEC changes course by the deadline. 

It is disappointing to lose the political battle for the ABC’s favor.  But we can remain assured that the War has already been won.

that was me (matt) from anne’s account

Actually, the most significant statement here may be that Lambeth is “not a formal Synod or Council of the Communion.”  In addition to being strike four or five against Anglicanism’s catholicity, it undercuts the significance of Lambeth 1.10.  This is shaping up as quite a day’s work for Rowan Williams.

Phil, you nailed it.

I concur Phil.  This seems to place greater weight on the ACC and Primates’ meetings - re: Lambeth 1.10, at least the Primates have affirmed it as communion teaching (has the ACC?).

For CANA and AMiA, one could argue (though I disagree) that their bishops are without settled jurisdiction.  I wonder if this is the common thread with Cavalcanti - even though he is a diocesan, his province does not view him as such.  That said, this does appear to work against the mind of the primates, the DC, and DES.  Perhaps there will be a primatial correction after Sept. 30th.

I know this is going to get lost among all the other comments here, but I’ve yet to figure out how to alert our blog management on significant news. So here goes:

“We have reached a point where, one way or another, there will be a parting of ways.  I pray that all of us, regardless of where we stand, will treat each other with grace and charity as we plan for our futures,” said Bishop Duncan.

Posted today (May 22). Traced it down via the new T19 web site.

http://www.pgh.anglican.org/news/local/leadershipretreat052207

“We are facing something that we never thought we would face.  We thought we would prevail.  We thought that what we believed and what the majority of the Communion believed would be provided for,” said Bishop Duncan.

The despair is palpable.

we are all still going to be very wet, very angry and much worse for wear.

I have rarely seen anything more fierce than a wet and angry cat. I wonder if this applies to Anglicans as well.

No need to dispair. Just accept that God is sovereign and He has allowed this to happen and he can—indeed will—provide greater blessings than we can imagine if we get aligned with His will.

It had been a precondition of its calling that the Conference should not regard itself as a pan-Anglican Synod, with legislative powers, but rather as an advisory body; though in the event it emphasised that “unity in faith and discipline will be best maintained among the several branches of the Anglican Communion by due and canonical subordination of the synods of the several branches to the higher authority of a synod or synods above them”. Whatever its intended significance, as Owen Chadwick has noted, “Meetings start to gather authority if they exist and are seen not to be a cloud of hot air and rhetoric. It was impossible that the leaders of the Anglican Communion should meet every ten years and not start to gather respect; and to gather respect is slowly to gather influence, and influence is on the road to authority”. From its inception, the Lambeth Conference has proved to be a powerful vehicle for the expression of a concept central to Anglican ecclesiology, the collegiality of the bishops.

Hmm, can I square Windsor with Williams?  Above is Windsor on Lambeth Conference.

I see lots of speculation, here and on TitusOneNine, that the ‘I might withdraw invitations later’ language may be intended as a threat to US Episcopal ‘Church’ bishops that unless they straighten up and fly right, they will not be invited to Lambeth.

This seems to me to be wrongheaded.  Had Williams desired to send such a message, he could have done so in no uncertain terms by, for example, saying that he was holding several invitations pending 1 October.  He could have done this even by delaying the mailing of any invitations whatsoever until then.

He chose not to do so.  Why?

By sending out the invitations as he has, he has set a course for the full acceptance of the entire TEC/ECUSA episcopate—all but one—at Lambeth, and by those attending.  The acceptance has already been accomplished; now all Williams need do is—nothing.  Robinson, by failing to step down in the manner of Jeffrey John, has committed a faux pas against British sensibilities by attracting so much negative attention that the Christians within the Church of England and elsewhere threatened to leave or otherwise cause trouble.  Robinson is thus a convenient token sacrifice in the service of Williams’ overarching ecclesiolatry.  Williams’ message, his overall message, which echoes thunderously around the global Communion with this news, is this:  do not mess with the institution.  This disinvitation of one apostate ‘bishop’ and—how many do CANA and AMiA have altogether, six?—Christian ones sends a message that I think we must recognise as coming straight from Williams’ heart.

Note, also, the novel characterisation of this forthcoming Lambeth Conference as a time of reflection (read:  the latest episode in the eternal cycle of ‘listening’), rather than of action.  Already, Lambeth 2008 is being constructed as a means of buying (yet more) time, deferring action, and holding out just enough possibility of a solution to avoid a wholesale walkout by the Global South—maybe.

You may recall that many months ago, Louie Crew of the TEC/ECUSA Diocese of Newark called as bluff Archbishop Peter Akinola’s threats of a walkout—characterising these as mere hot wind, and alluding to Archbishop Akinola’s ethnic heritage as one that commonly gives rise to unfulfilled promises of consequences.  It now appears that Williams has called Akinola on this.

Precedent strongly suggests—but does not infallibly predict—that Peter Akinola and the other Christiam primates will cave in on this.  Already Williams can take great comfort and hope in the retreat of the Christian global south primates from the Kigali Statement, and the near-acceptance of Williams’ ‘TEC/ECUSA have complied; all is well’ assessment spewed forth at Dar es Salaam.  Williams has called Akinola’s statement as a bluff not just once by the non-invitation of Martyn Minns, but twice, in that Akinola has gone on record as saying that he will not attend Lambeth 2008 if it is just going to be an ineffectual discussion-session.  Today’s news brings word that Williams has told Akinola:  ‘(1) Your bishop is not welcome in my Communion; and (2) Lambeth 2008 WILL be another specious episcopal gab-fest, your protestations notwithstanding.  Take it or leave it, Peter.’

The ball is now squarely in Akinola’s court—if there be any of those.  Here is hoping it is not dropped.

I think Africanized is correct. Williams has said take it or leave it to Akinola. He is prepared to undermine the admittedly weak will of the primates by continuing to invite whoever he wishes. I don’t think Williams is so much manuevering as he is expressing his heart. It is not a threat, it is an announcement by Williams.

I don’t think that Akinola really wants to be leader of a rival AC. If he did, he would not have worked so hard to hold it together at Tanzania. However, the undisciplined AC that we now have is no longer worth sacrificing for, and Akinola has to answer to his own church. I say this as one who is at heart a communion conservative.

The truly long view on this is that IF Anglicanism is to survive, and a big part of its survival is the survival of the Primatial model of authority, Akinola will need to start a competing orthodox AC. I don’t know if it can survive in North America and I’m not going to leave my Presbyterian church to go back to Anglicanism during my children’s lifetime, but perhaps in 20 years or so…...

Rowan talks a lot about not being an Anglican “Pope” and not wanting to act apart from the Primates, but with this one letter he’s singlehandedly undermined everything that the Primates have decided over the past three years. He’s given ECUSA carte blanche.

The September 30th deadline has become irrelevant.

It’s clear that the Network will not receive any support from Rowan.

The only hope of the Network dioceses at this point is simply to withdraw from ECUSA en masse and let the international structures catch up later. Remaining within ECUSA at this point will result in certain atrophy.

I think that the invites and non-invites - all of them should have been deferred until after September 30.  There are too many fundamental issues at stake and critically important meetings (The Windsor Bishops and ABC w. ECUSA) that will take place between now and September 30.  To make the invitation decisions now is to further embroil the AC with politicing that muddies the waters, creates greater angst and is utterly unnecessary. 
The most important conclusion I take out of this is that the ABC has made a profound statement about the role of the primates; a statement that in effect reduces their importance.  This is a particularly eggregious decision considering the fragility of the AC that now exists.

“The ball is now squarely in Akinola’s court—if there be any of those.  Here is hoping it is not dropped. “
Over on another thread, you can read his reply- a pretty firm forehand down the line.  While I am sure ++Rowan was mentally prepared for it, it will take some pretty good footwork.

I would not have expected a CANA bishop to be invited at this point.  For now, TEC. remains the “anglican” church in the US.  Hopefully, this will change—but for now it is still that way.  I don’t see it as a snub of CANA—but clearly gives a message regarding VCR.

On the other hand, I assume that most of you have seen that famous painting of the council meeting at Nicea.  It always struck me that there was a great deal of disorder and rambunctious arguing back and forth.  Some in the picture almost look as though they are ready to come to blows.  I hate that kind of confrontation and argumentation, but then I would have made a lousy politician or lawyer.  The point I am making is that that picture suggests a great deal of verbal engineering, disagreement, compromise and probably disappointment there ..... as there is today in dealing with the scandal of ECUSA and its opponents.

Obedience to the Word of God first. Participation in the Anglican Communion second. Apparently, there will be no discipline in the Communion for those who breach the boundaries of orthodoxy but there will be alienation for those who seek to uphold it. Bravo ++Akinola.

Because the ABC lacked the decisiveness in the beginning, the infection is spreading and will continue spread to the whole body. The AC will be a dead branch unless TEC is stopped. And this ABC does not have what it takes to stop her.

Do you really think that RW is going to discipline up to a third of the CofE…..

Mersey,
No, we don’t believe that Rowan will discipline up to a third of the CofE. That is why Rowan must be disciplined by the orthodox, and denied the ability to facilitate further decay of the church.

Anglicanism will either die in the west, which looks increasingly likely, or it will be reborn under Abuja or some other unforseen entity.

Whether you like it or not, Anglicanism is defined by who is in Communion with Canterbury. There’s absolutely no way that the leadership will move from Canterbury - the UK Parliament wouldn’t wear it for a start.
If Abuja wish to start an alternative, that is of course their prerogative

Whether you like it or not, Anglicanism is defined by who is in Communion with Canterbury.

Actually, MerseyMike has just let the dirty little secret out of the bag. Any split can not effectively be Anglican if not in communion with CoE, it must be something else for they hold rights to the name. Why CANA or AMiA were called “African churches” by my uncle when visiting.

Whether you like it or not, Anglicanism is defined by who is in Communion with Canterbury.

I’d say Anglicanism HAS BEEN so termed.  ‘Defined’ may be a bit strong.

What we are actually witnessing at this point is this:  ‘In communion with Canterbury’ has hitherto been a useful shorthand for those Christians who hold to what have been called Anglican beliefs and practice, and who trace their history through, and derive their Apostolic succesion in the same way as, the Church of England.

Note that distinctly lacking in this is any claim that Canterbury has any kind of special ontological centrality to the Church in which it has been a part.  There is no claim in Anglicanism parallel to Rome’s claim that its bishop stands in the shoes of St Peter, for example.

To the extent that its ability and willingness to lead and guide other provinces in paths of truth and righteousness have fallen by the wayside—and the recent invitations, in announcing that the institutions matter more than God’s truth demonstrate decisively that they have thus fallen—Canterbury has worn out its usefulness.  Of TEC/ECUSA, Canterbury, and the Canadian church and those like them, it can quite truly be said, ‘Poison-mixers are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying and poisoned themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so let them go.’

As I said elsewhere, you can choose to leave the Communion centred on Canterbury, but that Communion is likely to remain. It may be a question of who chooses to remain with that Communion , or join another one - the split is inevitable, the only question is who splits and when.

Granted.  But does that not approach mere tautology?

MM—I agree with you—and long have, and have admired your integrity in your position—that a split is inevitable, and a split sooner rather than later was desirable for the integrity of both sides (and for the survival and health of that side best fitted for survival and health).

In light of the terrible decision announced today, it is amazing that Integrity and the usual revisionist blogs are unhappy. In my view, the revisionists gained a major victory today, courtesy of the ABC. I am surprised that they don’t appear to see it.

Many of us reasserters had hoped that there would be an organized orthodox Anglican province in the USA affiliated with the ABC. Unfortunately, this hope looks impossible now. Instead, there will now likely be a disorganized break up of the orthodox Anglicans in the USA. It is not clear that any of the institutional options (CANA, AMiA, etc) have the gravitational pull to unify the various groups.

We are shown yet again why we cannot trust in humans and human institutions. We can trust God alone to save us from ourselves. A special word to any TEC bishops, or anyone on the ABC’s staff, who sees this: tell me again: Why, exactly, do we have bishops? What, exactly, do they do to defend the Faith?

I don’t agree that the AC is defined or recognized by communion with Canterbury -much as I love all that Canterbury has stood for and the associations that I have had with Canterbury.  But the British government has no control over the AC.  ZIP!  NADA!  Anglicanism is defined by it’s beginnings, by its traditions, by the belief structure that it holds to, by the BCP, its liturgy (along with all the variation in style:  high church, low church, etc), the 39 Articles.
Canterbury does not own these, neither do they hold a copyright on the name ‘Anglican Communion’ (as far as I know). 
As many have said, the heart of the AC has shifted South, the AC is overwhelmingly in the GS, the Western Church has, in the minds of many in the GS, a strong colonial, patriarchal and arrogant stench.
I strongly believe that a new Anglican Province in the U.S. and perhaps, in Canada should belong to an orthodox South with no ties to ECUSA and its subsidiaries or to the CofE which is much like ECUSA albeit with a different MO.
Why hold on to a CofE in which there is every bit as much apostacy and heresy as in ECUSA?

Hosea6:6,

When you wrote

...on one side, boarder crossing ...

was that just a typo for border? If not, let me know ASAP. Even though I spent twenty years in the US Navy, I never did have the opportunity to participate in a “boarding party,” and at my age (61 years) I may not have all that many opportunities in the future. Sounds exciting.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist, LCDR, USN (ret)

I think Minns in his statement nailed it in a way everyone would agree with: “One thing is clear, a great deal can and will happen before next July.”

Having spent the evening with my prayer group and had time for reflection:
1. As I understand it whereas formerly all bishops were invited to Lambeth, now it is only those who have a diocesan territorial see in their province;
2. Nigeria, Rwanda and Bolivia (if that is relevant) have bishops in missions in other provinces;
3. An invitation to those bishops would constitute a de facto recognition of the territorial claim of those bishops and exacerbate conflict.

May this not explain the decisions made so far rather than the contentious personal way it was reported in the New York Times?

The Bishop with an undisputed diocesan connection is VGR and based on the recommendation of the Windsor Report, he has not been invited although it is suggested that he may come as an extra special guest of the ABC.  I wonder if he was aware of this before he gave out his statement.

I wonder if this sort of thing could be better handled in the future and I still don’t understand the timing.

From +VGR’s response:

While I appreciate the acknowledgement that I am a duly elected and consecrated Bishop of the Church, the refusal to include me among all the other duly elected and consecrated Bishops of the Church is an affront to the entire Episcopal Church.  This is not about Gene Robinson, nor the Diocese of New Hampshire.  It is about the American Church and its relationship to the Communion.  It is for The Episcopal Church to respond to this challenge, and in due time, I assume we will do so.  In the meantime, I will pray for Archbishop Rowan and our beloved Anglican Communion.

I think the mention of an extra invite to VGR was in Kearon’s press briefing.

The sad thing is that some of the most vital and growing churches in Anglicanism are not going to be part of the discussion.

In 2004, Robinson said that he told Williams he would be willing to attend Lambeth “in a diminished capacity” such as an observer if that would help bring conservatives to the table. Canon Kenneth Kearon, the communion’s secretary-general, said Tuesday that Robinson still could be invited as a guest.

Sorry that was from the Washington Post Report

I have to agree with the despair expressed by Matt and Sarah that this is the end of the AC as we know it.  Remember the REM song…

But it is not the end of the world.

I think it is clear now that the AC will split.  Conservative provinces such as found in Africa (CAPA), the Southern Cone and SE Asia will split from Canterbury.  All of the more liberal provinces such for example ECUSA, CoE, Scotland, and Australia will each become split with a portion staying with Canterbury and a portion leaving to form a new collective body which may think that it is time to drop the imperialistic name “Anglican” and simply call themselves the “Communion Church”.  In ten years time, the old Anglican Communion will hold a Lambeth 2018 and fewer than 100 bishops will show up.  Pitty.  What we are witnessing is the slow agonizing death of the AC.

However, do not despair!  God is faithful!  I fully expect the remnant “Communion Church” by whatever name will survive and indeed thrive in the next ten years.  If the ACN does not have the stomach for it then CAPA and AMiA will supplant them.  It matters not.  God is in charge and His WORD will prevail.  Those who are faithful to it will in due time prosper.

This is what the LORD says: “When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my gracious promise to bring you back to this place.  For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.  Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you.  You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.  I will be found by you,” declares the LORD, “and will bring you back from captivity.  I will gather you from all the nations and places where I have banished you,” declares the LORD, “and will bring you back to the place from which I carried you into exile.”
—Jerimiah 29:10-14

It always seems darkest just before the dawn.  Behold a new day is about to dawn.

Opps! Forgot the best line!
“It’s the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.” (REM)

I honestly hope he is not invited in any way.  This crisis should not be about an individual, it’s about a doctrine.  Bringing him there turns it into an ad hominem event with him in the hot seat in front of everyone.  That is just not what it should be.

R & R,
Didn’t you read Rowan’s letter?  He made it clear Lambeth is NOT about doctrine, but a gathering where our experience way be shared.

I am one of those that has followed this blog for 3 years, tried registering several time, and know I was approved, but had AOL blocking the approval everytime…thanks to you wonderful people for getting me past that problem…   Now I do want to thank Greg, Matt, Sarah, and all for these past 3 years…...

You have to give the ABC his due as a diplomat, albeit for the wrong cause. In prior statements, he led many to believe that true discipline would occur if the HOB rejected the Communique, and held out the tantilizing possibility that a non-invite, or lesser-invite, to Lambeth would be a logical consequence. He let others believe—we have seen it strongly advocated here—that this Lambeth would be a legislative function where a strong covenant could be adopted—one that some hoped might edge out a disobedient TEC.  Now he makes it clear that this Lambeth will be a dialogue, not a legislative body, an opportunity to “return to mission.”  This could have been taken from releases issues by a number of institutionalist TEC Bishops over last three years.  Meanwhile, his staff subordinates assure TEC’s leadership that there is nothing to worry about.

In the meantime, this rope-a-dope strategy has allowed further attrition to take place among the US orthodox, and for divisions to be exploited within the orthodox ranks.

I will repeat—the measure of success is not whether the most radical in the church, Integrity’s President, has a hissy fit over the VGR non-invite. VGR is already on record in 2004 as saying he would be willing to attend as an observer, and this storm you are hearing from the far left simply makes ++Williams appear to be going down the middle of the road, when in fact he is eviscerating the efforts of those that worked so hard in negotiating the Communique.

Those that are unable or unwilling to consider a non-Canterbury led Anglican church have to make a choice.  The rest of us need to concentrate all of our efforts and resources not on a fight with TEC, but on coming together and building a new church.  Its been done before, against all odds. 

If you haven’t written the Global South Bishops before, now would be a good time. They will be getting a lot of pressure to attend Lambeth, including from the conservative side.  Many on the left they are all bluff.  Sparrow’s poker comment above is a very good one.  They need to volley the ball back to the ABC’s court.

Perhaps it’s foolish of me, but I’m inclined to agree with Mr. Hylden.
When +++Williams talked of Lambeth not being a legislative body, I didn’t take it as undermining previous resolutions; rather, I saw it as a way of saying “The real action lies in what the primates are going to do.”  I will still wait for October 1, though I agree that if the ABC seems inclined to dither after that, it will mean that Canterbury is lost.

Canterbury is lost. +++Rowan is the wrong man at the wrong time. As long as the CofE is the established church in the UK and Parliment has the say in the appointment of the ABC there is no hope. The British parliment is as liberal as they come.

The most unfortunate thing of all which is now coming to the fore in the present Anglican Communion crisis is that there is absolutely no authority within Anglicanism. Do your own thing there is absolutely no one with any authority to stop you.

And in any reconsituted Anglican Communion if there is not some sort of ultimate authority put into place the same thing will happen again. As is unfortunately true of most of the continuing Anglican Churches as well.  NO ONE HAS FINAL AUTHORITY!!!

God have mercy on us all.

“OPEN QUESTIONS concerning the Anglican Communion?”
Is there a “truly orthodox Anglican” Province in the Worldwide Anglican Communion?
Which Province DOES NOT ALLOW the following; teachings, services or ordinations?
A) DOES NOT ALLOW the teaching of liberal Revisionist Theology.
B) DOES NOT ALLOW the marriage, or even service, for same sex couples.
C) DOES NOT ALLOW the ordination of homosexual persons.
D) DOES NOT ALLOW the ordination of women to ANY rank of ecclesiastical office.
E) DOES NOT ALLOW politics or finance to prevail in policy or doctrine. 
AND. . .
Is there a Province in the Worldwide Anglican Communion that includes the following:
A) TEACHES that the Holy Scriptures are the inspired Word of God.
B) TEACHES that the way to God, the Father, is only through the Lord Jesus Christ.
C) TEACHES and embraces the Great Commission and is evangelical in its approach.
D) TEACHES that the gifts and manifestations of the Holy Spirit are for today’s Church.
E) TEACHES and equips the church for body ministry of all believers.
F) TEACHES and holds apostolic doctrine concerning the sacraments.

As the scriptures state: “Give an answer to the faith that lies within you.”
So I would like an answer from someone in your communion with “Faith!”

Sincerely in the Faith of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles,

Rev. Fr. Marcus L. Brown
ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

I really don’t see anything momentous about this announcement from ABC. 
1.  +Robinson stated some time ago that he was willing to attend only as a “guest” or somesuch, therefore his not receiving an invite is not really a surprise.  He may be there in another capacity.
2.  Minns is a missionary bishop, and therefore not eligible to receive an invite.  (I’ll bet you a dollar that he’ll be in town anyhow.  ++Pete needs someone to write press releases.)
3.  Lambeth is the ABC’s own personal party.  He is not bound by any particular pronouncements of the Primates.  There may be some “consequences” imposed by the Primates after Sept. 30, but invitations to Lambeth are not dictated by the Primates.  The deadline of Sept. 30 should make no difference whatsoever to the ABC in his choice of invitees.

The only thing that could possibly be seen as significant is this: whatever anyone may wish to say, the Anglican Communion is situated around the ABC.  If you are in communion with the ABC, then you are part of the Anglican Communion.  One could even argue that if the Primates were to somehow kick TEC out of the Communion (something they don’t have power to do), TEC would still be part of the Communion if recognized by the ABC.  The ABC has sent invitations to all but a couple of eligible bishops.  Thus, he has confirmed that all are still in Communion with him.  Now we will wait to see who *chooses* not to be in Communion with the ABC, and thus *not* in the Anglican Communion.

Robinson only said that because he hadn’t been in the news as the gay bishop he alleges he didn’t want to be but never lets anyone anywhere forget, bergasse19.  See what he’s saying to day.  ++Akinola can write quite well on his own, whereas our PB could use a bit of experience and polish in her personal and PR departments on that score, so no ECUSA/TECan should be attempting to cast that stone.  It’s too heavy for you to lift, for sure.  The ABC is free to invite whom he will or, note well, will not.  So let’s not hear anymore about poor wee victimized Vickie Gene (Yeah, like that’s gonna happen!).

Your simplistic interpretation of the Anglican Communion is the current talking point of the day.  That won’t hold water either.  The Communion is rather larger than one personal relationship.  But there’s the Covenant for that and for those as can concur.  Others walk apart.

If I remember correctly, Doc, +Robinson made that statement several years ago.  It’s old news already on the books.

Am I correct that the non-invitation of Robinson is the first time a bishop with jurisdiction has not been issued an invitation to Lambeth?

Sarah said:
I’ll be visiting churches soon that are far far far away from Anglicanism.
(Sorry, I don’t know how to do block quotes and fancy things like that.)

Sarah, as you begin your search, please don’t forget the “capital o” Orthodox Church.  If you can’t take time to read the entire book, at least look at the reviews on amazon for Guilquist’s book Becoming Orthodox.

Also, if you google “Becoming Orthodox” you will see one that is westernorthodox.  At the bottom of the page you will find articles about Western Conversion to Orthodoxy.  The first is titled “Anglican Options: Rome or Orthodoxy.”

You may not find what you are looking for there, but I think that too many people don’t even consider Orthodoxy as an option.  When the Episcopal Church left me in 1996, I was homeless and searching until 2002 when God finally had to put an Orthodox priest right in my path to allow me to see! 

Becoming Orthodox doesn’t happen overnight, even if you think you are ready.  There will be study to make certain you understand the teachings (most of which you already know!)  But you need to be certain where you stand.  Becoming Orthodox is a serious matter, unlike the church hopping we see so often in Protestantism.  The Orthodox Church is not a cafeteria religion.  We don’t have people arguing about dogma - the teachings have remained unchanged for millenia. 

Maybe you’ll agree, maybe you won’t.  But you won’t know if this is where you belong if you don’t check it out.

The New York Times has reported:

The archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, issued a statement saying if an invitation was not extended to his bishop in Virginia, Martyn Minns, he would regard that as “withholding invitation to the entire House of Bishops of the Church of Nigeria.”

  My question is, if a Nigerian Bishop wanted to attend could he , if +Akinola said no.  From the Nigerian Constitution (3), it would appear that he can’t .  +Akinola can simply remove him if he does.  This assumption is based on the Church of Nigeria’s constitution in which its bishops swear obedience to the primate.  Does anyone know if this is true of Uganda or Burundi etc.?

So everyone is looking to VGR and +Minns, did the Bp of New Westminster get an invite?  They are not much in the news these days….

Hmmmm.  So, when presented the choice between heresy and schism, the AC chose NEITHER.  Briiilllliant. 

I guess I’m with the anglicancentrist’s view on this one.

Anyone else want to press their heresies or schismatic tendencies?  The dis-invitation will be in the mail.

I hadn’t noticed this before, but it is on Episcopal Cafe

A spokesman for the ACC noted Bishop Robinson Cavalcanti of Recife would not be invited either.

They and over 90 per cent of the communicants in the diocese transferred to the jurisdiction of the Province of the Southern Cone under the jurisdiction of Archbishop Gregory Venables

Looks like those who break away are just not going to be recognized.

This is much more than just a few who will not be invited. 

The bigger story is that those who violated Lambeth 1.10, those who were rebuked by Windsor and again at Dromantine and Dar Es Salaam, those who gave the sharp middle finger to the AC at their General Convention and again at the recent HOB meeting, those who have torn the fabric of the communion at its deepest level, these will be attending. 

It makes a mockery out of the countless efforts worldwide that have gone into resolving this crisis.  It proves, as others have already said, that the AC is totally incapable of disciplining itself.  This is a sad development and marks the end of Canterbury and Anglicanism as we know it.