Total visitors right now: 98

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Analyzing the Lambeth Invitations

Thursday, May 24, 2007 • 7:26 am

Matt Kennedy, Kendall Harmon and Geoff Chapman



34 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

Very real and honest analysis, thank you guys for the straight talk without spin. It gives hope, but without the too common inflated hopes. Probably the most honest assessment from Fr. Chapman of situation and four options for that diocese.

Thanks again gentlemen.

[1] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 05-24-2007 at 09:11 AM • top

Excellent!

[2] Posted by Spencer on 05-24-2007 at 09:17 AM • top

Can anyone tell me where the “annalysis” article is located? a link?

[3] Posted by EmilyH on 05-24-2007 at 09:22 AM • top

Try pressing the ‘Play’ button?

[4] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 05-24-2007 at 09:27 AM • top

OK—I see the comments provision and so provide this directly. It is my email to Kendall and Matt:

I am under some deadlines this morning so could only hear the first ten minutes of the taped interview. Quick response before I head out to what has been said about my recent notes.

I think the difference between many of us is where we hang our hat and what we hear. I hang my hat in Scotland, moreso in the C of E, and I know the Canadian scene through close friends who are very plugged into the dynamics of the Canadian Anglican situation. Many of you see the matter chiefly—though not only, thanks to communication speeds and devices—from the standpoint of US vicissitudes. I accept that. We most all be stewards of the lives and responsibilities God gives us.

My hunch goes exactly opposite to what I heard Kendall say. I think this puts MORE pressure on the Canadian (and US) situation and indeed it has been argued that was in part the reason for its timing. Every bishop in TEC and in Canada realizes that they are, and will be, making public statements with serious repercussions. When I read what a Bishop Andrus writes, I think legal as well and moral and theological. He could well evacuate his claim to being a part of the Anglican Communion, and he may believe this is harmless. I would not be so sure. I also think that is why the PB will do all she can to get people to keep quiet right now.

+RDW was just in Canada. I understand that what the Canadians decided was curious, but minimally, it was not what TEC has said and so allows TEC to stand alone (with pastoral allowances for same-sex blessings, etc). The new Canadian Archbishop is likely to be more of a Communion person than the present incumbent. The Archbishop is going on sabbatical. He needed to say something. Beyond that, I think Kendall is right that he is keeping a great number of options open.

For the record, I doubt very much that there will NOT be an emergency Primates Meeting, but more than that I would not say. The Primates need to deal with deadlines they have set and requests they have made. Lambeth Conference is not the place for that, whatever else it now is.

But speculation is now almost addictive for most watching this thing, and the blogs are the ripe harvest of that. I do believe that my perspective is mostly framed by being more ‘in the Communion’ than in the local US situation, given my profession and its callings. Many believe that is a great weakness. That is a view to which they are of course entitled.

I am happy for this to appear as a comment. I just could not see how to write it in directly. My cyber skills are poor. C Seitz

[5] Posted by zebra on 05-24-2007 at 09:38 AM • top

Helpful all - some of the fog is lifting.

[6] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 05-24-2007 at 09:45 AM • top

One bit of remaining fog: Some have said that this Lambeth would not include Assistant Bishops “without jurisdiction” this time. Where has this been documented? 1998 was the first time that Suffragans and Coadjutors were invited. (I’m sure of those 2 categories, but I’m not sure of “missionary” bishops, although I thought they were invited too.)
My guess is that wishful thinking may have been exerting too much influence over our analysis of the ABC’s invitations. In other words, it is not “natural” for any Nigerian assistant bishop to be excluded, since none were excluded in 1998.

If anyone disagrees, please back it up with references. Thanks.

[7] Posted by alfonsoq on 05-24-2007 at 10:09 AM • top

Sure, I’ll disagree, and just to be a contrarian, I’ll not back it up with any references wink

Why if it happen in ‘98 does it have to happen that way in ‘08? I think that is dangerous logic which turned around means there is no retreat on other issues as well. I understand your logic, but it is what was counted on for WO and currently for non-celibate bishops in unBiblical   sexual relations (purposely painted with a board brush).

I’d love to see backtracking on remarried bishops as well, there was once a time when Lambeth was filled with bishops who were closer 1 Tim 3 model. So maybe in not fighting for something, can be a springboard to a greater move in the future.

[8] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 05-24-2007 at 10:24 AM • top

Thankyou pagentmaster for “Push the ‘play’ button”.  I was on my hand-held and although Stand Firm’s site (I assume XML and PDA compatible) does upload easily, I need to go to my desktop for multi-media.  Unfortunately, there is no indication on my PDA (maybe an issue for Stand Firms’ software) that there is either an audio or visual file file that is being referenced.  I only have 40 megs of active memory on my hand-held, but this, in fact is pretty big for this platform and it runs at 400mh.  Overall I am very impressed by the quality of Stand Firms’s website and its ease of use by those of us who move from platform to platform.

[9] Posted by EmilyH on 05-24-2007 at 10:30 AM • top

Whoa!  Fr. Chapman, who seems to have a firm grasp on current happenings and their overarching import, is indicating there’s a rising heart for action BUT that there’s only a sort of lost hope that collegial action will be taken to minister (within TEC) to the overall and continuing needs of the orthodox (starting around minute number 22 and going forward).  OK laity, a tactical retreat is in order, n’est-ce pas?

Tinpipes, are you expressing surprise at this? Even among the “inside” strategists here I hear virtually no optimism that TEC will cooperate in an accomidation.  That is the reason for the four options identified by Pittsburg.  The first honest option identified is simply submission, which as he says would mean that the Truth being proclaimed in that Diocese would largely die out when the present leadership retired, and would be diminished in the interim.  All of the other options are effectively seperation either through individual parishes or the Diocese as a whole.  In reality, it narrows down to negotiating individual Diocese departures (which I am sure 815 will try to scuttle) or the whole Diocese taking another step toward seperation. 

What is still possible, but decreasingly likely, is a Canterbury recognized new US Province, probally preceded by a “Palestinian Authority” interim solution (hopefully, with less bloodshed and corruption than the PA!).  If that has any chance at all, it will occur if, and only if, the ABC is convinced that a sizable grouping of GS Provinces, representing the majority of Anglicans, are leaving, I mean REALLY this time. (The ABC is no fool, he will not react to what he believes is a bluff.)

What is increasingly likely is a “coalition of the willing”, a non-Canterbury endorsed solution that, God willing, will involve a grouping of the Anglican Diaspora in the US.  It remains to be seen how many insiders are willing to participate in that voyage.

[10] Posted by Going Home on 05-24-2007 at 10:34 AM • top

I would like to thank Fr. Chapman for his insight into how Pittsburgh is viewing the situation and the 4 views he mentioned as being discussed.  His insight into timing was also insight, patience vs. action.  It is clear that, on strategy, which I think he is very good at articulating, there does not appear to be a common mind.

But I am very interested in the fact Cavalcanti was not invited to Lambeth, nor mentioned in the interview.  I believed that he and his priests had “transferred” to Southern Cone.  Does his lack of invitation imply anything at all about how ++Williams may view such “transfers”?  Is the “transfer” itself the presenting issue that led to the the decision not to invite?  Would this have implications for Pittsburgh, San Joaquin, Ft. Worth etc.  Given that the network dioceses are likely to argue that they are the legitimate members of the Anglican Communion in the US, based on the “constituent” member reference in the TEC constitution preamble, is there any kind of signal that can be gleaned from the Cavalcanti situation?  Just Tea leaf gazing

[11] Posted by EmilyH on 05-24-2007 at 10:45 AM • top

Hosea, I’m not sure you’re following me. I’m concerned that we’ve been making our own fog just to make ourselves feel better. ABC has basically said, “no invites to those who are trouble-makers in my judgment.” He didn’t say, “no invites to non-diocesans or non-jurisdictional bishops.” Therefore, when +Minns and +Calvacenti, et al. are excluded, it is because ++Rowan sees them as trouble, not because they naturally would not have been invited anyways.

I found these briefing notes for 1998: “It’s the largest Anglican Conference ever because for the first time assistant bishops (Suffragan and Co-adjutor bishops) are attending as well as diocesan bishops.”

[12] Posted by alfonsoq on 05-24-2007 at 11:11 AM • top

This may not matter, but there were 641 on hand in 1998 for the big vote (540 yea, 70 nay, 45 abstaining); and apparently 739 had registered altogether according to one press release from the Lambeth site. This year 880 invitations were sent out, so it seems likely not much has changed except for those on ++Rowan’s naughty list.

[13] Posted by alfonsoq on 05-24-2007 at 11:32 AM • top

Alfonsoq: ++RW has said not such thing, Kearon said +Minns is in the same camp as AMiA in reasoning. The ABC has implied stuff by his actions, but as Kendall pointed out, he has room to backdown or make a category, whatever will suite ++RW agenda. IMO it would be wise for ++RW not to follow the ‘98 precedent, at least not now. Currently we only have his actions to judge, a few words from press Kearon and as was point out on the clip, that leaves the ABC some room to adjust if need be.

[14] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 05-24-2007 at 11:35 AM • top

But I am very interested in the fact Cavalcanti was not invited to Lambeth, nor mentioned in the interview.

EmilyH,

Just FYI for you and everyone else - we recorded this at about 4:30pm central time yesterday; I know I was unaware about +Cavalcanti at that time, and I figure some of the others were as well. There’s usually several hours’ delay between recording and “broadcast,” and when we record after about noon, it’s often the next day before they’re ready.

I take it most folks enjoy these things? Please give me your feedback so we can gauge whether we should be doing more of them or fewer.

[15] Posted by Greg Griffith on 05-24-2007 at 11:46 AM • top

Greg, I do enjoy them. Please continue. I would not like them to displace the more easily accessible items, but they are a treat.

[16] Posted by oscewicee on 05-24-2007 at 11:49 AM • top

Greg, I think they’re great.

[17] Posted by Phil on 05-24-2007 at 11:55 AM • top

I enjoy them, T19 & Baby Blue has posted links to them, I’d say they are a hit. cool smile

[18] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 05-24-2007 at 11:57 AM • top

Greg, thanks for your efforts!

Hosea, um, you seem to think that ++Rowan has yet to send out invitations to Assistant Bishops. I think he already has. That cat is out. You can wish for a time warp, but all Rowan can do now, is undo some of the damage; and yes, he still has time and room to do that. But in the meantime let’s not pretend he has not acted against the interests of orthodox Anglicanism/Christianity.

[19] Posted by alfonsoq on 05-24-2007 at 12:01 PM • top

For Greg Griffith.  Thank you for explaining why Cavalcanti was not mentioned.  On your question re: such interviews a plus or not?  I think they are helpful, but for me they often present a bit of a technical problem as I am more inclined to be accessing over WiFi on my hand-held and I can access the audio or video and, can’t tell from your website that they exist.  Thanks again for the updates.

[20] Posted by EmilyH on 05-24-2007 at 12:53 PM • top

Dr. Seitz—

I for one have always valued others’ international perspective.  Thank you for yours.  Please don’t hesitate to keep it coming. 

God bless,

O.

[21] Posted by Orthoducky on 05-24-2007 at 12:58 PM • top

EmilyH,

It’s not that much more work to create a low-bandwidth MP3 file and post it beside the video clip. Would that present less of a technical challenge for handheld users such as yourself?

[22] Posted by Greg Griffith on 05-24-2007 at 01:21 PM • top

Yes please on the low-bandwith mp3!

[23] Posted by alfonsoq on 05-24-2007 at 02:29 PM • top

I can handle mp3 files if they are not too big.  I’ve had an IPAQ 3955 for several years and use a sandisk WiFi card but it doesn’t have any memory so…  My spouse has a newer model with integrated WiFi and he can handle much more media apps than I.  Thank you for thinking of me.  I’m old and just can’t drag a laptop around.

[24] Posted by EmilyH on 05-24-2007 at 02:57 PM • top

Please continue these interviews and round tables. I find them invaluable. I wish you would have had time for some discussion with Kendall and Matt after Chapman’s interview.

[25] Posted by kristiflea on 05-24-2007 at 04:18 PM • top

Greg, thank you for the audio work. It is helpful to me.

I really appreciate MP3. At home I’m lucky if I have a 40k dial-up connection. DSL is NA and Comcast is too $$ for this county preacher. When Anglican TV offers MP3 versions it’s the best of all possible media offerings for me.

If I ever bought a lottery ticket I might win enough to get a Hughes satelite.

Timely information is always very helpful.

[26] Posted by Bob Maxwell+ on 05-24-2007 at 04:42 PM • top

Matt, at 17:50 into the roundtable I thought I heard you equate a full (rather than observer) invitation to Lambeth to being a “voting member of the Conference”. I have the impression that +RW does not want any voting or decision-making to take place at Lambeth. Do you have other information, or was that a slip of the tongue?

[27] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 05-24-2007 at 05:33 PM • top

I really enjoy these discussions.  It is interesting to “meet” people who have only been names before.  More please.

[28] Posted by Nevin on 05-24-2007 at 08:43 PM • top

I just want to add my appreciation for the interviews - I hope you continue doing them.

[29] Posted by ct layperson on 05-25-2007 at 11:22 AM • top

“The presence of Gene Robinson as a guest would be media circus.”

Barnabas writes, “Even among the “inside” strategists here I hear virtually no optimism that TEC will cooperate in an accomidation[sic].” Then why carry on the charade? Ephraim Radner calls on “us” by which I assume he means the TEC to returns a point of trust. With KJS’s prevarications as abundantly highlighted by ABp Gomez and bishop after bishop has defiantly dug in their heels, saying “no compromise.” I say again what’s the point of the charade?

One point that I find incredible is that the discussants who are celebrated observers of the church and are, self-admittedly, clueless about the mind of the ABC as are every expert on either side. Trust in leadership requires forthrightness and candor. Sadly lacking in the ABC. “A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key.” Perhaps two keys: his early writings where he declares himself firmly in the all inclusive camp and, secondly, he tenacious persistence in “keeping all at the table” for more jaw, jaw, jaw. It is obvious that the “problem of the orthodox” will go away. This is because they are going away at a prodigious rate. By inviting the Americans, he dis-invites the Africans without the political implications. He has called for no decisions to be made till Lambeth 2008. By his wily exclusion of the GS, those decisions made will be of completely different character as will be the covenant.

[30] Posted by rob-roy on 05-26-2007 at 09:41 AM • top

Should we suggest to Rowan Williams that he invite Cavalcanti, Minns, Bena, and the AMiA Bishops to Lambeth as “consultants”? 

Or as “guests” or “visitors” like VGR. VGR split the communion. All +Minns, et al, have done is create shelter for the disenfranchised orthodox.

Quick…will the real troublemaker(s) please stand up!!!

[31] Posted by Forgiven on 05-26-2007 at 10:10 AM • top

Greg, many thanks for these audio inteviews.  They are very helpful.  Please continue them, especially when something significant has just happened and many are deeply troubled and confused. Kendall+ is always illuminating, of course, and bringing in Fr. Chapman added to the richness and variety of the comments.  Keep up the good work, Greg and Matt+.  We really do benefit from all of your hard work and dedication.

[32] Posted by BettyLee Payne on 05-26-2007 at 04:38 PM • top

→ ● ♦ □ ◊ ∆

[33] Posted by Irenaeus on 06-16-2007 at 08:09 PM • top

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.