Leveraging Lambeth

Is the agenda for Lambeth in play? Archbishop Rowan Williams has said Lambeth 2008 will not be a business meeting, but a gathering to build relationships.

The other day Archbishop Akinola once again used the 'we'-may-not-come-to-Lambeth-2008 card: 'Akinola said there was no need to go there for “jamboree.”' This after Akinola and Minns failed to convince CAPA to come out in favor of a Lambeth boycott. Earlier several of Akinola's bishops had made it plain they were prepared to attend.

Two American dioceses show that more than one can play this strategic game. The first to move was Utah:

Delegates overwhelmingly approved Tanner Irish's letter to Jefferts Schori urging the presiding bishop to ask the Archbishop of Canterbury to cancel the Lambeth Conference planned for 2008.

Irish's letter said that the Anglican Communion is in "disarray" over "irregularly consecrated" bishops and that the Episcopal church is "leery about using" Lambeth "to present a covenant that is exclusionary, that centralizes authority, or adds to the core doctrine of our faith."

Her letter also cites the cost of Lambeth and suggests that proceeding with the conference "under the present circumstances is disproportionate to its benefits."


Over the weekend Olympia followed suit:
Convention delegates in the Diocese of Olympia said they are "leery" of the presentation of an "exclusionary" Anglican Covenant at the 2008 Lambeth Conference and approved a resolution calling for postponement of next year’s conference of bishops.
...
By a vote of 299-79, clergy and lay delegates voted to approve an amended resolution calling for the 2008 Lambeth Conference to be postponed “until the listening process is more complete.”

This resolution was submitted by Bishop Suffragan Nedi Rivera after convention began. The wording of the resolution will comprise the text of a letter sent to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori over the signature of bishops Greg Rickel and Rivera.

Posted by John B. Chilton on November 7, 2007 9:17 AM | |
Comments (5)

I'm not sure why folks in Olympia and Utah are so anxious. Yes, there are questions about the Draft Covenant; but there have also been several provinces in the dissenting South that have said they weren't coming. Most have been less ambivalent than Nigeria. For example, Uganda has tied non-participation to their acceptance of the CAPA document, "The Road to Lambeth," and its suggestion that Africans not participate if Americans are invited and/or the Conference is not legislative. The Americans have been invited. Canterbury has maintained that this Lambeth will not be in any sense "lesiglative." Uganda will not come.

I think some are overly concerned about what can happen regarding the Covenant at this Lambeth. Even the House of Bishops of the Church of England have pointed out that no such document could be called "official" until it had "been passed by the constitutional processes of the various provinces." So, Lambeth cannot force anything on us (and, arguably, a non-legislative Lambeth can say very little that is forceful on the subject).

We've been working hard to stay at the table with Canterbury. It's not in our interest at this point to clear the table.

Marshall Scott

Posted by mscottsail [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 7, 2007 11:14 AM

I'm with you, Marshall. Our Presiding Bishop sets the proper tone - we don't need hyperreactivity (my word, not yours).

Posted by John B. Chilton [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 7, 2007 11:19 AM

I think it is in the best interest of the Episcopal Church, and in the best interest of the GLBT movement within the Communion for Lambeth to go ahead as planned.

Posted by Jim Naughton [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 7, 2007 11:51 AM

It seems to me that there can be no communion without conversation. There can be no reconciliation unless those that need it meet. Communion is not something we impose, as the so-called Global South would assert, but is a gift of the Holy Spirit.

Akinola says repeatedly that he does not want a "jamboree." But if he had his way, then only those Bishops he would deem doctrinally correct could come together and vote on who was doctrinally correct. That is not the hard work of reconciliation--seeking the face of Jesus in the other-- but a jamboree of like minded clerics.

Andrew Gerns

Posted by ATGerns [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 7, 2007 2:13 PM

This is the wrong move. I don't understand why Utah and Olympia took these actions now.

Let the "jamboree" roll.

Posted by GrandmèreMimi [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 7, 2007 3:45 PM

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Advertising Space