Questioning the wisdom of Lambeth 2008

In his essay yesterday in the Daily Episcopalian, The Rt. Rev. Steven Charleston, president and dean of Episcopal Divinity School and former Bishop of Alaska, writes: "At their most recent diocesan convention, the people of Utah voted to request that the next Lambeth Conference be cancelled. In a nutshell, they expressed the opinion that no good could come from hosting Lambeth at this time." As it happens, Archbishop Akinola agrees.

While discussing pros and cons Bishop Charleston appears to come down on side of cancellation:

Perhaps the most persuasive thing about the Utah suggestion is that it forces us to confront our own dysfunction. More meetings enable more silly behavior. The waffling of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the manipulation of meetings by some bishops, and the lame rhetoric of other bishops who have made a cottage industry out of doom and gloom prophecies has to be faced. For too long we have all been watching this soap opera called Anglican leadership and wondering when the adults would come back into the room to make the kids play nice.

That may not happen unless we take some serious steps. What the diocese of Utah raised is an idea for just this kind of wake up call and action.


The essay has generated comment at Father Jake, a place known for comment. Father Jake's take is, "Not only is Lambeth a disaster just waiting to happen, it is a huge waste of resources. Let it go."

Others favor going. Jim Naughton, editor of Episcopal Café, comments:

The ABC's decision to invite all Episcopal bishops except Bishop Robinson, while deeply regrettable for its singular omission, was his way of settling the question of who, in his mind, speaks for American Anglicans--namely, the Episcopal Church and no one else. It would be a serious tactical mistake to give back this gift.

Additionally, the Episcopal bishops who attended the meeting that Trinity Church sponsored this summer in Spain met many African bishops who are willing to remain in Communion with us despite our differences. We'd be walking away from potentially beneficial conversations if we didn't go to Lambeth, and simultaneously weakening leaders throughout the Communion who do not want to capitulate to Akinola/Minns/Jensen, etc.
...
There may come a point at which conscience requires abandoning the Anglican Communion, a day on which the short-term compromises required to retain our membership cannot be justified by the possibility of long term success. Anyone who has been involved in the fight for full inclusion has woken up on certain mornings and wondered if today would be that day. But I don't think it has come yet, and I think our best shot at postponing it indefinitely rests in remaining fully involved with our partners in the Communion.

Commenting at the Daily Episcopalian Ian T. Douglas writes:
I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree with my President and Dean Bishop Charleston, as well as the Diocese of Utah, in their call to cancel the 2008 Lambeth Conference of bishops. Bishop Charleston's position is based on the assertion that the 2008 Lambeth Conference will be similar to recent Lambeth Conferences in both form and function.

As a member of the Design Group for Lambeth 2008, I can say without hesitation that the planned conference for next summer will be very different from previous Lambeths. ... As planned, there will be no plenary debates on divisive issues resulting in an atmosphere of winners and losers. That is not to say that the hard and difficult questions and issues before the Anglican Communion will be avoided. Rather the issues will be engaged in smaller gatherings where accountability, listening, and the search for mutual understanding are foremost.

I'm sad that Bishop Charleston is suggesting that bishops not go to Lambeth 2008 without considering what the Conference will and will not be....

Archbishop Akinola has disparagingly referred to the new form and function as a "jamboree."

Comments (1)

I did once float the thought that American bishops might decline Lambeth, precisely to show support for the Archbishop of Canterbury. But, things have changed a lot. First, it seems ever more clear to me that the definition of "Anglican Communion" will be determined by who shows up at Lambeth - thus my occasional reference to "cowboy poker."

Second, we have more detailed information that the Global South Steering Committee primates have a whole lot more bark than bite regarding opinions across the Communion. Between the report of the majority of the Joint Standing Committee and the subsequent responses of most provinces to questions from Canterbury, across the Communion the pluralities of those who think the Episcopal Church has done enough and those who think we've done enough to keep talking significantly outweighs those who want to throw us out.

Finally, the Canterbury has said time and again that this Lambeth is to return to "reflection and mutual consultation," and not fall into attempting to legislate. Of those provinces who would agree that these are the appropriate activities for Lambeth, we have the largest bloc. We are best prepared - possbily essential - for inhibiting this Lambeth from being hijacked, whoever shows up (acknowledging, too, that those who would most want to hijack Lambeth are also those who would least want to show up if we do). Lambeth 1998 was hijacked, and we may be able to take a significant role in preventing that happening again.

With these and other changes in mind, I'm coming to believe that, with these new circumstances, our bishops, or at least most of them, should go.

Marshall Scott

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