Who's Invited to the Dance?

Announcement was made today that the long awaited invitations to next year's Lambeth Conference have been sent out by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams and every one wants to know who is and who is not on the invitation list.

Even though the Anglican Press Office and the Rev. Canon Kenneth Kearnon, Secretary General of the Anglican Communion, emphasized that over 850 invitations have been sent to Anglican Bishops around the world for the three week conference to be held from July 16 through August 4, 2008, attention is focused on who would not be sent an invitation.

Williams describes in a letter that accompanying the invitations what he would like this decades Lambeth Conference to be. The legislative and deliberative aspects of the Conference, which have been at the heart of the sexuality debates since the 1998 conference, are strongly de-emphasized. Instead, Williams envisions the conference to be a place “where our experience of living out God’s mission can be shared,” describing the time together as “an occasion when the Archbishop of Canterbury exercises his privilege of calling his colleagues together, not to legislate but to discover and define something more about our common identity through prayer, listening to God’s Word and shared reflection.”

Williams also says that he hopes the Bishops will “try and get more clarity about the limits of our diversity and the means of deepening our Communion, so we can speak together with conviction and clarity to the world.”

In a statement that might be seen as a rebuke to those who have insisted that only “orthodox” Bishops be invited, Williams says that an invitation, or the lack of one, is solely at the pleasure of the Archbishop, and is not “a certificate of doctrinal orthodoxy.” He urges all Bishops to understand the shared nature of the Church and reminds them that they would be fellowshipping with people who have different theological viewpoints. He told Bishops that coming to the conference would 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.”

Instead he urges the Bishops to come closer together in prayer, with a listening and respectful stance, when the nature of events in the Church and the world are tempting people to separate.

While there has been much speculation in the Anglican blogosphere as to who is not invited and why, the Archbishop's letter stated the criteria this way: “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.”

According to Associated Press reports, Canon Kearnon says that neither the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, nor the Rt. Rev. Martyn Minns, Bishop of the Church of Nigeria's Anglican District of Virginia and Convocation of Anglicans in North America, would receive invitations. Beyond that, there are no other details as to whom invitations have been sent or from whom they have been withheld.

While not invited as an official attendee, Williams may invite Robinson as a personal guest but Kearnon said that he is not contemplating inviting Minns at all.

According to Kearnon, Williams recognizes Robinson as a duly elected, consecrated Bishop, but to give him full status as a participant would “ignore the very substantial and very widespread objections in many parts of the communion to his consecration and to his ministry."

Kearnon said that Minns was not invited because CANA is not recognized as a part of the Anglican Communion and that this alone was the reason for his not being invited.

Comments (8)

Is _anyone_ thinking about the ecological footprints of the 850 invited guests? If the Queen paid attention to this after her recent US visit to Virginia and Kentucky, surely the primates should?

Here is Gene Robinson's response

I suspect many of trying to know, and therefore control, all manner of footprints, but the only ones that seem to matter these days is definitely NOT about GBLT people, but Scripture, or God's Word as "I" know it.

Forgive my anger; and, as a convert of less than two decades' standing, I admit Icannot fully appreciate the depth of attachment, on the part of many, to the Anglican Communion, as broadly known till now. I cannot see much of that Anglican Communion in this "Windsor Process" or its predecessors, as enacted by the Primates at Dar Es Salaam, the ABC, or the GS, most especially in the persons of the Nigerian & Ugandan Primates.

It is a hard test for a path so recently chosen, but I cannot turn back, nor restrain myself from urging all not to turn from justice, and mercy in following the Lord. Tactics, of course, will be protracted and will vary in context.

JohnWood

I think Rowan is forcing a game of "chicken." Some Global South Primates have said they wouldn't come if the Americans were there, or at least the wrong Americans; and if there wouldn't be enough - well, perhaps "legislative authority" would be a good phrase. If they stay home, have they declared their abandonment of the Communion-as-we-have-known-it? Bishops of the Episcopal Church have declared a determination to support GLBT Episcopalians. They stay home, have they declared their abandonment of the Communion-as-we-have-known-it? (The Global South Primates will certainly claim so.)

My initial hope is that our House of Bishops as a whole, and our individual bishops, will simply wait to respond until September. I realize Rowan has asked for an answer sooner; but, then, you can't always get what you want....

Marshall Scott

Marshall,

Thanks for saying something that needs to be heard, uh, listened to.

Whatever the game is - be it chicken or pin the abandonment on the donkey - let's not be too hasty in deciding how to play.

Marshall, that's a tempting approach--but it seems that in his discussion of what Lambeth is ++Rowan has done some fancy footwork. His explanation seems to decrease the importance of Lambeth, making it simply a big meeting of bishops to pray & play--thus decreasing the stakes for who comes and who doesn't.

Derek:

Those statements may well be (or may well be seen) as part of the game. Akinola, Orombi, and others have said they wouldn't attend a Lambeth that didn't exercise sufficient authority or jurisdiction. Arguably, decreasing the role of Lambeth - or clarifying that it's going to be what it always was before 1998 - may well be unacceptable for the reactionary fringe.

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