|
Friday, May 25, 2007 "You have made known to me the
path of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence, with eternal
pleasures at your right hand." (Psalm 16:11)
- Message from AAC President Canon David Anderson
- Archbishop of Canterbury's Lambeth Invitation List Excludes Gene
Robinson & Martyn Minns
- Responses from Nigeria, CANA & AMiA to Withheld Lambeth Invitations
- Diocese of Pittsburgh Meets to Discuss Way Forward
Message from AAC President Canon David Anderson
Beloved in Christ,
The breaking news this week has been the invitation list of Anglican
bishops to the 2008 Lambeth Conference sent by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The Archbishop, the Most Rev. Dr. Rowan Williams, has predictably angered
both the revisionists in The Episcopal Church (TEC) and beyond with his
exclusion of New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson, as well as the orthodox due
to his exclusion of Bishop Martyn Minns of the Convocation of Anglicans in
North America (CANA), a branch of the Church of Nigeria, and the Anglican
Mission in the Americas (AMiA) bishops, who are part of the Province of
Rwanda’s House of Bishops. The question being asked is, whose side is Dr.
Williams really on? Who does he seek to please in all this, and how will his
actions hold (or not hold) the Communion together?
I think Lambeth is playing for what the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks
is the middle ground, but he has sorely misjudged the reality. The middle is
very small. Most of the American Episcopal Church is trapped under highly
revisionist and pantheistic leaders, for whom Jesus Christ is not the only
way. Thus, numbers-wise, TEC has little middle ground, with the revisionists
in the majority, the orthodox secondary, and those in the middle last in
number. In the international Anglican Communion, the majority of members are
orthodox, especially in the Global South, and the revisionists are scattered
among small provinces whose entire active membership would hardly be the
size of an African diocese.
It is also quite possible that Dr. Williams is being disingenuous in his
do-not-invite list. Already Kenneth Kearon, the Anglican Communion Office
secretary-general, is reported as saying that Robinson might be invited as a
visitor, but that Minns would not be invited as such. So, Lambeth Palace
offers a possible back-door way for the homosexual activist Robinson to get
on-site at next year’s Lambeth Conference, while excluding Minns, a godly
and moral leader, as well as the godly and moral leaders of AMiA. It will be
up to the Global South to respond to the exclusion of the Nigerian and
Rwandan bishops.
Speaking of godly and moral bishops who are being excluded, Bishop
Robinson Cavalcanti of Recife (geographically located in the country of
Brazil) is also being singled out by Dr. Williams. The very poor treatment
of Bishop Cavalcanti by the Province of Brazil has nearly been matched by
the poor treatment shown to Recife by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The
Province of the Southern Cone, led by Archbishop and Primate Gregory
Venables, has taken Cavalcanti and his diocese under its wing for temporary
primatial oversight, but the present Lambeth slam against Cavalcanti
suggests that the Southern Cone needs to do more. This is the time when the
orthodox need to close ranks.
One interesting observation is that Dr. Williams has said he is sending
out 800-plus personal invitations to the Anglican bishops around the world
to come to the 2008 Lambeth Conference. This action appears to be a
departure from the past policy, which was to invite the PROVINCES as
PROVINCES, and respect their internal hierarchies and order. If he sends
these invitations directly to the bishops, he will be undercutting the
authority of the provinces’ primates and Houses of Bishops. Is this
intentional? Is it the Archbishop’s intention to create a personal fealty of
bishops to him, bypassing each bishop’s own archbishop and primate? His
action would seem to have that effect, however intentioned. Furthermore, if
even one bishop responded in the affirmative from each province, he could
announce that ALL provinces had agreed to attend the conference. Would
Williams do that? Perhaps he believes he has found the Anglican way for his
office to be exercised: not as a pope, but as a feudal lord with individuals
establishing loyalty to him. Then again, perhaps things will change and go
in another direction before then. Stay tuned for further revelations from
Lambeth!
Please remember, in spite of all the machinations of the worldly
authorities, to stay firm in your prayer, stay grounded in the Word of God,
take counsel with your godly brothers and sisters, and do the work of the
Great Commission. The final test is finally not even about success, but
about faithfulness. May Jesus be able to say to each of us, “Welcome, good
and faithful servant”—for that matters even more than what happens to the
Anglican Communion.
Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus,
The Rev. Canon David C. Anderson
CEO & President of the AAC
Archbishop of Canterbury's Lambeth Invitation List Excludes
Gene Robinson & Martyn Minns
Notes:
(1) Read the Archbishop of Canterbury's
letter of invitation here.
(2) According to news reports, the Anglican Communion Office has said
that Gene Robinson could still be invited to Lambeth as a "guest",
attending in some diminished, observer capacity; thus, the first sentence of
the article below is not completely accurate.
"Two US Bishops not invited to Lambeth"
Source: Church
of England Newspaper
By George Conger
May 25, 2007
BISHOP Gene Robinson is not coming to Lambeth. The New Hampshire bishop,
CANA Bishop Martyn Minns and Bishop Chuck Murphy of the AMiA and his
suffragans will not receive invitations to the July 16 to Aug 4 gathering in
Canterbury of the bishops of the Anglican Communion, Canon Kenneth Kearon,
the secretary of the 2008 Lambeth Conference said this week.
Invitations to the 2008 conference have been mailed to over 800 bishops
by the Conference’s host, the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams.
Invitations to two other diocesan bishops, including the controversial
Bishop of Harare, Dr Nolbert Kunonga, have been held pending further
“consultation,” said Canon Kearon, the ACC secretary general. Dr Williams is
“seeking further advice” on inviting Dr Kunonga, Canon Kearon told The
Church of England Newspaper but noted his case and that of “one or two
others” had “nothing to do with the Windsor process.” In 2002 the EU banned
Dr Kunonga from travel to Europe in response to his complicity with the
crimes of the regime of Zimbabwe strongman Robert Mugabe.
A spokesman for the ACC noted Bishop Robinson Cavalcanti of Recife would
not be invited either.
In 2005 Bishop Cavalcanti and 32 of his clergy were deposed by the
Primate of Brazil for contumacy.
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.
In a letter accompanying the invitation, Dr Williams stated he hoped the
meeting would be “a place where we can 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.”
He noted that Lambeth would not be “a formal Synod or Council of the
bishops of the Communion” nor does attending the Conference commit a bishop
to accept “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.” Dr Williams said he
had reserved 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.”
Canon Kearon stated there was “no question that Gene Robinson had been
duly elected and consecrated” Bishop of New Hampshire in 2005. However,
paragraph133 of the Windsor Report recommends the Archbishop “exercise very
considerable caution in inviting or admitting him to the councils of the
Communion,” he said.
The “archbishop recognises the widespread objections in many parts of the
communion to [Bishop Robinson’s] consecration and to his ministry,” said
Canon Kearon. However, the “Archbishop intends to explore the possibility of
inviting [Bishop Robinson] to Lambeth as a guest or observer,” he added.
The Bishops of the Anglican Mission in America would not be invited to
Lambeth because of the decision taken by Archbishop George Carey in 2000.
Archbishop Carey “wrote to them saying he could not recognise their
ministry” and that their “consecrations were irregular,” Canon Kearon
explained. This decision was “confirmed at Oporto” by the Primates in 2000
and the “decision was already fixed” by Dr Williams’ predecessor.
The case of CANA Bishop Martyn Minns exhibits “no difference” from the
AMiA and he falls into the same category, Canon Kearon said.
Dr Williams has been under intense pressure to act upon the Lambeth
invitations. While the Conference has no juridical powers, it is seen as the
symbolic centre of Anglican identity — and the arbiter of who is and is not
an Anglican. The Primate of Canada, Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, urged Dr
Williams to postpone Lambeth to forestall the political confrontation
expected.
A number of American and British bishops had suggested they may boycott
Lambeth should Bishop Robinson not be invited.
However, on May 15 the Primate of the West Indies, Archbishop Drexel
Gomez told The Church of England Newspaper the Global South Primates had
written to Dr. Williams saying that if Bishop Robinson were invited to
Lambeth, the Global South bishops would not attend.
Responses from Nigeria, CANA and AMiA to Withheld Lambeth
Invitations
Church of Nigeria & Archbishop Peter Akinola:
"In response to requests for comments on the Lambeth Conference
invitations, Archbishop Peter Akinola reaffirms that the Church of Nigeria
is committed to the CAPA commissioned report "The
Road to Lambeth".
"Since only the first set of invitations had been sent, it is premature
to conclude who will be present or absent at the conference. However, the
withholding of invitation to a Nigerian bishop, elected and consecrated by
other Nigerian bishops will be viewed as withholding invitation to the
entire House of Bishops of the Church of Nigeria."
(Source: Church of Nigeria, May 22, 2007)
_________
Bishop Martyn Minns,
Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA):
“I have read the statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury's office
regarding next year’s Lambeth Conference. While the immediate attention is
focused on the invitation list, it should be remembered that this crisis in
the Anglican Communion is not about a few individual bishops but about a
worldwide Communion that is torn at its deepest level. This point was made
repeatedly at the Primates' meeting in Dar es Salaam. Depending on the
response of The Episcopal Church to the Primates’ communiqué by September
30, the situation may become even more complex. One thing is clear, a great
deal can and will happen before next July.”
*Note: Read also a May
23 Letter from Bishop Minns in
which he discusses the significance of this week's news on Lambeth '08.
(Source:
CANA, May 22, 2007)
_________
Bishop Charles Murphy of the
Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMiA):
In light of the overwhelming evidence of the Global South’s clarity and
numerous warnings, by issuing Lambeth invitations to ECUSA Bishops prior to
the release of their final response to the Primates’ concerns and demands
for repentance (due September 30th), Archbishop Williams’ actions can be
interpreted as preemptive and even dismissive. This seems to indicate he
takes the Global South’s continued support for granted. ... We can draw
comfort from the fact that, as Dr. Philip Jenkins writes in The Next
Christendom, the actual leadership of the Anglican Communion has now shifted
to the Global South, and I expect Archbishop Kolini and other Global South
leaders will address this matter in a decisive way at their upcoming
meetings this fall..."
Full Statement
(Source: AMiA Press Release, May 24, 2007)
Bishop Duncan: "One way or another, there will be a parting of
ways"
Note: See related document,
Why Did the Diocese (of Pittsburgh) Ask for An Alternate Primate?
"Sober Leadership Retreat Considers Future of Diocese"
Source: Episcopal
Diocese of Pittsburgh
May 22,2007
PRESS RELEASE
Diocesan Convention Nov. 2-3 will set course of the diocese
Members of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh’s Standing Committee, Board
of Trustees and Diocesan Council discussed the future path of the diocese at
Antiochian Village May 20-21. Speaking at the beginning of the retreat,
Bishop Robert Duncan told diocesan leaders that “we’re here together…to
discuss our way forward in light of our failure to obtain Alternative
Primatial Oversight.”
Diocesan organizational consultant Cynthia Waisner helped the leadership
identify a number of different choices in the light of the rejection of the
2006 appeals and, more recently, the House of Bishops’ rejection of the
pastoral plan put forward by the Primates of the Anglican Communion. The
diocese could simply keep doing what it has been doing, remaining on the
periphery of The Episcopal Church, but not attempting to reach a concluding
moment in the conflict. It could submit to the will of the Episcopal Church
in its majority, reversing the diocesan convention’s actions over the last
four years. It could attempt to separate as a diocese from The Episcopal
Church, an option a number of Anglican Communion Network dioceses are
considering. It could attempt to create space for conserving parishes to
negotiate an exit from the diocese.
Regardless of what option is ultimately adopted, the diocesan leadership
was clear about several things. There is no path forward for the diocese
that will not involve significant costs and pain. Staying with the Episcopal
Church in the light of its rejection of mainstream Christianity will force
members of the leadership, individuals and congregations to consider cutting
their ties to the diocese. Separating from the structures of the Episcopal
Church will force others to reevaluate their relationship with the diocese.
Regardless of the choice, parishes and the diocese are likely to face
financial challenges.
“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.
While, diocesan leaders reached no immediate consensus on what course to
suggest to diocesan convention, there was a strong sense that the diocese
should maintain the direction it set at the diocesan conventions of 2003,
2004, 2005 and 2006. In 2006, the diocesan convention affirmed the appeal
for Alternative Primatial Oversight. In 2005, the convention accepted the
Windsor Report. In 2004, it approved the second reading of an amendment to
the diocesan constitution that states the diocese will not be bound by
decisions of the national church that are “contrary to the faith and order
of the one holy catholic and apostolic church.” In 2003, the convention
stated that in the approval of Bishop Gene V. Robinson as Bishop of New
Hampshire, “The Episcopal Church has exceeded its authority and departed
from its constitution.”
A number of diocesan leaders believed that a decision would soon be
required. “We can’t wait any longer. I don’t believe anything today that I
didn’t believe 40 years ago. Then I was smack-dab in the mainstream. Now I’m
on the outside looking in,” said Fr. Bill Ilgenfritz of St. Mary’s in
Charleroi. Others are still thinking through the diocese’s options. Several
voiced their desire to see a direction set and a decision made so that they
could focus on local ministry.
Over the summer months, the diocese will be holding meetings for both
clergy and laity to discuss the issues facing the diocese. The goal will be
to shape a direction to be presented to diocesan convention in November.
“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.
|
