Justin Welby and Lambeth 2018

Earlier this week came news that Lambeth 2018, the decadal meeting of Anglican Communion bishops, has been postponed indefinitely or cancelled.

I think Justin Welby is doing the right thing to not insist on having Lambeth 2018 on schedule.  To have a repeat of Lambeth 2008, a big useless indaba session rightly boycotted by over 200 bishops, would be an expensive exercise in pointlessness that would confirm the divisions in the Anglican Communion.

Perhaps it would be better if he proceeded with Lambeth while not inviting a number of apostates, particularly the consecrators of Gene Robinson.  But if he were that hardline (as I am), he would not have been made Archbishop of Canterbury, now would he.

No, the one to blame is his predecessor, Rowan Williams.  For years, while pretending to be even-handed, he strung along the orthodox then sided with apostates when he had to make an actual decision.  He even undermined the Primates Meetings to do so.  Here’s a post from 2007 to give a flavor of that.

Then when he issued his invitations for Lambeth 2008, although he did not invite Gene Robinson himself, he invited all his consecrators, and thereby invited the boycott that followed.  Once again he chose the apostates over the orthodox.  In addition, he infamously structured Lambeth with indaba so that no real decisions could be made, further protecting apostasy. 

In effect, when presented with the unavoidable choice between a robustly orthodox but slightly smaller communion and a weak, muddled, and much smaller communion, Rowan Williams chose the latter.  Brilliant.

And the Anglican Communion has not recovered from that – and perhaps never will.

So, yes, I think Justin Welby should be more hardline against apostasy and for a robustly orthodox Anglican Communion.  But I cannot blame him for the current divisions.  And he deserves credit for not pretending “All is well,” for not going forward with Lambeth 2018.

----

Housekeeping: Thanks to a kind reader for correcting my brain typo.  It's Gene Robinson (not Robertson, gah!).  Now corrected.

About the Lambeth Attack on +Nazir-Ali

By now most of my good readers have surely read of Lambeth Palace’s juvenile attack on The Bishop of Rochester. Here are the stories on the sordid matter from The Daily Mail and from the Independent, which actually broke a religion story for once.

The most directly responsible perpetrator has been found and sacked. To most, that’s the end of the matter. And perhaps it should be. But I’m not so sure.

For Lambeth Palace is full of hostility to traditionalists and to orthodoxy. It is just usually not so overt as the noted slur. It is a passive-aggressive brand of hostility that doesn’t call traditionalists names, but does oppose them, even ignore them on everything that matters – very politely, of course. Even key decisions of the Primates Meeting have been ignored by the Lambeth crowd.

Given this record, the naughty word is almost an improvement.

In any case, Lambeth is such a politely poisonous hothouse of hostility toward traditionalists that someone felt comfortable letting the polite façade drop and put such a slur on a document to be distributed to the Prime Minister and all 43 of the Church of England’s diocesan bishops. (Perhaps the perpetrator intended to remove the offending word before document actually went out, but that is speculation.) Yes, the person is question is surely a rogue maverick; but I suspect he is so only in method, not in attitude.

And guess who is ultimately responsible for the atmosphere at Lambeth being so poisoned? That’s right. Dr. Rowan Williams.

And I much prefer he fire himself.

+David Anderson on Lambeth and Border Crossings

Bishop David Anderson is such a straight talker it brings into question his qualifications to be an Anglican bishop. Seriously though, I appreciate his ability to tell it like it is.

He certainly does so in talking about Lambeth and its absurd proposal on border crossings. After discussing Bishop Duncan’s leaked letter to Bishop Lillibridge, +Anderson continues:

One of the items that Bishop Duncan wished to protest was the treatment of border crossings as the moral equivalence of same sex marriages and gay bishops, a stance that previous Primates’ Meetings refused to take. This new equivalence represents a steep moral decline on the part of the Lambeth leadership, and is further underlined by the thought that the orthodox Anglicans who have left, let me say it again, WHO HAVE LEFT the Episcopal Church, would EVER go back into the toxic theological quagmire of heterodoxy that is the leadership of TEC. We are not going into any holding bay; we are the victims and Lambeth is thinking of sending the abused back to the abuser rather than punish the abuser.

I couldn’t have said it better myself in describing how absurd and utterly bankrupt the Lambeth proposal is.

Ingrates

One of the truly odd things to come out of Lambeth is the ingratitude and bitterness from the Episcopal Church toward the Archbishop of Canterbury. Heck, he’s rigged Lambeth and just about everything else to ensure the Episcopal Church will never be disciplined for its enormities. But those who should most appreciate his efforts apparently don’t at all.

BabyBlue reports toward the end of this podcast that Presiding Heretic Schori sat with her arms folded and a number of TEC bishops walked out while more normal bishops gave ++Rowan a standing ovation at the end of Lambeth.

Maybe they are upset over his concluding press conference or his statement that he will talk to GAFCON. Or maybe having their apostasies enabled just isn’t good enough for them. They want them enshrined. Perhaps when there is gay sex on the high altar of Canterbury Cathedral with a shrine to Moloch on the side complete with a continual stream of orthodox being thrown down its brazen throat they will be happy. Perhaps.

It’s apparent nothing but total victory will please these people. Their actions and attitudes confirm Neuhaus’ Law: “Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will be proscribed.”

The Bishops of Winchester and Exeter are right. For the sake of orthodoxy and genuine unity in the Anglican Communion, these stiff-necked apostates must be cut off from the Communion. Otherwise, they will be a continual source of apostasy and schism.

Lambeth: ++Rowan Williams on the Proposed Moratorium on Interventions

It may not surprise my good readers that I’m not terribly impressed with Lambeth and may leave commentary on it to others. But the following from the Archbishop of Canterbury provokes me. In his concluding Presidential Address, after discussing the proposed moratoria on same-sex blessings and bishops, he continued:

It’s worth adding, too, that the call for a moratorium on interventions across provinces belongs in the same theological framework.

Sorry, I have to stop right there. It does NOT belong “in the same theological framework” of same-sex innovations at all. Even church fathers, such as St. Athanasius, engaged in interventions, but they sure as heck did not engage in same-sex blessings. And, while there are a number of passages addressing same-sex conduct, scripture does not say much about the holiness of diocesan boundaries. Moreover, the Primates Meeting clearly said that interventions to relieve distressed orthodox are NOT equivalent to the enormities of North American provinces. Yet ++Rowan ignores and undermines the Primates . . . once again.

++Henry Luke Orombi is right : “Anglicans may say there are four ‘Instruments of Communion,’ (the Archbishop of Canterbury; the Lambeth Conference; the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates' Meeting). But de facto, there is only one - the Archbishop of Canterbury.” In today’s Anglican Communion, it seems what really matters is what Holy Rowan thinks, not the councils of the church.

O. K., read the rest while I calm down.

Such interventions often imply that nothing within a province, no provision made or pastoral care offered, can be recognizably and adequately Christian; and this is a claim not lightly to be made by any Christian community regarding any other without grave breach of charity. And it seems to be widely agreed in this Conference that internal pastoral and liturgical care, strengthened by arrangements like the suggested Communion Partners initiative in the USA and the proposed Pastoral Forum we have been discussing, are the way we should go if we want to avoid further ecclesial confusion.

No, that portrayal of the motivations behind interventions is inaccurate at best. I don’t hear any primate saying there is nothing in The Episcopal Church that is “recognizably and adequately Christian.” Many (though it’s certainly becoming less many) faithful remain in the Episcopal Church. The problem is that the leadership of TEC is stamping out more and more of what is “recognizably and adequately Christian” and is making life more and more difficult for parishes and dioceses which hold firmly to the faith once delivered.

Are the Primates to follow Holy Rowan’s policy of doing little to nothing to relieve those distressed orthodox? Would St. Athanasius declare apostate territory sacrosanct?

GAFCON, not Lambeth, has the right idea – apostate bishops are to be considered not bishops at all and their bishoprics vacant. And the faithful in those territories are to be provided for, and the unsaved evangelized. Let the interventions continue and flourish!

++Henry Luke Orombi on the Archbishop of Canterbury

The Times has published a piece by the Archbishop of Uganda explaining Uganda’s absence from Lambeth. It would be safe to say it has shaken Lambeth up a bit.

What stands out is ++Orombi’s critique of the Archbishop of Canterbury:

. . . when the Archbishop of Canterbury invited these American bishops to participate in the Lambeth Conference, against the recommendations of the Windsor Report and the Primates' Meeting, and in the face of the unrelenting commitment of the American Church to bless sinful behaviour, we were stunned. Further betrayal.

And betrayal is exactly the right word. Rowan Williams strung along the orthodox with the Windsor Report, Primates Meetings, the Panel of Reference, etc. et al. It was all a deception. When he finally had to make a decision, he in effect declared the Episcopal Church in compliance with Windsor and with the decisions of the Primates even though it was obvious TEC was not. I’m tempted to say he lied, but lying is intentional; and he so strenuously wanted to keep the Anglican Communion together, it may have effected his judgement. In any case, although the Episcopal Church didn’t even allow a vote on Windsor compliance at their last General Convention, Rowan sided with the apostates and against the orthodox and against the clear decisions of the Primates. The last straw in that regard were his invitations to Lambeth. The apostate North American bishops, save one, were invited. Orthodox bishops appointed to relieve distressed North American orthodox Anglicans, such as the CANA bishops, were not. Yes, Rowan Williams indeed betrayed the orthodox majority of the Anglican Communion.

It was clear to me and to our House of Bishops that the Instruments of Communion had utterly failed us.

Anglicans may say there are four “Instruments of Communion,” (the Archbishop of Canterbury; the Lambeth Conference; the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates' Meeting). But de facto, there is only one - the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Again, correct. The Primates Meetings mandated discipline of the Episcopal Church. Rowan vetoed that.

Which begs the question – why go to Lambeth, when, if it takes real action to discipline apostates, Holy Rowan will veto that, too? What’s the point of councils when one man has demonstrated he can and will thwart them?

The peculiar thing is that this one man, who is at the centre of the communion's structures, is not even elected by his peers. Even the Pope is elected by his peers, but what Anglicans have is a man appointed by a secular government. Over the past five years, we have come to see this as a remnant of British colonialism, and it is not serving us well. The spiritual leadership of a global communion of independent and autonomous provinces should not be reduced to one man appointed by a secular government.

There ++Orombi boldly nails the long-term problem. The government-appointed Archbishop of Canterbury should not be the leader of the Anglican Communion any longer. A Primates Council or some other form of conciliar government of the Communion would be much better. The past few years have proven that. The Primates Meetings led in the right direction of church discipline. The Archbishop of Canterbury led in the completely different direction of enabling apostasy. And ++Canterbury got his way.

++Orombi is right to refuse to play that game any longer.

Lambeth: The “New Thing” of Wife-beating

Most of my readers are aware of "Bishop" Catherine Roskam’s – umm – contribution to the generous spirit of Lambeth:

We have 700 men here. Do you think any of them beat their wives? Chances are they do. The most devout Christians beat their wives... many of our bishops come from places where it is culturally accepted to beat your wife.

Yes, those Global South Neanderthals are soooo inferior to us enlightened people of faith.

Anglican Musings has a bit of fun with this.

By the way, a helpful commenter has pointed to Anglican Musings as a source of a lot of analysis of the papers and statements coming from Lambeth. I’ve read only a little so far, but what I have read is impressive.

Lambeth: ++Mouneer Anis Tells It Like It Is

From here:

I see that a big wall still divides us. It is big because it involves the essentials, the foundation of our faith. We are not divided by mere trivialities, or issues on the periphery of faith. We are finding it very hard to come together in the essentials. This diversity of opinion is about the heart of our faith, the faith which we received from the saints. . . .

I find that many of our North American friends blame us and criticise us for bringing in the issues of sexuality and homosexuality but in fact they are the ones who are bringing these issues in. Here at Lambeth, you come across many advertisements for events organised by gay and Lesbian activists which are sponsored by the North American Church. If you visit the marketplace at the conference, you will notice that almost half the events promoted on the noticeboard promote homosexuality and are sponsored by the North Americans. And in the end, we, the people who remain loyal to the original teaching of the Anglican Communion, which we received from the Apostles, are blamed. They say that we talk a lot about sexuality and that we need to talk more about poverty, about AIDs, and injustice. They are the ones who are bringing sexuality into this conference. It’s not us. We want to talk about the heart of the issues which divide us, not only sexuality. That is just a symptom of a deeper problem.

They talk about the slavery and say that 200 years ago Christians were opposed to the freedom of slaves and they compare us to those Christians for our attitude to gay and lesbian practises. To be honest, I think this is inviting us to another kind of slavery, slavery of the flesh, to go and do whatever our lusts dictate. Sometimes, I think that maybe because of the pressure in Western culture to push the practise of homosexuality, our friends in the West are pushing these issues. But, on the other hand, I see many who live in the West and still want to preserve the faith and the tradition of the Church. Should we allow culture to pressure the Church or should the Church be distinctive, light and salt to the world?

Look Who Wrote Lambeth Bible Studies

At a Lambeth press conference today, Dr. Gerald West was introduced as one who took part in writing Bible studies for Lambeth. What kind of scholarship does he exhibit?

Q: I have a question for Dr. West. Would you say that the author of the NT book of Jude was incorrect when he wrote this about Sodom and Gomorrah, “just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire…” that was from verse 7. Would you say that the writer of Jude got the context wrong?

A: No not at all, I think he was referring to the sin of inhospitality.

Q: When he uses the phrase “sexual immorality”?

A: Yes, that was the way they were being inhospitable.

Yeah, right. This guy shouldn’t even be teaching Sunday School.

Kudos to the questioner, Matt+ Kennedy, for exposing him.

I am not impressed.

My forbearing readers may have noticed that I have had very little to say about actual proposals at Lambeth, including those from the Windsor Continuation Group. And, to be blunt, I really don’t care much about them and don’t have anything that profound to say.

For the Archbishop of Canterbury and his allies have made it clear by their actions that they will not discipline apostates and will not live up to agreements if that means disciplining apostates. ++Canterbury pretending The Episcopal Church is in compliance with Windsor/Dromantine/Tanzania and inviting everyone to Lambeth (save Robinson) makes that clear. Moreover, his not inviting the bishops of CANA among other actual orthodox bishops and turning up his nose at the real Bishop of San Joaquin are among the indications that he really sides with the apostates.

No proposal, forum, report, whatever is going to change this state of affairs. Only an Archbishop of Canterbury with a little Athanasius in him will. The Lord can certainly bring that about, but given the earthly powers who appoint the ABC, I’m not holding my breath.

So yet more papers and panels and meetings are just a charade wasting time and stringing along the orthodox foolish enough to play that game as far as I’m concerned. And I can barely bring myself to waste time commenting on them. As the Ugley Vicar has opined about the Windsor Continuation Group report, they are “as much use as a chocolate ladder at a house fire.”

++Rowan does the MDG March

Our Lord of Canterbury can’t bring himself to defend the faith and the faithful, but he sure is getting out front for the UN’s Millennium Development Goals . . . not unlike the Episcopal Church’s Presiding Heretic.

Today, the Lambeth Agenda includes a “Walk of Witness” for the MDGs and a “celebration” of the MDGs at Lambeth Palace with +Canterbury and the Prime Minister speaking.

Methinks Lambeth and the Anglican Communion has more important things to do than be the religious front of the UN. If I were a bishop I would decline to march and would sit very quietly at the “celebration” or better yet take a walk around the Palace instead.

BREAKING: Bishops Have Already Left Lambeth

From today’s Lambeth press briefing (blogged on the fly by Matt+ Kennedy, so the wording might not be exact):

Archbishop Aspinal steps up to the podium:

Let me begin by addressing to issues from yesterday:
There is a list of bishops present being at the Conference prepared as we speak. We sought permission from the bishops this morning to include their names. Those who allowed to have their names listed will be listed. A number did not give consent to be listed and a number are no longer present. We will let you know who has gone this afternoon.

With rubbish from ++Rowan such as this and this, not to mention the complete waste of time called indabas, who can blame them?

Lambeth: Indaba Groups Still a Joke

Bad things happen when crackers try to be multicultural, and indaba groups at Lambeth are among them. They are not going over well with the bishops and are seen as an inauthentic waste of time keeping them from talking about what really needs to be addressed:

Moreover, none of the bishops asked by The Times had yet been given a chance to discuss the one thing that they are all desperate to address: how can the Anglican Communion survive the consecration of Gene Robinson, the openly gay Bishop of New Hampshire.

Of course, that’s the purpose of indaba groups, to avoid important discussion and real decisions.

But at least some bishops don’t appreciate that. Bishop Howe even wrote his clergy (perhaps tongue in cheek, perhaps not) that “there seems to be an incipient revolt” against the indabas. “Many of the Africans are saying, ‘This isn’t ‘Indaba’ at all! First of all, we are not a village, and we don’t know each other. And secondly, we are not attempting to solve a problem; we are talking in small groups about minor issues of little consequence.’”

More on the Indabas may be found here. And Chris Johnson has a bit of fun with them.

BREAKING: +Iker Calls for Robinson Supporters to Leave Lambeth

From Ruth Gledhill’s blog:

. . . from Bishop of Fort Worth Jack Iker:
'Those Bishops who stand in solidarity with Gene Robinson should withdraw themselves from further participation in the Lambeth Conference. Having failed in several attempts to include Gene in the Conference, his supporters should themselves feel a sense of rejection from the Conference itself. Integrity and honesty would dictate that they should stand with Gene - excluded from full participation in the Lambeth Conference. Is this all talk, or is it backed up by action?'

UPDATE: Stand Firm confirms.

Lambeth: Outrage in the Cathedral (UPDATED)

The Sermon at the first Sunday Eucharist of Lambeth featured preaching the inclusive “gospel” . . .

Bishop Duleep de Chickera, of Colombo, Sri Lanka, said in his sermon that the church must be "an inclusive communion for anyone and everyone, regardless of color, gender, ability or sexual orientation. . ."

. . . and a Buddhist chant:

De Chickera concluded his sermon with a low, rhythmic Buddhist chant as the cathedral bells tolled.

After the service, Bishop Neil Alexander of Atlanta said he was "particularly moved" by de Chickera's sermon since it "lifted your soul," however, Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh said the inclusion of the chant was "very, very troubling" since it was an "invocation of something other than the God we know."

I may have more to say about this in due time.

UPDATE: More detail on the Eucharist can be found here. Note that Bishop de Chickera is an advocate of Liberation Theology and was hand-picked by ++Rowan to preach.

However, it appears the words of the chant in question were not Buddhist, though the tune was.

The Smell of Indaba?

The run up to Lambeth is getting uglier and uglier. Ruth Gledhill of the Times has posted an ominous article:

The Times has learnt that the crisis is likely to worsen, whatever is decided at the conference, because the Episcopal Church of the US plans to overturn its pledge not to consecrate any more openly gay or lesbian bishops.
The US church, which will dominate the conference with 125 bishops attending, is expected then to elect rapidly and consecrate a further five or six such bishops.

Now I don’t expect that many gay bishops so soon. But the liberals are getting more pushy and defiant. And why not? The Archbishop of Canterbury has enabled them and let them know by his actions and inactions that they can get away with anything. The defiance isn’t just coming from North America. The Archbishop of Wales Barry Morgan has made clear his eagerness to appoint gay bishops.

Meanwhile, Gene Robinson is busy not being the gay bishop in a speaking tour of England. He got an appropriate reception from at least one gentleman. Yes, I do find confronting his sermon appropriate, especially when he has the gall to say that he’s so sad about “the Anglican Communion tearing itself apart” when it's his consecration that triggered that. And Gene Robinson is a heretic who shouldn’t be given a pulpit in the first place. When bishops don’t fulfill their role of banishing heresy from the church, then it’s right for the laity to speak up and take action. Somebody buy that man a pint!

The Essence of Indaba

If you want several good laughs, you must listen to this dramatic reading of the pre-Lambeth letter from BabyBlue.

A line from the letter I didn’t notice before and with which I strong agree (The following is slightly and purposefully edited.):

. . . the final document will mean nothing . . . .

This Pre-Lambeth Letter Isn’t a Joke. . . .

But it should be with “The Essence Of Indaba,” “The Reflections Process,” and “the Listening Group.” This last pre-Lambeth letter to those attending is truly comical. I'm tempted to lampoon it, but the Lambeth Conference Office has pretty much done the job already.

If there is any doubt that Lambeth ’08 is designed to avoid any real resolution or action, it should be dispelled immediately. The letter pretty much comes out and says Lambeth is so designed:

Instead of the classic communiqué or resolutions style of communication this year's conference will produce a reflections document . . .

Among the desired outcomes anticipated by this diverse group from across the Communion was not so much debates, position papers, votes and resolutions but participation on an equal footing, listening as well as speaking and the emergence of wisdom and a common mind.

None of those nasty resolutions, but instead “listening.” Yup.

Indaba is open-ended conversation, which doesn't begin by looking for results . . .

Why do I suspect it won’t end that way either?

Brian McLaren: Another Reason Not to Go to Lambeth

It’s been confirmed that Brian McLaren will be speaking to the Lambeth Conference.

I think it’s a very sad commentary on the Archbishop of Canterbury that, with all the great minds Anglicanism still possesses, he invites McLaren to speak. McLaren’s co-called “generous orthodoxy” is no genuine orthodoxy but is just another flavor of wimping out on the faith along with much of the rest of the haze that comes from the “emergent church movement”. And the only thing really new or “emergent” about it is the packaging, if even that. Such has always been around and always will be around until Jesus comes back and cleans house. (And I speak as someone who used to be sympathetic to emergent stuff until I came to know better.)

And about the headline, I do fully respect the decisions of +Venables, +Iker, and other strong orthodox bishops to go to Lambeth to make a stand for the faith. I hope one way they will take a stand is to stand up and walk out when McLaren starts emitting his fog.

++Rowan Misses the Point.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has gone YouTube with his agenda for Lambeth.

He makes it clear that “we don't want at the Lambeth Conference to be creating a lot of new rules” like that nasty Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10. He instead wants lots of fellowship, prayer and Bible studies and the like.

And that completely misses the point.

Many Anglicans cannot and – if one gives scriptures about dealing with false teachers any weight – really should not be in full fellowship with the apostates and heretics among the bishops of the Anglican Communion. So how can Lambeth be a big kum-ba-ya?

Oh, that’s right – if one leads in such a manner that those most intent on following scripture on the issue of false teachers and fellowship won’t come.

Of course, that’s not ++Rowan’s intent. But it sure as heck has been the result of his leadership.