Ship of Fools: Lambeth Conference?

Thread: Lambeth Conference? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026622

Posted by Tommy1 (# 17916) on :

Looking through Andrew Brown's blog I see that he has recently claimed that divisions between Gafcon and other Anglicans means that "There will not be another Lambeth Conference." Is this likely true?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2013/oct/30/schism-gay-clergy-anglican-communion-dead

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

There'll be another Lambeth Conference. It's just that there may be fewer people in attendance than previously.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

of course there will be something called the "Lambeth Conference". But what it will look like and how it will compare with previous ones is an interesting question. I can foresee a number of possibilities:

a) A Lambeth Conference of all (or most) of the Anglican Communion, where the divisions which exist (principally over sexuality matters) come to the fore and there is the mother and father of arguments. Blood on the floors leading to deep and lasting bitter schism. For obvious reasons, I suspect that Archbishop Welby will be doing all in his power to avoid this scenario. Absolutely anything would be better than this.

b) A Lambeth Conference which includes the USA and Canada, but where GAFCON primates stay away en masse. The conference itself would be pretty eirenic, but GAFCON et al would effectively set themselves up as an alternative denomination. The problem for the C of E is that were this to happen, there is a good chance that a small but significant number of parishes would seek to align with GAFCON.

c) A Lambeth Conference which keeps GAFCON onside, by not inviting USA and Canada (or by putting informal pressure on them to stay away). This would lead to GAFCON effectively running the Anglican Communion. Such an anti-gay conservative lurch would cause all sorts of problems - not least that most of the C of E would feel "out of communion" with the Anglican Communion. Any residual credibility the C of E had would be gone in a flash.

d) A Lambeth Conference where all are invited, but which tiptoes around any potential minefields and achieves very little. This is my expectation. Matters discussed will be kept to the most banal and agreeable and any controversial subjects will be parked for the duration.

Part of the problem for Welby is that GAFCON particularly see the Lambeth Conference as a place where DECISIONS should be made and RULES established to keep everyone in line. Whereas Lambeth should demonstrate what the Anglican Communion really is - a family of Churches where each has considerable autonomy, but where there is a bond of love linking us all together. Lambeth is NOT a parliament or super-Synod.

My humble view? If Welby cannot get agreement from primates that they will share communion together, then such primates shouldn't even be invited. The practice of primates refusing to share communion with others just highlights the failure of the Communion as a whole.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Is there any point to having a D Lambeth Conference? I can somewhat sympathize with GAFCON in wanting a better definition of what it means to be Anglican. I sympathize more with provinces not wanting GAFCON to provide the definition. So, I guess I'm staunchly ambivalent about whether or not a Lambeth Conference happens in 2018.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Oscar the Grouch:

quote:
My humble view? If Welby cannot get agreement from primates that they will share communion together, then such primates shouldn't even be invited. The practice of primates refusing to share communion with others just highlights the failure of the Communion as a whole.

I think the AB should invite them all, offer them all Holy Communion, and if any don't feel so inclined, they may sit in tight-lipped silence looking like pompous fools while the rest rejoice in the Lord.

Posted by bad man (# 17449) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
d) A Lambeth Conference where all are invited, but which tiptoes around any potential minefields and achieves very little. This is my expectation. Matters discussed will be kept to the most banal and agreeable and any controversial subjects will be parked for the duration.

The last Lambeth Conference, in 2008, moved in that direction. by reducing the traditional plenary sessions and resolutions. The Anglican Communion does not speak with one voice, and when it passed (under the lamentable leadership of George Carey) the polarising resolution 1.10 on human sexuality, it didn't change anyone's mind, it only inflamed divisions and increased conflict.

The real and historical purpose and value of the Lambeth Conference is that the participants meet and confer. It is not a Parliament and it is not a Symod. It would be a pity if it did not take place; and it would be a good thing if it got humbler. It should be about relationship, and not about power.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Is there any point to having a D Lambeth Conference?

Yes - to the extent that such a conference would at least keep the show on the road and (hopefully) get bishops from very different contexts in the same place where they might actually talk with one another.

Failure to hold any sort of Lambeth Conference would be admission that the Anglican experiment is over and each province should just go its own way as completely independent Churches.

quote:
Originally posted by bad man:
The real and historical purpose and value of the Lambeth Conference is that the participants meet and confer. It is not a Parliament and it is not a Symod. It would be a pity if it did not take place; and it would be a good thing if it got humbler. It should be about relationship, and not about power.

A hearty Amen to that!

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Talk about what? The Anglican Communion experiment has failed. Other than a cosmetic resemblance, the Anglican provinces have very little in common. We a A GAFCON type proposal is the only way the Anglican Communion can be saved. North America isn't going for that. No compromise will satisfy both parties. Why continue the charade?

What some want is to continue sending money and people on mission trips to the Global South so that we can all feel good about ourselves for helping the poor and being a globally connected church. In return, we will nod approval when those in the Global South make statements that are in agreement with our general political ideas and ignore all the rest. Many in the Global South are no longer interested in being used in that manner and we in the West sure aren't interested in taking everything those in the Global South say seriously.

What's left?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Lambeth will obviously continue, with GAFCON standing at the door screaming about how it's leaving if it doesn't get its way until doomsday.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What's left?

Ignoring our differences of opinion in certain specific political areas and focusing on our brotherhood in and through Christ?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I think the real problem with Lambeth is that it gave people the idea that there was more unity than there ever actually was.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Lambeth will obviously continue, with GAFCON standing at the door screaming about how it's leaving if it doesn't get its way until doomsday.

And Marvin, I totally agree.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What's left?
Ignoring our differences of opinion in certain specific political areas and focusing on our brotherhood in and through Christ?

I suppose if we could somehow agree on what that means. Do we focus on our brotherhood in Christ by engaging in small talk about issues of little significance to prove that we can attend a conference without yelling at one another? Heck, we do that with complete strangers every day. Why spend millions of millions of dollars so bishops can fly to England and do it?

Sure, there is tea with the queen. American bishops will miss that. However, we Americans really like princesses not queens and yet being republicans shouldn't be mesmerized by royalty at all. Maybe, Zara Phillips could come to the US and throw a tea party for the House of Bishops. Canadian bishops being members of the Commonwealth can have the Princess Royal herself.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

TEC is not going to be kicked out of the Communion, because GAFCON only represents 6 provinces, and will never have the clout to kick it out. If there ever is a schism in the Communion, TEC will end up on the same side as the CoE.

Then GAFCON could have their Anglican pope and they would be happier until they fell out over the ordination of women.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Maybe, Zara Phillips could come to the US and throw a tea party for the House of Bishops.

Zara Phillips is not a princess... you'll have to invite her mum instead if you want one of those.

[ 19. December 2013, 15:19: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Do we focus on our brotherhood in Christ by engaging in small talk about issues of little significance to prove that we can attend a conference without yelling at one another?

That would be a good start, yes.

But "issues of little significance"? We're in an age of global austerity. Poverty is still endemic in much of the globe. Climate change threatens millions. War is unceasing. And yet the only issues that seem to matter in any putative Lambeth Conference are whether women and/or homosexuals can be priests?

There's some fucked up priorities going on there.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

What would be special about Anglican bishops meeting to issue a statement saying war and poverty are bad? Atheists and scientologists can have a joint meeting and declare war and poverty to be bad. So what?

Also, to Jane, I know Zara Phillips isn't a princess but she is princessey enough for Americans who don't have princesses. Canadians are OK with princesses in theory. So, they get Zara's mum.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What would be special about Anglican bishops meeting to issue a statement saying war and poverty are bad? Atheists and scientologists can have a joint meeting and declare war and poverty to be bad. So what?

I'm not seeing the problem.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What would be special about Anglican bishops meeting to issue a statement saying war and poverty are bad? Atheists and scientologists can have a joint meeting and declare war and poverty to be bad. So what?<snip>

They could, but they are much less likely to.

Atheists are much more interested in issuing statements that religion is bad.

I've never heard of scientologists having a conference, and I suspect that they would be unlikely to publish any statement if they did.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What would be special about Anglican bishops meeting to issue a statement saying war and poverty are bad? Atheists and scientologists can have a joint meeting and declare war and poverty to be bad. So what?
I'm not seeing the problem.

The bishops can share what their churches are doing about world problems and can share ideas. And Lambeth is a big enough event that it will get some press and remind people of other Christian priorities. For a few days anyway. Not special, perhaps, but worthwhile IMO.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What would be special about Anglican bishops meeting to issue a statement saying war and poverty are bad? Atheists and scientologists can have a joint meeting and declare war and poverty to be bad. So what?
I'm not seeing the problem.

There isn't a problem. There just isn't a point either. Lambeth Conference might as well pass a resolution stating that those who don't want to get wet should stay out of the rain.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Just some context about the "Lambeth Experiment" here. The first one was convened in 1867 to remove Bishop Colenso from his see at the Diocese of Natal for preaching that Moses did not really write the Torah. No province to that point had shown any concern whatsoever what other provinces thought of their choice of bishops, and except for GAFCON no one has cared since. So, in that respect, Lambath hasn't changed much.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Maybe, Zara Phillips could come to the US and throw a tea party for the House of Bishops.
Zara Phillips is not a princess... you'll have to invite her mum instead if you want one of those.

HRH Princess Beatrice and HRH Princess Eugenie might be fun hostesses. Cocktails though; not tea.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
HRH Princess Beatrice and HRH Princess Eugenie might be fun hostesses. Cocktails though; not tea.

With hats!

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What would be special about Anglican bishops meeting to issue a statement saying war and poverty are bad? Atheists and scientologists can have a joint meeting and declare war and poverty to be bad. So what?
I'm not seeing the problem.
There isn't a problem. There just isn't a point either. Lambeth Conference might as well pass a resolution stating that those who don't want to get wet should stay out of the rain.

Or maybe they could get together, discuss why so many people still need to go out in the rain despite not wanting to get wet, and maybe come up with some resolutions concerning the need to provide shelters and umbrellas for those who can't simply elect to stay indoors.

Look, there are bigger issues in the world than priestly genitalia (and what they do with them). Issues on which the church could do great good, if it would only look up from its petty infighting for one fucking second. And the fact that organisations other than the church are also in a position to do good doesn't change that one little bit.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What's left?
Ignoring our differences of opinion in certain specific political areas and focusing on our brotherhood in and through Christ?
I suppose if we could somehow agree on what that means.

In my experience, conferences and committees are actually incredibly good at finding things to agree on without first doing the groundwork of agreeing on what those things mean. It's a very effective method of having lots of people go home to report "they agreed with me" while actually not agreeing with each other at all.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Look, there are bigger issues in the world than priestly genitalia (and what they do with them). Issues on which the church could do great good, if it would only look up from its petty infighting for one fucking second. And the fact that organisations other than the church are also in a position to do good doesn't change that one little bit.

To you and many in the West, there are more pressing issues than the Dead Horses. Though, let's face it, we in the West made the Dead Horses issues in the first place. What we really mean is there opposition to what we've done in the West shouldn't keep them from working with us on issues that we find of the utmost importance but that they might find tangentially related to their Christianity. The fact that other organizations are in a position to do some good make it unnecessary for them to work with us on political issues when there is so much difference on theological issues.

I suspect that differences on Dead Horses are only one manifestation of the problem. For many Anglicans and other mainline Christians, belief in orthodox Christianity is of less importance than holding the right political opinions and doing good stuff. This isn't the position of GAFCON. It's not even the position of those of us in the West who disagree with GAFCON on the Dead Horses and Anglican Covenant but are otherwise sympathetic to their frustration with the theological liberalism in Western Christianity.

quote:
originally posted by orfeo:
In my experience, conferences and committees are actually incredibly good at finding things to agree on without first doing the groundwork of agreeing on what those things mean. It's a very effective method of having lots of people go home to report "they agreed with me" while actually not agreeing with each other at all.

There is a point to that?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What we really mean is there opposition to what we've done in the West shouldn't keep them from working with us on issues that we find of the utmost importance but that they might find tangentially related to their Christianity.

If issues such as caring for the poor, environmental stewardship and healing for the nations are only tangentially related to anyone's Christianity, I would humbly suggest that they might want to have another look at their Bible.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

They would humbly suggest that if you don't think the Dead Horses are important that you take another look at your Bible.

And that's why Lambeth Conference isn't worth having. [Cool]

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Just a side question:

Why is it that Lambeth always have to be in the same place? Yes, I know it's called the LAMBETH conference but wouldn't it be a good idea to move the conference from country to country to more fully represent the diversity of the AC. Contrary to what a few last remaining old British imperialists believe or want, the AC is not the British Empire, anymore.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0