By Jonathan Petre 7/23/07
The Archbishop of York has warned conservative Anglican leaders that they will effectively expel themselves from the worldwide Church if they boycott next year's Lambeth Conference.Dr John Sentamu said the conservatives risked severing themselves from the Anglican Communion. In an exclusive interview with The Daily Telegraph, Dr John Sentamu pleaded with them to attend the conference despite their war with liberals over homosexuality.
.
But he told them that if they "voted with their feet" they risked severing their links with the Archbishop of Canterbury and with historic Anglicanism, a breach that could take centuries to heal.
.
"Anglicanism has its roots through Canterbury," he said. "If you sever that link you are severing yourself from the Communion. There is no doubt about it."
Read the rest here.
=========
.
Make no mistake -- this is a considered response to last week's saber rattling statement from the "Global South Steering Committee" challenging the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury by as much as declaring "you are SO not the boss of us!"
.
Well, actually, yes ... yes he is. And York's statement is about setting that particular record straight. You can declare yourself the bastions of traditional Anglicanism until the cows come home but if you're not in communion with Canterbury you're not part of the Anglican Communion.
.
And there you have it.
.
You've heard it here for a very long time: The responsibility for splitting the Anglican Communion lies with those threatening to leave -- not with those threatening to stay. And now we've heard it from York -- which may not be from "the horse's mouth" but it's from the mouth of the horse who speaks for the horse when he's off on study leave!
.
Meanwhile over at titusonenine and stand firm the minions are predictably appalled ... here was my favorite comment so far this morning (from #15 on titusonenine:)
.
"I think the idea of a Canterbury-less communion, once unthinkable, is becoming thinkable. "
,
And WE'RE the revisionists????? Looks like York is another bishop they're ready to throw out with the bathwater. Happy Monday, everybody!
12 comments:
The hyperbole and confusion of terms is not all that surprising. I mean these are people, from the comments that I scanned, reject mystical theology and the idea that the Fathers had no issues with connecting Jesus with the feminine Hokmah/Sophia of Ecclesiastes.
The widening declarations are paralleled by the Arian and Donatist movements at the birth of the Church. So certain were they of their correctness that they flailed about with all kinds of colorful phrases against the orthodox. As they slide down further into their particular combination of the two (a few of the commenters, in their insistence of male only language, damages their connection to the way the Fathers showed the preexistence of the Son – and well, I’m on the record about the rampant Donatism).
None of this is surprising simply because they started on such shaky ground to begin with. As their fantasy world begins to fade they will feel the need to lash out in increasingly strong, and imprecise, language to stave off fear and to help cement group identity.
As a side note, I think that the “reaserters/reappraisers” terms are far too limited. Kendall+ was trying to neaten up the conversation, which is admerable, but it places far to many controles on the conversation. It lumps far to many disperate theological visions into two, artificial camps. It also ignors, to all our perrell, the large group who don’t care to much. I had one elderly lady in my parish say, ruefully, “When can we get back to being Church? When can we all share the joy again?” She’s tired, and worn by it all, and I think we all are. We’re being worn down and the danger of it all is that we will all share in the anger and hate.
Good interview. But, here's the sentence that bothers me:
But he also warned the American bishops that Dr Williams reserved the right to withdraw their invitations if they were not prepared to engage in the decision-making processes of the Communion in the future.
Last I heard, Lambeth was still not a decision making body. If that has changed, somebody send me the memo because I didn't get it.
One of the tactics of the conservatives is to insert little bits like this where you least expect them. Over time, it is just generally accepted.
Very crafty.
Linda McMillan
Austin
I think that it would be quite wrong for anyone invited to Lambeth to refuse to come. I understand the frustrations that they have and sympathize with a great many of them, but they would be wrong not to go.
Linda stated . . . .
"Last I heard, Lambeth was still not a decision making body. If that has changed, somebody send me the memo because I didn't get it.
One of the tactics of the conservatives is to insert little bits like this where you least expect them. Over time, it is just generally accepted."
Um, Linda, Dr. Sentamu is a liberal, not a conservative.
Ummm ... pilgrim ... "liberal" and "conservative" are relative terms! In Columbus York was pushing for B033 and the darling of the AAC crowd!
Fred
1. When did Lambeth become compulsory? Has there ever been a Lambeth that Everyone attended?
2. One of TEC's arguments is that Lambeth didn't have the authority to make decrees that an autonomous national church MUST agree to, so yes, there is a question of authority about Lambeth.
3. Rumor has it that no major decisions are going to be made at this conference because the national churches have the authority. It's a time of study and fellowship. Why should people be forced to spend thousands of dollars to travel to England for tea with the queen if nothing is actually going to be accomplished? I'm sure developing nations could use the money elsewhere even if they agree with the liberal agenda.
Nonanglican
Decision-making body for whom, and in what sense? It seems like one of the best ways to get a sort of snapshot of the opinions across the Communion on any controversial issue, and it's almost always hazardous to simply ignore the thoughts of or brothers and sisters elsewhere in the world. After all, it isn't like we're sinless. Besides the Conference is almost certainly able to make suggestions to the ACC which can make a limited range of decisions, all or almost all centered on the Communion as a whole (ex. adding to the list of Provinces of the Communion).
Jon
Certainly the money could be used elsewhere, but then we would have one less manifestation of Communion. It is worth spending some money to be reminded so directly how diverse the Communion is.
Jon
Just because nothing gets decided does not mean it is a waste of time. I realize it may take a lot of money to get together, but if we consider ourselves a worldwide communion, we need to have a family reunion occasionally. And I have never been to a family reunion where everything was perfect. There are always disagreements. But we're still a family. We can figure out a way to get along, or at least we should be able to. And everyone is sad when a member of the family decides not to show up. If it is because of logistics, it's just sad. If it is because a family member is purposefully taking themselves out of the family, it can be tragic, even if the gathering might be more comfortable without that person's presence. Many of us will grieve if a big portion of the communion decides not to attend, even though we may totally disagree with much of what they stand for.
“the Lambeth Conference has no ‘constitution’ or formal powers; it is not a formal Synod or Council of the Communion”, and that invitation to the Conference has never been seen as “a certificate of doctrinal orthodoxy”. (From the May press release at the time of the invitations)
If attending has no meaning as to one's beliefs or standing in the church, why should not attending have any influence on standing on one's membership in the church? There have always been some who didn't attend? And mightn't a little cooling off time do some good, since no decisions there will be binding?
NonAnglican
Hmmm . . .
". . . the "Global South Steering Committee" challenging the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury by as much as declaring "you are SO not the boss of us!"
.
Well, actually, yes ... yes he is. And York's statement is about setting that particular record straight."
So he's your boss also? A foreign prelate has jurisdiction over the American Church?
That's quite a change for you, Susan. I thought you revelled in your autonomy.
an emergent church speaker once said, and I'm paraphrasing heavily because I can't find the article, that the institutional church doesn't matter per se. the institution per se isn't an integral part of Christianity.
being raised Evangelical, I still find myself sharing that mindset. so, I can say that the GS conservatives, many of whom are Evangelical, very likely don't see leaving Canterbury as being revisionist in any sense.
and I think I agree with them. Anglicanism has no ontological value in itself. certainly, a connection to Canterbury has no ontological value in itself, either. they are expressions of Christian faith that have rich historic value. however, I suppose that if I were put in a position where I felt I had to sacrifice my ties to Canterbury or the core tenets of my faith, I'd say goodbye to Canterbury.
given Sentamu's words, the community I consider myself an ally to may not be placed in that position. believe me, I'm grateful. however, on some liberal blogs just after the GS Primates' ultimatum was delivered, there was talk that perhaps we should give the Communion the finger and go off on our own. I'm not sure if this blog was one of those. anyway, if we're prepared to call the conservatives revisionist for considering breaking away from Canterbury, we should do the same for liberals who acknowledge that we might have ended up in the same spot (and might still).
Post a Comment