I well remember Lambeth 1998, which took place a month or so after I was baptized in a college chapel in Cambridge, England. I had never heard of Lambeth–the palace, or the eponymous once-a-decade gathering of Anglican bishops. In 1998, the main issue the bishops were said to be discussing was debt relief: on the agenda was a plan to erase third-world debt within 8 years. For a brief moment, it appeared that bishops in European and North American churches were working for the common good with bishops from the developing world.
Sexuality was on the table, too. The conference passed the now-much invoked non-binding resolution known as Lambeth 1.10 which recognized “that there are among us persons who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation,” rejected “homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture,” stated that the conference “cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions,” yet called on “all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals.”
Also in 1998, Ruth Gledhill (who writes about religion for the London Times and who, for my money, has been providing the best coverage of all this), predicted: “the next debate threatening to disrupt the spiritual calm of the Church of England is expected to be women bishops.” That, of course, came to pass earlier this month in York, when the Church of England General Synod voted to allow women to be made bishops. (The first women were ordained to the priesthood in the Church of England in 1994, but until last week’s meeting, the English episcopacy was limited to men.)
A decade has passed — a decade full of tumult in the church. Lambeth 2008 is finally upon us. This year, no one’s talking debt relief, though relationships between churches in the developing world and churches in England, North America, Australia, and Europe are still very much at issue.
Lambeth 2008 feels almost operatic. And as in many great operas, much of the drama happened prior to the curtain’s going up. For those who don’t follow ecclesial politics, here’s a brief (very brief) rehearsal of the back story:
In 2003, the General Convention to the Episcopal Church ratified the election of Gene Robinson as bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire. Robinson became the first openly partnered, non-celibate gay bishop in the church. And then, not to put to fine a point on it, all hell broke lose. In the US and beyond, bishops, priests, and laity protested. Eventually, some Americans realigned themselves with bishops and dioceses elsewhere in the world, bishops who hold “traditional” or “conservative” views about human sexuality.
For months after the Rt. Rev. Robinson’s consecration, debate swarmed about whether the bishop from New Hampshire would be invited to Lambeth. (Really, I haven’t heard so much urgent speculation about an invite list since rush week at college.) Finally, Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury, decided not to invite Bishop Robinson to sit at Lambeth. Robinson is in the UK this week nonetheless, visiting various churches and, he says, making himself available to whomever wants to talk to him.
Robinson is not the only bishop who will be absent from Lambeth. Martyn Minns wasn’t invited either. Minns was serving as rector of Truro Church in Virginia during 2003. He immediately protested Robinson’s consecration, and ultimately Minns himself was consecrated a bishop by Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola. Minns now serves as “missionary bishop” of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, “an Anglican missionary effort in the US sponsored by the Church of Nigeria.”
In addition to the two bishops who didn’t receive invitations to Lambeth, several hundred bishops, from Nigeria, England, and elsewhere are boycotting the conference, to protest the Archbishop’s failing, in their view, to sufficiently discipline the American church. Several hundred of these bishops had their own meeting last month in Jerusalem, a meeting in which they questioned the leadership of the Archbishop, and more or less called for a complete reorganization of global Anglicanism. And several Anglo-Catholic bishops in England, alienated and angered by the extension of the episcopacy to women, are rumored to be planning to skip Lambeth as well.
People are warning ominously that this may be the last Lambeth conference. I don’t mean to be blasé, here — the tensions are very real, the emotions are very high, the issues are serious. But people said the same thing in 1998: in August of that year, for example, British and Australian papers reported that an anonymous English bishop cautioned that “The Anglican Church is falling apart….I think it very likely that this Lambeth Conference will be the last; there just isn’t the glue to hold things together.”
That unnamed English cleric was wrong. Here we are finally at Lambeth 2008.
Many of the central characters are off-stage.
As for what happens when those bishops in attendance all turn up, stay tuned…
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted July 22, 2008 at 10:16 pm
In a world teetering on world war with attrocities in Iraq, the Sudan, Palestine, Tibet, and Southeast Asia the Bishops are worried about openly gay Bishops in committed relationships and not those (like Bishop Otis Charles) who hid their orientation so they could continue ministry. Out of sight out of mind.
In a world where women are abused and neglected, sold into slavery, aborted for being daughters and not sons there are some Bishops who are concerned that those lacking Y-chromosones (and penis’) are being consecrated.
Bishops, Never in the Gospels does your Jesus say anything like “Blessed are those who discriminate against homosexuals…” or “When women sought to be ordained you kept them out–enter into the joy of my rest!”
Greenman
Just out of curiousity are American dioceses still buying airline tickets so African and Asian Bishops can attend the Lambeth Conference?
posted July 23, 2008 at 10:19 am
Has it ever occurred to you that the atrocities you are so concerned about are the natural consequence of the dilution of Christian morality?
posted July 23, 2008 at 11:07 am
In a world filled with hate, what do we have in the one place where we should be demonstrating the love of Jesus? We have more hate. Hate the gays, hate the women priests, hate those who support the blasphemers who have diluted the fanatical fundamentalist exclusionary morality, hate , hate, hate …. and the ultimate hypocrisy, it is hate being clothed in the name of righteousness, robed in the “name of God”.
I am quite certain that whatever form God has, He is so very pleased with the actions of these faithful servants who are faithfully demonstrating so powerfully what divine love truly IS NOT.
posted July 23, 2008 at 11:41 am
“Has it ever occurred to you that the atrocities you are so concerned about are the natural consequence of the dilution of Christian morality?”
That’s assuming that those practicing Christianity are in some way morally superior to those who are not of the Abrahamic faiths, which is demoinstarbly untrue. It’s also assuming that such atrocities occured less often when Christianioty had a strnglehold on Western civilization, which is disproven by historical records.
Any religion that persecutes persons merely because of their differences is undeserving of any form of the label “compassionate”.
As for Anglicans who hate homosexuals, maybe instead of importing backward homphobic priests and bishops from Nigeria (so well known for it’s acts of compassion – NOT!) they should move themselves to Nigeria where they can openly practice their mindeless prejudices.
posted July 23, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Lauren,
Thank you for the mention of Martyn Minns. He has been marginalized and ignored.
The last time I was naive enough to mention to an older Episcopalian the 39 Articles (which my aunt read by flashlight as a girl), he responded with some mention of the diocesan newsletter. Perhaps his diocese (Memphis is in it) does call their newsletter “the 39 Articles,” but I severely doubt that.
“Hate.” Old men in self-inflicted Depends Undergarments have been hated if they have not been warned. God has his categories of love and hate. Psalm 5 speaks of God’s hatred. No, it is not a blistering Nazi emotion or conviction. Having said that, to ignore Jesus’ being crucified on the cross for our sin is to hate Christ Jesus.
No, I don’t support civil penalties against practicing homosexuals. Jesus cut that out by ceasing the stoning of the adulterous woman. Imagine however the worst of homosexual haters: what homosexuals do to each other and themselves eclipses civil execution.
posted July 23, 2008 at 1:57 pm
I didn’t mention practicing christians. I talked about Christian morality. Not living up to a standard of conduct, and defining a standard of conduct downward are not the same thing.
And, yes, Christianity is a superior system of morality.
posted July 23, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Buddhism has a far better track record than Christianity.
posted July 23, 2008 at 5:54 pm
” what homosexuals do to each other and themselves eclipses civil execution.”
Unless someone is gay himself, he/she have only the perverted opinions of homophobes on which to base such a statement.
It is a miracle in & of itself that the majority of gays grow up sane under the overtly unreasoned persecutions practiced by the body of followers of Abrahamic religions.
posted July 24, 2008 at 9:25 am
“And, yes, Christianity is a superior system of morality.”
Because you say so?
posted July 28, 2008 at 4:54 pm
I am honestly repulsed by some of the comments here.
Alec, can you expand on what exactly “homosexuals do to each other and themselves” that is worse than EXECUTION?
This is why I’m not a Xtian.
“Crack is whack!” – Whitney Houston
posted July 29, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I have some questions for all Christian religions and their righteous leadership. While Jesus walked the earth and taught all who would listen, He never personally attacked nor identified abortion and homosexuality as being sinful much less an abomination to God His Father. Do you think He forgot, or was somehow remiss in His duty to save us from damnation? Or do you think that perhaps since He was a Jewish Rabbi, Jesus never considered them abominations or even sinful? If He, in His infinite wisdom as One of Three Persons in the Trinity did not condemn abortion or homosexuality, what gives you the right to? I am talking about Jesus’ direct words and not those stories and rules contained in other books that do not quote Jesus’ words. Thank you for your time and answers. I look forward to reading them and gaining insight into your reasons.
posted July 29, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Thank God we have A New Earth coming. All the old judgmental structures will eventually fall away and we will each connect with God or Source directly and eliminate all these middle men. From the beginning of time, all wise ones have said go within, but we just didn’t trust our inner selves to listen to Source. That is changing with the new generations as well, as they flee from the bureaucratic structures and controls. Jesus didn’t need to have a degree or credentials to share the truth and neither do we. Everything has been structured to death from our churches to our governments to our educational systems, and corporations, and bound up by laws made by a few to simply control all the others. The bottom line today seems to be monetary rather than awakening to the truth of who we really are. In A Course in Miracles Jesus says, “Return to Love” and that is the only law we should seek. When we live and act out of love we do follow a path that eliminates injustice. Today we see more and more people turning away from structured religion, and I believe it will continue until there are less fear filled people needing the narrow teachings of the church.
posted July 30, 2008 at 7:16 am
I used to be a fundamentalist simply because that was my introduction to Christianity. In those circles, if a leader becomes or outs as a homosexual, he would be out (not likely a she). In other words, I learned a certain attitude toward gays that it is very hard to change.
But change I have. It isn’t exactly toleration of a sin; it is more a recognition that we’re all in the same boat. My job as a Christian is reconciliation not division over endless issues. Does not “blessed are the peacemakers” mean that we are to become bridge-builders instead of wall-builders? Jesus is the savior of all, not just heteros.
If I don’t like my present leader, for whatever reason, I have the option to leave his or her church and let it become what it will become. Or I can stay and try to be an influence for peace and encouragement in the gospel.
I think these older denominations are struggling with these issues, and they are tricky. But in the bigger picture ~ in the picture of the whole communion of believers in the world ~ I think God is trying to bring us all to comprehend love, which transcends power-struggles. In that sense, the more fundamentalistic among us will have to shed their prejudices against people who are not like them and get off their pedestal of a “righteous” hatred of gays. It’s hypocritical. It is also an example of “straining at gnats and swallowing camels.” It politicizes the gospel, and frankly they are shooting themselves in the foot. Anti-gay is not the church mission.
In the end, God is in control of the whole thing. And I think all churches are going to have to face themselves and own up to the their various xenophobias. May God help us to love one another and get on with what really matters in the short lives we have.
posted August 1, 2008 at 9:55 pm
As Christians, we should stop quoting Leviticus, unless, of course we are willing to give up our ham for Easter, oyster stuffing for Thanksgiving, and poly-cotton blends in the summer. Women should also be prepared to remove ourselves to the “red tent” during our monthly cycle, not returning to public life until undergoing a ritual cleansing and having our priest sacrifice a dove on the altar upon our return. (Men, while we are out of commission, you can figure out who will cook all the meals, clean the house and handle the car pool duties ferrying your progeny to and from school, ballet and soccer practice.)
Can we all finally agree to just get over Old Testament law? Christ came and the law is fulfilled. We are no longer bound by it. Could the spirit have made it any clearer than with Peter’s vision when he is commanded by God to “kill and eat” even the “unclean” animals in his vision and is told that nothing made by God is “unclean.”
When it comes to the Anglican Communion, many people do not understand that ++Rowan is not like the Pope and cannot “discipline” the member churches in the union. In fact, his current stab at “discipline” by not extending an invitation to +Gene Robinson, who was the properly elected Bishop of New Hampshire, merely made himself look small, mean-spirited and not very street smart. The Bishops he tried to appease boycotted Lambeth anyway and left him hanging out to dry.
The Anglicans have always been unique in that we are loosely bound together having formed from one “mother church,” but agreeing to govern ourselves, tolerate (even celebrate) our differences, and to support each other in the spread of the gospel. We are NOT a “confessing” church, but a creedal church. We have never needed any statement of theology set in stone (“You must believe this, or else. . .”)nor do we now. We have the Holy Scripture, the Prayer Book with the creeds (tradition), and last, but certainly not least, the good intelligence God has bestowed upon each of us to discern the calling of the Spirit in our lives (reason).
God is love, and I believe I found God in the love I discovered in my local Episcopal Parish where every political and theological viewpoint can be accounted for from far right to far left and everything in between. We have a genuine loving and caring for each other, however, and every week we meet around the altar and share the body and blood of our Lord. To me that is the beauty and strength of the Episcopal Church. There is room for all around the table. That was also the beauty and strength of the Anglican Communion before the current power grab started.
posted August 2, 2008 at 3:54 am
In response to the posting by Ro Ford. Well said; a beautiful understanding of the teachings of Christ and of the purpose of religion in society. LOVE!! UNDERSTANDING!! HELPING ONE ANOTHER!! Taking care of the plank in our own eye before we condemn or brethren for the splinter in their’s. Thank you. Maybe there is hope after all. Good Luck and God Bless!
Jim