By Daniel Burke
Religion News Service
For centuries, Anglicans have prided themselves on finding the cherished via media–the middle way–through theological and political thickets.
But the decades-long debate on homosexuality within the worldwide Anglican Communion seems stuck in a cul-de-sac, many say.
As Anglican bishops from around the world converge on Canterbury, England, for the three-week Lambeth Conference that began Wednesday (July 16), their 77 million-member communion again finds itself at a crossroads.
“The circle has come around again,” said the Rev. Ephraim Radner, a leading North American theologian who is helping draft a new constitution for the communion’s 38 member provinces.
For the communion, the “most important moral authority is the Lambeth Conference–they are the bishops,” said Radner. “If they’re not up to it, it basically means we can’t function.”
The once-a-decade conference, held at the University of Kent, will draw more than 650 bishops–including an estimated 135 from the communion’s U.S. branch, the Episcopal Church. Spread across 162 countries, Anglicans trace their common historical and liturgical roots to the Church of England.
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the spiritual leader of the communion who issues invitations to Lambeth, says this year’s conference will feature bridge building, not rule making.
Such rules are of little value, Williams has said, since each of the communion’s 38 autonomous provinces makes and enforces its own laws.
For example, a resolution passed at the last Lambeth Conference, in 1998, called homosexual acts “incompatible with Scripture,” and condemned same-sex relationships.
Five years later, the Episcopal Church elected and consecrated an openly gay priest, V. Gene Robinson, as bishop of New Hampshire.
Meanwhile blessings of gay and lesbian couples in Canada and the U.S.
continue. Robinson himself joined with his longtime partner in a civil union in June.
To placate conservatives, Williams did not invite Robinson to Lambeth, but the New Hampshire bishop will be in Canterbury anyway to advocate for gay rights.
Conservatives, a powerful bloc in the communion, say the time for “Lambeth’s dithering” is over. They want clear doctrinal standards barring homosexuality, and the power to enforce them. If the U.S. church is not disciplined, the Anglican Communion must be radically rearranged, they say.
“They see this as the very last chance,” said the Rev. Kendall Harmon, a conservative leader from the Diocese of South Carolina. “If the (North American churches) aren’t stopped, the breach won’t be healed.”
Last month, about 280 conservative bishops from Africa, Asia and North America met in Jerusalem and pledged to sideline Williams and the Episcopal Church by creating a powerful new council of archbishops and a new province in the U.S. About 200 of these bishops, mainly from Africa, are boycotting Lambeth, saying they won’t meet with their liberal colleagues.
But this year’s Lambeth Conference has been designed to discourage resolutions that would discipline the U.S and Canada. Small group discussions and a “mind of the communion” document at the conference’s conclusion on Aug. 3 will replace plenary sessions and parliamentary debate.
The Rev. John Peterson, former general secretary of the Anglican Communion, who helped plan the 1998 Lambeth Conference, said a conference without resolutions “has been the desire of every Archbishop of Canterbury, ever.”
But that desire has rarely been fulfilled, Peterson said.
Liberal and moderate Episcopal bishops have their own gameplans for Lambeth. San Francisco Bishop Marc Andrus said part of his mission began on Sunday (July 13) when he explained to fellow bishops gathered at a church in Wales why he supports gay rights.
Amid anti-gay hostility and the spread of AIDS, gays and lesbians “have found the Episcopal Church is one place where they’re welcome,” Andrus said in a telephone interview.
Gay and lesbian advocacy groups, such as Integrity USA, will attend “fringe events,” on the conference’s outskirts. Andrus said that “bishops like myself will be inviting and urging fellows bishops to hear their story.”
Bishop John Bryson Chane of Washington said Anglicans should focus on global missions, including the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals, which aim to cut poverty, disease and hunger significantly by 2015.
Episcopal bishops will also seek help in stopping overseas archbishops from adopting Episcopal parishes. Dozens of conservative U.S. churches–and the entire diocese of San Joaquin, Calif.–have seceded from the Episcopal Church to join more like-minded Anglican provinces.
“Those who are not aware of it will be as offended as we are about this painful disruption and violation of our jurisdictional boundaries,”
Chane said.
Copyright 2008 Religion News Service. All rights reserved. No part of this transmission may be distributed or reproduced without written permission.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted July 16, 2008 at 5:55 pm
I’m glad to see that Ephraim Radner will be involved. His is one of the best theological minds of our age. I hope his contribution will be important.
posted July 16, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Oh! those pesky American and Canadian churches…allowing the blessing of homosexual couples.
Lots of things to discuss at the conference. Conservatives VS the more up to date folks.
posted July 16, 2008 at 7:18 pm
The conservative Episcopalians sound “extreme” in their religion, maybe King Abdullah could help them.
posted July 16, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Good idea, Hentrietta! Call up the King, and let him have a talk with them.
posted July 18, 2008 at 11:12 am
I read a teeny, tiny article in a newspaper a few days ago that said the people of the UK, and surrounding areas are showing their favoring of Bishop Gene Robinson, as this big meeting is going on around them. It seems as though a split is necessary. The immobile minds of the conservative side of Anglican worshippers would set off and does such negative energy, it probably phsyically chokes positive people around them.
posted July 18, 2008 at 10:40 pm
I like the idea of no rule making because no one should be forced to accept homosexual leadership if it is not biblical. So go separate ways but don’t try to take property to force churches to accept sin, it’s not right although it is a sign of the times. Forced rules of acceptance of homosexual leadership will only in the end hurt the church. Gene Robinson’s agenda will only serve to hurt the church not heal it; separate and lets see where the people want to go, and let Gene continue to brag about being with both woman and man, making a family and then abandoning them.
posted July 19, 2008 at 12:31 pm
You never miss a chance to be negative do you cknuck? I’ve never heard Bishop Robinson brag about being Gay, but I have heard his wife uphold him in being who he is. I don’t believe he has abandoned his family, never read that.
posted July 19, 2008 at 1:06 pm
H22 facts aren’t negative or positive they are just facts and just because you’ve never heard it cannot be the basis of truth. I heard the speech on public tv
posted July 19, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Did you hear Bishop Robinson bragging about being Gay and abandoning his family. Who was it on Public TV who said these words? Because you say you heard it on Public TV doesn’t mean anything to me, because I didn’t. I read what I wrote from articles in the newspaper. Common sense alone would indicate Robinson is not going to say to the public what you wrote. Facts can be made falsely or they can be made honestly; false facts are negative and true facts are postive.
posted July 19, 2008 at 10:39 pm
cknuck:
Read recently that Bishop Robinson and his former wife are still friends and have 2 grown daughters and 2 grandchildren (girls, I think). IMO I don’t think Gene Robinson would be “bragging” about being with both a man and woman and then abandoning his family. He is close to his daughters, and friends with his former wife. Not likely he would behave like that. As Hentrietta asked, who was giving the speech on Public Radio?
posted July 19, 2008 at 11:52 pm
I think H22 may have misread my post I heard him saying: “I have been both with woman and man” Now all that is left is to call me a liar but it would not profit the truth. The public acceptance of Robinson’s decision by his wife may more than likely leave some information out.
I do think that Robinson’s showing up is selfish in nature and will cause deeper damage then even he suspects.
posted July 20, 2008 at 3:12 pm
I didn’t misread your post Ck. If you had posted what you had heard in entirety as you explained to PS above it would have read entirely different. It’s called taking things out of context. Never the less, he has not abandoned his family in any way. He’s still their Dad, and his wife is still his cherished friend for life.
Feeling as you do about Homosexuality, I can understand your opinion about his presence in UK for the 10 yr. meeting. Many of us who understand Homosexuality feel it is good that he is there to show who he is and be able to answer questions from his Peers as they come up. GLBT will no longer be ‘swept under the carpet’. It is time for humans to grow-up and face the truth, and everyone work together for God’s world.
posted July 20, 2008 at 4:24 pm
cknuck:
What you posted 2nd didn’t mention that Robinson was bragging. Now you said that Robinson said he had been with woman and man…which is true. That is only stating a fact…not boasting about it. And he hasn’t “abandoned” his first family, they are still in his life.
How things are written certainly makes a difference.
The church will survive…either together or separately.
posted July 20, 2008 at 10:52 pm
I’ve been with both woman and man is not the thing I would want my leadership noted for. To say he was not bragging is like saying “Wilt” Chamberlain was not bragging.
It’s not a statement you can take out of context H22 it is a complete statement, period.
You say that the “ex wife” (which you still called her “his wife”)is still a cherished friend H22 how do you really know that or the personal dynamics of the family, there is no way you could know that information.
I just point out that you still called her “his wife” shows possibly a deep sub-conscious sense of wrong. I can’t imagine being fine if my wife left me and the kids for a woman. Put the agenda aside and think about it for a moment.
posted July 20, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Sorry should be it’s a statement you “can’t” take out of context
posted July 21, 2008 at 11:39 am
You hear what you want to believe Ck, no matter what the facts, it seems. You hear bragging and I heard a statement of what B. Robinson said. You said I should have said ex-wife, when what I said was about the time-frame of when she was still his wife and she expressed how she felt about her husbands truthfulness of admitting who he truly was as a person. You make smoke and fire where there isn’t anything to prove your point.
I made two mentions of wife, one on the 19th, with explanation above. The second one on the 20th wasn’t a deep psychological slip up, rather one of carelessness. Again, smoke and fire to prove a point.