Today the Church in the Province of Uganda reaffirmed its intention, seemingly unanimous by its House of Bishops, to stay away from Lambeth so long as those who violate the Lambeth Resolution are invited as members or guests. Read it HERE.
Supposing that there is no massive retraction of invitations of US bishops and supposing the determination of the HoB of Uganda, that means 30 diocesans plus some others will not be at Lambeth.
If Nigeria also affirms the Road to Lambeth statement in a similar fashion it would mean an additional 130 or so bishops from Nigeria not attending. It will be hard for Nigeria not to do so with Uganda in the lead.
So that means Lambeth would not have 850 or so bishops, but about 700. O well.
5/30/2007
5 comments:
OK... Comments, gripes, etc welcomed, but with some cautions and one rule:
Cautions: Calling people fools, idiots, etc, will be reason to bounce your comment. Keeping in mind that in the struggles it is difficult enough to try to respect opponents, we should at least try.
Rule: PLEASE DO NOT SIGN OFF AS ANONYMOUS: BEGIN OR END THE MESSAGE WITH A NAME - ANY NAME. ANONYMOUS commentary will be cut.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Did the statement from Uganda not seem oddly ambiguous? Not "Accordingly, the several bishops of Uganda will not attend the Lambeth Conference," but rather, "Accordingly, the House of Bishops of the Church of Uganda stands by its resolve to uphold the Road to Lambeth." Am I parsing this too fine?
ReplyDelete-- Reid
Mark -
ReplyDeleteI would recommend everyone read John Wesley's sermon "Catholic Spirit" Sermon 39. 2 Kings 10:15 "Is thine heart right, as my heart is with they heart? And Jehonadab answered: It is. If it be, give me thine hand."
If we all understood "catholic spirit" maybe we could at least meet at the table. Wesley lived in a time when there was a lot of dissent occuring in the CofE. And there has not been a time when there has not been dissent or disagreement in the body of Christ or the AC. We need to pray for each other and focus what we share in common rather than on the few items that we disagree on.
Healthy dissent is one thing, Padre. Open subversion, coercion, abuse of human rights, arrogance, bigotry, wilfull misrepresentation (in a word, lies), etc., does not constitute dissent; it constitutes an afront to the Gospel of Christ.
ReplyDeleteIf the handful of the GS who presumes to speak for the whole GS can go in the spirit in which Lambeth has always been intended (fellowship, consultation and prayer - check out what Lambeth actually says about itself), then even in dissent, I think they should go. If they can't behave themselves like civilized Christians and only intend on spreading their malice in their wake, then let them stay away because the Gospel is not served by their presence.
you don't seem to get the whole catholic thing, frankly
ReplyDeletePadre Frito,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote "If we all understood "catholic spirit" maybe we could at least meet at the table. "
I think the great failure of Rome was to claim during the great schism with the East and later during the Reformation, that it holds some sort of custodial power of catholicity. The non-
Global South primates are standing in that failed tradition.
So what do we in TEC do? We have not refused to sit with anyone. We have have not asked ++Williams to limit invitations to Lambeth. Had he invited Bp Minns, the Americans would still have showed up.
It seems to me that we are trying, as pBp Katherine urges, working on mission and ministry.
Unfortunately, there is another 'side' that only wants to work with holy people, and claims the ability to discern who they are. Were they simply to go off to be with other holy people, I suppose we should miss them but as in the case of our parishioners here who went to another parish to be holier, that would be that. These people however expect to take our property, and our good name with them. Good stewardship requires, I think, that we say no.
Further, as the apologists against the false claims of the pagans, we have a certain responsibility to defend the faith from the false claims of the neo-pharisees. Jesus did not shrink from argument when it was necessary, John the Baptizer seems to have sought it out.
So, I hope, we manage without excommunications, anathemas etc. I hope we seek to act charitably if firmly towards those who would leave, and with restraint towards the would be thieves.
But, finally, with Luther who as did Wesley, faced conflict squarely, we must say, "Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise."
FWIW
jimB
(who missed seeing you last night.)