The House of Bishops Theology Committee has published a paper, "Communion Matters." It has to do with the House of Bishops response to the Dar Es Salaam Communique of February, 2007. ENS reports it here with links to the paper itself. The essay is accompanied by a set of questions and it is the desire of the HoB Theology Committee that the paper and those questions be discussed and responses be given them in order that the House of Bishops might have these in mind when they meet in September. It is not clear on first read when papers are due, but one supposes early in September.
We should all look hard at the document and its questions.
Meanwhile, remember our first paper is due no later than June 4, 2007. That paper is on our response to the Draft Anglican Covenant. The Executive Council is going to take up the response to that Draft over the summer and has asked for our input now. I posted a entry on this paper HERE.
On May 23rd I posted the following in an entry titled, "The Archbishop as Vintner, Judge and Host."
"I hope Bishop Robinson takes up the offer to go (even as guest), but if he does so he needs the overwhelming support of bishops from The Episcopal Church and worldwide, support taking the form of a promise that they will in some way share his discomfort and his status as guest. I think it is important that he go and that all the other bishops go. Not to go is to relieve the realignment crowd from having to decide if to go or not themselves.
A suggestion: That all those bishops who feel that Bishop Robinson should be invited without reservation, as any other bishop, join with him in being guests on whatever level of reduced status that entails. If he can speak, they can. If he is enjoined to silence, they are too. If this means that there is a lot of silence around the sharing, prayer and reflection tables, so be it. If he is consigned to the press room and cafés for conversation, so will they. Perhaps then the real Lambeth Conference will take place in the pubs and cafes and not in the reflective and non-legislative halls of the University where the conference is held."
The more I think about it the more I think this is right. It plays into the hands of the realignment crowd to stay away. It plays into the errors of inviting some as full participants and others as guests to simply allow the hosts decision on the matter to prevail. Go, but in solidarity with Bishop Robinson by accepting his status. When votes are taken bishops in solidarity might rise and say, "I abstain in solidarity with Bishop Gene Robinson who cannot vote." (This is assuming a "guest" is not allowed to do so.) After all the row about who got invited, it still stand (properly I think) that the Archbishop can invite who he wills. But the invited have some say in passing the peas.
