Archbishop’s Letter to Lambeth Bishops Still Not Sent

Posted by Kendall Harmon

A spokesman for Archbishop Williams told The Living Church the internet video presentation was “not related” to his forthcoming letter to the bishops of the Communion. In that letter, the archbishop is reported to ask that they predicate their attendance at the Lambeth Conference upon their willingness to accept the Windsor Report and Anglican Covenant processes.

The video presentation, titled “Better bishops for the sake of a better church,” was a pastoral didactic tool, the spokesman. The presentation broadcast on the internet video service, outlines the archbishop’s hopes for the conference.

Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - EpiscopalArchbishop of Canterbury Lambeth 2008

Posted April 27, 2008 at 5:48 pm [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]

1. Irenaeus wrote:

Like fine wine, the letter will no doubt get even better with time.

April 27, 5:51 pm | [comment link]
2. dwstroudmd+ wrote:

Not to lead is to lead.  Not to write is to write.  Dithering is leadership.
Peace in our time.

April 27, 5:57 pm | [comment link]
3. Irenaeus wrote:

“Better Bishops for the Sake of a Better Church”

Doesn’t “better bishops” subtly imply that being a good bishop is a matter of TECHNIQUE?

Calling Jacques Ellul . . .

April 27, 5:58 pm | [comment link]
4. seitz wrote:

It was always misguided to think that the video presentation was the letter. That is what this clarification is about, not issues of timing.

April 27, 6:54 pm | [comment link]
5. Daniel wrote:

Hmmm - I wonder how many version of said letter exist, which version will get sent to which bishops, and what last minute revisions are being made after the video trial balloon?

April 27, 6:58 pm | [comment link]
6. Susan Russell wrote:

Is it “accept” or is it “comply” with the Windsor Report?
Vive la Différence!

April 27, 7:48 pm | [comment link]
7. Eugene wrote:

When will we stop playing with words?  Accept, comply, obey, etc all mean the same thing.  Why can not our yea be yea and our nay be nay.  No honest Bishop would accept the report if s/he did not want to comply with it.

April 27, 8:12 pm | [comment link]
8. Grandmother wrote:

Well, apparently there is a huge difference in VA, where the “standing committee” accepted the protocol report, but later explained that did NOT mean they approved it….
Gloria in SC

April 27, 8:26 pm | [comment link]
9. Dr Crestwood wrote:

The point is making the letter, whenever it comes out, cover the waterfront and in a graded way that is in proportion to the offense…those who are practicing misbehavior, those who are suing fellow Christians, those who are crossing boundaries…these are not all equal offenses and should not be treated as moral equivalents…but each and every bishop must be held accountable…and for my money those who are passive in the image of Rowan are determental to the mission of church as well…

April 27, 8:43 pm | [comment link]
10. robroy wrote:

Comment edited by elf.

April 27, 8:53 pm | [comment link]
11. Cennydd wrote:

My guess is that many TEC bishops refuse to comply with it OR accept it because of their precious and all-important “polity.”

April 27, 10:31 pm | [comment link]
12. Brad Page wrote:

Is it not agonizing to watch a church play such games, and over such a span of time as has elapsed since “crisis” erupted?  I am amazed that anyone continues to hang around to wait for a resolution (and by that I mean a remotely clear and tangible decision/outcome/result).  It seems the gentleman sitting on the cathedra in NH is the only clear and tangible decision/outcome/result that will be forthcoming in my lifetime.

Hmmmmm, maybe that’s the point?

The “crisis” has passed folks.  All that is left is for the institutional leadership (such as it is) to dither and defer and distract until such time as those who might complain are no more.

The resolution is already accomplished (and tangible in North America).  All one has to do is wait for it to become obvious in the diocese nearest you.  It will.

April 27, 10:39 pm | [comment link]
13. In Texas wrote:

One of the main reasons for the mess we are in is that we have clergy parsing “accept” or “comply” or in the Nicene Creed with “the we believe” or “on the third day He rose again “.  So, even if a clergy person does not really believe those peksy words, they can parse it to mean whatever they want it to mean.  Or another example, we can just ignore the “plain meaning” of TEC’s constitution and canons when it comes to the canonical deposition of a bishop.  Or “I agreed to the DES Communique” really meant “I agreed to bring it before the House of Bishops”.

April 27, 10:50 pm | [comment link]
14. Sarah1 wrote:

RE: “Is it “accept” or is it “comply” with the Windsor Report?”

Doesn’t really matter—revisionists will make any word mean whatever they wish.

April 27, 11:17 pm | [comment link]
15. robroy wrote:

The TEC is “mostly” Windsor compliant already! Remember Rowan’s subcommittee report which gave a passing grade to the TEO. Then we had the joint standing committee report which KJS didn’t recuse herself in the writing and again gave the TEO a passing grade and then was used by Rowan as the lens through which the primates and ACC had to view the September HoB meeting.

And Sisk, Bruno, Tanner-Irish, Andrus, etc., would love to come to Lambeth to work on the Covenant. That work would be completing the dental extraction started in the St Andrews draft (which made Rowan Williams as the ultimate arbiter of everything Anglican).

April 27, 11:35 pm | [comment link]
16. Jerod wrote:

If, in fact, the Archbishop’s letter is as billed, I believe it is very good news. In the best case scenario (and actually a likely one), this will self-select those bishops who are true to the Communion. Certainly some TEC bishops may attend even though they oppose Windsor, but not without shedding their integrity. And at the same time, I do not doubt that some would choose their integrity over a trip to London and boycott the meeting in principle.

I hope the GAFCON crowd will honor the Archbishop’s effort to make Lambeth productive… perhaps we may finally get some forward movement on the stalled Windsor process and take meaningful steps toward Covenant.

April 28, 12:01 am | [comment link]
17. Dr Crestwood wrote:

It is interesting that Rowan is makng the same Windsor Report he has effectively killed to be the litmus test for Lambeth particpation…more smoke and mirrors from the too smart by half ABC…He has lost credibility with everyone but the couple of English bishops who want the job next…

April 28, 12:07 am | [comment link]
18. Choir Stall wrote:

1. Irenaeus wrote:
Like fine wine, the letter will no doubt get even better with time.

I hope that you’re right. But, if you wait too long wine will turn into vinegar.

April 28, 12:31 pm | [comment link]
19. Randy Muller wrote:

I wonder how many North American bishops, particularly those whose mission it is to be supportive of Gene Robinson and same-sex blessings, feel that Lambeth will equip them for their mission?

April 28, 3:02 pm | [comment link]
20. Already left wrote:

Susan -
Let me see - ++Griswold “accepted” even signed (if memory serves) the results of the special October 2003 meeting at Lambeth and crossed the pond and uncrossed his fingers. Didn’t ++Schori do the same? As others have said, it all depends on what the “doer” wants the words to mean.

April 28, 4:42 pm | [comment link]
21. Irenaeus wrote:

Choir Stall [#18]: This “wine” may start out as vinegar laced with gall.

April 29, 1:48 am | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.

Next entry (above): From the front page of the local paper—A choice: Bread or gasoline?

Previous entry (below): How will consumers spend those tax rebate checks?

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)