Piffle!
Bless him!

CANA’s hopes of receiving greater recognition than AMiA seem to have been dashed - and I am a little surprised that Minns has attacked Williams instead of trying to persuade him to change his mind. 

Which has more members, CANA or AMiA?  I know AMiA has more bishops.

badman, CANA is under ++Akinola, so that in and of itself differentiates them from AMiA.  they are a far more significant player in the AC, as is evidenced by Minns high visibility in AC affairs and that by comparison few people (even here) know who heads up AMiA.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

I am making a guess that Minns expected that he would be excluded.  This whole situation is really sad.  Williams’ is putting the Anglican Communion at serious risk by doing this.  The only hope in all of this is that the liberal extremists in TEC react strongly to this and decide to take extreme action.

I personally think that Williams would have been much wiser at this point to set out the conditions for attending - being specific adherence to the Windsor/Dromantine/DES agenda, and then - and ONLY then - indicating that the CANA and AMiA bishops will be invited if either (1) TEC formally rejects the DES Communique, or (2) if TEC accepts the DES Communique and CANA and/or AMiA have come under its auspices by Lambeth time.

What he has done is virtually guarantee that Lambeth will be a complete and utter public disaster.  As Minns says - gathering together for Bible study is all well and good, but it certainly doesn’t justify the massive cost of the Lambeth Conference.

I think that this is Rowan Williams first major blunder in handling the situation.  I’m not saying he’s handled it particularly well to date, but this has “MAJOR BLUNDER” written all over it.

Think about the numbers, folks. If the Archbishop invites the CANA and AMiA bishops, who are not diocesan bishops, then how does he exclude all the other Anglican bishops who exercise jurisdiction only as a suffragan, auxiliary, or assisting bishop to someone (a diocesan bishop or metropolitan) who personally exercises jurisdiction? I suspect the reappraisers would gladly trade Bp. Minns for an extra hundred or more Western suffragans, many of whom share their point of view.

A few things:

—First, it is incorrect to say that this action was “unprecedented.”  +Minns is a missionary bishop, as he clearly indicates by so signing this letter.  ++Carey and the primates at Oporto decided that missionary bishops were not to be invited to Lambeth.  In fact this is precisely the precedent cited by Canon Kearon for  
++Williams’s decision.  This does not necessarily mean that +Minns or any of the AMiA bishops are being “snubbed,” or that they are not recognized as Anglicans.  It simply means that they are missionary bishops.  I think this is an over-reaction on the part of +Minns and Nigeria.  The archbishops of Uganda and Rwanda have not reacted this way about AMiA, and I think they are correct to refrain from doing so.  One hopes that this can be cleared up before it sets in motion processes that could be hard to stop once started.  I am sure that our friends at Truro and the Falls Church (and etc.) do not want to make the delicate processes of Communion decision-making more difficult than they already are.

—Second, I don’t think the speculation that the Lambeth Conference has been reduced to a Bible study and story-telling time is accurate.  Unless I am very mistaken, it is my understanding that the agenda includes discussion of the Draft Covenant, which then is to be sent on to ACC-14 for further discussion and approval.  That’s quite important!  Really, it’s the thing on which all else depends.  Of course they’re going to do important work on it at Lambeth—it absolutely must be worked into a form everyone generally approves of before it can be sent to ACC-14. And beyond that, ++Williams is right to say that this Lambeth will be slightly different.  The way in which Lambeth is to be authoritative for our life together in Communion is precisely a matter of discussion—that’s a big part of what the Covenant is about.  It doesn’t make sense to make legislation without the Covenant in place.  That’s part of what got us into this whole mess in the first place.  We could pass Lambeth resolutions until we’re blue in the face, but it wouldn’t make much sense unless we also agree in a Covenant that we’re all going to live by them.  That’s what Williams is saying, I think—we’re going to focus on the Covenant and trust-building this time around, not legislation.  Makes sense to me.  So I don’t honestly see the force of +Minns’s criticism here.

—Finally, I’m not comfortable with the criticism of Archbishop Williams: that he has chosen to elevate “process over principle.”  I don’t find that to be all that fair.  He’s said many times that he is deeply committed, for theological reasons, to the catholicity of Anglicanism—to life together in communion.  I understand that it might be difficult from an evangelical perspective to get inside his shoes here, but I think we ought to make an effort to try.  From everything I can tell, Rowan Williams believes in the most principled way possible in the catholic substance of Anglicanism.  It’s fair game to criticize his tactics or his theology, but I don’t think his character should be in question.  I’m sure that’s not what +Minns meant to do, but nevertheless I think it’s a needed caution.  Too many liberals are cricizing ++Williams’s character and principle right now—we don’t need to join our voices to that crowd. 

If anyone’s here from CANA in Virginia, I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.

A wonderful letter from a Christ centered man. Dale Rye hits on the head, though.

I think the best we can hope for is that extremists on both sides will exclude themselves out of outrage at one of their number being excluded and allow the center to have free space to speak. It might just save the Communion from both sides of the conflict.

Can someone elaborate one the type of bishops that are not invited to Lambeth? Are missionary bishops unique in this regard? Are only diocesan bishops (the ordinary of a geographic diocese) invited?

There appear to be two categories. (1) Bishops who are validly ordained to a recognized jurisdiction, but who cause concern to the rest of the communion. This group includes VGR and the Bishop of Harare. The other group (2) is bishops who’s ordinations are irregular or who have been installed in a juridiction not recognized by the ABC. This group includes Minns and the bishops of the AMIA.

In other words, are Coadjutor bishops or Suffragan bishops invited to Lambeth?

A desperate cry from a man who tied his ship to the wrong star.

Suffragan bishops were first invited in 1998. I believe they are invited again. I don;t know about coajutors—whether they get their own invitation or the outgoing bishop has the option of passing his invitation along, but I suspect they are invited as well.

Bishop Sandy Millar is a British-born missionary bishop consecrated in the Anglican Church of Uganda and serving in London.  He’s going to Lambeth.

bb

Lambeth 2008?  What’s the point of going.  1998 brought agreements (RES 1:10)which TEC(ecusa) whined about for 5 years and then saw fit to disregard by the election and consecration of Vickie Gene.  The point of Lambeth is to converse and develop consensus on theological issues and mission goals.  TEC has no use for it.  Why should Nigeria,  or any other orthodox province for that matter?

Jordan Hylden #6
Thank you for the analysis you have provided about the invitations. I am unable to verify what you have said, but I would find it profitable if other listers would interact with your points. Is there someone out there who knows enough to say if Jordan’s analysis is right or not?

I hadn’t noticed this before, but it is on Episcopal Cafe

A spokesman for the ACC noted Bishop Robinson Cavalcanti of Recife would not be invited either.

They and over 90 per cent of the communicants in the diocese transferred to the jurisdiction of the Province of the Southern Cone under the jurisdiction of Archbishop Gregory Venables

Looks like those who break away are just not going to be recognized.

A couple of comments on missionary bishops:
1. All dioceses began as mission - I don’t know how many of these were started by missionary bishops, but the MB represents bishops at their apostolic best.
2. The burgeoning Anglican Church of Nigeria (gasp, horror) follows the strategy of missionary bishops STARTING new dioceses from scratch, with a new batch just consecrated this year. ISTM that CANA has started a missionary diocese in North America (with rather more resources than Nigerians usually start with).

#17 Cavalcanti et al aren’t invited?  One wonders what Greg Venables makes of that? 
This is absolultely appalling. 

The quicker the Global South just take over and set up their alternative Lambeth, the better.  The more we learn about what Rowan is doing, the more of a farce it becomes.

#13 ruidh are you sure? 
See #26 below:
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/3054/
Who is right?....

#14 BabyBlue, that is very interesting. 

Sandy Millar is also an assistant bishop in the diocese of London, but if Phil Snyder is right (and he sounds as if he knows what he talking about), he would not be entitled to an invitation on that basis.  He must be going because, although he is a missionary bishop consecrated and sent to England by the Church of Uganda, he has gone through the proper channels and has the blessing of the local (English) bishop.

Rowan Williams isn’t against parallel mission.  He even declined to discipline a London clergyman who could not get his choice of ordinands licensed, and so had them ordained by an out-of-communion South African Anglican bishop. 

We need to see his exclusion of Martyn Minns and AMiA in that light.

The letter of Chris Seitz and the the posting of Jordan Hylden show that the ACI can be called Rowan’s boys. Mr. Hylden writes, “Finally, I’m not comfortable with the criticism of Archbishop Williams.”

The ABC is trying to run a via media course between the apostates and the orthodox. The is a sad and twisted distortion of the Anglican notion of via media. Orthodox, like myself, think the Episcopal church has been hijacked by a bunch of Unitarian terrorists, but Brazil is even worse. The treatment of Bp Cavalcanti and the actions, in general, of the province of Brazil (a veritable lackey of the TEC) are beyond shameful. That the ABC would side with shows he chooses unity above integrity.

Sorry bout the typos. You should be able to get my drift (or you can see a corrected version here.)

#22 robroy - All Archbishop Williams is doing is supporting the inside strategy and discouraging the outside strategy.  As Archbishop of Canterbury, and Focus of Unity in the Anglican Communion, you can’t seriously expect him to do anything else.  Archbishop Carey did exactly the same when he was in office, when he rejected AMiA.  What matters is that neither supported what you would call “the liberal agenda”. 

If by choosing integrity over unity you mean to join the comet tail of Continuing Anglicans sticking with their version of the “faith once delivered” and listed here , to which CANA must surely now be added, you are entitled to do so - but your impact, and your mission, are not likely to benefit.

Why can’t Martyn Minns, even now, try and get himself into the same position as Sandy Millar?  If this is about principle, and not power, what is stopping him from making peace and getting on with his mission?  If he thinks his local manifestation of the Anglican Communion is apostate and irreformable, however, then he is well out of it, but if he is out of it, he can’t complain about not being in it, can he?

There are two irreconcilable truth claims - but both exist within the CofE and whilst that remains the case, RW is hardly going to act in a way which would exclude members of his own church.

His aim will always be to keep as many there as possible.

#13 ruidh are you sure?
See #26 below:
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/3054/
Who is right?....

I could very well be wrong. I was going on the observation that the number of bishops invited this time, some 800, was a little higher than the number at the last Lambeth Conference, on the order of 750, which did invite suffragans.

The ABC is trying to run a via media course between the apostates and the orthodox. The is a sad and twisted distortion of the Anglican notion of via media.

Apostates may become Christians - it seems to me that the archbishop is trying to be a good shepherd and keep the sheep that were given to him. I have doubts about this being possible,  but I appreciate his approach far more than I do that of our presiding bishop, who seems to prefer slash and burn. (i.e., she regards some of her sheep as utterly disposable and ready for market). Mixing metaphors with a vengeance this morning, sorry.

As I posted on Stand Firm -
Hmmmm.  So, when presented the choice between heresy and schism, the AC chose NEITHER.  Briiilllliant. 

I guess I’m with the anglicancentrist’s view on this one.

Anyone else want to press their heresies or schismatic tendencies?  The dis-invitation will be in the mail.

On a more inclusive note -
On this feast of Jackson Kemper (and Nashotah commencement day) may God grant the wisdom, spirit and Christian leadership of that fine example of Christian leadership and missionary zeal upon all who hold the title of missionary bishop in our present day.

May God also grant those who graduate this 162nd commencement day from the seminary Bishop Kemper founded grace and loving guidance upon the ministries the are now called to fulfill.

In Christ’s name, AMEN.

At the end of the day, the invitations and the defacto recognition of valid and invalid bishops rests with ++Williams.  The problem is that he disagrees with certain strategies and maneuvers that are being used in the Anglican Communion and will not accept them as a valid and regular part of Anglican polity.  I am curious to see what will happen in ++Williams refuses to cede the ++Akinola’s threats and I hope that TEC doesn’t use the same threat technique against ++Williiams.

Those who are certain of the validity of their position and the demonic nature of their opponents have a hard time settling for the broad catholic view of the AC that ++Williams seems to recognize in his Lambeth invitations.  The sides seems to be set up as:

Polemics and certainty
vs.
Charitiable discussion and humility in belief

Reasserters (or whatnot) believe that charity and humility in belief equate to idolotry to the false god of cosmopolitianism and the reappraisers (or whatnot) believe that such certainty will make Anglicanism transform into a strict curial system and diminish the role of Anglicanism as a broad church.

#24, Thanks for the link to the continuing churches.  From there I went to one of them (one known to me) and then followed one of their links to a new group here called the Federation of Anglican Churches in America.  The AMIA, Reformed Episcopal and a few others have joined together, so this appears to be ‘another’ group, province, whatever to be considered.  What does this mean, if anything?