Ruth Gledhill: Speculation over whether Atwood et al to come to Lambeth

Posted by Kendall Harmon

On the minus side is the guidance from inside Lambeth Palace: 'This is very similar to Cana.' In other words, Martyn Minns isn't coming. Therefore, neither will these two be.

But another insider tells me this: 'The question is genuinely open.' It would of course be an 'easy solution' to extent the AMiA principle to all the 'irregular' consecrations. But it appears this might not in fact happen. No decision has been made. I don't want to risk my reputation on this, but there does appear to be a chance that Atwood might be invited to Lambeth.

How come? Well, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who specialises in nuanced responses, will be aware that each scheme is unique and distinctive. This therefore opens the possibility of a differentiated response. I've not seen the scheme for William Murdoch, but it certainly appears that, with regards to Bill Atwood, he is described in much more traditionally understandable 'suffragan' terms than Martyn Minns is in his scheme. What is certain is that the question of the two new bishops and Lambeth has not been considered in a deliberate way as yet. And all points of view will be taken into account when the Archbishop of Canterbury makes his decision.

Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - EpiscopalAnglican ProvincesAnglican Church of Kenya

10 Comments
Posted August 31, 2007 at 2:01 pm [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. MikeS wrote:

But I thought suffragans don’t get invited this time around, only diocesans.  Why would Atwood get invited if he is a suffragan or are the invites changing again?

August 31, 3:13 pm | [comment link]
2. seitz wrote:

Your confusion is warranted. I suspect what Ruth G meant was, 1) the Kenya consecrations are viewed by some as different in kind than the others (I have heard this argument made by select ABs), even as this is lost on most of the general public (and probably rightly so); 2) because they are different, Lambeth Palace would treat them as ‘regular.’

Your point however remains, namely, even if this is correct, it still faces the technical hurdle, argued by some to be in effect, that only diocesans are being invited to Lambeth at this point. So should Kenya suffragans be ‘regularly’ ordained, it might not affect what Lambeth invitations are issued.

My own view is that it is premature to judge what invitations will or will not be extended, in any event. And that is because +RDW has said clearly he reserves the right to keep the matter within his remit, as well he should given the requests of the Instrument of Unity (Primates) made to TEC, with a deadline of 30 Sept.

August 31, 4:16 pm | [comment link]
3. Brian from T19 wrote:

I don’t see how the ABC would pick and choose certain renegade bishops over others.  It seems unlikely.

August 31, 4:52 pm | [comment link]
4. Bob from Boone wrote:

The ABC should not invite these two schismatics, and he should withdraw the invitations (assuming he did invite them) to +Duncan and +Iker if they participated in these boundary-crossing consecrations. If they did so, they also violated their vows to uphold the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church and should resign from their sees. Since they were present at the act of consecration, they should state unequivocally to the other members of the HoB either that they did or did not participate in the laying on of hands. If they did, then a court of inquiry should be convened. They have gone too far, even in just showing up.

August 31, 5:42 pm | [comment link]
5. tjmcmahon wrote:

Bob and Brian (and others),
I see nothing wrong with the participation (whether as consecrators or viewers) of TEC bishops in Anglican Communion consecrations, for several reasons-
1) Both Iker and Duncan remain in communion with the Church of Kenya (although this might not be true for most TEC bishops).  It is certainly not unknown, for example, for CoE bishops to participate in consecrations in other provinces.  I believe some TEC bishops have done so from time to time as well.
2) We can infer from the stories that their involvement was at the invitation and with the approval of the bishop with jurisdiction.
3) The men were consecrated as suffragan bishops of the Kenyan Church.  Their consecration is not, per se, determinate of their final assignment.  They are, as I understand, suffragans in a regular Kenyan diocese, which diocese is in turn charged with overseeing some churches in the US.  So, it is up to the bishop of their resident diocese to determine their specific ministry and assignment.
4) All this aside, certainly their attendance is quite alright in any case- the last ordination I can remember attending in Chicago (some years ago) was attended by Eastern and Roman Bishops, as well as any Anglican clergy who happened to be in town.

August 31, 6:56 pm | [comment link]
6. Words Matter wrote:

a court of inquiry should be convened. They have gone too far, even in just showing up.

Perhaps this is how the orthodox Anglican bishops think about those who participated in the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson.

Of course, Bob, you are right and they are wrong.

August 31, 7:21 pm | [comment link]
7. Br. Michael wrote:

Or we are right and Bob and Bryan are wrong.

August 31, 8:19 pm | [comment link]
8. RalphM wrote:

Given the agenda that has been noted for Lambeth, does it really matter who attends?

August 31, 8:53 pm | [comment link]
9. Philip Snyder wrote:

Bob (#4) - can you tell me exactly which canon +Iker and +Duncan violated?  Also, can you tell me which canons +Atwood and the other “American African” bishops are violating?  Can you show why bishops from Africa should not evangelize in America?  BTW, there are a few ground rules.  1. You cannot cite Tradition.  TECUSA has no use for Tradition.  It violated over 2000 years of teaching on sexual morals when it blessed same sex unions and ordained men or women who are practicing homosexuals.  2.  You cannot cite the “bonds of affection” within the Anglican Communion.  TECUSA has no use for the bonds of affection as it showed in 2003 and 2006 and today.  3.  You must cite a canon of the requisite church (Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda, etc.).  +Atwood et. al. are not TECUSA bishops.

While you may not like what they are doing, remember, God is doing a new thing!  The Spirit is moving among us and sending these Bishops back to America!

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

August 31, 10:04 pm | [comment link]
10. Cennydd wrote:

AMEN, Phil!

September 1, 2:17 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.




Next entry (above): AP: One Gay Marriage, Then Iowa Judge Stays Ruling

Previous entry (below): English General Synod members send congratulations on African consecrations

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)