An Editorial Note About Lambeth...
Taking its name from the Archbishop of Canterbury's residence, Lambeth Palace, the once-every-ten-years gathering of the primates of the provinces of the Anglican Communion, the diocesan bishops in each of the provinces and, this year, for the first time, bishop-suffragans, the Lambeth Conference was held this past summer at the University of Kent in Canterbury, England, attended by over 700 bishops. (The Episcopal Church is a province of the Anglican Communion.) And this year, for the first time, bishops from Africa, Asia and the Pacific Rim comprised the majority. Most of these bishops are strongly conservative, and they were joined politically by conservatives from the Episcopal Church as well as conservatives from the Church of England.
Resolutions from the Lambeth Conference are purely advisory and have no official standing or canonical authority in any of the provinces. By all accounts, the conservatives were well-organized and determined to defeat any liberal agenda, or any inclusive agenda, particularly as represented by our own bishops [See The Bishop's Voice, page 2, and It Seems to Me, page 3]. Only the plenary sessions in the third and final week were open to the press, which had to rely on controlled press conferences, official press releases, interviews with bishops, and of course the inevitable leaks and innuendos [See Watching Sausages Being Made, page 9]. The VOICE was represented by Elizabeth Kaeton, canon missioner to The Oasis [see Reflections on Lambeth, this page] and Kim Byham [The Lambeth Conference, following]. Additional information and commentary can be found on the web at http://www.lambethconference.org and on Louie Crew's website at http://newark.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/rel.html. See also the September issue of Episcopal Life.
As had been the case at the two previous Lambeth Conferences there was trepidation about whether the current "hot" issue before the assembled bishops would irrevocably divide the Anglican Communion.
The 13th Lambeth Conference, unlike those in 1978 and 1988, did not provide a clear "way forward" in British parlance. The two previous meetings had been concerned with the full acceptance of women in the Church as priests and bishops. In 1998, the issue was framed as inclusion of lesbians and gay men. As the debate and its aftermath showed, there remains contention on the former issue and the latter remains highly divisive.
The vast majority of bishops at Lambeth 1998 came down decisively for the "traditional" teaching on sex, sharpening up an already conservative resolution to make explicit their rejection of homosexual activity as something incompatible with the Gospel.
Of course, given that Lambeth has no legislative power, this is merely a recommendation, not a command, and bishops so minded will no doubt continue ordaining non-celibate gays and lesbians to the priesthood and permitting the blessing of committed same-gender relationships, despite the resolution "advising" them not to.
Outside the hall, just before the vote, a Nigerian bishop laid hands on Richard Kirker, secretary of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, in an effort to exorcise him of his homosexuality. After the homosexuality vote, members of the Episcopal Synod of America, a conservative coalition based in Fort Worth, walked out of the meeting room chanting "V-I-C-T-O-R-Y."
At the final press conference, the Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, apologized to gays and lesbians for the "pain" that the Church had caused them. He promised that he would listen to gay people despite the resolution, which he strongly supported, saying that homosexual relationships are "contrary to Scripture." "I can only try to reassure them of my commitment to continue to try to understand more of their experiences of the Church," he said. "And I invite them to continue the journey with us, however painful, and I ask them to listen to the voice of the Church, as the rest of us must listen to them."
Carey was clearly relieved that the conference- the biggest test of his primacy - was ending without a split in the Church. He obviously felt he had helped avoid the rift by siding with conservative African and Asian bishops. Some Africans had threatened to walk out and excommunicate the liberals. "I believe that our Communion is stronger than when we began," Carey said, "because bishops have met each other face to face, shared their stories of pain, of joy, of hope."
The Archbishop of Kootenay, Canada, David Crawley (one of our visiting bishops this past year), said he had wept after witnessing the "evil of homophobia" among brother bishops. "There was laughing, giggling and applause," he said.
"The homophobia in that room was dreadful." The Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church, Richard Holloway, said he had felt "assaulted" throughout the conference by Biblical fundamentalism in worship, sermons and, most acutely, in the homosexuality debate. "I felt violated and I felt lynched," he said, adding that he feared that the true nature of Anglicanism was being eroded by a black-and-white attitude to Scripture.
Many bishops felt that it is not in the plenaries that the real work of the Lambeth Conference is done, in the sense of creating and strengthening understanding between bishops from all parts of the world and widely differing cultures. Primate of All Ireland, Archbishop Robin Eames, emphasized this in the final press conference when he said, "It's been done at the Bible studies," he said. "It's been done on the pathways and in the corridors when the bishops have been able to meet, probably for the first time, and share their experiences."
The bishops also agreed to a statement that supports death with "dignity" by "withholding, withdrawing, declining or terminating excessive treatment." They agreed that it was consonant with the Christian faith to withdraw food and water from people in a permanent vegetative state. They condemned euthanasia, defining it as causing the death of another who is terminally ill in order to end their pain and suffering.
A troubling resolution is one that seems to suggest that those who oppose the ordination of women may continue to frustrate the calls of women in their dioceses, despite provisions by their respective national churches. Drawn up by the women bishops from Canada and New Zealand and several bishops opposing women's ordination, it was at least partially aimed at a recent canon of the Episcopal Church which made it mandatory for a bishop to allow the full inclusion of women in his diocese even if he was opposed to their ordinations.
The non-controversial part of the resolution called on the provinces of the Anglican Communion "to affirm that those who dissent from, as well those who assent to, the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate are both loyal Anglicans." It went on to apparently endorse such arrangements as the "flying bishops" who minister to opponents of women priests within the Church of England by calling on the various provinces "to make such provision, including appropriate episcopal ministry, as will enable them to live in the highest degree of communion possible, recognizing that there is and should be no compulsion on any bishop in matters concerning ordination or licensing." Around 2,000 people - primates, bishops, spouses, speakers, consultants, report writers, technicians, church organizations, stewards, lobbyist, visitors, journalists, and photographers filled the Kent campus for three weeks. There were moments of fun, times of drama, and much to think about. Lambeth 1998 will require some distance to assess both what it did and what impact it will have on the Anglican Communion in the next decade.
Please sign my guestbook
and
view it.
Statistics courtesy of
WebCounter.
