The Anglican Mission Comments on the 2008 Lambeth Conference Invitations
 In response to the decisions by the Archbishop of Canterbury regarding invitations to the 2008 Lambeth Conference, the Rt. Rev. Charles H. Murphy, III, Chairman of the AMiA, in consultation with the Most Rev. Emmanuel Kolini, Primate of the Province of Rwanda, issues the following statement.
The Rev. Canon Kenneth Kearon, Secretary General of the Anglican Communion, announced this week that invitations to the 2008 Lambeth Conference have been issued to over 800 bishops in the Communion, including all but one of the bishops in The Episcopal Church (TEC). I believe that this action and decision by Archbishop Williams indicates an intentional distancing of himself from the Primates' Godly counsel which they have repeatedly stated in their gatherings and in their Communiqués. For example:
-
The emergency meeting of Primates at Lambeth in October 2003 calling TEC to repentance.
-
The Global South leaders gathered in Lagos, Nigeria in October 2004 repeating this call and stating that their actions had "pushed the Anglican Communion to the breaking point."
-
The January 2005 Global South Primates' meeting in Nairobi reiterating this call for repentance, and warning that "failing any substantial change of direction within the next three months (i.e. by May 31st, 2005), the Global South Primates would conclude that TEC had chosen to 'walk alone', and follow another religion."
-
The February 2005 Dromantine Primates' meeting which warned of "broken relationships" unless TEC repented.
-
The October 2005 South to South Encounter which repeated these warnings and these concerns.
-
The September 2006 Kigali Global South meeting which commended the "Road To Lambeth" document describing this present state of "broken communion" and which questions the need to attend the 2008 Lambeth Conference if TEC refuses to clearly turn and repent.
-
The February 2007 Dar es Salaam gatherings of CAPA and the Global South Primates which, again, endorsed the "Road to Lambeth" document and its conclusions.
The Archbishop seems to signal his unconditional support for continued full inclusion of TEC bishops, regardless of how they ultimately choose to respond to repeated demands and conditions of the Primates of the Anglican Communion, most recently voiced in their Dar es Salaam Communiqué.
In light of the overwhelming evidence of the Global South's clarity and numerous warnings, by issuing Lambeth invitations to ECUSA Bishops prior to the release of their final response to the Primates' concerns and demands for repentance (due September 30th), Archbishop Williams' actions can be interpreted as preemptive and even dismissive. This seems to indicate he takes the Global South's continued support for granted.
I consider this decision as a demonstration of the ongoing crisis of faith and leadership that exists in this Communion, and I believe that it will have serious consequences in view of our Lord's teaching that a "house divided simply cannot stand."
We can draw comfort from the fact that, as Dr. Philip Jenkins writes in The Next Christendom, the actual leadership of the Anglican Communion has now shifted to the Global South, and I expect Archbishop Kolini and other Global South leaders will address this matter in a decisive way at their upcoming meetings this fall. I join in their endorsement of the "Road to Lambeth" as containing the best way forward in our life together as "the one holy catholic and apostolic Church".
As this crisis within the Communion is being addressed and resolved, the Anglican Mission will maintain its consistent focus on those 130 million people in this country who have yet to respond to the Gospel of Jesus Christ by gathering and planting new churches throughout North America. We rejoice in the knowledge that the AMiA is in "full communion" with all of God's faithful around the world and that since the creation of this Mission nearly seven years ago, God has faithfully added to our numbers, on average, one new church every three weeks. We will, therefore, continue to look to Him, and to Rwanda, for the necessary authority and "recognition" needed to press on with this vital and essential work.
Archbishop Kolini and the House of Bishops in Rwanda expect to meet soon to respond officially to Archbishop William's decisions regarding the 2008 Lambeth Conference. It is anticipated that they will address the fact that some of the members of their body have not been invited to the Lambeth Conference.
"Road to Lambeth"
Response from Archbishop Peter Akinola, Province of Nigeria
In response to requests for comments on the Lambeth Conference invitations, Archbishop Peter Akinola reaffirms that the Church of Nigeria is committed to the CAPA commissioned report “The Road to Lambeth.”
Since only the first set of invitations had been sent, it is premature to conclude who will be present or absent at the conference. However, the withholding of invitation to a Nigerian bishop, elected and consecrated by other Nigerian bishops will be viewed as withholding invitation to the entire House of Bishops of the Church of Nigeria.
The Lord bless you as you remain in Christ
The Venerable AkinTunde Popoola
Director, Communication
Church of Nigeria.
Church of Uganda Announces Plans to Uphold Road to Lambeth Statement
For Immediate Release
30th May 2007
In response to the recent announcement that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. and Rt. Hon. Rowan Williams, has sent out invitations to the 2008 Lambeth Conference of Bishops, the Archbishop of the Church of Uganda, the Most Rev. Henry Luke Orombi, made this statement:
On 9th December 2006, the House of Bishops of the Church of Uganda, meeting in Mbale, resolved unanimously to support the CAPA Road to Lambeth
, which, among other things, states, “We will definitely not attend any Lambeth Conference to which the violators of the Lambeth Resolution are also invited as participants or observers.”
We note that all the American Bishops who consented to, participated in, and have continued to support the consecration as bishop of a man living in a homosexual relationship have been invited to the Lambeth Conference. These are Bishops who have violated the Lambeth Resolution 1.10, which rejects “homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture” and “cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions.”
Accordingly, the House of Bishops of the Church of Uganda stands by its resolve to uphold the Road to Lambeth.
The Most Rev. Henry Luke Orombi
ARCHBISHOP OF CHURCH OF UGANDA.
statement
Archbishop Carey Notes AMiA Consecrations are Valid, Questions “Precedent” with Regard to Lambeth Invitations
The Church of England Newspaper
Friday June 1, 2007
Letters to the Editor
The case for the defence
Sir,
Kenneth Kearon suggests (CEN May 25) that the decision not to invite AMiA bishops, or the recently consecrated CANA Bishop, to the Lambeth Conference relates to a precedent I set in 2000. This set my mind flashing back to the circumstances of that period. My opposition to the consecration of the two AMiA Bishops related to the setting up of Episcopal activity in the United States which I regarded as unconstitutional and unnecessary (at least at that period). Although I regarded these bishops (both honourable and good men) as ‘irregularly’ consecrated, there was no question about the validity of their consecrations.
This, of course, was before 2003 when the Episcopal Church clearly signalled its abandonment of Communion norms, in spite of warnings from the Primates that the consecration of a practising homosexual bishop would ‘tear the fabric of the Communion’. It is not too much to say that everything has changed in the Anglican Communion as a result of the consecration of Gene Robinson.
The Archbishop of Canterbury’s prerogative to invite bishops to the Conference is a lonely, personal and important task. Before each Conference a number of careful decisions have to be taken, with the focus being on the well-being of the Communion. The circumstances facing each Archbishop of Canterbury will vary according to the needs of the hour. For these reasons, I believe, that Dr Rowan Williams should not regard the advice he has evidently received that this matter is ‘fixed’ as necessarily binding on him in the very different circumstances of 2007. He and all his colleagues will be in my thoughts and prayers.
Lord Carey of Clifton
London
 Print this page Send to a Friend
|
Section Navigation
