Rowan Williams: Lambeth will be 'painful'

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has admitted the coming Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church's bishops from around the world may well be a "painful" experience for many. As we report, he said he hoped a "way forward" could be found in a Church facing almost inevitable schism between the liberal West and evangelical South over the issues of homosexual ordination and same-sex blessing services. He also said that instead of the usual confrontational parliamentary methods of debate, the conference will be run using 'indaba' groups, a form of Zulu negotiation. I thought I might invest in one of these T-shirts, as a tribute to the idea. He disclosed that he has been holding private meetings with bishops from both sides on how to be 'part of a shared vision.' In a letter to all the Church's 800-plus bishops, of which about a quarter will be boycotting Lambeth and attending instead the 'alternative' Global Anglican Future Conference in the Middle East next month, he made it clear that he did not want the focus at Lambeth to be on the divisive issue of sexuality when there is so much in the areas of poverty, violence and injustice to be addressed in the wider world. Read the full text below. I believe this must at last be the letter that the Bishop of Durham Dr Tom Wright referred to a short while ago. Graham Kings has also been speculating recently on Gafcon, as Pluralist reported the other day. Pluralist has also posted a truly insightful comment on Dr Williams' Pentecost letter.

Archbishop's letter in full:

The Feast of Pentecost is a time when we give thanks that God, through the gift of the Holy Spirit, makes us able to speak to each other and to the whole world of the wonderful things done in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  It is a good moment to look forward prayerfully to the Lambeth Conference, asking God to pour out the Spirit on all of us as we make ready for this time together, so that we shall indeed be given grace to speak boldly in his Name.

I indicated in earlier letters that the shape of the Conference will be different from what many have been used to.  We have listened carefully to those who have expressed their difficulties with Western and parliamentary styles of meeting, and the Design Group has tried to find a new style – a style more reflective of that Pentecost moment when all received the gift of speaking freely about Christ.

At the heart of this will be the indaba groups.  Indaba is a Zulu word describing a meeting for purposeful discussion among equals.  Its aim is not to negotiate a formula that will keep everyone happy but to go to the heart of an issue and find what the true challenges are before seeking God’s way forward.  It is a method with parallels in many cultures, and it is close to what Benedictine monks and Quaker Meetings seek to achieve as they listen quietly together to God, in a community where all are committed to a fellowship of love and attention to each other and to the word of God.

Each day’s work in this context will go forward with careful facilitation and preparation, to ensure that all voices are heard (and many languages also!).  The hope is that over the two weeks we spend together, these groups will build a level of trust that will help us break down the walls we have so often built against each other in the Communion.  And in combination with the intensive prayer and fellowship of the smaller Bible study groups, all this will result, by God’s grace, in clearer vision and discernment of what needs to be done.

As I noted when I wrote to you in Advent, this makes it all the more essential that those who come to Lambeth will arrive genuinely willing to engage fully in that growth towards closer unity that the Windsor Report and the Covenant Process envisage. We hope that people will not come so wedded to  their own agenda  and their local  priorities that they cannot listen to those from other cultural backgrounds.  As you may have gathered, in circumstances where there has been divisive or controversial action, I have been discussing privately with some bishops the need to be wholeheartedly part of a shared vision and process in our time together.

Of course, as baptised Christians and pastors of Christ’s flock, we are not just seeking some low-level consensus, or a simple agreement to disagree politely.  We are asking for the fire of the Spirit to come upon us and deepen our sense that we are answerable to and for each other and answerable to God for the faithful proclamation of his grace uniquely offered in Jesus.  That deepening may be painful in all kinds of ways.  The Spirit does not show us a way to by-pass the Cross.  But only in this way shall we truly appear in the world as Christ’s Body as a sign of God's Kingdom which challenges a world scarred by poverty, violence and injustice.

The potential of our Conference is great.  The focus of all we do is meant to be strengthening our Communion and equipping all bishops to engage more effectively in mission; only God the Holy Spirit can bind us together in lasting and Christ-centred way, and only God the Holy Spirit can give us the words we need to make Christ truly known in our world.  So we must go on praying hard with our people that the Spirit will bring these possibilities to fruition as only he can.  Those who have planned the Conference have felt truly touched by that Spirit as they have worked together, and I know that their only wish is that what they have outlined for us will enable others to experience the same renewal and delight in our fellowship.

This is an ambitious event – ambitious for God and God’s Kingdom, which is wholly appropriate for a Lambeth Conference.  And our ambition is nothing less than renewal and revival for us all in the Name of Jesus and the power of his Spirit.

May that Spirit be with you daily in your preparation for our meeting.  As Our Lord says, ‘You know him, for he lives with and will be in you’ (Jn 14.17).

+ Rowan Cantuar

Comments

[William Tighe]

It's a pity the AbC wasn't living in the Fourth Century, when he could have introduced the Fathers assembled at Nicaea to "indaba groups" and so have avoided all that tiresome squabbling over Arius and that produced that "divisive" shibboleth "homoousios." His master the Emperor Constantine would have been much more pleased with that outcome, than that which, faced with all those tiresome Africans and their sympathizers, he actually got. But better late than never -- at least those tiresome comtemporary Africans can be sidelined by this trendy bit of multiculturalism.

[Robert Ian Williams]

And the house built on the sand fell down!

[Peter Carey]

Thanks for posting this letter, and your helpful article as well. I think that this is a very interesting letter, and I wonder how these "indaba" groups will work out in the Lambeth Conference. It also is interesting how many times the Archbishop uses the term "all" to reference the voices in discussion at Lambeth (and Pentecost) ...

But, I am heartened that the letter was not threatening in tone (not that his letters ever are), and did not lay out some strange "Windsor Compliant" litmus test before a bishop would be seated at Lambeth. I pray for these bishops!

Peter Carey+

[Malcolm+]

"[T]his makes it all the more essential that those who come to Lambeth will arrive genuinely willing to engage fully in that growth towards closer unity that the Windsor Report and the Covenant Process envisage."

If this means that attendees should come committed to strengthening and where possible repairing the unity of the Communion, then it is spot on.

If this is supposed to mean rather that attendees must agree to a specific way forward based on one possibility suggested by Windsor and so wilfully and abominably butchered by the Covenant Design Group, then it is a rhetorical spot of something on the bottom of his shoe.

[robroy]

Is this really the letter that Bp Wright was referring to? Perhaps its delay was a result of repeated editing it into its present insipid state. I can't imagine the most flagrant anti-Windsor bishop would have any qualms about accepting the invitation. E.g., is Michael Ingham of New Westminister coming?

[Rowan Grigg]

Dear Ruth,

This Whitsun I sat down and listened to a famous oratorio, and then I wrote this story for you:

http://onefivethree.wordpress.com/2008/05/12/the-engagement/

I hope you get to read it, and that you find it interesting (and engaging!). Perhaps your parishioners might too.

I have tried to be less obtuse than Rowan of Lambeth, but I’m not sure if I have been successful there. Perhaps being obtuse goes with the name!

Thanks for you blog,
Kind regards,

Rowan GRIGG, Canberra

[jim]

Nope,not the letter.

[Chris Gillibrand]

Zulus have much going for them. The Zulu Inkatha Freedom Party is surely the only political party in the entire world which issued a press release recommending that its supporters should watch Mel Gibson's film, The Passion to encourage their devotional life at Easter.

They are also not a people to be messed with as the British found out to their cost.

Chapter II of the Rule of St Benedict on the role of the Abbot gives some very appropriate advice to the Archbishop on how to handle Lambeth, including quoting 2 Tim IV 2, "Reprove, persuade, rebuke". Quaker sources are singularly unhelpful, as they are after all.... silent.

I do find it rather ironic that the Archbishop waxes lyrical on the Benedictine way, made poignant when standing in the ruins of St Augustine's Abbey in Canterbury.

[David Cohen]

This is just waffle disguised as religion. It is an expenses-paid trip like any other organisation might provide for its directors.

It would be better to say that "we are going to have our freebie gathering in Canterbury once again this year. No need to bring a bottle. Please drink responsibly."

[R S Bunker]

"Look", sayeth ++Rowan "I have come up with a way that we can meet and avoid discussing the serious matters before this Communion. No one will be able to tell where you stand on any issue, or quote you directly. No one will hold you to any word or commitment you might give (this should be especially helpful to our American friends)."

[Malcolm+]

Of course the Bishop of New Westminster will be attending. As will (to my knowledge) all the rest of the Canadian bishops. (My Lord of Saskatchewan may or may not be since he's soon off to become rector of a parish in Dallas, but I rather think he takes up that post after Lambeth.)

And why should any Covenant-Skeptic not attend Lambeth? After all, Windsor is only a committee report, and the Covenant merely an idea. There's nothing in the Creeds about either the Windsor Report or the Anglican Covenant.

[Bovina Bloviator]

The ABC's frustration is almost palpable as his two-week festival of New Age/progressive blather is hijacked by tiresome troglodytes who insist issues be discussed and, even more outrageous, decisions made.

[Odessa Elliott]

Ruth, I have had a brilliant idea, since reading that you've leased a house near the Cathedral. Don a full nun's habit and show up very early on the day the first Eucharist is scheduled; and tell anyone who asks you're there for private devotions. Then hide out in Beckett's Chapel downstairs until the bishops and spouses have arrived. Sneak back upstairs and see which bishops don't go up to receive.

The alternative would require one of you male cohorts to don Muslim-suggestive dress, with you walking behind him in a burka. Your escort would explain he's part of Dr. Williams dialogue group and was invited to attend in order to appreciate the elements of the sservice.

[Ian]

Interesting choice of T-Shirt.

The Zulu nation 200 years ago were known as the Abe-Nguni and comprised several large clans.
After so-called "Zulu negotiation" had taken it's course through the 'mfecane', the Zulu nation emerged and the entire Abe-Nguni nation splintered and is no more.

[Brownie]

Ruth I take issue with your use of the word "Schism" to describe what is happening in the Anglican Communion. We are talking foundational doctrinal issues here. There will likely be a split, but it will be over the fundamental questions of
* Is Jesus who He said He is?
* Can Holy Scripture be trusted?
* Are there God-given moral absolutes?

(rg writes: to me, a journalist, that = schism. sorry!)

[Malcolm+]

Bloviator does seem an appropriate nom de keyboard.

It is part of the scismatic conservative mythlogy that Lambeth Conferences have the power and authority to make decisions which are binding on the member provinces of the Communion.

This is what is known in moral theology as a [snip]

[saint]

Kiss the Anglican Communion goodbye. It ceased to exist a while ago. And if you think it didn't it will by the end of this year.

If the Anglican Communion is primarily defined by communion with Canterbury, then RW, for all his theological acumen and erudition and personal qualities, is I am afraid, off the wall. His own stated position as far as I can fathom, is to hold the Communion together at whatever cost, in the hope that one day everyone will come around to the idea that all that is good is gay.

And given that he is likely to be around for another decade or more, that itself will act as both a lightning rod and catalyst for further division.

While he has more recently acknowledged there is little biblical support for his position on gays and that the majority Anglican opinion is against him, he still thinks he is right: while he has shifted towards a more orthodox position in other matters, he has never repudiated his gay theology as far as I know - as exemplified say in his essay of twenty years ago on "The Body's Grace" - a favourite on GLBT sites. Distanced himself a bit yes. Clarified or repudiated?

He himself, argues that matters of sexuality are not of "first-order" theological importance and his only objection given that many would disagree with him on that, is to argue that one cannot move ahead of the church consensus. This is his only beef with the Americans and Canadians: not that they are wrong to ordain openly GLBT priests and bishops, but that they stormed the gates. As far as RW is concerned the gates should be open and he's got better things to do. Like disinvesting from Israel.

This is why the mixed messages from RW although to my mind, he himself has demonstrated his own views quite clearly, and nevertheless continued on his own quiet path of gatecrashing despite the broad consensus, while throwing a few platitudes out every now and then to stop the conservatives from walking.

Go back and review his words and actions of the past few years (e.g. when he attempted to elevate JJ and then after JJ stepped down, appointed him to an even more influential position after a while anyway, despite JJ now also becoming more strident, entering into a civil union etc.; remember too RW has confessed to knowingly ordaining a gay priest in the past; telling off Akinola for his stance against homosexuality in Nigeria (bearing in mind Sentamu has confessed he had people knowingly put people in jail in Uganda to protect them from certain death in the hands of Amin's thugs...too bad if Akinola wants to save gays and lesbians from the joys of sharia); attending a meeting (perhaps even offering communion) to a GLBT group within the CoE -and we don't know if they are those attempting to live faithfully or just those who are cloaking their rebellion....etc. etc. etc. Nuanced, obtuse or otherwise, he has been consistent even in his own quiet rebellion.

Even this letter, with its remarks about poverty yada yada says, that too bad if some of you think sexual morality is a first order issue, no indaba groups for you there.

I didn't think the Christian life was either-or, either poverty or sexual morality, either individual piety or communal witness, but both-and.

Whether RW likes it or not, as "first amongst equals" Anglicans will look to the ABC for pastoral guidance and he will set the tone for what else goes on in the Communion. And people will continue to do what he does: whatever is right in their own eyes.

I know that is a harsh assessment of the ABC, but really, that's what it boils down to.

I don't like to see the church, any church in turmoil. But parts of the Anglican Communion are a parody and a disgrace - in the U.S., in Canada, here in Australia (good grief the Melbourne Anglicans recently came out in support of abortion; and then the want to tell me about innocent children dying in Iraq. *rolls eyes*. Mind you Canada has become the byword for all things stupid here in Oz) I don't blame those who chose to walk or run.

I will derive my fun by seeing how much Malcolm-plus size jumps up and down with delight if Lambeth delivers anything that accords with his theology; then he can say "Look Lambeth validates my position!" Or something.

[Malcolm+]

Lambeth will have a nice discussion of a number of issues. They may issue some sort of pastoral letter.

Lambeth will not claim to pronounce teachings for the Communion because honest folk realize they do not have such authority.

And I don't expect Lambeth to affirm my position on the presenting issue. I have no doubt that my position is a minority one within the Communion.

You do make one error of fact, however. Rowan has distinguished between the American and Canadian approach, noting that the Canadian actions have all occurred AFTER synodical debate and resolution.

[saint]

Oh, I forgot. The Canadians are not part of the Anglican Communion but their own church with their own polity and with no core doctrine apart from their polity...which I guess is why Canadian parishes are also leaving the Anglican Church of Canada. Or something. Heil Hiltz!

[Malcolm+]

"Heil Hiltz?"

Do try to talk about issues, "Saint." All that rhetorical flourish accomplished was to make you look like a bigotted prat.

The Anglican Church of Canada is it's own church. As is the Episcopal Church in the United States. As is the Anglican Church of Australia. As is the Church of England.

The fact that you are so clueless about Anglican polity - combined with your absolute dependence on such childish namecalling and ethnic slurs - does more to undermine your own position than anyone else's.

[saint]

I take it you are Canadian, Malcolm. My condolences. So what are you doing trespassing here without Hiltz's permission?

[saint]

P.S. Please don't tell me the Canadians waited for a synod decision Malcolm or that somehow makes everything sweetness and light. O purple polity.... It's not like we don't have news or the internet and can't read the evidence for ourselves. And it's not like some presiding bishops don't like plastering their fatuous missives all over the internet because they can't pick up a phone.

[Malcolm+]

"Here," O self-sanctified one, is an internet site that I can reach from Canada and you can reach from Australia.

I refer to the fact that developments in Canada having followed canonical process merely to contrast them with events elsewhere where same sex blessings and the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals happen without publicity - but also without honesty. Oh, and to respond to your incorrect assertion (yes, we'll pretend you were just incorrect) about what Rowan seems to think.

As to fatuous missives, seems to me that if you're allowed, so are various primates. Of course, what distinguishes the North American primates from some others is that they still direct correspondence to the border-crossing schismatics. Most of the "conservative" leadership simply lie about the North Americans without ever speaking to them directly at all.

[saint]

I am contrasting RW's public words with his public actions; perfectly entitled to do so. Unlike you however, I am not ready to blame the entire fracture of the Anglican Communion on him.

I am also noting that the Canadians didn't even follow their own canons. (And what's more, making a mockery of our kangaroos. At least ours are smarter AND we get to eat them instead of them silencing us.)

Then explain to me what makes the Canadians actions, with or without their synod blessings (pastoral care ha! not just kangaroos but weazels get a bad name in Canada) moral or right anyway? Prostitution is legal in some parts of Oz. Is that moral or right? Or doesn't that matter to a church? Google away. Start with Hiltz. While I read another blog post from another Anglican announcing they are leaving the church.

[Malcolm+]

First ethnic bigotry, "Saint," and now a return to your usual incoherence.

At every stage, the introduction of same sex blessings in Canada has happened following appropriate synodical procedure. And in every case the bishop with jurisdiction has initially withheld his consent after the first synodical approval and called for a process of dialogue within the diocese.

Your claim that canons have been violated is one of your usual untruths. If your position is so proper, "Saint," you should be able to defend it without making things up.

Whether those synodical decisions were right or wrong, of course, is another question. But Rowan has made a distinction between how this issue was dealt with in Canada and in the United States. Your contention otherwise is completely false.

[Malcolm+]

BTW, hadn't noticed your irrelevant link previously. The case involving Maclean's magazine and the Canadian Human Rights Commission has exactly nothing to do with the present Anglican debates.

I'm beginning to think that a kangaroo (and not even a particularly bright one) might be able to present a more coherent argument than you.