Dear Brothers and Sisters,
Greetings in our crucified and risen Lord Jesus Christ. We believe that it is the ‘acceptable time’ to articulate a vision of what we hope for in the Lambeth Conference 2020. While all are free to offer their views, harsh disagreement ought not to be the dominant note the world hears from us. This multi-lingual letter lifts high those things held largely in common in order to build up and encourage. We claim no special authority, and thus speak to our fellow bishops as their brothers and sisters.
WE HOPE FOR A LAMBETH CONFERENCE BUILT ON COMMON FAITH
Though our provincial Books of Common Prayer show many variations, they all witness to the creedal center of our faith: the triune God, the divinity of Christ, His atoning death for the forgiveness of our sins, His bodily resurrection and ascension, and the Holy Spirit’s work in the Scriptures and the Church’s life. There is agreement, furthermore, in most of the Communion about the received, traditional teaching concerning the nature of marriage, which is in accord with Scripture. It found expression at Lambeth 1998 in Resolution I.10. Finally, we Anglicans share a common history, for example the See of Canterbury itself, which is a symbol of our apostolic roots and common life. We hope for a Lambeth Conference where we take this common inheritance of truth seriously and seek to build upon it for the sake of witness and teaching.
WE HOPE FOR A LAMBETH CONFERENCE MARKED BY CHARITY
At Lambeth, though a fractious family, we ought still to think of our fellow Anglicans in the best light possible. For example, there have been many important movements of mission and renewal in our Anglican tradition (e.g. the Oxford Movement and the East African Revival), and we can likewise see GAFCON in this way. We can also appreciate the role Global South Anglicans have played in strengthening the mission of Christ in their provinces. We commend the Primates’ view that only Churches aligned with Communion teaching should represent it in ‘doctrine and polity.’ But we are also willing to listen to our colleagues who hold in conscience dissenting views. More generally, we all need in our hearts to lay aside old recriminations, as each of us hears these Gospel injunctions: ‘bear one another’s burdens,’ ‘speak the truth in love,’ ‘do not let the sun go down on your wrath’ (Galatians6:2, Ephesians4:15,26).
MAY LAMBETH BE AN OCCASION OF HOPE FOR OURSELVES AND FOR THE WORLD
We hope for a Lambeth that is ordered to prayer and the Bible, that nourishes our humility, that opens us to God’s conversion in the Spirit, and that encourages us to renewed forms of teaching and witness which will inspire and attract younger generations in our nations and our churches. It is also crucial that we reject all forms of cultural and racial pride, while listening and deliberating with one another with full respect. I Peter, upon which Lambeth 2020 will meditate, says it best: ‘have unity of spirit, sympathy, love for one another, a tender heart, and a humble mind…always be ready to make your defense…for the hope that is in you’ (3:8,15).
United in faith, hope, and love, we can at Lambeth confront together the urgent problems in our Communion and in our world. We all share a worry about what may lie ahead in our common future, for as a divided Church we will struggle to witness to a divided, broken world. We hold in prayer those among us who face persecution and danger. We need to be stewards of creation. We hope for a conference which encourages us all to stand on the side of the poor and those who are maltreated, to call sinners to repentance and to offer forgiveness in the Lord’s name, to walk His way of love, and to seek reconciliation among ourselves and with our neighbors.
As it did a century ago, we hope Lambeth 2020 will remind us of the ecumenical calling from our Lord to be one as He and the Father are one (John 17:22). We do so by taking seriously the witness, gifts, and counsel of our brother and sister Christians in other churches. Within the Communion itself, some have felt frustration with the ‘Instruments’ over the past two decades, as they have struggled to balance autonomy and mutual accountability. We hope for a Conference that lays out a path ahead in the next decade, and we pray for the patience to walk it. We hope for a Conference in which we deepen our sense of ‘mutual responsibility and interdependence in the Body of Christ’ (Anglican Congress 1963), both in the program and in personal friendships.
Throughout, may we be reminded that our truly global Communion is not primarily a problem but rather a remarkable, though fragile, gift–a sign of the Church catholic.
Veni Sancte Spiritus.
Peace,
The Rt. Rev. George R. Sumner, the Episcopal Diocese of Dallas
The Rt. Rev. Michael G. Smith, the Episcopal Diocese of Dallas
The Rt. Rev. Lloyd Emmanuel Allen, Honduras, the Episcopal Church of Honduras
The Rt. Rev. Dr. Mouneer Hanna Anis, Diocese of Egypt with North Africa and the Horn of Africa
The Rt. Rev. Manuel Ernesto, Nampula, Mozambique
The Most Reverend Martin Nyaboho, Primate of Burundi, Diocese of Nampula
The Rt. Rev. Joel Waweru, ACK Nairobi Diocese
The Rt. Rev. Emma Ineson, Bishop of Penrith, Church of England
The Rt. Rev. Lydia Mamakwa, Mishamikoweesh, Anglican Church of Canada
The Most Rev. Daniel Sarfo, Primate of the Church of the Province of West Africa
Forgiveness and acceptance follows repentance, repentance requires turning from one’s sinful ways. Acceptance without repentance is to embrace apostacy. The apostacy of the Episcopal Church USA has now even undermined the foundation of God-created gender outlined in Genesis with its embrace of transgenderism. “Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked.” Proverbs 25:26
My Goodness, some good and forthright comments posted here!
If the leadership gave up politickin’ and trying to be all things to all persons (binary and not so); if instead it would re-discover the Bible and apply it to their lives, then all will be well.
Or failing that, if they really don’t accept the authority of Scripture and discount the Lordship of Christ, they could do the honourable thing and resign their positions..
As a matter of curiosity….
The “letter” above is categorized in the header as a “press release” but there is no attribution. So, is this a press release from Diocese of Dallas? Lambeth Palace? The Lambeth 2020 Design Group (or whatever they call it)? Communion Partners? 10 Random Bishops?
10 random bishops
Thank you, George+.
I find the presence of Bishop Mouneer Anis rather curious, because he just attended ACNA Provincial Assembly, and is usually considered GAFCON friendly. If Martin Nyaboho, of Burundi, and outgoing Daniel Sarfo, of West Africa, both Global South Primates, already recognized ACNA as a province of the Anglican Communion, while remaining in communion with TEC, does this means that they are in full communion at the same time with both ACNA and TEC?
I doubt that any of the GS primates mentioned see themselves in “full” communion with TEC. Sumner did everyone a huge disservice by his re-defining the term “impaired communion” (in another letter several months ago) from the accepted Global South definition not in communion with all the bishops of (name of province) to the Sumner (revisionist) version which amounts to mild disagreement with no repercussions or consequences.
I would suggest that the Global South primates who signed on see themselves as in “impaired communion” in its original usage. However, “impaired communion” does have something of a sliding scale- you might have one who would state they are in full communion only with Communion Partner bishops (and maybe not all of them, anymore), another might limit full communion to bishops who have not personally performed gay marriages (a somewhat larger number). Some provinces have recorded resolutions that are quite specific on who they are and are not in communion with, others appear to leave it up to individual bishops (recent examples being Kenya, Tanzania and South Sudan, where individual bishops have “opted out” of provincial level discipline of TEC.
West Africa has been in impaired communion with TEC. I don`t know about Burundi, I know they continue to receive financial support from TEC and have not joined GAFCON so far. Archbishop Justice Akrofi, of Ghana, Primate of West Africa, was a fouding member of GAFCON, and his successor, Solomon Tilewa Johnson, of Gambia, also attended GAFCON II. Unfortunately, after his unexpected death in 2014, he was replaced by Daniel Sarfo, who withdrew from GAFCON while remaining at the Global South and has been involved in several “reconciliation” meetings with Canadian and American liberals, and African conservatives not on GAFCON side. He still attended Global South meetings. Unlike it was reported at Anglican Ink, I doubt his successor, Jonathan Hart, of Liberia, will support GAFCON. He has no shown any public interest in doing so, and there was a representative of TEC at his enthronement.
Christian hope is a great blessing. However, it is highly unlikely that these particular hopes will be realized, alas.
Pretty slick (and I mean that as a compliment).
Affirmation of doctrinal orthodoxy
Affirmation of Lambeth 1998 I.10
Reminder that TEC and Canada do not represent the communion in ‘doctrine and polity’
Suggests equating GAFCON with the Oxford Movement
Not bad.
Dr.,
As the resident cynic, I am going to respectfully disagree on your first 3 points. I’ve been reading these things for too many years, and have to note, after Sumner’s recent “I am in impaired communion but still in full communion with in TEC” (not a direct quote, but that was the gist), I am very careful with the verbiage in Anglican missives.
Do understand, this is a case where I pray I am wrong and you are right, but I am much less sanguine (of course, regardless, it seems clear Welby has sold the Conference for several million pieces of Trinity Wall Street silver- so in the long run I imagine the specifics of the letter won’t make much difference).
1. Rather than “affirm” doctrinal orthodoxy, what the letter actually says is that the various prayer books around the Communion contain orthodox doctrine. This is substantially true, but those same prayer books no longer represent the doctrine of revisionist provinces. This is particularly obvious in TEC, where the one bishop upholding the doctrine of the 1979 (hardly the most orthodox of available prayer books) is under discipline and, presumably, about to be charged for the “error” of maintaining the doctrine of the church.
2. Rather than “affirm” Lambeth 1.10 of 1998, the letter uses it as an example demonstrating that the majority of Anglicans hold to the Christian view (which the writers identify as the “traditional” view of marriage- leaving open the possibility of non-traditional Christian marriage of undefined nature).
3. Since the very nature of Lambeth Conference is to discuss and determine doctrine and polity ( the letter itself identifying Lambeth 1.10 as an example of such at a Lambeth Conference), the very fact that the US, Canadian, revisionist Brazilian province, Scotland, and indeed England, are invited, and HUNDREDS of additional revisionist suffragan and other “active” bishops added (in order to insure a revisionist/liberal majority even if every Global South and Gafcon diocesan were to attend) makes obvious that the intention is to give control of the Conference over to those who are supposed to be prohibited from attendance- or at the very least, from any and all decision making.
4. I do give them credit for the Oxford movement/East African Revival analogy- I will admit I had not thought of Gafcon this way, but this is a very good analysis.
On #4, sorry, not cynical enough. The language is carefully dismissive. GAFCON 2008 said it is “a movement in the Spirit” but, if I may add, it is an ecclesial movement in the Spirit. So far as I know, the Oxford Movement or EA Revival never excommunicated Provinces nor recognized their replacements. One strategy of Gafcon’s opponents is to relegate it to the status of a “friendly society” of the pious, a.k.a., a ginger group.
Dr. Noll,
I do see your point. While I would assign a much higher status than “ginger group” to the Oxford movement or East African Revival, you are no doubt correct that the intention of the wording of the letter is to imply that Gafcon is a “group of individuals with a common point of view” rather than a unified structure of many Anglican provinces implementing a common vision of the Church.
It might be helpful if someone could organize (or if it already exists, please point me in the direction of) a common resource on the state of “communion” within the Communion. While it seems self evident that those who have signed the Jerusalem declaration are not in full communion with those who have not, at the same time, it is difficult to find many formal statements of excommunication or broken communion between provinces. The only one I have been able to find is the statement of impaired communion voted by the Synod of SE Asia in 2003, which was quite specific, and recognized that those bishops and dioceses that had voted to consent to Gene Robinson’s episcopal election, and those that had bless gay civil unions in Canada and the US were no longer in communion with SE Asia. Also of note was that it named diocesan bishops by office (Bishop of Nevada, Bishop of Washington DC, etc) thereby making clear that the division was with the see, not just the person.
I have been unable to find similar statements from other provinces, although I know they exist.
Dear TJ, you’re right that there are few explicit anathemas of heretical churches. However, GAFCON 2008 was premised on the claim that there is false gospel has emerged in the AC, and since 2008 the core Gafcon churches have refused to “sit at council” where TEC is present.
Some early statements, e.g., Uganda in 2003, distinguished those TEC bishops who supported the Robinson affair and those who did not. However, in the 2018 Letter to the Churches, the Gafcon Assembly “requests” Canterbury to disinvite bishops (without distinction) from heretical provinces.
Dr. Noll,
Please know that I am well aware that Gafcon has at its core some very courageous bishops, clergy and laity and that they are steadfast in the faith. I would do better, probably, to just keep quiet and let all of you get on with the work God has given you to do.
It is quite unfortunate that several Archbishops of Canterbury have failed, over the last 20 years, to heed the advice and grant the requests of Gafcon and Global South Primates and bishops. I do pray that the current holder of the office will open himself to the Holy Spirit, listen to the wisdom of the Gafcon entreaties in the 2018 letter, and follow through on decisions and counsel of the Primates over the past decades. I cannot imagine any other course to keep the Communion together, as it seems clear that on the current course, the CoE will begin the process to adopt gay marriage and who knows what other pagan rituals beginning at the Synod following the Lambeth Conference in 2020.
But I would not be me if I did not expect Welby to continue along the road he is currently on.