It is evident that Archbishop Justin Welby is doing his utmost to achieve the highest attendance ever at the Lambeth Conference in 2020 – or at least not to fall short of previous conferences. That motivation, it seems to me, explains why he included all bishops, not merely diocesans, in the invitation list. It also explains why, when the invitation to three same-sex married bishops was made public, he pleaded privately with these bishops: “if I invite your spouses to the Lambeth Conference, there won’t be a Lambeth Conference.”
Despite various threats and grumblings from North America, I am sure that Lambeth 2020 will come off because the power players will see that it happens (see here). So I think my fellow commentators Kevin Kallsen and George Conger are being merely rhetorical when they ask: “Was 2008 the last Lambeth Conference?” In discussing this question, they make this comment about the Gafcon/Global South bishops: “If they wanted to play the political game, they could all go to Lambeth and wipe out the opposition” (at 18:45). A variant of this hypothesis is the view of some conservative bishops that one should go to Lambeth to stand up for the truth. At best, they will have the chance to sit down for “their truth” in the indaba groups.
Storming Lambeth? My reply to this idea is simply, it has been tried before and failed. In 1998, after a titanic struggle with the Communion bureaucracy, the Global South pushed through Resolution I.10 on Human Sexuality by a vote of 526 to 70. As I have recounted before (see chapter 4 of my book), passage of Lambeth I.10 was a doctrinal achievement but a political failure because the Lambeth bureaucrats who control the “Instruments of Unity” were handed the responsibility of carrying out the Resolution, which was the last thing they intended to do. After nearly ten years of fruitless attempts to apply Lambeth I.10, the Primates, led by Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria, won a second victory at Dar es Salaam in 2007, unanimously stating:
At the heart of our tensions is the belief that The Episcopal Church has departed from the standard of teaching on human sexuality accepted by the Communion in the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10 by consenting to the episcopal election of a candidate living in a committed same-sex relationship, and by permitting Rites of Blessing for same-sex unions. The episcopal ministry of a person living in a same-sex relationship is not acceptable to the majority of the Communion. (§17)
The Primates went on to specify a number of conditions that would indicate a sign of repentance by the Episcopal Church, failing which it should not be invited to the Lambeth Conference of 2008. When the Episcopal Church fudged all these conditions, the Archbishop of Canterbury invited all the Episcopal Bishops (except Gene Robinson) to Lambeth anyway. This repudiation of the Dar es Salaam demands led directly to the 2008 Global Anglican Future Conference in Jerusalem and the absence of more than 200 bishops at Lambeth later that year.
So, as a thought experiment, suppose the Global South bishops stormed Lambeth 2020, overturned the set agenda, and forced through Resolutions reaffirming Lambeth I.10, excommunicating those provinces which have violated it, and recognizing those confessing churches who have upheld it. What then? Would they really expect the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Communion Office to carry out these Resolutions? I fear it would be a pyrrhic victory. Like Napoleon capturing Moscow in 1812, the victors would find themselves left out in the cold.
The leadership of Gafcon has learned from twenty years of futility that the official Instruments of Unity are unwilling to uphold biblical moral standards among its members. In the recent Letter to the Churches, the Gafcon Assembly again urged the Archbishop of Canterbury to signal his commitment to Communion standards by inviting to Lambeth those bishops who have upheld Lambeth I.10 and withholding invitation to those who have repudiated it. Archbishop Welby did not deign to reply to this request and has acted directly to the contrary. As a result, more than 300 bishops including the Communion’s two largest Provinces – Nigeria and Uganda – have announced that they will not attend the Lambeth Conference.
As I see it, the question “Was 2008 the last Lambeth Conference?” misses the target. The last authoritative council of Anglican bishops worldwide occurred in 1998. That was not so apparent at the time, but by 2008 it had become clear that classic Anglicanism, upholding biblical authority and historical formularies, was to be located somewhere south of England’s grassy downs. For all I know, Lambeth Conferences may continue for decades to come – until the money gives out – but the original idea of an authoritative Anglican body proclaiming Christ to the nations will be radiating out from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth.
One notes this morning that, as reported by an English blog (and confirmed by going to the official Lambeth website), the Lambeth Conference website has removed the reference to gay spouses not being invited, although Idowu-Fearon’s post was still available on the ACO site (as of this morning). The removal from the Lambeth Conference site is apparently in response to complaints (dare I say threats) from TEC’s executive committee and Pres of the HoD.
I have never been able to fathom the concept that there were some large number of Global South bishops who were basing their attendance on the invitation, or not, of gay spouses. Clearly, many have made their decision based on the invitation to TEC and other revisionist provinces. A number of others will not attend because Welby is inviting gay bishops, or using the invitation to suffragans to add an additional 100 revisionist bishops to the mix (the GS cannot afford suffragans as a rule, and cannot afford to send suffragan or missionary bishops in any case).
So, the net impact of barring gay spouses has been to upset all the revisionists who were so happy with him for inviting gay bishops. It certainly appears that Welby is intending to reverse himself on that point.
Very good analysis.
We’ve seen, as Dr. Noll says, the results of the effort in 1998. Even if they tried to do it again, and in the extremely unlikely event that they succeeded, liberals would merely respond that the Lambeth Conference is advisory and the “real” power is in the ACC, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lambeth Palace and TEC.
Does any of this make any difference, really? It seems that nothing could be less relevant for the Kingdom of God than Lambeth or Canterbury.
Just a couple of observations:
1. The Council of Nicaea was also a doctrinal achievement but a political failure. It took a lot longer than 20 years to implement that throughout the church.
2. “Excommunicating provinces” is a questionable concept. According to biblical and historic practice, individuals are excommunicated, not groups.
Much of the difficulty in the Anglican Communion is that the terms used often have a meaning different from the traditional meaning of the same word in the Catholic Church.
That said, even within the Catholic Church, the term “excommunicate” can be applied to either an individual or a group. At least in the English language versions of documents.
Pope Pius XII (or, more formally, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office with his approval) excommunicated all members of the Communist Party in 1949 in the document commonly known as the Decree against Communism (sorry, I forget the Latin). That is a relatively recent example, there are many other instances of groups being excommunicated. While excommunication is often seen as a sentence imposed by the Church for some error or wrongdoing, it is really rather a recognition by the church that the error or wrongdoing has caused a state of non-communion to exist, or that the promulgator or perpetrator has abandoned the communion of the Church by their words or actions. This can be either personal or corporate (ie- a group).
Yes, thank you for that clarification. I did not mean to imply that only one individual can be excommunicated at a time. But, to use the example you cited, “all members of the Communist Party” arguably refers to an aggregate of individuals, namely those who have signed on to Communist beliefs, which are judged incompatible with Christian doctrine.
My concern is that excommunicating an entire province (like TEC) assumes that every bishop, priest, deacon, and layperson has bought into the doctrinal error(s), which is not the case.
And you are absolutely right that much of the trouble lies with the ambiguity of the term.
Matthew, I think you are too focused on the word “excommunicate”. The point, clearly, is not to deprive individuals of Holy Communion. It is a matter of removing TEC from the decision making bodies of the Anglican Communion. I am sure that provision would be made to facilitate those bishops, clergy and laity willing to repudiate the heresies and pagan practices which are currently the doctrine of TEC. Of course, TEC will seize all the real estate, vestments, chalices, office supplies, etc., as their doctrine requires them to do. But maintaining communion with other Anglicans will not be a problem if you choose to do so.
This is all hypothetical in any case. Welby is bending over backwards to comply with TEC demands, and the Communion’s official structures all run on money, and Trinity Wall Street holds the purse strings.
Frankly, regardless of who does or doesn’t go to Lambeth, it seems almost self evident at this point, that unless the Holy Spirit intervenes in a miraculous way, 15 minutes after Lambeth ends Welby will find the keys to the “quadruple lock” and the CoE will vote in gay marriage. Within weeks, the Anglican Communion as we have known it will cease to exist. And anyone still in TEC will have to choose between Justin Welby, TEC and the real estate on the one hand, or ACNA and the Global South on the other.
Nicaea is a good counter-point.
I would like to see Dr. Noll’s take on it.
It’s possible that the term “general interdict” was meant [link removed per Comment Policy]: this has been used in the past when a region or group was (in the view of the Pope) openly defying the Church. I think that in a church with distributed authority, it should be possible to do this by GAFCON or some other body: in practice it’s already happening.
I don’t think it would take a storm, just a gentle whisper.
One problem is that even if the whole “Gay” issue was dealt with in the Communion by the Gafcon bishops, the problem of WO would still exist. That is where the rot started in the first place, with the abandonment of apostolic practice and holy tradition.