Tuesday, August 05, 2008

Lambeth Bishops complain of 'patronising' West

Bishops from the Global South movement have condemned the ‘patronising attitude’ of the Western churches during the Lambeth Conference, claiming that their traditionalist views are both misrepresented and misunderstood in the West.

The Bishops, who unlike the Gafcon bishops, did not boycott Lambeth, nevertheless regretted that “substantial theological voices outside of the Western world have not been present in the evening plenary sessions of the Lambeth Conference. We are concerned with the continuing patronising attitude of the West towards the rest of the churches worldwide.”

They said in a statement issued yesterday: “We regret attempts to cause divisions and break the bonds between churches in the Global South, and are distressed that the realities in our churches are often misrepresented and misunderstood in the West.”

The Archbishops, including Ian Ernest (Indian Ocean), Bernard Ntahoturi (Burundi), John Chew (Southeast Asia), Daniel Deng Bul Yak (Sudan), and Dr Mouneer Hanna Anis (Jerusalem & The Middle East) backed the Jerusalem Declaration and said they “stand in solidarity with all the faithful Bishops, Clergy and Laity in the United States and Canada and elsewhere who are suffering recrimination and hostility perpetrated upon them by their dioceses and/or national churches which have not unequivocally complied with the specific Windsor proposals required of them in full.”

They also backed the controversial intervention of the Church of Sudan, which called for the resignation of Bishop Gene Robinson, adding that the Lambeth Conference was taking place at a time when “the Anglican Communion as a communion of ordered churches is at the probable brink of collapse.”

They, however, welcomed the Archbishop of Canterbury’s First Presidential Address, and the related presentations by the Anglican Covenant Design Group and the Windsor Continuation Group to the Conference at the opening evening of the Conference.

They also backed the proposed Covenant, urging for its official endorsement by ACC 14 in May 2009.

They also called for a clear endorsement and immediate implementation of the interim proposals of the Windsor Continuation Group on the swift formation of the Pastoral Forum with the terms of reference as set out: in particular, “the Pastoral Forum should be empowered to act in the Anglican Communion in a rapid manner to emerging threats to its life, especially through the ministry of its Chair, who should work alongside the Archbishop of Canterbury in the exercise of his ministry. The Forum would be responsible for addressing those anomalies of pastoral care arising in the Communion against the recommendations of the Windsor Report. It could also offer guidance on what response and any diminished standing within the Communion might be appropriate where any of the three moratoria are broken.”

But they added that leadership would have to be expressed by backing the Lambeth 1998 Resolution I.10; the respective Communiqués of the Primates’ Meetings of 2003, Dromantine 2005, and most explicitly Dar-es-Salaam 2007.

This would mean, they say, the complete cessation of

(a) the celebration of blessings for same-sex unions,

(b) consecrations of those living in openly gay relationships, and

(c) all cross border interventions and inter-provincial claims of jurisdiction, as the Windsor Continuation Group rightly observed.

They added that they are “committed to work together with one another in the Global South and with all orthodox groups in the United States of America and Canada: to listen together to what Lord Jesus says to his church today, to draw strength and insights from one another, and to take fresh initiatives in upholding and passing on the faith once delivered to the saints.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer

No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.

The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.

Sacerdos