One Rwandan bishop and five Kenyan bishops have broken ranks, defying their House of Bishops to attend the 2008 Lambeth Conference.However, no Nigerian or Uganda bishop has defied his church’s decision not to attend the every-10-year conference due to the presence of the American bishops.
“We’re sorry they are not here,” Archbishop Rowan Williams said, of the approximately 250 bishops from the four African provinces, Sydney and other evangelical dioceses who are absent.
Initial claims that a Nigerian bishop had bucked his Church have proven false.
However, Archbishop Peter Akinola told ReligiousIntelligence.com the whole issue of who was or was not at Lambeth was immaterial.
“At this point it is a non-issue for us. After Lambeth, any Nigerian who may have chosen to flout our provincial and collective decision will have to answer to the general synod. It as simple as that."
Access by the media to the gathering of bishops is sharply restricted, and the bishops themselves have scant knowledge of what is taking place.
Unlike past conferences, there is no daily newspaper and what information that can be gleaned from official channels is available only to those bishops with laptops.
At the opening press conference on July 20 the Conference reported that bishops representing all 38 Provinces of the Anglican Communion, but Uganda were present. In a change from the custom of the past 13 Lambeth Conferences, the Bishops did not process by province at the opening ceremony.
Conference Design Group member Dr Ian Douglas said this was to foster a sense of community and camaraderie amongst the bishops following their three days of retreat.
The Rt Rev Cyril Okorocha, Bishop of Owerri, Nigeria on July 19 faxed a letter to the conference saying he would like to attend, as he was visiting his son in Manchester.
However, the conference reported that Bishop Okorocha never arrived and is not present.
The Rt Rev Venuste Mutiganda, Bishop of Butare, Rwanda, alone among the nine Rwandan domestic dioceses is in attendance, while five bishops from the southwestern Nyanza region of Kenya attended the opening service.
One Kenyan bishop has subsequently left the conference, but the Bishop of Bondo, the Rt Rev Johannes Angela told ReligiousIntelligence.com he was pleased to be part of the gathering.
Questions about the number of bishops present at the gathering have been lodged with the Conference since its opening.
The official figure of 670 bishops remains an estimate. However, doubts as to the numbers of bishops persist as the conference venue, a large blue marquee on the campus of the University of Kent, has been half empty during the three sessions where the press has been given access.
For the first time in its history, the Lambeth Conference has refused to list which bishops are present, citing the 1998 Data Protection Act. Our initial inquiries last week were met with the response that a roster of bishops present would be provided once registration closed on July 20, 2008. Subsequent inquiries by the ReligiousIntelligence.com were answered by saying the list was a secret, and the reason for keeping it secret, were secret.
After The Times reported that threats had been made against the wife of Bishop Okorocha, a ban on the names of bishops present was imposed. Security concerns were initially cited on July 22 for not providing the names, but this was later revised to say that privacy issues, not security questions, prevented the bishops from being named.
The Archbishop of Canterbury’s legal advisor, John Rees, advised the conference that the Data Prevention Act that came into force in 2000 forbade release of the conference participants.
Asked to explain why all prior Anglican gatherings covered by the Act had released attendance lists, a conference spokesman said legal advice had never been sought on this matter until now.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.
Sotto Voce