The push to seat Gene Robinson at Lambeth Conference failed yesterday after the American bishops declined to force the issue.At their July 21 provincial meeting at the Lambeth Conference the American bishops declined to take action on a request by liberal members of their caucus to ask the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, to seat the New Hampshire bishop.
Bishops attending the closed meeting said that some bishops pushed for Bishop Robinson to be extended an invitation.
There followed a substantive discussion of the Robinson issue with several bishops expressing their anger and hurt over his exclusion.
However, the American leadership declined to take up the issue and a growing number of bishops appear to be distancing themselves from the controversial New Hampshire cleric in a bid to avoid conflict with the conference organizers.
Bishop Robinson was forbidden to attend the meeting of his own House of Bishops, writing on his blog the conference organizers do not consider the American meeting to be a meeting of the American House of Bishops but a meeting of American bishops at Lambeth.
“As a non-invitee, I will not be allowed on the premises where the meeting is taking place,” Bishop Robinson wrote.
“It really puts all of us in a lose-lose position: if I abide by their ruling, I am excluded; if I fight it or simply show up, then I'm the troublemaker and rebel. If the House of Bishops takes some action on this, necessitating a vote, then it divides our House -- a further and unnecessary division that I refuse to encourage. So no matter how you slice it, someone loses.”
Speaking to the media on July 21, Dr Williams defended his ban of Gene Robinson from the Lambeth Conference saying the New Hampshire bishop’s presence would have been “questionable.”
However, the American, Canadian and Central American bishops who consecrated Bishop Robinson were permitted to attend conference because it would have been difficult to exclude them.
Dr Williams’ comments arose during questioning about the participation of 75 ecumenical observers in the work of the conference.
On Saturday, Dr Williams stated that the ecumenical participants at Lambeth were “not just guests” but “sharers of our work together” whose different traditions and theological viewpoints would “provoke us further in that endless journey of love and discovery toward that perfection” of the divine.
The exclusion of Bishop Robinson raised an interesting issue, as the Salvation Army and the Armenian Church are full participants.
The Salvation Army does not baptize and the Armenian Apostolic Church adheres to the miaphysitism where Christ is of one incarnate nature, where both divine and human nature are united.
Asked if the presence of the Salvation Army and the Armenian Church as full participants, even while Bishop Robinson was excluded, meant that homosexuality was more important or provoking than the efficacy of the sacraments or the nature of Christ, Dr Williams responded that he could “answer with a long disquisition on Armenian Christology, but I don’t think I don’t think that’s an option for this audience.
“Ecumenical participants are here precisely on that ticket. They are representing their Churches as sisters in communion as friends. They are there because they are Armenian Orthodox or Salvation Army,” he said.
Bishop Robinson was a different matter. “The problem that we face within the Anglican Communion is that bishops gathering for the Lambeth Conference represent not only their diocese, but their participation in the fellowship of worldwide Anglican Christians. Where there are bishops whose participation in that worldwide fellowship is for one reason or another questionable that’s the reason for questioning their participation here.”
Asked why the consecrators of Bishop Robinson were present even though the Windsor Report recommended their withdrawal from the international councils of the church, Dr Williams replied, that the “difficulty that I faced and some others faced was of those who consecrated Gene Robinson some or a number later expressed a wish that they hadn’t, some are retired and of course a great many American bishops have come into office since then.”
The “American House of Bishops corporately asked for forgiveness for offense caused last year. Now you’ll remember that I circulated to all the provinces last year with a request as to whether people thought this was a satisfactory response to the concerns expressed and you’ll be aware that the Joint Standing Committee and 50 percent plus or more of the provinces said well that’s probably all right.”
This response was the “basis for saying I don’t think I want to go down the list of consecrators and say yes no or possibly and the House of Bishops said something corporately which not everyone thought was adequate, but many did and that was the basis on which I worked with that one,” Dr Williams said.
At a Monday press briefing, the Bishop of Indianapolis declined to elaborate on the American meeting, saying the discussions were “not intended to be shared”.
“Whatever information you need to know about Gene Robinson will be provided by one source,” Bishop Cate Waynick said. The bishop declined to name that source, however.
The Bishop of West Tennessee, the Rt Rev Don Johnson however confirmed the issue had been raised, but “no topic was discussed in any depth.”
One bishop told us that the provincial meeting was very much like recent meetings of the House of Bishops, with the issue of Gene Robinson, and disquiet with the proposed Anglican Covenant generating a great deal of passion from some speakers.
However, he added that the majority of American bishops appeared to be tiring of the focus on the travails of the Bishop of New Hampshire, and were not yet prepared to buck the Archbishop of Canterbury on this topic.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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