Archbishop’s warning to conservatives: CEN 12.21.07 p 7.

The 2008 Lambeth Conference will craft an Anglican Covenant that will set the boundaries of Anglican Church order and discipline, the Archbishop of Canterbury has stated in his Advent letter to the Primates.

But these parameters will not include gay bishops or blessings, Dr. Rowan Williams wrote on Dec 14 in a 4500 word theological tome/political manifesto outlining the ordering of Anglicanism.

The Advent letter will satisfy neither wing of the Communion, as liberals will be outraged at his rejection of the “prophetic” gay agenda, while conservatives will take umbrage that while he acknowledges the problems created by the gay agenda, Dr. Williams will not take action to correct it, preaching continued dialogue and conversation.

Dr. Williams told the primates there was “no consensus” on the merits of the American Church’s response to the Windsor Report and the Primates’ communiqués. The call for clarification had not been met, and had resulted in further questions about the Episcopal Church’s understanding of the nature of the episcopate and its views of its place within the wider catholic church.

The Episcopal Church, as part of the Anglican Communion, was not free to push forward with the innovations of gay bishops and blessings, as the current consensus was “not in favour of change in our discipline or our interpretation of the Bible” on this point.

The 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution on sexuality “is the only point of reference clearly agreed by the overwhelming majority of the Communion. This is the point where our common reading of Scripture stands, along with the common reading of the majority within the Christian churches worldwide and through the centuries,” Dr. Williams wrote.

However, the Global South response of consecrating bishops to oversee North American traditionalists opposed to these innovations was not the way forward either. Dr. Williams objected to the creation of new ecclesial structures formed in response to the American crisis, but supported the “radical” response of San Joaquin and other traditionalist dioceses.

African-consecrated American bishops and structures create “a seriously anomalous position” but those existing dioceses that had “looked for more radical solutions” had not gone too far.

“If their faith and practice are recognised by other churches in the Communion as representing the common mind of the Anglican Church, they are clearly in fellowship with the Communion.”

The way forward was to go to Lambeth, which he described as “a meeting of the chief pastors and teachers of the Communion, seeking an authoritative common voice.”  Bishop Robinson of New Hampshire and the African-American bishops would not be seated but all others would be, he said.

Dr. Williams conceded that some invited to Lambeth espoused heterodox theological positions in relation to the Church’s common core teachings. An invitation was not a “certificate of orthodoxy” but an invitation to participate in an authoritative conversation that would shape the future of the church.

However, those accepted the invitation to Lambeth must be willing “to work with those aspects of the Conference’s agenda that relate to implementing the recommendations of Windsor, including the development of a Covenant,” he said.

Not coming to Lambeth would be a “refusal of the cross – and so of the resurrection. We are being asked to see our handling of conflict and potential division as part of our maturing both as pastors and as disciples,” he said.

Dr. Williams said he would “pursue some professionally facilitated conversations” in the run up to Lambeth, and would convene a “small group of primates and others” to work on the “unanswered questions arising from the inconclusive evaluation of the primates to New Orleans and to take certain issues forward to Lambeth.”

Dr. Williams urged the Primates to hold fast, and not prejudge his attempts a failure. It was wrong to think that a resolution of the “current deadlock” was impossible or that “division is unavoidable and that any such division represents so radical a difference in fundamental faith that no recognition and future co-operation can be imagined.”

“I cannot accept these assumptions, and I do not believe that as Christians we should see them as beyond challenge,” Dr. Williams said.