The serious and sometimes satirical reflections of a priest, poet, and pilgrim —
who knowing he has not obtained the goal, presses on in a Godward direction.
Resolved, That given the debate, division and dissent to which it has given rise, Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference no longer represents the consensus of the Anglican Communion.
—Tobias Haller BSG
“a clear-sighted companion.... If you are passionate about the vitality of today’s church, I encourage you to accompany him on his mystagogical excursion into the liturgical landscape. You will rediscover a familiar place rife with fresh provisions planted by the God who longs to feed our deepest hungers and hopes.” —Jay Koyle, chair, Faith, Worship and Ministry of The Anglican Church of Canada
Your words are yours but I reserve the right to cite them or refer to them in other contexts
I will not post comments that are irrelevant or offensive.Note that Blogger limits comments to 4,096 characters.
Posts
12 comments:
"no longer" suggests that it did originally. i think this is inaccurate, so i would suggest simply "does not".
I concur that it never did represent a consensus (hence the acrimonious debate surrounding it!). But bishops hate to admit they've made a mistake, and this is designed as an exercise in Episcopolitics.
... and be it further Resolved that the prelates will now take tea and oilish their pectoral crosses.
Lambeth MMVIII will be an interesting event to behold. My hope is through the work of the Holy Spirit (or sleight of hand) Anglicans-all can return to arguing about which Prayer Book constitutes the real Prayer Book and whether 'he' should be 'He' when referring to God the Almighty.
Oh for the good ol' days.
Well, at least it's better than the Roman Catholic way of indicating a change in direction (by insisting there's no real change):
"As the Church has always taught . . ."
Thanks for the smiles James and Kevin. On the latter, I don't know who first said it, but someone once observed, 'In Rome, everything is forbidden until it becomes compulsory.'
Excellent idea, Fr. Haller.
bd (that's "two thumbs up!")
Who can see this consuming mess and not realize that there never (except locally for short periods - such as in Paris around 1200 or in the Italian City states of the Renaissance) were any "recived teaching" or "mind of the Communion" on this?
(if you'll bear with me for saying so, the answer is found over at Thinking Anglicans ;=)
Seconding Thomas Bushnell's suggestion, using "does not" would not admit prior error. And some minds have in fact been changed over the last decade.
So how does this get put on the Lambeth table next year?
Paul (A),
Thanks for the note. I brought this up at the Town Hall meeting the other day and was reminded by my bishop that Lambeth 2008 is designed to be "legislation-free."
Then why not act to rescind the prior "legislation" that is now viewed as such a problem?
Or just clarify that it was not "legislation" and will not be viewed as such?
Sauce for the gander but not for the goose?
Dear Paul (A),
I think the more people (especially Primates and other leaders) who remind the wider church of these two facts the better:
1. Lambeth has no authority to establish or define doctrine; and
2. The Lambeth resolution did not and does not represent a consensus view, but rather a highly politicized position with which many were in significant disagreement.
That would help, short of a "repeal" which might not be possible at Lambeth 2008.
Post a Comment