From Matt Kennedy at Lambeth for Stand Firm:
Saturday, August 2, 2008 • 9:24 am
Aspinall: Today bishops have been continuing the discussion begun yesterday
Three issues have been discussed:
1. The WCG proposals on moratoria
2. The pastoral forum
3. Any suggestions people have about the instrument so communion.
In my indaba group there were widely different views expressed about all of the three points of discussion. The thing that struck me was the tone in which the discussion happened. There has been embedded a deep careful, respectful engagement with each other. People are engaging at a deep level. How all of this will play out is yet to be seen,
The final reflection hearing will take place at 5:00pm today. You will be given what they have drafted for that hearing at 5:00pm.
We have with us two bishops to talk to you about the discussions today.
++Kwong of Hong Kong, and +Jenkins of LA are here with us this afternoon.
The spouse this morning is Margaret Setamu from York. She will speak at the end of the press conference. The bishops will present first.
Archbishops first
Kwong: Good afternoon. This is my first Lambeth and I confess I did not go to indaba this morning. I had something else to do but I want to give you my impression of the conference which has taken place and this is a great privileged to be a part of this conference and like any other conference there are good and bad things.
For this conference I found most things here are very good in particular the worship in the morning and the bible studies where we have a chance to reflect and share our views about the conference and the communion difficulties in relations to the bible.
One thing I found disappointing is that we have spent a lot of time sharing and listening but I wish we could have more time to talk about actions and what might happen from here with regard to the issues that are causing division. We have been beating about the bush and “talking” about the issues facing the communion for a long time. It is time to deal with it.
From Hong Kong in particular we want to see that all parties concerned would have a chance to sit down and work around something concrete to resolve the issues. We want somebody or a team with some diplomatic skills to invite all of the parties and look at the issues. We in Hong Kong respect what people are taking about and doing.
But all these people are saying, everyone is saying, that what they have done is correct in their context. Now we are asking all of these people to stop defending what they do or accusing others. Come instead together and say what sacrifice and concessions can you make for the sake of the integrity of the communion; for the sake of the integrity of the church. I was hoping this conference to ask us for a forward in that way.
I would like to see suggestions from this conference of where we can go from here to work out something tangible rather than just to talk about something that we have been talking about for years.
I value the listening and to have voices heard but instead of that we need some concrete action to be taken.
Jenkins: I want to call your attention the reflection of New Testament values and the reflection is the reflection of the miracle of Pentecost. The miracle of Pentecost was universal intelligibility and in this conference I think ++RW has taken a visionary and, I’ll use a word not usually associated with the ABC, “brave” posture of leadership in the indaba process that has ensured that the small still voices are able to speak and be heard. In reflecting in how the Holy Spirit operated on Pentecost it seems to be as similar gift to the church. The Holy Spirit lets the still small voice be heard.
In the indaba group I have been in even those who do note speak English as a first language have been invited and encouraged to speak.
The second thing that gives me heart s that those gathered here, though we have our differences and those remain, we are willing to share a common fate. We are willing and we see that commitment expressed in a commitment to mission, I see here as in NO, that so many have come and stood with me and have been willing to share the fate of the people who have been flooded washed out and then excluded on the American promise. I am not saying we agree but there is a commitment to share a common fate with those with whom we disagree, that is a NT value and a miracle.
A friend from the US wrote last night to ask whether ++RW was teaching or leading. I wrote back that he is leading like a lion and teaching like Jesus.
Q: You have proposed that there should be a forum to get together to resolve our difficulties: let’s say you are in a forum what concessions would you propose?
Kwong: I cannot speak for all parties but I can give an example. In the 40’s we were the first diocese to ordain women to the priesthood, the bishop who ordained her was one of my predecessors, but that was considered a radical move and that was in the 40’s and it was strongly criticized. So for the sake of the communion and the Church, the bishop revoked the ordination and the priest agreed and stopped practicing waited until the early 70’s when women were widely received. I cannot speak for all parties, but sacrifice is what Hong Kong is asking. We are not talking about rights. Every party has rights. We respect that but we ask for sacrifice
Q: Yesterday ++Mouneer Anis said that everyone who was in favor of the covenant except for the North Americans who did not want to be told what to do by anyone. Do you agree with that assessment?
+Jenkins: Who am I to question ++Egypt. In the indaba group today when we did some self-revelation I did not find any American bishop who was unable to accept the idea of covenant. There was a strand among us that would say we are not going to be happy with its current form. I would have liked something more creative than the covenant. But I think part of the sacrifice that most are willing to make is that we will accept a covenant and the moratoria mentioned therein.
++Aspinall: In my indaba group one bishop who had once described himself as opposed to a covenant and has changed his mind and now supports it.
Q to ++Kwong: What do you think was lost by the structure of this conference? Did you want a plenary gathering and a vote is that what you would have wanted? And in this time when the communion is coming apart, do you see this as a failure of leadership on the part of the bishops.
A:++Kwong: I do not have a framework. But I wish that there was a chance here in this conference to work on some suggestions on how we can proceed with this negotiation process and to work out a solution. Allow me to give an analogy. Like what is happening in the world today is this. We have the General Secretary of the UN who goes around trying to work out a solution to the problems of the nations. W might have someone like him to do a similar work to help all parties to come to amends.
+Jenkins: In our indaba group when American bishops talked about the sacrifices and concessions they were willing to make. The bishops of the Sudan did too. It is possible to make a sacrifice without selling out. I see that.
Q: ++Orombi mentioned that the Instrument of Unity in the ABC is a remnant of British colonialism and since all of you are from informer colonies, what is your thought on that?
+Jekens: The “colony” in which I serve was primarily French. We were sold to the US by Napoleon and the other landowners were the Spanish. Christ Church NO was the first cathedral outside of the former British empire. One can make that claim. One cannot justify it. I do not think that about the ABC. Our heritage as catholic Christians is a commitment place, not just the place where we are but also the place from which our spiritual traditions have come and the ABC is a historic part of that.
Q: Sherrod: you (to ++Kwong) spoke about dealing with all parties concerned and you (to +Jenkins) spoke about not selling anyone out. How is this not selling out LGBT Anglicans? They are not in the room. It Is one thing to sacrifice yourself. It is another to ask someone else to sacrifice for you.
++Kwong: that is why I said earlier that we need to find a person or a team to go around and talk face to face with all of these parties concerned and find a out to what extent they will sacrifice.
+Jenkins: there certainly were gay people in these conversations. This question of selling out perplexes me and I have seen them make a great deal of impact.
Conger: it has been my privilege to cover these things. In every meeting we talk about the next committee to take us to the next meeting. We see it again here. What time frame is acceptable? How long is too long?
Aspinall: one idea was floated in my group. You are right to say that a lot of time and attention has been devoted to process questions. It seems to a number of us that a gap has been opened in a communion wide way on issues of substance on the rightness or wrongness of same sex relationships so the proposal that has bubbled up in my group and in an attempt to make the moratoria acceptable was to establish a communion wide theological commission that might work from the ACC meeting for the next 3 years to the next ACC meeting. A further suggestion is that that during that three year period a commission might move around the provinces to hear the stories of those on both sides of the debate who have been hurt. When the commission reports it would then have to be received in the provinces and each would need to make up its mind. That might build on the depth of engagement and relationship that has been established here. This might not happen at this conference but it could be pursued
+Jenkis: keep your walking shows on, we still have a walk in the desert. I am not sure this will have an easy fix.
Me: Bishop Jenkins, you said that in your indaba group the Episcopal bishops were willing to agree to the three moratoria. There has been some confusion in past years about whether the WR calls for a cessation of the authorization for the creation of rites for same sex blessings or the authorization or permission to celebrate any rites at all. Is it your understanding that the bishops in your indaba are willing to cease all same sex blessings?
+Jenkins: I do not know.
Q: Do you see a difference between sacrificing yourself for others and asking others to sacrifice for others?
Jenkins: I think there is a big difference which is obvious. Our bible studies made it clear that when the nation requires someone to be sacrifice for the nation it is a different thing than someone offering themselves.
++Kwong: In my province we have a saying: to lead to “we” has to sacrifice for “WE”. The little we is always the benefit of the We. They are willing to make that sacrifice.
Q: Did you hear in your indabas discussion around process and how there might be some way to implement a disciplinary structure or some kind of structure to deal with violations of the covenant?
+Aspinall: The talk centered around the Covenant appendixes. The covenant is not punitive. It is an opt-in process not a punitive one so that a church may relinquish her place in the communion or the ACC may decide that a church has effectively relinquished. What would flow from these discussions has yet to be worked out.
Q: In Nottingham at ACC 13, TEC and Canada were asked not to have their delegates seated until lambent2008. Is there any decision as to whether these two churches can be on those bodies?
Aspinall: the WR requested that they voluntarily withdraw from the ACC until the next Lambeth and both graciously acceded to that request. I am not aware of any discussion here that sought to extend that.
end
No comments:
Post a Comment