Barnes in Common

the magazine of Churches Together in Barnes
September/October 2008

Home
Current issue
Previous issues
Noticeboard
Discussion board
About CTiB

The Lambeth Conference 2008

by Revd Ross Collins

Was Lambeth 2008 a success?

The answer to this question does, of course, depend on how you would want to evaluate the recent decennial gathering of Anglican Bishops from all over the world, held at the University of Kent in Canterbury for two weeks or so in July and August.

Many people were hoping merely that the bishops would be able to get to the end of the conference without there being a formal schism. To that extent, it has been a success – there was no walking out.

There was, of course, a conscious attempt on the part of the organisers to avoid anything that might encourage confrontation or a split. There were, for example, to be no resolutions arising from the conference and certainly nothing of the nature of the now notorious ill-tempered and unchristian debate that led to the resolution on homosexuality at Lambeth 1998. So, if you were looking for clear guidelines as to how the Anglican Communion will move forward, you would have been mostly disappointed. There were indications that a mutual approach will be adopted for the future – a moratoria on the consecration of gay bishops, legitimization of same sex blessing services and on arch/bishops poaching diocese/ parishes from other provinces as well as a commitment to make work the new ‘Anglican Covenant’, which for the first time edges towards an understanding of what it is to be Anglican and to keep provinces within that rather loose understanding.

The positive side to this was the use of a slightly-reworked Zulu tradition – Indaba – as the centrepiece to the conference. This was splitting the bishops into groups of 40 or so as if they were elders meeting under the tree to talk through various issues – not to reach a conclusion but to ensure that everyone was heard. By and large, this seems to have been a good experience. What can be quite striking is the extent to which different cultures are ignorant of each other and lack awareness of the contexts in which each part of the Communion lives and preaches the gospel (for example, many Africans were surprised at how limited the power of English bishops was and, conversely, few Western bishops had a clear under­standing of how Islam viewed Anglicanism where it has an equal or dominant presence in Africa). It’s hardly surprising that misunderstandings arise if we have inadequate knowledge of each other, and that voices end up being raised. So, to me, the offering of space for different bishops to get to know each other better, listen to their opinions and set their response to their disagreements in the context of the relationships they have built up, is a step forward. It might have been something that was encouraged more before, but it may be that Lambeth has given an impetus to this that will help in the future.

From my own understanding of what Anglicanism is about, this is important. At its best, Anglicanism is a sort of global forum in which what it is to follow Christ is sought both in universal and local terms – in which we debate how far we can be one in Christ yet different. It is about understanding that the incarnation – God, in Christ, taking on the fullness of humanity – compels us to take the gospel into every culture, every way of being human, to find there a new facet of what God’s love and truth means for the whole of humanity. Now every church does this in one way or another, and I am not in any way saying the Anglican way (even when we get it right) is the best or only way, but it has a particular insight into this. Anglicanism is, to my mind, not the only church with a truly worldwide reach, but it is unusual in approaching this internationalism from the bottom up – we start from the character of individual provinces and then work to understand the nature of our unity.

So far, so successful, in terms of those who were at the conference: a convivial atmosphere, friendships renewed and developed, a better understanding of each other’s positions and a rough way of moving into the future. The elephant in the room, however, was the one not in the room – the 250 or so bishops who weren’t there and who had gone to a separate ‘retreat’ in Jerusalem a couple of months earlier. It’s very difficult to build relationships with people who don’t turn up, to be heard when people are not prepared to listen, to explore what it is to follow Christ in different ways with those who turn their back on you. But even here there are nuances to how things are portrayed in the media. Firstly, it is not a West v Africa debate. There are plenty of African provinces which, while generally conservative, are 100% committed to the Anglican Communion. Secondly, in the parts of Africa where there are issues with the allegiance with Canterbury, this is not uniform. The vast majority of absentees came from four countries (Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda and Kenya) whose senior archbishops absolutely forbade any of their bishops from coming. Many would have but were prevented from doing so. In time, any movement of fundamentalism and intolerance turns on itself and loses cohesion. This already seems to be happening with the forces of schismatic and aggressive Anglicanism.

So, what lies ahead? I’m not forecasting stability in worldwide Anglicanism. I do think that we have passed the hurdle of the Lambeth Conference better than most of us expected and that it gives us a better space in which to pursue what it means to be a Christian. We will need to engage with each other better – take our international relationships more seriously, enjoy the different insights we have, be less insular in our outlook and, above all, be restrained and loving in the way we deal with each other.

Back to the top