Monday, January 28, 2008

A Brief History of the Lambeth Conference: Unity and Diversity

Unity and Diversity in the Lambeth Conference
by Christopher L. Webber

In this multi-part essay, Christopher Webber raises questions about the history and future of the Lambeth Conference: Where did Lambeth begin? What was the original purpose? What has it accomplished? His essay is not intended as a full history of Lambeth, but a summary of the origins and main developments that may be instructive today.

Due to its length, Father Webber's essay will be published in four parts over the next few days.

About the Author: The Rev. Christopher L. Webber is a graduate of Princeton and the General Theological Seminary where he earned two degrees and was awarded an honorary doctorate. He is the author of a number of books including The Vestry Handbook, Welcome to the Episcopal Church, Beyond Beowulf (the first-ever sequel to the first English saga), and the recently re-issued Re-Inventing Marriage, as well as a new supplement to the last title, called Same Sex Marriage and the Bible (available from his website). In a ministry of fifty years and counting, Fr. Webber has served parishes in inner city, suburban, rural, and overseas communities. He is currently serving as a supply priest in the Diocese of Connecticut.

Webber has written for The Episcopal Majority before. See
Listening, Causes and Effects, A Certain Madness, The Conscience of a Conservative, and 1984 in the Episcopal Church.

In this essay, he includes several quotations from the Lambeth Conference archives, which use "English" rather than "American" spelling (e.g., "recognise" rather than "recognize"). The quotations appear here as they do in the originals.

About the Sources: Quotations here have been drawn from two websites and a book:

In addition, an archive of Lambeth resolutions is available at the Lambeth Conference archive.

Introduction

The Archbishop of Canterbury has sent out invitations to the bishops of the Anglican Communion to meet together at Lambeth this summer. It’s the fourteenth time that has happened, and the second time that there has been a serious question as to who might come. The first time a bare majority arrived: 76 out of 144. Many of those absent in 1868, including the Archbishop of York, had serious questions as to whether it was a good idea. Would they be creating a new center of authority? Would they be setting something in motion that might have unforeseen consequences?

In 2008 over 800 invitations have been sent, but it seems likely that a significant number will choose not to attend. Be that as it may, it seems like a good time to ask how we got here. Where did Lambeth begin? What was the original purpose? What has it accomplished? Are we over-hyping this thing? What follows is one attempt to sum it up. It is not intended as a full history of Lambeth, but a summary of the origins and main developments that may be instructive today.

Part I: The Beginning
  • No binding decisions to be made
  • Invitations to “all avowedly in communion”
  • No defining of doctrine
  • Respect for each other
  • No ministry in another jurisdiction without consent
It was the Bishop of Vermont who first suggested a conference of Anglican bishops; but it was an appeal from the Canadian bishops, who saw the political unity between their country and England beginning to dissolve, that brought about the first gathering. The Archbishop of Canterbury was nervous about it. Who knew what might happen if you brought together so many bishops, or what the consequences might be for the powers of individual bishops and archbishops?

"It should be distinctly understood," said Archbishop Longley, "that at this meeting no declaration of faith shall be made, and no decision come to which shall affect generally the interests of the Church, but that we shall meet together for brotherly counsel and encouragement.... I should refuse to convene any assembly which pretended to enact any canons, or affected to make any decisions binding on the Church.” Nonetheless, the Archbishop of York and several others from his province refused to come, and the Dean of Westminster refused to let the Abbey be used for the closing service, citing (among other reasons) "the presence of prelates not belonging to our Church." [Photo at right: Archbishop of Canterbury C.T. Longley taken in 1864 (from the Lambeth Conference website). Photo Credit: Lambeth Palace.]

Hesitantly, however, Archbishop Longley sent out invitations to “all who are avowedly in communion with our Church,” assuring them that “such a meeting would not be competent to make declarations or lay down definitions on points of doctrine. But united worship and common counsels would,” he hoped, "tend to maintain the unity of the faith.” 76 of the 144 bishops invited made their way to England in the autumn of 1868 and heard the Archbishop assure them that, “It has never been contemplated that we should assume the functions of a general synod of all the churches in full communion with the Church of England, and take upon ourselves to enact canons that should be binding upon those here represented. We merely propose to discuss matters of practical interest, and pronounce what we deem expedient in resolutions which may serve as safe guides to future action.”

In spite of all these protestations, when the bishops gathered, the Archbishop of Capetown asked for a change in the program so that he could have advice on dealing with a bishop in his province who was accused of heresy. In spite of “the strenuous protest of several bishops,” the conference appointed a committee to look into the matter and report back. The suggestion that a “Court of Appeal” be created to deal with such matters was also referred to a committee. When the committees reported back three months later, the Lambeth archives states, fewer than twenty bishops were still available to deal with them, so the reports were “received” and referred to a future conference for action.

When the Canadian bishops asked for a second conference, the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Archibald Campbell Tait, was clear that such problems should be avoided. “There is no intention whatever,” he said, “on the part of anybody to gather together the Bishops of the Anglican Church for the sake of defining any matter of doctrine. Our doctrines are contained in our formularies, and our formularies are interpreted by the proper judicial authorities, and there is no intention whatever at any such gathering that questions of doctrine should be submitted for interpretation in any future Lambeth Conference any more than they were at the previous Lambeth Conference.” [Tait photograph (at left) courtesy http://www.nndb.com/people/390/000098096]

It was at that second conference, in 1878, that the Archbishop of York (William IX Thomson) preached a sermon that is still relevant in 2008. He drew on the story in Acts of the way in which Peter and Paul had argued in the early days of the church, and said, “It may be permitted us reverently to question whether the pulse of divine life in the Church has been hastened by one beat, by the violence of the zealous, who have thought well to be angry for the cause of God. Through strife, but not by strife, the Church has passed upon her way.” [The photo of Archbishop Thomson, at right, is from 1878.]

Also still relevant in 2008 were resolutions about unity within the Anglican Communion. It should be, the bishops said, “distinctly recognised and set forth, as of great importance for the maintenance of union among the Churches of our Communion” that “the duly certified action of every national or particular Church . . . should be respected by all the other Churches, and by their individual members” and that “no bishop or other clergyman of any other Church should exercise his functions within [some other] diocese without the consent of the bishop thereof.”

Each member church should be free to govern its own life, but always remembering the other churches. That tension between freedom and unity was recognized early in relation to worship which, it was agreed, was central to the life of the Communion. While the bishops agreed that there should be great freedom for churches to revise the Book of Common Prayer, they also cautioned that too great variation would imperil the Communion’s unity.

The proposal made ten years before, for a “Court of Appeal,” was dealt with by a committee which announced that they were “not prepared to recommend that there should be any one central tribunal,” but rather that each province should deal with its own issues. Where a province was unable to do so, however, they agreed there might be a committee of five Archbishops, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, to review the case and offer an opinion. In keeping with the preliminary guidelines that ruled out doctrinal definitions, the report was not officially adopted, but rather incorporated in an encyclical letter approved by those in attendance.

Having weathered two conferences without committing themselves to much of anything, the bishops did, however, express “the hope that the problem, hitherto unsolved, of combining together for consultation representatives of Churches so differently situated and administered, may find, in the providential course of events, its own solution.” They therefore ventured to suggest that conferences might “be invested in future with somewhat larger liberty as to the initiation and selection of subjects for discussion.”

“Differently situated and administered” though the dioceses were from which the bishops came, it was still assumed that they had something in common besides Anglicanism: the Archbishop of Canterbury greeted them as coming “from all continents, and seas, and shores, where the English tongue is spoken.” Yet even then, such a greeting might have been questioned since the Bishops of Shanghai and Haiti were among those present, to say nothing of bishops from Wales and India. Overlooking that fact, the conference arranged for its encyclical letter to be translated only into Latin and Greek!

Note: Part 2 of Christopher Webber's essay will be published shortly. In it, Webber considers the Lambeth Conferences of 1888 to 1920.

7 Comments:

Blogger Malcolm+ said...

". . . the conference arranged for its encyclical letter to be translated only into Latin and Greek!"

The first person to preside over a Lambeth meeting in a language other than English was when Canadian Primate Michael Peers chaired the first ever meeting of French speaking Anglican bishops in 1988. It took more than a century.

1/28/2008 10:22 PM  
Blogger Muthah+ said...

What a masterly presentation! It helps fill in the gaps between how the archconservatives understand Lambeth.

1/29/2008 12:12 PM  
Anonymous Göran Koch-Swahne said...

"... the presence of prelates not belonging to our Church."

“... all who are avowedly in communion with our Church...”

Archbishop Reuterdahl of Upsala was one such prelate not belonging "to our Church", yet having had close bonds for centuries, who hade been invited to the First Lambeth.

Reuterdahl was a historian of the Church and basically on the same side as Bishop Colenso and Dr Darwin...

Facts trump nonsense.

Could have been fun, if he had not decided not to attend ;=)

2/15/2008 1:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm too am surprised Colenso isn't mentioned in the body of the article. Allegations that he was a heretic were a significant reason that bishops from outside England requested to meet. Colenso wasn't invited to Lambeth 1 or Lambeth II was he?

2/15/2008 8:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I should perhaps add that the reason Lambeth has no legal jurisdiction (ie no canonical authority) is simply due to the Established nature of the Church of England. That Church had and has a highest authority - namely the Crown in Parliament - and without changing the Reformation legal settlement that could not be altered. Despite the failure of the English State to act over Colenso, Convocation quite prepared to condemn his teachings. Of course, Lambeth also has been prepared to offer authoritative guidance from time to time:

Resolution 8 of Lambeth 1:

That, in order to the binding of the Churches of our colonial empire and the missionary Churches beyond them in the closest union with the Mother-Church, it is necessary that they receive and maintain without alteration the standards of faith and doctrine as now in use in that Church...

2/15/2008 8:37 AM  
Anonymous John Bunyan said...

The "English State" failed to act against Colenso ? The Privy Council upheld Colenso as the rightful Bishop of Natal. Now seen as one of the great missionary bishops of the 19th century, Colenso was also a defender of justice for the Zulus. The four volumes of his Sermons very much need to be reprinted as other works recently have been. He was honoured at the 150th anniversary of the foundation of the Diocese of Natal and there is a strong proposal now to include his name in the Calendar of the South African Church that once condemned him. I would hope his wife and daughters might be included also - for reasons that their remarkable writings indicate. That particular Lambeth "frenzy" at least has long since died down.

2/17/2008 9:35 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

I appreciate the comments about Bishop Colenso - a real oversight on my part. I have added material about him to the essay and the revised version is available at "A Pittsburgh Episcopal Voice."

2/18/2008 8:19 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home