Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #lambethcalls
Most recents (3)
The longer I look at the #LambethCalls on Anglican identity, the less I like it. What we have is one instrument of communion, the #LambethConference, asking another instrument of communion, the Abp of Canterbury to charter a group to review the instruments of communion. 1/
When you consider that every member of a third instrument of communion, the Primates Meeting, is included in the #LambethConference and recall that @JustinWelby has given primates much more influence over the fourth instrument of communion, the Anglican Consultative Council 2/
… you begin to see where this is going. The Anglican Consultative Council is the only instrument of communion that includes clergy and lay people. It is the instrument Welby has had the hardest time getting to do his bidding. 3/
News about how the #LambethCalls will be discussed and voted upon has finally been released. It would seem there is to be no floor debate, just small group conversation and report backs from some of the groups followed by voting yes, needs more work, or no. 1/ #LambethConference
The document contains no provision for offering amendments. So, without some kind of special provision, I don’t see how Lambeth 1.10 can be re-introduced. This is not to say shenanigans may not ensue. 2/ #LambethConference #LambethCalls
The feedback from the small groups will be given to a “Phase 3” implementation group. I didn’t know there were phases, or that we were all the way up 3. I suspect I am not alone in wanting to know who is in this group and who is in charge. 3/ #LambethConference #LambethCalls
.@JustinWelby has some explaining to do. Bishop Kevin Robertson, was a member of the group that drafted the controversial #LambethCall on Human Dignity. It never included a call to reaffirm the homophobic Lambeth 1.10. He doesn’t recognize it. 1/ facebook.com/684821280/post…
He writes: “I never agreed to this Call in its current form. At no point in our meetings did we discuss the reaffirmation of Lambeth 1.10 at the Conference, and it never appeared in any of the early drafts of our work together.” 2/
“I can confidently say that the Human Dignity Call in its current form does not represent the mind of the drafting group, and I distance myself from the reaffirmation of Lambeth 2.10 in the strongest possible ways.” 3/
