The Saints Go Marchin’ In

Two Bishops Not Invited to Lambeth
The Associated Press Tuesday, May 22, 2007; 7:18 AM

LONDON — Two bishops at the heart of the U.S. Episcopal Church’s divisions over sexuality and scripture will not be invited to next year’s global gathering of Anglican prelates, the archbishop of Canterbury’s office said Tuesday.

Bishops V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire and Martyn Minns of the breakaway Convocation of Anglicans in North America were not among more than 850 bishops invited, said Canon Kenneth Kearon, secretary-general of the Anglican Communion.

Robinson was the first Anglican bishop to be openly living in a same-sex relationship, and his election in 2003 opened a huge rift between the liberal and conservative wings of the church.

Minns was consecrated bishop on May 5 in Woodbridge, Va., by Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola, the most outspoken of the numerous Anglican critics of Robinson’s elevation.

Robinson may be invited to attend the Lambeth Conference as a guest, but Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is not contemplating inviting Minns, Kearon said.

“The question of Gene Robinson … I think has exercised the archbishop of Canterbury’s mind for quite some time,” he said, and there was no question that Robinson was duly elected and consecrated a bishop in accordance with the rules of the Episcopal Church.

“However, for the archbishop to simply give full recognition at this conference would be to ignore the very substantial and very widespread objections in many parts of the communion to his consecration and to his ministry,” Kearon said.

The conference, generally held every 10 years, will meet at the University of Kent in England from July 16-Aug. 4, 2008.

© 2007 The Associated Press


One thought on “The Saints Go Marchin’ In

  1. How interesting that Martyn Mims is excluded, but not Peter Akinola.

    On the other hand, perhaps the inviters see Akinola as “parallel” to the bishops who ordained Gene Robinson. Each ordaining bishop, I suppose, greatly violated norms that others in Anglican Communion hold dear.

    Can someone please clarify the extent to which Akinola has violated not only norms of the Anglican Communion, but also explicit documents regulating relationships between autonomous members of the Communion? I have been so outraged by Akinola’s behaviors that I have lost sight of this distinction.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *