by Areeta Bridgemohan

As the Lambeth Conference drew nearer, I became anxious about the impact, if any at all, of this event on my faith in the church.  I went into the Lambeth Conference envisaging one of two things: a parliamentary conference and/or a conference where I would witness some of the more distasteful aspects of institutionalized religion.  Thankfully, the conference was neither of these two things.  During the conference, it struck me that the issues facing the Anglican Communion are similar to other issues I am confronted with elsewhere, for example, multi-culturalism in Canada, or academic and community-based partnerships.  The central question is: how can we optimally manage our differences?

The Lambeth Conference did not provide a solution. I don’t think there are any easy answers, or a “one-fits-all” solution. But I do think that the conference provided guiding principles to help in the process of seeking.  There are a few glimpses from the conference that I’d like to share with you which highlight these principles.

The design of the conference

The retreat.  The first two days of the Bishop’s conference consisted of a retreat.  The retreat was held at Canterbury Cathedral.  The retreat mainly included time for reflection and prayer as well as addresses from Archbishop Rowan.  These two days began with a morning Eucharist followed by a bible study.  As stewards we didn’t assist the retreat, but the message was clear.  Before we engage in potentially difficult discussions, it is important to do so after prayer and reflection.  This allows us to be more complex in understanding others and ourselves.  It also allows us to remember the greater ideal of our involvement.  In this case, it helps us remember that the mission of the church is to worship God, and I think that affirmation has the potential to transform the nature of our engagement.

The indaba process. Indaba is a Zulu word indicating purposeful discussion.  Even though there was debate as to whether this constituted misappropriation of the term indaba, the intent of its use in the conference was quite clear. The bishops were divided into fifteen indaba groups, whose membership was fixed for the length of the conference, allowing for continuity and relationship-building.  They discussed the Bishop’s role in areas such as inter-faith dialogue or the environment.  As stewards we were sometimes allowed (depending on the indaba group) to sit in and listen.  I think for me this, alongside the worship, represented the pulse of the conference.  Due to the small groups and the continuity of the membership, there was time for most voices to be heard.  I was really inspired by what I heard in the indaba groups, not only the ideas and experiences that were shared but also in the way bishops communicated with each other.  This answered a question I brought with me to the Lambeth Conference: how is the church different than other social institutions?  The indaba groups highlighted the common operating framework of love, respect and worship of God that binds us together.  It was also overwhelming for me to conceive of the 660 or so bishops, all engaging in this process of transformation; sharing their experiences and thoughts on their role in the church.  It respected the diversity and complexity of each person and their context by giving them the time and space to have their voices heard.  In conversation with a few bishops, including some of the animateurs (indaba group facilitators), it emerged that this was a process which gave the “passionately moderate” a chance to take their place.  

Themes of the Conference

Refocusing the Church’s mission: poverty and injustice.  On the 24^th of July, we all boarded coaches and started off the day with a “Walk of Witness”.  Delegates of the conferences (including bishops dressed in cassocks) held placards saying “Keep the Promise” addressed to world leaders with reference to their commitment to the Millenium Development Goals.  The march ended with speeches given by Archbishop Rowan, Gordon Brown (British Prime Minister) and Hellen Wangusa (Anglican Observer at the UN). Gordon Brown’s speech was passionate and commended the Anglican Church leaders for assuming their role in keeping world governments accountable. 

Throughout the conference there was an emphasis placed on issues of division and poverty in the world that is the Church’s mission to address.  Each morning Eucharist and evening service was conducted by a different province.  One of the most moving services that I attended was the one conducted by the Province of Myanmar.  During the evening services the provinces showed a video showcasing their church.  The video from the Province of Myanmar was a documentary video showing the relief efforts of the church in the wake of cyclone Narguez, as well as the general devastation caused by the cyclone.  It was very moving, but when I found out that they had made 3 unsuccessful attempts to smuggle this video out of the country and finally managed to do so with the asssitance of the British Ambassador, it became even more poignant. 

Listening.  It was directly after the evening service given by the Province of Myanmar that Archbishop Rowan gave his second presidential address.  There was a fair amount of criticism of this second address, wherein he proposed two accounts from the two main sides of the current debates in the Anglican Communion.  He prefaced these two accounts beseeching the audience to go beyond the left and right extremes and speak from the center.  Not a political center, but the center of Christ.  The response was fascinating: a few seconds of utter and complete silence.  Six hundred and sixty bishops in silence.  Juxtaposed with the heart-rending service by the Province of Myanmar, made this a powerful moment.  From the perspective of places like the Province of Myanmar or the Province of the Indian Ocean amongst others, small and isolated, the larger Anglican Communion plays a very important role in their existence.  Archbishop Rowan used the phrase “listening with generosity”.

Ambiguity.  That silence I think reflects what I came away from the conference with.  Getting to the point where the sides of the argument are known, being brought to the edge of our beliefs and not knowing where to go next.  A phrase I heard often at Lambeth (in different intonations) was the “bonds of affection”.  What are these bonds?  What does it mean to love one another?  Archbishop Rowan suggests that we should try seeing Christ’s face in the other.  What does an institution that does that resemble?  I came away with many questions.  But also a renewed hope in the church and awe at the great mission she has, if we can move forward, to bring this message of love and humility to the world.

Your COMMENTS (150 words or less)?

Your LETTER to the editor (50-350 words)

____________________________________