Do read it all.
My first problem is with the headline in that while my sense of the significance of the time in the Anglican Communion is that it is a very important one, my expectations for this Lambeth Conference are low in the sense that it will make a meaningful contribution to the crisis tearing the family apart. I am sure the face to face time will be valuable, and the relational networking opportunities will be abundant, but we should not ignore the elephant in the living room. And, yes, I would love to be surprised.
(I will just note in passing that although the press, especially the British press, seems to have heightened expectations for the meeting, those who are organizing it have seemed to strike a different tone. Also, when I see “expectations are high” I need to ask: high for what?)
My second problem has to do with nomenclature. Some bishops are coming from parts of the Communion who are unable to be present for reasons of conscience and conviction. But in the article we read the term diocese where we should see the word province. “It was not immediately known if anyone from the Anglican Church of Uganda, the fourth “boycotting” diocese,” as the article now reads, is not proper Anglican terminology. Uganda is a province, not a diocese; the same mistake is made in the current headline which now reads “Bishops arrive, including from three ‘boycotting’ dioceses;” again it should be provinces.
Finally, I really do not believe that the proper terminology is to describe what is being done as a boycott. In order to argue for this, I need to go back to the analogy that won’t go away:
It is time to break through the veneer of what may be an air of unreality at this Convention, and tell ourselves the truth. I applaud the Presiding Bishop for saying “unawareness is a form of bondage” and I am concerned about precisely that unawareness now. It is a caricature to say that to speak of the church shattering is to use a threat. That is totally untrue.
Think this through with me. A woman who has been in a marriage for quite some time discovers that her husband is having an emotional affair. There are letters, emails, secret liasions and the like and she stumbles onto them. Then in a moment of great courage she summons her strength and confronts her husband. She gets him to admit the truth. Then she looks him squarely in the eye and says: “if you consummate that relationship our love will be shattered.”
Now the husband can think to himself “she is trying to control me by threat,” but we all know it is nothing of the kind”“ it is instead a loving warning. And please note carefully the husband can also say, “if you choose to go that is your choice, you will be the one responsible,” but that is untrue. And the husband also can say “look dear as long as we keep going to the dinner table together and loving each other we can work this out””“ and that is untrue. Please, please let us tell ourselves the truth..
”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””“
Now follow along and see where this goes in terms of the subsequent developments. The husband has consummated the affair. There has been much emotional and personal damage and the relationship is extremely frail. A marriage counselor is brought in. It is suggested because of the severity of the situation that a trial separation is necessary. The husband is asked to apologize and express repentance for his actions, and to cease the affair. The situation could not be more serious.
How to take the analogy further along the steps the Anglican Communion has taken is difficult, but, roughly speaking, there have been more meetings, including meetings of outside leaders who have asked for clarification within specified time limits from the husband, and, even though a group on behalf of said leaders has written a report saying that the husband has satisfied what he is being asked to do in order to repair the breach, his actions on occasion contradict those findings. Even though he has pledged his deep commitment to the marriage, has said he is sorry she has been hurt, and that he takes his wife’s concerns with the utmost seriousness, on certain days of certain months, he is still having the affair.
What does the wife do? Well, yes, at some point she may choose to leave the relationship, but, as a Christian, if she is persevering and prays for the lovingkindess of God to prevail, she might stay in the house.
If she were to choose to stay, the atmosphere would be very different from then on, and, the one thing she must do is act differently in what is left of the relationship itself. Indeed, not to act differently is not a sign of health, but a sign of real sickness. One example of an action she might take is that she might choose to move to another bedroom down the hall from the couple’s bedroom where she would choose to sleep from then on.
You can perhaps see where I am going here. If you were to drop a reporter who didn’t know a lot into this situation, he or she might write a story with the headline: “Wife boycotts marriage bed.” The reporter could write it, but it would not be an accurate description of what is in fact taking place–KSH.