Thank God for the Rev. George Conger! Having been offline for the past 2 1/2 days, his commentary is very helpful in *trying* to understand what on earth happened the other day!
Although long and rambling, this video interview with Goerge Conger is helpful. I particularly appreciated three points Conger made.
First, Conger proposed a different explanation to the ABoC’s intervention than the simplistic alternatives of just:
A. Duplicity, or
B. Gross incompetence.
The respected journalist, who is usually scrupulously fair, suggested,
C. Ambiguous language that was easily misunderstood, especially by those for whom Enlgish is not their native tongue. That seems very sensible to me.
In other words, ++Rowan Williams was niether engaging in outright deliberate deception (which I agree with Conger is highly implausible), nor was he merely displaying gross incompetence in leading an international meeting and dealing with complex parliamentary procedures. It does seem more likely that he was speaking in his more cryptic and vague academic mode, and various people misunderstood what he was saying.
I find that explanation quite plausible. Personally, I don’t think the professorial archbishop can be compared to the PB in this regard. Many T10 readers will recall a famous article by Dr. Philip Turner of the ACI that advanced a desvastating argument that Presiding Bishop Schori was either
A. duplicitous or
B. incompetent.
Now in her case, I’d say that there should also be an option C: Both A and B.
But I don’t think Cantaur is either of those things, at least in the same pernicious way that the notorious PB is.
BubyBlue would doubtless remind us here of the relevance of her beloved general principle, the Hammerstain Hierarchy of Human Behavior (HHHB). That principle holds that normally when things go badly wrong, it’s seldom due to sheer malevolence but it’s more likely caused by sheer laziness, stupidity, or both.
Now I think there is a certain measure of incompetence on ++Williams part in terms of being an effective leader and a clear communicator. But I think it’s also clear that the ABoC has proven himself all too successful at achieving his main goal, which is just stringing people along and trying desperately to keep everybody endlessly talking at the table. But to me, all signs seem to indicate that he really did want a Covenant. I doubt that he intentionally sabotaged it at the last minute and that he killed it in a cold-blooded, pre-mediatated manner. However, I also doubt that he’s very unhappy that it’s been dealyed, for the ditherer has been playing the game of kick the can down the road all along.
Now for the second key takeaway from the interview. Perhaps the most memorable part of the interview for me was when Conger mentioned how he’d asked an African delegate from a Francophone country why he’d voted against ++Mouneer Anis’ resolution about adding the “fourth moratorium” on the cessation of litigation in North America. And the stunning and revealing answer was, “What’s “litigation?” This African, who according to Conger spoke English only as a 5th language (and obviously not well), literally had no clue what he was voting on! The clear implication was that, had this delegate really understood the matter under dispute, he’d have voted the other way. Now there’s a clear case of the HHHB at work for you.
Finally, I really appreciated the stark contrast that Conger drew between the stated intention of using the infamous indaba process at this ACC meeting, namely, to stop running such international getherings by purely western rules of parliamentary procedure, and the actual outcome. For of course, the whole sorry result of Friday’s debate and confused voting was determined entirely by the slick use of British parliamentary tricks. In other words, it was a classic case of utter hypocrisy.
And this was confirmed when George Conger explained the make up of the Resolutions Committee. Did you catch that part? Of the four members of the small Resolutions Committee that played such a key role in this fiasco, three were from liberal global north provinces (New Zealand, Scotland, and the USA). Wow, talk about assigning the fox to guard the chickenhouse. What a clear example of the continuing Colonialism of the AC’s current sturctures that has been critiqued so forcefully by +Bob Duncan last summer and recently by Dr. Vinay Samuel of South India.
So by all means, take the time to listen to the whole thing, mon.
> Ms Schori on the Joint Standing Committee. Incompetence?
> The early invitations. Incompetence?
> The September deadline not a deadline. Incompetence?
> Making the JSC report travesty to be the ruler by which to measure the Sept 07 HoB meeting. Incompetence?
> The indaba-do. Incompetence?
> Singularly torpedoing of the Covenant. Incompetence?
Puh-leazze! Why does his “incompetence” always favor the TEClub?
That was fun, Kevin and George. George Conger makes a good William Witt – high praise indeed.
San Diego Anglican’s (Dave Turney) has a link to this latest version of Anglican Report [url=http://sandiegoanglicans.com/david-turney/2009/05/09/worst-anglican-meeting-ever-acc14-explained ]name of link[/url]. If you go there, you can answer a fun poll on what you think Rowan should do at this point.
Thank God for the Rev. George Conger! Having been offline for the past 2 1/2 days, his commentary is very helpful in *trying* to understand what on earth happened the other day!
Mr. Conger is quite generous in his defense of Rowan. Rowan is no fool, he knew what he was doing.
Although long and rambling, this video interview with Goerge Conger is helpful. I particularly appreciated three points Conger made.
First, Conger proposed a different explanation to the ABoC’s intervention than the simplistic alternatives of just:
A. Duplicity, or
B. Gross incompetence.
The respected journalist, who is usually scrupulously fair, suggested,
C. Ambiguous language that was easily misunderstood, especially by those for whom Enlgish is not their native tongue. That seems very sensible to me.
In other words, ++Rowan Williams was niether engaging in outright deliberate deception (which I agree with Conger is highly implausible), nor was he merely displaying gross incompetence in leading an international meeting and dealing with complex parliamentary procedures. It does seem more likely that he was speaking in his more cryptic and vague academic mode, and various people misunderstood what he was saying.
I find that explanation quite plausible. Personally, I don’t think the professorial archbishop can be compared to the PB in this regard. Many T10 readers will recall a famous article by Dr. Philip Turner of the ACI that advanced a desvastating argument that Presiding Bishop Schori was either
A. duplicitous or
B. incompetent.
Now in her case, I’d say that there should also be an option C: Both A and B.
But I don’t think Cantaur is either of those things, at least in the same pernicious way that the notorious PB is.
BubyBlue would doubtless remind us here of the relevance of her beloved general principle, the Hammerstain Hierarchy of Human Behavior (HHHB). That principle holds that normally when things go badly wrong, it’s seldom due to sheer malevolence but it’s more likely caused by sheer laziness, stupidity, or both.
Now I think there is a certain measure of incompetence on ++Williams part in terms of being an effective leader and a clear communicator. But I think it’s also clear that the ABoC has proven himself all too successful at achieving his main goal, which is just stringing people along and trying desperately to keep everybody endlessly talking at the table. But to me, all signs seem to indicate that he really did want a Covenant. I doubt that he intentionally sabotaged it at the last minute and that he killed it in a cold-blooded, pre-mediatated manner. However, I also doubt that he’s very unhappy that it’s been dealyed, for the ditherer has been playing the game of kick the can down the road all along.
Now for the second key takeaway from the interview. Perhaps the most memorable part of the interview for me was when Conger mentioned how he’d asked an African delegate from a Francophone country why he’d voted against ++Mouneer Anis’ resolution about adding the “fourth moratorium” on the cessation of litigation in North America. And the stunning and revealing answer was, “What’s “litigation?” This African, who according to Conger spoke English only as a 5th language (and obviously not well), literally had no clue what he was voting on! The clear implication was that, had this delegate really understood the matter under dispute, he’d have voted the other way. Now there’s a clear case of the HHHB at work for you.
Finally, I really appreciated the stark contrast that Conger drew between the stated intention of using the infamous indaba process at this ACC meeting, namely, to stop running such international getherings by purely western rules of parliamentary procedure, and the actual outcome. For of course, the whole sorry result of Friday’s debate and confused voting was determined entirely by the slick use of British parliamentary tricks. In other words, it was a classic case of utter hypocrisy.
And this was confirmed when George Conger explained the make up of the Resolutions Committee. Did you catch that part? Of the four members of the small Resolutions Committee that played such a key role in this fiasco, three were from liberal global north provinces (New Zealand, Scotland, and the USA). Wow, talk about assigning the fox to guard the chickenhouse. What a clear example of the continuing Colonialism of the AC’s current sturctures that has been critiqued so forcefully by +Bob Duncan last summer and recently by Dr. Vinay Samuel of South India.
So by all means, take the time to listen to the whole thing, mon.
David Handy+
> Ms Schori on the Joint Standing Committee. Incompetence?
> The early invitations. Incompetence?
> The September deadline not a deadline. Incompetence?
> Making the JSC report travesty to be the ruler by which to measure the Sept 07 HoB meeting. Incompetence?
> The indaba-do. Incompetence?
> Singularly torpedoing of the Covenant. Incompetence?
Puh-leazze! Why does his “incompetence” always favor the TEClub?
That was fun, Kevin and George. George Conger makes a good William Witt – high praise indeed.
San Diego Anglican’s (Dave Turney) has a link to this latest version of Anglican Report [url=http://sandiegoanglicans.com/david-turney/2009/05/09/worst-anglican-meeting-ever-acc14-explained ]name of link[/url]. If you go there, you can answer a fun poll on what you think Rowan should do at this point.