A Bishop has roundly accused newspapers and television of “machinations and mischief” over next year’s Lambeth Conference. The charge is levelled by the
Bishop of Wakefield, the Rt Rev Stephen Platten, in the latest issue of Awake, the newspaper of theWakefield diocese. Controversial issues ”” including gay bishops ”” threaten the unity of the Anglican Communion and make the Lambeth Conference pointless, sections of the media have claimed.
But the Lambeth Conference ”” the first took place in 1867 ””sprang from “dispute, disagreement and division,” Bishop Platten suggests. He says: “John Colenso, vicar of the tiny Norfolk village of Forncett St Mary, was made Bishop of Natal, South Africa. Colenso was a clever man ”” but no diplomat.
“He had been well educated and understood something of the emerging critical study of theology. He proceeded to preach and teach about this, and great controversy followed. “So much fuss ensued that Bishop Robert Gray of Cape Town decided that he must go. Colenso dug his heels in, and loyalties divided.
It was this dispute, effectively, which led Charles Longley, Archbishop of Canterbury, to convene the first Lambeth Conference.”
Now, newspapers “and other media” have, says Bishop Platten, tried to turn the Lambeth Conference on its head, saying that controversy makes it pointless ”” or even unnecessary. “But controversy was where Lambeth Conferences began” says the bishop, who declares:
“Despite the machinations and mischief of the media, we should rejoice at the preparations for the 2008 Lambeth Conference. Communion worldwide is not only
desirable”” it is essential.” Bishop Platten claims: “Last year’s experience with the drought in Mara proved the point. Our communion in Christ with our brothers and sisters averted a terrifying human catastrophe; we have grown together over 20 years.”
The bishop concedes that Anglicans won’t always agree “on every moral issue” ”” and suggests that that “is the nature of a multicultural world.” But we shall
“all benefit by talking and listening to each other about our different views and cultures,” he claims.
–This article appears in the Church of England Newspaper, August 17th, 2007, edition, page 3
Nothing to see here, just move along now …
or:
If you don’t like the message, blame the messenger. OK, got it, Steve.
We try to hold up “mischief” from the media to the light of day, so that all can inspect it for what it is. Should we do any less for “mischief” from the church?
Sure, we have had “mischief” from the church for centuries. Should that make it any more appealing or any less subject to scrutiny? It appears to me that the mischief of top church leaders is coming to a new crest.
Wait a minute: I haven’t read the media saying “controversy makes [Lambeth] pointless.” What I’ve read is some Primates, and a lot of Anglicans under ECUSA’s gun in the U.S., saying Lambeth is pointless under Rowan Williams’ construction of it as a big gab session which won’t be planned to actually deal with our coontroversies.
I.e., the Anglican Communion is in essence now a debating society and the Lambeth Conference its biggest conference? This is a change from 1867-1998. Let it not be forgotten that the original Lambeth was formed to drive to a solution, not debate over tea. We have hammered out solutions in 1998, Dromantine, Dar, and the Windsor report. It’s all there in black and white.
#4 Reason etc.
“It’s all there in black and white.”
Silly you. It’s not all there until the revisionists say it is. If the words don’t leave room for double or triple meanings in their ideological lexicons, they are unacceptable.
w.w.
‘The bishop concedes that Anglicans won’t always agree “on every moral issue†— and suggests that that “is the nature of a multicultural world.†But we shall “all benefit by talking and listening to each other about our different views and cultures,†he claims.’
The issue is a multifaith church and its moral teachings TO the multicultural world. Imitating the world is not the work of the Church. Besides, we are already talking and listening to each other here on the internet.
For committed, un-shy bishops to spend two weeks in little groups of eight before they gather in a plenary session seems insulting to all bishops and divisive in its function (and the planner’s purpose?). For 110 groups to create 110 alternatives to what has already been proposed prevents the plenary session at the end from having enough time to make decisions. The Conference is thus prevented from talking and listening to everyone and from unifying on decisions.
The fault is not in the press.