The Archbishop of Canterbury’s Sept 20-21 meeting with members of the US House of Bishops in New Orleans will seek to manipulate Dr Williams into giving the Episcopal Church a clean bill of health so as to preserve its place in the Communion.
Conservative American leaders claim the Episcopal Church will seek to resurrect a report presented to the February Primates’ Meeting prepared by a small group within the Joint Primates-ACC Standing Committee that said the Episcopal Church had met two of the three requests of the Windsor Report and deserve a reprieve.
The meeting will be used to “manipulate” Dr Williams, the Bishop of Fort Worth, the Rt Rev Jack Iker said on July 31. The leaders of the American House of Bishops believe “If we can talk to Rowan, face to face, we can convince him of the rightness of our position and that he will stand with us,” he said.
Bishop Iker noted this scenario was not unrealistic. “As you will remember the subgroup report that initially came to the Dar es Salaam meeting, which nobody else had seen but presumably Rowan Williams had seen, tried to give the Episcopal Church pass marks on whether we complied with the Windsor Report recommendations or not,” he said.
The US Bishops will seek to “revive that subgroup report” and come out of the New Orleans meeting with Dr Williams “validating” that position.
At the June meeting of the US Church’s Executive Council, the Bishop of New Westminster, Canada, the Rt Rev Michael Ingham, urged the US church to use its time with Dr Williams constructively and get him to listen.
Dr Williams’ March meeting with the Canadian bishops, he said, had been structured so that while Dr Williams was given time to speak to the Canadian bishops, the bishops were not allotted time to speak to Dr Williams.
The Episcopal Church’s New York office has announced that the two-day meeting with Dr Williams will be closed to the press, and have released no details on how the time will be organised.
The Bishop of Quincy, the Rt Rev Keith Ackerman stated that past Bishops’ meetings conformed to a “well manipulated system.”
The Bishops would “meet in small groups, reporting back but never hearing the results of the reporting back” and the bishops would be kept busy “by talking about any number of subjects.”
With this “mechanism in place, whoever is handling the process will get precisely what they want,” he said.
–This article appears in the August 17th, 2007, issue of the Church of England Newspaper, page 4
“The Episcopal Church’s New York office has announced that the two-day meeting with Dr Williams will be closed to the press, and have released no details on how the time will be organised.”
Now, ECUSA will emphasize the ‘sub rosa’ use of the ‘smoke filled room’ in it’s dealings with +++Williams.
Is +++Williams going to compromise the See of Canterbury and himself by submitting to such an obvious ploy?
#1. AnglicanFirst:
“Is +++Williams going to compromise the See of Canterbury” – Yes, as he has previously compromised it.
“and himself” – No. what is mainstream in TEC has previously seemed largely acceptable to him and congruent with his own stated theology.
Set to be Manipulated? I believe that has already happened.
[i]The meeting will be used to “manipulate†Dr Williams, the Bishop of Fort Worth, the Rt Rev Jack Iker said on July 31. The leaders of the American House of Bishops believe “If we can talk to Rowan, face to face, we can convince him of the rightness of our position and that he will stand with us,†he said. [/i]
[b]manipulate[/b] [i]to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one’s own advantage[/i]
So how does a face to face meeting presenting to the position of the House of Bishops directly to Canterbury rather than through second hand sources and Lambeth staffers become “manipulation?”
Susan, read Bp. Ackerman’s words above. Your question has already been answered.
Whatever may happen between TEC and Cantuar, isn’t it clear that the New Orleans situation positions TEC to present a sort of side-show about how there are important practical goals for the church? I see that as a manipulation by creating two focuses to the meeting when some very serious intercommunion issues are at stake. I see this as a lack of love by TEC for traditionalists.
The bleating about “manipulation” reminds me of the tale of the rookie lawyer who is defending an accused bank robber. The bank teller testifies that the defendant held a gun on her and demanded money. The defendant’s lawyer leaps to his feet: “Objection, your honor; this testimony is highly prejudicial to my client!” The judge responds: “It would certainly seem so, counsel, but that doesn’t make the testimony improper; objection overruled.”
Reply to #7.
D.C., you used the term “…bleating…” in what seems to be a derogatory manner.
Maybe the “bleating” is that of lambs of Jesus protesting ECUSA leading them down the “wide path” toward the “wide gate” of heretical belief and behavior.
But, maybe the “bleating” will be the sound of ECUSA’s leadership after they find that they are being scorned by Anglicans for having sorely damaged the Anglican Communion.
There is no way that ECUSA’s leadership will come out of this situation looking like the ‘good guys,’ regardless of the outcome.
They are going to look like what they are, a self-centered and selfish American elite that is going to have it’s way regardless of the consequences.
I question the term “manipulation,” in that it seems to imply that TEC is employing maneuvers the duplicity of which is transparently obvious to bloggers, but which will inevitably snare poor, naive +++Rowan in a web of deception.
Please. You can question +++Rowan’s leadership or backbone if you like, but I don’t think anyone has ever accused him of being a dim bulb. I think we can safely assume that any putative efforts at manipulation that are obvious to the internet at large are at least as obvious to him… and if it comes to that, he’s just as capable of “manipulating” the situation as ++KJS or the HOB are.
AnglicanFirst [#8], in hindsight it would have been more precise if I’d referred instead to “the whinging (to use a British expression) about ‘manipulation’ ….” Whinging is what too many participants in The Current Disputes seem to do — mostly (but not exclusively) on the traditionalist side — when things don’t go precisely the way they want.
I have a friend who’s a senior business executive and a Marine veteran of Vietnam. On several occasions I’ve heard him give what he calls his “be a man” speech, in which he gently chastises junior people for whinging about business setbacks. The speech can be paraphrased, ungently, as “don’t complain about it — deal with it.” A similar speech wouldn’t be entirely out of place here.
#10: We are dealing with it by comparing notes and studying TEC tactics and ‘troop movements’. Often the language of various commentators helps one hone his or her own ideas. Please don’t confuse blogging with our actions in daily life.
Whether it is manipulation or not, I don’t see what is wrong with trying to make sure that the influences of the media are softened. It’s gotten a lot wrong about The Episcopal Church, as several recent stories have demonstrated. Williams won’t have to worry about reporting back to the conservative bishops and perhaps be more frank with the progressives.
I’m not sure what Ackerman is talking about, but from what I understand, much of the process the bishops use has to do with collegiality and mutual encouragement rather than, say, theological argument. I could be wrong. It is harder to condemn people to hell after hearing the roots of their perspective. The saying goes “Face to Face Brings Respect.” Ackerman isn’t interested in respecting the other side, so why would he be interested in the process?
I agree that the reasserters are engaged in too much self pity. +Ackerman’s and +Iker’s assertions are just silly. “Poor stupid ++Rowan, he will be manipulated just like we are each time!” The desperation is showing guys, just let it be.
My greatest worry is not that +++Williams will be manipulated. It is corrected to say that he has both the experience and the intelligence to see into the motives of others. Rather, I suspect that his personal views come close to TEC’, but that his actions have been to protect traditional Anglicanism, not advance his own views. However, when he sits down with the bishops, it may give him an opportunity to let his own opinions alter the course of punishment that TEC so obviously deserves. He may, in short, temper and modify because, in the name of “unity”, he personally wants TEC protected and even encouraged. LM
Seems to me that Iker & Akerman are rightly criticizing the systems and formats in place and demonstrating how they have been used in manipulative ways before.
The revisionists here just seem to be interested in throwing ad hominem attacks at the good bishops, since no one seems to be able to contradict their core arguments.
But that’s nothing new…
I don’t believe that the orthodox, traditional Christians are whining or ‘whinging’ about ++Williams being ‘manipulated. I agree with Larry Morse that his views will come closer to TEC’s position as he has shown many times. I question his objectivity and I believe that he has little sympathy for the GS position. As per the report he allowed into the primate’s meeting in Dar, he will be open to returning to London able to give as clean a sheet of good health to ECUSA as he can, clean enough to justify his invitations to ECUSA to TEC.
I believe he is subject to great pressure from his liberal advisors which is consonant to his personal beliefs and which, I further believe, supercede the perspective he has sometimes shown by demonstrating the objectivity of his position as ‘first among equals’ among the primates.
I believe that it will be a true miracle if ++Williams returns from New Orleans and announces a decision to discipline ECUSA. I agree with all the commenters here and on SF who see a split coming no matter what he decides. I think that the GS will leave the AC, taking with them several provinces and many churches and individuals and perhaps whole diocese in some cases. I also believe that ECUSA will try to ‘buy’ many of the poorer, ‘on the edge’ provinces with massive ECUSA aid.
DC, what on earth do you mean when you say, “be a man, deal with it”? It suggests that you don’t understand that whether you are a reasserter or a reappraiser, there are huge issues of integrity at stake here. As a committed reasserter, I believe with all my heart and by everything that I have learned in my walk with Jesus throughout my life with Him, and by everything that I have studied in His Holy Scriptures and through His saints throughout the centuries that ECUSA is moving away from the Father and has a fatally flawed understanding of Jesus and His purpose on earth.
I don’t call it ‘whinging’ to stand against this. This is why the outcome of New Orealns is so important to me.