Prof. [Ian] Douglas said the unprecedented format for the once-every-10-year conference, which was first held in 1867, will be difficult for journalists to cover and for the public to follow because there is no “focal point of up-down decision-making.” He said the new format will not shy away from discussion of controversial issues, but it is not designed to offer statements implying that various issues have been resolved.
He suggested that rather than taking on these issues “head on,” they will be discussed face-to-face. “Is a process that creates winners and losers the best way to meet a problem head on?” he asked rhetorically. “It is incorrect to describe Lambeth as a closed shop. The design has allowed for and encouraged wide open hospitality.”
Bishop Jefferts Schori declined to elaborate on the statement issued by the House of Bishops after it was revealed earlier this year that an invitation to the conference would not be forthcoming for Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, but she did not think the lack of an invitation would hinder Bishop Robinson’s ability to have his voice be heard. Bishop Robinson will have an exhibit booth in what is called the “fringe” portion of the conference.
The sad thing is that Anglicans think the title of this article is a virtuous thing and isn’t one of their typical Laodicean refusals to actually make a decision.
As I said on another thread, this whole indaba business seems to scripted by the TEO usurpers to avoid another Lambeth 1.10 or any open condemnation. Ms Schori could not be happier about the format. Rowan Williams is either being led along by a nose-ring or he is actually initiating it and merely playing the weakling. He is certainly clever enough to be doing the later, and that is disturbing.
The whole format for the Lambeth Conferemce is a sure bet that there will be two Anglican Communions before year end since there will be be opportunity to suspend TEO and the Canadian Church from the Anglican Communion. I hope his grace will be delighted with the results of his decisions.
“Lambeth Format to Encourage Conversation, Not Resolution”
“Lambeth Format to Enshrine Hestitation, Risk Dissolution”
The liberals have an underlying assumption that goes like this: “If we talk honestly, you will understand me, and once you understand me, you will know that I am right.”
Clueless.
I’m sure that the supporters of Arius and others were also hoping Council of Nicaea would be an occasion for tea and crumpets, but the Church is much better off that some hard decisions were made.
As St. Zimmy said:
[i]You may be a preacher with your spiritual pride,
You may be a city councilman taking bribes on the side,
You may be workin’ in a barbershop, you may know how to cut hair,
You may be somebody’s mistress, may be somebody’s heir
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You’re gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody.[/i]
AWWWW–this is too easy! “The parliamentary system as it is generally practiced in the West produces legislative winners and losers,†Bishop Jefferts Schori said. She added that she was hopeful for the conference because of its emphasis on a traditional understanding of conversation. “Conversation entered into deeply and fully leads to conversion and hope,†she noted.
After years and years of watching PECUSA “polity” being practiced at GC and diocesan conventions and even in the HOB using some of the worst bullying imaginable, one can only marvel at the mendacity and arrogance of this person. What does she think was going on all those times when reasserters were told: “Shut up, we’ve already voted on that and you lost!” Was that “conversation” likely to lead to conversion and hope? I doubt it.
The drill at this decade’s Lambeth Conference is obviously to run off as many orthodox bishops as possible and, since the rest can’t be relied upon to toe the party line, preclude any voting or decisions by the majority that might hinder the reappraiser agenda. There is one possible good side to this strategy: if there are no votes, there can’t be one to rescind Lambeth 1.10. Not that formally rescinding it would really matter one way or the other since PECUSA and the Canadian outfit have paid it no mind whatever.
And, as to her evident contempt for the “Parliamentary system as it is generally practiced in the West” would she be happier with the way Kim Jung Il does it or how Saddam Hussein used to run his? If memory serves, the process of deposition in the old Iraq was “with extreme prejudice.”
Ah, Mr. Sulik, St. Zimmy says it all. A hard rain’s gonna fall on the Anglican Communion.
No winners…no losers…everybody’s right…nobody’s wrong…everybody’s beliefs are just as valid as everybody else’s…listen to someone you don’t agree with’s experience…feel the tension, then live into it…
I think I know the words to this song!
“The parliamentary system as it is generally practiced in the West produces legislative winners and losers” —KJS
Whereas KJS can win every time when she gets to make, interpret, and apply the rules.
“I think I know the words to this song!” —Elaine F. [#9]
Don’t forget “I’ll Do It My Way” and “Ain’t Gonna Let Nobody Turn Me ‘Roun.'”
Isn’t it odd that the democratic process is just fine when liberals in the church have the majority of the votes. Up and down votes that create hard feeling and winners and losers are also equally fine then as well. But have a conservative majority show up and the liberals change the rules. Ain’t it grand.
Let me get this straight, they actually PAID someone to design a conference which will have no resolution? I’m in the wrong business.
RS Bunker
Let’s start the conversation rolling with + Jon (Not in MY Diocese) Bruno, the fully awake and aware Bishop of Los Angeles. Ever vigilant, the good bishop doesn’t see any SSBs occuring in his diocese. On May 18th he hosted a garden party for the Diocese Commission on Gay and Lesbian Ministry. Check it out:
http://picasaweb.google.com/revsusanrussell/2008GardenParty/photo#5202257057911386642
Hat tip to Susan Russell, who never ceases the self-revelations for all to choke…uh feast on.
Discuss among yourselves.
Choir Stall: Nothin’ to get excited about, folks! Move along now!
“Let me get this straight, they actually PAID someone to design a conference which will have no resolution?” —RS Bunker
To get a Lambeth Conference with no resolution, ECUSA would pay for more than the designer.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Cf. this Demotivational poster: “CONSULTING: If you’re not part of the solution, there’s good money to be made in prolonging the problem.”
I said this earlier, and I think it bears repeating here:
It’s time to hijack Lambeth:
EVERY conservative bishop from around the Anglican Communion needs to attend Lambeth, and take over the first full-group meeting (after the opening ceremonies), and refuse to budge or give up the floor until the US and Canadian situation is addressed and a firm, binding decision is reached.
If there is hedging, or an attempt to silence/ignore them, then a sit-in and press conference should be an option, but no boycott. Don’t let any other business or tea-party take place until a decision is reached.
It’s the ONLY way anything will get done short of a full-fledged split.
Peace
Jim Elliott <><
Makes sense to me, Jim. But, then again I don’t grovel at the feet of 815 and hope that they’ll recorgnize me as one of the worthy poor and throw some dollars at me. These upright bishops still have to pay bills. No guts expected from the loud South, including Iker, et al. Just griping photo ops to come. We’re doomed. The Tiber is looking better all the time.
Canon Terry Wong has interesting observations on Lambeth and GAFCON here: http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/comments/editorial_comments_may_2008_lambeth_gafcon_and_my_two_sense_worth/
An exhibit booth?
Yes, it’s right beside the Inhibit Booth manned by KJS and Beers.
“It’s time to hijack Lambeth: EVERY conservative bishop from around the Anglican Communion needs to attend Lambeth, and take over the first full-group meeting (after the opening ceremonies), and refuse to budge or give up the floor until the US and Canadian situation is addressed and a firm, binding decision is reached”
—Library Jim [#17]
Bravo! Magnificent! Particularly the “We Shall Not Be Moved!” part.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
OK, so we have the VGR “Exhibit Booth” and the KJS “Inhibit Booth” [#21]. But to assure compliance, KJS and her Beers will also need their “Agony Booth.”
PS: They don’t call him “Booth Beers” for nothing.
[blockquote]“The parliamentary system as it is generally practiced in the West produces legislative winners and losers,â€[/blockquote]
This remark by Dr Jefferts Schori is illustrative on a number of levels. First, she demonstrates that denigration of Western culture common among certain people who enjoy the benefits of that culture (though I do not mean that Western culture is not susceptible to critique).
Second, unless she is suggesting that The Episcopal Church was wrong or should have found other means of doing so, she is utterly hypocritical in her critique of precisely the voting system that gave us Bishop Gene Robinson, a rejection of the resolution affirming the authority of the Scriptures, rejection of various requests of the Primates’ Meeting to our House of Bishops, and her own election.
Third, and perhaps more to the point, this system is hardly uniquely “Western”. This is precisely the system used by the bishops gathered at each of the ecumenical councils (and those synods scattered in between and amongst them). One may argue a “Western” provenance, citing Greek and Roman antecedents, but let us not forget the Levantine, Eastern and African bishops present at several of these councils. But perhaps she still objects that the system does not produce discernment (e.g., of the orthodox trinitarian faith and of orthodox christology), but rather a games calculus of winners and losers (is it only Americans who insist on reducing the world to sports metaphors?). Indeed, it did leave Christian dogmatic history strewn with losers: Arians, Apollinarians, Sabellians, Paulicians, Montanists, Pneumatomachians and others. Given her previous pronouncements on the person and work of Christ, and the nature of God, it is likely that she believes the Church should have found some way to converse [i]ad nauseam[/i] with those who held heretical views of God and Jesus, rather than resolving those doctrinal disputes.
But she certainly has no problem citing “ancient traditions” established by those ancient voting assemblies of bishops – at least when it comes to the supposed inviolability of diocesan borders.
Well, properly so called , it is an exhibitionism booth. Larry