AND SO it begins. The 2008 Lambeth Conference starts, appropriately enough, with a three-day retreat in Canterbury, before the big opening service in the cathedral on Sunday morning. On the assumption that the bishops who registered (and have been paid for) have actually turned up, the organisers ought to be quietly pleased. They have collected together well over the quorum needed to claim still to be the voice of the episcopate of the Anglican Communion.
A key constituency, though, is the conservative one. The loss of so many Nigerians, Ugandans, and Rwandans is critical. Given that the Lambeth Conference is not a church council with the authority to legislate for the Communion, one of its most important functions is to enable bishops to inform themselves of other models of the Church. The gay debate of the past five years has suffered from too much niche internet activity, whereby each side has logged on merely to those sites with which they agree. As a consequence, the personal encounters that would formerly have taken place through letters or telephone conversations have been lacking. This has made a face-to-face meeting all the more desirable.
Oh dear, is THIS one of those “niche internet” sites?
Well, if they’d stood by Lambeth 1:10 after their last meeting, or even the Windsor Process, you wouldn’t have people staying away in droves.
I purposely didn’t read the whole article – but I’ll bet ya it says something to the effect of; “those who stayed away have missed the opportunity to listen to the experience of others in order that their hearts might be open…blah, blah, blah.”
I could start writing this stuff for them!
A thoroughly revolting piece of journalism. I mean, come on. Who is walking apart in the Anglican Communion? Could the Church Times not bring itself to acknowledge that the absent conservative bishops have no desire to “walk apart”, but simply protest against the fact that those who (in their view) [i]do[/i] choose to walk apart can do so without repercussions with regards to Lambeth? How can it accuse them glibly of declining to “converse with those with whom they disagree”, if the latter (TEC et al) have arguably demonstrated only thinly veiled contempt for the requests made of them by the rest of the Communion? What conversation is there then to be had?
I do realise that this is an editorial. But a well-written editorial will demonstrate a profound understanding of those with whom the editors disagree. This does not cut it at all. This is mere propaganda and demagoguery.