Does it bother anyone else that the participants in the conference have so little sense of what the content of the conference itself is actually going to be? Some of you may remember my doctoral supervisor at Oxford, Geoffrey Rowell, now Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe, saying before the conference how little information he actually had (and he was genuinely surprised). Well, yesterday I spoke to a Bishop at the conference, who, having been there now some days, still is quite unsure and unclear as to what will be taking place when exactly.
Now don’t get me wrong, I am well aware that you can overplan a conference. I believe you need to leave the Holy Spirit room to blow where he wills. But, say what you like about the Episcopal Church General Convention, which I have been to as a deputy 4 times now, you can tell people before you get there pretty much what you will be doing on any given day. There is value in this in terms of stewardship of time and energy.
Why is so little information available at this late stage to actual Lambeth 2008 conference participants? There are only two possibilities. One is less than good administration, and the other is a deliberate attempt at control. I do not have enough evidence to make a judgment either way, so I will keep an open mind. But neither choice is a good one–KSH.
Canon Harmon,
At this point, I’m seeing the lack of information as beneficial. Normally, I wouldn’t and I can understand how frustrating this must be for the participants. However, since it appears that TEC arrived with a media and PR machine (plus assorted planned events and stunts) at the ready, I think a lack of foreknowledge helps to disarm them. I can’t even imagine the strategy wars they would be mounting if they knew how the proceedings would take shape!
Because so many of the orthodox bishops decided to stay home (a decision I lament), TEC would win the PR and lobbying game with virtually no one about to oppose them. So, a lack of knowledge might level the playing field a bit, IMHO.
I have to agree, Dr. Harmon. I scanned the schedule you linked a few days ago, and it was quite broadly defined, to the point that I thought that surely attendees would have a more detailed agenda available. Apparently this is not the case.
A mushroom conference?
Father Harmon ,
There is a third possibility.
Maybe, (1) the revisionist crowd is going to make some sort of ‘flag planting’ declaration, (2) that requires a counter declarative action by the ABC and all assembled bishops, (3) that assertive leadership will not be forthcoming from the ABC or the assembled bishops and (4) ECUSA will proceed home from Lambeth believing and telling the world that the revisionists had won a major victory of beiing ‘accepted’ at Lambeth, thus legitimizing, in ECUSA’s/revisionists eyes and minds, all of the damage that they have done to the Anglican Communion.
Kendall, I think the problem is that you’re still operating under the perfectly reasonable assumption that ANYTHING is SUPPOSED to happen at this conference at all! If one wanted to kick the can down the road one could either postpone or cancel the conference altogether, or, do what I think the ABC has chosen to do, which is to host a lovely tea party. I think he chose the latter option. Think about it, given the state of the Communion, he doesn’t really have a lot of options at this point anyway. He doesn’t want to, or can’t, take the bull by the horns and confront the crisis in the Communion. I’m not sure at this point what would be accomplished by that anyway. Everyone knows where they stand and there’s no evidence that anyone is in a mood to budge. Faced with those realities I think he figured he could either call off the conference altogether or host a big tea party under the Big Top, and I think that’s what he has done. Another reason why I don’t think those bishops who chose not to come to the tea party made a bad decision. Watercress sandwich anyone?
I think #4 is correct, but I don’t think TEC will even need to drag its cane over the sand to make its line. The line has been there for five years, and the ABC has kept anyone and everyone from stepping over it, as he will during Lambeth. Schori and her gang will come home unchastised, and that will be their victory.
I’ve been mentally trying to compare the start of Gafcon with that of Lambeth 2008. And, at this point anyway, I can only feel pity for the ABofC and those who are spending their time and money attending. The future of the Anglican Communion is Gafcon as Lambeth fades into a waste of time.
It sounds like our synods in my diocese – or even general synod in the Anglican Church of Canada – even if the agenda is clear, no one really knows what is going on. I think they must teach these administrative control techniques at liberal seminaries.
There may be a third option – might it be lack of oxygen to the brain because of restrictive dog collars?
My own take is that given the tendency of Anglicans to issue official and unofficial statements (see Ruth Gledhill’s blog today), that the idea is that people will be confronted without time to form pre-prepared thoughts. In other words, by making people speak and think off the cuff a space could be created for the Spirit to work.
I could be -completely- wrong and it is just a situation of poor organization. Having said that, we need to keep an eye on the reality that, poorly organized or not, the Spirit is present.
I pray that it will be one that is recieved by all, liberal or conserative, High or Low, Evangelical or Catholic.
Randall
I do believe Chris Taylor is right on the mark. One way to keep anything specific from happening is to create a program that is without concrete directions. This is the ABC’s obvious purpose. It also gives him wiggle room.
However, Jeffersonian, I rather think that Schori et al don’t intend to go home unreproved, I think they intend to go home victorious in a positive way: They will have insulted flagrantly the conservatives who have shown no spine at all. They now know that there is in this collection of bishops, no williingness to fight. The absence of part icular results will then give them a free hand (for ten years) to do what they will without fear of reprisal.
I doubt very much that GAFCON worries them much because – this is a gut feeling, an intuition – Schori et al believe what Spong believes: These Africans are barely out of animal worship and simply do not play in the same league and TEC and the liberal establishment. Those who join them are joining a minor league team which has no major league sponsor. TEC has the liberal establishment and, obviously the ABC. Larry
The “indaba” process is a fancy name for what has previously been referred to as the “listening process”. The GAFCON Bishops followed the advice of Circe in Homer’s Odyssey. By not attending they have avoided crashing their ships on the shores of the Sirens. Those orthodox bishops who do attend had better have some wax on hand.
Speculation is all we can do for now. It’s not worth the time and energy to debate what we don’t know. A few tidbits here and there are nothing more than a momentary snapshot. It’s better to sit back and pray that the Holy Spirit kicks butt. Think of the RCC during the 1960’s, and the changes that were totally unexpected (Vatican II).
H
Kendall – great point about the way the apparatus controls the proceedings – it reminds me about the shameful way the ACC meeting at Nottingham was organised, with delegates often not knowing the agenda of a particular session until they got there. One had the impression of an office somewhere telling the delegates what to do, with little chance to organise, consider, act, etc.
Richard Crocker
One is less than good administration, and the other is a deliberate attempt at control.
That would be the ABC and the ACO, respectively. Note, by the way, that these are not mutually exclusive alternatives.
There is a saying in politics that if a meeting doesn’t get covered in the newspaper, it didn’t happen. I introduce this idea because I think that Lambeth is really a sort of “be-in” for all sorts of groups camped outside that are sort of drunk on their own ideas. It is the “be-in” that will be covered by the media and remembered, and revisionists know this. Claiming a mantle of martyrdom and being media darlings they will find a way to go home with some sort of triumphal banner come what may. I suppose it is the ABC’s fault for not holding all factions in check and the present muddle is what we have… In short, you can be so enmeshed in the process and its legislative mechanisms that the actual import of events is lost.
I am afraid that we are not willing to admit the obvious, the anglican comunion belongs to the progressives. It reminds me of sitting watching the fall of South VietNam. From the time the North crossed the border I Knew some one would intervien to save the day, they never did, it was all over. The only thing left for those who could not stand the new administration was finding a life boat to leave. Just like VietNam those who wanted the change were soon disenchanted and turn their back on the situation.
God Bless the faithfull and give us guidance.
paul
I find the lack of information suggestive. GAFCON was organized on short notice and yet there was a clear sense of direction and even though it was not given daily coverage, I had more information of substance than I have had following Lambeth each day. I’ll puke if I read one more reprot about the grass skirts and marvelous acoustics. Even Bishop Duncan seems carried away by the beguiling spirit of the event.
It’s sort of the opposite of the OT account of King Saul visiting the ‘school of the prophets’ to get the Lord’s approval for his actions. When he went there, sinful as he was, he got caught up in the Spirit of the Lord, forgetting what he was there for.
Well, here those arguing for orthodoxy seem to be getting caught up in the spirit of the age that is driving the Lambeth Conference, forgetting what we are fighting for.
Just my opinion, of course. It’s easy to get caught up in something outside of yourself, whether it is for the Lord’s good or not.
The unkowing led by the unwilling can do nothing so “All is Well”(c). The indaba/listening/refusal to confront error/neocolonial/imperialist
control modus operandi.
They DID make “The Prisoner” episodes in Britain, too. So there is precedent!
Who is Number One?