…there are signs that this westernized Indaba is being taken seriously by the bishops and they are gaining much from it. Far from avoiding difficult conversations, many of them report that they are actually having them. Good on them.
My questions remain about the outcome, and the actual reportage of Indaba, and the writing down of some kind of final statement. I remain convinced that the process is built for manipulation by a bureaucracy which lazily wants the crisis to be downplayed and the fuss just to go away. I can’t see that without resolution, amendments and votes, the final document can be anything but descriptive of the process, and the diversity of viewpoints in the communion.
More importantly, I see no sign that the bishops and the conference have any desire to face the biggest elephant in their midst. I’m not referring to issues of homosexuality, and authority directly, but to the glaringly obvious fact that a quarter of the bishops in the Anglican Communion are actually missing. This raises at least two urgent questions for the bishops who are in Canterbury. How can this Lambeth Conference be an Instrument of Unity when so many have gone AWOL? What steps must the Anglican Communion take to ensure that the next time they meet these absent bishops are present?
In the end, they chose to cut themselves off. It is the conference’s loss, but those who left – even for conscience’s sake – must bear some responsibility for their decisions. They shouldn’t expect pity; nor should we shower them with admiration.
I don’t think they chose to cut themselves off. They found themselves cut off by innovation totally alien to scripture, and drew the logical consequence that hidden fact is best turned into visible sign. Besides, what’s the point? The 1998 resolutions weren’t worth the paper they were written on (1.10 anyone?) In 2008, the necessary decisions are not even going to be made in the first place.
What steps must the Anglican Communion take to ensure that the next time they meet these absent bishops are present?
I’m thinking Repent and Reform.
#2 – so they are then, not responsible? Who is, then? Neither are reappraisers responsible: we found the rest of the world cared that the laity of New Hampshire didn’t care that +gene was gay! How should we have guessed that people decided their own countries were less important than this!