There are a number of serious and deeply held misconceptions operative throughout the conference.
One, stated by the Windsor Continuation Group, “the proliferation of ad hoc Episcopal and archiespiscopal ministries cannot be maintained within a global Communion.” Translation: Communion leadership is angry with Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, Nigeria, the Southern Cone et al., for consecrating bishops and charging them with the development of their missionary outreach in the States and Canada.
No one adds to this condemnation a simple statement of fact that these actions were taken because the Communion stood by and did nothing substantive while abusive actions against believing clergy and parishes (now whole dioceses) on the American shores continued….
Two, the word “inclusive” has completely replaced an older and historically more familiar word “comprehensive” which, frankly, is the familiar word one used to describe a far healthier Anglicanism. The two words are not synonymous…..
Three, the Global Anglican South Conference, is spoken of with disdain….
[blockquote]My guess would be that if anything positive comes out of this Lambeth Conference it will largely be because the Global South stopped reacting and clearly stated, “Here we stand, we can do no other!â€[/blockquote]
Just so. It was obvious that Anglican leadership wasn’t going to be roused from its torpor with anything short of a threat to, in the words of the inimitable William J. Lepetomaine, “their phony-baloney jobs.”
My guess is that TEC will try and buy their way into the further good graces of ABC. Actually they are probably telling him we own you so do as you are told. At any rate, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for them to repent. That would require humility of them.
#2,
I believe that one of the prophets had similar expectations about the fate of Nineveh. I also seem to recall that he had his own issues with humility. The week isn’t over yet.
Good reference, Jeremy. Now if you can get ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC to admit they are Ninevah, you might be on to something. Otherwise, “mene, mene, tekel, parsin.”
“…We Americans defined the meaning of the word when, in the late ‘90’s, the Episcopal Church, fully present at the Richter trial, found that it had no “core†doctrine…”
Bingo!
One further thing regarding “inclusivity”, while agreeing with what has been said regarding “comprehensiveness”.
In creedal terms, we once spoke of “catholicity” as a mark of the Church. Some of us still wish to do so! Yet as only one of the marks among four, the other three also determine the nature of the Church. Which is to say, mere inclusivity just cannot do what its proponents desire – [b]in a Christian context[/b]. Rather, as a notion it is based on a specific cultural paradigm, of pluralism, which itself is a deeply illogical and nonsensical trait. It is time Christians stopped using it!