With permission–KSH.
At the Lambeth Conference the bishops, but not the journalists had access to an intranet site (a local area network created by the Lambeth Conference) which included a great deal of additional information about the Lambeth Conference. One of the items available on the intranet site was a directory of all the bishops who had registered, but not necessarily paid or showed up.
On the last day Steve Waring working for The Living Church and George Conger working for The Church of England newspaper asked a bishop to access the site and write down a list of all the Anglican bishops on the pre-registration list as well as the name of their province and diocese. That information was then passed along to us at which point the number was then tallied. That is how we arrived at the figure of 617. There were a number of ecumenical bishops present and they were encouraged to be part of the Bible study and indaba discussion groups as full conference participants. The inclusion of all the ecumenical bishops in the attendance figure is how the Lambeth Conference organizers were able to provide a registration number of 670 to the media. The conference organizers repeatedly rebuffed requests for a complete list of bishops present and every time the request was made a different reason was given for why it would not be made public. None of those reasons was really plausible and this aroused our suspicions that there was more to the story than they were telling us.
George Conger has a complete list of everyone who pre-registered and I believe he will be compiling that list and I believe that the Church of England newspaper will be publishing it at a future date. George left the U.K. to return to the U.S. yesterday and when I spoke to him as he was on his way to the airport, he told me that it was his intention to do so, but of course he is free to change his mind. I rather doubt he will, so I think those interested in that information ought to expect it to become public within the next few days. Please be patient and please be charitable with comments and speculation in the meantime and also after it is published.
It is important to note that not every bishop who pre-registered actually showed up. One example is the Bishop from a diocese in the Church of Nigeria. He FAX’d a memo from U.K. on the Saturday before the Lambeth Conference began indicating his intention to attend. However he never showed up. We heard rumors that there were other bishops who didn’t show up either, so the actual number of Anglican bishops who participated in the 2008 Lambeth Conference is probably slightly lower than the number that pre-registered. Keep checking the Church of England website (which also include Religious Intelligence) for more information. This information may also be available through The Living Church as well, but George has all the hard data.
Needless to say the fact that apparently more than 30 percent of the bishops who were invited chose not to attend is information that the conference organizers did not want revealed, especially during the conference itself as it would have caused a number of the bishops themselves to ask hard questions. The bishops also probably would have been less inclined to abide by the strict and frequently repeated warnings they received not to discuss the conference mechanics with the media during the conference. Bishop Keith Ackerman of Quincy was one of the few bishops courageous enough to speak to the media and entertain questions the conference organizers did not want made public. It is important to note that neither George nor I will ever reveal the identity of the courageous bishop who was willing to provide us with this important information, but I will say that Bishop Ackerman was in no way involved in that project and neither George nor I had anything to do with the setting up of Bishop Ackerman’s informal media briefings.
There were many important things that were accomplished at the conference and while the fact that only about 68 percent of all bishops invited appear to have showed up is very significant, it is not the whole story of the conference and I would ask readers and bloggers not to jump to premature conclusions about those facts. Undoubtedly in days, months and years ahead we will begin to get a better perspective on the historical significance of the 2008 Lambeth Conference.
I would like to remind everyone one more time that pointed personal attacks and uncharitable comments shed little light and reveal far more about the person making the comments than they do about the character of the conference organizers, importance of what the conference produced or what is likely to happen to the Anglican Communion in the future. Rather than being the cause for caustic sarcasm and vicious personal attacks this information ought to drive every Christian to their knees in prayer. The body of the third largest branch of Christianity is suffering – every part of it – whether you happen to identify with it, are in communion with it or not. In the name of Christ, I ask all Christians please to think carefully and prayerfully before posting funny songs, analogies to the Titanic (and other famous historical disasters) as well as unrelentingly negative criticism. I assure you that while such things will undoubtedly get a brief laugh they won’t change anything in the long run. This is a time for speaking the truth in love. I was here and I can tell you that there were important things accomplished and it was not a complete failure/disaster/joke or mistake.
May the Risen Christ have mercy on us all,
Steve Waring, news editor
The Living Church magazine
Cloaking a church council in secrecy and hiding information is antithetical to Christians who should live in the light. It flows from fear and faithlessness. It is becoming clear that the foundation being laid for the future of the Canterbury led AC is one not built upon truth but upon a political control and manipulation of information.
Steve,
Thanks – especially for your last paragraph. Would that our witness for Christ was not so distorted by words of hate on every side.
We hear from several sources that “important things were accomplished”. When will the veil of secrecy be raised on these accomplishments so the rest of the Anglican world can appreciate better that it was not a “total disaster”. I read the Archbishop of Canterbury’s statement about what was “accomplished”, and was less than convinced that the “accomplishments” were really something different than what has gone on in the past five years. Observers, commentators, reporters: Please tell us what these “important” accomplishments were and how they will change or even begin to change the mess we are presently in. And please, don’t tell us that the “indaba must go on”.
Thanks to Steve Waring for this.
In retrospect, the invitations to Lambeth were highly questionable.
How much more realistic would the representation have been if, say, 20 ECUSA bishops were cut (on the basis of Windsor non-compliance) and 200 or so Global South bishops had shown up?
Randy, the bishops who self=absented themselves had made their position known over a year prior to the conference. Rowan also knew that these were people of their word. Despite this, he then deliberately chose to invite the consecrators of VGR. I take from this, he wanted the consecrators there and not the bishops of Uganda, Nigeria, Kenya, and Rwanda.
I am still not sure if I object to this. There is a strong tradition in the English-speaking world of [i]in camera[/i] and [i]in limine[/i] proceedings in all kinds of assemblies- school boards, courts, Congress, corporate boards, PTAs, etc. Along with this is the continued position that nothing legislative or executive was done.