Lambeth's Financial Troubles Solved

Honey, we're over 2 million pounds in debt... could you sue and sell off another traditionalist parish? I promise to keep preventing the implementation of Windsor and Lambeth '98... cause you know that YOU'RE my favorite primate-wimate, dontcha? Coochy-coochy indaba-daba-da! Pwease?!

Breaking - Indaba Success!!!

---

NB: passages in italics are real-life, direct quotes from Williams (or Kearon) about the indababble process.

---

Mon, Jul 28, 2008
Canterbury, England
AP Wire

Archbishop of Canterbury Solves World's Christian Division

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is a happy man today. After enduring over a week of negative press about the apparent impeding collapse of the Anglican Communion, the much-discussed Lambeth indaba groups have produced an ecumenical coup far beyond what any observers had expected.

For, while hundreds of Anglican bishops (representing about one-third of the Anglican Communion) were talking for two-and-a-half minutes each on a dozen enormous theological and ecclesiastical issues (failing to produce, to no one's real surprise, any resolutions, progress, or even any new commonality whatsoever), the REAL indaba was going on, secretly, behind doors in the highly-secure wine cellar of the University of Kent.

Composing this indaba were Gene Robinson, Roman Catholic cardinal Danneels of Belgium, archbishop Joris Vercammen of the Old Catholic Churches, patriarch Maxim of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, director Berten Waggoner of the Vineyard Churches, president Sinkford of the Unitarian Universalist Association, Hyung Jin Moon of the Unification Church, and Satan, Prince of Darkness and CEO of Hell Inc. Dr. Schori, fuhrer of the Episcopal church, served as archbishop Williams' liasondaughter to the indaba. Reporting on their success, the committee met with the press this evening, Williams and Satan (who has denied his presence at the indaba has had any adverse effect on the English weather) sitting quietly in the background, lounging on a futon and holding hands.

After a week of intensive and vigorous listening (and a sizeable dent in the university's wine collection) the smiling leaders emerged last night to report their indaba's success. "Through our purposeful discussion among equals" said Dr. Schori, "we have moved beyond our petty differences to heart of the issue to find out what our true challenges are."

"The whole process was wonderful" said director Waggoner. "By authentic listening to one another and thus clarifying what the real questions and concerns are we have discerned our deeper convergences. Sure, we had some disagreements, but we have come to some sort of shared perspective on things, and that's all that's needed to set our common life on a firm basis."

"The key," said archbishop Vercammen, "is transformed relationships. The indaba process allowed us to get beyond the reciprocal impatience which has so often complicated our ecumenical discussions -- arguments over issues like the nature of sexuality, the divinity of Christ, the existence of God, whether Satan is really such a bad guy -- and allowed us to open up more fully to each other. I know that I, for one, enjoyed joining bishop Robinson and Satan better when we stayed up all night watching the South Park movie and cuddling together beside the rack of vintage port."

"You see," said cardinal Danneels, "people really don't care about theology. That's just a dysfunctional way people have of creating defenses against those they do not understand. We have to move beyond these artificial boundaries imposed by our diverse forms and traditions -- we have to be ready to listen to what someone else is saying and not leap to hostile or suspicious conclusions, and that's what indaba let us do. It may not have given any final answers, but because of our common involvement in a process and method of engagement we have found that our relations with each other are transformed, and even our relations with the material world around us, and we no longer need agreement on trivialities of theology in order to engage in a continued search for the common mind, in constant active involvement in the life of other parts of the family and to recognise and accept each other's ministries in the conviction that we are ordaining men and women to one ministry in one Body. And I must say, I've found the people here around me much better listeners than pope Benedict!"

"We've come to recognize," explained archbishop Maxim, "as we listened to each other in indaba, that unity is itself affected by the urgency of the calls on our compassion and imagination; some sorts of division undoubtedly will seem a luxury in the face of certain challenges and recognized that it's okay that we can't easily pull [some] issues apart; and we certainly can't use [them] as an excuse for not addressing the other. Sure, Satan says that our goal in this world is to do whatever we want; antiquated Christian tradition has suggested that our goal in this world is to deny the self, to obey God and get to heaven; and most of us generally agree that, really, you just need to be basically a nice person... and then do whatever you want. Indaba has helped us realize that clarity about our calling in this world is no substitute for this unity we have found through engaging in a common, interminable process. As Archbishop Williams has said, "if we are not yet one as we hope and pray to be, perhaps it is because we have not yet gone deep enough." Through indaba, we have finally sunk deep enough."

"As a celebration of our new unity, community and communion," explained Moon, "we are issuing a statement descriptive of the totality of the engagement which [we] have undertaken. This will not, of course, be a resolution, declaration or affirmation. Attempts to reach such conclusions reflect the old methods, which necessarily fail to produce a consensus which absolutely everyone is willing to abide by or act upon. Indeed, that's the whole problem with a substance-oriented approach to conflict resolution, for invariably, if there is any disagreement, those whose positions aren't completely endorsed will not have confiden[ce] that they haven't been sidelined or silenced. Instead, by issuing a final statement which simply describes our conversations -- and by ensuring that everyone gets a minute or two to speak in each conversation -- we can guarantee that everyone's voice has a chance of being heard and that the final report (which merely states that the conversations occurred and describes them) is thus an outcome... that the overwhelming majority felt they had shaped for themselves. This is the glory of replacing substance with process."

Bishop Robinson (winking at friends in the audience, and posing for the photographers) was, for once, silent -- being too busy finishing off a bottle of 80 year old port and smoking a cigarette.

"Archbishop Williams and I are, of course, delighted with this result" said Top Kat Schori, concluding the indaba group's statements to the press. "We have represented here members from the whole spectrum of the Christian tradition -- Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant, Nondenominational, Apostate, Wacky/Cultist and Satanic. We have already been in touch with many other jurisdictions, and I confidently expect that we will soon have over 70% of the world's various jurisdictions represented. Of course, some might complain that those 70% represent only about 5% of the world's "Christians", but that's old-style thinking again. What matters -- and what we count -- are institutional structures (and their associated endowments), not believers."

In a Q & A session after the indaba members read their statements, Williams said that, given the success of this meeting, he and Canon Kearon are already planning another "high-level" indaba for next year, to address further ecumenical issues. "We've already been in contact with the Dalai Lama, Ayatollah Sistani, Philip Carr-Gomm (Chief of the Order of Bards, Ovates & Druids), Peter Gilmore (High Priest of the Church of Satan) and leaders of other organizations. Within a few years, we hope to get absolutely everyone on board having ongoing indaba conversations, which will, by that very fact, mean we have created one unified religion."

Williams has already appointed Episcopal bishop Swing, founder of the United Religions Initiative, as his chief assistant in the project. In an unfortunate early set-back for the new effort, however, the University of Kent has announced that future indaba groups will not be allowed into the university wine cellars. "That's okay" said bishop Swing in response "we plan to hold future indaba meetings somewhere like the Bahamas -- somewhere more attractive and with a better night life. Oh, and working air-conditioners."

Lambeth 3 - Indababble

In my last post, I touched on the fact that the ABC seems to take Lambeth so very very seriously. It seems to be his cornerstone for a coherent Anglican future.

Attendance at Lambeth seems to be how he measures a "desire for unity":

In spite of the painful controversies... there remains... a very strong loyalty to each other and a desire to stay together. The fact that about 70% of bishops worldwide have already formally registered for the Conference, with a number of others who have signalled that they will attend, shows something of this desire.

(I've noted elsewhere fact that this 70% of bishops represents roughly only a third of the Communion and he has been dis-inviting bishops right up to the last minute.)

Moreover, the challenges facing this oh-so-important Lambeth are great... though he tries to downplay them somewhat in his opening remarks, Williams must still admit, in his presidential address, that "we all know that we stand in the middle of one of the most severe challenges to have faced the Anglican family in its history" -- though he hastens to reassure us that "we shouldn't assume that this is the worst of times."

Thus, in the face of this crisis, he has announced that one of the two key goals of the Conference is to "strength[en] the sense of a shared Anglican identity among the bishops from around the world." Indeed, he describes recussitating the Communion as something of a divine mandate:

God has not only entrusted to us the task of sharing in his mission; he has also entrusted to us one particular way embodying and serving this mission. He has entrusted to us this extraordinary thing called the Anglican Communion. And in our time together he is asking us, more sharply than ever before, perhaps, what we want to make of it -- how we use the legacy we have been given for his glory and for the sake of the good news of Jesus Christ.

Serious words indeed!


And yet, having outlined in such stark terms what the challenges for Lambeth are, he also makes sure to remind us how powerless Lambeth is.

The Conference has never been a lawmaking body in the strict sense and it wasn't designed to be one: every local Anglican province around the world has its own independent system of church law and there is no supreme court.

And, indeed, the archbishop rejects as undesirable any attempts to create a "a centralized and homogenized Communion" which "becomes a confessional church in a way it never has been before."

(Oddly, his choices to exclude not just the CANA, AMiA and other such bishops, as well as acting to undermine the Windsor Report and primates council in a way guaranteed to alienate nearly all the "conservative" bishops within the Anglican Communion from attending seems to fly in the face of this supposed reluctance -- everything Williams has done, and failed to do, over the last several years seems designed precisely to create a "homogenized" Lambeth... but I've touched on this already.)


So, given the real difficulties facing Lambeth, both in the magnitude of the challenge and the inadequacy of the tools, what has Williams brought us? Indababble and the Covenant. In this post, let's take another look at the indababble groups and what Williams claims they will accomplish.

If you think the indababble process is about getting answers, think again.

Of course, that's apparently what the real indabas do. They make sure all voices are heard -- but, more importantly (for this is why people are there to be heard in the first place) -- they reach a conclusion. "In African society, tribal leaders will converse until they come to a type of consensus... they have come to a point of agreement on the substance; the core issue and the potential of a way forward." Yes, there are still differences, but a common mind has emerged to provide a working solution. And, to do this, they take all the time required: "local Indaba groups meet for hours, and if needed, several days." Moreover, they do this starting from a point of already holding a great deal in common: "indaba is a group of people who speak the same language, live in the same village, share the same culture, and have known each other perhaps for decades."

This is not the case with Lambeth's indababbble. We have bishops there from very different cultures, with vastly differing theological views (even though most of the conservatives have been dis-invited, one way or another), and, in many quarters, very little trust.

Nor will they bishops be talking and listening for days to reach a consensus, or even a common understanding. Various people have pointed out that -- with each indaba session being 2 hours long among 40 participants, each bishop will have a mere 3 minutes to express his views. Probably more like 2 in practice. And each of these 2 hour sessions is supposed to cover topics like Biblical interpretation & Hermeneutics, Anglican identity: the role of bishops, Evangelism and Mission, and so forth. Gender and Sexuality is only one of the 2 hour sessions. (In fact, the only topic on that list that could reasonably be done in such a 2 hour session is the MDGs! Let me save you some time, bishops -- read this statement, then move on to more pressing matters: "These are laudable goals, and Christians should be encouraged to support them where sensible, but they are not the primary mission of the Church, which is to preach the Gospel and nurture the spiritual and sacramental life of its members. As bishops, let's focus on those ecclesiastical and episcopal rather than on those "secular" ministries and missions -- which are far more effectively addressed by secular charitable groups and organizations anyway. We should support the laity's participation in such social work, but let's make sure we stay focused on guarding and nurturing their participation in Christ, which is our special charge.")

Already reports from Lambeth tell us that

Many of the Africans are saying, "This isn't 'Indaba' at all! First of all, we are not a village, and we don't know each other. And secondly, we are not attempting to solve a problem; we are talking in small groups about minor issues of little consequence."

And even Williams doesn't pretend that the indababble is actually going to produce a substantive outcome: "The indaba process is meant to clarify what the real questions and concerns are, so that everyone comes to have some sort of shared perspective on things, even if they don't yet agree."

Of course, the ABC has been confronted on this fact. And his reply is a non-reply:

Quite a few people have said that the new ways we're suggesting of doing our business are an attempt to avoid tough decisions and have the effect of replacing substance with process. To such people, I'd simply say, 'How effective have the old methods really been?'

In other words, when asked "won't this be ineffective" his reply has been "well, other things are ineffective too". (Frankly, this makes me think of Senator Obama's campaign -- propose some new (often incoherent) change or idea -- one often untested or even irrational -- whose only merit is that it represents "change". Never mind that there can be change for the better OR change for the worse! And with indaba, like with Obama, you're getting the latter!)


After all, what has been the problem with past Lambeth Conferences? It's true, they haven't been effective. The ABC himself points out that

at the very first Lambeth Conference, the assembled bishops passed a resolution asking for some kind of supreme canonical court in the Communion which could settle points of dispute in provinces

reflecting their desire to

make sure that Anglicans around the world acted in a responsible way towards each other and stayed faithful to the common inheritance of biblical and doctrinal faith.

Well, obviously that didn't work... given that it is precisely the Communion's failure to ensure such fidelity which has led to its disintegration today.

But does this failure of past Lambeth Conferences mean that -- as Williams seems to have concluded -- the whole process of making resolutions and upholding standards is fundamentally flawed and must be replaced? No. Because the fault doesn't lie in the process by which consensus was reached and expressed, but in the fact that nobody is accountable to it. The Sudanese archbishop, the Most Rev. Dr. Daniel Deng Bul, makes an impassioned plea that these past resolutions and consensus be respected:

Out of love for our brothers and sisters in Christ, we appeal to the Anglican Church in the USA and Canada to demonstrate real commitment to the requests arising from the Windsor process. In particular: To refrain from ordaining practicing homosexuals to bishops or priests; To refrain from approving rites of blessing for same-sex relationships; To cease court actions with immediate effect; To comply with Resolution 1:10 of the 1998 Lambeth conference; To respect the authority of the Bible.

THIS is what needs changing -- not diddling and indabbling about with process, but having some sort of follow through, so that the hard-won and much-discussed resolutions already in place can have an effect. Why even the chair of the Windsor Continuation group (hardly a radically traditionalist group), bishop Clive Handford, "painted a grim picture of deteriorating relationships in the Anglican Communion" precisely because "the gap between promise and follow through seems unbridgeable."

But don't expect any support or help from Williams on this score. Indeed, not only did he actively destroy the effect and credibility of the whole Windsor process, but he seems to completely dismiss any weight or force to that last Lambeth resolution as well, saying that we have now "a new doctrine and policy about same-sex relations, one that is not the same as that of the vast majority at the last Lambeth Conference". The resolutions of the past Lambeth aren't normative, aren't relevant, aren't even to be enforced... they're simply baggage which is causing pain because they conflict with the new doctrine and polity coming into force today... despite the fact that the new doctrine and polity (like so many of PEcUSA's innovations and revisionisms) are the exact opposite of the norms of the Christian and Anglican tradition!

Nor is any of that past consensus or the seemingly infinite numbers of meetings, consultations and statements of any weight either... because, apparently, we still don't know "what the real questions and concerns are", which is why we need indababble.


So what is all this indababble supposed to accomplish from Williams' perspective? It isn't giving anywhere near enough time to any issue. It isn't reaching a consensus. It isn't honoring past resolutions or consensus. It manifestly isn't going to produce a common mind, not without total conversion of the apostates to Christianity or the apostasy of the remaining Christians at Lambeth. What's the point, then?

Apparently, it's all about being heard. (Even if only for 2 minutes). Williams defends the indababble saying it will help "to guarantee that everyone's voice has a chance of being heard" so that, regardless of what is or isn't agreed or done, they "can still be confident that they haven't been sidelined or silenced." (Of course, the un-invited, dis-invited and actively repelled two-thirds of the Communion which isn't represented at Lambeth has been sidelined and silenced, but that's another issue.)

And, through this Lambeth indababble -- a far cry from any real indaba and a doomed and impotent enterprise from the get-go -- "the greatest need of the Communion" will be met... "transformed relationships...in responsible agreement and search for the common mind, in constant active involvement in the life of other parts of the family." (I know what PEcUSA means by "transformed relationships" and "other parts")



So the whole philosophical underpinning of William's Lambeth philosophy -- the way in which he intends to take on the divine task of preserving the Anglican Communion -- is a notion that if you just get everyone talking long enough, no matter how diametrically opposed their theologies are, transformed relationships will emerge to ensure that a miraculous new way forward is found that allows everyone to live together in one harmonious communion, feeling that there is a "deeper seriousness about how we consult each other" and "recogniz[ing] and accept[ing] each other's ministries in the conviction that we are ordaining men and women to one ministry in one Body." (Goodbye all traditional Christians objecting to the heretical ordination of women and of practicing homosexuals!)

Somehow... I don't think you're going to get there through indababble. If that's really where you want to get, then you do need the "preparatory books and many resolutions," as Williams put it in a clear side-swipe at GAFCon. Whatever its flaws or failings, at least GAFCon is an attempt to solve the problem in an effective way -- change for the better, not an Obama change for the worse! -- by articulating standards and devising mechanisms to hold people accountable to them. For it was in accountability -- not in coming to and articulating consensus -- that former Lambeth Conferences have failed.

But Williams has rejected those options.. and continues to labor to build his Tower of Indababel.

Lambeth 2 -- Including everyone worth including

So today the ABC kicked off the official Conference program by telling atendees and reporters just what it is they're up to.

The Conference this year has two key points of focus: strengthening the sense of a shared Anglican identity among the bishops from around the world, and helping to equip bishops for the role they increasingly have as leaders in mission, involved in a whole variety of ways in helping the Church grow.

Now, this is odd. It seems to me that, over the past ten years, it's become quite clear what the single biggest obstacle to a "shared Anglican identity" and to "helping the Church grow" has been -- the revisionism, homosexualist heresy, and apostasy that has been tearing the Communion apart.

But Williams is rather dismissive of this issue: "there's nothing so very new about a Lambeth Conference meeting in a climate of some controversy" he says. Indeed, he hastens to reassure his listeners, there remains a strong desire to stay together:

In spite of the painful controversies which have clouded the life of the Communion for the last few years, there remains, as many people have repeatedly said, a very strong loyalty to each other and a desire to stay together. The fact that about 70% of bishops worldwide have already formally registered for the Conference, with a number of others who have signalled [sic] that they will attend, shows something of this desire.

It would appear that registering for Lambeth is what proves a desire for unity... abandoning basic Scriptural teaching and Christian belief and practice are just trivialities.

And it would appear, too, that the figure that matters is the number of bishops -- ooo! 70% -- not the percentage of the Communion they actually represent. Apparently, American bishops, representing less than 3% of the Communion, will make up 25% of the bishops present. No wonder the ABC is counting heads, not counting souls! If we, further, get rid of the "fake" inflated numbers in the US and England, and count PEcUSA as having only about 1.5 million actual members (an extremely generous estimate) and the CoE as having 2 million (even more generous), then we find that these "70% of bishops" at Lambeth represent only one third of the Anglican Communion! If the ABC really wants to hear the results of "purposeful conversation" from a majority of the Anglican world, he ought to be paying more attention to GAFCon and less to his indaba-daba-da party!


But ABC has made it clear that, to his mind, such meetings or statements of Christian belief don't really matter. Because, ultimately, it is not the abandonment of Scripture, nor the ignoring of the Windsor Report by homosexual ordinations and marriages, nor the jettisoning of the resolutions of previous Lambeth conferences... but not coming to this Lambeth Conference which is what truly is destroying the Communion! Apparently it doesn't matter what you believe, preach, or practice... as long as you show up. As was put in that paper Williams had revised and circulated especially for the Conference:

it is the special collegial responsibility of the bishop to be at prayer for and with fellow colleagues. This is particularly relevant for those bishops who are in conflict with one another. Their failure to attend fervently to this ordinal vow weakens the body of Christ for which they have responsibility. This in turn weakens the bonds that all the baptised [sic] share with one another.

How strange, then, if attendance at his Lambeth is the ultimate be-all and end-all of restoring communion, the only place where differences can be worked out, that the ABC keeps uninviting or ignoring certain Anglicans. The AMiA and CANA bishops never got their invitations, and +Schofield and +Salmon have been disinvited. (It seems strange that not wanting multiple bishops from one diocese was given as one excuse (+Lawrence from SC and Lamb from PEcUSA's illegal and uncanonical San Joaquin puppet diocese), when co-adjutors and suffragans are welcome.) And all this is especially strange in that Williams appears to believe that it is only by participating in Lambeth that one is able to have a "voice incorporated" into the shaping of the Anglican Communion's future... if that is the case, certainly more bishops should be invited, not fewer!


Moreover, if Lambeth attendance really is so fundamental to Anglican identity, if it is the only way to participate in the "conversations" that Williams thinks so essential, then why has Williams himself acted in a way to exclude two-thirds of the Anglican Communion from representation at the conference? Remember, the non-attendance of many GAFCon jurisdictions is no surprise... it did not come out of the blue. Remember that, in 2006, CAPA issued this statement:

We have concluded that we must receive assurances from the Primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury that this crisis will be resolved before a Lambeth Conference is convened. There is no point, in our view, in meeting and meeting and not resolving the fundamental crisis of Anglican identity. We will definitely not attend any Lambeth Conference to which the violators of the Lambeth Resolution are also invited as participants or observers.

And the situation only got worse as Williams announced that he would not be inviting CANA and other bishops, treating them as equally guilty as those who had precipitated the crisis and were tearing apart the Communion. Wait, not equally guilty, but more guilty, for, despite what CAPA had said, Williams went ahead and invited the PEcUSA and Canadian bishops to Lambeth, he did so while they had still not replied adequately to the primates. He actually went out of his way to work against the elaborate processes carefully worked up to keep the Communion together -- undermining and destroying the effectiveness of the other "instruments of unity"!

In other words, he silenced the voices of the Communion's majority in order to invite the minority to Lambeth. Thus, in a Q & A session yesterday:

Follow up question: CAPA bishops said they would not come if the consecrators were invited and their voices represent the majority of Anglicans in the Communion. How did you make that decision?
I told each of them that their voice matters and we need to hear from them. I can’t invite the bishops of 70 million and not invite the bishops of 2 million. We don’t have that kind of parity or power politics in the Communion. Every voice counts.

EXCUSE ME?!! I guess he's got a bridge to sell you too. He did not tell them that "their voice matters and we need to hear from them"... he told the CAPA bishops, representing the majority of the Communion, that their voice DIDN'T count -- that, regardless of what the primates said or the processes, established by the Communion, called for, he was going to ignore their voices and invite the apostates to Lambeth. Maybe he can't invite the bishops of 70 million and not invite the bishops of 2 million (really only 1.1, if truth be told)... but he can, apparently, invite the bishops of that 1.1 million (and falling!) and give the metaphorical finger to the bishops of the 70 million!

This is why, at GAFCon,

Akinola made little mention of Bishop Robinson, or even of those involved in his consecration. The focus of his attention was the attitude of Lambeth Palace. “To our utter dismay, it became apparent that our sober resolutions were, in the aftermath, trivialised by some of our most respected leaders. As if that were not bad enough, our corporate identity was abused, and the pains and concerns shared so open-mindedly [were] ridiculed and betrayed by the flagrant compromises of those entrusted with the responsibility of guarding divine and eternal truths.” Archbishop Akinola was bitter about the invitation of US bishops to the Lambeth Conference before the September 2007 deadline for clarifying their stand on gay consecrations and same-sex blessings had passed. “At this point, it dawned on us, regrettably, that the Archbishop of Canterbury was not interested in what matters to us, in what we think or in what we say.”

If two-thirds of the Communion isn't represented at Lambeth, that fault lies not with Akinola and his fellows, but with Williams himself.

You see, Akinolaa and the majority of the Communion has twigged to the reality -- despite the rhetoric, Lambeth is not about having everyone's voice heard, it is not about including everyone and finding common ground... it's about hearing only certain voices. It's about letting apostate PEcUSA's bishops, representing less than 2% of the actual communion, speak 25% of the time (or, knowing them, probably more). It's about banning the Anglican voices of the AMiA, CANA, the other Global South missionary parishes in the U.S. and Canada, the legitimate bishop of the real diocese of San Joaquin, etc. (And certainly no inclusion of those who have been the most traditional and faithful Anglicans in upholding Anglican faith, order, and theology for the last 30 years -- the Continuing church Anglicans!)


If Williams really did care, first and foremost, about including all the voices and working together in a "conversation" which would help gain greater understanding... if he really did want to disinvite those bishops who threatened the unity of the Communion and the comprehensiveness of its "conversations", then he ought not to have started with Marty Minns or John-David Schofield or Ed Salmon -- or even Gene Robinson. He ought to have started with himself!


But, of course, that won't happen. For Lambeth isn't about including or hearing everyone. Only about hearing those who Williams -- who already sabotaged the Windsor Report and ignored the primates councils -- decides are worth hearing.

For it seems that what Williams is after is not meetings or councils or statements or even conversations which reflect the will of the Anglican Communion as a whole -- rather he is attempting (by sabotaging Windsor, by ignoring the primates, by selective invitations to Lambeth, by inchoate indaba groups) to create a "Anglican Communion" which will parrot back to him what he has already decided he wants to hear... no doubt looking forward to the time when what he says "as an office holder" will be the same as what he believes as an individual.

Lambeth 1 -- Dancing and Damnation

With the Lambeth Conference officially underway, perhaps it's time to take a quick look at the news and quotes coming from across the pond to get a sense of which way the wind is blowing.

One of the biggest stories in the press seems to be the liturgical dance. "Shindig begins with ... half-naked dancers" the Times reports:

The gospel reading about the uprooting of weeds was preceded by a troupe of Melanesian dancers, wearing grass skirts and playing pan pipes. This seemed to have the desired effect of loosening up the atmosphere.

and the BBC reporter is shocked to discover, afterwards, that these were "monks and nuns" performing:

It was a shock afterwards to see the dancers, bare-breasted in the case of the men, in white shifts for the women, carrying their instruments, and dressed in their daywear as monks and nuns.

Personally, I've never been too enthralled with liturgical dance, but, hey, that's a question of taste, not theology. And I know nothing about the theology (either good or bad) of this Melanesian Brotherhood, though it sounds as if they may well provide an effective witness.


Though multiculturalism should not be of concern to Christians (the Church was multicultural from the day of her birth on Pentecost after all!), the growing multi- and polytheism (and, of course, atheism) rampant in much of the Anglican communion should be. The sermon was preached by a buddy of archbishop Williams (whom Williams selected to preach): bishop de Chicera of Sri Lanka, who, after calling on bishops to hold on to the "crux of Anglican identity and spirituality", gave his own demonstration of that "holding on" by concluding his sermon with a Buddhist chant, invoking (as bishop Duncan put it) "something other than the God we know." (Update: there appears to be some confusion about whether or not the chant was actually Buddhist. I guess we can assume that it was, if not clearly not Christian, at least not clearly Christian or, at best, Christian unclearly!)

Nor was this sermon's poly-religious overtones its only troubling sign for the upcoming Conference. For, yet again, that same-old same-old nonsense of sacrificing Scriptural integrity for institutional unity was trotted out: "I suggest we stay together and grow from our common heritage, regardless of our differences." You got it -- all we need to keep Anglicanism united is a common heritage. Doesn't matter if we're now Buddhists or Muslims or Druids or atheists. We've got a common heritage... so that makes us the Anglican Communion. Woo-hoo!

And, of course, in addition to this "common heritage" which overcomes our "differences" we are supposed to celebrate our "unity in diversity". De Chicera said "Here my dear sisters and brothers is an insight of what the Church is called to be: an inclusive communion, where there is space equally for everyone and anyone, regardless of colour, gender, ability, sexual orientation. Unity in diversity is a cherished Anglican tradition." In other words, it would seem that, according to this bishop, is a GOOD thing we have such diverse religions and moralities in the so-called Anglican Communion... especially since our "common heritage" is more than enough to provide the unity in that diversity. No wonder he figured he'd throw some Buddhism into his address. (Could have been worse... could have been Karl Marx and liberation "theology"!) And he's not the only one... PEcUSA's Top Kate says, likewise, "I think there is a long heritage that holds us together. There is a great passion for unity -- not necessarily uniformity."


I swear, it starts to read like a Monty Python sketch. It would be just funny if it weren't for the fact that some people -- some episcopal leaders! -- take it seriously... so seriously that they threaten the eternal salvation of both themselves and their flocks. Of course, though the right-thinking among us recognize such religious incoherence as both risible and damnable, folks like bishop Alexander of Atlanta find it moving and uplifting. Probably because he has very similar views... nothing like hearing your own heresies and apostasies preached back at you to give you that warm, fuzzy feeling on a Sunday morning!

For my part, I'll happily put on a grass skirt, beat liturgical bongos, and join the dancing procession if it means I don't have to join the apostates in their damning theological relativism!