Fine tuning the guest list?
The Telegraph published a report describing speculation that the Archbishop of Canterbury may fine tune his strategy of using the 2008 Lambeth conference to promote Anglican unity. The story is that he may choose not to invite-- and even dis-invite-- Bishops who have an agenda that is too much at odds with his desire to maintain the unity of the Anglican Communion.
Jonathan Petre writes that
(Dr. Williams) has now indicated that he is prepared to scrutinise controversial bishops he had already invited if there is evidence that they are unwilling to compromise their views.The Archbishop will seek assurances that they can abide by the broad principles of the Windsor Report, but he has not ruled out barring them from the three-week conference.
The headline says that "pro-gay" bishops are "targetted," but the body of the report makes it clear that it is not that simple.
Insiders point out, however, that Dr Williams could also target hardliners if he believes they are breaching guidelines against bishops intervening in foreign dioceses, as some Africans have done.If he decides to take the drastic step of withdrawing the invitation to bishops on either the liberal or conservative wing, he will risk a barrage of criticism and could provoke further damaging boycotts.
The theory is that Williams can deal with the pressure from conservatives to punish wayward provinces by focusing instead on individual bishops. It might be deemed more palatable to exclude individual bishops. He has earlier said that he could withdraw invitations, so it seems he has reserved the right to act in this way. But the approach could backfire if enough invited bishops (or those whose invitations remain valid) decide to stay away in solidarity with an excluded bishop.
Read: The Telegraph: Jonathan Petre- Dr Rowan Williams to target pro-gay bishops
Over on T19, Kendall Harmon gave some good advice after his post about this very story:
Andrew Gerns
Posted by ATGerns![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
November 19, 2007 9:15 AM
Wouldn't it be much better if the ABC simply invited ALL bishops in good standing in their respective provinces?
Posted by Christopher Worthley![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
November 19, 2007 9:55 AM
I don't think this report is worth getting worked up about. Although lots of people in the Anglican blogosphere do seem to be worked up about it. But I wonder whether people are worked up about the report, or whether they are simply worked up in general, and the report, speculative and second-hand as it is, simply becomes an excuse for blowing off steam in the direction of the opposition.
Blogs covering Anglican issues are increasingly becoming places for people to snarl at one another. I don't entirely object to snarling when it is enlivened by wit or supported by a rigorous argument, and I've certainly done my share of it. But Anglican snarling is repetitive. It's as though a comedian told the same audience the same jokes every day and expected people to keep laughing at them.
I get the sense of a dam holding back resevoirs of animus, some of which must be released at regular intervals. Speculative news reports and misidentified photographs become the pretext under which animus, tricked up as commentary, is released.
I think spirited arguments help reveal the truth. But I don't think that what we in the Anglican blogosphere are having now, in most instances, rises to the level of argument.
Posted by Jim Naughton![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
November 19, 2007 11:33 AM