Our absenting-minded Archbishop

While I was schussing down the slopes of Serre Chevalier, a world away from the unending bad dream of contemporary Anglican polity, one of my absolute top favourite blogs, BabyBlueOnline, picked up Bishop Tom Wright's speech to Fulcrum where he said that the Archbishop of Canterbury had written to non-Windsor bishops suggesting they might wish to 'absent themselves' from Lambeth. These letters had been written with 'apostolic pain and heart-searching but also with apostolic necessity,' said Dr Wright. 'This is what he promised he would do, and he is doing it,' said the good Bishop of Durham. Well guess what. According to Lambeth Palace, he hasn't written any such letters. He might have 'promised' to do it but he hasn't done it. Yet.

As to whether these letters will indeed be sent, 'we are not in a position to say,' a spokesman told me today. Full correspondence and note of my subsequent interview with Bishop Tom below. I said to Bp Tom: 'It is quite normal for journalists to be dumped in it in this way by Lambeth, but I've not seen it done like this to a Bishop before.' (Jeffrey John wasn't a bishop when he was told one thing and then the opposite.) 'I don't mind,' said Bishop Tom, wisely refusing to tell The Times what he surely must feel even a little bit about the current incumbent at Lambeth. This was minutes before stepping on a flight to New York to promote his new book, 'Surprised by Hope'. We all would be, Bishop. Very surprised indeed. Not much of that around at the moment, is there, and even less today.

Here is the relevant passage from Bishop Tom's speech to Fulcrum.

'When the Archbishop issued his invitations, he made it clear as I said that their basis was Windsor and the Covenant as the tools to shape our future common life. That invitation was issued only three months after the remarkable joint statement from the Primates issued in Tanzania in February 2007. After a summer and autumn of various tangled and unsatisfactory events, the Archbishop then wrote an Advent pastoral letter in which he reiterated the terms of his initial invitation and declared that he would be writing to those bishops who might be thought particularly unsympathetic to Windsor and the Covenant to ask them whether they were really prepared to build on this dual foundation. Those letters, I understand, are in the post as we speak, written with apostolic pain and heart-searching but also with apostolic necessity. I am well aware that many will say this is far too little, far too late - just as many others will be livid to think that the Archbishop, having already not invited Gene Robinson to Lambeth, should be suggesting that some others might absent themselves as well. But this is what he promised he would do, and he is doing it. If I know anything about anything, I know that he deserves our prayers at this most difficult and fraught moment in the run-up to Lambeth itself.'

Here's how BabyBlue interpreted it:

'According to Bishop Wright, the letter is being sent to those whom Rowan Williams has identified as being "particularly unsympathetic to Windsor and the Covenant." Bishop Wright goes on to state that if these bishops are not ready to support Windsor and the Covenant, they should "absent themselves" from the Lambeth Conference.

'This is British-style way of saying that these bishops - unless they can prove they will turn around and support Windsor and the Covenant - are now not welcome at Lambeth. Those bishops might as well, unless they can state otherwise, stay home. Unless they want to have some of this for dinner.

'Those letters, according to Bishop Wright, are in the mail. Right now.'

Seems reasonable to me.

I arrive at work this morning to a dozen or so emails asking if I have any inside info on this. So I sighed, put thoughts of sun and snow out of my head, set to and hit the phones.

Cue the inevitable denial from Lambeth Palace.

Ed Greenall, assistant to the press secretary, emailed: 'I understand you called regarding the Bishop of Durham’s Fulcrum lecture and, as the Archbishop said in his Advent letter, he intends to be “in direct contact with those who have expressed unease about this, so as to try and clarify how deep their difficulties go with accepting or adopting the Conference's agenda.” As far as I am aware things have not gone as far as the Bishop of Durham suggests in his Fulcrum lecture, and I believe that no letters have yet been sent.'

When I asked for further clarification as to the precise meaning of the 'yet' in that sentence, Ed emailed me again: 'No letters have yet been sent. As for when and whether they will be, we are not in a position to say.'

So I telephoned Bishop Tom to ask him how he felt at being, well, dumped in it like this. And simply to try and find out what is going on.

He drew my attention to this paragraph in the Archbishop's Advent Letter:

Rowan Williams, who today is receiving a gold medal from Cymmrodorion for his contributions to religious scholarship and to Wales, wrote: 'I have underlined in my letter of invitation that acceptance of the invitation must be taken as implying willingness to work with those aspects of the Conference's agenda that relate to implementing the recommendations of Windsor, including the development of a Covenant.  The Conference needs of course to be a place where diversity of opinion can be expressed, and there is no intention to foreclose the discussion – for example – of what sort of Covenant document is needed.  But I believe we need to be able to take for granted a certain level of willingness to follow through the question of how we avoid the present degree of damaging and draining tension arising again.  I intend to be in direct contact with those who have expressed unease about this, so as to try and clarify how deep their difficulties go with accepting or adopting the Conference's agenda.'

But Bishop Tom also said that he had been told last week that the letters were going out. He told me: 'I may have got the timing wrong. If so, that is purely a misunderstanding between me and the people I talk to. The Archbishop promised in his Advent Letter that he would send some letters to people about certain things. He's repeatedly said that was going to happen. It is something that was promised last December. The Archbishop was waiting for the Joint Standing Committee to meet.'

[Incidentally, a source tells me that at one of these recent committee meetings at St Andrew's House, one KJS whiled away the boring hours by doing her needle-point. I stand willing and hopeful of being corrected on this, because the thought that this source might just have been telling the truth is almost beyond bearing. Let's pray my source was just enjoying a bit of mischievous embroidery.... ha ha.]

Anyway, back to Bp Tom.

Feeling a little like an American advocate, and apologising afterwards, I quizzed him further on the LamPal response to my enquiry.

'I can only go by what I was told last week,' he said. 'I know what I heard, I know what I said. If people have changed their mind, they have changed their mind, but I rather doubt it.'

Not a doubting Tom then.

But forgive me, Bishop, if I do dare to doubt.

Do you know what I hope? I hope - indeed pray - that everyone just turns up, whether invited or not. Then they'll be able to fill those 200 empty rooms at Kent University. And then we'll have a story to write this summer. Because otherwise, at the rate it is going, Lambeth 2008 is going to be the biggest non-event ever, the non-event that is perhaps precisely what is desired by Lambeth Palace.

Comments

[J Pearce]

Pop Quiz Answer:

Err..because they're a Christian?

Not the greatest appreciators of irony, either, by the looks of it...

[saint]

Pop quiz: Why is there always someone who wants to stop others having a laugh.

[saint]

Er, J Pearce, I was actually referring to you.

In

In the humourless stakes (never mind your particularly novel view of church history), you surpass even the most virulent lapsed Catholic.

Sinatra at least got the idiocy of Mrs Robinson when he recorded that song in 1969, even though he did not return to the Catholic faith of his youth until after his mother's death in the 70s. And, unlike you who resent your taxes going to anyone else but you, Sinatra, despite his well-catalogued faults, also proved to be a rather generous philanthropist.

[J Pearce]

"Oh I dunno J Pearce (14:47:53), I can't say I've ever met a bitter, self-centred, anti-religionist, secular humanist with a sense of humour."

Really? Clearly you don't get out enough. They're everywhere!

Frank Sinatra, though. I mean, come on!

[saint]

Oh I dunno J Pearce (14:47:53), I can't say I've ever met a bitter, self-centred, anti-religionist, secular humanist with a sense of humour.

[Malcolm+]

Perhaps, "Saint," were you to stop tossing about unfounded accusations of assorted heresies based on no evidence, then the victims of your venom would feel no need to point out that you are a serial slanderer.
____________________________________

I call the idea of the covenant "idiotic" because it can accomplish nothing.

If Anglicans can meet together, no covenant is required.

If Anglicans cannot meet together, no covenant will suffice to repair the broken relationship.

Thus, it is a great deal of effort that a) is unlikely to succeed and b) even if it succeeded would accomplish nothing.

[J Pearce]

I was not aware that repeating Simon & Garfunkel lyrics verbatim constituted humour in Christian circles.

Or indeed quoting Frank Sinatra.

Bless. What a quaint little world!

[Dr. Mabuse]

Rather than Mme Defarge, who knitted, the historic figure who came to my mind was Mary, Queen of Scots. She was reported to do needlework during meetings with her council. And she was another woman who pretty much botched everything she put her hand to (except the needlework, which was exquisite).

[saint]

You could be right Oliver, but if Wright is off to promote his latest book, Williams must have everything in the M.E. under control.

Also, seriously, a study to be "better informed"(like we don't know what is going on? Williams really should stop avoiding the internet) and English classes may be fine but is not really going to help say, Iraqi Christians like this, NOW.

You are better off lobbying your government for visas - even temporary ones - for Iraqi Christians fleeing the violence (especially those who endanger their lives by working for Coalition troops), and for Britain to stay the course in helping restore security and order in Iraq. There is much churches could do too, but it's not writing reports.

As for Lebanon, Palestine etc, again, until elements within the church stop fraternizing much less sympathizing with thugs and terrorists from organisations ranging from Hezbollah to Fatah and Hamas, fat chance an English lesson will help bring peace in the M.E.

Sorry to be so cynical, but no good comes from those who fail to make a stand.

[saint]

Not indecorous (17:51:25), quite proper.

Except I am sure the sounds of silence will only be broken by whiny little blood-suckers. For a proper finale, bring mozzie zapper.

[saint]

Oh poor Malcolm-in-a-Muddle, who thinks a covenant "idiotic"
One shudders to think what sort of words you pronounce over Communion.

Remind me again, who or what are you?

You hide behind Ruth and want her to do your dirty censorial work - what has she ever done to you, God only knows. Was she born your slave perhaps?

You put the noose around Williams neck, ready to execute him for the end of the Anglican Communion dare others not subscribe to your demands. Who are you again? Are you sure you're not one of those imperial Americans all those other luvvies like you like to tell us about?

I would happily address Williams, for all his imperfections and my own disagreement with some of his views/actions as Bishop. Even Wright.

I am struggling to think how I should address you. I wonder what that + after your name would mean.

[Stephen Clark]

I'm glad it caused so much furore. At least it points to the fact that there is an issue i.e. that the use of titles is done with intent. And that those who deliberately choose to refer to people by inappropriate titles are doing so with intent, often, it would seem malicious.
In polite, intelligent, respectful society one might have thought it appropriate to address people by the title they want, thus I prefer to be styled Fr Stephen rather than Mr Clark. But I don't give a fig.
Most people in our parish call be Stephen!
But let's not pretend that when we throw this stuff around that we are being respectful or intelligent.
But let our malice stand for what it is, deep offence to many people.

[David Palmer]

Dear All,

You must forgive the directness of my antipodean colleague, saint, he/she is tangling with the most obnoxious group of atheists and God haters on Barney Zwartz' 'The Religious Write' on The Age website, compared to whom J Pearce, George Parr, Malcolm+ are just a box of marshmellows

PS Ruth, apropos of your "material deleted here", Barney simply inserts 'snip!

[Oliver Nicholson]

Could it be that Dr. Williams was too busy putting together his thoughts on the tragedy of Christians in Iraq and the Levant (on which see http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1751) to send out these letters ? I leave it to you to decide which problem is more important.
The only newspaper where i have seen this important initiative of the Archbishop reported is the Torygraph, and there in such a way that it drew forth a body of comment that for vulgarity and ignorance would have disgraced Neanderthalers.

(thanks Oliver, good to hear from you and I do hope you will pay lots of return visits. I was scheduled to go to the Bible Lands event but was held up in the office writing about the Pope. But you are right, it is certainly worth a blog. The Mail covered it too. Ruth)

[Malcolm+]

Actionable. Read most of his posts, frankly. But in particular, his 14:11 post makes false and defamatory allegations about me.

In other words (edit as you feel necessary) he has "l-ed."

On the matter of the proper form of address for the Presiding Bishop. As I have said before, there is nothing per se wrong with calling her Mrs. Jefferts Schori. (That, BTW, is her name. Not "Mrs. Schori.") Or with calling her Katharine. Mad Priest affectionately calls her "Katharine Zeta Schori.

The problem with it is when it is used in contrast to references to Bishop Duncan, Archbishop Akinola etc. Then it still isn't wrong - merely childish.

[saint]

"Unless of course there is a dramatic intervention at the altar, as in The Graduate, and Dr Schori intervenes to sweep Gene away in a passing bus...."

This is not an image to be presented with while drinking coffee.

*wipes screen*

[John B. Chilton]

It's no secret that KJS does knitting and needlepoint. And is an instrument-rated pilot and oceanographer. And runner. Sounds pretty well rounded as priests go.

For example:
http://www.allsaints-pas.org/transcripts/JEB%206-25-06%20Rector's%20Forum.pdf

[saint]

Malcolm with the + after his name puffs up his chest and assumes the censorial position.

Racking my brain for memories of Malcolm with the plus sign. Oh why bother googling. Being such a litigous minded soul, unfamiliar with UK jurisprudence, he's probably American. And not good guy American like all those Americans who have been an immeasurable force for good in the world, more like floppy left, flaccid, jelly-baby American who likes to muzzle... poor poppet could even be Canadian.

[John]

And it would be entirely indecorous to suggest that we might all join in a chorus, as the bus heads for the sunset, of:

"Hello, darkness, my old friend..."

[John]

You are right to point out, saint, that Gene is currently shacked up with Mark, not "married". But he has announced that he is looking forward to being a "June bride", so by the time Lambeth kicks off, they will truly be on honeymoon.

Unless of course there is a dramatic intervention at the altar, as in The Graduate, and Dr Schori intervenes to sweep Gene away in a passing bus....

[saint]

Ruth, you censored SINATRA!!!!!!!!

That's SACRILEGE!

(context, dear saint, is everything. rg)

[saint]

My apologies Ruth, I didn't think commenters had to follow the Times style guide. If I get me one of these, will you call me reverend with a capital R? (why do I suspect some get theirshere.

In any case, Mr Schori is a retired mathematician (a topologist). Back in 2006, he lived in Nevada, she in New York. He occasionally pops up with her on overseas trips (e.g at Easter in Jerusalem) but it is the case that"made sense" he and his wife have two residences.

Ms Schori makes a big deal about not standing on ceremony and her mignons fawn about how she answers the phone "hello this is Katharine" so perhaps I should be true to my Aussie roots and dispense not just with titles but also with names and use a nickname instead. Perhaps, out of reverence, I should use one of her many nicknames in the States. How about "Squid Woman"?

(rg writes: for more info on the Schoris living arrangements, see: http://marriage.about.com/od/celebritymarriages/p/kschori.htm

And no, of course commentators do not have to follow Times style. I got monstered once by someone on this blog merely for calling her Bishop Schori. As for answering the phone so casually to callers, her PR's won't even respond to my messages, so frankly that bit of what her minders say is nonsense.)

[Malcolm+]

I am tempted to respond to the unholy "Saint" in kind, but I have a moral objection.

Ruth, I suggest you do edit the antiSaint's slanders. I'm not aware of UK jurisprudence, but in many places they very fact of having allowed them to stand would open you to legal liability should anyone take the sort of action his viscious and hateful comments deserve.

(rg writes: is there something I've missed that you think actionable? ps you can't use the 'l' word, that is notoriously actionable!))

[J Pearce]

"Ruth is it too much to ask you to use your editorial independence, to stop the impudence of the Presiding Bishop being referred to by the obviously derogatory title of Mrs Schori."

No offence, but I would take issue with this. As someone who has absolutely no truck with the supposedly "elevated status" of religious office, I would wish to call said holders of office anything I damn well pleased - seeing as their vaunted "credentials" mean jack all to me.

(this isn't to say I would refrain from calling them "Bishop", just that I would not be impugning them personally if I chose not to use that particular term of reference)

Having said that, please do all carry on with the deliciously spiteful infighting, it makes for a spiffingly entertaining read.

[saint]

Oh and yes, cheap shot at Bishop Robinson. He doesn't get married til June so no Mrs Robinson until then. Heavens, people might think the bishop codones living in sin!

(Yes imagine the little ditty as the June bride minces down the aisle, where you too get to sing some more Ruth:

And here’s to you, Mrs. Robinson
Jesus loves you more than you will know
(Wo wo wo)
God bless you, please Mrs. Robinson
Heaven holds a place for those who pray
(Hey hey hey – hey hey hey)

We’d like to know a little bit about you for our files
We’d like to help you learn to help yourself
Look around you, all you see are sympathetic eyes
Stroll around the grounds until you feel at home

And here’ to you, Mrs. Robinson
Jesus loves you more than you will know
(Wo wo wo)
God bless you, please Mrs. Robinson
Heaven holds a place for those who pray
(Hey hey hey – hey hey hey)

Hide it in a hiding place where no one ever goes
Put it in your pantry with your cupcakes
It’s a little secret, just the Robinson’s affair
Most of all you’ve got to hide it from the kids

Coo coo ca choo, Mrs. Robinson
Jesus loves you more than you will know
(Wo wo wo)
God bless you, please Mrs. Robinson
Heaven holds a place for those who pray
(Hey hey hey – hey hey hey)

Although personally I prefer the Sinatra version:

The PTA, Mrs. Robinson, Won't okay the way you do your thing Ding ding ding. (rg writes: great to have you contributing saint, you're cheering all our days. just thought it wise to delete the last line. rg) Boo hoo hoo, woo woo woo.

[John]

Calm down, Mr Clark, blogs at The Times are not sponsored by 815.

(Are they, Ruth?)

[saint]

Yes Ruth, please do use your editorial independence to muzzle the apostates. Any help with co-opting everyone into the cult would be much appreciated. Afrer all, cult membership is mandatory for all.

(rg writes: material deleted here - no disrespect intended saint - but I am not sure about the accuracy of those allegations about KJS. Regarding clergy titles, it is not a question of muzzling anyone. It is a question of Times style. Rev Chris Jones is at second mention Mr Jones, or Ms or Mrs if a woman. Bishop Chris Jones is always that at first mention and Bishop Jones or Dr Jones second time round if they have a degree.)

BTW, I think I have come across Malcolm with a + after his name before, but my apologies for not remembering. Is he the one whose parish prayer is this?

O purple polity, who art the source and justification for my sin, I entreat you (else I'll sub-poena you) to yield yourself to me, and grant me my full and wilful self in order to fall into apostasy, so that mine will be the kingdom, and the power and the keys to hell, forever and ever. Amen.

[Stephen Marsden]

'Cheap shot made at Bishop Robinson and his husband'

This would be the same Bishop Robinson, would it, who remarked that he had always 'wanted to be a June bride'? I fear that he deserves all he gets.

Why on earth would anyone think it impudent to refer to Mr Schori's wife as Mrs Schori? (Personally, I am unable to refer to her as a bishop, for the simple reason that, in common with the overwhelming majority of Christians, I do not believe that she is one!)

[Stephen Clark]

Let alone the cheap shot made at Bishop Robinson and his husband!

[Stephen Clark]

Ruth is it too much to ask you to use your editorial independence, to stop the impudence of the Presiding Bishop being referred to by the obviously derogatory title of Mrs Schori.

(I'll try. rg)

[Malcolm+]

1) Such a sad life you must lead, RNW+, if the best satire you can offer is to string together slanders.

2) RNW's post and Saint's post are clear examples of the confusion of ocular speck with ocular mote. Or perhaps the colocation of cranium and rectum.

[saint]

You're welcome Ruth. And welcome back.

Oh and if Bishop Wright ever rereads this post, I am sure he is aware that his American and Canadian friends have not just found themselves "vilified, attacked and undermined by ecclesiastical authority figures [what? don't want to recognise these figures as fellow Anglicans?] who seem to have lost all grip on the gospel of Jesus Christ and to be eager only for lawsuits and property squabbles."

The Anglicans in the West - including here in Australia - seem to be hell bent on becoming nothing more than "a cult for upscale Western sodomites and a few attendant fetishists", to quote one journalist.

And when one part of the body is sick, the whole body suffers, as I am sure his African friends will also tell him.

Many are still looking for men with enough balls to perform a life saving amputation.

:-O

[RNW+]

My pardon. It seems my thesauritical reach exceeded my accurate grasp. I meant "marine invertebrates", and certainly no disrespect to the most honourable services of the Royal Navy or the USN.

[RNW+]

As I recall, Mrs Schori, like her "spiritual mother" Mme Defarge, knits during meetings at which the doom of others is decided (the "debate" being a foregone conclusion). But I could be in error on this. If she does embroider, it would be fascinating to view a collection of her completed samplers, cushions, etc, to see what inspirational messages they might display: "Question Authority - except Mine." "If you can't say something true about the Faith, come sit by me." "Orthodox are simply a tedious bunch of people who haven't the smallest idea how to surrender, nor the vaguest notion when to leave.... their property behind." I wonder if the borders are the traditional grapes and wheat, or roses and violets, or if they are, hearkening back to her true calling, squid and other maritime invertebrates, or perhaps even clerical invertebrates. Ah, the mind does wander as it wonders about the possibilities. But it's perhaps the kindest image I have had of her to date.

[John]

Lambeth won't be a non-event: Mr & Mrs Gene Robinson will be there, with lots of photo opportunities.

See you there, Ruth.

[saint]

Ah Ruth, I would have wanted you to query this part of Bp Wright's speech which has alternatively confused me and amused me: "But I do have to say, as well, that these situations have been exploited by those who have long wanted to shift the balance of power in the Anglican Communion and who have used this awful situation as an opportunity to do so."

Power? It's about power and balance of power? Who does he think has the balance of power now? Where does the balance of power properly belong? Who determines that and how?

(I can't help laughing at this because Williams keeps saying that he's not a Pope and I suspect that many in the Anglican Communion are thanking God for that while thinking - given all the dithering and obfuscation that comes out of Canterbury - boy do we know that)

rg writes: thank you for challenging me in such a charming way.

[NBS]

Dang. Now I have the Marvelettes stuck in my head:

Stop)
Oh yes, wait a minute Mister Postman
(Wait)
Wait Mister Postman

Please Mister Postman, look and see
(Oh yeah)
If there's a letter in your bag for me
(Please, Please Mister Postman)
Why's it takin' such a long time
(Oh yeah)
For me to hear from that boy of mine

(rg writes: I can't stop singing to myself: 'I'm going to sit right down and write myself a letter.....'

[Malcolm+]

If Rowan intends to make suppoort for the idiotic Covenant a condition for Lambeth attendance, then Rowan and Rowan alone is responsible for the end of the Anglican Communion.

[Stephen Marsden]

Welcome back, Ruth.

OK, so the letters haven't YET been sent.

But they're going to be, right?

What's the betting that +John-David Schofield, the real Bishop of San Joaquin DOESN'T get one? After all, he's nothing if not Windsor compliant!

(No need to keep pressing LamPal on this one, Ruth; you'll know when they arrive by the howls of anguish in the blogosphere.)