Someone's put a spin on me!

In his interesting analysis of my last post, Pluralist has put a good 'spin' on this pic that I quite liked. So I just thought it worth updating with this email that Bishop Wright felt moved to send me from a hotel at Heathrow last night, having read that last post himself.

'Hi Ruth, Tom Wright here from hotel in Heathrow,' he wrote.'I had understood that the letters were going out at the weekend. That seems to have been delayed a day or two. No skullduggery involved either at Lambeth or with me -- just a lot of people trying to do their best.'

It is probably quickest to reply here. Dear Bp Tom, I never suspected you for an instant of 'skullduggery'. But what puzzles me, if that is the case, is why couldn't Lambeth simply say so themselves? Yrs Ruth

See Thinking Anglicans for a comprehensive set of links and for some good comments on the latest in the 'letters' saga.

Credit also to Mark Harris for his suggestion of what the lucky recipients might wish to do with said letters, if they ever indeed arrive. Turn them into paper aeroplanes. Use them to dispose of chewing gum. Or my favourite - mark them 'return to sender' and make the Post Office pay for sending them back. That's what I do with unsolicited mail, and it seems to work.

The MCU notes that this is the first Lambeth conference at which participants are asked to indicate agreement on a subject before it is discussed, and on which agreement the invitations are conditional.

Oh it's good to be back!

Comments

[Margaret]

I found this quote an interesting spin as well:

"The MCU notes that this is the first Lambeth conference at which participants are asked to indicate agreement on a subject before it is discussed, and on which agreement the invitations are conditional."

I had thought (but correct me if I am wrong) the reason that the subject is not up for discussion is that it was discussed at the 1998 Lambeth Conference, overwhelmingly agreed, and that the ABC had subsequently decided after extensive discussions with other primates that there was no willingness to revisit the decision taken in 1998 - and that he released a statement to that effect.

So it is not, as the spin "before it is discussed" suggests, that the matter is being suppressed, but rather that the mind of the communion was decided at the last conference, and extensive research had lead to the conclusion that this prior discussion did not need to be repeated.

[Malcolm+]

Since the silly idea of a Covenant was not even thought of in 1998, I guess you'd be wrong then, Margaret.

[Douglas A. Kerr]

Many of we Scots believe that the Welsh should not be allowed to tinker with complicated mechanisms.

[John]

The MCU is completely confused, as always, and Margaret above states the matter with complete accuracy: the issue was debated and voted upon conclusively at the last Lambeth Conference.

Very wisely the Archbishop has decided not to keep debating it again and again but to move on.

Those who can't cope with having lost that argument need not bother coming to Lambeth this year, since it is not open for discussion or reopening.

"Lambeth locuta: causa finita".

[Malcolm+]

How can the matter of an Anglican Covenant have been "debated and voted upon conclusively at the last Lambeth Conference" when the very idea of an Anglican Covenant did not exist until the release of the Windsor Report in 2004?

Of course, even if the 1998 Lambeth managed to overcome the vagaries of the space-time continuum as John and Margaret suggest, Lambeth Conferences do not have any juridical authority over the governance of the Churches of the Communion.

Your bizarre revisionism is so deeply ingrained you seem incapable of even noticing when your talking utter bunkum.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

The last Lambeth Conference voted conclusively at section 1.10 on the issue of human sexuality, and there are no plans to revisit that issue.

Malcolm as usual tries to obfuscate the discussion since he can't get his own way, but the fact is that the 1998 Lambeth Conference declared the mind of the Anglican Communion, and revisionist provinces like his in Canada are not going to get their own way.

Those who are being invited to Lambeth are being made aware that this will not be like an ECUSA General Convention, at which anything goes (and usually does) but a Conference whose membership is predicated upon certain agreed norms.

It is entirely voluntary. If you choose not to sign up to what the Anglican Communion believes, you are free to go your own way. The Conference is for those who are committed to a common life based on the teaching of previous Conferences - including 1998 and Resolution 1.10.

The proposed Covenant simply embodies that common life defined by reference of Anglican teaching and polity, of which the decennial Lambeth Conferences, including 1998, form part. Malcolm has chosen to reject that, which he is entirely free to do. Equally he does not have liberty to impose his alternative religion on the rest of us.

[Malcolm+]

Alan is entitled to pretend that Lambeth Conferences have juridical authority on the life of the Communion. That does not make it true.

Alan is entitled to pretend that Lambeth resolutions can never be revisited. That does not make it true. (Contraception anyone?)

But then, the "conservative" position requires distortions, slanders, caricatures and arbitrary declaration of new rules in order to maintain anything vaguely resembling coherence.

[David Cohen]

Malcolm, do try to remember that this is not the "Thinking" Anglicans blog!

The planning group for Lambeth has decided as a matter of fact not to revisit Resolution 1.10 of Lambeth 1998. You don't like that? Tough. Get a grip on reality.

You disagree with Resolution 1.10? Perhaps, in the unfortunate event that you are made a bishop, you can raise it at a future Lambeth Conference. Until then, tough.

Juridical? I'm a lawyer and I know what that means. It seems you don't. Get an education.

[saint]

Pop quiz!

How many times has Malcolm-plus thrown the word 'slander' around on this blog?

Why does Malcolm-plus persist in hanging about a chaotic church with all these incoherent people?

[Malcolm+]

Do you have the first idea what you're talking about David? Apparently not.

No one on the "liberal" side of the question has raised any objection to the fact that 1998 1.10 isn't being reopened for discussion. (I actually think that the "no resolutions" agenda was one of the few bright decisions Rowan Williams has made in the midst of this sorry mess.)

In fact, it is the "conservatives" who have their knickers in a twist over that. Indeed, that is given as one of the reasons for the Lambeth boycott organized by the usual suspects.

The precondition under discussion is not about 1998 1.10, but rather the Anglican Covenant, and the noises from Canterbury and Durham that support for this idea will be an effective precondition to participating in Lambeth.

Now, despite the delusional fantasies of Margaret, John, Alan and you, the idea of an Anglican Covenant was NOT discussed and agreed at Lambeth 1998 because the idea of an Anglican Covenant was not put forward until 2004.

I'm sorry to cloud the issue with facts, David, but there you are. You are entitled to your own ill-informed opinions. You are not entitled to make up your own facts.

Finally, despite the misleading revisionism of so many "conservatives," the Lambeth Conference does NOT have the authority to impose ANYTHING on ANY member province of the Communion. Indeed, the first several Lambeth Conferences expressly rejected attempts to turn the decennial gatherings into an "Anglican Court of Appeal."

Lambeth resolutions do not, nor have they ever, represented the required doctrinal positions of the member churches of the Communion. They represent the collective / majority opinion of the bishops present. The only authority they have is the moral authority of the bishops collectively.

I realize that you and others wish Lambeth were some sort of Anglican Curia (or perhaps even some sort of Anglican Inquisition). It isn't.

[J Pearce]

"Juridical? I'm a lawyer and I know what that means. It seems you don't. Get an education."

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what passes for educated, considered argument in legal circles these days.

[David Cohen]

You do live on a cloud of your own delusions, Malcolm-plus (thank you, saint, for that).

I think you were the first to imagine that anyone might imagine that the Covenant was a 1998 development, but what you imagine seems then to become, according to your reckoning, a fact. How wonderfully Humpty-Dumpty!

Laws come in a wonderful variety, and not all of them require a national legislature. If a club decides to impose membership requirements, and you don't conform, then tough. If you are not invited to the Lambeth Conference because in the opinion of its members you are no longer Anglican, then it's the same result.

The formerly Anglican Church of Canada has made it plain that it has no intention of conforming to the definition of Anglican which the Covenant will effect, and there will be no court of appeal. The only way back will be repentance and the restoration of orthodox doctrine.

[Malcolm+]

Making it up as you go along David?

The possibility of Lambeth Conferences having authority to settle questions has been discussed a number of times. On every occasion it has been rejected.

The 1998 Conference passed several resolutions. One clause of one resolution spoke to this issue. It expressed the mind of those at the meeting. That is all, as much as you historical revisionists would like to pretend otherwise.

The "condition" that was being discussed wrt attendance at Lambeth 08 was NOT ascription to Lambeth 1998 1.10, but rather to a specific recommendation of a subsequent report.

Neither 1998 1.10 nor any other resolution will be revisited at this Lambeth. Cantuar has been clear on that. It is not the Liberals that are screaming about this. It is the pretendy "conservatives" who are all a-twitter about how Lambeth needs to have votes on this issue.

Stop m,aking up facts, David. It's unseemly.

Oh, and "Saint:" If you stop slandering people, I'll stop calling you a slanderer.

[David Cohen]

Dear Malcolm-minus,

The teaching authority of Anglicanism (a form of law, dear boy) has always been found in its synods, since at least the Synod of Whitby. Lambeth Conferences have pronounced on (inter alia) contraception and the ordination of women, as well as homosexuality.

I would be very surprised indeed if you were to assert, in that cloud-cuckoo-land of yours, that Anglicans should not heed what was decided about contraception and the ordination of women. Lambeth 1998's resolution 1.10 has similar authority.

Hint: it's not orthodox Anglicans who want to revisit 1.10 but the likes of your very own Michael Ingham.

All this fantasist nonsense of yours no doubt goes down very well on "Thinking" Anglicans. But it does not make reality out of your fantasies.

[Malcolm+]

Nice try, David. Pity that your own delusions keep getting in the way.

It is a mater of FACT, easily confirmed, that the only people who have objected to Rowan's decision to have no resolutions on sexuality (either reconsidering or reaffirming 1.10) at this Lambeth have been the "conservatives," led by Akinola of Nigeria.

It is a FACT that successive Lambeth conferences have expressly and unambiguously rejected the concept of Lambeth resolutions being binding on the member Churches of the Communion. Those resolutions have never been rescinded.

I realize that you find the fact-based not to your liking. Tough.

[Mike Homfray]

No covenant which at least a third of the CofE could not sign up to will be passed. The idea that any Covenant will exclude all liberals is farcical - though it may be what the conservatives desire

But by then, most will be in their own Gasconist denomination in any case.

[David Cohen]

Duh! There is no wish on the part of conservatives to reconsider Lambeth 1.10 which is a clear statement of Christian teaching on the subject.

As for resolutions which declare resolutions not to be binding - which resolutions trump which resolutions?

The fact is that Lambeth 1.10 is on the record, as the standard for Christian teaching within the Anglican Communion on the subject of homosexuality.

Like it or leave it. Just don't pretend to be Anglican when you have become something else.

[Malcolm+]

David, it is probably pointless to try to reach into your delusions from here in fact-based reality, but here we go.

You claim (incorrectly) that the Archbishop of Canterbury has declared that 1.10 will not be reconsidered.

What he actually said is that there will be no resolutions on the sexuality issue.

The only people that have objected to this decision have been the "conservatives," led by Akinola.

Simply a fact, David.

Second, repeated Lambeth resolutions, never rescinded, have declared that the resolutions of the Conference are not binding.

Thus, 1,10 is not "the standard" for the Communion, but rather the considered opinion of a majority of people who happened to be there happen to believe the standard ought to be.

In demanding this artificial curialism, David, it is you that have departed from the Anglican tradition.

Don't let the door hit you too hard on the way out.

Oh, and you're welcome to return when the schismatics you've aligned with begin to divide into ever smaller purities.

[David Cohen]

Duh! Take another look at your logic, Mr French! If Lambeth resolutions have no binding power, how can a Lambeth Resolution declare that Lambeth resolutions have no binding power?

There will be no resolutions of any kind, including the sexuality issue, at this conference. That means that Lambeth 1.10 will NOT be reconsidered. It stands as the mind of the Communion.

You might care to note that in an episcopal church, the teaching of the bishops does have some authority, and when they are gathered in an episcopal synod, such as Whitby or Lambeth, it represents the voice of Anglicanism. At this Lambeth they will be seeking to embody that teaching in a new Covenant, which your province and others are trying to wriggle out of, and will almost certainly ignore.

What all this reveals is that you have effectively ceased to be Anglican. You no longer follow the principles set out in the Constitution of your own Church, and eventually this will lead to your isolation from the Anglican Communion, whether you imagine yourself to be "Anglican" or not.

[Malcolm+]

Do try to pay attention, David. If you make an effort to follow you won't seem such a prat.

Lambeth resolutions are non-binding. That's just a fact. It is your bizarre hodge-podge of empty verbiage which is illogical. You falsely maintain that Lambeth resolutions are binding. How then do you deal with the fact that repeated resolutions say precisely the opposite? Surely those resolutions must be binding too? This is the usual "conservative" hypocrisy that those resolutions (or clauses of resolutions) which you like are binding and all the rest can be ignored.

Despite what you say, it is NOT the liberals who have objected to the fact that sexuality will not be revoted this Lambeth. IT is the "conservative" schismatics - Akinola, Venables, Orombi et all. And they have specifically given this objection as a principle reason for their decision to boycott Lambeth 08.
,

[David Cohen]

Duh! The reason why 200 bishops, representing 70% of the Anglican Communion, will not be attending Lambeth, is because they see no point in doing so.

They no longer identify with an organisation which states its beliefs and then fails to abide by them.

Like many former members of the "Anglican" Church in Canada, who see that their former church no longer practises the faith which it is supposed to preach. It is counterfeit, a deceit.

Like so many Americans, who have left the failed denomination which was formerly PECUSA, for precisely the same reasons. A church which no longer maintains Christian teaching is an empty facade.

Lambeth 1.10 stands on the record as the official teaching of the Anglican Communion. It represents the Christian teaching of the great majority of Anglicans. If those who lead the Communion fail to uphold it then they are like those who refused to hear the gospel. The Lord advised us to wipe the dust from our feet as we walk away.

[J Pearce]

"This is the usual "conservative" hypocrisy that those resolutions (or clauses of resolutions) which you like are binding and all the rest can be ignored."

Isn't this just a shorthand description of the history of Christianity, full stop? "Ignore the awkward bits and exploit the bits we can get away with" might be another way of putting it.

It comes down to this - dogmatism is just totalitarianism in slightly better clothes. If "conservative" Christians were actually true to their own beliefs, then they'd still be sailing boats to look for the edge of the earth, denying Darwin and using tree roots instead of Anadin.

The schism over sexuality is not a religious issue - because we know from history that religions are more than happy to "amend" their "laws" when politically necessary. Rather, it is just that, a political issue - or more specifically, a power play - with rampant religious homophobia being the primary but unspoken motivator.

Mr Cohen might do well to cast his jaundiced eye over the history of the Church and its development, wake up, and smell the coffee. Either you're a flat earther, or your part of the 21st century. It speaks volumes that an apparent 70% of the Anglican Communion wants to relive the good ol' medieval days! What did Marx say about religion and opium again…?

[George Parr]

Well, it's going very well then David!

"Illogical bizarre hodge-podge of empty verbiage", "conservative hypocrisy", "delusions" versus fact-based reality, "artificial curialism", "making-up facts". And these are comments from members of the church.

In light of your assertions on another thread I, of course am in no position to assess how poorly you are arguing! But, they may just be on to you nevertheless...

[Malcolm+]

Lambeth resolutions are the collective or majority opinion of the bishops at a particulr Lambeth.

I know that you wish Lambeth resolutions had binding authority. Your wishing does not make it so.

The fact that a significant number of bishops are boycotting is because they know they've lost. Not only have they alienated the liberals, but the over-th-top antics of Akinola, Venables and others (but especially Akinola) have likewise alienated no small number of conservatives - such as the Bishop in Jerusalem.

By the way, your 70% figure is a complete fabrication. But then, your argument has never been long on facts.

[David Cohen]

It does look as though the NSS members here depend on some kind of NSS Official History Since 1066 And All That!

Dear Malcolm-minus, as you are always claiming exclusive possession of the "facts", then please, provide the numbers.

I look forward immensely to seeing the Canadian view of ecclesiastical mathematics.

[Malcolm+]

To date, Nigeria, Rwanda, Kenya and Uganda have indicated they'll not be coming. The Presiding Bishop of the Southern Cone has hinted he's not coming.

The math is very simple. That's a bunch of bishops. It's not 70% - a number you pulled out of the air.

I don't claim to have all the facts, David. It's just that I use facts when I argue. I've been following your posts, and the more you keep making up your own facts, completely divorced from reality, the more desperate and the more pathetic you appear.

[Malcolm+]

Even the "conservative" hard-liners are not claiming that 70% of bishops are boycotting Lambeth.

The "conservative" claim that they represent the vast majority of the Communion is based on a series of falsehoods, including:

1) a manipulation of numbers - they count 100% of membership figures from the Global South and only a proportion (usually 20-30%) of membership figures from the rest of the Communion.

2) false claims of support - they count Anglican numbers from places like South Africa and Brazil which have expressly distanced themselves from the schismatic hardliners.

We know (in general) who's not coming. Those bishops - Akinola, Venables et al - have clearly decided to leave the Anglican Communion. I presume you'll be cleaning the dust off your feet with them.

Once they splinter into at least five distinct denominations, I wonder who you'll end up with.

[David Cohen]

So, no facts and figures - just blather. You will have to do better than that as the standard bearer for facts on this blog, Minus Malcolm.

[Malcolm+]

It is a curious strategy, David. Spout rot and demand that someone else prove it;s not true.

Lambeth resolutions are still not binding, no matter how much rot you spout.

[David Cohen]

Check out the figures on the Anglican Communion website. The vast majority of Anglicans live in the Global South provinces. Which are growing while the western churches are in steady decline.

If Lambeth Resolutions have no force, then why do you suppose a Covenant is being proposed at Lambeth?

Even if the Archbishop has not noticed that the horse has long since bolted.

[Malcolm+]

I do not dispute that the majority of Anglicans now live in those provinces referred to as the Global South. Never have.

But I do dispute your claime that bishops representing 70% of Anglicans are boycotting Lambeth. To date we have only Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda indicating an intention to boycott - along with one Australian diocese and a number of hinst from one other Primate (Venables). At this point, I'm not even sure that constitutes a majority of the Global South. Southern Africa is attending. Jerusalem and the Middle East is attending. Brazil is attending - and have recently issued a pastoral letter exposing the Covenant for the farce that it is. I've seen nothing suggesting that Central Africa, Central America or Tanzania intend to boycott.

The proposed Covenant will be discussed at Lambeth because it is logical to discuss such a thing at Lambeth. That is, of itself, entirely irrelevant to the fact that Lambeth resolutions are not binding.

However, there is no serious commentator proposing that this Lambeth shall even "pass" this or any other Covenant. The process is clear - and it involves reference to both the Anglican Consultative Council and to the synods of the respective provinces. That simple reality would serve to undercut your fantasy that Lambeth resolutions are binding.

As would several standing reolutions of previous Lambeths. Perhaps you should go and do some research and stop spouting your delusions as fact.

[John]

I have just been looking at the Anglican Communion numbers in the Church of England Year Book and I rather think Malcolm would be well-advised to consult a similar volume before pursuing this argument too vigorously.

+Jerusalem can only muster 10,000 members, and Brazil (even including Recife which it has since excommunicated) only 106,000 members.

The provinces Malcolm names (Uganda, Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda) include 31.2m members, and it is likely that other large provinces will not be represented, since some 200 bishops are not coming to Lambeth. Sudan has 5m members and Tanzania 3m. These are also figures for 2001, and it is known that all of these provinces have greatly increased in membership since then. Some 6m muslims a year are said to be converting to Christianity in Africa.

The combined membership of the whole Communion is disputed, since the official body claims more than 24m in England, when the reality is more like 1.2m, and 2.4m in TEC when the reality is now about 750,000. The true global total is probably about 50m.

Let the reader do the maths - with 31m already known not to be represented and 200 invites turned down.

[Malcolm+]

As you say, John, the membership numbers are disputed. But how very convenient to announce new (and much smaller) numbers for the two largest "Global North" provinces before doing the math.

BTW, there has been to date no indication from either Sudan nor Tanzania that they intend to boycott. So including them in your total is not legitimate. Venables has now announced his intention to come.

It is certainly possible that, at the end of the day, bishops representing 70% of Anglicans will not be at the conference. Lot's of things are possible.

But the original claim was NOT that such and so may happen. It was that such is already true.

It ain't.

[John]

Malcolm, do you really imagine that the Church of England has 24m million members? Half the population in one of our churches every Sunday morning? Equally you could check out the actual American attendance figures on the TEC website. They make sobering reading. Again, the attendance or non-attendance of Venables makes little difference either way. His entire province is smaller than many English dioceses.

Looking at the question from a different perspective, it will also be significant how many are represented at Gafcon, which you have been at pains to ridicule at some length. It is not yet clear what the outcome will be, but it does appear that a number of provinces regard this as paving the way for a new international Christian community, in place of the Anglican Communion. Perhaps even more than 70% will be represented there, which should cause grave concern to those attending what might be the last Lambeth Conference in its present form.

[Malcolm+]

It is interesting. When anyone ppoints out that the number of Americans seeking "realignment" with another province constitutes about 2-4% of membership or of average Sunday attendance, we are assured that numbers are meaningless. Yet when we get into a game of counting episcopal noses, all of a sudden numbers are all.

It is entirely possible that, at the end of the day, bishops "representing" a majority of Anglicans will give Lambeth a miss.

It is equally possible that a similar majority will be in attendance when GAFFEPRONE imposes itself uninvited on the diocese of Jerusalem.

David has claimed that this is a fait accompis. It ain't.

But at the end of the day, the only numbers I'm going to worry about are the numbers I have some influence over. Average Sunday atendance at our parish is up by nearly 30%.

In the meantime, the Anglican Communion may split in two. That would be sad. But there will still be an Anglican Communion - and whatever the Akinolists may choose to call themselves.