Wednesday, 23 January 2008

Lambeth Conference: some reactions

From the blogs:

Alan Wilson gives some background on Indaba in The Morning After: Indaba or Prozac?

He then also comments on the press coverage in Ten Rules for cooking up a Gay Schism:

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Are we wobbling off piste? Reporting the same Lambeth Conference launch, Riazat Butt in the Guardian concludes “Gay Climate of controversy clouds Anglican gathering” whilst, probably more accurately, Ruth Gledhill of the Times reports “Sexuality will barely be on the Lambeth Conference agenda.” The blue train is wobbling on the tracks, friends. Entirely as an exercise in communications studies (and not theology, you understand) may I humbly propose a facetious little something to help keep this thing rolling…

Only Connect has an article by Paul Bagshaw titled Lambeth Conference in no sense a law making body.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 at 7:46pm GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Lambeth Conference 2008
Comments

This is the bit I liked in Paul Bagshaw's piece:

'a lawmaking body in the strict sense'? What other sense is there? This is playing with words: it was never a lawmaking body. Full stop.

It is the sheer frustration with the words used. Another was the reply to Fred Hiltz, that the Archbishop could not support or sanction interventions by foreign bishops. Hiltz wasn't asking for support or sanction, but the opposite! That the answer is turned around 180 degrees, which sounds like pale agreement, makes you wonder if there are occasions when the Archbishop would like to support or sanction them.

Posted by: Pluralist on Thursday, 24 January 2008 at 2:16am GMT

Paul Bagshaw in his article says: "Discourse, not law, is what keeps a communion together." Wise words.

Posted by: Fr Mark on Thursday, 24 January 2008 at 9:19am GMT

Pluralist and others -
Watch the word sanction. While in the US it usually means support it can mean just the opposite as when a nation is warned that sanctions will apply if they persist in an unacceptable course of action. I suspect that may be the common British usage.
Columba

Posted by: Columba Gilliss on Thursday, 24 January 2008 at 1:54pm GMT

Could be negative. That would be "I cannot give support or apply sanctions against". It looks to me, as someone very English, that he used the word sanction to mean supporting, but it means more than support but give it legitimacy. But you could be right. It just shows why we end up baffled.

Posted by: Pluralist on Thursday, 24 January 2008 at 9:34pm GMT

Pluralist --

Quite right! I'm sure that if the ABC wanted us to know what he meant, he could manage (or get Jane to write it for him -- I do so miss her pieces in The Church Times).

But the pieces from Bishop Wilson & Paul Bagshaw are first rate -- this using vagaries for their own sake really helps no one (IMHO).

Posted by: Prior Aelred on Friday, 25 January 2008 at 4:18pm GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.