Sunday 25 May 2008


I like this entry as a whole, but especially this point made I'll highlight here:

The designers of GAFCON have made it clear that their future will happen regardless of what anyone else thinks or wants or needs: witness the blatant disregard for the Bishop of Jerusalem and their disinterest in the local situation. For the GAFCONites, Jerusalem is not a place where real people live but it is an historical and religious theme-park to be viewed from bus windows, hotel conference rooms and through guided tours. It is a backdrop that makes a political statement.

Andrew Plus does not agree with my response to the video news conference by The Rev. Dr. Ian Douglas and the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts-Schori. He avoided a quick response, whereas I reported on it, but he is pleased he did contemplate about it first and then came to a more positive view.

For him to be right, over all, that the Lambeth method facilitates what is positive, needs the active positive mindset of those going. I just don't see that positive mindset there, even among a sufficient number to lend weight to that approach. I take the view that The Episcopal Church presentation put the best spin on the method that coincides with its own aims and intentions, but it almost denies what is the predicament being placed down. Of course there is much to talk about and can be done so building on the positive, but it is the zero-sum aspects that won't go away and indeed are made worse by the theme park people in Jerusalem.

I'm not sure that the semi-adoption of the Indaba process is equivalent to Appreciative Inquiry, nor are those going in appreciative mood. It may be face to face pain: that is not the same as Appreciative Inquiry. The idea that face to face absorbs the pain seems overly optimistic. There still has to be resolution; the Windsor Report and invitations are still very much of this face to face - meaning resolution exists elsewhere, via some committee, or the Archbishop, and not in the ownership of the Indaba process. No, it won't work.

The list in the blog entry of what Anglicans value, by the way, is a good one, and a very positive approach. If the predicaments were not there, I am sure these or like them would be background or even foreground part of the whole 'better bishops' event.

No comments: