Bishop Wright Confused

Lambeth 2008 must be working because Bishop Tom Wright is quoted in the Telegraph.co.uk as saying:

"There's a sense that we're all not quite sure where this is going. That's the mood of the conference. It is gloriously confusing at the moment and slightly worrying in that one has no idea what's actually going on."

That's as intended! It is doing its job! Also he has done the maths and tells us that the Indaba groups are not indaba:

"It's impossible to see how this is likely to play out," said Bishop Wright. "It'll be 40 people around a table for two hours. Three minutes each and that's your two hours gone."

He has a point. My criticism of the indaba concept as used here has been that indaba is about an in-depth thrashing out and comes to an everyone-affected-by-the-argument resolution. The latter bit is chopped off in the Lambeth 2008 version. But Bishop Wright is pointing out that 40 people into two hours ain't in depth either.

Mind, this loyal friend of the Archbishop does seem to fail to understand that a loyal friend might shut up for a while and let the boss facilitate the show - unless Bishop Wright is trying to provoke a revolt in the ranks to lead to resolutions being passed. After all we have only been at the retreat stage: gosh he does get his criticisms in early...

Just When You Thought...

Just when you thought it was all going swimmingly (and there is nothing to add to the bishops' blogs yet) along comes GAFCON, like the bully in the playground, to start tripping a few people up. It is enough to drive you mad...


You are in the playground with all the other children, having a good game, and in the corner there is that big kid and his few pals all holding sticks. They are in the corner most of the time, and people spot them on occasions - but carry on. Then, over they come, and start to prod a few people with their sticks, before retreating back to the corner again. Somehow the fun isn't the same from now on. The children carry on playing but you can tell there is some distress about.

The noises off concern the obviously timed reply to the Archbishop of Canterbury (after his comments) with some luke-warm words and the complaint:

Leading bishops in The Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, and even the Church of England have denied the need to evangelise among people of other faiths, promoted and attended syncretistic events and, in some cases, refused to call Jesus Lord and Saviour.

That's just notice that they are coming to give their international oversight in England too. But more to the point they self-justify and claim:

As the Virginia Report notes, in the Anglican tradition, authority is not concentrated in a single centre, but rather across a number of persons and bodies. This Council is a first step towards bringing greater order to the Communion, both for the sake of bringing long overdue discipline and as a reforming initiative for our institutions.

Then there is the separate commentary on the now dismissed Covenant:

Sadly this new draft of An Anglican Covenant is both seriously limited and severely flawed. Whether or not the tool of covenant is the right way to approach the crisis within the Communion, this document is defective and its defects cannot be corrected by piecemeal amendment because they are fundamental. The St. Andrews Draft is theologically incoherent and its proposals unworkable. It has no prospect of success since it fails to address the problems which have created the crisis and the new realities which have ensued.

The list of its inadequacy is as follows:

1. A failure to address the issue ...Further, it fails to recognise that in the eyes of many the ‘instruments of Communion’ (3.1.4) are themselves part of the problem
2. An illegitimate notion of autonomy ...obedience to Scripture and our responsibility to each other must significantly qualify all talk of ‘autonomy’ with reference to any congregation, diocese, province or, indeed, the Communion itself.
3. No biblical theology
4. A faulty anthropology
5. An absent eschatology
6. Neglect of obedience ...The Church is called not merely to treat God’s Word respectfully (1.2.4.), but to obey it.
7. An isolated and vacuous appeal to unity ...Paragraph 3.2 deals almost exclusively with perceived threats to the unity of the Communion rather than moral and doctrinal error

All this is predicated on something called the plain meaning of Scripture. Well very many of us think that there is no such thing, and so the whole GAFCON response is a nonsense.

The real deal is the power struggle in that they want Primates - their Primates - to start telling Churches, dioceses, parishes, churches, what to do, and this is so pitched as to oppose the Archbishop of Canterbury:

It [the St. Andew's Draft] fails to recognise the disproportionate influence of the Archbishop of Canterbury... The problem of this undue influence is compounded by the lack of formal accountability on the part of the Archbishop and the prominence the document envisages for this Primate is frankly colonialist. Secondly, the prominence given to the Joint Standing Committee of the ACC and Primates raises problems in increasing further the ability of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the ACC to exercise disproportionate influence over the Primates, thereby tending in effect to silence dissentient primatial voices.

This is drivel because Church autonomy precisely cuts away any colonialist potential. He is not a pope and try as he may the Churches will decide what happens, not him, nor (for that matter) any Primates.

However, this material shows one thing that was well suspected: that the St. Andrew's Draft of the Covenant is too weak for the selective literalists and fails to do its job, and with some sections and the appendix it is too strong for some Churches - who will never accept it. This draft is doomed, and - more than likely - all drafts are doomed.

The children when they play need to make sure that the bully, his pals and their sticks stay in the corner of the playground. All the children have to do is turn around and show some intent. You walked off - now stay out.

Lambeth Secrecy

As no one knows what is happening at Lambeth 2008, now known affectionately as 'The Circus', we are all forced to make it up due to the cordon sanitaire.

Well we did get nice pictures of arrivals. Here is one of personnel from my neck of the woods:


This is what happened on the second retreat session:

Rowan Williams [He opens the morning session]: As part of introducing Better Bishops, in that we are all on the road and can never be wholly situated on one part of the road, my staff, who I understand are affectionately known as the God-Food Squad - something to do with LamPal apparently - have arranged a number of visiting speakers. In the spirit of my predecessor, and in some continuation with this gathering ten years ago, an invitation has been made to a Todd Bentley. Is there a Todd Bentley here? I confess I have never met him but he is here to continue to underline the meaning of my Advent Letter last year. Todd Bentley?

Bishop John Mcintyre [Shout outs out from the gathering with his Australian accent]: He's been comparing notes with the wife!

A man full of tattoos comes running up the aisle.

Rowan Williams: Who is that man? Can security come and, er, throw this thug out? Help... I mean, of course, we should pray for minorities and show no violence at any quarter to those we oppress, but we don't want riff raff in and this is supposed to be closed off...
Todd Bentley: I am Todd Bentley.
Rowan Williams: Good grief. Are you the right one?
Todd Bentley: Are you the hairy biker round here? What's wrong with you?
Rowan Williams: There is plenty wrong with me but not for this moment.
Todd Bentley: I hear that sometimes you wanna sleep foetal position.
Rowan Williams: That was an interview for the press. Why are you staring at me? Are you going to discuss the Bible for us? Why are you shaking your head like that? No?
Todd Bentley: You ain't goin' a wanna be like that no more! You ain't gonna do that no more!
[Two people come behind Rowan Williams. Bentley puts out his arm, points his finger.]
Todd Bentley: Bam!
Rowan Williams [He looks quizzical: he does not move but is reminded of something]: Ah yes, the theology of "Bam", perhaps you will tell us all about it.
[The two people behind Rowan Williams withdraw. Rowan Williams goes to sit down]

[15 minutes later]

Todd Bentley: I have never, ever, come to such a peculiar place. You lot show no response. When you lot go anna stick your arms in the air?
Rowan Williams [He returns to the front]: I suppose I should thank you but I have not a clue what you were speaking about. I must ask my God-Food Squad what they think they were doing inviting you.
Todd Bentley: I'm going back to Florida.
[Greg Venables comes forward, to take him away] Greg Venables: We have some uses for you where I come from.
[Two people approach behind Venables]
Todd Bentley: Where you come from? [His head starts shaking side to side]
Greg Venables: We gathered in Jerusalem.
Todd Bentley [He puts his arm out]: That's one nice place. Bam!
[Venables falls back and is caught, and his eyes are glazed over]
Rowan Williams: Extraordinary. I will have to write about this.
[Venables leaves, taking Bentley by the arm]
Rowan Williams: Well, yes. Well tomorrow we start with a presentation from a Rod Parsley, called, I am told, 'The Bee Eye Bee Elle Ee' and, apparently, we shall all be offering a collection and will receive a free gift. I do not remember seeing this in the Lambeth Reader, I confess.
[There is a pause as he looks around for a copy but returns without one]
Rowan Williams: Is my staff trying to sabotage me? Well I suggest we all go and meet one another from our Indaba groups now so that no one will know what anyone else is doing. Thank you for now.
[The Bishops all clap as they are keen to show the Archbishop support]

I suggest that this is the most accurate report to come out of the Lambeth Conference so far.

Bishops and Innovation - Lambeth 2008

Anthony Hanson was Professor of Theology at the University of Hull and Bishop Richard Hanson was Professor of Historical and Contemporary Theology at the University of Manchester when, in 1980, they had published Reasonable Belief: A Survey of the Christian Faith, by Oxford University Press. It is a statement of argued, reasoned, middle of the road Anglicanism and in part ecumenical Christianity, just as On Being a Christian was a combined ecumenical and Roman Catholic statement of Christianity from Hans Kung published in English by Collins in 1977.

From page 249 the Hansons tackle the issue of ministry, and they show how fluid and indeterminate it was in the early Churches. They clearly state:

Ministry in our modern sense of it, then, is a development. There were no ministers, as we rate ministers, in the beginning. The first appearance of successors to the twelve is not in Acts (which shows no interest in the subject) but in the late Pastoral Epistles, which are an invaluable witness for what was happening about AD 100 or later but notfor the primitive Church. The evidence of Paul is decisive. A permanent ministry, a 'clergy', is a development, as the creed and the Canon of the New Testament is a development. (1980, 252)

It was an imperatively necessary development, they say, and:

...within a little more than a century after the resurrection a uniform permanent ministry of inspectors, older men, and assistants had developed. (1980, 252)

These were functional, hardly of theological importance and not connected to the Old Testament.

Such an account has a big effect. It:

...demands the sacrifice of two ideas that are dear to the hearts of many. The first is that of apostolic succession. The second is that of a scriptural ministry. (1980, 252)

These are described by the professors as combined obsessions and illusions seen in the wrecked 1972 Anglican-Methodist Reunion Scheme. (1980, 252-253)

The Apostles did not appoint successors. In Acts the organ of continuity in the Church is the Holy Spirit, not any official. Any appeal to the succession of ministers going back to Jesus or his apostles is built on sand. (1980, 253)

The absence of a coming parousia led to history entering into ministry, and yet the first understanding of apostolic succession (second century) was equivalent to officials teaching in the same place from the same tradition, not linked by ordination - which was a much later understanding.

It is equally clear that the concept of 'scriptural ministry' has very little content. If it means a ministry whose form is authorised, exclusively or not, as uniform and originally designed for the Church in Scripture, there is no such thing. (1980, 253)

Furthermore:

In the New Testament there are no Christian priests, except Christ himself. (1980, 253)

In the West, Tertullian and Hippolytus use priest or high priest for the bishop and occasionally the presbyter, in the sense of someone who forgives sins, and not as a celebrant of the Eucharist. It put the Christian bishop alongside the Pagan priest in terms of status, and made the bishop representative of Christ the high priest. (1980, 254)

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, 249-258, linked the Chritian bishop to the sacrificing priest of the Old Testament. As Christ at the Last Supper [supposedly] offered himself as a sacrifice to God, so the bishop offers Christ. The presbyter only operates in delegation from the bishop. (1980, 254)

Hanson and Hanson ask:

The question is, is this a proper and healthy development. We need not hesitate long in deciding this question in the negative. The gradual turning of the ministry into a sacerdotal caste controlling exclusively the means of grace, marked off from the laity by the possession of supernatural powers, and the pracice (or at least the formal practice) of celibacy, occured very largely because of the Cyprianic doctrine of Christian priesthood. Its chief defect is that it defines the priest in terms of the cult, thereby apparently tending to reintroduce a Jewish form of priesthood... (1980, 255)

It dangerously impairs Christ the final and perfect sacrifice, contradicts the priesthood of all believers, and relies on the "illusory assumption" that Christ instituted a priesthood independent of the priesthoodof all believers. The Church of England and connected repudiated this doctrine at the Reformation, the definition of the priest removed from celebrating the Eucharist while still functioning in this in the same relationship between God and humankind in the forgiving of sins to which the Ordinal had returned the central understanding of clergy. The Hansons approve of this definition where the priesthood facilitates and depends upon the priesthood of all believers - thus can be male or female, the make-up of the people, and extends to non-episcopal communions that are "at least a potentially a priestly ministry". (1980, 255-6)

All this leads on to authority. The Catholic way has been lineal authentication and the Protestant way is by the pure doctrinal. The Catholic view breaks down between the apostles and the Church of of the second century, and of course there might be unbroken lineal descent but deviation from Christianity. As for knowing what is pure doctrine, that needs the Church to say what is doctrine. The whole Church is like a broken plate, and ministry comes from the whole Church. (1980, 256-8)

Thus the Hansons look at validity, this notion that only a valid episcopally ordained priest can properly celebrate the eucharist, whereas it is a show when performed by a different minister. They reject even a moderate view of this, that Christ is somehow less present in a Protestant eucharist. Better to abandon the notion of validity altogether, they say though doctrinal aberration and deviation affects the authority of a Church, whilst not seeking to unchurch Christians in different Churches. (1980, 258-9) [This suggests questioned outcomes for those Liberal Catholics who venture outside the general New Testament and Church tradition boundaries]

So is Episcopacy just one of a number of methods? it is, they say, the oldest. One bishop and a group of presbyers goes back early to the second century - older than any creed, any liturgy and the New Testament canon. However, the bishop looked more like a local vicar in function. Secondly a personal ministry of episcopacy, they identify, relates to the preaching of a personal God uniquely revealed in the person of Christ. The bishop represents the diocese to the Church and the rest of the Church to the diocese. It is very personal, representative work. It is easily corrupted too (1980, 260)

Now it is no doubt this personal representation that is stressed by Rowan Williams in his approach to "better bishops" at the Lambeth Conference, but he pushes this too far down the Catholic road. His view expressed often and recently would be seen as too absolute for the Hansons. If he is fully Anglican, and accepts the relativity and contingency of much that seems absolute to others, then these bishops as much depend on the whole Church for authority as they do in some sort of gift exchange each to the other in a personal basis of being the Church. It is through this overstated representation one to each other that he wants to clamp down on innovation, and sees an enhanced role for the identified mother Church (thus him, successors and instruments). Clamping down on innovation in one local Church when unrecognised by another local Church is a representational restraint, all guided by mother Church, and for good measure he can add the Protestant principle, as he did in the 2007 Advent Letter and even in his response to GAFCON.

What is called for is not a theology that easily deals with restraint - that is easy - but innovation. Innovation always starts somewhere, and the New Testament is full of rapid theological development (that carries on beyond its timeframe). Innovation would seem to need justifying on a basis that looking forward with change is based on some principle developed when looking back. If the Lambeth Conference over-stresses this Catholic representational angle as a means of closing down the realisation of change demanded by the nature of Western (at least) Church communities - the gathered faithful - then Lambeth will be doing a disservice to the faithful and their multiple identities.

In the recent past I have had a correspondence with bishops who are validly ordained on the lineal principle for sure, but the Liberal Catholic Church of which they are metropolitans has connections into Buddhism and Druidism (one is so orientated) and has a chosen historical link with Free Catholicism that was once itself dissenting out of the Unitarian stable (as well as its Liberal Catholic foundations). I have to say I am attracted to this; the principles of breadth and background relate to us as pluralistic people and the broadest view of transcendence. Discussion can go anywhere, practice can be broad. For many, though, this would be innovation too far - even well beyond too far, and towards the chaotic - and lacks the restraint the Protestant principle applies (which may not exactly worry Liberal Catholics). It would not concern me; my own history crosses these boundaries and even within Anglicanism does not reject any of them: Western Buddhist or Unitarian or, for that matter, the postmodern Pagan.

Anglicanism is flexible, and we have seen in recent weeks how it can shift. The effect of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (out of GAFCON) is to operate the Protestant principle to itself via centralisation; it very much frustrates the Williams approach towards one organic unity of these bishops in the mother Church direction, but on the other hand it has created itself as an opposition which has suddenly become more liberating to the liberals, as loyalists, who have found their identity and started to act. The vote for women bishops in the English General Synod had something of this about it, and the traditionalist Catholics seem intent on removing themselves to a fantasy form of Catholic validity (according to the Hansons). So it may well be that bishops at Lambeth, in places where they are collegiate together - that is within their Churches and under their Canon Laws - can show a willingness to innovate and identify with their faithful people served as a whole.

Lead In

My recent entry in Episcopal Café's The Lead is available.

As we go towards The Lambeth Conference, and it gets mentioned in many sermons in the world, what I am trying to say there is that Rowan Williams, far from being a passive Archbishop of Canterbury, has tried to push his centralised Catholic view of bishops and ministry further than it can go in the Communion - a communion that is not a Church. The structures at the top have been pushed further than they can go and they are incapable of disciplining the apparent wayward. Unable to produce some sort of centralising institution, they have given rise to an institution that wants to centralise: a Protestant Primates' Council, belief-based, that has sent a magnet of authority in an entirely different direction from Williams's "better bishops" and, by so doing, scuppered all that he was setting out to impose by his "better bishops".

Of course he will try to flog the dead horse of a Covenant still, but its reception so far has been fairly bleak. And very recently liberals in the Church of England no less have stood up and said that imposition isn't going to happen - no sideways structures to give Evangelical or Catholic schismatics what they want on a plate.

Michael Poon's recent short essay posted on Fulcrum is interesting, because it seems to realise that the Nassau Covenant draft was based on (Windsor) structures, but that the St Andrew's Covenant draft was about generalities with an unworkable add-on enforcement appendix. This makes it fairly dead as well. All this commentary follows on from a lecture by Gregory Cameron (Deputy secretary-general of Anglican Consultative Council) that emphasised a pre-Covenant view of bonds, friendships and good relationships between Anglicans but also a belief basis in the Global South that owes more to movements in Christianity in general than Anglicanism in particular. Poon sees this lecture as offering a Covenant that would be like a catechism (though it was not offering a Covenant) - and the Global South just happens to be drawing up a catechism. However one looks at it, the Covenant idea is in a very bad shape: confused, off in different directions, and rejected by Churches as either ineffective or over-effective.

The cynics amongst us might think that one effect of these Lambeth 2008 Indaba groups with a denied ability to make resolutions is that the Covenant horse can continue to be flogged afterwards according to diktat: that if an outcome in conference was too fierce or an outcome was chaotic among the bishops that the Covenant Continuation Group (or whatever it is called) can just carry on.

It is too late now to have a two-tier Communion, where say The Episcopal Church is regarded as having an inadequate 'charism' of bishops and innovators be in the lesser blooded Communion, as Williams had put it:

And the primatial initiative in challenging or seeking to limit local development on these grounds becomes intelligible as part of the service of the mother Church - to those to which it is the mother.

The reason is the scuppering by FOCAs and GAFCON, and further that the Canadians also have progressive instincts but ordinary bishops, and even the Archbishop of Wales, Barry Morgan, fresh from chairing the Modern Churchpeople's Union Conference, has said he would consecrate a man in an active gay relationship. The English Church is only different by degrees too, not by kind as Tom Wright tries to claim. The point is that the liberals are rising up against all the schismatics (like GAFCON) and the centralists/ restricters (like Williams, Wright) for what is seen as a Christian agenda of bringing all in to the communion (of the Lord's table) - and let those who can't take being included either walk themselves or learn to love their neighbour for a change.

Too long the tail has been wagging the dog in order to keep the tail. In the last few weeks the dog has reasserted itself. Anglicanism might just emerge, in its main identity, or Western identity if it balkanises, as the broad and diverse institution it once was - of autonomous Churches, of bishops gifting one another under their own primates rather than Rowan Williams's illusion of himself.

Fannie Mae Wants a Bit of Northern Rock

Notions that the first wave of the economic crash was over has been dashed surely by the collapse of the California-based IndyMac Bank and the crash in share values of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in the United States.

The old joke is that if you owe your bank a hundred pounds it is your problem but if you owe your bank a million pounds it is its problem. The problem rather is that selling debt produces liquidity because institutions start to own financial assets that, actually, no one owns at root. This means massive money supply expansion and reduced interest rates, until someone calls in the root debt and the whole lot vanishes. That means money supply crash, and depression never mind recession if it collapses fast without compensatory action.

We also have some nutcase economics going on at present. Oil prices going sky high and higher affects everything and produces inflation, and central banks react in an anti-inflationary manner. But, actually, cost push inflation is not inflationary at all. What it does - and this needs to be thought through - is ram up prices for the commodity going sky high and what it affects, and this diverts money from other sectors where prices must crash. They cannot, of course, but there will not be the business and many businesses will close. Cost inflation, say because a commodity is scarcer, simply diverts resources and makes people less well off. To tackle this in an anti-inflationary manner just makes the wealth diversion effects on the suffering sectors all the worse.

Oil has also also turned into a speculative commodity, being something to buy as the economy suffers. This is a self-defeating spiral, and a kind of reverse bubble to the one we have seen regarding cheap money. Eventually the oil price rise hits a ceiling because demand must contract, and the speculative sense is overcome - but the consequences are fairly horrendous in the meantime.

Over ten years Western economies have benefited from cheap Chinese and some Indian imports, and all this has been fine but uncompetitive. Western finance first went into Chinese and Indian expansion and this was returned to its financial sector, but the Western consumer continued on a spending spree financed by the general wealth effect but not by the work of the consumer. There are no mechanisms of redistribution (taxes don't do it) and wealth has been transferred via debt. Then the Chinese and Indians raised much of their own finance, finance that has gone into Western public and private debt as the merry-go-round continued. Property prices had to inflate to take in that wealth effect, but financed by nothing at root. In addition, the Americans have had a war in Iraq and not raised taxes, and in Britain taxes have been raised only by stealth. The Far East is paying for the War but the debt has to be repaid: circulating it around and around the financial system doesn't stop that fact when the money goes pop it does go bang.

The United States has a flexible market economy, but its heavy industry is fundamentally uncompetitive: as production method and with pension liabilities. The British economy shed much industry long ago, and one has wondered how long a service economy has been able to pay high wages compared with China and India. Of course debt has kept this going: lots of people employed to sell people things they are buying, but with no basic product. Yes, there is value added in more ways than via making combustables, but the value added starts from a merry-go-round.

A few months back the British government signed an open cheque of a number of National Health Service budgets a year to keep Northern Rock afloat, and the Bank of England created huge liquidity reserves to keep banks lending. The latter had little effect, and now the institutions are such that the sums would have to be more massive than available. House prices must shed the wealth effect gone into them; people will be left with mortgages that, if unfinanced say by unemployment, will leave a debt without an asset. That is the hidden reality - always there - realised.

It seems that Western economies are going to take a huge hit, and the lay-offs are starting.
In the end the banking system will be forced to invent liquidity to try to stave off severe shocks, but all that will result is stagflation. Otherwise prepare for a crash, and lower level economic activity after stabilisation.

Gordon Brown when Chancellor championed the end of boom and bust economics: this was sustained growth. It never was. It was debt-fuelled expansion. Yes, you can get growth out of easy finance, and there may be a beneficial result here and there in real economic terms (value added). The public sector that was massively expanded (where did all those jobs appear?) does add value too. But for the most part it was a whirl of consumer spending and property based finance. His claim was rubbish, and what made it rubbish was shown in one way he financed public spending. The Private Finance Initiative was public spending on the cheap because it was mortgaged. It looked good on paper, regarding public debt because it was in private hands. That was irresponsible because it comes back to the public purse in order for it to be financed. We have better buildings now - hospitals and schools - but as the crash has come they still need paying for. Gordon Brown was and is all about appearances - a fix here and a fix there - and now his disastrous period as a Chancellor is coming home to roost. Let's nail the idea that he was a good Chancellor: he was not. He was spendthrift on invented money and believed in smoke and mirrors, much of which has revealed itself now that times are tough.

Briefly, They're Not?

Uganda's Leading Website a day later has "clarified":

reports that the bishop had told Christians at Kitunga in Ntungamo district that he feared for his life over his anti-gay stance.

Now gays are not planning to kill Henry Luke Orombi and he does not fear for his life. Presumably now he wears his clerical collar too, not being in fear.

It has used its 'In brief' section, probably to hide its embarrassment. Yet, instead, it's worse for all of us; everyone ought to be worried:

Orombi noted that gays were not only in the church, but were a big movement and some of them were drug addicts, who could kill anybody.

The "who could kill anybody" presumably now refers to drug addicts, and some gay people are drug addicts. All sorts of people are drug addicts, so what's Orombi's point (other than, even more obviously from this, homophobia)?

Now the reporter alongside Orombi who presumably transmitted his original words had better wash his ears out, because he (or she - well gender equality may be an issue) is clearly suffering from wrong words syndrome. Either that, or Orombi is a liar and a bullshitter rolled into one.

If there was no reporter then Uganda's Leading Website ought to send its staff to some tabloid (and not so tabloid) newspapers in London and find out how to do misrepresentation properly and as an art form.

Talking of which, it's another opportunity to try to draw the man this time using a program called Artrage, which is very suitable for the said bishop.