There are some interesting thoughts that are coming out of Lambeth Conference, even before it truly begins. One excellent source of getting to understand what's going on over there might be to read this blog by Bishop Alan here. He describes the way the conference is formatted and why it will be different than conferences past.
It is also interesting to note the ire felt by any beat reporters 'lucky' enough to draw this assignment; searching for blood and conflict and receiving instead a healthy dose of optimism and congeniality.
And then, of course, there is "The Fringe", which is quite the appropriate name. I wonder if the irony is lost on the Lambeth organizers? Here is a great comment from Bp. Gene Robinson.
[Note: for those that don't know, Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire, whose vote of confirmation in 2003 was seen as the trigger for the current "crisis" was not invited to Lambeth. It is the first time (I believe) that any bishop of the Anglican Communion has ever been snubbed. He decided to join in the Fringe activities during the Conference, but not gate crash. At the same time, it should be noted, in an example of a strange reversal (though not truly ironic), Many bishops from four schismatic countries in Africa have chosen to boycott Lambeth, not because Bp. Robinson is nearby, but because all of the rest of the American bishops were invited. Crazy!]
And lastly is the mainstream representation. Here is an article that is as inflammatory as the press wants it to be. It is difficult to communicate that something may be simultaneously potentially factually accurate and emotionally erroneous. If you want proof, simply look at the reference to "a mix of traditionalists and liberals", trying to not only fan the flames of dissent, but completely mischaracterize the political character of those attending. In a strange move (a slip, perhaps?), the author, Rachel Zoll suggests that:
Or, if you go for the 'orgy of information approach, check out epiScope and Episcopal Cafe for directions. Happy hunting!
It is also interesting to note the ire felt by any beat reporters 'lucky' enough to draw this assignment; searching for blood and conflict and receiving instead a healthy dose of optimism and congeniality.
And then, of course, there is "The Fringe", which is quite the appropriate name. I wonder if the irony is lost on the Lambeth organizers? Here is a great comment from Bp. Gene Robinson.
[Note: for those that don't know, Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire, whose vote of confirmation in 2003 was seen as the trigger for the current "crisis" was not invited to Lambeth. It is the first time (I believe) that any bishop of the Anglican Communion has ever been snubbed. He decided to join in the Fringe activities during the Conference, but not gate crash. At the same time, it should be noted, in an example of a strange reversal (though not truly ironic), Many bishops from four schismatic countries in Africa have chosen to boycott Lambeth, not because Bp. Robinson is nearby, but because all of the rest of the American bishops were invited. Crazy!]
And lastly is the mainstream representation. Here is an article that is as inflammatory as the press wants it to be. It is difficult to communicate that something may be simultaneously potentially factually accurate and emotionally erroneous. If you want proof, simply look at the reference to "a mix of traditionalists and liberals", trying to not only fan the flames of dissent, but completely mischaracterize the political character of those attending. In a strange move (a slip, perhaps?), the author, Rachel Zoll suggests that:
"Conservatives have condemned the Lambeth program as an attempt to paper over differences by failing to tackle them head-on. Some traditionalists attending Lambeth will likely try to change the conference agenda."By introducing the label of 'conservative' into the article (heretofore the assumed synonym of 'traditionalist') Zoll appears to be suggesting that it is not merely a synonym, but a separate designation. She seems to be saying that no real conservatives are in attendance--only the more moderate 'traditionalists'. If this is the case, the suggestion above [that it is "a mix of traditionalists and liberals"] more accurately implies "a mix of [moderates] and liberals". Such a supposition is not only inaccurate, but journalistically immature and borderline scandalous!
Or, if you go for the 'orgy of information approach, check out epiScope and Episcopal Cafe for directions. Happy hunting!
No comments:
Post a Comment