STILL ON PATROL

Have We Lost The Meaning of "Justice"?

Some words get so abused in the modern lexicon of politics, or religion, to the extent that we no longer understand what they really do, and should, mean.  One of those is "change" - everyone running for office is for "change" of some sort, so much so that "change" is nearly synonymous with "status quo."

Another word that has been so overused and misused is "Justice."  The word was flying about from nearly every Bishop quoted by the Episcopal News Service in its article about today's Lambeth "Walk for Witness" against poverty in downtown London.  This march, lovingly described by ENS as a "river of purple," reminded me once again that so many TEO and Anglican Bishops are clearly cleaned-up hippies from the 1960's who still love to rail against "the Man" and like nothing more than a good protest march to bring back memories of the "good old days" and the "summer of love."

But I digress.  "Justice" to me, as an attorney, has certain very specific meanings that are quite removed from the perversion of its use in the "social justice" context.  Perhaps this perversion of the word dates itself to Richard Pryor's joke that "justice" with reference to African-Americans being jailed was only a little mis-spelled from "just us."  But I think the use of "justice" is little more than an attempt to apply a much weightier word to a context in which "justice" really has little meaning.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "justice" as "(1) a: the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments b: judge c: the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity  (2) a: the quality of being just, impartial, or fair  b: (1): the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2): conformity to this principle or ideal c: the quality of conforming to law  (3): conformity to truth, fact, or reason."

These definitions have little to do with the eradication of poverty being a matter of "justice."  The notion that the rest of the world is somehow to blame for all of the social ills that exist on this planet is, well, at best misplaced, but in my opinion downright wrong.  This is nearly as absurd as the notion of paying "reparations" for slavery when both those enslaved and those who perpetrated the evils of the institution are long gone in our past.  This is not to say that we, as Christians, do not have a duty to reach out to those less privileged than ourselves and try to raise them up.  Service to the poor and the hungry is certainly part of the Christian's mission in the world, without question.  That is not where I have a problem.

The problem is that the use of the word "justice" is little more than a mind game being used to motivate the more privileged in the world by sheer guilt.  The implication is that our good fortune to have been born in a country where we have access to food, clothing, social services, education, and the like, is something for which we should feel guilty because it is somehow "unjust."  Horse hockey.  Should we share our good fortune and try to lift others up?  Certainly.  But not because our station in life is "unjust."  It should take no more motivation than reliance on the Bible and the life and Word of Jesus Christ for us to give to causes of eradication of poverty and hunger.  But then again, so many of those uttering various forms of the word "justice" have so walked away from the Bible I suppose I may be asking too much of them to rely on it to motivate the people to act.

"Justice" is and should be a word of power in the English language.  "Justice" is a powerful notion woven throughout our system of laws.  Its continued overuse and abuse by the "socially conscious" crowd for purposes of guilt motivation will inevitably make it just another word that means little or nothing except to be part of the continual buzz of meaningless drivel being spewed from their flyers and chants in the streets.  Leave "justice" where it belongs, and find something else to chant about - perhaps the Bible?  Remember that?

And by the way, TEO, how much closer could we be to the sainted MDG's if the millions you are blowing on property litigation and illegal depositions of clergy were instead spent on eradicating poverty and hunger, or providing education where there is none?  How about letting the orthodox go in peace and putting your money where your mouth is?  THAT would be "justice."

Getting To The Nub of the Matter

Stand Firm has referenced a very nice article by Dr. Chris Sugden, Executive Secretary of Anglican Mainstream, in the International Herald-Tribune entitled "Why Many Bishops Did Not Come."  Sugden does a great job crystallizing the debate between the revisionists and the orthodox, and his article is well worth your time to read.

Sugden points out that the revisionists argue that the issues over human sexuality are merely cultural differences between, say, North America and the Global South, and should be ignored "because of our common faith and traditions of inclusiveness."  But Sugden points out the inconsistency in application by TEO: 

But the idea of comprehensiveness has now been erroneously expanded to mean that the church is inclusive of everyone. In the American branch, The Episcopal Church, USA, Holy Communion, a celebration that Jesus held with his disciples only, is now often offered to anyone of any faith on the grounds of inclusion. The presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts-Schori, commented on the opening sermon at Lambeth on Sunday: "It's what the Church is today. It is inclusive - even those who don't agree with the message, it includes them too."

Even if that goes squarely against what is stated in the Book of Common Prayer, which opens the Communion Table only to those who have been baptized in Jesus Christ.  This is not viewed as exclusionary except by the revisionists; rather, it merely asks that one avow belief in Jesus Christ before partaking in His sacraments.  But then again, just like the Constitution and Canons, the revisionists simply ignore whatever goes against their notions of "social justice" to the exclusion of hundreds of years of Anglican rubric, teachings, and convention.  More from Sugden:

This means that you are included even if you do not want to be. Moreover, this liberal practice, laudable as it might appear in print, is highly selective, even illiberal.  In the United States, those who disagree with her have found themselves excluded: One hundred priests have been deposed and 200 congregations have been exiled from their church buildings for not accepting the liberal Episcopal Church's position.

As for why so many Bishops are not in attendance, Sugden quotes:

"For the 230 bishops who declined to attend the Lambeth Conference, the problem is that the American church has blessed people in their disobedience to God. In response to a plea by English evangelical bishops to attend the conference, representatives of these conservative bishops wrote that some of their co-religionists in the United States who had objected to the consecration of V. Gene Robinson "have been charged with abandonment of communion. Their congregations have either forfeited or are being sued for their properties by the very bishops with whom you wish us to share Christian family fellowship for three weeks."

"To do this is an assault on our consciences and our hearts. How can we explain to our church members that while we and they are formally out of communion" with the Episcopal Church, "we at the same time live with them at the Lambeth Conference as though nothing had happened? This would be hypocrisy."

Yes, in a stance upon principle which is anathema to TEO, where standards change with the blowing wind of secular society, at least some of the Bishops of the Anglican Communion have chosen to make a statement by their absence.  While I would have preferred that they make their statement by attending and loudly proclaiming their case at Lambeth, as did Bishop Deng Bul of the Sudan, I do believe their point is being made and their absence is nonetheless speaking volumes at the Conference.

Sugden's final crystallization of the two positions is spot-on:

The fundamental question is this: What allows for religious freedom and religious choice? An Anglican faith that adheres to the teaching of Scripture, calls people to choose to follow Jesus and all that he teaches, welcomes all to hear the gospel but is clear where the boundaries are. Or a so-called inclusive Anglicanism that seeks to improve on the Bible, observes no boundaries, and claims to welcome all - as long as you do not disagree.

I think anyone of the orthodox faith should print out this last question on a 3x5 card, have it laminated, and keep it on their person for anytime this debate comes up.  In two crisp, eloquent sentences, Dr. Sugden has said it all.  I don't know about you, dear reader, but I know upon which side of this line I fall.  And I wonder how any revisionist would possibly refute any point Dr. Sugden makes - the truth is so plain to see.

Queen the Carrot for Bishops?

The focal point for today's activities at Lambeth is a "protest march" in the streets of London for the Bishops to supposedly demonstrate their support for the United Nations' Millennium Development Goals and the global fight against poverty and hunger.  The carrot to get them to march is, at the end of the day, if they make the trip to London, they get to go to Buckingham Palace and meet Queen Elizabeth II for tea and crumpets on the lawn.  Does anyone not see the irony in this?

In the American church, the MDG's have become, at least in the words emanating from the P.O., virtually the new theology standing on a par with Holy Scripture.  "In the MDG's We Trust", and all that.  Yet comparatively few of the Bishops actually go out and get their hands dirty in working for the poor and hungry of this, or any other country.  Photo opportunities such as today's march made in an effort to symbolically show "we care" have been the order of the day.  Just as in last fall's HOB tour of devastated areas of New Orleans, the MDG cause would be better served by good works such as helping build a Habitat for Humanity house than posing for pictures showing magenta shirts among the wreckage.

Today's march juxtaposed with attendance at a tea at the symbolic home of the British monarchy demonstrates, in my mind at least, the utter shallowness of the lip service paid to the MDG's by much of the Anglican Communion.  The African Bishops, most of whom are not present, are on the firing line of poverty and hunger every day, not to mention the threat of death from Islamic extremists.  Yet they seem to get so little respect from their caucasian brethren, particularly from the Episcopal Church, who continually look down upon them as if they were uncivilized savages - "They're where we were 40 years ago."  The American church seems to believe that throwing money at such causes is enough to assure its place in heaven, even while it looks down its collective patrician nose at those who deal with it every day.  And you can bet that the Americans will be front and center for today's photo opps during the so-called "March" so they can claim "we care."

Queen Elizabeth II is far too much a lady to create controversy, but wouldn't it be interesting if she were to call the Americans to task at today's tea?  I can imagine her asking the P.O. how it is she can claim to be "inclusive" and yet persecute the theologically orthodox?  And I can imagine her asking the P.O. why she and her minions have made such an utter mess of the Anglican Communion.  The Queen, after all, is still the titular head of the C of E and would be within her rights to inquire.  But this, of course, is highly unlikely to ever happen.

More Fracture Lines at Lambeth

From various sources around the Internet:

Media requests for lists of attendees to the Lambeth Conference are being denied, ostensibly because of "privacy" concerns.  When it was pointed out that the attending Bishops were not attending as private individuals but as representatives of their respective Dioceses and Provinces, the press officer had no response.

Bishop John Howe writes:

"After the second day of "Indaba" groups, there seems to be an incipient revolt stirring among us. Many of the Africans are saying, "This isn't 'Indaba' at all! First of all, we are not a village, and we don't know each other. And secondly, we are not attempting to solve a problem; we are talking in small groups about minor issues of little consequence."  The Archbishop of York, John Sentamu (himself an African, I believe from Uganda) is reported to have said, "If Indaba is such a great idea, why is Africa in such a mess?" There seems to be the beginning of some rumbling that we need to get to a decision-making moment in the life of the Conference."

But wasn't talking about minor issues of no consequence the plan for Lambeth '08?

Roman Catholic Cardinal Ivan Dias, Prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for Evangelisation, told the assembled Bishops:

"Much is spoken today of diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. By analogy, their symptoms can, at times, be found even in our own Christian communities. For example, when we live myopically in the fleeting present, oblivious of our past heritage and apostolic traditions, we could well be suffering from spiritual Alzheimer's. And when we behave in a disorderly manner, going whimsically our own way without any co-ordination with the head or the other members of our community, it could be ecclesial Parkinson's."

Ouch!  the messages are flowing hot and heavy toward the Americans, but so far no sign they are receving any of them with any sense of understanding.  "Spiritual Alzheimer's" and "Ecclesial Parkinson's."  I wish I'd thought of those.  How absolutley spot-on!

Meanwhile, it appears that even the Americans are getting tired of "Look At Me" Gene.  After all, there are quite a number of large egos on the HOB and I'm sure they rankle at Robinson grabbing all the attention and making himself the face of the American church.  Per Religiousintelligence.com:

"The push to seat Gene Robinson at Lambeth Conference failed yesterday after the American bishops declined to force the issue. At their July 21 provincial meeting at the Lambeth Conference the American bishops declined to take action on a request by liberal members of their caucus to ask the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, to seat the New Hampshire bishop.

Bishops attending the closed meeting tell ReligiousIntelligence.com that some bishops pushed for Bishop Robinson to be extended an invitation. There followed a substantive discussion of the Robinson issue with several bishops expressing their anger and hurt over his exclusion.

However, the American leadership declined to take up the issue and a growing number of bishops appear to be distancing themselves from the controversial New Hampshire cleric in a bid to avoid conflict with the conference organizers. ...

One bishop told us that the provincial meeting was very much like recent meetings of the House of Bishops, with the issue of Gene Robinson, and disquiet with the proposed Anglican Covenant generating a great deal of passion from some speakers.

However, he added that the majority of American bishops appeared to be tiring of the focus on the travails of the Bishop of New Hampshire, and were not yet prepared to buck the Archbishop of Canterbury on this topic."

I'm sure the fun and games will continue, especially if the press continues to be stonewalled by the Conference organizers and is forced to seek out sources from within the Bishops themselves, who seem more than willing to talk.  Are we having fun yet?

Gledhill: "Lambeth Falling Apart"

Ruth Gledhill reports today from Lambeth: 

"As I write this the Archbishop of Sudan Dr Daniel Deng is sitting behind me in the press room, calling for Gene Robinson to resign. 'God is not making a mistake creating Adam and Eve, he said. "He would have created two Adams if he wanted.' He has just come from a meeting of the 150-plus Global South bishops at the Lambeth Conference, representing 17 provinces. And this has just come in from Bishop of Fort Worth Jack Iker: 'Those Bishops who stand in solidarity with Gene Robinson should withdraw themselves from further participation in the Lambeth Conference. Having failed in several attempts to include Gene in the Conference, his supporters should themselves feel a sense of rejection from the Conference itself. Integrity and honesty would dictate that they should stand with Gene - excluded from full participation in the Lambeth Conference. Is this all talk, or is it backed up by action?'

This represents the hard-line conservative-traditionalist stance at the Lambeth Conference and it is widespread. I wish I wasn't writing this but things here are really not looking good. The Anglican Communion seems to be falling apart in front of our eyes and it is not a pretty sight."

This report comes on the heels of Ruth reporting that the Conference is some 2 million pounds sterling ($3,986,000 in U.S. dollars) in debt and the Communion has no way to pay the costs.  This has resulted in no air conditioning in the locations of many of the meetings, and Gledhill says to expect "fainting bishops to be ferried out by ambulances any moment now."  Most speculation is that the ABI will soon be asking TEO to write a check, which will almost certainly result in the Americans making what will amount to ransom demands in exchange for cash.  The big one will probably be their demand, apparently already presented, that jurisdictional crossing be more strongly outlawed.

Can the Lambeth final report, whatever form it may take, be so directly purchased?  The bigger question, it seems, if Ms. Gledhill's observation has any merit, is whether the Communion is dissolving in a pool of sweat under the big tent with the Bishops?

This represents the hard-line conservative-traditionalist stance at the Lambeth Conference and it is widespread. I wish I wasn't writing this but things here are really not looking good. The Anglican Communion seems to be falling apart in front of our eyes and it is not a pretty sight."

This report comes on the heels of Ruth reporting that the Conference is some 2 million pounds sterling ($3,986,000 in U.S. dollars) in debt and the Communion has no way to pay the costs.  This has resulted in no air conditioning in the locations of many of the meetings, and Gledhill says to expect "fainting bishops to be ferried out by ambulances any moment now."  Most speculation is that the ABI will soon be asking TEO to write a check, which will almost certainly result in the Americans making what will amount to ransom demands in exchange for cash.  The big one will probably be their demand, apparently already presented, that jurisdictional crossing be more strongly outlawed.

Can the Lambeth final report, whatever form it may take, be so directly purchased?  The bigger question, it seems, if Ms. Gledhill's observation has any merit, is whether the Communion is dissolving in a pool of sweat under the big tent with the Bishops?

"Post-Colonialism" Discussed at Lambeth - Is TEO "Getting It?"

There appears to be an interesting discussion going on at the Lambeth Conference about "colonialism" and "post-colonialism."  As I understand these concepts, "colonialism" refers to the time when European countries were actively colonizing the rest of the world by establishing owned/protected territories outside their own national borders.  With England, the saying was once that "the sun never sets on the British Empire" meaning, of course, that British territories were literally around the globe.  In church terms, this often meant the spread of Anglicanism by missionaries, who in many respects were among the pioneers, often preceding British military or governmental entities into a given region.

"Post-colonialism" again, as I understand it, refers to more recent times when the European colonial influence has receded, and former colonies have become independent nations with their own cultural influences and societal standards.  In many instances, former "colonial" influences have clashed with "post-colonial" indigenous influences and standards.

Robert Young, a professor from NYU and a panelist for a discussion of "post-colonialism," had this to say, as per ENS:

"The Anglican Church's role in aiding imperialism is "complicated" with missionaries sometimes serving as the vanguard for governments. What is needed now, he said, is for Westerners to think outside their normal assumptions.  Postcolonialism starts from the premise that "those in the West…should relinquish their monopoly on knowledge and take other knowledges, other perspectives as seriously as their own. It represents a general name for new, insurgent knowledges that seek to change the tones and values under which we all live.  It doesn't say you have to abandon them, but to think about them, to be aware of what those assumptions are. At one level the theory is very simple, the only qualification you need really to start is to make sure you're thinking or looking not from above but below, not from the North but the South, not from the inside, but the outside, and not from the center but the margin. It's the world turned upside down."

In other words, the beliefs and principles being espoused by those from former colonies are of equal value and weight to those coming from the former colonial powers, including England and the United States.  Makes sense, doesn't it?

Contrast this, however, to the patronizing and condescending approach taken by TEO, and particularly by the P.O., to the African Bishops and orthodox theology.  The P.O. has said on several occasions that TEO theology and ecclesiology is more enlightened and advanced than those of orthodox Anglicans.  Remember the "they're where we were 40 years ago" comment?  And just a few days ago, she said, "We're challenging some other parts of the communion to have conversations that they're not comfortable having in public."   There is little question that the P.O. looks down on her African brother Bishops as inferior in religious knowledge and understanding to herself - she has demonstrated this attitude dozens of times, whether she denies holding it or not.  This is part and parcel of "colonialism", the inherent and inbred belief that the colonizer is superior to the colonized.

While I may wonder if the TEO contingent is getting the message, at the same time I am fairly certain that the majority of them are not.  A few Bishops truly respect their international and third world counterparts, but the institutionalized mantra within the Episcopal House of Bishops has for too long been that "we know what we're doing" to the exclusion of any other belief system.  The so-called "inclusiveness" of TEO only extends to those who agree with them, i.e., those who retain their "colonial" sense of superiority and perceived enlightenment.  Those who do not are shunted to the side as "inferior" and "where we were 40 years ago."

The ABI: "Unity Not By Coercion But By Consent"

Did you catch this line in the ABI's interview with Cherie Wetzel in Anglicans United?  The ABI said:  "We must have unity that is formed not by coercion but by consent."   Oh, to have been there for a few follow-up questions about that subject.

A few follow-up questions, if I may please, sir? 

First, have you mentioned that "unity not by coercion but by consent" thing to the Episcopalians lately?

No? In other words, don't you think that million-dollar property litigation, depositions of clergy in violation of its own Canons, and the like are certainly "coercion"? 

Yes, they are a "nasty business" indeed, ABI.  If you have made mention of that to the Episcopal Presiding Oceanographer, how did she respond?

Well, you don't have to use that gesture at me, Your Grace.  Oh?  She used that gesture at you.  I see.

So, how do you plan to forge some form of unity with the orthodox and the liberals when the two are entrenched in their positions?

A "covenant"?  Isn't that some form of agreement?

Yes, but how do you think you will get these factions that are poles apart and distrust each other so thoroughly to agree to any piece of paper?

"In-what", sir?

Oh, "Indaba."  Is that Latin to tell me to go fornicate with myself?

I see.  Small group discussions.  Uh-huh.  When do they get to vote on anything?

They don't.  I see.  Are you sure that word, "indaba" was it, doesn't have something to do with fornication?

"Only in the most indirect sense."  Uh-huh.  May I quote you on that?

Thank you sir.  One last thing, Your Grace.  What do you think of your decision to permit Gene Robinson to be on the grounds even though he isn't a participant?  Any second thoughts?

Oh my.  Did Robinson use that same gesture, too?  Sir?  Sir? 

I guess that's the end of the presser.

New Theme Song for Lambeth?

I was out and about in the car a minute ago and heard an old Dave Mason tune that struck me as the song everyone at Lambeth needs to be singing:

Been away, haven't seen you in a while.
How've you been?
Have you changed your style and do you think
That we've grown up differently? Don't seem the same
Seems you've lost your feel for me

So let's leave it alone, 'cause we can't see eye to eye.
There ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys.
There's only you and me and we just disagree.
Ooo - ooo - ooohoo oh - oh - o-whoa

I'm going back to a place that's far away. How bout you?
Have you got a place to stay? Why should I care?
When I'm just trying to get along We were friends
But now it's the end of our love song...

So let's leave it alone, 'cause we can't see eye to eye.
There ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys.
There's only you and me and we just disagree.
Ooo - ooo - ooohoo oh - oh - o-whoa

I keep wondering what it's going to take for the ABI and everyone on down in the Anglican Communion to see that this whole thing has been allowed to go on too far and too long for any new rules, in the form of a "Covenant" or otherwise, to pull the Communion back together.  As I said before, let both sides go their separate ways as entities under the Anglican umbrella and carry out their respective missions as they see fit.  Let each parish and Diocese pick sides and go peacefully without property litigation. 

If TEO truly believes in the correctness of its theology, let it have the courage to see how the parishioners, parishes, and Dioceses choose to go instead of relying on archaic legal arguments and procedural maneuvering - let Truth face Expediency and see where the cards fall.  Otherwise, how can they claim to have anything which should be subject to anyone's "faith"?

So let's leave it alone, 'cause we can't see eye to eye.
There ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys.
There's only you and me and we just disagree.

A Little Cheese With That Whine, Gene?

Ah, poor "Look At Me" Gene Robinson.  His latest whining:

"The most infuriating blow came this morning with news that when the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops meets on Tuesday afternoon (each of the 38 "national" provinces of the Communion will have its own gathering), I will not be allowed to participate, because this would look like I had become a "participant," and the organizers seem intent on enforcing my status as a non-invitee. If nothing can be done to change this decision, it will be a particularly painful blow. At our House of Bishops meeting in March, I pleaded with the House not to let Lambeth separate us. For me to be excluded from my own House of Bishops seems especially cruel and unnecessary."

Such florid prose.  Why, you would almost think Gene is channeling Jane Austen as he wrote this on his blog.  Heaving breasts, torn bodices and the like, you know?

But here's the reality check:  Gene, you were asked not to come.  You have nonetheless insisted on making a spectacle of yourself "on the fringes" and most certainly in the media, and in so doing are being more divisive than you would have been on the "inside."  Your brethren from the TEO House of Bishops most certainly want some things from the ABI during this Lambeth, and they are not going to risk disrespecting him while their wish list is still on the table. 

So, as I said a few days ago, why don't you put a sock in your self-indulgent blather?  Oops, sorry - I forgot - asking you to put a sock in it is a "death threat" right?  I guess I should be looking for that call from New Scotland Yard any time now.

A tip o' my kepi to Greg Griffith at Stand Firm for alerting us to this blog post.

Lots Going On at Lambeth - None of It Good

Several items over this weekend emanating from Lambeth that deserve comment:

1.   The Presiding Oceanographer has once again in an interview denied that the Bible is God's unchanging law, but claims that the Word of God is a moving target to be interpreted on an ad hoc basis.  Read the whole interview at Stand Firm here .  This, of course, is not news, but is offered as yet another example of the real reason so many orthodox are fleeing TEO - it's not just about homosexuality, but the overriding denial of the basic tenets of Christianity that unrepentantly keeps coming from these people's mouths, and their uncommon arrogance to believe that they are somehow smarter and wiser than 2,000 years of Christians, some of whom heard these words from their original sources.

2.   The Archbishop of Irrelevancy is likewise continuing to show not only his lack of grasp of the issues bedeviling the Anglican Communion, but also shows himself to be firmly in the camp of those who see the Anglican Communion more important than the Christian faith it is supposed to be about.  The ABI has been quoted as saying "the Gospel is only truthfully spread by those who are in Communion" in a thinly-velied criticism of those who are boycotting Lambeth.  I have said many times and will continue to believe that the church, any church, is supposed to be the vessel through which Christians enjoy fellowship, learn from and support one another in the Christian faith, and use it as a base from which to bring others to God.  Once the church crosses the line and assumes a role beyond that, i.e., becomes an entity that demands that it be worshipped, it becomes a false icon which is contrary to God's word.  The Communion is only important so long as it exists in service of God's Word.  In the eyes of far too many who are in attendance at Lambeth, however, including the ABI, it seems to have become the purpose and focus, not the vessel.

3.   Ruth Gledhill has reported that plans are afoot for some fifth "instrument of unity" in the Anglican Communion that would be some sort of international canon law blueprint, and would include some sort of moderate-conservative plan for oversight of conservative parishes in America in conjunction with TEO.  In other words, the same tired, useless plan that has been rejected several times before.  This smakcs of the influence of Schori, et al., twisting the ABI's arm to create something they can use to fight the GAFCON movement.  Once again, the ABI, if Gledhill is correct, is favoring process over substance and seeking to create ever more bureaucratic gobbledegook rather than facing up to the straightforward issues.  This goes hand-in-hand with point # 2 above, that the ABI has lost focus on the real purpose of the concept of the Christian church. 

I was taught in a management class one time that the effectiveness of any organization is inversely proportional to the size of its operating manual.  In other words, a well-run organization wherein its members understand their purpose and function does not need much of a manual, while an organization that is cumbersome and diffuse in its focus needs a thick manual to try to keep its members on track.  An effort to add more process to the Anglican Communion belies this very problem.  One cannot, however, fix an organization which has lost its focus and purpose with more bureaucracy and more rules.  It does not follow or apply those it has already - what good will more do?

The more we see and hear from Lambeth, the more the overarching problems of the Anglican Communion are crystallized and revealed for what they are.  Where GAFCON sought to create a safe haven for orthodox Anglicans with in the Communion, the ABI and his American puppet-masters are systematically working to create devices by which the conservatives are further marginalized and shunted to the side in the Anglican Communion.  While they mouth words like "unity" and "communion", they clearly only want those things on their own terms.  "Inclusivity" as a term has become little more than a foul joke that means the precise opposite. 

Where GAFCON sought to accomplish its goals without forcing schism, it seems from this point of view that the liberal attendees at Lambeth are hell-bent on forcing schism, in anticipation of then being able to stand back and accuse the orthodox of being the ones to "leave the Communion" when in fact it is the liberals who have left any sense of communion in the dust years ago.