I will not herein reproduce the brilliant analysis of the Anglican Curmudgeon. The Lambeth Conference is fast approaching – the every-ten-years gathering of Anglican bishops from all over the world in Great Britain. Many conservative Anglicans are – excuse me were – hoping that the world Anglican community with the support and assistance of the Archbishop of Canterbury would deal decisively with the turmoil generated not solely but primarily by the Episcopal Church and its actions at General Conference 2003 and since.
And those who are happy with the direction of the Episcopal Church very much want this not to happen.
Enter the manipulation of history. Apparently Episcopal Life has been releasing a series of bulletin inserts that purportedly outline the nature/purpose/history of the Lambeth Conference(s). The Anglican Curmudgeon has been publishing a series of trenchant and devastating analyses of this series.
In a nutshell – the bulletin inserts twist history in order to reinforce (notice my word choice) an agenda. They do this partly because they attempt to condense (often badly) a series of much longer articles by Fr Christopher Webber. And partly because the articles by Fr Webber are already problematic (although not as much) to begin with. Fr Webber has a bias and an agenda – but at least he gets some of the history right. The bulletin inserts mangle even what good historiography the articles by Fr Webber contain.
The result is (hundred of) thousands of good liberal Episcopalians all over the United States thinking they know what Lambeth is about and how it works and why the American Episcopal cause is so just and therefore Lambeth 2008 cannot (or must not) contain or do anything that opposes (the dominant direction of) the Episcopal Church.
This really frosts my mug. Readers of my blog may know that few things offend me as intellectual dishonesty. And that includes getting people to support your cause by misrepresenting the facts (or history).
This is what I do not understand. Why can liberal Episcopalians – or those who support the direction of the Episcopal Church – not just admit the truth? Why not say “okay look this is the true and complete history of the Lambeth Conferences… but we think they were wrong and we are right”? Why not say “okay look the Presiding Bishop and the House of Bishops clearly violated the canons with those recent depositions so let us go back and do it again and do it right”?
If your cause is so just why do you need to promote it by misrepresenting the facts or using outright falsehoods or leaving out inconvenient truths?**
I have observed conservative Southern Baptists being honest about problems with the Conservative Resurgence (or the Fundamentalist Takeover depending on your point of view). Why is a true balanced and fair narration of history not good enough for those who believe they are in the right?
*Side note – I have offered comments at liberal Episcopal blogs which cite positively the inserts and/or articles by Fr Webber wherein I say little more than “a good analysis of this can be found at Anglican Curmudgeon”. One liberal blog accepted the comment. And the Episcopal Majority does indeed list the Anglican Curmugeon’s analysis among its “links to this post”. Give them credit for linking to a website highly critical of what they offer.
**Lie is probably excessive and unfair. Because lie implies someone knowingly promulgates a falsehood. I am not sure which is worse. That people are lying – or that they are so… blinded? by zeal for their agenda that their ability to perceive and/or describe reality is so broken.
