I sympathize, but if we can’t at least face each other at the table, regardless of how much pain and turmoil we are in, we need to just get out of the church business because we’ve failed as Christians. It’s that simple.

It is refreshing to see a story about a conservative Anglican that allows him to speak for himself.

It is hard to believe that an English bishop can speak in such a careless, slipshod manner. This doesn’t get past freshman English.
Larry

Larry,
In my earlier quick read I only noticed one error, and didn’t think too much of it.  Going back, I see now what you are talking about. When I took a university journalism class many years ago, we were taught to essentially clean up grammatical errors in speech, with few exceptions.  The teacher, a long time journalist went on to point out how much work was required with certain politicians to make them sound literate (this long predates GWB, in case anyone is wondering).  This practice obviously helps the people speaking to the press (and even the most literate and articulate speakers do not always use proper grammar), but it also helps the press, by getting more people to respond in a freer way.  My journalism teacher also mentioned that reporters would sometimes, rarely, quote without correction from politicians or leaders they disagreed with.

Dave, I have little argument with HOW the bishop states his reasons for not attending Lambeth, since the CONTENT of his statement is what matters.  Personally, I agree with him.

While I strongly believe that we need all of the conservative voices at Lambeth, I do sympathize with +Benn. I think anyone who has worked at a company where there is tension and some acrimony, as well as the belief that management favors one group over another, can understand how incredibly difficult it is to attend meetings and “put on a happy face.” Any competent leader addresses these tensions and disagreements head-on and works hard to resolve them, not gloss over them. It’s inevitable that you lose good people if you don’t!

I still believe, though, that all of those invited should attend Lambeth and the conservatives need to circumvent the “let’s make nice” agenda to address the Communion’s ills. I can’t, for the life of me, understand why Cantuar would believe that the agenda he set is appropriate UNLESS he counted on the conservatives not showing up!

Larry,
“Slipshod” is the same thing as “careless”:
Adjective
1. (of an action) done in a careless way without attention to detail: “a slipshod piece of research”.
You repeated yourself needlessly by using both words.

To the true point: For all you know this bishop had an anguishing day, a mental lapse, or something.  Your graceless manner of judging him is beneath all of us.

Actually, I appreciated Bp. Benn’s straightforwardness, and even bluntness (by British standards).  It’s not news that he’s not going to Lambeth, but the fact that he, and the well-known +Michael Nazir-Ali, and +Peter Broadbent, are boycotting Lambeth is a significant sign that the “disintegration” of the AC is proceeding unabated.  The tear in the fabric of the AC just keeps getting worse and worse, as it inevitably will without real discipline being applied to those who have caused the tear, i.e., the heretical revisionists who are determined to pursue their agenda at all costs and who vainly imagine that in doing so they are being boldly “prophetic.”

Personally, I welcome this frank and unambiguous statement by a leading evangelical bishop.  Of course, it should be remembered that +Benn was one of the 25 drafters of the major theological document released at the start of GAFCon, “The Way, the Truth, and the Life.”

The time for useless talk is over.  The time for bold actions is here.

David Handy+

It is worth listening to what Bishop Benn actually said here
He specifically mentions +Ingham and his treatment of Dr Packer.  He mentions that Ingham has said that he does not believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus.  He will not share communion with him and others.  He does not pull his punches.

Slipshod is not the same as careless by any means. You are forgetting that when denotations agree, connotations may widely disagree, and that is the case here. Slipshod implies a level of disarray and a lack of concern with correctness that arises from a radical and continuing failure of standards. “Careless” is nowhere near so severe, for it implies a simple or unwitting disregard for standards. If one ties one’s circingle incorrrectly because of haste, that is careless. To wear a stole that has dirt stains, a cassock that is missing buttons and has old tears in the fabric, and NOT TO CARE, this is slip shod.
  To ask that a bishop standard formal English with competence and and correctness is hardly a demanding standard - a minimal standard - for one’s language tells of one’s inner intellectual discipline. In america, we disregard the subjunctive, and yet, do you not still say “If I were…” in conditions contrary to fact? But “It is of great regret to me that the invite list….” “Facts” and “doesn’t”? “How and I meant to set down at a table…?” What literate person would speak thus?  And a bishop? To tell me that the substance of the declaration is separate from the manner of its expression is quite wrong (but very American), for style and content may not at last be separated.

  The little piece of the Bishop’s speech above is simply the language of the ignorant. In those whose ignorance is unavoidable, we may be tolerant, but a Bishop? You speak the way you think; slovenly speech is the visible garb of slovenly thought.  Larry