From Riazat Butt, religious affairs correspondent at the Guardian:
It has been asked of [Archbishop Rowan] Williams, time and again, how he arrived at the decision not to invite the excluded yet omnipresent Robinson and his answers have been typically Rowanesque: "The problem we faced within the Anglican communion [was] that bishops gathering for Lambeth represent not only their diocese but their participation in the fellowship of worldwide Anglican Christians. Where there are bishops whose participation in that worldwide fellowship is for one reason or another questionable, that is the reason for questioning their participation."
How to describe the logic (or lack thereof) in the phrase that I bolded? Bishop Robinson's presence is questionable because certain people (bishops?) question his presence. However, certain other people (bishops?) question his lack of presence or exclusion. I hear over and over that the ABC is a brilliant man, but he seems to have placed himself on the horns of a dilemma here. Ouch!
"He puts the cant into Canterbury," grumbles one Anglican. How I wish I knew the identity of the "one Anglican" who said that.
Where there are bishops whose participation in that worldwide fellowship is for one reason or another questionable, that is the reason for questioning their participation.
ReplyDeleteActually, the question then becomes: "What is the basis for questioning their participation?"
Implicit in the ABC's reasoning is that the basis is sound, and the only issue then, is: "Why is he still here?"
Which is why "polity" and "politeness" sound so much alike. And why both are so subject to abuse. (Is it "impolite" for Bishop Robinson to be there, refusing to be a symbol or a cipher by being a flesh-and-blood person? No; but ABC Williams is treating the situation as if it were. Which is even more pathetic than facing it head on.)
Rmj, what logical fallacy does the ABC use to put himself on the horns of the dilemma? Begging the question? I once knew these things long ago.
ReplyDeleteAt least we know the ABC can do tautology--i.e., "Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy."
ReplyDeleteAs I said at OCICBW, I think he got this quote from the depths of Lewis Carroll.
ReplyDeleteLeaving +Robinson out was ridiculous. We have bishops here in Sydney who wouldn't go to Lambeth even though he was excluded! (Though what purpose that serves none of us know.)
ReplyDeleteThose Sydney bishops were meant to represent us, but of course they didn't, and they don't. I think this makes Rowan's logic faulty.
So what was the point in leaving +Robinson out?
Some of the bishops who stayed away feared contamination from the bishops present who were part of Gene's consecration ceremony. To how many degrees of relationship does the contamination extend outward? I suspect that for some, the whole of TEC is polluted.
ReplyDeleteI sometimes like to say that he puts the ASS in APOSTOLIC. It doesn't fit but so far that hasn't stopped me.
ReplyDelete