News about how the #LambethCalls will be discussed and voted upon has finally been released. It would seem there is to be no floor debate, just small group conversation and report backs from some of the groups followed by voting yes, needs more work, or no. 1/ #LambethConference
The document contains no provision for offering amendments. So, without some kind of special provision, I don’t see how Lambeth 1.10 can be re-introduced. This is not to say shenanigans may not ensue. 2/ #LambethConference #LambethCalls
The feedback from the small groups will be given to a “Phase 3” implementation group. I didn’t know there were phases, or that we were all the way up 3. I suspect I am not alone in wanting to know who is in this group and who is in charge. 3/ #LambethConference #LambethCalls
Introducing a group of unknown leadership and membership at this point is troubling, but of a piece with the other late stage shenanigans @JustinWelby has indulged. Over and over, bishops at #LambethConference have been asked to make decisions with insufficient information. 4/
Bishops are now being asked to trust that an organization that has betrayed their trust in multiple ways in recent days can be trusted to accurately report on and carry forward the work of the #LambethConference. 5/
The results of these votes will be hard to parse. Bishops may abstain or vote no on all #LambethCalls because the #LambethConference process has been so shambolic. And, without knowing what was said in table groups, it’s hard to tell what a vote for further discernment means. 6/
The #LambethConference will be offered by folks who have thus far eschewed transparency, and the #LambethCalls will implemented by a bureaucracy that perpetuates the current dynamics in the communion. Maybe we should consider investing in an alternative. 7/7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
