After Lambeth

It's not hard to predict what will happen at Lambeth: absolutely nothing of substance. Those who guessed this early are being vindicated, not least by the seething anger of the liberals (including the Archbishop of Canterbury) who needed them there to "listen," which in liberal parlance means "carefully taught until they learn to agree with us and tell us we were right all along." The conference is in shambles, frustrations are very high, and the chances of anything useful being done are less than nil. The autocratic reflex of the liberals is in full force, with the numbers of bishops attending (apparently an embarrassment) a state secret, and the identity of the bishops even more highly classified. One can guess that the figures show that a greater number stayed away (and have left) than previously estimated, and that the North American presence is thus even more out of whack than thought.

The revisionists can always be counted on to overplay their hand, and so they have done at Lambeth, their self-satisfied (if not racist) bullying inviting the plain words of Sudan's archbishop and others. The whinging fellow at the narcissism display in the Marketplace is also getting a wee bit tiresome--even for his liberal buddies. Despite their advantage in numbers and cell phones, it's likely becoming clear to the Americans that they are indeed seriously out of step with most of the Communion. That might become incrementally more obvious today when what some have described as a "bombshell" is dropped. The operative word here might really be "shell," as even more strong words are really not going to make a difference. The Americans have their script cards, and they are reading from them and will not deviate. It's "prophetic" action they've taken, after all, they keep telling themselves.

So if Lambeth doesn't matter, what will? Certainly GAFCON will appear more, not less, important when the do-nothing Lambeth Conference is over. But what will really matter most is what the Americans do. And what they will do is exactly what they want. Greg Griffith at StandFirm nailed this in a comment, reprinted here at Chris Johnson's site. There is nothing to deter the Presiding Bishop and her attendants from pushing ahead on same-sex blessings and unions, on revision of the Prayer Book, and many more fronts: GC 2009 will seal this. And, as Greg also understands, it doesn't stop with these innovations. The nature of so-called progressives is that they must continue to find "justice" issues to champion, or else they lose their reason for existence. There is no end-game--there's only the game. Most of us would never have thought we'd be at this point 10 years ago. And what's coming down the pike 10 years hence is likely something none of us could even dream up.

It is post-Lambeth actions by the Americans that will ultimately decide this thing. That's because whereas the Lambeth invitations have been the only governor on American behavior so far, that goes away very soon, once the bishops are feet-wet from Heathrow. Does this mean that suddenly Rowan will "do something"? No, of course not. But it does mean GAFCON will look more and more like an exercise in prudence and reality. It will also make it more difficult for the Tom Wrights of the world to continue arguing for the status quo. The ACI will likely get a bit of spine--as they are already showing now that they (and largely they alone) are trying to carry on the "inside" strategy. And the split will continue, with ever-greater clarity.

Could the Archbishop of Canterbury stop this split from happening? Certainly he could--by throwing over the Americans. When the Americans start getting silly again after they get back home, he could provisionally withdraw their 2018 Lambeth invitations and disinvite them from other Communion activities, and say he's doing nothing more than acknowledging their own withdrawal from Communion. He could reengage the Primates. He could seek a rapprochement with GAFCON, by strengthening the Covenant. He could delay the property portions of the purportedly merely decorative canon law treatise that has been promulgated this past week, saying they need "further study" to address what happens in the event a province decides to leave the Communion. He could, most effectively, resign, and make way for someone more likely to act to hold the Communion together. Even a Tom Wright as Archbishop of Canterbury would drive home the point to the North Americans that they have effectively removed themselves from the mainstream of the Communion.

These are but musings. What is sure now is that Lambeth is likely to accomplish nothing, as it was designed to do, and that the Americans--however chastened--are going to continue their innovations with greater fervor, if only to make them "permanent" so they can then say it can't all be undone now. And the Episcopal Church will become less and less relevant, at an ever-increasing pace. And GAFCON, representing a majority of the Communion as it does, will become ever more important, whatever the Archbishop of Canterbury does.