And Matthew Davies -- God's gift to Episcopal News Service! -- has provided fine journalistic posts about the meeting.
Tonight, when I read Matthew's final report on the the Standing Committee, I just had to howl with laughter.
Matthew begins his story: "The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion adjourned its July 23-27 meeting here with its members celebrating a renewed focus on mission and greater commitment to transparency."
In the third paragraph, he quotes Bishop Ian Douglas:
Douglas said the committee, through the support of the Anglican Communion Office, "has pursued a course of transparency and open communication. . . ."In paragraph 5:
"I actually believe that our functioning continues to improve," Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori told ENS. "The new commitment to transparency is already making a significant difference. Members are generally willing to speak clearly about their positions and beliefs."Paragraph 6 immediately follows in the journalist's words: "Throughout the five days of closed sessions . . . ."
[LF: Emphasis added]
Can you restrain a guffaw? I could not.
Bishop Douglas applauds the committee's "transparency and open communication." Bishop Jefferts Schori hails "the new commitment to transparency." And all of it was done in "closed session."
Which will it be? Transparency? or closed meetings?
I understand the need for confidential discussions sometimes, and I recognize this may be one of those times in the life of the Anglican Communion. I do hope the members of the committee had productive discussions. I hope deeper understanding emerged.
But I think it is a rich irony when members emerge from a closed meeting, bragging about the group's transparency and openness.
Do you see something richly ironic in this? Or is it just me?