Welcome to An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy. If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the RSS feed to keep up to date with what I'm writing. Alternatively, if you want to contact Peter in relation to issues of human sexuality, please use the contact form here. Thanks for visiting!
As I’m sure you’re all aware, over two months ago Rowan Williams wrote to Gene Robinson, refusing to grant him the right to preach or preside at the Eucharist whilst he was over here in Blighty during the Lambeth Conference. Having already completely ignored the prohibition on preaching last night at St Mary’s Putney, now it looks as though he might be getting ready to go one better.
On the 20th of July (this coming Sunday) at 14:30 he will be attending a picnic outside St Stephen’s Church, Canterbury which is billed as "Eucharist". The Rector of St Stephen’s, Justin Lewis-Anthony, is operating as chaplain to the Inclusive Church / Changing Attitude / Integrity team of volunteers for the Lambeth Conference. I was intrigued as to who was going to be presiding at this event so I batted this email off to Changing Attitude:
Who will be presiding at the Eucharist on the 20th?
Thanks,
Short, sharp and to the point. I was expecting an answer on the lines of "That’ll be Justin seeing as it’s his parish" (which would seem reasonable), but the response was different:
Hi Peter
Hope you will be able to join with many other loyal orthodox Anglicans from many provinces as we break bread together and pray for the Bishops as they meet in conference.
Regards
Brenda Harrison
Hon Administrator
Changing Attitude
OK, I admit that there are times when I myself am busy and don’t read emails properly, so I thought I’d give Brenda the benefit of the doubt:
I don’t believe you answered my question, so let me ask it again.
Who will be presiding at the Eucharist on the 20th?
Thanks,
It’s a simple question isn’t it? All Brenda has to do is to either give me a name or tell me to take a running jump (both of which are, I guess, reasonable things to do). Hmmmmm….
Hi Peter
I didn’t answer your question, which strikes me as disingenuous. What is your real question?
Our hope that you will join us in celebrating our Lord’s Supper remains. The table is God’s not ours, all are welcome.
Regards
–adjective
lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous.
Now I’m really not sure that I fit into any of those brackets. I’m being absolutely frank about what I want to know (who is presiding), there is no lack of candor as I’m being totally open and I really am sincere in wanting to know who will be saying the magic words. I mean, that’s the reason I asked her. I could have pretended to be a journalist or used another email address so she wouldn’t realise it was me asking (Changing Attitude love me…) but I didn’t. I just came out and asked a straightforward question.
Shall we have yet one more go? No pretence, no messing about, let’s just get a straight answer.
My real question is simply who is planned to preside at the Eucharist? I don’t believe that’s disingenuous in the slightest. The picnic is organised by Changing Attitude and within the Parish of St Stephen’s Canterbury, so whoever is presiding at an Anglican service will need to have been given permission by the Rector of the parish and, by extension, the diocesan.
If you simply don’t want to tell me then say so.
Peter+
Y’see, you don’t even need to tell me Brenda. I’m asking you a simple straightforward question - just give me a simple straightforward answer. In fact, if you want to tell me to go mind my own, then just do so. I won’t mind - I’ve told you so.
What’s the big secret?
The picnic and Eucharist is organised by Changing Attitude and Integrity USA. All due permissions have of course been sought and granted - I assume that was your real question?
Er no. My real question was, "Who’s going to preside at the Eucharist"? That’s why I asked you "Who’s going to preside at the Eucharist". But that issue of permissions is interesting.
But hey, we’re dealing with people who are inclusive and loving and forgiving and just want to talk and listen, so in the spirit of unity, let’s have one more go.
OK Brenda, I’ll try gracefully one more time. Are you able to tell me who is going to preside at the Eucharist on the 20th of July? If you don’t want to tell me then simply say so, but please let’s not beat around the bush like this.
I guess I will have to take a non-answer as a refusal to tell me.
And the response?
Hi Peter
We are not publicising names of participants in the Eucharist service – we want folk to join with us in worship and prayer, not focus on personalities.
I don’t really understand why you want to know who is presiding - as an evangelical Christian I have never put great store by the identity of the President at communion. It’s enough that we recognise each other in the body of Christ broken for us.
I do hope you will be among the worshippers on Sunday as we pray for our Bishops.
It’s very simple Brenda. I want to know who’s presiding because I’m curious. Precociously indeed you might argue.
By the way, and bringing up that permissions thing you spoke about, I have it on the highest authority that the Changing Attitudes team have had it spelt out to them in no uncertain detail what the implications are if Mr Robinson as much as waves a finger towards anything vaguely resembling the elements.
So obviously Gene won’t be presiding.
And that’s obviously why it was so easy for Changing Attitude to simply say to me "Don’t worry, Gene won’t be presiding".
Probably.
Tags: Anglicans, Attitude, Benefit Of The Doubt, Bishops, Blighty, Brenda, Canterbury, Chaplain, Email, Expecting An Answer, God, Hocus Pocus, Integrity Team, Justin Lewis, Lambeth Conference, Peter Hope, Picnic, Prohibition, Rowan Williams, Sharp, Volunteers
July 14th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
If I were a betting woman, my money would be on Gene presiding. Hmmm, wonder if there will be any reporters there?
July 14th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Peter, you write: I have it on the highest authority that the Changing Attitudes team have had it spelt out to them in no uncertain detail what the implications are if Mr Robinson as much as waves a finger towards anything vaguely resembling the elements.
So the highest authority has made it clear to you that if the simple country bishop waves a finger (even the middle finger), the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Consultative Council will be compelled to issue an invitation for further dialogue and graceful conversation in one or many of the INDABA (dabadoo) groups? I can see Gene sweating already.
July 14th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Dear Rev. Ould,
I sincerely hope that subsequent to the service you will inform your readers as to who actually presides at the subject Eucharist. And I know that I am not alone in my desire for information.
Blessings and regards
July 14th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Well, at least we know for sure that Gene will preach and preside in the Scottish Province on the 3rd of August (@ the St Mary’s Cathedral Glasgow to be exact). No hiding the facts here.
July 14th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Doesn’t Blighty mean Britain, not England?
+ Gene is under no such restrictions when in SEC churches (looking forward to seeing him)
July 15th, 2008 at 2:37 am
Frankly, as TEC has ignored every line in the sand, why should there be any concern about repercussions, there surely won’t be any. It’s my belief that the ABoC is in on the cahoots, and knows full well. The public face is just for show, until it’s too late to do anything about it.
With this lot, one only has to look at the labels they assign themselves, and recognise the opposite will be true. “Integrity” US, lol, that’s rich.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:29 am
Amazing. How ‘Paxman’ of you, Peter.
Such a simple question, and yet such a strained answer. I think we all know what’s on the cards.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Peter,
Who is the ‘the highest authority’, would you care to name them?
What authority do they have over Changing Attitude?
I am just curious.
Pax, Winston.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Peter, every time I read one of your seemingly self satisfied and smug comments I am in mind of
. I wonder if you have ever read Matthew’s gospel in full? Perhaps your version of the bible omits this chapter or verses?
Matthew 7:1-5 [show]Matthew 7:1-5
"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. (ESV)
So a rather simple question for you this time: are you without sin? are you able to cast stones?
July 15th, 2008 at 8:19 am
Sound,
I have this huge whopping, monster of a plank coming straight out of my eye. Frankly, my wife is sick of it as when she tries to go to sleep, every time I turn round under the sheets I knock her out of the bed.
That and the blood stains she keeps getting on her pyjamas. Can’t help the blood. I seem to be covered in it, head to toe, all over.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Peter
I see you are not able to answer a straightforward question. Are you without sin? Are you able to cast stones?
July 15th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Of course Robinson won’t preside- because he won’t have Tom Butler’s permission. And of course Butler would discipline Justin Lewis-Antony and Giles Fraser, just as he disciplined Richard Coekin for inviting a CESA bishop to ordain. Wouldn’t he?
Steve Walton
July 15th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Steve,
You seem to be mixing up dioceses. St Mary’s Putney is in Southwark, St Stephen’s is in Canterbury. I say that again. Canterbury.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Sound,
I think I more than answered your question.
I’m quite capable of casting stones by the way, just don’t do it very often. Not enough lakes around here to get the right amount of flat water to skim a fair distance (which, I believe, is the best thing to do when casting stones).
July 15th, 2008 at 9:01 am
You don’t seem to answer my question seriously at all Peter. So I’ll graciously ask one more time. Simple answers will do very well.
a: Are you without sin? (yes or no)
And as a supplementary:
b: Being a sinner yourself (as we all are) why do you think it is fine for you to cast stones at other people?
July 15th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Peter,
You have also not answered my question - who is the highest authority? It is important because I want to know if they are authorised to make such a pronouncement.
By the way, Freud would have had a great time with your description of your bedroom earlier.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Yes, I’d be interested to know what the highest authority is….and what the implications are? And would they still apply if Bishop Gene was to be a concelebrant?
And I agreee with the comment about Freud…fascinating…..
July 15th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Mmmm yes, Freud, fascinating.
I’m afraid I don’t give away my sources. As for the question over whether I’m a sinner, I refer the honourable gentleman to Roman 3:23 and I also think that Jesus’ words in Matthew 7 [show]Matthew 7
are absolutely spot on. I wouldn’t cast stones if I denied I was a sinner - it would put me in a very dangerous position.
"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
"Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.
"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!
"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy(1) that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'
"Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it."
And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes. (ESV)
Footnotes
1. [7:13] Some manuscripts 'For the way is wide and easy'
Unless of course sound is implying that no-one is allowed to mention anybody’s sin ever. Ever. EVER?
July 15th, 2008 at 11:43 am
I went to St. Mary’s Putney and to the Southbank Centre to hear Gene Robinson.
He seems quite approachable and his ideas are not at all extravagant. I cannot see why some people in the Church feel threatened by him… he was elected, was he not? His flock back in New Hampshire obviously prayed and thought about it… Robinson is legitimised by that process.
I worship at a parish where people are accepted and welcomed and it makes a huge difference in people’s lives. I am sad that some are more concerned in what people do in their intimacy of other’s bedrooms rather than in the important issues.
Kind regards,
Angelo
July 15th, 2008 at 11:47 am
His flock back in New Hampshire obviously prayed and thought about it… Robinson is legitimised by that process.
Ah, so if a diocese elected someone who was in a polygamous relationship, that would be OK? What about someone who was a serial adulterer? Someone having a consensual sexual relationship with a minor (it happens)? Someone who sacrifices children to Molech?
Truth is not determined by majority vote.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
No, I’m simply impying that you seem far too keen on otehr peiople;s sins than you do on your own. That’s why your blog can seem so slef righteous and self satisfied and sub-Christian.
I’m sure +Gene thinks he is a sinner - in fact I’ve heard him say so. He just interprets the question of whether homosexuality is sinful differently to you. Yet still you prefer specks in other people over beams in yourself…
And the answer to the question of implications and if they would apply if +Gene was a con-celebrant?
Do you see that you seem just as incapable of answering questions as Changing Attitude are?
July 15th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Sound,
I’m perfectly aware of my sin. Already today I’ve blasphemed, been impatient, let pride get the better of me. If you’d like, I could email you with a nice list of regular sins? The usual address?
The issue with Gene Robinson is that he interprets the Bible incorrectly and that he, and many others, are leading people down a wide path to hell. Y’ wanna give ‘em a push? I don’t - I want to see a church that preaches God’s love and holiness, the amazing healing and restoring power of the cross and the life eternal that begins by dying to self and to see as many people as possible to be part of that community of the saved.
And to be honest, I’m slightly tired of a chap who just wants to be a simple country bishop, but can’t help going all the way across the world to talk about his sexuality despite saying he wouldn’t, and pulling off publicity stunt after publicity stunt.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
I hope that Robinson won’t be the celebrant because he’s a heretic and because I want my church to respect archiepiscopal authority. However, as the validity of the sacrament is independent of the worthiness of the minister, the real worry for me is Robinson preaching here, not celebrating communion.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Peter,
On the basis of what you said about Gene Robinson, it seems to me that the you ought to have a member of your constituency at the eucharist that concerns you. It seems to me that anyone who gives communion to Gene Robinson should be disciplined in that they are giving communion to someone who is leading people to hell. On that basis, many of the episcopalian bishops, John Gladwin, the archbishop of Wales etc, should not be given communion on the basis of their apostasy.
I think you are setting your sights too low, being too charitable - if you are to be consistent, it seems to me that discipline should be exercised a lot earlier than you are advocating. In fact, what about the fact that the church is giving communion to many lay people in same sex relationships in accordance with Issues in Human Sexuality. It seems to be me that more consistently evangelical churches would not allow such a compromise of the Gospel to take place.
I am also intrigued with your list of sins and the choosing of bishops. I note that you that you chose all sexual ones. What about people elected or chosen to be bishops who are not pacifists, advocate the death penalty, have shares in immoral companies that exploit others, do not give all their possessions away to the poor etc. Why the sexual ones all the time? It seems to me all of the ones that I have listed are much more significant in Gospel terms?
Additionally, in order to protect your source, you refuse to tell us they are. I think likewise Changing Attitude should be allowed to have such liberty with regard to the celebrant at their eucharist.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
It’s not +Gene’s fault that, due to Christian homophobia, he is perceived as (at best) an inconvienient poof rather than a Bishop. As Jeffrey John’s situation showed, not discussing the issue ( I recall a press release that noted just how few of John’s sermons etc had involved sexuality)hardly placates evangelicals (and of course the fact that John was celibate makes a mockery of the idea that it is just homosexual *practise* that conservatives are objecting to.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
I don’t need a list of your sins thanks all the same Peter. They are no different to mine or Bishop Gene’s. But you are pretending being judgemental and self righteous is not a sin. And I see Jesus pretty roundly condemning them in the gospels. But does he say anything directly abouyt homosexuality? Let me check….umm..no. Not one thing. And you seem to have no understanding of the concepts of specks and beams…
And I’ll ask, graciously, if you would answer the question you have STILL avoided answering. I’m not sure how I can make it any clearer…but here goes…you can of course tell me if you don’t know the answer…or don’t wish to tell me…no pressure…if I have no reply I will assume one of those applies.
What are the implications you are so sure of if +Gene does preside at the Eucharist, and will they still apply if he is a concelebrant?
July 15th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Ah Ryan I think you’ll find that once they discovered that Jeffrey John was celibate, the homophobes decided that he still could not be a bishop becaude he had written a book called Faithful Stable etc etc…..Even when he promised to abide by the teaching of the church and only to teach that they still went for him…..
James Jones has of course repented publicly of doing so….let’s hope others will have the christian integrity to do the same…
July 15th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
I have to agree that the emails looked shady - it could be that she doesn’t want to say that +Gene won’t be presiding because that draws attention to it in a way which could be hurtful to +Gene and his supporters; ie a headline saying “Bishop not allowed to preside at Lord’s supper” would be more negative than “Hundreds attend eucharist with Gay Bishop”. Although just having the rector presiding would be the simplest option.
I think that both of you were being a bit cheeky - I’m assuming she gave you permission to publish her emails on your blog?
I am impressed by the level of opposition you receive on your blog, many of +Gene’s supporters appear to be advancing above the simplicity of “Jesus ate with prostitutes, do you wear Nylon?” sort of arguments, which gives me hope for informed, thoughtful dialogue which might actually have a positive outcome. Having said that, you said something quite direct about +Gene leading people to hell, what do you mean by that? That the sin of those who follow of +Gene won’t be forgiven, or that +Gene is preaching a false gospel with no power to save? If the latter, do you have proof? From what I have seen of the guy (which isn’t a lot) he hasn’t said anything which implies he is wrong about anything other than sexual morality, which I feel is very important, but isn’t something which denies the cross of Jesus Christ in my opinion.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Sound,
Do you find the faithful daring to question the hypocrisies of some priests and bishops problematic? I believe you’ll find that Christ required us to do so. Read Matthew 23 [show]Matthew 23
and educate yourself.
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you--but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear,(1) and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi(2) by others. But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers.(3) And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.(4) Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell(5) as yourselves.
"Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? And you say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.' You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it. And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it.
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, saying, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah,(6) whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! See, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" (ESV)
Footnotes
1. [23:4] Some manuscripts omit 'hard to bear'
2. [23:7] 'Rabbi' means 'my teacher', or 'my master'; also verse 8
3. [23:8] Or 'brothers and sisters'
4. [23:13] Some manuscripts add here (or after verse 12) verse 14: 'Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive the greater condemnation'
5. [23:15] Greek 'Gehenna'; also verse 33
6. [23:35] Some manuscripts omit 'the son of Barachiah'
July 15th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Blimey sound, I like your logic. Jesus says nothing about sacrificing children to Molech, so Reuben is for the knife tonight….
Can we try to engage in slightly better arguments than this? You don’t want to give the impression that revisionists are biblically illiterate do you?
July 15th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Tiffer,
Robinson is on record being extremely loose with the Creeds - “take whatever bits you like” is basically his approach. Mmmmmm… sounds wonderfully orthodox to me.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Sorry to be a pedant, but any links - not that if you don’t have any that means they aren’t there, I just would like to know whether the guy has been preaching heresy or not. Even if he’s a bit wobbly, that’s still better than many other clergy I have come across in the UK. I sometimes wonder if we should go back to using the book of homilies!
July 15th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Still like an answer to the question Peter…any chance it is forthcoming?
July 15th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Tiffer - let’s start here - http://www.kendallharmon.net/t.....61/#217629
July 15th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Sorry sound, which question would that be? To the best of my knowledge I’ve answered your queries several times.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Oh, and you seem to be missing bits out of the Gospels at will again Peter..Jesus was very clear about how we should behave with children…
The bible was much clearer about Bishops having more than one wife than it was about Bishops being gay…but of course you and your homophobes are silent on that one too…
July 15th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
I don’t think this is getting us anywhere sound is it? You just used the magic word “homophobe” that kinda acts like Godwin’s Law on this blog.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
However Peter, you haven’t answered any of mine. It would be great to have some responses, or you seem to be committing that which you accuse Changing Attitude of - not answering direct questions.
Again, I just want to reiterate that if you are to be consistent in your accusations against Gene Robinson, you need to broaden your targets - there seems to be much too much compromising going on Peter when it comes to who you believe is going to hell. Step up the anti - how many of us do you believe are hell bound! Which of the other bishops do you want to damn? What about your own? Has he knowingly given communion to any practising homosexuals recently? If so, it seems to me that you have no choice but to break communion with him.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Sound is it really constructive to start accusing people of being homophobes? If you really believe that this position always comes from inherent prejudice (it sometimes does for sure) and not from an attempt at a faithful reading of Scripture and an honest attempt to discern What God Thinks then what is the point in even debating? I can’t debate with someone who has determined me to be inherently prejudiced. It’s just a waste of time. I happen to know homosexual men who have opted to be celibate because they hold conservative views on sexuality - are they homophobes too?
And actually I would argue there is more warrant in scripture for polygamy than homosexuality, a lot more. There are good reasons why it is less than ideal, but we don’t rant about them because it isn’t a very current issue in the UK. Many African bishops are just as openly negative about polygamy as homosexuality (sometimes too much so IMHO)
Peter I don’t see that link as being conclusive. It is a common bit of advice, which I hear all sorts of people saying to lay people, to not feel they have to say the bits of the creed they don’t get yet. I have no problem with a congregation member who takes their time coming to a full nicene faith, however it would be incredibly worrying in an ordained person or anyone in Christian leadership. +Gene was a layperson when he was told this, and presumably he says the whole creed now.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Tell you what Winston, why don’t we set up a live video feed - you and me and a bunch of emailed in “Ask Peter” questions? Who’s up for “grill a priest”?
Glad to see that it’s so important to know what little old me thinks….
July 15th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
No webcam unfortunately!
Asking you is important Peter, you are the only evangelical priest who I really have any discussions with - you are my window into the psyche of the evangelical at large - what a joy for you!
However, I am wondering if you might not be kosher enough - just far too liberal, seeking out poor Gene Robinson when there are so many other targets. Maybe, I need to find someone whose target is not one lone bishop from the US, but someone who wants to root out heresy wherever it may be found.
I am going to book you in for a session with Akinola. Here is a great quote from him:
“We must rescue what is left of the Church from the error of apostates … we cannot dare not to allow ourselves and the millions we represent to be kept in a religious and spiritual dungeon … We can no longer trust where some of our Christian leaders are taking us.”
I note the emphasis on ‘leaders’. So, who will be first in your deanery Peter? You might even reach Jeffrey John by the evening with the bishop next.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
For clarity Peter, no you haven’t answered all questions..you are doing exactly wat you accvuse Changing Attitude of doing at the beginning of this silly episode….so..I am copying and pasting from an earlier post. A reply would be much apprecizted…
And I’ll ask, graciously, if you would answer the question you have STILL avoided answering. I’m not sure how I can make it any clearer…but here goes…you can of course tell me if you don’t know the answer…or don’t wish to tell me…no pressure…if I have no reply I will assume one of those applies.
What are the implications you are so sure of if +Gene does preside at the Eucharist, and will they still apply if he is a concelebrant?
July 15th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Sound I do believe Peter said that he is a sinner, ergo he answered your first question.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
I think we know the point you’re making Winston, and it’s a fair one. The issue is this though - the presenting issue is homosexuality and in particular the elevation of a practising homosexual to the episcopacy. That’s the current point of debate and it’s the most serious because it IS a mission issue. We need to sort out definitely where we’re at on this subject because we can’t go forward until we do.
I take no delight in taking pot-shots at Robinson et al, but let’s be absolutely clear. Robinson has come over here to the UK on an agenda of being as visible and as vocal as possible. Having done that he demands scrutiny in the same way that I doing this blogging thing publicly invite scrutiny from you and others.
So let’s get this specific issue settled once and for all - then we can continue with everything else.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
If Gene Robinson celebrates or con-celebrates it will not only be a violation of his not having a licence to celebrate in the Province of Canterbury, but taking place within the Archbishop’s own diocese it will be a deliberate snub to him and to the whole system of mutual respect and accountability in the Communion.
It demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that Inclusive Church / Integrity et al are not interested in listening or in following the rules they so loudly ask the conservatives to adhere to.
But given that their philosophy is “innovate, carry out and then let the rules catch up”, what more are we to expect?
July 15th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
You are still not answering part of the question..what are the IMPLICATIONS…not your own view about what it demonstrates, but the IMPLICATIONS you speak of early on this thread. In case you forgor, you wrote:
I have it on the highest authority that the Changing Attitudes team have had it spelt out to them in no uncertain detail what the implications are if Mr Robinson as much as waves a finger towards anything vaguely resembling the elements.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
What do YOU think the implications are sound? We could start another thread…
Let’s all speculate.
July 15th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
I don’t think there will be any implications….you told us confidently you knew what they would be in ‘no uncertain detail’… so either you do, or you don’t? Which is it?
July 15th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Peter
What about the Jeffrey John point? Certainly one agree that apposing homosexual practise should be allowed without warranting the homophobia label, but surey it is appopriate for opposing the consecration of a *celibate* man with homosexual orientation?
July 15th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
sound,
I believe that the statement you posted at 4:03pm, that he “told us confidently (he) knew what they would be in ‘no uncertain detail…’. is not borne out by the very quotation from Rev. Ould in your immeditately prior comment. In no manner does his statement (for clarity, here it is, cut and pasted from his original post: “By the way, and bringing up that permissions thing you spoke about, I have it on the highest authority that the Changing Attitudes team have had it spelt out to them in no uncertain detail what the implications are if Mr Robinson as much as waves a finger towards anything vaguely resembling the elements.”) support the assertion that Rev. Ould knows precisely what those consequences will be. Rather, it makes the categorical statement the Changing Attitudes has been given a precise understanding of the consequences.
It really does help in respectful and charitable dialog when every party takes the time and effort to understand exactly what the other parties are actually saying.
Blessings and regards
July 15th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
I know that my source says that CA have been made aware of the implications. Would you like me to go back and ask my source what the implications are?
July 15th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Damn Keith, you beat me to it.
I do like the fact though that you actually read carefully what I did write, not what you assumed I meant by what I wrote…
July 15th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Thanks Keith. Peter may or may not know these implications are. The quotation is ambiguous. But he speaks about having things on highest authority…I am asking him for clarity. If he does not know, he only needs to say. It’s that simple.
July 15th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Ryan,
I think the problem with Jeffrey John was firstly down to what he taught in “Permanent, Stable, Faithful” and secondly the fact that he was unrepentant about the previous sexual nature of his relationship with his (now) civil partner.
For the record though, I was one of those who did not think so much of a fuss should have been made about him being made Dean of St Albans. The appointment to the Abbey Church of St Albans, after his withdrawal from Reading, was a de facto admittance that he would not make purple after all.
July 15th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
For the record, several Deans have gone on to be Bishops…..the Bishop of Salisbury, the Bishop of Gloucester….to name but two.
July 15th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
OK sound, let’s do it again.
If you ask me, my understanding of the implications are what I posted above, which I’ll copy again here now:
If Gene Robinson celebrates or con-celebrates it will not only be a violation of his not having a licence to celebrate in the Province of Canterbury, but taking place within the Archbishop’s own diocese it will be a deliberate snub to him and to the whole system of mutual respect and accountability in the Communion.
It demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that Inclusive Church / Integrity et al are not interested in listening or in following the rules they so loudly ask the conservatives to adhere to.
But given that their philosophy is “innovate, carry out and then let the rules catch up”, what more are we to expect?
So what I’m basically saying is that the implication is that they will be sticking two fingers up at the rest of the Communion, the Primates and Rowan.
Whether this is the implication that CA have been indicated they will be understood by the powers that be as implying, I don’t know.
Now, what the *consequences* of all that are, well, who knows….
July 15th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Thank you Peter and sound,
I simply try to ensure that my comments respond to the precise meaning of that to which they are a response, and certainly when that meaning is readily accessible, just as I try to write with a corresponding precision, lest my thoughts be so ambiguous as to be taken amiss by my correspondents.
Blessings to you both
July 15th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Aaahh, well there we differ Keith. There are times I deliberately write with precision and times I deliberately write with ambiguity.
I’m an Anglican…
July 15th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Peter
How exactly would repentance for Jeffrey John’s past sexual relationship worked; should he have publicly denounced his past behaviour or something? Isn’t moving *from* a sexual relationship to being in a celibate relationship - in and of itself - indicative of repentance? I seriously doubt that a *straight* bishop who had written something supportive of homosex (didn’t ++Rowan do this in “The Body’s Grace”?) would have been prevented from becoming Bishop in the way John was. Serious question : did *you* never experience discrimination or the like from Christians due to your admittance of past SSA?
July 15th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Tiffer
No, Peter did not seek my permission to publish a private email exchange on this blog.
Proves I was right in my hunch that he was being disingenuous in asking Who is presiding? (Hm - No `please’ either, maybe Christian lesbians don’t warrant common courtesies?), as he clearly has another point to make.
`And that’s obviously why it was so easy for Changing Attitude to simply say to me “Don’t worry, Gene won’t be presiding”. It may have been easy Peter, but you didn’t ask me who wasn’t presiding. Why didn’t you ask me whether Gene was presiding if that is your real concern? Honest communication has the capacity to help build trust and genuine relationships.
Peter
I’m sad that you felt the need to spin this tongue in cheek exchange as sinister. Please recover your sense of humour and lighten up.
July 15th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Keith
You are a better man than I then…like Peter..I sometimes write provocatively.
The issue is about dialogue. Peter is convinced that active homosexuality is clearly a sin and that the bible can only be interpreted that way. I am very clear the bible is unclear about anything other than some very specific contexts. Serious biblical scholars are divided about the issue. We have no choice but to dialogue, and the conservatives are slowly recognising that the liberals are not going anywhere. So we have to find ways to get along…I respect Peter’s views. I think they are completely wrong. But he still has a valued place within the church. But I do object to the judgemental attitude he takes with phrases like ‘leading people to hell’.
July 15th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Peter,
Your publishing the exchange without permission and putting such as spin on it really does you no credit at all. I am glad that Brenda has had the honesty to point that out.
July 15th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Peter
You write `I have it on the highest authority that the Changing Attitudes team have had it spelt out to them in no uncertain detail what the implications are if Mr Robinson as much as waves a finger towards anything vaguely resembling the elements’.
Am curious to know from your source (`highest authority’? - thought that was God) who exactly has spelt out these mysterious `implications’ to the CA team. It’s news to us. Perhaps your highest authority is spinning. By the way - it’s ATTITUDE without the `s’.
July 15th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Ryan wrote, Isn’t moving *from* a sexual relationship to being in a celibate relationship - in and of itself - indicative of repentance?
No, not at all. So much is obvious. Random example: a man is treated very badly by his girlfriend and breaks off all relations with her, including the sexual ones. He decides that he is going to take ayear to sort himself out before going into another relationship. Repentance? Not even close. 2nd ex.: two men in a sexual relationship cool off on each other and then discover that, because of certain things about their situation in life, they gain financial benefits from a celibate relationship. Repentance? Not necessarily.
Pre-emptive explanation: a) I am _not_ saying or implying that these are explanations for J. John’s actions. I refuse to speculate. b) The point is that moving to a celibate relationship does NOT in itself show anything about repnetance. (In the present case, a retraction of the views put forth in his book would be solid evidence.)
July 15th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Douglas
I meant the moving from the sexual relationship to a celibate one is - in John’s case - indicative of repentance. In fact it wouldn’t suprise me if many evangelicals thought that he had just temporarily stopped having sex with his partner for the benefit of his career. And academics (which I garner John was or is) should be allowed to explore issues without later having to recant them (or do we really want alleged theologians hedging their intelletual bets with an eye to career advancement?).
July 15th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Nice to have you here Brenda. Perhaps you can answer us a simple question.
Who will be presiding at the Eucharist outside St Stephen’s church, Canterbury on the 20th? Your complete failure to answer this simple question is frankly starting to be a little embarrassing. What is the problem with simply telling us the answer? What’s the mystery? Are you protecting someone? Shades of Michael Howard…
“Did you threaten to preside at the Eucharist on the 20th”?
July 15th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Proves I was right in my hunch that he was being disingenuous in asking Who is presiding?
You need to look up disingenuous again in the dictionary. I was quite clear about what I wanted to know - who was presiding - and that is the subject of this thread.
I’m sad that you felt the need to spin this tongue in cheek exchange as sinister. Please recover your sense of humour and lighten up.
Tongue in cheek? You’re suggesting that when I asked you a straight forward easy to answer question, I was actually just being tongue in cheek?
Tell you what Brenda. I’ll do you an extra special favour. Email me with the details of who will be presiding and I’ll make sure that it’s published for all to read on this website.
Unless of course there’s something to hide…
July 16th, 2008 at 12:11 am
You people absolutely break my heartp stating with your Hocus Pocus which in this context clearly dishonors both the Blessed Sacrament, to your ignoring the Episcopal consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire as Gene instead of +Gene (Anglican tradition don’t you know), to the vindictive pettiness of so many of the comments, perhaps most graphicly the comment on footwear.
How can you possibly expect people of good faith to take you seriously.
Anywhere else I’d mistake you for a bunch of simpering queens.
July 16th, 2008 at 12:36 am
Who are these people you are referring to? This is the comments page of an individual’s blog, with many commentators with differing views.
Hocus pocus was originally slang for an important part of a Eucharistic prayer, which presumably is the sense in which Peter O is using it. This can still be offensive, but in many different church circles in the Uk (catholic, liberal, evangelical etc) I have experienced this would be considered risque but not in bad taste.
Where was the shoe comment -I clearly missed it?
July 16th, 2008 at 2:36 am
My, my Peter. You certainly seem to have hit some sore spots of your Worthy Opponents.
Keep up the good work.
July 16th, 2008 at 6:59 am
Alas, Peter simply does himself and his cause a great disservice with the whole of this ‘thread’. He has published a private correspondence without permission. He has not apologised and he is dissembling about his reasons for writing in the first place. Maybe CA simply haven’t decided who is to preside yet? Maybe it will be a general concelebration? Maybe it will be lay presidency?
And if Peter wants to talk about people having no respect for ++Rowan, he might ask himself what all the people at Gafcon were doing, when Rowan clearly had no sympathy for the thing happening.
CA and any other group can hold a picnic whenever they wish. The can incorporate a eucharist and ask whoever they wish to preside. I believe that legally Rowans’ ‘prohibition’ would only actually extend to authorised services in authorised buidlings if legal push came to shove.
Peter, you need to be careful how you refer people to the word honesty when you are sometimes less than honest yourself. And your post today simply smacks of arrogance and self righteousness once again, and dishonours all Christian people.
July 16th, 2008 at 7:34 am
As the Director of Changing Attitude England, I step reluctantly into this thread. Peter, we know who will be presiding at the Eucharist on Sunday. The service is not about personalities, but about God and our offering to God of the worship and prayer by hereosexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Anglicans and others. We will give praise and glory to God.
By focussing on Changing Attitude in this way, you do us a great service and we are reluctantly thankful You increase the hits on our web site and bring our work and mission to the attention of many more people.
We have not asked for permission for the person who will preside at the eucharist. We have been open about our Eucharist and those who will particiapte in it with those for whom such openness is appropraiet. You are not one of those people. Out of courtesy, we have informed Lambeth Palace, the Diocese of Canterbury, and St Stephen parish, of our desire to worship God on Sunday afternoon in the open air in Canterbury. Changing Attitude has always tried to respect people’s need for privacy and confedentiality and to relate approprately to the authorities of the Chuirch of England. As a result, we find that we are held in considerable respect.
As I have written on the CA web site, people will judge you by the language you used in your original post on this thread and by what you have written eslewhere. Gene Robinosn is a bishop in the Anglican Communion as as such his title is Rt Revd and not Mr. It is by such deliberate abuse of people that you reveal yourself and your own failures, Peter.
July 16th, 2008 at 7:47 am
So let’s sum up what Colin is saying:
“Peter is horrid and wicked and evil and has maliciousness and has deception at his heart - but we’re still not going to say who we have planned to preside at a public service of Holy Communion on Sunday”.
Your Ad hominem is brilliant Colin. Shame you haven’t even begun to answer the real issue at hand - who will be presiding at the Eucharist.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Peter-
I think at this point it might be useful to say precisely why you would object to Gene Robinson presiding over the Eucharist.
July 16th, 2008 at 9:05 am
The issue is very simple Jonathan. Gene Robinson does not have a licence to officiate here in England. Were he to even con-celebrate he would be ignoring the specific implicit refusal to allow him to officiate at a communion here in the Province of Canterbury.
July 16th, 2008 at 9:17 am
This is getting ridiculous. Can’t you guys (Colin or Brenda) answer a simple question? What do you have to hide?
July 16th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Peter
That would be true if it were an authorised service in an authorised building. I suspect a picnic organised by an interest group does not count.
If you recall, Gafcon were specifically asked, by the Bishop of Jerusalem, not to meet in Jeruslaem. Did they pay any attention to the request or not?
July 16th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Why is it necessary to have a licence to preside over communion in a different country to your own? Seems a little bureaucratic, don’t you think?
July 16th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Excellent point Jonathan. Peter seems to be becoming ever more pharisaical….
July 16th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Paul,
It’s an Anglican service taking place within the parish boundaries. That makes it an official service under the same discipline as one inside the building.
A Church of England incumbent is responsible to the Bishop of the Diocese for all the Church of England things that happen within his parish, because the Bishop authorises all ministry within his diocese. He (the Bishop) is ultimately responsible for all the ministry within his See, preaching, presiding and everything else.
July 16th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Jonathan
1. Something that creates bureaucracy is not necessarily bad of itself. Presiding at communion requires ordination as priest under canon law. It seems very straightforward to me that we need to have confidence in a person’s orders before we allow them to celebrate in our church. Checking that a person has been validly ordained necessitates bureaucracy.
2. Regardless of what you think, that is the canon law and priests in the Church of England have declared that they will “pay true and canonical obedience” to their Bishop. If you think they shouldn’t, please let us know.
Under Canon C8 paragraph 5, a minister who has been ordained priest or deacon by an overseas bishop within the meaning of the Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967 may not minister in the province of Canterbury or York without the permission of the archbishop of the province in question under the said Measure.
Of course we don’t yet know WHO is to preside at Changing Attitude’s picnic service. If, however, that person is someone who does not have the permission of the archbishop of the province of Canterbury then it is quite obvious what the objection is.
Paul,
Canon C8 clearly says that a minister “may officiate in any place” only after he has received authority to do so from the bishop of the diocese or other the Ordinary of the place.
I don’t see any restrictions to a building. Do you?
If you think upholding canon is being pharsaical then do you denounce those who have made declarations of assent thereo? Please do so
Perhaps I can ask an albeit more complex question which doesn’t require us to know the precise identity of the celebrant?
Can Changing Attitude confirm that any person who
(1) will preside at any Eucharist outside St Stephen’s church, Canterbury on 20th July; and
(2) has been ordained priest by an overseas bishop within the meaning of the Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967;
has the permission of the Archibishop of Canterbury to minister in the province of Canterbury?
July 16th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Peter, you really ARE becoming pharisaical..get a life….
July 16th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Gregory-
“It seems very straightforward to me that we need to have confidence in a person’s orders before we allow them to celebrate in our church. Checking that a person has been validly ordained necessitates bureaucracy”
I don’t think there’s any doubt that Gene Robinson, for instance, has been validly ordained as a bishop. That is, after all, what the whole fuss is about. To me it does seem rather against the spirit of inclusiveness to say that those that can preside over the Eucharist should be restricted simply because of their nationality- seems a little unChristian. Of course, fi the issue is that it is be cause Robinson is gay, then that’s a whole different story.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Colin and Brenda,
I would agree with you that many of the things Peter Ould has said (and many of us on both sides) in this thread and the opening post is not ideal, and I for one would like to apologise if anything I have said has caused offense or been less than constructive.
However Peter’s original question, of who will be presiding, is a fair one. If CA had simply been straight with Peter from the start, or perhaps told Peter where and when that information would be published (provided you were planning on publishing it) then he wouldn’t have felt the need to keep asking over and over and you could have saved yourself a lot of hassle. I can see that their might be a political disadvantage in giving out the information - if it is +Gene (Rt Rev’d isn’t often used for any Bishops on the interweb) presiding then obviously that will cause quite a stir, but it’s going to come out anyway after the event, and if it isn’t +Gene then the fact that it isn’t will be amplified and it could be painful for those involved. These are important considerations, but surely we should be living in the light and doing all things in the light? Clearly this doesn’t mean honesty with everyone about everything but when it refers to something as public and important as a Eucharist then I think it does. You have said that you have been open about the Eucharist with those for whom that openness is appropriate, and surely that includes all who have been invited, Peter O being one of that number (unless you are going to copy GAFCON and have a banned list!). If it is an open Eucharist service those who have been invited