Has Gene Robinson been prohibited from preaching in England?

Yours truly said yes. Apparently, I’m wrong as Conger neatly pointed out a while back.

A press officer confirmed on May 2 that Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams had not issued Bishop Robinson a license to officiate in the Province of Canterbury. However, Church of England canon law does not grant the archbishop the authority to ban preachers, the spokesman noted.

Mea culpa extraordinaire.

So this leaves us with the following issues:

  1. I need to do some better homework next time
  2. Regardless, Gene Robinson still doesn’t have a licence to officiate in the province.
  3. Inclusive Church / Integrity / Changing Attitude still won’t tell us who’s presiding at the Eucharist just outside St Stephen’s Church, Canterbury this Sunday.

It’s been well over 24 hours now. I’ve got nothing to hide. I’m quite happy to tell the truth about what I did and didn’t get right. Shame we can’t say the same about those happy inclusive liberals.

Let’s go to bed with a quote shall we?

The "H" word is not homosexuality, but honesty

Guess who said that? Ahhh…. you know don’tcha?

8 Comments on “Has Gene Robinson been prohibited from preaching in England?

  1. What a thoroughly unpleasant and arrogant post Peter, lacking in any Christian grace and charity. . Let’s be clear that the H word is for humility, and that you show none of it.

  2. So I’ve come out and apologised for getting some facts wrong, and that makes me not humble? Makes perfect sense.

    Paul, I think your problem is less with the fact that I might have got something wrong, and more with the fact that I’m highlighting the way that Changing Attitude has been caught out trying to hide something.

  3. Look at the way you write and the whole attitude you take Peter! It is anything BUT humble! It is self righteous, self important and arrogant. There is nothing humble about it.
    The only person who has been caught out is you. You apparently published private correspondence without permission and told less than the truth about ‘highest authorities’ and ‘implications.’ If you want to call yourself a christian you need to do rather better….

  4. What I find interesting is that +Gene has said he won’t preach in the UK without ++Rowan’s permission, so whether or not he legally needs that permission he is still going against his word. Has he explained this U-turn? I have to ask why he even asked ++Rowan for his permission if he was going to ignore it anyway.

  5. Paul, your ad hominem attack lacks any content to substantiate your “thoughts”. With unsubstantiated charges such as “thoroughly unpleasant and arrogant” and “self righteous, self important and arrogant” you are a mouth without a mind. See if you can correct that in the future. We would all think much better of you if you demonstrated some intellectual panache on the topic rather than crude, mindless name calling devoid of thought.


  6. Paul
    I find your own comment to be “self righteous, self important and arrogant”.
    To top it all in using the phrase “If you want to call yourself a christian you need to do rather better….” you suggest that you are a proponent of justification by works, rather than the true path of salvation salvation, justification by faith in Jesus Christ.

    I hardly see how Peter is the only one who “has been caught out” when Changing Attitude refused to answer for two whole days who will preside at their Eucharist – which is after all a dominically-instituted sacrament. It’s perfectly possible to say “I will not answer that”, but the vitriol directed at Peter instead of a “straight answer” shows that it is not Peter who has been “caught out” but those with whom he has corresponded who tried every manner of answer other than truth. Had Peter been given the direct answer to his question there would have been no need for all the hullabaloo.

    Peter was only mistaken with regards a one-off sermon. Big deal. If the relevant preacher from another province is to preach regularly then he would need the bishop’s permission to do so under canon B43. Even for the one-off sermon the incumbent and PCC must approve, and the incumbent must ensure (in view of his own oath) that what is preached in his parish is consonant with (and not indicative of a departure from) the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness.

  7. Peter, in the light of some responses above, you might be interested to check out the wording of somethingover here and also recall someone you banned from the forum last year. Of course, it could be just (amazingly) entirely coincidental… if you believe in coincidences, that is.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.