Updated Friday morning
Both Lambeth Palace and the Anglican Communion Office issued press releases about this. The differences were in the headlines used:
Lambeth Palace Archbishop – ‘friendly but candid’ meeting with Bishop Gene Robinson
ACNS Archbishop Williams meets with Bishop Robinson
The press reported on this quite quickly:
Reuters Williams has “candid” talks with gay U.S. bishop
Associated Press Archbishop of Canterbury meets with Robinson
Times Online website Ruth Gledhill Rowan Williams has ‘candid’ meeting with gay US bishop
And Ruth has much more to say in her blog: Archbishop meets Gene Robinson
Friday morning
The paper edition of The Times has this version of the above: Archbishop meets US figure at heart of row
Independent Robert Verkaik Archbishop meets cleric who set off gay clergy row
Guardian Stephen Bates (who actually talked to the bishop) has Gay US bishop in ‘candid’ talks with Archbishop of Canterbury
Jonathan Petre in the Telegraph mentions it but gives priority to the Southwark ordination story (of which more anon) in Evangelicals defy bishop by holding ‘irregular’ ordinations
The BBC, coming late to the party (having previously focused on the Oxford Union), notes that Gay bishop meets head of Church
The BBC Today radio programme carried an interview with Gene Robinson in its prime 8.10 am slot and also had this earlier brief report (Real Audio required)
Update
Associated Press Bishop Predicts Acceptance Of Gays
BBC Bishop’s battle ‘for soul of church’ by Robert Pigott
To quote from Ruth Gledhill on the Robinson/Williams meeting, “Rod Thomas, spokesman for the conservative grouping Reform, told me he was left ‘speechless’ by the news. ‘I am running out of superlatives to describe the outrage that I feel,’ he said.” A spokesman speechless? Not much use, is it? Mr Coekin is not so speechless about the irregular ordinations in Southwark, sadly: “Some bishops in the Church of England think they can re-invent the Christian faith by tearing difficult pages out of the Bible in the name of political correctness” This is a gross misrepresentation of where the bishops he… Read more »
Concerning the ‘irregular ordinations’ in Southwark, my first thoughts were: ‘Render to CESA the things that are CESA’s and to the C of E the things that are the C of E’s…’
This is, however, very serious indeed and is likely to have profound implications. It would be good to know:
1. To whom was canonical obedience sworn (if at all)?
2. Which liturgy was used?
3. Who, if any, apart from Bishop Morrison, laid on hands?
To answer Graham’s question 2:
“The service was a straight-forward Anglican rite as used by the Church of England in South Africa, which was essentially the 1662 Ordinal in modernised English….”
From a report by Church Society.
I also look forward to hearing more about this matter, which is discussed more fully in a later item on this blog.
These men were ordained as deacons, and therefore there is no need for others to participate in the laying on of hands.
Will the Bishop of Southwark be prepared to preside when they are priested? He would be wise to do so.
The contrast between Gene Robinson’s election and ordination as Bishop of New Hampshire and what are said to have been “ordinations” in a proprietory chapel in Wimbledon could hardly be more stark. The first was done with great care and forethought within the proper structures of the local church. The second was done in defiance of the way the local church decides who it recognises as proper ministers in the community. It seems to me that it is only the local bishop or those authorised by him who can ordain – i.e. authorise a person as a minister. The Wimbledon… Read more »
Wonder why many always resort to the following lines.
“We learned that with people of colour, we have learned that with women and now we are learning that about gay and lesbian people.” -Gene R.
Wrong correlations sir. I cannot remember the bible telling of a city destroyed because of the colour or sex of inhabitants. I know of many destroyed because of the evil practices of the inhabitants.
Of course the Bishop of Southwark won’t be there, as these aren’t ordinations into the Anglican priesthood. They are not Anglicans.
Dear Rodney, I think your comment says a lot about the diffence between our approaches to authority. In my view all Christians are subject primarily to Christ and the authority of Scripture. Bishops have no right to try to ordain or consecrate anyone who does not adhere to Christian theology or is living in defiance of Christian morality. Nor does a Bishop (eg Southwark) have a divine right to refuse to ordain people who ARE orthodox and faithful Christians just because he rejects their brand of orthodoxy. He should have made alternative arrangements, rather like Bishops who won’t ordain women… Read more »
Dave: “Yes! FiF are more *truly* tolerant than some “nice liberals”!”
Yes! and black is white, and freedom is slavery, and… You know Dave, maybe if you say this stuff often enough, you can *make* it be true. At least the propagandists tell us it can be made to happen that way.
Yes, Dave, an Anglican Bishop has the right to refuse to ordain anyone who hasn’t been accepted for ordination in the Church of England. Like these three. It has nothing to do with their orthodoxy or whatever word you choose to use, and everything to do with the fact that there are procedures one goes through to be ordained, and these three did not go through any of them. I do not believe that ANY English Diocesan Bishop could have validly ordained these three. Anyway, that wasn’t the idea – it was all about getting publicity for the build up… Read more »
Well, Dave, we are Anglicans (at least I used to be, and you still are, I assume). The last time I looked one of the fundamentals of being Anglican was a three-fold ministry. The local church is organised around a bishop, one of whose responsibilites is authorise leaders and teachers within the community: we call that ordaining priests and deacons. I suppose on one view of it there would be nothing to stop a group of people appointing their own leaders, but that would not be the way Anglicans do it. And Anglicans don’t go behind the back of the… Read more »
*True* correlations, Tunde. I cannot remember the bible telling of a city destroyed because its gay and lesbian inhabitants (especially not its *Christian* gays and lesbians). People who are *inhospitable* (like those of Sodom and Gomorrah) are taking foolish chances, though.
That zealots have destroyed others’ cities in the *name of their god* (and their false god’s false morality) is an all-too-common occurrence. 🙁
Lord have mercy!
Tunde, the conquest of the Holy Land shows that while “color” might not have been a cause for laying waste cities and all their inhabitants (and even the cattle!), ethnicity certainly was. This is all in Scripture: Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel.
Simeon wrote: ” FiF are more *truly* tolerant than some “nice liberals”! – Yes! and black is white, and freedom is slavery, and… “
Our FiF supporting diocesan ordains women as deacons and gets the metropolitan to ordain them as priests. (As a friend of mine will be shortly).
Apparently +Southwark won’t ordain Reform folk at all; nor pass them up the line..
Well Dave, this Surbiton incident suggest that Reform folk are quite capable of promoting themselves…
In old fashioned political terms, Dave, organisations like Reform and FiF are best described as “ginger groups”. They see it as their role to irritate those with whom they disagree so much that the opposition gives in, and the ginger group gets what it wants. It’s clear from the Bishop’s letter which Simon has now posted that there’s a “church plant” organisation causing problems even for other evangelicals in Southwark. The bishop has to deal with it, and the planters are fighting him every inch of the way. If a member of Reform were presented to the bishop for ordination… Read more »
Apparently the Bishop refuses to ordain *anyone* who studied at the Oak Hill Theological College. I don’t know why; but here’s three long-shot possibilities:
1. Their football team is a little rougher than the average Theol Coll (or so I was told when I went there for an interview)
2. They aren’t based in Oxford or Cambridge
3. They are conservative evangelical.
Guesses anyone ?
Tobias, and JCF Not ethnicity but the PRACTICES of ‘inhabitants of the land’ and especially to avoid the pollution of the ‘holy people of God’ see Deut. 7 and Deut.20:16-18 for the instructions that was carried out in Joshua, Judges and 1st Samuel Also note that the idea of not being *all inclusive* is based on the readiness or otherwise of people to worship the one true God and not their own idea of who god is. In fact the term Israelites during the conquest referred to converted foreigners ready to serve Yaweh as much as to the native born.… Read more »