"To those bishops who go to Lambeth knowing the unrepentant homosexual activity is wrong"

Unrepentant homosexual activity AT Lambeth? Perhaps Phillip Jensen is revealing more than he thinks he is! ;-p (And obviously, this isn't including +Gene Robinson, who---being partnered---is the only one at Lambeth who WOULDN'T have to repent of said activity!)

***

"To them I would say: Are they Evangelicals? So am I. Are they orthodox? So am I. Do they believe in the authority of scripture? So do I (including the bits they regularly downplay). Are they keen on mission? So am I, and on the full mission of God’s kingdom which an older Evangelicalism often ignores."

Heh: so am *I* . . . and so is the rest of TEC, which both +Wright and GAFCON disrespect so freely.

Lord have mercy!

I would like to comment on Dean Jensens's view of tarnish. He states that to go to Lambeth is to compromise the truth.

Dean Jensen does not believe that women should preach to mixed congregations, yet he allows the ordination of preaching women deacons in his Cathedral.

Dean jensen regards the Roman Catholic understanding of the Gopsel and sacraments as serious error..yet he advocates attendance at GAFCON, where Anglo-catholics who have taken on board that theology will be present.

My question is if the bishops who consecrated Gene Robinson are wrong, is not by his own standards Doctor Nazir Ali who is a staunch supporter of womens ordination and Bishop iker who holds the Catholic view of sacramental theology? Why did he not further ban his brother from holdng female ordinations in his Cathedral?

Furthermore Archbishop jensen, his brother says on Australian Radio that he supports gay civil rights, but will not countenance gays taking their partners to a school dance?

The Bishop of Durham has been particularly anguished about the divisions being fostered by Akinola/Minns/GAFCON et al. He said some time ago that there would be no winners, only losers.

The Church of England (as the Archbishop of Canterbury has stressed) is often seen as a rope of three strands of churchmanship: liberal, Anglo-Catholic and evangelical. The liberals have been on the slide because liberals are increasingly secular in Britain. The Anglo-Catholics lost their former position of great strength in the Church of England when so many defected over the ordination of women. This left evangelicals in a stronger position in the Church of England than for many generations.

But the broad group of English evangelicals (characterised by a low church approach to ministry/priesthood, emphasis on personal study of the bible, preference for informality in worship styles) are now being split by the GAFCON agenda.

So the Bishop complains that GAFCON, as an "alternative" Lambeth, "hands an apparent moral victory to those who can cheerfully wave goodbye to the ‘secessionists’"

In other words, this divides and reduces the evangelical presence in England just as the ordination of women divided and reduced the Anglo Catholic presence. These are "his" people, which is why he feels particularly bad about it. But the splitters aren't listening.

Peter Jensen's attack must hurt, especially - "your profession of evangelical credentials will always be tarnished".

The agenda which suits US conservatives who have no future in a liberal dominated ECUSA means draining lifeblood from UK evangelicals like N T Wright. But it looks as if GAFCON internationally either doesn't know or doesn't care about that.

Charles Raven is an interesting example of the GAFCON church in England. He is ordained (the Rev Charles Raven) but his byline on Virtue Online describes his church at Christ Church Wyre Forest as "an independent Anglican congregation but located within Worcester Diocese."

He has explained: "In 1999, I and my parish church broke fellowship with the then Bishop of Worcester, Peter Selby, as a result of his public denunciation of Lambeth 1.10 and his patronage of the gay/lesbian pressure group Changing Attitude."

So he was well in the vanguard of the tiny numbers of evangelicals who propose, unambiguously, to leave the Church of England and not just to complain from within.

Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

The problem is what Wright believes.

Raven didn't leave ....he was pushed. Carey had no time for his appeal, and called his bluff. Since then Carey has become more sympathetic to leavers.

JCF,

It is evident one can say almost anything here, and some do. For example this - Evangelical..."and so is the rest of TEC." What to make of this? Here language has lost all meaning. The only question, to what end does one say something like this? To sow confusion and build walls!?

Ben W

I've made extended comment; similar to badman in some respects.

http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2008/04/more-wright-and-wrong.html

Bishop Tom's lecture helps to clarify the philosophical basis underpinning Windsor and the Covenant. He urges us to study 2 Corinthians, not without some humour, as in his parody of Chapter 11.22 in the CT article: (Are they Hebrews? So am I...): "Are they Evangelicals? So am I. Are they orthodox? So am I. Do they believe in the authority of scripture? So do I...".

GAFCON's bright brash super-apostles are asked to live the death and resurrection and come to Lambeth. Is Charles Raven right in relation to Chapter 11? Aren't the letters being sent out to TEC's Covenant doubters in order to "cut the ground from under the feet of those who are looking for a chance to be proved my equals in grounds for boasting"; to flush out the "counterfeit apostles, dishonest workers diguising themselves as apostles of Christ", since (in Ch12) "I shall be grieved by all those who sinned in the past and have still not repented of the impurities and sexual immorality and debauchery that they have committed."

The urgency of the lecture reflects Paul's temper: the ban on gay bishops and blessings is a pre-condition for admission to the new covenant community. No mention of the Listening Process - careful not to be outwitted by Satan!

You can get carried away by reading too much into this sort of stuff. But like Pluralist, Cheryl and MerseyMike, exile sounds more appealing.

Ben W,

Thank you for calling my attention to the mistake I made in my previous post. I *meant* to say [about being Evangelical) "so am *I* . . . and so is the rest of ***the democratic-majority*** of TEC."

Obviously, there is a minority (reflected at the past two General Conventions) that, having failed to persuade the majority w/ their BAD News, is set upon being as vocal w/ the Bad News (esp. to the rest of the AC) as possible!

"to what end does one say something like this? To sow confusion and build walls!?"

TEC has the MOST excellent of all possible Good News to share, Ben W: "God is LOVE, and versy-vicey"! If you find confusion and walls in that, I suggest you look for the source within?

God love ya, Ben!

I think that we must stop thinking that those in the GAFCON arrangement are simply doing this out of spite; they and I with them, really do believe that we must defend what Holy scripture says and uphold it.

But can you not see that those who you would label as liberal revisionists feel equally convinced and passionately about their beliefs, Mark?

Of course, the logic is a cross-national split of the entire denomination, given that there are really not enough common beliefs to be contained within one organisation.

And thing of it is, is that you and the GAFCON ilk have the audacity to believe that it is only you both upholding & defending what Scripture says (to you).

Don't you think this a tad bit arrogant?

Mark,

I, too, firmly believe that I must be faithful to and uphold what the scriptures say. And each time I stand up to preach or stand up to speak to a motion dealing with human sexuality, I am remaining true to what I understand the scriptures to say. Personally, I really resent being told that I am being unfaithful to the sciptures or that I am not truly faithful to the Christian faith just because my understanding is not the same as someone else's. I am willing to accept that you are being faithful and committed to your faith even though we might differ on understanding. Please allow that I (and others who share my understandings or not) are being just as faithful and committed.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Hi Choirboy-
'What scripture [or the library which we call 'the Bible'] says' cannot be reduced to 'what scripture says *to you*'. As with most documents, a decent proportion will be either perfectly clear or tolerably clear. Even with the remainder, interpretations which are impossible outnumber by a factor of millions those which are possible.

Chris and Mark:
It is nothing but sheer arrogance to tell me that what you gain from scripture needs to be mine also. And hammering on certain parts of scripture disproportionately demonstrates the haughtiness of those with a greater agenda.

Sorry, you've lost me altogether.

Ann Marie Nicklin wrote: “Personally, I really resent being told that I am being unfaithful to the scriptures or that I am not truly faithful to the Christian faith just because my understanding is not the same as someone else's. I am willing to accept that you are being faithful and committed to your faith even though we might differ on understanding.”

Pray, how does this differ from a mere Subjectivity of the “my, me, mine” kind?

We are unfortunately dealing not with the Texts themselves but with “translations”, much into Philosophy taking a Gnosticist anti Procreation (pro Abstinence, Mandatory Celibacy) thought frame for granted as “Christian” (blame Candidus of Fulda and Anselm of Canterbury).

It seems very clear to me that scripture prohibits same sex partnerships; we are never going to agree because you seem to believe that if scripture says something and you do not agree, then you can simply ignore it. Now I am as guilty of this as anyone else, but faithfulness to the church catholic and the scriptures has to be on universal terms not personal ones. The only way we will unite as the Body of Christ is to universally agree on these issues and stop schismatic appointments on both sides; Mins and Robinson are both guilty and their appointments have done little to solve the situation. Faithfulness is universal not individual.

"It seems very clear to me that scripture prohibits same sex partnerships; we are never going to agree because you seem to believe that if scripture says something and you do not agree, then you can simply ignore it."

Oh, PLEASE not again!
We do not ignore what Scriptures say because we don't agree with it.
Unlike you, we are not persuaded that Scriptures prohibit the stable and faithful loving relationships we are talking abut.

I am really getting very very tired of being accused of deliberately ignoring Scriptures.
A little more respect for those who disagree with you would be enormously helpful.

"Faithfulness is universal not individual."

I quite disagree. Faith is personal. Faith is individual. God speaks to me on a personal level, not as a mass broadcast.

"It seems very clear to me that scripture prohibits same sex partnerships..."

It seems very clear to me that scripture prohibits lending money at interest...and yet I do not campaign to deny faith to all those who do so. (In fact, I do so myself--I have a mortgage and a bank account, after all.) I understand that much of scripture is tied to a particular cultural and temporal milieu and not to a real understanding of what God wants of us.

I understand that the authors of scripture--inspired by the Spirit--did not always hear the Spirit clearly...that their cultural background prevented them from completely comprehending God's plan for all humanity. Similarly, though I believe I comprehend how the Spirit speaks to me, today, I am not hubristic enough to think I am incapable of misunderstanding.

That, I think, is the difference between us, Mark: You are absolutely convinced you have it right; I am merely sure that I have it as right as I can manage, being human and fallible, after all.

"Faithfulness is universal not individual."-M. Wharton

Then prove it by stopping the schism.

Y'all are ignoring the Scriptural endorsements of slavery and polygamy. At least one denomination in southwestern America takes the latter very seriously. Thank God someone still reads the whole and clear meaning of Scripture!

@Choirboy:

"Then prove it by stopping the schism."

Mark said as much when he wrote: "The only way we will unite as the Body of Christ is to universally agree on these issues and stop schismatic appointments on both sides; Mins [sic] and Robinson are both guilty and their appointments have done little to solve the situation."

In other words, in Mark you have a conservative who wants to be constructive without sacrificing his own views. For my part I applaud that, even if I also respectfully disagree with him on the specifics.

So why verbally bash him over the head? Is it your goal to drive out anyone who doesn't think like you do? If so, you must enjoy empty pews, and you're no better than the hotheads on the other side that you get up in arms about. Meanwhile I'd really like to have and keep a church able to accommodate a wide range of views, and that includes people of a more conservative bent. We need each other, whether or not some of us care to admit it.

I think that there can be a very real danger of a "my", "me", "mine" faith if one does not discern/develop that faith in the midst of community. But even then each of us develop some individual ways of expressing our faith because each of us is unique.

What we believe/understand can change over time but it is not something that we can sit down and state - today, I will believe this. We can't just say - well so and so, the great high (and very human) mucky-mucky, says that what I have believed is wrong, and that I must now believe this and so I will. It is not just a head exercise, it also involves the heart and the intuition. If something is said that goes against some of the strong basics that one was brought up with, it takes a lot to change that.

But to call down someone's else faith because it doesn't parallel what one's own is beyond the individual's scope of responsibility. One may disagree and attempt to point up out weaknesses/errors but faith is individual at its heart. As Christians we work with that by nurturing faith in community.

Maybe those of us who support healthy, committed same sex relationships are wrong (I sincerely don't believe that we are) but we have come to it through study of scriptures and truly believe that we are being faithful to our Lord, Jesus Christ. The wrong is that we are judged as not faithful and non-scriptural when it is our faith and our understanding of scripture that leads us to believe as we do.

I must add something to my comment "Faithfulness is universal not individual" I admit that our faith is personal but we must be at one with the voice of Church because our faith is expressed as one complete catholic body. How can scripture support same sex partnerships; it breaks my heart that we are tearing ourselves apart over a whole load of issues but I continue in my conservative views because I believe this is the truth and the cost has been very dear. I know that you have all suffered, but regardless of your views, I still call you friends. I am a conservative with constructive views and I think WE ALL need to stop and think before we act anymore. "Wait for the Lord"
Please choirboyfromhell stop this aggression SHALOM

The way I see it, the gospel truths speak for themselves. Unless some unknown individual that we don't know about, has a direct pipeline to the author, and has permission to change it, it stands.

One can choose to intepret whatever they like, in whatever way they choose, but a chair is a chair, and regardless of whether someone says it's a table, it's still a chair. How anyone can decipher that a same sex relationship, and what that includes sexually, can be rationlized in some way through study of the scripture, is beyond the pale of basic reasoning.

Mark: I've been going to church all my life; I've always been gay; and I've always known lots of clergy in same-sex relationships, including older ones going back through the generations now. It's nothing new - the new thing is simply Conservative Evangelicals realising that we have always been around in churches. It's not a question of us "stopping" somehow - we've always been there, and always will be, whether the rest of you can cope with us being open or not.

M. Wharton and Walsingham:

I may be brusque, and apologize for bruising sensitive egos here, but there is no pain like being attacked, vilified, and left out of a church in which you thirst for God's presence.

Mark Wharton, I have musical standards that few cathedrals, let alone parishes can attain. I do not ever expect them to attain my level of education and performance that has been expected in my career. But I would not for a minute ever demand them to my wishes (and that is all that they are). Why can't you see this parallel in theology?

I have never left the Episcopal Church. Believe it or not, I disagree strongly with some of the "trendy-liberal" nonsense that has emerged over the years, but I try to work with it and also work hard at retaining things dear to me and many that feel left behind. This includes traditionalists (at least liturgically) and the LGBT community on the other spectrum as well. But I will not put up with a faction that wants to control, demean or put down any group by how they were born, that they have a disagreement with. Goodness gracious, what do you think should be done with the mentally retarded when they desire to come to church?

You are aiding a schism based on prejudice. I also feel that the things you have said on this blogsite have hurt more than one very deeply with your high-mindedness. I have probably done the same, but I am tired of those that keep running to their bibles to put others down. They are to me in many ways the bullies that have been talked about on other forums at TA.

I was born small and learned to deal with these bullies very early on, so at times my type "A" personality shines forth (Yep, I was a very good high school wrestler). I am sorry to have ever offended anybody, but am sick and tired of those who run to their collective bibles to cast stones against a group of people who want only to live together in peace and fidelity. I will give you credit for at least to be willing to worship together. That's a start, yes, we do need to stop and think before we act. That I agree wholeheartedly.

Walsingham: I would never want to drive anybody out, and sorry if my statements seem to indicate this. It is others who DO want us out, and I feel that quite clearly, so please forgive my reactiveness.

The FOUR self deceptions of GAFCON...

1)GAFCON is a spontanteous rejection by Global South persons against western decadence, and is not led and co-ordinated by white Anglo-Saxon males.

2)Orthodoxy is anyone opposed to homosexuality.

3)That they are conservative on sexual issues...with their divorcce and re-marriage, contraception and African closet polygamy.

4)That the Bible is clear on ALL ISSUES, when they are split on umpteen issues from womens orrdination to divorce.

Mark Wharton,

In short: Conformism. Soviet Psychiatry.

But Councils err. Even the Great 7.

; = )

@Choirboy:

I fully understand and agree that there is a lot of pain being caused, whether intentional or not. But the antidote is not to retaliate in kind.

A certain extremely wise man once said some very useful words in Matthew 5:38-42. If we apply that to today's situation and take the high road, no amount of prejudice or attacks real or imagined will daunt us.

It is also worth noting that quite often what is perceived as an attack or high-handedness is usually meant quite differently. Viewing what others write with more charity can do wonders for understanding one another.

Thus I would call on people to try and not take offense so quickly. Before attacking others for their failings, let's work on our own first. That same wise man said some more useful words in John 8:2-11.

I personally really don't care that much about homosexuality as an issue either way, certainly not enough to divide the church over it. I do care, however, when people start using an issue as a pretext to beat each other up and vent their own frustrations. For that, I recommend using real punching bags and not using people for that purpose.

The issue does also come down to the authority and content of the Bible. I think it is purely a book, which its human authors were inspired by their faith to write. It is full of cultural containment and reflections of the mores of the society in which it was composed. Thus, needs to be revised and reinterpreted in that light.

Could I just ask: what exactly do you want the conservatives to do?

@Merseymike:

Fair enough, but even if you take that sort of critical view of the Bible, you still are left with the (for lack of a better term) legalistic view of the Church. That is, the Church Catholic agreed on certain things as articles of faith (in particular the Creeds and the seven Great Councils). Think of those articles of faith as a kind of Constitution, basic elements that can only be changed by consensus.

The main critique I have of many conservatives (such as those at GAFCON, but also in the wider oikumene) is that they have rhetorically raised teachings on homosexuality to that level, as if it is part of that core belief, central to Christianity. No General Council has ever pronounced on homosexuality as an article of faith, one way or the other. Thus it is difficult to impossible to see how differences in sexual teaching automatically mean apostasy. Therefore I find it absurd to attempt to cause schism over an issue that just isn't that relevant to the unity and continuity of the Church. And that goes for both sides of the issue.

I'll be blunt: +John Shelby Spong is a far, far more problematic figure to me than +Gene Robinson.

Nothing, Mark. They can continue to believe as they wish - no-one is trying to prevent that. But that's not enough for them - they can't cope with difference.

Mark: I'd like the conservatives just to be realistic about the fact they share a planet, and a Church, with people who are different from them, but who are just as moral and just as Christian as they are. I don't want you to be me, I just want you to accept me as different from you yet no worse than you, no less capable of ethical living or following a Christian spiritual life simply because of the gender of the person I love and share my life with.

Once you begin to see diversity as wonderful, as something to learn from rather than condemn, it's an incredibly liberating experience, and, dare I say it, an incredibly Christian one!

I think I understand what the Conservative Evangelicals want from me: I believe they want me to disappear, because my presence in their Church embarrasses them, reminds them that all sorts of things to do with male- and femaleness are not quite as cut and dried as it would be simpler to believe. The presence of gay people in society challenges a certain sort of man deeply, and unfortunately, a lot of those men seem to have sought refuge from the big bad world outside in a "conservative Christian" fantasy world that reinforces their shaky versions of male identity and writes any other options out of the script. I don't think that's much of an argument, and I think it's just feeble of the C of E not to challenge that at every level.

Thank you Fr. Mark:
I understand what you are asking, I acknowledge that you are a Christain and a Priest, but I cannot in my deepest conscience accept that you should put your sexuality into practice. I know only to well what the call to celibacy means. I am not the sort of conservative who wants to eradicate difference but I do want to see us uphold universal truth. I hope that you now know that I do not want to remove you in any way.

Thank-you Mark: that is a helpful answer.

All sorts of people can live within married relationships in a way that is bad for them; within ostensibly celibate structures which harm them; or within same-sex relationships which conduce to their holiness of life; and vice-versa, in each scenario, of course.

I really don't see it as our role to insist that any one way of life is de facto better than another. Some people, but very few indeed, in my experience, flourish by living in a celibate way. If that is their calling, that's fine by me.

But what is wrong, in my opinion, is making anyone feel pushed into celibacy as if it were the only option. I've known too many bitter old queens who have realised too late that they've wasted their whole lives without ever managing to form a deep loving relationship with anyone: when that happens, it is incredibly sad, and it makes me angry that some churchpeople are still peddling the nonsense that such a system could be at all healthy. Merely making gay people emotionally stunted does not witness to the positive values of Jesus Christ.

Fr Mark,

I think you make it too easy! I have had some years to reflect on sexual identity.

On the one hand you want to say it is a trait as simple as being brown eyed or blue. If we know it is that simple we would not be having this discussion (it has not been like that for me and apparently for you).

On the other hand, you have no clear place for direction about our life from beyond ourselves. Do we make it up as we go along? Or might the creator actually have some discernable purpose and direction for or with life? If so that puts us all in the position to discern our direction and our life in the light of wider context - not simply on basis of inclinations or what cultural realities have formed us, but in the light of God's truth revealed ultimately in Jesus Christ.

Ben W

"On the one hand you want to say it is a trait as simple as being brown eyed or blue. "

Ben, let me ask you something. At what point in your life did you make a choice or a decision to be heterosexual?

Never, you say? You just were always aware that you "liked girls"? Then why do you insist that, somehow or other, it's a more complicated thing for homosexuals?

Ben W: Ja, und? as the Germans say. Of course the Creator's purpose can include growth in goodness through loving relationships between two persons of the same sex.

It's hardly new theology, after all: St Aelred of Rievaulx worked that much out.

"Do we make it up as we go along? Or might the creator actually have some discernable purpose and direction for or with life?"-Ben W.

Would we know the difference?

""Do we make it up as we go along? Or might the creator actually have some discernable purpose and direction for or with life?"-Ben W.

Would we know the difference?"

More importantly, would we know that we had discerned the purpose correctly? I am always amazed at the hubris of fundamentalists who are convinced they know the mind of God.

Protestantism began in schism. The Protestant answer to disagreement has always been more schism. GAFCON may prove not only be a "gaff" but also a "con". It seems to me that schism is a far greater sin than tolerating behaviour by some of us that some others find abhorrent. Did St Paul suggest that we destroy the unity of the Church over behaviour by some that some others find abhorrent? I am not theologically well enough versed to know! The authority of Scripture: fine. But as the present situation demonstrates all too clearly, many different interpretations of (authoritative) Scripture are possible. Whose interpretation, then, is authoritative?