Thursday, 19 June 2008

London church service: Church Times comments

The Church Times has this news report of the matter, Archbishops reprimand priest who blessed gays by Pat Ashworth.

And it has this leader: Let no man put asunder which starts like this:

THE ARCHBISHOPS are clearly worried about how Anglicans in different provinces might interpret the recent service at St Bartholomew the Great, Smithfield, at which the partnership of two gay priests was celebrated. This can be the only reason they produced their brief but erroneous statement on Tuesday that clerics in the Church of England are “not at liberty simply to ignore” the Church’s teaching on sexuality, which they define, interestingly, as: the 1987 Synod motion, the 1991 Bishops’ statement Issues in Human Sexuality, the 1998 Lambeth Conference motion 1.10, and the House of Bishops’ 2005 statement on civil partnerships…

and ends like this:

…The service is [in] Smithfield is a little thing, not deserving of pronouncements by archbishops. Its only political purpose is to show the impossibility of carving up the Anglican Church into conservative and liberal provinces or dioceses. Or even parishes: some of those interviewed at St Bartholomew’s at the weekend approved of the Rector’s actions, others did not. The challenge for the Lambeth Conference, and for GAFCON before it, is to demonstrate how Christians can disagree profoundly and yet recognise the working of the Holy Spirit in those with whom they disagree.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Friday, 20 June 2008 at 12:07am BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Church of England
Comments

"...and yet recognise the working of the Holy Spirit in those with whom they disagree."

I see only works of the devil: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery, dissensions, factions and envy.

Posted by: robroy on Friday, 20 June 2008 at 4:39am BST

robroy: surely it doesn't behove you, from your American Conservative standpoint, to have such strong views about what is the appropriate way for the English Church to minister to its flock in liberal London!

Posted by: Fr Mark on Friday, 20 June 2008 at 7:50am BST

ah, but you see those all over the place, robroy. boo!

Posted by: poppy tupper on Friday, 20 June 2008 at 7:55am BST

No one could have predicted a week ago that New Hampshire would be upstaged by St Bart's, at the heart of the C of E, as we proceed to Lambeth. If blessings of civil partnerships can take place with joy and creativity at the grassroots, and the most that bishops can do is issue stern rebukes, the emphasis on conformity on the last two days of the Lambeth Conference will be misplaced. The question is how we can live with diversity, and reaffirm what Anglicans have always done.

Posted by: Hugh of Lincoln on Friday, 20 June 2008 at 7:59am BST

"A lucid and robust response."
from the Church Times leader writer.

I was amazed that at a time when nearly all were considering how wise the bishops and Primates were NOT to make any public response to this nonsense - they then did.

Perhaps, sadly, they now have people like Graham King advising them ......

Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Friday, 20 June 2008 at 11:21am BST

"I see only works of the devil: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery, dissensions, factions and envy."

As do I, robroy: dissensions, lies, slanders, scheming, reviling, oppression of some of the most vulnerable of God's children, arrogant defense of these behaviours as being somehow "Christian", self deception, self aggrandizement, hubris, hatred, self righteouness, and so much anger born of fear. That is just a partial list. Yet I still think it would be wrong to break communion with these people. What I don't understand is why, if I am still willing to be in communion with people whose behaviour is so manifestly unChristian, are they not willing to be in communion with me, of whom they actually think better than I think of them? That's the point, robroy, from my point of view, my judgement of you is worse than your judgement of me. At least I can understand that when I do judge like that, I am sinning. So, not only is it a sin on my part, it's voluntary. Is it just that you can't conceive that others might be as appalled at your behaviour and as judgemental of your actions as you are of everyone else's? If so, allow me to correct you.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Friday, 20 June 2008 at 12:51pm BST

The devil is a Christian.

Posted by: counterlight on Friday, 20 June 2008 at 12:58pm BST

"that New Hampshire would be upstaged by St Bart's" - Yeah, was thinking the same thing. The news of the Bp Robinson getting 'cupped' (my neologism for civil union partnershiped) was little covered over here; my local paper had it hidden in New England newsbriefs.

Posted by: Jay Vos on Friday, 20 June 2008 at 2:24pm BST

Interesting that a religious service of union between two people who have promised to care for each other for life is now viewed as "debauchery" by the so-called "orthodox."

(robroy, the more you say these kinds of things, the better we look. By all means, keep it up; you're our best advocate of all!)

Posted by: bls on Friday, 20 June 2008 at 3:41pm BST

The vision I have is of a huge gang of ostriches who, for one moment, lifted their heads from the sand!

Even from my thousands of miles distance, I know at least seven partnered gay clergy in CofE, at least six of whom have had their "unions" blessed in church.

It seems the real offense here is not so much what actually happened (since, believe me, it happens with great frequency in the CofE) but that "noise" has been made about it. And that IS, after all the most serious offense against the long English tradition of "delicate avoidance" and "intentional ignorance" (i.e., everyone knows, but one simply doesn't draw attention of such things).


Posted by: John-Julian, OJN on Friday, 20 June 2008 at 4:25pm BST

I urge robroy to read this article in GQ magazine: http://www.men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_6948
(I also commend it to everyone else.)

Robroy, do you understand "by their fruits you shall know them"? Do you understand what the sin against the Holy Spirit is? (Matthew 7:16-20, 12:32-33, for starters.)

Posted by: WSJM on Friday, 20 June 2008 at 4:29pm BST

"Interesting that a religious service of union between two people who have promised to care for each other for life is now viewed as "debauchery" by the so-called "orthodox.""

Is it a surprise that people who define radical redefinition of the faith as "orthodoxy" would consider monogamy to be debauched? Sorry, I know that's what you were saying anyway, but subtlety doesn't seem to work. The again, neither does this kind of bluntness.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Friday, 20 June 2008 at 5:16pm BST

"Interesting that a religious service of union between two people who have promised to care for each other for life is now viewed as 'debauchery' by the so-called "orthodox."--bls.

Don't we get it? According to the perverted minds of the Akinolites, there is only One SIN--GAY sex. God gives us a pass on theft, lies, mirepresentations and power-grap, as long as the latter is undertaken by the likes of Big Pete of Abuja, Henry Luke of Kampala, et al.

Posted by: John Henry on Friday, 20 June 2008 at 9:45pm BST

I do agree pretty much, the louder and more outrageous the false presuppositional witnessing against two men or two women who are pledging lifelong care and commitment - in the face of just that sort of trash talk preaching Oh no you can't - the sooner we see through the conservative realignment scrims dropped constantly down to confuse and blind us. What unseemly spin doctoring by the very people who most often claim they are holy and biblical above all others. Oh yeah, very straight talkers, pun intended.

These damning traditional preachments against ethical life and relationship commitments between two men or two women grow ever more transparent with every single loud repetition. Welcome then. The Holy Spirit may make some unexpected use of these repetitions of presupppositional false witness to reveal, not the dirt and danger of the queer folks being targeted, but of the false notes so loudly and constantly being rung on modern changes for the better in queer citizens new parenting and couple relationships.

Apparently family values now means implying terrible things about the children with two daddies or two mommies. You can fool some of the people, all of the time. All of the people, some of the time. Conservatives aim to fool all of the people, all of the time when it comes to understanding queer citizens.

How long will it wash, this constant worry that I must be harming people by caring for them, whether they are adults or children?

If conservatives lost that propaganda war when claiming that my not being straight automatically rendered me incompetent and maybe dangerous in the practice of any significant occupation or profession, what makes conservatives anticipate that they can win the propaganda struggle to claim equivalent things for my relationships and parenting?

Of course, in USA, quite a few very vocal religious conservatives have been discovered to be parents of gay sons or lesbian daughters - and not infrequently, the presuppositional falsehoods are aimed at near family members as well as the wide public.

Alas. Lord have mercy.

Posted by: drdanfee on Saturday, 21 June 2008 at 7:12pm BST

Marvellous church times piece.

Yes the archbishops are misleading us

Posted by: Treebeard on Saturday, 21 June 2008 at 7:35pm BST

I have said it before and I reiterate:

How people sill laugh in 50 years! And ccry. But to the difference to the issues of 50 years ago, the Internet is there...

In 50 years time people will know what everybody thought and said today, taking sides. And some of them will change their names...

No one needs to do that today because of what their parents or relatives said 50 years ago...

The diffence is the Internet.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Sunday, 22 June 2008 at 6:31am BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.