Comments: New Orleans: Tuesday afternoon

No debate ?

What planet has this man been been on for the last fifty years?

Posted by L Roberts at Tuesday, 25 September 2007 at 7:08pm BST

The Resolution is precisely what one would expect it to be, given the role of General Convention; now, if some people reject this, let 'em walk away. People must do what the must do.

Posted by JNWALL at Wednesday, 26 September 2007 at 12:10am BST

Planet small, Planet protected. Planet please stop spinning around.

Posted by Pluralist at Wednesday, 26 September 2007 at 12:48am BST

L Roberts - you are shocked a bishop holds to the teaching of the CofE / AC?

Posted by NP at Wednesday, 26 September 2007 at 7:16am BST

Bishop Gledhill's friends, who are 'gay' and of whom he is 'very fond', should sit him down and talk to him about homosexuality. Perhaps he will grow to understand that it is views like his that make their lives 'complex'. The good bishop should also apply his principled stance on this issue to the behaviour of Jesus, whose precipitate action, preaching, and teaching brought about a split in the People of the Covenant. A split that ultimately led to Bishop Gledhill's inclusion in the People of God.

I am sorry but I find it more and more difficult to live with such condescension. Bishop Gledhill's comments as reported in the newspaper simply make me angry.

Posted by Anglicanus at Wednesday, 26 September 2007 at 7:37am BST

'... the reason for it not so much the moral issue, it is the fact the Americans have gone ahead without a debate....'

No the anglican bishops show in many of their words and actions that they don't care 'so much (about) the moral issue'. In fact, they don't even want a 'devbate' ---whatever that means -- he and they want a quiet life; free of stigma by association with gays. Wake up we've had the debate and the stigma is lessening. Except when the bishops blunder in.

While you're having your debate, Bishop(s), mind if we just get on with our lives, like everyone else ? Oh and by the way --let us know the outcome of your rather solipsistic 'debate'.
Meanwhile Ajinola, Duncan et al are doing anything but debating --it would demand too much subtlety for them !

Posted by L Roberts at Wednesday, 26 September 2007 at 9:21am BST

L Roberts - you are shocked a bishop holds to the teaching of the CofE / AC?

In a word, "No !"
What I wrote is :--

'No debate ?

What planet has this man been been on for the last fifty years?'

Posted by: L Roberts on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 at 7:08pm BST

BTW

The CofE and AC (as we are constantly told) have no teaching (of their own but only 'that of the Church' --- trouble is which Church notional or actual is that ?

The pro-gay teaching in the (former) Archbishop of York's Catechism comes to mind. As does the Osborne Report, as does the report of Lambeth bishops supressed by George Carey and replaced cuckoo-like with so-called 1;10. I call that agit-prop, not teaching.

Manwhile the Churches are find that the state does in fact have 'teaching' --- policies, laws, regulations --that kind of thing--with appropriate penalities for discrimination of lesbians and gay people. What a shame to be compelled to do the right thing, rather than taking the lead.

Posted by L Roberts at Wednesday, 26 September 2007 at 9:32am BST


Not teaching but OPINION(s):---


'Canon Gregory Cameron, the communion's senior negotiator, said: "It has become clear to me there is a wider range of opinion in the American house of bishops than there is in the communion as a whole."'

Posted by L Roberts at Wednesday, 26 September 2007 at 9:41am BST

You don't like what the church says on x so you assert that the church has no teaching......

Is this a powerful argument, L Roberts?

Be assured - the church has teaching and for the vast majority of us it is based on the bible (not "Gaia" whatever that means, not sociology, not psychology, not human rights but the word of God)

The ABC has wasted 4 years because of a small minority pushing its agenda, trying to force everyone in the AC to accept its views as equally valid with what we see in scripture......it ain't working and saying we have no teaching hardly adds to the credibility of the agenda. You have to deal with the issues - pretending there is no issue is not constructive (to be polite)..

Please don't waste everyone's time saying there is no teaching in the CofE / AC ....aknowledge there are what Ford (with his normal honesty) calls "the clobber verses" and then either reject them or accept them.....


The ABC and his fudgemakers cannot please biblical Anglicans nor LGCM...... because whether or not we want to ignore the teaching of the bible on certain issues, nobody who cares about more than the politics in this situation is going to feel we have solid rock to build on with TEC trying to speak out of both sides of its mouth...... still too afraid to say "We stand by VGR and we will not hesitate to have another bishop like him even if his defiance of Lambeth 1.10 is unacceptable to most of the AC "

Posted by NP at Wednesday, 26 September 2007 at 12:54pm BST

"aknowledge there are what Ford (with his normal honesty) calls "the clobber verses" and then either reject them or accept them....."

Honoured as I am by your compliment, NP, and perhaps showing a smallness of spirit, I would suggest there is another, more ancient, way. That is to do what the Church has done for 2000 years, read these verses in the context of trying to discern and understand the mind of Scripture, being true to what Scripture itself calls the "tradition" we have been given. Scripture is not some Divine Dictation in which God merely instructed people to write down exactly what he wanted to say. It is inspired by God, and must be read in the spirit of that inspiration. But that makes the rules less clear, so it is harder for you to be sure you are following them, and you will always fear that your niggardly God will torture you for all Eternity for something you don't even know you did wrong. God's love, and even the Redemptive acts of Christ are, after all, conditional. Or maybe if the rules aren't so clear, it'll be harder to identify the disobedience of others that makes them so much less than you in your obedience.

This idea that one must either take or leave the printed word of the Bible is an immature approach cooked up by those who had lost faith in a manifestly corrupt power structure. That they were clearly men who had not gotten over their adolescent rebelliousness guided their judgements. They could rebel honourably against a discredited power structure and instead look for justification to a book that was sufficiently vague as to be interpreted to justify whatever they believed. They then, of course, went on to happily interpret it whatever way they wanted to, splitting the Church into an ever growing number of sects, all the while claiming to be true to the "Word of God" which they mistakenly indentified as a book, not the Second Person of the Trinity.


Posted by Ford Elms at Wednesday, 26 September 2007 at 1:47pm BST

Ford - maybe the idea that scripture ain't quite as clear as the words in scripture when we talk about certain sins is just the result of some people wanting to justify certain sins?

You would not argue that scripture may mean various things with regard to caring for the poor....so we should not disagree with those who may say we should not care for the poor at all. You would not argue that, would you???

No, it is only on certain sins that scripture is supposed to have become mysteriously cloudy......and in other denominations, it is greed which is justified (many verses ignored) ..... and in South Africa, it was racism which was justified (again, many verses ignored and twisted).....all these ignoring the clear, consistent message of scripture from Genesis to Revelation with regard to particular sins - all deliberately missing the point to justify their particular sin. Don't think scripture is clouded....but our sin certainly blinds us.

Posted by NP at Wednesday, 26 September 2007 at 5:34pm BST

L Roberts said: "The pro-gay teaching in the (former) Archbishop of York's Catechism comes to mind. As does the Osborne Report, as does the report of Lambeth bishops supressed by George Carey and replaced cuckoo-like with so-called 1;10."

I've had to correct your hyperbole about the Osborne report before, Laurence. Osborne was suppressed by the House of Bishops under ++Robert Runcie. It is not true that any report was suppressed at the Lambeth Conference. The sub-section report on human sexuality is still out there on the public record. There was always going to be a resolution from the sub-section. It was a tortuous route to get there. The sub-section chairman lost the draft agreed upon by the sub-section and submitted a resolution of his own. That was how Resolution 1.10 came about because many of the bishops in the sub-section were unhappy with this resolution and submitted amendments. Other bishops and regional groups submitted resolutions because they were entitled to. Those amendments were voted upon. It suits the purposes of many people to pretend there was foul play at Lambeth 98 but it's a fiction.

Posted by Andrew Carey at Wednesday, 26 September 2007 at 6:09pm BST

"it is only on certain sins that scripture is supposed to have become mysteriously cloudy"

Like usury, government sanction of the destruction of life that only God has the right to take away, remarriage after divorce, that sort of thing? Like hating one's neighbour in the guise of defending the Gospel? That kind of sin? Like claiming that Paul's instruction to judge, as a Church, the correctness of some people's doctrine actually negates Jesus's instructions not to judge others as individuals, thereby justifying your favourite sin? Yes indeed. And it is curiously those who most loudly assert the clarity of Scripture, and who rewrite history to defend their position on Biblical authority, who seem to have no problem whatever with the "cloudiness" of Scrupture on these issues, indeed, many of them benefit from it.

Posted by Ford Elms at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 1:10pm BST

'Osborne was suppressed by the House of Bishops under ++Robert Runcie.' A Carey


Exactly. It should have been published ---not just circulated privately .

'I've had to correct your hyperbole about the Osborne report before' AC

How can it be hyperbole when you accept it was suppressed under Runcie ?


A Carey continued :-

'The sub-section report on human sexuality is still out there on the public record.' AC

So it is part of the teaching of that Lambeth Conference then !


'There was always going to be a resolution from the sub-section. It was a tortuous route to get there. The sub-section chairman lost the draft agreed upon by the sub-section and submitted a resolution of his own.' Yes, it does sounds suspicously 'tortuous'.


'It suits the purposes of many people to pretend there was foul play at Lambeth 98 but it's a fiction.'
AC

Archbishop Ndungane & Primus Holloway do not agree with you, Andrew.

And presumably the 100+ bishops who wrote dissenting from 1.10 and the general anti-gay atmospher of that Conference, would not agree with you either.


Posted by L Roberts at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 5:45pm BST

You don't like what the church says on x so you assert that the church has no teaching......

Is this a powerful argument, L Roberts?'

There is, as we alll know, no monolithic 'Church' or 'teaching'.

If it were not so we would not have had this controversy in the Anglcian Churches. That is the point.

Have you read what the Church teaches in the Archbishop of York's Catechism ?

Have you read or heard what the Metropolitan Community Church teaches ? And the Soceity of Friends ? Or Issues in Human Sexulity which recognises same sex relationships for the majority of parshoners ? Have you noticed clergy entering into Civil Partnerships ?

Posted by L Roberts at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 5:51pm BST

L Roberts, the commentary contained in all the section reports of that Conference is worth reflecting on as a theological record of that Lambeth Conference. I don't believe that any of them were voted upon and adopted wholly by the conference.

But I was pointing out that your hyperbolic response was playing fast and loose with the facts themselves.

Finally, the reactions of ++Ndungane and ++Holloway and the signers of the pastoral statement do not indicate that there was any wrongdoing as far as the process was concerned. They didn't like the result.

Frankly, the presence of lobbyists from both sides (a characteristic feature of all Anglican meetings nowadays) together with the extremism of Bishops like Spong and Chukwuma raised the temperature too much on this question in 1998. But I can't remember there being any questioning of the process - as opposed to the atmosphere - at the time. I simply think a whole lot of conspiracy theory has arisen around this resolution.


Posted by Andrew Carey at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 10:57pm BST

Ford - none of the other sins you mention mean the AC must accept an adulterer or a drunk as a bishop.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

We are called to judge in the church even though we are sinners (1 Cor 5:12 is just one example of this)

Posted by NP at Friday, 28 September 2007 at 9:28am 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.