Only just over a week ago I reported here on a possible ray of hope for the Anglican Communion, that
The Archbishop of Canterbury is preparing to target individual bishops whose pro-gay policies threaten to derail his efforts to avert schism … by withdrawing their invitations to next year’s Lambeth Conference.
I didn’t hold out much chance for this initiative. But according to the latest news Archbishop Rowan has already closed it off. For he has put himself among the “bishops whose pro-gay policies threaten to derail his efforts to avert schism” by presiding at a ‘secret’ eucharist for the Clergy Consultation, a group of lesbian and gay clergy and their partners. It had been suggested that this service had been cancelled, but in fact it went ahead at a different venue.
If Archbishop Rowan is to be consistent with his own reported position, he should withdraw his own invitation to the Lambeth Conference, or announce that he will voluntarily stay away.
But instead, according to Ruth Gledhill, he has reversed his position by after all inviting Bishop Gene Robinson, the original central figure in this row, together with his partner Mark. In fact it is reported that the pair will be “married” in a civil ceremony a few days earlier, and the Lambeth Conference will be their “honeymoon”.
If this is true, it can only be understood as a deliberate slap in the face to those who object to Bishop Gene, and to whom Archbishop Rowan previously made the concession of not inviting him.
But I wonder if it is true. There are so many inconsistent rumours coming out of Lambeth Palace that they cannot all be true. Whether this one is true or not, it shows Archbishop Rowan’s weakness and vacillation in breaking his own rules about homosexual clergy and allowing contradictory statements to be made in his name.
If Rowan were a political leader, Parliament and even his own party would by now be baying for his resignation. The bishops of the Church of England are a more civilised lot, and probably his fellow Primates are as well. But I suspect that the same point is now being made quietly behind the scenes. The situation has slipped out of Rowan’s grasp, and there is no sign of him getting his grip back. He needs to be replaced by someone decisive who can take control.
Well, Rowan can probably sit it out and go to the Lambeth Conference if he insists. I am sure that he, Gene and Mark will enjoy the beautiful campus of the University of Kent at Canterbury, whose hilltop buildings (I remember them being built in the 1960’s) are aligned to Rowan’s cathedral. But they might find things rather lonely there, for, if decisive action is not taken quickly, I am beginning to wonder if any other bishops will turn up.
All of this just goes to show Rowan in his true colours.
This split is inevitable and has been for several years and as such the sooner it happens the better for all concerned.
This split is about those who believe in and follow Gods Holy Scripture and those who want to re-write it so as to accommodate their sin.
One of the saddest aspects of all this for me has been the number of people who thought there was something to debate concerning homosexuality within the Christian Church.
I welcome the split because it will (apart from anything else) sort some of the ‘wheat from the chaff’.
Do not misunderstand me, I do not take any joy in this and I would that it were otherwise.
Thank you, Glenn. I largely agree with you.
One thing I meant to include in the post: in agreement with what I wrote about this before, I do actually welcome as a small step in the right direction Gene Robinson’s announcement that he will go through a “marriage” ceremony with Mark. At least he can no longer be held up as an example of a bishop flouting the basic rule for clergy and others of no sex outside marriage, and justifying my suggestion that on this matter there is one rule for gays and another for the rest of us.
But Peter surely you recognise that ‘gay marriage’ is an oxymoron and as such does not change the situation regarding Robinson. It is just a meaningless ceremony.
A man and woman can get married, not a man & a man or a woman & a woman.
For more on the “secret” eucharist, see this report from one of its organisers.
I found these quotes interesting:
Gene Robinson made a similar claim. But what are the facts? How many LGBT clergy are there? They claim over 1000. What proportion of the C of E is that? According to these statistics there are 13,600 licensed clergy in the C of E, plus 4,440 active retired. So only about one in 18 is LGBT even on their own estimates. Obviously if 1000 clergy disappeared overnight there would be some difficulties, but the gradual loss of this many would hardly cause a “crisis”. Indeed it would probably solve a lot of financial difficulties!
Does he think we were born yesterday? Some gay or lesbian priests may be able to conceal this by keeping themselves very private. But to have an effective ministry priests need to open their lives up to the extent that their sexual practices are unlikely to remain secret. If congregation leaders don’t know that their priest is LGBT, or a bishop doesn’t know it of their chaplain, that is very likely because they are deliberately keeping their eyes closed to the signs of this.
I welcome the split because it will (apart from anything else) sort some of the ‘wheat from the chaff’.
For those of us who have gay or lesbian loved ones, that is an extremely insensitive comment. We’ll see who goes to hell on Judgement Day; the one thing we know for sure from Jesus’ words is that there will be some surprises for the smug.
Tim, just to clarify, my qualified agreement with Glenn’s comment does not go as far as how you have interpreted this part of it. If Glenn intended to refer to separating those who are properly qualified to minister in the church from those who are not, I agree this would be a desirable consequence of a split in the church. If he was referring to anyone’s eternal destiny, as you suggest, then I certainly do not accept this as a desirable consequence.
I’m not even sure what the point is of any further discussion, then? Seriously. If I’m chaff and not properly qualified to minister in the church, then logic would suggest that those who are not ministers who hold my views are equally unqualifed to be members in your church of the future.
What, in all seriousness, is even the point of having a discussion at all? Can a discussion happen without those who disagree with your theology being de-churched and without gay people being dehumanised? I think not.
As to the original post, part of me wishes RW had not chosen this particular time to particpate in this particular communion. On the other hand, it’s getting pretty clear to me that timing wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference and that any theology that doesn’t condemn gay people is totally unacceptable in any context, at any time.
What is the difference between this and complimentarians who cannot tolerate being in the same fellowship with egalitarians?
Strange, I don’t recall making any reference to anybodies eternal destiny.
As to surprises on judgement day, you are quite right, there will be many!
I fail to see how what I have said is insensitive.
My comments referred in general to an area of sin that is being promoted by some as being anything but.
I see having ‘loved ones’ who are gay as no different to having ‘loved ones’ who indulge in any other sin.
I/we/you should be praying that God will set them free of the sin that is binding their lives.
Excuse me, but when John the Baptist refers to ‘separating the wheat from the chaff’, it is people’s eternal destiny he is talking about. ‘The chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire’.
And Glenn, while I personally feel that the traditional interpretation of the scriptural passages about homosexuality is the correct one, there are some fine committed Christian scholars who disagree with me.
Remember, when the anti-slavery campaigns first began, the strongest condemnation of them came from preachers who said that the Bible supported slavery.
I CAN BE WRONG. The four most important words for me to remember.
On this issue Tim, no.
Those who tried to use the Bible to support slavery were obviously going against the clear teaching of the Bible.
Just because someone somewhere has misused the Bible in the past does not undermine the truth that is so self evidently there ie same sex partners is totally against the will of God.
If those scholars were truly so “fine & committed & Christian” then they would submit to the Word rather than trying to ignore what God so clearly teaches.
This is one of those self evident truths upon which we stand or fall as ambassadors of Christ.
Pam, I did not call you chaff. Those I call chaff are those who are openly flouting the rules on sexual behaviour of their own church, and in the Bible, and leading others into the same immorality. I consider that such people, if not repentant, should not even be members of the church, or if they are already members they should be put under discipline, in a sensitive way. But I do not presume to comment on their eternal destiny.
As for you, I disagree with some of your views and actions (I am thinking of your blessing a gay couple which I think you mentioned), but do not consider that to disqualify you from ministry. But I would expect you, just like Archbishop Rowan and my own Bishop of Chelmsford, to refrain from openly advocating homosexual practice and affirming those continuing in it.
Glenn’s take on this may differ. But then I think he considers you disqualified from ordained ministry by your gender, quite apart from your works.
Not much. I have written elsewhere that Church of England clergy who cannot fully accept the decision of the church to accept women priests and bishops should leave and set up their own province – a solution some of them are already calling for. The church has been fragmenting over matters like these two ever since the Reformation. The Anglican Communion has just about managed to hold together a range of different views, without much bloodshed – although for all of its life operating in parallel with a variety of independent churches as well as Roman Catholics etc. But this task of maintaining unity is becoming increasingly difficult in the modern world. I’m not sure it should even try any more, or should look for a different non-geographical model for keeping some kind of nominal unity in diversity.
This is a comment to test Blog Flux Commentful. Please ignore it, unless you are looking for your own way to keep track of comments. Hat tip to the always helpful Dave Warnock.
The Commentful green light feature seems to work, but the RSS feed does not. Well, maybe this one will show up.
But I would expect you, just like Archbishop Rowan and my own Bishop of Chelmsford, to refrain from openly advocating homosexual practice and affirming those continuing in it.
I’m not sure in what context? If you make this comment as a fellow Christian, that’s your perogative. I’m not sure you can make it in the context of the Methodist Church, though. I’m totally prepared to be kicked out of Methodism if the church decides it will not tolerate my views.
I don’t really know what ‘openly advocating’ means. What I advocate is a standard of behaviour that is the same for everyone.
I am aware of fellowships in this area that make ‘homosexuality is a sin’ as the litmus test of belonging to their particular fellowship. I find this bizarre as I think Christ should be the centre of our worship, not someone’s views on homosexuality.
I know of no fellowship in this area that makes it publically known that a gay person could come to church and be accepted. And in the interest of not hurting those in the church with different views, I don’t either; I sometimes wonder if that’s right. There may be fellowships in big cities where gay people can go and feel that they will be accepted. By and large, though, I think we do a great job of making sure gay people don’t come anywhere near church.
But Glenn, that is exactly what the pro-slavery lobby said in the eighteenth century. Check out the history. It seemed to them absolutely clear and self-evident that the Bible condoned slavery, and they thought that to try to end slavery was to reject the way God had ordered society. That was the interpretive grid in which they had been brought up, and the truth of it seemed self-evident to them.
A sober warning for us.
Pam, I agree that I cannot speak for Methodism. However, these are the official rules of the Church of England, and I would hope that they would also be of the Methodist church. Obviously it is not up to me to kick you out of anything, only to express my opinions.
I don’t think I would really say that you are openly advocating anything, in what I have read, in the way that the Bishop of Chelmsford is. You have mentioned blessing a gay “wedding” I think, but I would need to know more about the circumstances before judging that.
I certainly do not agree with not welcoming gay people to church. But I also do not agree with saying that homosexual practice is not a sin. Of course no one visiting a church likes to be told that what they are doing is a sin. Even if they are not actually told that, they expect to be told that. Adulterers tend to stay away from churches because they expect their behaviour not to be affirmed, as it rightly will not be even if there is no explicit condemnation. There is no reason to make an exception of practising homosexuals in this area. You don’t have to tell them they are sinners, but it is wrong to tell them that what they are doing is good and holy, because God’s word says it isn’t.
I wonder if 1 Cor 5:12-13 (NET) is relevant here.
For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Are you not to judge those inside? But God will judge those outside. Remove the evil person from among you.
Where the context above is sexual sin. If a church’s approach to discussing sin is “judging outsiders” then perhaps it has gone too far. It seems here that we are only to concern ourselves with “anyone who calls himself a Christian” (1 Cor 5:11 NET)
Or perhaps, to negate my own point, here “judge” is talking about church discipline, and not about moral statements of right and wrong.
Alastair, that is exactly my point. I am not talking about judging outsiders. I am calling on Archbishop Rowan to judge and remove those inside who are breaking God’s rules as upheld by the last Lambeth Conference, instead of condoning their actions by taking communion with them.
Pam, I agree that I cannot speak for Methodism. However, these are the official rules of the Church of England, and I would hope that they would also be of the Methodist church.
As I understand it, the Methodist Church of Great Britain requires that I do not bless a same-sex relationship on Methodist Premesis. I have never blessed a same-sex relationship on Methodist Church premesis.
The Methodist Church does not require me to believe that gay marriage is a sin. It does not even require me to be as circumspect about my views as I have been In Real Life.
The Methodist Church certainly does not require me to refrain from The Lord’s Supper to or receiving The Lord’s Supper with gay people. We believe the Lord’s Supper is a converting ordinance. We do not believe that participating in or offering The Lord’s Supper to any ‘Known Sinner’ means blessing their sins.
To me as a Methodist, denying the Lord’s Supper to someone would be tantamount to proclaiming that they were beyond God’s grace. It would be like Jesus making ‘conversion’ a condition of his eating with tax collectors and prostitutes. I am glad that I am not required to make judgements about the eternal state of other people before giving them Communion!
Well, Pam, I think your view of the Lord’s Supper is fundamentally different from mine and from the Anglican view. Anglicans offer the sacrament only to those who consider themselves Christians. Also, although we don’t usually interrogate visitors about such matters, it would not be offered to people who are known to be unrepentant sinners. This is of course consistent with 1 Corinthians 5:1-5,11-13 and Matthew 18:15-17. So, by celebrating communion for this group of LGBT clergy and their partners, Archbishop Rowan is proclaiming that they are not sinning, in contradiction to the agreed position from the last Lambeth Conference. Therefore he must himself be included as one of the “bishops whose pro-gay policies threaten to derail his efforts to avert schism”; or to put it another way, he has put himself firmly in the same camp as Jefferts Schori and Robinson. This is effectively a challenge to orthodox Anglicans to declare themselves out of communion with him, as they have already with the Americans. He has abandoned any efforts to avert schism and is now effectively promoting it. Anyone who does not want schism needs to call on Rowan to resign immediately.
Coincidentally, Doug has also been discussing the Anglican tradition of excommunication, including a wonderful humorous video touching on the subject.
Well, Pam, I think your view of the Lord’s Supper is fundamentally different from mine and from the Anglican view.
Clearly it’s different. I’m sure you have an appreciation of the power of table fellowship in Jesus day. All I can say is that clearly Jesus did not come up to St. Paul’s standards. And I believe that this is why Jesus enraged all the religious leaders.
This is effectively a challenge to orthodox Anglicans to declare themselves out of communion with him, as they have already with the Americans. He has abandoned any efforts to avert schism and is now effectively promoting it. Anyone who does not want schism needs to call on Rowan to resign immediately.
Before he was Archbishop, Williams wrote some of the most thoughtful theology out there on the subject of ‘gay marriage’. The ultra-right of the Anglican communion declared that they could not be in communion with Williams before he even became Archbishop.
If your views on homosexuality and communion have always been that hard-line, then I don’t understand why you ever even gave Williams a chance?
Pam, I am not saying that the Anglican position on communion is right and the Methodist wrong. I see a powerful argument for your more open position in Jesus’ teaching, and in today’s post from Sally. On the other hand, I also see 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 as a warning against some kind of abuse.
But my point about Rowan is that he is an Anglican offering the Anglican sacrament to Anglicans, so the significance of this needs to be understood according to Anglican understandings.
Well, I was always unhappy with him. When I returned to an Anglican church in 2003 I did so because of the individual congregation, and despite the Archbishop. But for a time Rowan was acting in a sensible way and avoiding antagonising either side, so it was reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt. Now it seems he has abandoned this approach and is showing what are probably his true colours – and also his weakness, which makes him unsuitable as a leader in this time of crisis. That is why he should go.
“All I can say is that clearly Jesus did not come up to St. Paul’s standards.”
Are you being sarcastic here? I see Paul in complete agreement with Jesus on this issue.
Both Paul and Jesus would have no problem with Christians being at the same table as “sinners”, if these sinners were “lost”. When Paul tells the Corinthians not to associate with certain immoral people, he clarifies he is only talking about Christians. He knows fine well that we are to follow Jesus’ example of socialising and dining with “sinners” of the world. But he applies a very different standard to those who claim to follow Jesus. For those in unrepentant sin, its clear that fellowship is broken: “do not even eat with them” he says in one place; “hand them over to Satan” he says, referring to a different group. He also says that some Christians have fallen ill or died as a result of taking bread and wine inappropriately.
So to me, Jesus and Paul are together on this one.
Anglicans offer the sacrament only to those who consider themselves Christians. Also, although we don’t usually interrogate visitors about such matters, it would not be offered to people who are known to be unrepentant sinners.
Peter, how many coats do you own? If you own more than one, and have not given the second one away to the nearest person in your neighbourhood who can’t afford a coat, you are clearly an unrepentant sinner and your vicar should not give you communion.
I don’t know what your church is like. I’m the rector of a congregation with some very wealthy people in it. On any given Sunday I give communion to at least a dozen unrepentant materialists. Some of them own more than one house, and in Edmonton at the last count we have about 2500 homeless people. Shouldn’t I deny communion to the unrepentant sinners who don’t give their extra houses away?
And what about serving members of the military? The New Testament case for pacifism is at least as strong as the case for the traditional view of homosexuality. A member of the military, by that standard, would certainly qualify as an unrepentant sinner. But we have Anglican military chaplains who give communion to them all the time.
The problem, of course, is that not all Anglicans are agreed as to whether or not it is a sin. On the issue of war and peace, we are used to that disagreement. We have pacifists and we have military chaplains, and we have agreed not to divide the church on the issue. What are we saying about the relative importance of killing and sex, when we say that the church should be divided over homosexuality but not over war?
I personally feel we’re a little bit hypocritical on this idea of not giving communion to unrepentant sinners. Most Anglican clergy I know don’t feel they have a window into other people’s hearts. Most Anglican clergy I know leave the excommunication business to the communicants themselves. But then, it might be different in England.
Tim, I accept that there are some double standards here. But the Anglican church has never formally agreed that owning two coats or serving in the military is wrong. But it has agreed that for clergy living in a homosexual relationship is wrong, and this is not an issue on which “we have agreed not to divide the church”.
In practice, here as in Canada, indeed “Most Anglican clergy I know leave the excommunication business to the communicants themselves.” Nevertheless they would not offer communion to those who openly boast of their sin and refuse to accept the church’s teaching that it is sin. But that is what Rowan did.
Tim, owning two coats is not wrong according to scripture. Withholding something which you can spare from the poor is what is wrong.
The Bible also does not teach that serving in the military is wrong, what it teaches in regard to the military man is not to abuse his authority or might.
As a Rector I would suggest that you practice more careful exegesis before you attempt to hurl accusations at Peter, which in this instance are actually unfounded.
As a Rector I would suggest that you practice more careful exegesis before you attempt to hurl accusations at Peter, which in this instance are actually unfounded.
In my opinion, Tim’s exegesis is absolutely fine. And I’ll be the first person to convict myself of having many possessions that I can spare. I would be surprised if most middle-class people didn’t than they needed. No one needs two houses. And, really, no one needs two coats either.
“And, really, no one needs two coats either.”
No-one needs more than one coat, but its sure nice not to wear a heavy winter jacket just because the summer day is a cold one! When it comes to what we need, well, that would be two pairs of all clothing items, cold drinking water, basic food and a roof over our head! 🙂
Glenn, Peter and I like each other far too much for him to construe any of my challenges to him as the ‘hurling of accusations’. I don’t know if you have ever had the pleasure of meeting Peter; I have, and I consider him to be a friend, not an enemy.
My interpretation of Jesus’ teaching on war and peace is in line with the almost unanimous opinion of the early church fathers (who were closest in time to the apostles) up until the Constantinian takeover of Christianity in the fourth century. My faulty exegesis is in line with that of Tertullian, Origen, Justin Martyr and Hippolytus (to name just a few). With all due respect, if I’m forced to choose between that group and your group, I know which one I’m sticking with!
Thank you, Tim. I certainly don’t consider anything your wrote to be “hurling accusations”. Rather it is the kind of discussion which is needed and should be encouraged between friends and fellow Christians, and on blogs which should be a place for such discussion.
Also, Tim, I more or less agree with your exegesis on these points. Anyway it would be rather hypocritical of me to call someone who owns two coats, or two houses, a sinner. But the situation is not quite as straightforward as this. There are complex exegetical issues, and this is not the place to discuss them.
Pingback: Gentle Wisdom » Archbishop doesn’t like the political bits
Pingback: Gentle Wisdom » Gene Robinson to be a “June bride”