quote:

---

Originally posted by Try:
but there are going to be counterprotesters to counter him. And poliece.

---

And there will be metal detectors at the doors to the arena, and Gene Robinson will no doubt be wearing a bullet-proof vest. The bishop suffragan said at his parish visit to us here this last Sunday that Robinson and the presiding bishop both wore bulletproof vests throughout General Convention.
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Despite my strong objection to the consecration, (see the 'Sitting on the fence...' thread) I sincerely hope Fr Robinson comes through it all unscathed.

I hope a hypothetical and abstract question won't seem flippant here. I mean it quite seriously. If the service contains a question to the congregation such as 'Is it your will that he be consecrated?' and the loudest shout is 'No', what happens next?

[ 01. November 2003, 23:25: Message edited by: Adeodatus ]
 

---

Posted by irreverentkit (# 4271) on :
 
The final burying of the hatchet between the RC and Orthodox churches (see article below) over a few words in the Creed reminds me that Christians have been fighting with other Christians for any number of offenses for thousands of years.

I pray that our unity may hold up through this turbulent time.
Someday Gene Robinson will just be another item in a Church History course...


Catholics, Orthodox Agree on Nicene Creed

Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian leaders in North America announced partial agreement on a doctrinal issue that has divided the two Christian branches for nearly 1,000 years.

The groups, meeting in Washington, issued a statement Tuesday about the wording of the Nicene Creed, which is recited in all Orthodox and Catholic churches.

The Orthodox insist on the original Greek text from the Council of Constantinople (AD 381), which speaks of "the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father." In 1014, the papacy added "and the Son" after that phrase, despite opposition from Eastern churches.

The creedal change and the exercise of papal power without church-wide agreement were major issues in the Great Schism between Catholicism and Orthodoxy that began in 1054.

This joint statement, the 22nd since the talks began in 1965, affirms the "normative and irrevocable dogmatic value" of the wording from AD 381. The paper thus recommends that Catholics use the original text in worship and cancel an anathema against Orthodox usage from a Catholic council in 1274.

Such recommendations require Vatican approval.

-- Associated Press
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
Yes, I saw the Catholic-Orthodox story and nearly fell off my couch. Then I started a thread about it.
 

---

Posted by Light (# 4693) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
And there will be metal detectors at the doors to the arena, and Gene Robinson will no doubt be wearing a bullet-proof vest. The bishop suffragan said at his parish visit to us here this last Sunday that Robinson and the presiding bishop both wore bulletproof vests throughout General Convention.

---

I don't think I had realized the enormity of this event until I read this. Now I feel scared... Are people really so upset that they might do something so awful, or is it just a precaution if some whacko is triggered by the commotion?


 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
I read this morning that 50 bishops are going to be there in support. That's a lot of dioceses that may be out of communion on Monday.
 

---

Posted by HoosierNan (# 91) on :
 
A female priest in the Episcopal church told me this story. Soon after she had been ordained, she was administering the chalice at a large communion service, along with several other priests. Someone stuck a nail file into her hand! She proceeded to the altar, grabbed a linen napkin, hastily wrapped it around her hand, and continued in the service.

This occurred in Indianapolis, shortly after the first group of female priests had been ordained.

I can see some zealot armed with a gun shooting a bishop. Especially in the United States.


 

---

Posted by psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
I simply couldn't believe the tenor of the first objection at the Consecration. Along with sticking nail-files into people's hands, it's well up the league of things I can't imagine how people square with a profession of Christianity.

 

---

Posted by Degs (# 2824) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I hope a hypothetical and abstract question won't seem flippant here. I mean it quite seriously. If the service contains a question to the congregation such as 'Is it your will that he be consecrated?' and the loudest shout is 'No', what happens next?

---

The first of the objectors was unbelievable!

His objection against the supposed behaviour of the Bishop Elect consisted in a list of sexual practices - until ++Griswold called a halt and asked him to get to the point. Something of an own-goal I think.

The other two were reasoned, but unoriginal. The Consecration proceeds.

I din't think the congregation could have shouted 'yes' any louder!
 

---

Posted by Tom Day (# 3630) on :
 
I never thought that people could sink so low as to just list sexual practices like that. What was he trying to prove? That he knew a lot about gays? made my blood boil. I was sitting shouting at my PC, had to switch it off before I broke it...

However, am now listening to the sermon - good

Tom
 

---

Posted by Degs (# 2824) on :
 
Well, it appears we have a new Bishop in the Church of God.

And also for +Gene.
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
I sure hope an objector didn't read off a long list of sexual practices.

I've been looking for feeds/sources on the consecration. Any links/info would be appreciated.
 

---

Posted by Tom Day (# 3630) on :
 
The BBC has one - here is the report on it

And I quote from it

quote:

---

One, Earl Fox from Pittsburgh, began to graphically list homosexual practices but was told not to go into detail.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
I sure hope an objector didn't read off a long list of sexual practices.

---

quote:

---

[COMMENT: Those who have voted for this tragic approval of homosexuality have put themselves outside the Christian camp. Most of them have abandoned any serious search for the truth, or any hold on Biblical theology, and demonstrate contempt for the law of God. So, in what sense Robinson will in fact be a bishop is up for grabs. They are in for a serious reality-check (as in "Come, let us reason together....") with God... E. Fox.]

---

L.

[ 02. November 2003, 22:32: Message edited by: Louise ]
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
Yeah, I see on his site that he advocates listing homosexual behaviors in public discussions of gay-related issues. If there is a place for that, a service surely is not one of those places.
 

---

Posted by jugular (# 4174) on :
 
The The Bishop's Statements' of objection.

Am I right in thinking that this was broadcast in the US? Also, was there are a shipmate who was there, or who knows someone who could be convinced to post a report?

Thank you, come again.
 

---

Posted by Degs (# 2824) on :
 
I'm sooooo surprised CANN didn't publish Fr Fox's objection.
 

---

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :
 
I have only one word to say about Fr. Fox:

Disusting!
 

---

Posted by Sacristy Rat (# 5034) on :
 
I heard Fr. Fox's statement as I was watching the BBC webcast of +Robinson's consecration. His language was so graphic we had to send the children out of the room until ++Frank bade him to desist. It was embarrassing, and far more worthy of the "God Hates Fags" crowd than anything else.


 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Light:
Are people really so upset that they might do something so awful, or is it just a precaution if some whacko is triggered by the commotion?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Day:
I was sitting shouting at my PC, had to switch it off before I broke it...

However, am now listening to the sermon - good

---

quote:

---

Is there a link somewhere to a recording of the whole service?

---

I second that question.
 

---

Posted by Sacristy Rat (# 5034) on :
 
The BBC had live streaming video during the service, but I just checked the page and the link is gone. It looks like the short link is what's left.
 

---

Posted by jugular (# 4174) on :
 
Could someone help me with the link to the BBC story (video)? I can't seem to locate it.
 

---

Posted by Dunstan (# 5095) on :
 
I was there...and I wrote in about it, asking if I could put up an MW about it, but my planning to go only happened the day of the Ordination and Consecration so I didn't official approval, so I just took notes on stuff I noted, like crowd mutterings around me and stuff.

Yeah, Fr. Fox shocked us all. I think "rimmer" really pushed everyone to the breaking point. I think he was trying to show people how disgusting sex is, proving that what is really on the table for some is a full discussion of Christianity and Sexuality. Or embarass +Gene, who had to sit facing his consecrators. We shouted our consent after the people left as loud as we could. It could have been worse, though. Someone with a credible reputation could have claimed Gene has molested him.

TANGENT I felt uncomfortable for reasons I could not understand after the service. I think it was the fact (and I'm not joking about this reason) that it occurred in a Hockey RInk. Not that I was angry about that, but it made me feel like we were cutting ourselves away, even though I support this movement. Somehow some parts of the service left me cold. I know there is no space, but I would really have preferred a large Church. And I saw one of the weirdest things I have ever seen, a guy called David Haine, I think, in a cowboy hat (?) and some sort of ecclesiastical garb, trying to get people interested in his 2000 Presidential campaign and repeating like a mantra his Yahoo e-mail address about 200m from the place the service was held. Yes, I too have no idea.

Phelps was no problem, because the student body of the University of New Hampshire did not want Phelps and co.'s "bigot feet" on the field they helped pay for. He was three blocks away. If he had been on this field, it would probably have been quite horrible for those there for the consecration, waiting in the lobby, while rehearsals and a slow trickle were let in through the security, because Phelps would have been opposite this.
When we came out tons of UNH students were cheering and a solitary man on the anti-Gene Robinson side shouted at us.

I also got to see the Phelpsmobile in the parking lot. It says Welcome in English, Spanish and Chinese. Pretty bizarre.

Laters,
Dunstan
 

---

Posted by Magnum Mysterium (# 3418) on :
 
Here's a report from the ACNS.

It includes photos of the huddle.
 

---

Posted by jugular (# 4174) on :
 
You mean the bishops actually had to touch him? A g...g...gay person? Whatever next? Will they have to touch the poor, the homeless, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free?
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Fr. Fox's catalogue of sexual acts is pointless since he cannot be certain that the Proudies (shall we say) don't get up to exactly the same shenanigans in their marital bed in the Bishop's House in Barchester.
 

---

Posted by Degs (# 2824) on :
 
The contrast between Fr Fox's dubious litany and the graciousness of ++Griswold and +Robinson was remarkable.
 

---

Posted by Degs (# 2824) on :
 
Sorry to DP!

Here is the response from the primus inter pares.
 

---

Posted by angloid (# 159) on :
 
This has the marks of a press office rather than ++Rowan himself. Just a bit bland wouldn't you say?
 

---

Posted by Degs (# 2824) on :
 
Yes and no. I find it hard to believe ++Rowan would simply allow his press office to put words in his mouth.

It would appear from the news that the Province of Kenya is the first to declare itself 'out of communion' with ECUSA.

[ 03. November 2003, 09:09: Message edited by: Degs ]
 

---

Posted by scoticanus (# 5140) on :
 
Degs, thanks for the reference.

I don't understand what Rowan Williams is up to. He was resolute in arguing for and defending the priesting of women, which was and remains highly divisive. Why is he being so irresolute now?

I also don't understand why, in the words of the statement, "it will not be possible for Gene Robinson's ministry as a bishop to be accepted in every province in the communion". From the point of view of those who claim to be "mainstream Anglicans", surely any possible objection to receiving his ministry is covered by Article XXVI, "Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments"?
 

---

Posted by Andrew Carey (# 4867) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by scoticanus:
I also don't understand why, in the words of the statement, "it will not be possible for Gene Robinson's ministry as a bishop to be accepted in every province in the communion". From the point of view of those who claim to be "mainstream Anglicans", surely any possible objection to receiving his ministry is covered by Article XXVI, "Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scoticanus:
I don't understand what Rowan Williams is up to. He was resolute in arguing for and defending the priesting of women, which was and remains highly divisive. Why is he being so irresolute now?

---

quote:

---

From the point of view of those who claim to be "mainstream Anglicans", surely any possible objection to receiving his ministry is covered by Article XXVI, "Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Assuming they are bing consistent, perhaps they aren't saying "Gene is not a real bishop" so much as "we don't want to associate with the kind of people who want him as their bishop".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew Carey:
For myself, I can now only think of ECUSA in the same way as I think of another denomination. Some Anglicans, I suspect, would go further and suggest that ECUSA is somehow not Christian in any meaningful sense of the word -- I have read an essay a few years ago by Pannenberg which gives this perspective some theological undergirding (others may know of a link to this).

---

quote:

---

Some Anglicans, I suspect, would go further and suggest that ECUSA is somehow not Christian in any meaningful sense of the word -- I have read an essay a few years ago by Pannenberg which gives this perspective some theological undergirding (others may know of a link to this).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
As for those who are getting their robes wrinkled about someone questioning whether the ECUSA is Christian, may I ask if they are upset by being led by those who do not hold to the basics of the faith, such as the atonement and the resurrection, such as Spong et al. If the ECUSA is Christian, it sure as heck has a funny way of showing it at times.

Clearly, there are a lot of Christians in the ECUSA. But there are a lot of Christians in the Rotery Club, too.

---

You know, I had pretty much decided that I was leaving the ECUSA for good, simply because I couldn't stand all the politicking and anathemas being proclaimed left and right. This, however, reminds me that it could be far worse and may even propel me back to my former parish next Sunday.
 

---

Posted by jugular (# 4174) on :
 
Mark the Punk - Agent of Grace. Beautiful.
 

---

Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by jugular:
You mean the bishops actually had to touch him? A g...g...gay person? Whatever next? Will they have to touch the poor, the homeless, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free?

---

Oh, bugger off! I would be more an act of Christian Charity™ to wish Fr. Fox the Peace during the Eucharist.
 

---

Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
Anybody know who Earl Fox is? I think only two objections were planned. Was his *ahem* unplanned?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
Oh, bugger off! I would be more an act of Christian Charity™ to wish Fr. Fox the Peace during the Eucharist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
I hope you are keeping score on who is being inclusive of whom. (Remember that ++Frank had to pull out of a consecration in a reactionary diocese.)

---

That would be mine.
 

---

Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew Carey:

quote:

---

Originally posted by scoticanus:
I also don't understand why, in the words of the statement, "it will not be possible for Gene Robinson's ministry as a bishop to be accepted in every province in the communion". From the point of view of those who claim to be "mainstream Anglicans", surely any possible objection to receiving his ministry is covered by Article XXVI, "Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments"?

---

It's not to do with any sort of theology of 'taint' or anything like that, but the fact that the majority of Anglicans don't believe Robinson should have been consecrated....

Now would those who have said ad nauseam on SoF that they didn't think the Anglican Communion would break up over this rethink their position? The fact is that a huge number of Anglicans now don't and can't accept ECUSA as being part of the same Church any more....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew Carey:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Assuming they are bing consistent, perhaps they aren't saying "Gene is not a real bishop" so much as "we don't want to associate with the kind of people who want him as their bishop".

---

He is invalidated from being a real bishop for most of the Provinces because he does not meet their criteria for the selection of a bishop. This is a fundamental break. His consecration is considered utterly wrong, and inevitably if they don't consider him a real bishop then they won't recognise his sacramental acts, in the same way they wouldn't necessarily be able to fully recognise the sacramental acts of another church they are not in communion with. Don't forget that women bishops are not able to function episcopally in the Church of England. Those ordained by women bishops elsewhere are also not recognised in the Church of England and many other provinces. So we had impaired communion before, and now we have broken communion also.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
The definition of being in the Anglican Communion is being in communion with the See of Canterbury. The ECUSA is still in communion with ++Rowan. The ECUSA is still Anglican. QED.

What other dioceses and provinces do is up to them, because there is no central authority. There are already those that are in communion with Canterbury that don't accept some that have been ordained in the ECUSA.

As I look out my window this morning, the sun rose in the East.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
Griswold and Gene R being "gracious" is a crock. Having his partner participate in the service, including handing him his mitre is a bit in-your-face, is it not?

---

quote:

---

GR's gracious words are just that -- words.

---

quote:

---

As for those who are getting their robes wrinkled about someone questioning whether the ECUSA is Christian, may I ask if they are upset by being led by those who do not hold to the basics of the faith, such as the atonement and the resurrection, such as Spong et al. If the ECUSA is Christian, it sure as heck has a funny way of showing it at times.

---

quote:

---

Clearly, there are a lot of Christians in the ECUSA. But there are a lot of Christians in the Rotary Club, too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
I saw that the arhcbishop in Kenya had objected -- when he himself is in violation of so many basic Christian standards that his standing must be questioned. (But, notably, none of the other African bishops have even noticed, much less critcized his activities, so I guess we can conclude that only sex matters when it comes to sin).

---

quote:

---

I saw bishops questioning Robinson's consecration who have for decades ignored the grotesque promiscuity that has made AIDS the killer it is in East Africa -- but then, they're straight, not gay, so maybe it's not really a sin, despite what the gospels say.

---

quote:

---

Now, don't get me started on the problems I have with the other side in this discussion. The one thing they seem to share is that they cannot accept that those with whom they disagree may also be seeking to do God's will. Christian charity? Ha!

John Holding

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:

If we are to take C.S. Lewis's example from The Last Battle as correct, we might be amazed with whom we will be spending eternity. We might find that +Gene will lay down with Fr. Fox!

---

That would be interesting to see.

(And I appreciate your gracious response to my ornery post.)
 

---

Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
To The Bede's American Successor,

Jugular has been gracious enough to open a thread in Hell on the very points you quote from Mark the Punk. I would be interested to see your contribution there.
 

---

Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew Carey:
Yes that's a particularly typical ECUSA response. As long as we're in communion with Canterbury we don't give a damn what the other dioceses and provinces do. Let me just remind you that the Anglican Communion's bonds of affections are not just vertical through the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury but are horizontal as well, among the provinces.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
I saw that the arhcbishop in Kenya had objected -- when he himself is in violation of so many basic Christian standards that his standing must be questioned. (But, notably, none of the other African bishops have even noticed, much less critcized his activities, so I guess we can conclude that only sex matters when it comes to sin).

---

quote:

---

It's not to do with any sort of theology of 'taint' or anything like that, but the fact that the majority of Anglicans don't believe Robinson should have been consecrated. Archbishop Rowan has pointed out, Gene Robinson could not have been consecrated in nearly all of the provinces of the Anglican Communion. They believe it means ECUSA, Robinson and the participating bishops have acted outside the Anglican tradition and therefore they don't recognise the validity of the consecration.

---

quote:

---

by Alwyn: I wonder what Shipmates in ECUSA think about this response?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Balaam:
To The Bede's American Successor,

Jugular has been gracious enough to open a thread in Hell on the very points you quote from Mark the Punk. I would be interested to see your contribution there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
I saw that the arhcbishop in Kenya had objected -- when he himself is in violation of so many basic Christian standards that his standing must be questioned. (But, notably, none of the other African bishops have even noticed, much less critcized his activities, so I guess we can conclude that only sex matters when it comes to sin).

---

Which activities would they be then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
These would accepting as a gift from the goverment a farm whose previous owner was evicted without compenstation for being white, as part of the government's land reform campaign, and for tben evicting the (black) african workers who lived and worked on the farm and installing his son as the new owner-operator.

I leave out his slavish support for President Mugabe, and his silence in the face of the obvious injustices being perpetrated in Kenya under the present regime.

John Holding

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Now, don't get me started on the problems I have with the other side in this discussion. The one thing they seem to share is that they cannot accept that those with whom they disagree may also be seeking to do God's will. Christian charity? Ha!

John Holding

---

You're absolutely oozing with Christian charity, aren't you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
John Holding: watch it with the allegations. If you cannot produce evidence to support your claims, zip it.

Erin
Community Editor

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:
most of the African primates are specifically severing or loosening ties with the Diocese of New Hampshire.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
And I am sorry -- I did indeed make a mistake and confused Kenya and Zimbabwe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:


I wonder what Shipmates in ECUSA think about this response?

If you are a Shipmate in ECUSA, and pro +Gene, do you have any suggestions for fellow Anglicans about how we should respond to statements like Andrew's?

Like many others, I want to encourage mutual understanding, not separation. I hope that Anglicans in other countries who support +Gene, will show that this is not a dispute between 'ECUSA and the rest of the Anglican Communion'.

A.
CofE, and pro +Gene

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irreverentkit:
What do we think? Well, I have the hubris to believe that I am still a Christian (I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord ... all that stuff in the Creeds), that I am trying to live a Christian life and work on turning the other cheek, loving my enemies and blessing those who curse me. Bless you, Andrew.

---

quote:

---

By the grace of God, the church will get through this if we focus on what is important ... being the Body of Christ in a broken world ... and if we can keep the discourse civil and really listen to each other

and love each other as ourselves ...

And as my good buddy St. Paul would remind us, "The eye cannot say to the hand, 'I have no need of you.' (i Cor. 12:21)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew Carey:
ECUSA has judged this to be a justice issue that it is worth creating division over.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Psst, eeGAD, you're in Purgatory currently...

---

quote:

---

They believe it means ECUSA, Robinson and the participating bishops have acted outside the Anglican tradition and therefore they don't recognise the validity of the consecration. It is regarded as a step so serious that communion is broken.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew Carey:
And that's the impression that a huge number of us have about what ECUSA has just done -- said to us that 'I have no need of you'. From Lambeth 1998 through successive Primates Meetings and ACC meetings, ECUSA has had sufficient warning (direct and indirect) that taking such steps would impair or break the Anglican Communion. ECUSA walked into this with eyes wide open, refusing to believe the clear statements, so pleae don't act all aggrieved and self-righteous now. And don't put the breaking of communion on anyone else. ECUSA has judged this to be a justice issue that it is worth creating division over -- at least admit it and take some pride in your principles.

---

quote:

---

The American Anglican Council issued a strong statement shortly after the consecration asking for people to redirect their financial giving "to ministries or organizations that call Jesus Lord".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irreverentkit:
Do you want division? You can divide. Or do you want to stay in communion and hang in there and duke it out with the rest of the church? Then stay and duke it out. As I said before, I don't seek or desire any divison. We do not have to divide. We can get through this if folks are willing to persevere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by irreverentkit:
Do you want division? You can divide. Or do you want to stay in communion and hang in there and duke it out with the rest of the church? Then stay and duke it out. As I said before, I don't seek or desire any divison. We do not have to divide. We can get through this if folks are willing to persevere.

---

I'm afraid that I find this line of argument naive and inadequate. It's like a married man, who's been cheating on his wife, complaining vociferously when the wife finally packs her bags and walks. "But honey," he says, " how could you possibly destroy our marriage like this?"

The short answer is that the marriage was broken and destroyed a lot earlier by the adulterous and unfaithful behaviour. The wife who leaves is simply acknowledging the fact that her marriage no longer exists.

I choose the marriage analogy deliberately, since in the OT faithless and apostate Israel is often called adulterous. Those who have pushed ECUSA into the present developments are responsible for the breach of communion.

Neil

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
I choose the marriage analogy deliberately, since in the OT faithless and apostate Israel is often called adulterous. Those who have pushed ECUSA into the present developments are responsible for the breach of communion.

Neil

---

• The ECUSA has always been a leader in social ministries from the late 1800s in the US. There have been several moves taken over this period that have been a bit ahead of the curve.
• Is it better to be in communion with those that deny the ministries of all of God's people, or to respect the dignity of all human beings?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ebor:
I have no problems with his sexuality, but am uneasy with ECUSA's seeming unwillingness (from my perspective) to listen to other parts of the Anglican body.

This is may be a false perception - on my part - but it is one, I think, shared by a number of other Anglicans.

I want to re-iterate, I am liberal on issues of sexuality, but cautious about breaking bonds of fellowship. It is not enough for supporters of Bishop Robinson to say that it is conservatives who are breaking communion. The consecration itself may precipitate such a fracture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
I choose the marriage analogy deliberately, since in the OT faithless and apostate Israel is often called adulterous. Those who have pushed ECUSA into the present developments are responsible for the breach of communion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
Appeal to Host

To respond adequately to this requires entering Dead Horse territory, which isn't even allowed in Hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ebor:
I have no problems with his sexuality, but am uneasy with ECUSA's seeming unwillingness (from my perspective) to listen to other parts of the Anglican body.

---

• United Thank Offering grants
• Episcopal Relief and Development grants (excludes other programs)

quote:

---

We don't listen?

• United Thank Offering grants
• Episcopal Relief and Development grants (excludes other programs)

Let's say for a moment the ECUSA is wrong with +Gene. What is the definition of true religion in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures? Isn't there something about caring for the poor, widowed, and orphaned?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Stick to writing about the Church of England, Andrew, and quit pretending you know anything about the ECUSA. Our diocese (one of many) is quite illegally diverting its national church contribution to "conservative" organizations, including churches in Africa whom you fear are going to suffer. They are NOT going to suffer. The ECUSA might, though.

So quit bellyaching about the poor benighted African church. There are plenty of raving conservative lunatics in the ECUSA who will make sure they are heartily rewarded for their bigotry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Interesting, Andrew. You rant and rave about how the ECUSA did something illegal when it goes against your principles, but when some reactionary knuckle-dragging redneck does something illegal that AGREES with your principles, you applaud.

Hmmmm... what is the word for that...?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
Host

Andrew Carey, if you want to take issue with Erin as a shipmate, take the matter to Hell. If you want to take issue with Erin as an administrator, take the matter to the Styx. Do not argue the matter here in Purgatory.

/Host

---

My apologies to Tortuf and to Erin. It's late and I'm still working and I shouldn't be distracting myself here at the moment.
 

---

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Thank you.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Way to ignore my point, Andrew. And please quote me the rule that says redneck is out of bounds.

[oops crosspost, sorry Tortuf]

[ 03. November 2003, 22:19: Message edited by: Erin ]
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Andrew,

In fairness, I think it was I who noted that, as Erin had called her own bishop a knuckle-dragging redneck, that what she'd said about the African bishops was not racist, but rather in keeping with this sort of fair comment. I did not mean to say that redneck was racist. It is emphatically not, and I did not say it was.

Redneck is an affectionate/insulting term for southern whites (though race isn't really involved. It originated with the red necks from sunburn hatless farming gave poor southern farmers. In the US, redneckism is tradtionally associated with, well ... unenlightened views on politics, race relations, etcetera.

Calling someone redneck is no more racist than calling someone a "visigoth" would be. It once denoted a group of people, which it still does, but is now more associated with the supposedly unenlightened views traditionally associated with poor southern farmers.

I do think it should be thought-provoking the company the anti-Robinson movement is keeping. I think many foreign bishops would be shocked at the anti-progressive views that characterizes their bedfellows here (and I don't just mean creationism, though I find that view more dangerous than racism).

[ 03. November 2003, 22:37: Message edited by: Laura ]
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
Faithful Sheepdog, your last post is much maligned . . . and right on target.
 

---

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 

quote:

---

by FS: Those who have pushed ECUSA into the present developments are responsible for the breach of communion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
If us liberals can put up with more than one homophobic Bishop can't you put up with a gay one?

Honestly, it's not so much to ask is it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Henry Troup:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
If us liberals can put up with more than one homophobic Bishop can't you put up with a gay one?

Honestly, it's not so much to ask is it?

---

Not to mention that the female bishops from North America constitute just as big a break with history, and just as radical a re-reading of Scripture.

---

quote:

---

HT, without boring people with the details and beating a dead horse, this is a significently bigger break with scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
At the risk of Dead Horse material, actually the ordination of women to the three historic orders is a return to the practice of the early church (first 300-500 years, more or less). However you read Scripture on this one, early Tradition sides with the ECUSA.

---

quote:

---

HT, without boring people with the details and beating a dead horse, this is a significently bigger break with scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
a man who, if I have understood correctly, actively encouraged the ministration of ordained women from outside England whilst he was a parish priest even though the tradition of his own church and the majority of the communion at that time said that such persons were not priests at all and should not be even considered for ordination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
A friend of mine was sitting at General Synod once, doing some administrative role.

In front of her was a bald man with glasses who, at that meeting, presided over a substantial change to the understanding of the orders of the Church of England, a man who, if I have understood correctly, actively encouraged the ministration of ordained women from outside England whilst he was a parish priest even though the tradition of his own church and the majority of the communion at that time said that such persons were not priests at all and should not be even considered for ordination.

---

quote:

---

The opponents of the ordination of Gene Robinson . . . if they are being consistent have to accept that Gene Robinson is a priest, and is a bishop. At worst he is a sinful priest - which would certainly be a Bad Thing, but hardly a new thing in the Church.

---

quote:

---

The intention of ordination is that the bishop ordaining or consecrating intends to admit the candidate to one of the three Holy Orders of the Catholic Church. It is not necessary that his personal belief about the functions of those who are ordained should be orthodox; nor is internal intention necessary, for if it were, we could never be certain that anyone was rightly ordained. (In Spain in the fifteenth century there were many bishops who were secretly Jews; the notorious Bishop Talleyrand, afterwards Napoleon’s minister, was an open unbeliever; but those whom such men ordained were held to be validly ordained.)

---

quote:

---

"We have no reason to suppose that Judas' ministry was any less productive of good results than that of the other Apostles."

---

quote:

---

by Laura: I keep asking this until I feel my head will explode, but what is so bloody different about this one sin (stipulating for purposes of argument that it is a sin) that the bishop of Nigeria gets to say that people in league with Satan have taken over the ECUSA?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bongo:
MtP:

Don't think we haven't noticed that you haven't answered Erin's question.

---

Erin asked me a question?

Uh, where?

(And, yes, my assertation about the break with Scripture was bland and all that. First, I didn't want to go into DH material. Second, I was lazy. So there. )
 

---

Posted by Bongo (# 778) on :
 
Yes siree, she did indeed, down there at the bottom of page 2:

quote:

---

Interesting, Andrew. You rant and rave about how the ECUSA did something illegal when it goes against your principles, but when some reactionary knuckle-dragging redneck does something illegal that AGREES with your principles, you applaud.

Hmmmm... what is the word for that...?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
Bracketed comments are of course addressed to Andrew.

Forgive me if my last but one post sounded condescending, but I cannot help but be amused by it all - to argue from the Bible or Tradition on one topic, but to argue around that very same Bible or Tradition on another, especially when I'd say that both Scripture and Tradition are (all things considered) for more explicitly against the presidency of women than they are against faithful, monogamous seme-sex relationships.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bongo:
Interesting, Andrew. You rant and rave about how the ECUSA did something illegal when it goes against your principles, but when some reactionary knuckle-dragging redneck does something illegal that AGREES with your principles, you applaud.

Hmmmm... what is the word for that...?

---

(Okay, it's a rhetorical question - but still. )

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bongo:
Oops. Sorry MtP!

I should not post hastily at work when I think the boss isn't looking!

---

You are forgiven . . . even if I nearly had a heart attack.
 

---

Posted by Bongo (# 778) on :
 
I tend to have that effect on men.
 

---

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I think simply stated, it is a cultural taboo. I don't think anyone even really cares whether or not his orders are valid anyway. Seems like a moot point anyhow as it appears Nigeria and Kenya have declared the intention not to go to meetings where the ECUSA is present or to share communion. The story is here CNN

---

quote:

---

In Kenya, Archbishop Nzimbi said yesterday that his church would now not accept any support from the US Church, including missionaries, though there were signs that the attitudes in his area were more complex. The Kenyan bishop of Eldoret, Thomas Kogo, announced that his diocese would not recognize Canon Robinson but would maintain its ties to the New Hampshire diocese.

---

I don't think that ++Nzimbi said that his policy would extend to not attending Lambeth conferences if the US was there, either.

All in all, it looks like Peter Akinola has just cut his church off from the Anglican Communion. OOPS!!

The whole story can be found here.

I do agree with you about the “cultural taboo” part.
 

---

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
This is from your article Try:

quote:

---

KENYA 2.5 million worshippers
Likelihood of schism? Has already separated - Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi became the first to formally sever ties with the Americans, saying yesterday that "the devil has entered the church".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Try:
I don't think that ++Nzimbi said that his policy would extend to not attending Lambeth conferences if the US was there, either.

All in all, it looks like Peter Akinola has just cut his church off from the Anglican Communion. OOPS!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew Carey:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Try:
I don't think that ++Nzimbi said that his policy would extend to not attending Lambeth conferences if the US was there, either.

All in all, it looks like Peter Akinola has just cut his church off from the Anglican Communion. OOPS!!

---

No, the position of Nigeria which is represented in these reports is in fact well represented in a statement issued from the Church of Nigeria on behalf of a working group of the Primates of the global south (Kenya is certainly in agreement with that group). The statement can be found at:

Statement

This working group represents up to 20 of the Provinces. But indicates that each Province will work out what that impaired communion means within its own context and framework. It will be months, and certainly a year when the commission reports, before we know how the impairment of communion is actually carried through.

Before anyone from the Church of England thinks that it is only the African provinces which will have to work it out, the Archbishop of Canterbury has made it clear that there is an impairment of communion between the C of E and New Hampshire as well. The C of E will also not recognise the ministry of Gene Robinson. There are therefore questions over whether those he ordains and confirms will be recognised in anything but a small portion of the Anglican Communion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Try:
"Impaired communion" doesn't mean a [non-purgatorial language deleted]ing thing. We've had impaired communion with lots of people in lots of places over the years, primarily over the woman bishops thing. We still go to Lambeth and we're still part of the Anglican Communion.

As far as I know, only Peter Akinola has decided that he will not attend any event that the ECUSA attends. Since the ECUSA will still attend the Lambeth Conferences (see the ABC's very moderate statement.), if Peter Akinola doesn't change his mind he won't be attending Lambeth any time soon. The other provinces who've signed onto the Global South's statement (not every province in the Global South has) appear to be symbolically cutting their ties to the Diocese of New Hampshire or the ECUSA as a whole, but the only other concrete "consequence" of such impaired communion is Kenya's decision not to accept American money or missionaries. Mr. Akinola may find himself rather lonely.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I expect Uganda, the Southern Cone and Australia to follow the lead of Nigeria and Kenya.

---

quote:

---

I was in Minneapolis for GC, and I was in Durham for the consecration. I was also at a party thrown by St. John's Portsmouth on Saturday night--a lovely do, and especially gracious since their rector (a charming man by the name of Tim Rich+) will be leaving to be +VGR's Canon to the Ordinary in March.

Saturday night, the street was blocked off by police and fire vehicles. Security guards were at the door and searched people's bags. I got a huge hug from +VGR when he came in, and yes, he was wearing body armor--as he had been in Minneapolis. His partner Mark and daughter Ella were there as well, of course. (I was teasing Mark and said, "I saw the perfect T-shirt for you--it says, 'Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?' above a picture of a basket." He laughed.)

The party ran until 11, and then the guards surrounded +VGR and his family and took them out. (Some of the rest of us found a pub that was still open and repaired thataway.)

Sunday morning lots of people who were staying at the University of New Hampshire Conference Center had breakfast at the dining room--all you can eat for $16.95 (and very good food it was). Folks wandered around the tables greeting each other, I and I got to say hello to +Herb Donovan, whose wife interviewed me for her book on 9/11; Louie Crew, +Orris Walker (LI), and a variety of other people.

I got to the conference center at 2:00, and we had to walk all the way around the front of the soccer field, past the media satellite trucks, and past the protesters. My friend Jan Nunley+ (deputy director of ENS) wandered off to chat with CNN reporters, and finally emerged to go vest with the other processing clergy.

The lay people I was with and I got into a sort-of line in the crowded lobby to get wanded by security. Bags were opened, cell phones examined, shoes removed, and then we got in to get our seats. My group had yellow tickets, which were supposed to get us reserved seats--but someone had forgotten to set up such a section (sigh). Since it was so crowded, I walked around the arena and sat opposite most of the congregation, next to the choir. I was so far forward I could see the musicians' music. I also had a first-rate view of +VGR, his family and presenters, and the attending bishops, for the first part of the service.
(To Be Continued)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew Carey:
Before anyone from the Church of England thinks that it is only the African provinces which will have to work it out, the Archbishop of Canterbury has made it clear that there is an impairment of communion between the C of E and New Hampshire as well. The C of E will also not recognise the ministry of Gene Robinson. There are therefore questions over whether those he ordains and confirms will be recognised in anything but a small portion of the Anglican Communion.

---

Andrew, point me in the direction that will show me a statement to that effect. I had no idea he'd gone that far.
 

---

Posted by Andrew Carey (# 4867) on :
 
Sorry Degs, I can't give you chapter and verse right now, because I'm just checking in before flying out of the door. I may be able to get back to you this evening. Dr Williams said this in the press conference after the Primates Meeting, very clearly and I have since then checked with the Lambeth Palace Press Office. I can't remember whether these comments were reported in press coverage after the Primates Meeting a few weeks ago, but it should be fairly easy to check it out.
 

---

Posted by psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
I'm sorry, I'm just a Presbyterian (though that does make me, technically, a coadjutor-bishop with all my fellow presbyters!)

Can someone explain to me how post facto Gene Robinson's consecration as an openly gay man is different to the apparently accepted apparent fact (I don't want to use the word 'alleged', as it has pejorative overtones!)of the consecration of undeclared gay men in several Anglican provinces? (I am of course open to correction on the facticity of this.)

I'm having a hard time seeing this aspect (validity) of the issue as revolving around anything other than his openness about his lifestyle.

I was once invited to a charity 'race night' (one of those evenings where nugatory 'bets' are placed on the outcome of videos of horse races - nothing to do with the KKK!) by the Rotary Club I was a member of. I went along wearing my clerical collar, said grace at the buffet meal, and then placed some money, in the form of the aforesaid 'nugatory bets', on the outcome of a couple of races. I was gratified when I lost. It was that sort of evening.

In the course of the event, one of the guys came up and thanked me for my attendance, which was much appreciated. He noted, with express pleasure and a little surprise, that I had come and participated attired as a clergyman. (He was an elder, and I suspect a little uneasy, before the evening, about my likely attitude to his participation.) My unthinking and instant response was "Well, if it was wrong, I shouldn't be here at all , should I?"

I can understand people believing and saying that Gene Robinson shouldn't have been consecrated because of his lifestyle. But it seems to me that he has become a storm centre because of his openness and honesty. and that worries me a lot.
 

---

Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on :
 
The Primate of Australia, the Archbishop of Perth, has voiced his objection as well. He almost sounds like he is considering thinking about contemplating looking into becoming orthodox in this kind of thing.

Pax,
anglicanrascal
 

---

Posted by eeGAD (# 4675) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by psyduck:
Can someone explain to me how post facto Gene Robinson's consecration as an openly gay man is different to the apparently accepted . . . fact of the consecration of undeclared gay men in several Anglican provinces?

---

Like you, I'm still trying to get my brain around all of this, and I have just one small contribution.

Last night somebody explained to me their objection. It goes something like this . . .

My friend believes that homosexuality is a sin. (see thread in Dead Horses) My friend believes that GR is therefore an unrepentant sinner. If the sin was say, stealing, then we would expect GR to say "I'm sorry I stole, but it was for a good cause - helping the needy etc." However in this case GR is saying "I have done nothing wrong." And he continues to openly sin.

This was a tad bit enlightening to me. Hope it helps. I'm still trying to figure all this out.

eeG
 

---

Posted by psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
eeGad: I can see your friend's position and understand it. It's just that I'm not quite sure it fits the situation. Isn't it more like having a friend who believes that 'private property is theft', and on that basis objects to the consecration of a bishop because the bishop, although he believes that theft is wrong, doesn't believe baldly that 'private property is theft', says so publicly, owns private property, and doesn't see hmself as a thief?

Whereas several other bishops, not contradicting the opinion that 'private property is theft' (whether they believe it or not) have ben consecrated without fuss because they have their cottages in the Lake District and their Swiss bank accounts discreetly out of sight. I'm not sure that you could class either kind of bishop as an 'unrepentant sinner' - which would certainly be the case with the bishop who writes sermons denouncing the evils of private property from the seclusion of the Surbiton semi he inherted from his granny! (I presume there is no-one in the Anglican episcopal order whose situation in terms of the present debate is analogous to this!)

But this all raises the question of what it means to be a sinner, and a repentant sinner. Is a sinner one whose state is sinful, and who acknowledges this, and asks for and receives forgiveness and acceptance, or rather one who is currently, or has been in the past, involved in doing a sinful thing? Is a repentant sinner one who confesses unworthiness and trusts to grace, or one who says "I did A, B, C, I know A, B, C, were wrong, and I repent of A, B, C?" I am somewhat taken aback that so many of the evangelical opponents of the Consecration seem to articulate the issue more in terms of 'sins' than 'sin'. This seems an example of that kind of thinking, which actually strikes me as much more (pre-Vatican II?) Roman Catholic than Protestant.

And what of the man who says "I am unworthy, I trust entirely to God's grace and mercy, I have done many things in my life which were wrong, here are the ones I remember, I repent specifically and explicitly of them - but this other thing I just cannot understand by any light that God has given as sinful."

Just asking...
 

---

Posted by jugular (# 4174) on :
 
Well, now its official

Muslims disown gay cleric.

Is this for real?
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
The Primate of Australia, the Archbishop of Perth, has voiced his objection as well. He almost sounds like he is considering thinking about contemplating looking into becoming orthodox in this kind of thing.

---

quote:

---

Alt Wally said:
I expect Uganda, the Southern Cone and Australia to follow the lead of Nigeria and Kenya.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jugular:
Muslims disown gay cleric.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grey Face:
I'm highly confused by this whole issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by psyduck:
This seems an example of that kind of thinking, which actually strikes me as much more (pre-Vatican II?) Roman Catholic than Protestant.

---

quote:

---

By psyduck:
"but this other thing I just cannot understand by any light that God has given as sinful."

---

quote:

---

Grey Face said:
So, can any conservatives reading this please clarify, do you believe 4 to be your argument, and if not, can you explain what it could be?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:

The argument is not about the technical validity, but rather the ethical wisdom, the moral correctness, and the ecclesiological desirability of the consecration, in the light of the raging moral, ethical and theological debate in the wider Anglican Communion, and indeed, the wider church.

The consecration of Gene Robinson was a major political statement that was intended to send a very powerful message. You only have to look at the ceremony itself - televised from a sports stadium - to get the flavour of something very unusual taking place. It was more akin to a political rally.

---

quote:

---

During the service of consecration of an Anglican bishop, the episcopal candidate is charged to live “…soberly righteously and godly, that you may show yourself in all things as an example of good works…” (1929 Scottish BCP).

GR is not the first gay bishop by a long way, but he is the first before his consecration to be completely open and in-your-face with it, especially in the light of his married past. By contrast, Derek Rawcliffe, the retired Bishop of Glasgow, only came out after he retired (and also after he was widowed).

---

quote:

---

As far as ECUSA is concerned, GR is not in unrepentant sin, and he is living a godly life. However, as someone who has opposed the consecration of GR, numbers 2 (unrepentant sin) and 3 (bad example) are immediate candidates for me.

---

quote:

---

We shall not recognize the Ministry of Rev. Canon Gene Robinson as a Bishop of the Church because he is not;

---

quote:

---

We declare that, henceforth we are not in communion, namely, Communion in sacris, with:

i. Bishops who consecrate homosexuals to the episcopate and those Bishops who ordain such persons to the priesthood and the deaconate of license them to minister in their dioceses;

ii. Bishops who permit the blessing of same sex unions in their dioceses;

iii. Gay priests and deacons;

iv. Priests who bless same sex unions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jugular:
Statement from Anglican Church in Tanzania

quote:

---

We declare that, henceforth we are not in communion, namely, Communion in sacris, with:

i. Bishops who consecrate homosexuals to the episcopate and those Bishops who ordain such persons to the priesthood and the deaconate of license them to minister in their dioceses;

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeke:
I wasn't around when the ordination of women was a big item of contention (as opposed to whatever it is now). Was it this big? Was it this bitter?

---

It was at least this big, but we were all in the end saved from great catastrophe by due process - which is why some of us are so upset by the NH action. Was it this bitter? Wrong tense - for some it still is bitter. IMHO, in terms of comparison, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Jugular,
Trinity Episcopal School of Ministry was founded in the 70's by an Australian, Bp. Alf Stanway. It has always stood in the evangelical tradition of Anglicanism, and has strong links to the African church, for whom it is a favoured US training establishment. This link is a natural one, since Alf Stanway was a missionary in Africa for a long time. My guess is that they are thinking of dropping the Episcopal from their title because they don't want to be associated with the "liberal" ethos of ECUSA.
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
By the unfortunate omission of the word 'knowingly' from their excommunication of bishops who have ordained homosexuals, the Church in Tanzania have, perhaps unwittingly, excommunicated virtually every Anglican bishop in the world. Including, in all probability, themselves. Oops!
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
By the unfortunate omission of the word 'knowingly' from their excommunication of bishops who have ordained homosexuals, the Church in Tanzania have, perhaps unwittingly, excommunicated virtually every Anglican bishop in the world. Including, in all probability, themselves. Oops!

---

Good thing they didn't say, "Anathema!"
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0