Commenting on Dr Rowan Williams’ 26 point reaction to TEC’s decision to part from the moratorium placed upon them by the Communion, the Rev Giles Fraser, chair of Inclusive Church and soon to be canon chancellor of St Paul’s Cathedral, said he respected the Archbishop’s sensitivity on the matter but believed much of Dr William’s response to be ”˜hypocritical’. “It [the response] says that you can’t liturgically acknowledge same-sex unions because this would be, in a sense, liturgical acknowledgment of sex outside of marriage,” he said.
“But actually the latest liturgy that the Church of England has produced for the joint wedding baptism services is precisely that, it seems to me, if you are actually getting married and having your children baptised at the same time you are producing a liturgy which acknowledges sex outside marriage so I think there is a form of hypocrisy that goes on here with regards to gay people.”
Reflecting on the Archbishop’s response he said there was now an increasing demand for TEC to be further represented outside of the US and in the UK. “If members of the Episcopal Church in London find that they are not welcome in Church of England parishes then I guess the Episcopal Church has to respond pastorally to their needs.” He added that TEC had representation in Europe with a strong centre in Paris.
[blockquote] “But actually the latest liturgy that the Church of England has produced for the joint wedding baptism services is precisely that, it seems to me, if you are actually getting married and having your children baptised at the same time you are producing a liturgy which acknowledges sex outside marriage so I think there is a form of hypocrisy that goes on here with regards to gay people.â€
[/blockquote]
Not hypocrisy at all. The couple getting married apparently has repented and intends to lead a new life as evidenced by their getting married. Better yet, as baptismal sponsors, they are promising to raise their children as Christians also.
Funny, I read the same passage and thought the CoE is not producing a liturgy acknowledging sex outside of marriage, not condoning sex outside of marriage but rather since you’re baptizing a child whose parents aren’t married yet or you’re marrying a couple whose babies aren’t baptized yet you are merely acknowledging that sex HAD occurred outside of marriage. I may be slow most days but even I could figure that one out. Where’s the hypocrisy in that?
#1, you beat me to it. and ….
WWJD?
[b]John 4:9-10[/b] The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans). Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.” (NIV)
I wish people would understand what inclusiveness really means.
OMG, please tell me Fraser isn’t alluding to the possibility that TEC could become the center of an international, quasi-Anglican communion?!
That’s what I took it to mean, #4.
Wow. I mean, wow. …wow.
teatime (#4) and Jeffersonian (#5).
I agree with Jeffersonian. It wasn’t a thinly vieled threat. There was no veil.
But I also think it would actually be a good thing. Let TEC become indeed The Episcopal Communion, and let the ideological revisionists like Giles Fraser leave the CoE and join it. I think everyone would be better off. Clarity is always good.
David Handy+
[blockquote]TEC had representation in Europe with a strong centre in Paris[/blockquote]
How significant is that representation?
And how come our bishop signed the C of E synod proposal for full communion with the ACNA?
There may be some people in Paris, but I’ve been in Paris, too.
Sounds like the TE”c” apparatachik is provoking the ABC right on cue.
Remember it is the political action part is the part the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC has down pat. Classic timing here. Try to stampede the ABC into the TE”c” corner? Why? He’s been there all along on the evidence of his DEEDS and NON-DEEDS. What are a few words amongst revisionists?
Anybody would think the gaygendites believe the ABC meant something definitive. How very un-postModern.
It is both tiresome and exasperating to listen to homophile organizations and speakers labor to apply favorable spin to every word, every act, every position the standard Anglican world generates. There is a constant burrowing into words and events in a search for any aspect that, quoted in the correct context, will make it appear that the homophile organizations have in fact The Truth in their hands. Posted on T19 have been a thousand such attempts, and they all teach a single lesson, that sheer desperation controls homophile visions and revisions and that nothing, nothing, nothing, will be too great a distortion to give the agenda a putative life.
We need to remember this at all times. The agenda controls homophile behavior. TEC is for them a stalking horse, nothing more.
Integrity and its ilk will pursue their agenda at any price, especially as social momentum is with them. Once that momentum lessens – and it will – they will stand abandoned on an island of their own devising. But why will it lessen? Because the inherent falsity of the homophiles positions and arguments will at last become apparent
to a generation not driven by the same agenda. TEC and the homophiles are in a hot air balloon; they can fly as high as they will as long as there is plenty of hot air. But there it is: they are held up, not by their own strength, but by the force of hot air. Larry
I knew there was a reason I visited St. Paul’s as a tourist and worshipped at All Saint’s, St. Margaret’s Street, the last time I was in London.