For the past two weeks, I have been in regular phone and email conversation with several members of the House of Bishops. We began talking and writing because of our concern that the Archbishop of Canterbury has announced that our colleague and friend, the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson, will not be receiving an invitation to the Lambeth 2008 Conference, which gathers together all the bishops of the Anglican Communion every ten years. We drafted a letter expressing our disappointment and concern. In that letter we also articulated our hope ”“ that this season of confusion and distress, which has “threatened the bonds of affection” in the Anglican Communion, might be resolved through thoughtful conversation and mutual respect.
In a conference call this afternoon, we decided not to send out our letter. As Gene Robinson has told us, there is a lot of diplomacy going on between the Archbishop’s office and the American Church, which may ”“ or may not, create a different ecclesiastical climate and result in invitations to all bishops in good standing in the Church (which certainly includes Bishop Robinson, who was duly elected, consented and consecrated as a bishop in the Episcopal church). We also acknowledged to one another that there is great confusion in the wider church about our polity. Unlike most of the rest of the Anglican Communion, which appoints their bishops ”“ we elect ours.
So we decided not to send out our letter ”“ yet. Ours was a decision of strategy. We want to wait a bit to see if the diplomacy will lead to a different, and more satisfying resolution. But as we debated issues of strategy, I could feel my commitment to radical hospitality deepen, and I could hear it in my colleagues. Jesus had a passion for radical welcome ”“ and a disdain for those who were unwilling, or unable, to embrace it. Jesus’ invitation extends down through the centuries to include the rest of us. All of us. Welcome should beget welcome. We shouldn’t settle for anything less.
(The Rt. Rev.) Mark M. Beckwith
Again, I ask these bishops who are so concerned about VGR’s lack of invitation: are they equally dismayed by Bishop Minn’s non-invitation as well?
Hm?
I think this shows us that 815 has succesfully shut down the Progressive outrage after it was revealed by Kearon that Robinson is not (yet) invited (and with the carrot held out as well). This shows that 815 is in control of the progressives – very interesting.
bb
Woould it not be quite unprincipled to invite VGR to anything Anglican? Would it not set off, quite justly, an enormous backlash, that would sweep away a lot more than TEC? The southern Cone and Africa are powers standing just outside the ring, waiting for someone to challenge them to a fight. This would be as bloody a battle as Gettysburg, and the winner isn’t likely to be in England or America.
LM
RE: “Jesus had a passion for radical welcome – and a disdain for those who were unwilling, or unable, to embrace it.”
[laughter]
Wait! I thought “Jesus had a disdain for radical progressives”.
Or maybe, “Jesus had a disdain for Democrats.” How about “Jesus had a disdain for Vegans.”
; > )
RE: “So we decided not to send out our letter – yet. Ours was a decision of strategy.”
We all wait with bated breath to see the “secret weapon”.
We hope and pray that the tactical strike will be averted.
Please — for the children’s sake!!!
; > )
So it’s this season of confusion and distress, not the events of 2003, which has “threatened the bonds of affectionâ€.
Bp Beckwith says that we elect our bishops, but other provinces do not. He is right to some extent; in England, bishops are appointed. But in many other places, bishops are elected. It is often the case that a province’s House of Bishops will elect the new bishops (in East Africa and I think Nigeria). While this has its difficulties for many of us, it does mean that theologically knowledgeable people will be electing new bishops, and that is a plus — in the US, many of those who vote know little of theology, and could easily vote more for style than for substance.
Just because other provinces don’t do it the American way does not mean that they act in folly.
Wonder if it makes any difference that Gene’s now gonna get married to his boyfriend as a result of the new civil unions law in New Hampshire.
“Jesus had a passion for radical welcome – and a disdain for those who were unwilling, or unable, to embrace it.â€
Jesus had DISDAIN for those unwilling, unable to embrace +Beckwith’s “understanding†of radical welcome? I BET THAT”S NEWS TO JESUS.
I seem to recall Jesus’ sorrow over the rich young ruler who was so close to the kingdom but wouldn’t give up what was needful to follow him. Has sorrow become Beckwith’s DISDAIN? Do we have a confirmation from the Father on that? How about the Holy Spirit?
Come on, Bish! Ante up the references and the theology instead of the merely hubristical assertions.
Sarah, I too S-H-U-D-D-E-R at the thought of the letter! No doubt it has the power to sway the minds of the mighty and toss trees about like matchsticks in the minds of the authors. If, in reality, it is the usual palaver, we merely need earplugs so as not to die of inanity.
I agree with #4. Most earnest Christians base their initiatives on scripture. This writer can’t do that so he, like others pushing the homosexual agenda, make it up…thus “Jesus had a passion for radical welcome – and a disdain for those who were unwilling, or unable, to embrace it.†uh what scripture is that one? this ambiguous statement means nothing but is used to justify a “disdain” toward those who disagree that homosexual behavior is congruent with holiness.
This letter ignores real scripture while upholding sentimentalism…”a committment to radical hospitality”… oh so I guess in his house now he has welcomed several homeless to stay with him right? or is he giving his wealth away to the poor? or did he just mean he is writing a letter supporting an invitation? whoa…that’s radical! ..
dwstroudmd,
Heh. I just realized.
Bishop Beckwith meant to say: “[Bishop Beckwith] had a passion for radical welcome – and a disdain for those who were unwilling, or unable, to embrace it.”
Jesus accepted all who made the radical decision to turn to the Kingdom of God. He was very harsh to those who barred the door.
For example:
Matthew 19:23-24 23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
Matthew 21:31-44 31 “Which of the two did what his father wanted?” “The first,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. 32 For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him. 33 “Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. 34 When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit. 35 “The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. 36 Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. 37 Last of all, he sent his son to them. ‘They will respect my son,’ he said. 38 “But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him and take his inheritance.’ 39 So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. 40 “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” 41 “He will bring those wretches to a wretched end,” they replied, “and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time.” 42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: “‘The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes’? 43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. 44 He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.”
Luke 10:8-16 8 “When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is set before you. 9 Heal the sick who are there and tell them, ‘The kingdom of God is near you.’ 10 But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 11 ‘Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.’ 12 I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town. 13 “Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 But it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. 15 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. 16 “He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
Luke 13:23-30 23 Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?” He said to them, 24 “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. 25 Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’ “But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’ 26 “Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’ 27 “But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!’ 28 “There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. 29 People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. 30 Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last.”
You can find many more examples
The kingdom of Heaven is open to all, but not everyone takes advantage of it. A human response is required and not all make the right choice. The end result is one of exclusion for someone. Jesus is almost desparate for people to respond to Him and make the right choice. (Note: I do not intend to slide into a discussion over free will and salvation; ie. We are so burdened with sin that we cannot chose to be saved (free will is an illusion) and God saves us as an act of grace. Nevertheless Scripture is clear that God expects a human response toward Him and that He will allow us to reject Him)
Beckwith is arguing inclusion for all regardless of the human response. This idea is not supported anywhere in Scripture, either in the OT or the NT.
Thanks Bro Michael. You summed up the argument against the idea presented by this letter and the usual statements that allude to Jesus’ “welcome” and “hospitality” etc to support sinful behavior. As you have shown from scripture no scriptural support exists for the letters arguments. They really promote the idea that those who do not bow down to the god of the homosexual agenda will be the ones “thrown out” of the kingdom.
“Unlike most of the rest of the Anglican Communion, which appoints their bishops – we elect ours.”
Unfortunately, ECUSA’s discernment of who should be a bishop, both at the national ECUSA-wide approval level and at the diocesan nomination and election level is ‘wanting.’
We elect people to be bishops who are essentially secular in outlook and who ignore and twist Scripture, tradition and canon to advance their secular agendas.
When and if a new Anglican province is established in North America, one of the first things that must be determined is the process for discerning who should and should not be a bishop.
And even before that discernment begins, there needs to be a primacy-wide process for determining whether or not a person should become a priest.
Adherence to “the Faith once given” should be an overriding consideration.
The fuss over Robinson shows how vast the gulf is between those who claim he is a vaild Anglican bishop and those who say he was unqualified for the office in the first place and therefore his consecration was invalid. There can be no peace between the two positions.
Bravo to +Beckwith and his fellow bishops. There is no room for exclusion of anyone in 21st century Christianity. Those who call for and support exclusion of anyone are not the true Christains and it’s time we called them on it!
I just don’t understand their horror and anger at vgr not being invited, and their total lack of understand at the horror and anger caused by their action in 2003!
It’s like a spoiled child saying “I want my way, now!!â€
The only negotiation that they want is everyone to agree with them. They know that they are never going backwards… What do they expect…hummm… What they have already succeeded in. They are doing the same thing the did to the ECUSA, just keeping at it till they got their way…
Honestly, I left because I just could not sit in limbo and watch this any longer. I feel so sad as I watch this..
#15
I’m with you on this, Fred. But I also dearly love (exaggeration? I don’t think so) orthodox Christians such as Brother Michael. In the end all will be well.
Fred, just what do you mean by, “There is no room for exclusion of anyone in 21st century Christianity. Those who call for and support exclusion of anyone are not the true Christains and it’s time we called them on it!”
Fred, on second thought there is no need to answer my post. Jesus allowed the rich ruler to make his decision and walk away. There is no point in further argument.
I am wonder whether all this hue and cry is really a sham. Do they not know that the early invitations from the ABC are a big, fat gift? If he had waited till after Sept 30 and after the HoB collectively drop their drawers and moon the rest of the communion (that is not very pleasant imagery!), then the ABC wouldn’t have enough political chips invite the arrogant over the objections of the rest of the communion and none of the non-Windsor American bishops would be sipping tea.
And I fully expect VGR to be invited as a guest, which in some ways suits his personal agenda better, the agenda of self-aggrandizement. He can come and cry about how he is being victimized to be only a guest. “Oh, the sham, the sham!†The media will love it.
Should be “Oh, the shame!”. Had sham on the mind.
I wish to make my point again given the sheer quantity of publicity VGR has caused and is causing.
We gain nothing from this and stand to lose a lot, because we are feeding the matyrdom monster that all this publicity is creating. Should he be invited? No, of course not. This is like a sheep inviting a liver fluke to share a drink. But having refused him, the entire Anglican church should pay no more attention to the issue. AS far as we are concerned, he should become invisible; no more publicity from us, no opportunity for matyrdom. LM
!5 and 17: Of course there is a call for exclusion. If I have a sick sheep and it cannot be cured, I kill it, because it is a clear danger to the rest of my flock. Even if I can cure it, I exclude it from the flock.
VGR, Schori and the like are Typhoid Mary’s. You take them in to your house if you want. Lie down with dogs, rise with fleas is is true now as it ever was.
Your phrase is a piece of political correctness and fails wherever it touches reality, as does Schori’s same message – all sweetness, until someone tries to take away church property at which point her bland charity to all suddenly becomes a wolf with a juicy bone.Sentiment says, “Pat the nice doggie.” Reality says,”Watch the teeth.” LM