[blockquote] I hope, simply, that there will not be a Gene-shaped space at the Lambeth Conference where the living child of God Gene should be. [/blockquote]
And I hope, simply, that there will not be a Martyn Minns-shaped space at the Lambeth Conference where the living child of God Martyn should be. Ditto for a few other bishops.
How interesting that Nick Knisely at Episcopal Cafe has also (in this case intentionally) juxtaposed ++Anis and +Andrus. It certainly makes for a “choose you this day whom you will serve” moment, at least for this elf. The contrast and clarity of both bishops is striking, and I think a very good thing.
May there be an honest choice.
Re: “Gene-shaped space at the Lambeth Conference where the living child of God Gene should be.” What an embarrassing statement. Can you imagine Paul, Augustine, Cranmer, etc. using such trite babble? I really think that all American clergy need to spend a few years in Africa before practicing here in the states. This would dispel this kind of nonsense talk.
Having served in our bishop’s office in the SF Bay Area, I can tell you that in that “target rich environment,” our Reconciled in Christ ELCA congregations are VERY small. It’s not working for us. It won’t work for TEC either. But that’s assuming data and pragmatic experience mean anything to advocates.
As I read this I felt like it was all set up for a point. I saw I was getting to the end and started thinking ‘where is his point?’ Then that last sentance…and I thought “What?!?!?!.”
How sad that this bishop is willing to tear the Anglican Communion apart because he thinks it’s his responsibility “to provide a context for this search for holiness of life”–in a lifestyle that will always be unholy. He has been mightily deceived. Lord, have mercy!
#9 – The true embarrassment here is the pissy tone of these comments. They seem so petty. There’s no discussion of the issue, just personal attacks and putdowns. I’m sure it will get worse as the week goes on. But, look at what a picture it prints!! Kinda sad.
I, too, could not believe that a bishop would say what he said to the ABC and guests. I thought surely there would be more, but then what more could he say?
Fred what issue is there? It’s a speech, we are commenting on it. It’s quality is relevant. Don’t blame us the man can’t write a decent speech and speak like he’s a grown up.
Gene-shaped space— :sick:
Bishop Marc proves once again that he is committed to recognizing the intergrity of every human being, and seeing that person as being one of God’s own creation. May God continue to bless him in his ministry – I wish he was my bishop!!
#17, your Donne quote is used quite poorly. It makes it appear that you think the homosexual issue is made-up entirely by men, as opposed to being laid out clearly in Holy Scripture. Since it IS laid out in scripture, and not made up by men, it surely looks like you don’t know what you, or Donne, is talking about.
Mark:
[i]Bishop Marc proves once again that he is committed to recognizing the intergrity of every human being, and seeing that person as being one of God’s own creation.[/i]
Too bad that doesn’t include orthodox, Bible-believing Chrisitans. 🙄
Andrus was our former suffragan in Alabama. Even when not speaking to the issue of homosexuality, his “sermons” were laced with heresy. His faith is anthropocentric and not Christian. We in the orthodox community should have been as outraged with his becoming a senior bishop as we were when VGR was consecrated in NH.
I don’t know +Andrus. But he sounds like he’d make a great social worker. But not a bishop. He is not a defender of the Faith, he is the defender of a cause and its icon (VGR). The tone of his speech feels childish to me.
This thread had a number of comments that really were unhelpful in tone and content. Do people realize Bishop’s offices read this blog? They do. So could you please write it as if you were saying it to Bishop Andrus himself.
Bishop Andrus is a wonderful human being with whom I had a chance to serve on the Education Committee at GC 2006. There is a way to disagree with him while showing him respect–please.
#16 Rolling Eyes: “Since it IS laid out in scripture, and not made up by men,”
Oh really? Is this a new revelation? Scripture is written by…whom…um…angelic stenographers? archangels? seraphim? The Blessed Virgin? Wow, maybe… God?!? This should be [i]headlines,[/i] RE! (I realize this is off-thread and apologize.) (And I realize the argument won’t reach any reason as we recognize we’re on totally different pages – but I needed to respond.)
#17, Libraryjim: “Too bad that doesn’t include orthodox, Bible-believing Chrisitans.” You are reading something into his words that is simply not there. And I believe you will not find that spirit within him.
Finally: Bravo, Bishop Marc. May your ministry be ever blessed.
Kendall: Thank [i]you[/i] for a gracious reminder and comment.
The very concept of a “Gene-shaped” space is in one sense very incarnational. We can talk from a humanist perspective about the life of an individual, and all they bring with them to a spot or moment in the space continuum: talents, gifts, skills, characteristics, color of hair, choice of life partner. And through that “space” we would have this hope that God might shine through. So let your light shine, …..that your Father in heaven may be glorified. Jesus humbled himself and took upon himself the nature of a man. There is a “man-shaped space” where Jesus is. We carry that theology with us, but not in an anthropromorphic sense of the physically resurrected and ascended Jesus occupying universal space somewhere. Still, because he was/is fully man and fully God, he still would carry with him or emit or simply “be” a man-shaped space.
But that’s Jesus, not Gene.
Gene is a fallible human being who needs redemption (according to Jesus) like every other human being. The incarnation is in itself a profound work of God precisely because it redeems human flesh – not justify its corruption. When referring to Christians, then, a man-shaped space, or a woman-shaped space, that is, a human-shaped space, is antithetical to the biblical theology of being transformed into the image of Christ by the Holy Spirit. We do not become transformed into our own image. The humility necessary is exactly to assist the accomplishment of this transformation. One must see that becoming humble before the Lord means I want “MY SPACE” to become “HIS SPACE”; I want the “Rob-shaped space” to be – and to be seen as — a “God-shaped” or “Jesus-shaped” space. And through this God-spaced shape I want the REDEEMED Rob to come through – my talents redeemed, my skills redeemed, my characteristics redeemed, my life partner choices redeemed.
This is why I believe Bp Andrus has uttered bad theology, and more than bad, I simply question whether this is Christian theology. I will say this, not intending to mitigate anything, I think Bp Andrus was not intending to be carefully theological, but effectively used an emotional, romantic, rhetorical device in order to win an argument about what has been proclaimed as the rightful place of Bp Robinson at Lambeth. This doesn’t help the bad theology, however. Bishops called together to moments of collegiality are called as bishops , leaders of the Body of Christ, not simply as individual personalities. To use the same kind of device Bp Andrus used, let me say:
If he were my bishop, I wouldn’t want “Marc” (and his shape) to show up at Lambeth, although he cannot avoid being Marc. But I would want the Bishop of California to show up at Lambeth, with all the description the ordinal says that person is supposed to be. I don’t want +John-David to show up at Lambeth, even though he might be the life of the party. That’s just who he is. No, I want the Bishop of San Joaquin to show up, and be the Bishop redeemed that he is and is supposed to be.
So whether it is in the context of being transformed into the image of Christ, or whether in the context of the ordained leader being something bigger in the Body of Christ than simply your unique individuality, it simply is not about Gene.
Now, a simple reduction will bring you to this point: the problem with the comment (“a Gene-shaped space”) made by Bp Andrus, is that it’s not all about Gene.
Mine was probably one of the comments with an abrupt or disrespectful tone. I see that it has been softened. I apologize. Let me elaborate and perhaps clarify my meaning in a more respectful way.
I hear in +Andrus’ comments the voice of a person who genuinely cares about people, and especially people he feels who have suffered unjustly. However, his particular office has another responsiblity that I do not see or hear him address: the defense of the Body of Christ as a whole, and the Gospel of Jesus. I do not hear him appeal to the Gospel as I understand it, in defense of those in his care.
The proximity of the two bishops’ speeches (+Anis and +Andrus) did, as mentioned above, bring out a strong contrast: one appealed to scriptural ideas of unity using specific examples to support the theme, and the other seemed more of a personal emotional appeal without theological support and with a surprising punchline.
Honestly, Kendal, what is the point of speaking well of these renders of Christ’s body, these profaners of all that is holy? (and that is not hyperbole) If we should only write of them what we would say to their face I have no problem with that. Why should we not speak to them as John the Baptist and Jesus spoke to the pharisees, as St. John the Evangelist spoke when he saw Cerinthus; “Let us flee, lest the building fall down; for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is inside!” ? Why must we be polite and nice? What is the Gospel imperative? What has it ever gained us for the Gospel.
It seems our pseudo-Christian tolerance of them and treating them as if they aren’t the heretics they are. It’s not like they are prostitutes and murderers in the world. Those we can forgive and love with the Gospel. These men are attacking the church from within and we give them liscence by saying “tut, tut” instead of “Begone, child of Satan!”
In warfare you should give proper respect to the enemy’s soldiers on the field. But you should shoot the damend spies and traitors at home.
It seems our pseudo-Christian tolerance of them and treating them as if they aren’t the heretics they are only makes them take advantage of our misguided kindness. They aren’t penitents and we aren’t winning them over. (missing piece)
Oh my. Kendall, I know we didn’t plan our post sequence. But to read this having just read ++Mouneer is rather shocking in terms of the contrast.
’nuff said, I think, the words of both bishops speak for themselves.
[blockquote] I hope, simply, that there will not be a Gene-shaped space at the Lambeth Conference where the living child of God Gene should be. [/blockquote]
I can’t believe a grown man actually said this.
And I hope, simply, that there will not be a Martyn Minns-shaped space at the Lambeth Conference where the living child of God Martyn should be. Ditto for a few other bishops.
From what we’re hearing there will indeed be a Gene-shaped person at Lambeth. Whatever that means.
How interesting that Nick Knisely at Episcopal Cafe has also (in this case intentionally) juxtaposed ++Anis and +Andrus. It certainly makes for a “choose you this day whom you will serve” moment, at least for this elf. The contrast and clarity of both bishops is striking, and I think a very good thing.
May there be an honest choice.
Wow. Nothing more to say.
Re: “Gene-shaped space at the Lambeth Conference where the living child of God Gene should be.” What an embarrassing statement. Can you imagine Paul, Augustine, Cranmer, etc. using such trite babble? I really think that all American clergy need to spend a few years in Africa before practicing here in the states. This would dispel this kind of nonsense talk.
Having served in our bishop’s office in the SF Bay Area, I can tell you that in that “target rich environment,” our Reconciled in Christ ELCA congregations are VERY small. It’s not working for us. It won’t work for TEC either. But that’s assuming data and pragmatic experience mean anything to advocates.
Maryland Brian
As I read this I felt like it was all set up for a point. I saw I was getting to the end and started thinking ‘where is his point?’ Then that last sentance…and I thought “What?!?!?!.”
How sad that this bishop is willing to tear the Anglican Communion apart because he thinks it’s his responsibility “to provide a context for this search for holiness of life”–in a lifestyle that will always be unholy. He has been mightily deceived. Lord, have mercy!
#9 – The true embarrassment here is the pissy tone of these comments. They seem so petty. There’s no discussion of the issue, just personal attacks and putdowns. I’m sure it will get worse as the week goes on. But, look at what a picture it prints!! Kinda sad.
I, too, could not believe that a bishop would say what he said to the ABC and guests. I thought surely there would be more, but then what more could he say?
Fred what issue is there? It’s a speech, we are commenting on it. It’s quality is relevant. Don’t blame us the man can’t write a decent speech and speak like he’s a grown up.
Gene-shaped space— :sick:
Bishop Marc proves once again that he is committed to recognizing the intergrity of every human being, and seeing that person as being one of God’s own creation. May God continue to bless him in his ministry – I wish he was my bishop!!
#17, your Donne quote is used quite poorly. It makes it appear that you think the homosexual issue is made-up entirely by men, as opposed to being laid out clearly in Holy Scripture. Since it IS laid out in scripture, and not made up by men, it surely looks like you don’t know what you, or Donne, is talking about.
The same is evident from Bishop Marc.
Mark:
[i]Bishop Marc proves once again that he is committed to recognizing the intergrity of every human being, and seeing that person as being one of God’s own creation.[/i]
Too bad that doesn’t include orthodox, Bible-believing Chrisitans. 🙄
Andrus was our former suffragan in Alabama. Even when not speaking to the issue of homosexuality, his “sermons” were laced with heresy. His faith is anthropocentric and not Christian. We in the orthodox community should have been as outraged with his becoming a senior bishop as we were when VGR was consecrated in NH.
I don’t know +Andrus. But he sounds like he’d make a great social worker. But not a bishop. He is not a defender of the Faith, he is the defender of a cause and its icon (VGR). The tone of his speech feels childish to me.
This thread had a number of comments that really were unhelpful in tone and content. Do people realize Bishop’s offices read this blog? They do. So could you please write it as if you were saying it to Bishop Andrus himself.
Bishop Andrus is a wonderful human being with whom I had a chance to serve on the Education Committee at GC 2006. There is a way to disagree with him while showing him respect–please.
#16 Rolling Eyes: “Since it IS laid out in scripture, and not made up by men,”
Oh really? Is this a new revelation? Scripture is written by…whom…um…angelic stenographers? archangels? seraphim? The Blessed Virgin? Wow, maybe… God?!? This should be [i]headlines,[/i] RE! (I realize this is off-thread and apologize.) (And I realize the argument won’t reach any reason as we recognize we’re on totally different pages – but I needed to respond.)
#17, Libraryjim: “Too bad that doesn’t include orthodox, Bible-believing Chrisitans.” You are reading something into his words that is simply not there. And I believe you will not find that spirit within him.
Finally: Bravo, Bishop Marc. May your ministry be ever blessed.
Kendall: Thank [i]you[/i] for a gracious reminder and comment.
Okay, Fred, Kendall. I’ll take a stab at this.
The very concept of a “Gene-shaped” space is in one sense very incarnational. We can talk from a humanist perspective about the life of an individual, and all they bring with them to a spot or moment in the space continuum: talents, gifts, skills, characteristics, color of hair, choice of life partner. And through that “space” we would have this hope that God might shine through. So let your light shine, …..that your Father in heaven may be glorified. Jesus humbled himself and took upon himself the nature of a man. There is a “man-shaped space” where Jesus is. We carry that theology with us, but not in an anthropromorphic sense of the physically resurrected and ascended Jesus occupying universal space somewhere. Still, because he was/is fully man and fully God, he still would carry with him or emit or simply “be” a man-shaped space.
But that’s Jesus, not Gene.
Gene is a fallible human being who needs redemption (according to Jesus) like every other human being. The incarnation is in itself a profound work of God precisely because it redeems human flesh – not justify its corruption. When referring to Christians, then, a man-shaped space, or a woman-shaped space, that is, a human-shaped space, is antithetical to the biblical theology of being transformed into the image of Christ by the Holy Spirit. We do not become transformed into our own image. The humility necessary is exactly to assist the accomplishment of this transformation. One must see that becoming humble before the Lord means I want “MY SPACE” to become “HIS SPACE”; I want the “Rob-shaped space” to be – and to be seen as — a “God-shaped” or “Jesus-shaped” space. And through this God-spaced shape I want the REDEEMED Rob to come through – my talents redeemed, my skills redeemed, my characteristics redeemed, my life partner choices redeemed.
This is why I believe Bp Andrus has uttered bad theology, and more than bad, I simply question whether this is Christian theology. I will say this, not intending to mitigate anything, I think Bp Andrus was not intending to be carefully theological, but effectively used an emotional, romantic, rhetorical device in order to win an argument about what has been proclaimed as the rightful place of Bp Robinson at Lambeth. This doesn’t help the bad theology, however. Bishops called together to moments of collegiality are called as bishops , leaders of the Body of Christ, not simply as individual personalities. To use the same kind of device Bp Andrus used, let me say:
If he were my bishop, I wouldn’t want “Marc” (and his shape) to show up at Lambeth, although he cannot avoid being Marc. But I would want the Bishop of California to show up at Lambeth, with all the description the ordinal says that person is supposed to be. I don’t want +John-David to show up at Lambeth, even though he might be the life of the party. That’s just who he is. No, I want the Bishop of San Joaquin to show up, and be the Bishop redeemed that he is and is supposed to be.
So whether it is in the context of being transformed into the image of Christ, or whether in the context of the ordained leader being something bigger in the Body of Christ than simply your unique individuality, it simply is not about Gene.
Now, a simple reduction will bring you to this point: the problem with the comment (“a Gene-shaped space”) made by Bp Andrus, is that it’s not all about Gene.
RGEaton
Mine was probably one of the comments with an abrupt or disrespectful tone. I see that it has been softened. I apologize. Let me elaborate and perhaps clarify my meaning in a more respectful way.
I hear in +Andrus’ comments the voice of a person who genuinely cares about people, and especially people he feels who have suffered unjustly. However, his particular office has another responsiblity that I do not see or hear him address: the defense of the Body of Christ as a whole, and the Gospel of Jesus. I do not hear him appeal to the Gospel as I understand it, in defense of those in his care.
The proximity of the two bishops’ speeches (+Anis and +Andrus) did, as mentioned above, bring out a strong contrast: one appealed to scriptural ideas of unity using specific examples to support the theme, and the other seemed more of a personal emotional appeal without theological support and with a surprising punchline.
Honestly, Kendal, what is the point of speaking well of these renders of Christ’s body, these profaners of all that is holy? (and that is not hyperbole) If we should only write of them what we would say to their face I have no problem with that. Why should we not speak to them as John the Baptist and Jesus spoke to the pharisees, as St. John the Evangelist spoke when he saw Cerinthus; “Let us flee, lest the building fall down; for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is inside!” ? Why must we be polite and nice? What is the Gospel imperative? What has it ever gained us for the Gospel.
It seems our pseudo-Christian tolerance of them and treating them as if they aren’t the heretics they are. It’s not like they are prostitutes and murderers in the world. Those we can forgive and love with the Gospel. These men are attacking the church from within and we give them liscence by saying “tut, tut” instead of “Begone, child of Satan!”
In warfare you should give proper respect to the enemy’s soldiers on the field. But you should shoot the damend spies and traitors at home.
It seems our pseudo-Christian tolerance of them and treating them as if they aren’t the heretics they are only makes them take advantage of our misguided kindness. They aren’t penitents and we aren’t winning them over. (missing piece)