The Archbishop completely objectifies, makes passive, “the community of believers,” which, for this Anglican, is about as far from Anglicanism as one can get.
The other problem is his final sentence in that paragraph.
Radical change in the way we read cannot be determined by one group or tradition alone.
That is Roman Catholic Theology pure and simple, and it’s is simply hogwash. At the very least it begs the question, what is “radical change.” I defy the Archbishop to prove that the ordination of Bishop Gene Robinson is a “radical change” in the reading of Scripture by Anglican standards. He ought to have at least asked the question rather than made the pronouncement.
Here’s the other problematic paragraph:I acknowledge that this limitation on invitations will pose problems for some in its outworking. But I would strongly urge those whose strong commitments create such problems to ask what they are prepared to offer for the sake of the Conference that will have some general credibility in and for the Communion overall.
Earth to Archbishop, the credibility of the “instruments of communion” are already shot, literally, to hell. To be fair to him, this did not begin on his watch, but on his predecessors at the previous Lambeth Conference. The very reason Lambeth 1.10 cannot be “ the only point of reference clearly agreed by the overwhelming majority of the Communion” is that 1.10 had and has no credibility because of the process at which it arrived. I would also defy the Archbishop to give actual evidence outside the Primates Meeting that the statement is actually true. It is not true simply because he “repeatedly” says it is true.
Go, Michael!
Here’s my favorite quote later on in the piece:
“I have supported our bishops’ attendance despite Bishop Robinson’s lack of an invitation because I felt it was and is important that we “be at the table.â€
I still lean in that direction, but I also think it is important that someone play “devil’s advocate†here. What if the table is in itself so distorted that nothing good can come of it? What if the table is, by design, not credible. And it is clearly not given that despite three previous Conference’s promise to listen to the experience of lesbian and gay persons, there is no evidence whatsoever that the next Conference intends to do so.
If nothing else, the one person who could be there as an active participant in such a listening process from the side of gay and lesbian persons is not being allowed to participate. If our bishops’ are to go to the Conference are they willing in no uncertain terms, to protest strongly this state of affairs and state that they will do everything in their power to see that the conversation happens at the Conference?”
Mr. Hopkins rejects Lambeth 1.10 because it suits his purposes to do so after asking why the consecration of VGR was radical. Lambeth 1.10 says why it was radical and, even absent L1.10 it was still radical because L1.10 was little more than a bland restatement of 5,000 years of Judeo-Christian belief. Actions before and since have only confirmed this, not to mention the other heresies being taught by Gene Robinson.
[blockquote]If nothing else, the one person who could be there as an active participant in such a listening process from the side of gay and lesbian persons is not being allowed to participate. [/blockquote]
Demonstrably false, Susan, unless a gay or lesbian isn’t “authentic” enough if he or she is celibate. Is it all about sex?
Or perhaps all gays are authentic only some gays are more authentic than others, and then the rest of us have opinions that are … what did we learn this week in Chicago … systemically homophoibic, so we can’t possibly be trusted, you know.
[i] Please keep this thread to a discussion about the letter Kendall has posted. [/i]
Do you really want my opinion on the letter, Elfgirl? It’s the cancer’s view of chemotherapy.
[i] This is Elf Lady. If your opinion goes beyond good taste it will be edited. [/i]
This is tiresome stuff, repetitious – in the sense that we have read these remarks over and over – shallow and biased. If one cannot understand the case of VGR in the light of scripture, then the writer is paying attention to nothing more than his wishes and desires. There is no real argument here, there are no ideas. There is only attack and attack, pile scorn on derogation, and throughout, peddle the agenda. As you know, I am no admirer of the ABC, but this is a childish attack and therefore impotent.
And yet, Jeffersonian’s rhetorical question does not yield t he answer he wants. The present crisis is in fact largely about sex, normal sexual behavior and standards, and deviant and abnormal standards. As Adams sought to do, so too this writer wishes us to accept homosexuality as normative, and this is in every sense false. The bell curve puts this writer way over on one end of the line; the facts are simple and no bullying can alter it. Normative and normal actually mean something, something demonstrable, and homosexuality does not participate in either word.
Is normal a genuine good? This is like asking if 98.6 for body temperature is a good, or if 104 degrees is bad. For mankind, 98.6 is good indeed. For the Arctic, it is very bad, and this badness is represented by the fact that in the arctic winter, the human body temperature is abnormal in the extreme, a source of serious damage. 98.6 at the north pole is the homosexuality of the Cold World, so to speak. The difference? There is no political correctness to try to sell us on the bizarre notion that 98.6 is normal for the Cold World. LM
Easy on the sarcasm, please.
I find the attributes claimed for Anglicanism less than true. I was born, bred, ordained and have always been an Anglican Christian. I have little understanding of Anglicanism that is removed from the Holy Scriptures and the historic formularies – 1662 BCP, Ordinal and 39 Articles. The comments of Mr. Hopkins show how far this kind of US “big tent” Anglicanism is from its historic form as well as its global manifestations.
All in all a tragic piece that indicates the de facto division that we already experience and which +Rowan is seeking to heal. Such healing may be as hard as uniting chalk and cheese. However our God is a God of miracles and the impossible. Therefore I do not stop praying. Meanwhile I cheer on the Global South as they have provided a true vision for a robust, lively, doctrinally sound 21st Century Anglicanism.
Ian Montgomery +
Ummm, and Orthodox, and in fact even most of Protestantism — which tends to regard any local, idiosyncratic reading (like, for example, Fr. Tobias Haller’s contention that the term porneia does not include homosexual activity) as the mark of a wacko sect.
Mmmpf. I defy Fr. Hopkins to give actual evidence outside the frothing progressive blogosphere that I.10 has no credibility, for whatever reason. (I rather thought our worship of “polity” would show some respect for a proposition passed by such an overwhelming margin.) It does not “have no credibility” simply because Fr. Hopkins repeats ad nauseam that he doesn’t believe it.
And so on and so on. There is no point in fisking this silly piece any further; it’s too easy — there’s no sport in it.
He does make one outstandingly good suggestion, though:
Yes! Yes!! Standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the Church of Sweden is the perfect place for TEC!!
And finally, irresistably:
Fr. Hopkins, not surprisingly, gets it exactly and perfectly backwards: Although the Communion may or may not survive the next Lambeth, there is no question that Anglicanism is alive and well and will remain so whatever may happen to the Communion, the Church of England, or TEC.
“The very reason Lambeth 1.10 cannot be “ the only point of reference clearly agreed by the overwhelming majority of the Communion†is that 1.10 had and has no credibility because of the process at which it arrived.â€
I wonder how Father Hopkins arrives at this. “that 1.10 had and has no credibility because of the process at which it arrived.â€
Is he saying that any Lambeth resolution is only good if he agrees with it and any resolution he doesn’t like is not agreeable?
Strange!!!
Susan,
Please understand that we hear you. You want to marry and have sex with someone of the same sex, and have it blessed by the Episcopal Church. We disagree. We believe that the Bible says that homosexual behavior is sinful.
Your personal story will not change the Word of God. It will not change 2,000 years of Christian belief in most Christian denominations. The reason that you or others feel same sex attraction do not matter. It is the behaior that is sinful.
There is no, zero, nada, none, Biblical justification to do what you seek, bless homosexual sex, whether or not it is within the context of a committed relationship. There is nothing that Robinson can or will say that has not been said and heard before.
“because of the process at which it arrived.” Somebody please tell me what he means by that statment? And if it was truly flawed how about all the other resolutions? Were they flawed also? Or is he just picking and choosing?
Could any process be more flawed than that of General Convention 2003, where media driven identity politics and “ask me about Gene” buttons rather than prayerful theological reflection ruled the day?
He lost me at: “I defy the Archbishop to prove that the ordination of Bishop Gene Robinson is a “radical change†in the reading of Scripture by Anglican standards.” The ordination of Robinson and the continued support for SSB and a denial that Jesus is the only way to salvation within TEC are a denial of the God, the Creator and his son Jesus Christ. Souls are in peril while the ABC pirouettes around the fundamental tenets of Christianity itself. For what? To save a Communion where none exists.
Oldman, I might be wrong, but I think what he’s referring to is the fact that although a majority of american bishops voted to support resolution 1.10, they really didn’t want to, and many of them later recanted. It was even suggested that there was culinary coercion involved, if I remember correctly. I seem to remember a quote being attributed to Bp. Spong…something about African bishops, barely removed from animism, whose votes were purchased with barbequed chicken.
Shumanbean, you made my day! Do you know who those recanting bishops were?
More childish victimhood pronouncements! You don’t love me if you don’t let me do what I want to do. I propose that there is a “stuck in adolescence” gene that causes these folks to twist logic into irrationality. Either the holy Scriptures are God’s inspired revelations for our salvation and behavior or they are not. If they are then extramarital sex is forbidden (both gay and straight). And even Jesus knew that men married women.
Such a pity! And the whine goes on!
[blockquote]Easy on the sarcasm, please.[/blockquote]
It’s not sarcasm, but reality. The naked, uncomfortable truth is that Mr. Hopkins is in precisely the spot VGR was five short years ago, a partnered, non-celibate, homosexual priest. Had VGR not been in that position, he would not be in the position he is today and we would be warmly discussing the coming of the birth of our Lord here instead of the disintegration of the Anglican Communion.
Mr. Hopkins, like VGR before him, is the camel’s nose under the tent, the vanguard, the vector. If you don’t want more VGRs, you start by making sure there are no more Michael Hopkinses.
If an Anglican reading of scripture does not admit stating that Robinson’s consecration was radical, then Waugh was more right than he could have known when he said “”No one from the Pope to Mao Tse Tung can be certain that he is not an Anglican.”
LOL!!! Now THAT’S prophecy.
#12 and others
This is NOT just about sex!! I really think the homosexual aspect is just a symptom of the abandonment of Scripture. This post modern approach to our sins makes me stand in awe at the slyness of the human psyche and the evil one. This “If I say its OK then its OK” mentality is to say the least, frustrating. To take it a step further ” If I can get you to say its OK then it REALLY must be OK regardless of what the Bible says”. I had to fight this tooth and nail when I led our youth group. You gotta go back to the basics… there are and always will be absolute truths.
The preparations for the upcoming Lambeth conference are beginning to look like a global game of chicken. Who’s coming? Will the revisionist bishops stay away out of principle? Will the Global South? Will +Cantuar actually rescind invitations to bishops who publicly support same-sex blessings? At this rate, everybody had better get refundable airline reservations.
#22. My remark earlier was in meant for the local context, the religious one. But you are completely right and I am in wholehearted agreement that this mess is correctly and necessarily to be seen in the larger context. I have argued for this very view again and again, and I do hope that your message will sink in when mine has not. The culture in its entirety gives form, color and significance to this local debate. Shooting the Bad Guys here at the OK Corral doesn’t attack the root of the Bad Guy problem. LM
Ah yes – the process was flawed. You know, the process in which the Americans have more Bishops at Lambeth per capita than any other Province in the Communion. /sarcasm
[blockquote]What if the table is in itself so distorted that nothing good can come of it? What if the table is, by design, not credible.[/blockquote]
Good heavens, Susan – you and Peter Akinola have found common ground!
[i] Comment deleted by elf. It does not add to the conversation. [/i]
I think Ed our Roman friend #20 clearly deserves the coveted t19 “Quotation of the Week” award — although I ruefully confess it’s probably even funnier from the outside looking in…
What I wonted to say in #26, is that there are two religions inside Anglicanism, these is the truth. My side(Akinola) don’t accept Ropkins side(Susan and Schori) as fellows Christians, any one can see this by the tune of the opinions about Rowan advent letter. The only alternative to Rowan know is to choose a side. Both liberals and conservatives won’t accept Rowan sitting in the fence.
I agree with Craig, Ed nails it. How do you have a discussion with people who argue that night is day, up is down, and the ordination of Robinson wasn’t radical. All preposterous statements. As Dr. Tighe might say, [i]Adversus solem ne loquitor[/i].
Re: #30,
The word is “loquetur,” I think.