Listen to it all (starts just past 45 minutes in and goes about 8 minutes. Please note that the BBC description of what “concessions” TEC made is most innaccurate, as has been noted in numerous pieces on the blog, as for example here. In addition, a related news story to the radio interview is here.
Wow, sounds like she’s got full confidence in the “set agenda” of Lambeth. It appears that TEC is in full partnership in the setting of the Lambeth agenda. So much for being in a disciplined status, as was done in Nottingham. TEC is back and in full swing.
And she doesn’t believe that Rowan William’s no really means no. Very interesting. Is that a threat or does she think that his no doesn’t really mean no.
She is also very blunt in accusing the Church of England of having partnered gay bishops in the closet – insinuating that those bishops are going to Lambeth while Bishop Robinson (for now, anyway) is not. So that puts Rowan between a rock and hard place. It appears the threat is that those partnered COE bishops must be outed (one way or the other) and then Gene gets to go Lambeth.
That is quite a nasty thing to say about another Anglican province. She really does intend to bring the COE up as hypocritical, operating under a double standard. The interviewer tries to get her to focus back on TEC, but it’s clear she intended to issue public criticism to the Church of England. Fascinating.
bb
The Presiding Bishop’s accusations are tacky at best and perhaps can be considered as “conduct unbecoming” her office. She has gone well beyond the limits of Christian rhetoric.
Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC
The bishop of New Hampshire was duly and canonically elected, and consents received to his election, and duly consecrated. He is a bishop in this church in good standing.
It must be a pretty lonely place though to know that no one else quite like you is now going to be elected to be a bishop.
Well perhaps not in the immediate future. But he is certainly not alone in being a gay bishop. He is certainly not alone in being a gay partnered bishop. He is alone in being the only gay partnered bishop who’s open about that status.
In your own church?
Within our own church and within the Anglican Communion as a whole.
And so how do you respond to the fact that in a sense the Episcopal Church, your church, is paying the price for an honesty which other churches, perhaps even the Church of England, aren’t quite prepared to have?
Well that’s certainly a significant part of the current conversation. The Episcopal Church lives in a society that values transparency, increasingly values transparency, in all kinds of operations, not just within the church. To have other parts of the Communion express distress at having to have conversations about sexuality, is certainly understandable in terms of different contexts, yet that is where this church has felt led to be and felt led to have conversation, to bring these issues out into the public sphere where we can do public theologizing about them.
But you seem to be saying there’s a problem if other churches in the Anglican Communion aren’t prepared to be honest about the fact that they too have gay bishops?
Well it’s certainly a difficulty in our context. I think there’s a growing understanding in this church of how it can be problematic in other contexts, but there’s certainly a double standard.
The other issue is in relation to same sex blessings, the notion that the church would have an official service in order bless same sex couples. Again, the Episcopal Church has made this concession, said that there won’t be any authorized rites of blessing for same sex couples, but your opponents say that that’s all very well, but the reality on the ground is that those services are already happening and they continue to happen.
Well those services are, yes, are happening in various places including in the Church of England, where my understanding is that there are far more of them happening than there are in the Episcopal Church, at least in the United States.
But in terms of your own church are you happy to see individual parishes having actual services of blessing for gay couples?
That’s a matter for pastoral practice in the congregation and it’s a matter of decision for individual bishops.
But you’re not saying that those services shouldn’t be happening at all in any Episcopalian parish?
That’s not a matter for me to say yea or nay, it’s a matter of pastoral practice in individual congregations, in the same way that I don’t enter into decisions about whether or not it’s appropriate to bless a fleet of battleships going off to war.
There are those who would just say its not good enough to, on the one hand say that the official position is these must not happen, and then on the other to be so open about the fact that they do happen at the local level.
Our church, in the Episcopal Church, functions rather differently than some other parts of the Communion. The complaints that we should withdraw because we’ve done something that’s inappropriate often come from portions of the Communion where decisions are made fairly unilaterally, often by bishops, and I think a part of the controversy that’s often not recognized has to do with this different way of coming to theological conclusions and not looking alone to bishops to make policy and set decisions.
Is it possible for the Episcopal Church to continue to welcome and celebrate the role of lesbian and gay people and stay in the Anglican Communion in the same capacity?
We’re in a challenging place. I certainly hope that we’re able to move through this. My hope is that the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole might remember our roots, our traditional valuing of diversity and our traditional sense that worshiping together despite differing views is what holds us together.
Of course for the Anglican Communion one of those rare gatherings of all bishops together is coming up in 2008, the Lambeth Conference. Some African churches are saying that if the Episcopal Church is allowed to attend, given what its done in relation to Gene Robinson, given what it perhaps doesn’t quite enforce in relation to gay blessings, that there really shouldn’t be a place at the table, as it were, for the Episcopal Church. How do you respond to those complaints?
Well that feels to me much like declining an invitation to a dinner party because somebody I don’t like might be there. My understanding of the planned program for the Lambeth Conference is one that has the possibility of letting people build relationships. I think that’s a remarkable gift. I think it would be very sad to go there and simply spend all our time consumed by legislation and I don’t think that’s what’s planned.
And you’ll be there so it’s up to those who are opposed to you to decide whether or not they too will attend.
I would hope that all invited people, all bishops of the Anglican Communion, might be there in conference and in community with each other.
And how much of a setback is it that Gene Robinson, who as you said, is an official bishop of the Episcopal Church, doesn’t have that invitation?
Well, it’s a long time til July.
Do you think he might still be invited?
I would very much hope so.
Have you had any indication that that may be the case?
We’re still hoping that that might be the case.
We (my wife and I) are already out of TEC because of logic (illogic) like this. If The Anglican Communion can’t find a way to exclude TEC and it’s pseudo socio-religion in the very near future we will be looking for a way out of the AC completely.
Happy New Year!
Perhaps all of these partnered, gay bishops the Presiding Plaintiff mentions are hiding out with the polygamous African bishops.
Dr Schori is simply a liar – a McCarthyite liar – in asserting that there are partnered homosexual bishops in the Anglican Communion. This is a common tactic among the gay lobby, but every time they are challenged to provide names – and I have often challenged them thus – they refuse to name names.
Schori must be called to account for this smear. It is DEEPLY unworthy of a Christian.
Yes, I would need to see the list of “partnered gay bishops” among active bishops in the Anglican Communion. I know of at least one who “came out” and got “married” to another man after retirement (Otis Charles, US).
Part of the problem may be the term “gay.” To me, and to most conservatives, I think, it means actively engaging in same-sex practices. To them, it means anyone who may have, however weak, a sexual interest in the same sex. This brands the individual indelibly “gay” no matter what he teaches or how he lives.
Nonetheless, it’s an interesting tactic to try to win over the Archbishop of Canterbury by calling the CofE hypocritical.
KJS talks about, “Bring it (homosexuality) into the open and do public “theologizing” about it.” As Kendall pointed out in his Colorado talks was that a theological decision was made with essentially zero theological discussion. Rather, it was reduced to political sloganeering, “Ask me about Gene.”
Kendall – a bit OT here, but the same BBC page has a link to a very interesting discussion on the background to the Nicene Creed with Andrew Louth and others. Worthing linking?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/mainframe.shtml?http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/pm_tue
.. I mean ‘Worth linking?’ Not thinkinging clearly.
We need Torquemada.
#6 Jeffersonian: Yes, that was my take also. She’s going to have to do some ‘outing’ if she’s going to retain any credibility.
Oops, is there any to retain?
[i]Part of the problem may be the term “gay.†To me, and to most conservatives, I think, it means actively engaging in same-sex practices. To them, it means anyone who may have, however weak, a sexual interest in the same sex. This brands the individual indelibly “gay†no matter what he teaches or how he lives. [/i]
Worth repeating in full. A similar problem exists with “homosexuality”, a vague modern term that can, variously, mean “attraction”, “orientation/preference”, physical act, or lifestyle.
This is why I use the term “homosexualist”, which denotes specific ideologies rather than personal attributes. Actually, if a person self-identifies as “gay”, I will use that term in deference to their chosen social identity, even if it based on sexual preference. However, a person who struggles with same-sex attractions, but doesn’t chose a gay identity, should have that same respect given to them.
This is terribly important. Hence my moniker: words matter. “Gay” and “homosexuality” set a false base to the conversation and provides bait-and-switch opportunities that, too often, kill dialogue in favor of a propaganda opportunity.
#12 – I wasn’t expecting that.
Gordian,
[i]NOBODY[/i] expects the … oh, you know!
Pull up the comfy chair!
This is a bit disingenuous. If those rites are not officially authorized, then they could come under disciplinary scrutiny. What she, in effect, has said, is that in this particular case the Episcopal Church has a standard which will not be enforced.
“Traditional diversity” in what, pray tell? I cannot recall that the Church Catholic ever extolled diversity in moral behavior or in theology. The history of the ecumenical councils ought to be enough to convince one that any such assertion is absurd! Diversity in race, yes; diversity in culture and language, yes; diversity in moral standards; NO!
Any link to Media Player, or must I download RealPlayer with all annoying “add-ons” to listen?
Can anyone show that the Unitarian/Universalist Church has grown in size since combining their emphases on validating same-sex relationships? I doubt it; and doubt that this kind of emphasis will
do anything but reduce the size and outreach of the episcopal church.
Every time I begin to reconsider the matter of leaving the Episcopal Church (taking refuge with foreign prelates) the Presider makes public statements which repel me. I can imagine the Apostle Paul’s question on the matter of making homosexualilty and lesbianism a public standard for the church: ‘Should we all sin that grace may abound?’ When the chief spokesman of the episcopal church responds, ‘Of course!’ legions of us are feeling the claw of the wolf, not the staff of the Shepherd. This whole area is really beside the point of the Gospel, but this lady seems intent to makde it a primary in-your-face focus. And so I return to going out-the-door, but not without a prayer for all who find this leadership very confusing and
misfocused.
[blockquote]…My hope is that the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole might remember our roots, our traditional valuing of diversity and our traditional sense that worshiping together despite differing views is what holds us together.[/blockquote]
Again, begging the question of why Episcopalians need a national church at all, or even dioceses, if everything can just be left up to the individual parishes.
It’s time that Episcopal priests be examined by a psychiatrist every 4 years and be forced to have a month-long spiritual retreat every 6 years. Less time at Starbucks. Less time at the country club and encounter groups. Enough. Enough. ENOUGH of these second career bureaucrats who have glombed onto religion and have wasted it down to their level of delusion.
Choir Stall wrote:
[blockquote]… ENOUGH of these second career bureaucrats who have glombed onto religion and have wasted it down to their level of delusion. [/blockquote]
Interesting — what would (T)EC(USA) look like if bishops were required to take a vow of poverty?