What we have here is an attempt to pull British bishops out and into open combat with conservatives in Africa, South America, Asia and other parts of the 70-million-member Anglican Communion. The presiding bishop has played the England card in a high-stakes game of ecclesiastical poker inside the Church of England.
The tensions were already rising, as Canterbury prepares for its once-a-decade global Lambeth Conference of bishops, this coming July 20-Aug. 3. Conservatives are planning their own Global Anglican Future Conference, June 15-22 in Jerusalem.
Thus, it was symbolic that Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams recently presided at a closed-door Eucharist in London for the Clergy Consultation, a support network for gay Anglican clergy, seminarians, monks and nuns. The Times of London offered this detail: “Secrecy was so tight that a list of names attending was sent to Lambeth Palace with orders that it be shredded as soon as Dr. Williams had read it.”
Meanwhile, a few liberal activists have focused on the leader of the one U.S. diocese that has — so far — voted to cut its ties to the national church.
“The presiding bishop has played the England card in a high-stakes game of ecclesiastical poker inside the Church of England.”
By doing this, hasn’t Ms Schori engaged in a very public and very aggressive form of “border crossing?”
Church leaders who engage in immoral behavior, and whose immoral behavior becomes scandalous, even to just one member of the flock, need to be put in the light, for their sake and the church’s. But that should follow an appropriate pattern of personal encounter, discussion, admonishment and so on, that does not serve to widen the scandal, and that rather serves to further the witness of Christ Jesus’ own life, self-giving, and healing. “Outing” has nothing to do with this pattern. It is, instead, aimed at the public shaming of someone for the sake of advancing a particular political agenda. It is geared towards a very peculiar understanding of the sin of hypocrisy that is defined according to self-interested terms. It is itself immoral and wrong. The fact that we have now entered this realm of darkness in the church, one shaped by the need to bring dishonor to others for one’s own purposes, is itself a scandal of the highest proportions.
Dr. Radner’s last sentence has put the matter cleanly and correctly. “Outing” is an unusually powerful tool for punishment, for it starts with an assumption of guilt against which virtually no rebuttal can be made.
The illiberal liberal’s weapons are guilt and shame, and the agent of these weapons is gossip, tattling. And with the advent of homosexuals in the church, we will see more of this agenda-driven cattiness.
This is precisely one of the reason why I am so opposed to women in the clergy, for these weapons are women’s weapons. Men appeal to the Law, seek the evidence, and render the judgment.
this can be harsh when mercy is forgotten, but at least the assumption of innocence means that the accused, short of convicting evidence, can walk away free. From the “Mommy Society” system, there can be no appeal because, in a very real sense, the “trial” and the conviction have taken place before the accusation.
HIs words stand is clear relief in the present context, “a scandal of the highest proportions.” LM
Reply to #3.,
Larry,
The issue ‘at hand’ transcends gender ‘considerations.”
#1 It would seem that she has, doesn’t it?
For those who have not followed this closely over the last week, the following context should be noted. Two days after the BBC interview discussed by Mattingly an American blogger claiming to have been “inspired†by Schori “outed†a sitting CofE bishop. He was immediately supported by several well-known ECUSA activists, including Tobias Haller and Elizabeth Kaeton in comments posted on his blog. Within days, the post was taken down and the supporting comments “hidden.†If this is a “high stakes game of ecclesiastical poker,†the hand was very badly played.
I was the blogger who outed him and I withdrew everything out of fear when conservatives posted links to my workplace and discussed calling it on another blog.
I have not withdrawn my account of what happened. It happened.
Would you be reacting the same way if I had come forward and reported a sexual encounter 15 years ago with a liberal bishop?
[blockquote] I was the blogger who outed him and I withdrew everything out of fear when conservatives posted links to my workplace and discussed calling it on another blog. [/blockquote]
Dennis:
I thought the post was removed because you said that the bishop was only focussing on Women’s Ordination, and maybe you’d been a bit hasty, as you mentioned on [url=http://www.http://mcj.bloghorn.com/3581#Comments%5DChris Johnson’s site?[/url]
But now it’s now all about the evil conservatives.
Oh please…
Dennis,
If we had a “liberal” bishop who had participated in homosexual sex 15 yrs ago, but now considered homosexual sex to be sinful and has kept him/her self from sexual expression outside of Christian Marriage (one man, one woman, life long), then I (and most conservatives I know) would have no problem with his/her sexuality. We might have other issues, such as the bishops christology, soteriology, ecclesiology or theology, but not with his sexual identity.
The idea that, because a person finds himself attracted to members of the same sex, he should support changing the moral teaching of the Church is wrong and is not “liberal” in its classic sense. It is very much part of the “Party Spirit” that Paul warns about in Galations.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
“Meanwhile, a few liberal activists have focused on the leader of the one U.S. diocese that has — so far — voted to cut its ties to the national church”
Showing that they have no shame at all.
Dennis Wine, you did wrong. It does seem you are having second thoughts. I recommend you read Father Ephraim’s post (#2) twenty times. Sleep on it. Then in the morning offer an apology. One of the frustrating things about being a Christian is that we have to forgive people when they ask.
Beg pardon, #4, but this is vry much about gender considerations. The immediate issue is homosexuality, which is a gender issue indeed. In fact, much of the uproar in the last generation or two is rooted in issues of gender. Fifty years ago, there was little confusion, but the liberal agenda has made gender issues central to its desire to break the back of the past and, by killing it, replace it with forms of its own devising. And we note, incidentally, that the women priests in TEC seem to be very much in the forefront of the homophile agenda, since both have cast the mantle of victimhood over their own shoulders to insulate themselves against criticism and to use guilt and shame, tattling and social manipulation as coercive devices to further their own designs. And so one sees, as you have seen, t hat TEC and Integrity, e.g., have ignored the Law when it is in their interests to do so, but have used name-calling, the manipulation of language – even to the point of outright lying – in the cause of sexuality and gender issues.
TRanscend? Oh no, in fact, at the very core of an entire culture in chaos because liberals have successfully severed our ties with the living past. Larry
Dennis is probably factually right: if a prominent and activist liberal bishop were “outed”, many conservatives would not protest, but (if only secretly) welcome the embarrassment. Of course, some would not. But none of this is the point, is it? The point is, what is the Christian path to follow in the face of another’s immoral behavior? This, by the way, has indeed been a subject of some some real and continuing debate among conservatives, with respect to the larger Communion itself. In any case, “outing” is not such a Christian path. It is well-aimed tactic in an ideological battle, whether liberal or conservative-driven; and it has no place in our common life. If nothing else, it shows us how ethically deforming the “tactic-oriented” thinking of Christians in a struggle can be. Indeed, we are all put on warning by this. In the broader context, one of the most challenging though necessary callings for the Christian (and anybody) is, in the face of having available to oneself only some immoral response (anger, vindictiveness, backstabbing, tearing someone down, self-assertion, etc.), simply allowing someone else to be wrong while not being able to “do” anything about it except pray. This is part of the burden of Psalms 37, 39, and 73. There is always, that is, “another way”, even if it is a way that is given over to God.
Just to be clear here, why would any liberal bishop feel any embarrassment about being outed ? In fact, why would there be any closeted homosexual liberal bishop ? The very doctrine of liberal bishops is that homosexual attraction and activity is good and pleasing to God, so why on earth would they hide it or feel shame about it ?
[b]This[/b] is the double standard here; that TEC can simultaneously claim that homosexual relationships are to be blessed, and at the same time “threaten” to out closeted homosexuals, showing that indeed even TEC is aware that there is shame in being involved in this sinful behaviour.
RE: “if a prominent and activist liberal bishop were “outed†. . . ”
Sorry but this is not an accurate or parallel analogy. A “prominent and activist liberal bishop” couldn’t be “outed.” If gay they’d be proudly proclaiming it!
No, the correct and parallel analogy to what the blogger Denniswine did was if some of us went back and found voting records from 15 years ago that Bishop Chane or Bishop Andrus voted for Bush in the Presidential election — a mortal sin, I believe.
And then we proudly flaunted it on blogs and called on Chane or Andrus to cease his hypocritical support for progressive political leaders in the US, and return to their “real roots”.
And . . . of course . . . it would be seen to be as ridiculous as it is.
The real key to Denniswine’s actions is something that a commenter above hinted at — [i]punishment of the offending conservative bishop for publicly expressing his conservative viewpoints.[/i]
Punishment. Pay back. Just desserts. Penance. Comeuppance.
Deserving penalty.
[i]Retribution.[/i]
Oh, come on. I cannot believe some people would be so naive as to think that there are not numerous bishops and priests who are discreetly in a same sex relationship. The ‘tradition” for most of our history has been “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Especially in Anglo-Catholic circles, it was quite common for a single bishop or priest to bring a “friend” to a dinner party or other function. And, as long as that “friend” was reasonably good looking and could engage in intelligent conversation, not a word was ever said. Due to the degree of unpleasantness that now exists regarding such matters, many of these bishops and priests have been forced deeper into the closet, meaning that their “friend” is no longer invited to such social events.
The issue has always been the other “h” word; honesty. For a bishop who has a history of being in such relationships to claim to be the champion for the purity club is hypocrisy at its worst. Of course you will say that the bishop has “repented.” Oh really? This story has been around the world a few times now, and we have not heard a word from him. I find that silence very curious, and suggesting that he has indeed not mended his ways since the days of his youthful indiscretions.
I know a few bishops who have lost my respect due to their cowering in the closet at a time when their honesty would open the eyes of those who have been blind to the hypocrisy that has been so deeply rooted in our tradition for much too long. And, if they continue to cause harm to others in an attempt to camoflage their own indiscretions, yes, they need to be aware that eventually the truth will be made known.
FrJake does bring up a good point about honesty. However I think it needs to start with any clergy who are gay or not. If they are not celibate, except in marriage between one man and one woman, are they not violating their ordination/consecration by going against God’s laws? If clergy are not held to a higher standard, don’t we all loose some faith in our Church? I know our faith should be in Christ, but our clergy are his standins on earth if you will.
RE: “I find that silence very curious, and suggesting that he has indeed not mended his ways since the days of his youthful indiscretions.”
Well, FrJake, if he hasn’t repented of this and indeed continues it, I’m sure it will come out. But don’t you think the “silence” from all of his latest “indiscretions” — wherever they are — from the past 15 years is also “very curious”?
I think it rather more curious than a bishop not responding to a blogger about actions that that blogger claims took place 15 years ago.
It is those bishops who publically state that a same sex relationship is sinful, but continue to have such relationships secretly, that need to repent of their own hypocrisy.
Yes, it will all come to light, if not in this world, then in the next.
But, please, can we stop pretending like Gene Robinson is the only Bishop who is in a same sex relationship? Those of you who have been around the Church for awhile, especially the clergy, know that is simply absurd.
But is he repentant? That is speculation. As is my suggestion that by his silence we might speculate that he is not, and has simply been driven deeper into the closet.
If he has repented, and as part of that has chosen to be a voice against such behavior that he considers sinful, that’s the end of the matter. Agreed.
My point is that I have personally known a few clergy who lived a double life, and were never challenged about it. I consider that approach to the matter, an unofficial “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, to be much more harmful than our current situation.
To me, saying to the world: “We have gay members in our Church. Some of them happen to be clergy. Let’s talk about it” was a much more healthy way to address the matter than, for instance, the way the RCC has chosen to deal with it. It has resulted in deeper divisions as this secret was brought into the light, but I think that is also the more healthy way to proceed.
Fr. Matt, I believe that Fr. Jake is describing as hypocritical members of the clergy who unrepentantly have homosexual relationships while at the same time preaching fire and brimstone against homosexuality from the pulpit.
Since I am a reappraiser, I of course do not consider homosexuality sinful per se; but at the same time being “out” is a deeply personal decision, especially in a society that condemns and occasionally murders out gay people, so I would never presume to say whether or not someone “ought” to out themselves.
By the same token, I think it’s grossly unethical to out someone else without their express consent, even if I personally don’t think they’re doing anything wrong. The only case where I would even consider an exception would be if a public figure were a vociferous opponent of gay rights but I knew for certain (and could prove) they were engaging unrepentantly in homosexual relationships themselves, because that’s deeply hypocritical… but even then I wouldn’t be happy about either choice.
I don’t think anyone seriously doubts that there are closeted gay clergy in the Anglican Communion, as Fr. Jake points out. Whether there are closeted unrepentant gay clergy prominently opposing gay rights is an entirely different question, and I have no data on that one.
members of the clergy who unrepentantly have homosexual relationships while at the same time preaching fire and brimstone against homosexuality from the pulpit.
Such clergy are sinners, but not false teachers. The church is full and always has been of the former, but cannot tolerate and never has the latter.
#24: To read such speculation as yours is infuriating precisely because it is implying a crime with no evidence for such crime whatsoever. And my earlier point I make again, that it is a grave ethical and moral crime to create a judgment before there has been any evidence for the conviction. The accused in this case is condemned from the very outset, and there can be no defense. To assume that the accused is guilty is to stain a cloth with a permanent die, so that no amount of public washing will ever remove the shadow of the stain. LM
I don’t see anything strange about same-sex attracted people holding the orthodox position on human sexuality. Adulterers don’t necessarily disagree with marriage.