[blockquote]I write because I want to make sure that the hard work that has been done by scores of committed progressive leaders over this last decade+ toward [b]reconciliation with the conservative minority in the Episcopal Church is recognized.[/b][/blockquote]
Since Susan Russell says it must be so! Those in TEc who are viewed as [i]”Conservatives”[/i] or are [i]”Conservatives”[/i] are a ]b]MINORITY![/b]
Once again, they want reconciliation as long as it means we endorse, bless, and like what they do–i.e., totally cede our own beliefs. The self-centeredness of this response is stunning, and yet undoubtedly invisible to its author (because of the same).
If TEC is serious (which it is not) about reconciliation, allowing parishes and diocese who choose to align with a different Province to leave with good wishes, and the property, will go a long way towards reconciliation. That TEC will not do this just shows that all of the talk of reconciliation is just empty rhetoric.
[blockquote]We are absolutely committed to this Church and we are absolutely committed to the Continuance of as broad a diversity—including theological—as is possible for us to maintain together. This commitment is, in part, a commitment to continued messiness and frustration …[/blockquote]
Some how I don’t think that Jesus would be very pleased with a [i]”continued messiness and frustration.”[/i] That sounds more like someone else to me:
Deut. 28:20
“The Lord will send on you curses, confusion, and frustration in all that you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly on account of the evil of your deeds, because you have forsaken me.
“Including theological”? Inclusivity goes THIS far? You can hear my sigh of relief knowing that Integrity includes theology as a matter for the church to consider. Even as an afterthought! I am so relieved! Aren’t you? This changes everything, doesn’t it? There something about messiness, as if the problem were body fluids, working together with theology to make…….to make……. a…….I don’t know….a New Thing.
I am too pleased with her address to say more. Larry
It is coming to something when reconciliation means we’ll let you stay if you do exactly what we tell you. I remember being “reconciled” in exactly that way by several school teachers.
“Integrity” – an organization largely led by divorced parents who have taken up homosexual relationships. Surely the most inappropriate name for an entity since the Soviet “Ministry of Justice”.
Protestations of loyalty to TEC are best read in conjunction with statements about membership in the Anglican Communion. The homosexualists control the former, but not the latter, and, based on their statements, they will certainly cut loose the Anglican Communion, unless, of course the AC can be “reconciled” to sodomy.
To quote… ” Liberals and conservatives, progressives and traditionalists, must learn to live together in this Church or there will be no Church in which for us to live. ” By jove I think she’s got it!!! 😉
It’s gauling I know, but we must recognize that TEC is in Integrity’s hip pocket. It’s going to get worse and it will not get better. The only reconcilliation they want with us is to bury us.
I know Michael. But think about what you say…. we most definitely DID NOT lose!! We are the WINNERS…we stayed the course..remained faithful to our LORD!!! Plus you say its their church….by Ms Russell’s own admission the church will die without us…as it should.
TEC has forgotten what Orthodoxy is all about. They talk about “progressive” and “liberal” however my question is “how do they guard the faith once given?” Cennydd, you’re fortunate that you have a conservative and faithful parish/diocese where you can reside, worship, pray and minister. My wife and I have no such hope here in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. We, along with another couple with whom we have had weekly Bible study and prayer since 2003, are moving to the OCA and are preparing for Chrismation. May you and those who battle for the faith against the hersey and apostasy of TEC be blessed and strengthened in your efforts. You folks may want to check out the link posted below.
God bless,
Barry
The juxtaposition of this with the Bishop of Springfield’s address is really wonderful particularly this passage:
[blockquote] As the service proceeded, I was particularly struck by the first question the bishop poses to the ordinand at The Presentation: “Will you be loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them?†The answer was in the affirmative, of course, as it should have been. But, for me at the time, Robert’s answer wasn’t the only thing on my mind. Sharing the “stage†of my consciousness was an inquiry as to the disconnect that seems so obvious and pertinent in The Episcopal Church today. Part of that was my awareness that on almost a daily basis, numerous “inhibitions†and “depositions†come to my office declaring over a bishop’s signature the termination of diaconal, priestly and, now, episcopal ministries. The stated cause of many of those “inhibitions†and “depositions†are for the “abandonment of the communion of this church.†But because most of those being inhibited and deposed have transferred to another Anglican Province, the question must be asked, “To what does the ‘the communion of this church’ refer?†It would appear a goodly number of those in episcopal leadership positions in our Church believe “the communion of this church†is no more than The Episcopal Church, itself, rather than the wider Anglican Communion. [/blockquote]
“We are absolutely committed to this Church and we are absolutely committed to the Continuance of as broad a diversity—including theological—as is possible for us to maintain together.”
Hmmm… tell that to the liberal bishops who prevent those of us with traditional theology from receiving approval when a church in their diocese wishes to call us. This just happened to me. When I asked the bishop about the “broad tent of anglicanism” that their communications officer had touted in the press, he honestly replied, “the tent has narrowed.”
Don’t believe their “inclusive” mantra. They are inclusive but only of non-traditional, non-biblical beliefs.
And Integrity’s Star in the House of Bishops Show, the Rt. Revd. V. Gene Robinson is quoted in ENS March 10th regarding not being invited to Lambeth:
“I want to be clear than I am not here to whine”.
and then:
“I have been in considerable pain”, ” I really had high hopes that something might work out (about being invited)”, “I am dismayed and sickhearted that we can’t sit around a table”, “It has been a very difficult 48 hours sitting here and hearing your plans for Lambeth”, “the Archbishop of Canterbury has cut me out of the herd”, ” I was trying to help him, and it just didn’t work”, “Don’t let them cut me off from you”,…and on it goes. The House of Bishops turned encounter group and alcoholic support buddies all in one.
But he’s not here to whine.
To all of those who endorsed this Integrity pillar: did you not know that you were in for this?
I attended the first of the two “reconciliation events” in the Diocese of Western Massachusetts, with Brian Cox and Joanne O’Donnell. I had several discussions with Ms. O’Donnell, who is an “out” lesbian. At one point she expressed that she just couldn’t understand why orthodox Episcopalians just couldn’t peacefully co-exist with those in same-sex relationships. I replied that the reason was rooted in our understanding that Holy Scripture speaks clearly about the subject. She answered that she had grown up a Roman Catholic, and had joined the Episcopal Church later in life, and was not that familiar with the Bible. I don’t think that I said it, but I thought, “there’s the problem.”
It was also very curious that during the brainstorming part of that event that one of the options for the orthodox that was put on posterboard was to “leave the Episcopal Church.” The next evening, we “ran out of time” before that option was discussed, and it was never revisited.
I am not surprised that Integrity applauds this type of “ministry,” since it does nothing but allow the leadership of TEC to continue its “containment” of orthodox believers into ecclesiastical ghettos.
Anybody who might be confused about the LGBT activists really trying to push their agenda this [url=http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/3-10_HOB_Report(1).doc]HoB report[/url] from Bishops Ed Little, Bruce Caldwell and Tom Ely shows just how hard they have pursued and to what lengths they have gone to and time they have spent on trying to secure any kind of invitation or participation for VGR.
[b]AMAZING!!![/b] They are and will always be relentless for their cause. To bad they aren’t that relentless for Jesus and His transforming grace.
Sorry about the lik not working so here is the report. It’s long but interesting:
[blockquote]Report from Bishops Ed Little, Bruce Caldwell and Tom Ely to the House of Bishops regarding conversations about Bishop Gene Robinson’s participation at the Lambeth Conference
Over the past few months the three of us have been negotiating with Mr. Chris Smith from the Archbishop’s staff and the Reverend Canon Kenneth Kearon from the Anglican Communion Office hoping to arrive at a substantial invitation for +Gene’s participation in the Lambeth Conference. To date we have held five conference calls and have had several internal conversations among the three of us. We have kept the Presiding Bishop and Bishop Robinson informed about our process along the way. Each side of the conversation has participated in good faith throughout.
We began the conversation by sharing several hopes which were developed in consultation with +Gene. Those hopes are:
1. That +Gene have the opportunity to pray with other bishops at Lambeth.
2. That +Gene have time with and access to other bishops from around the Anglican Communion in order to build relationships.
3. That +Gene have a voice at the table regarding the Listening Process and the discussions on human sexuality.
Early on, our colleagues from “across the pond” expressed the understanding that the Archbishop of Canterbury intends to respect the Windsor Report’s recommendation with respect to “exercising extreme caution” regarding +Gene’s participation in the Councils of the Church. Throughout our conversation they referenced the “optics” involved in all of this, meaning the inter-communion perceptions and perspectives attached to +Gene’s participation.
After exploring various categories of participation (i.e. observer, guest, etc.) the three of us felt that the least derogatory, apart from a full invitation, was a consulting role. With that in mind, as well as the hopes earlier expressed, we offered a proposal that included:
1. An invitation to attend the Retreat and worship.
2. An invitation to attend/observe any plenary sessions.
3. An invitation to offer a workshop on several days as one of the self select groups, focused on listening to the voices of gay and lesbian persons.
4. An invitation to participate in some way in the July 31st Indaba groups when the theme is human sexuality.
In response we heard:
1. A restatement that full invitation is not possible.
2. The Retreat session is a closed session at Canterbury Cathedral (i.e. no media, no ecumenical guests) and it would present the Archbishop of Canterbury with a problem for +Gene to attend something so intimate. The same would be true of the Bible Study/Indaba groups.
3. There is really no concept of “observer” built into the conference structure.
The following proposal for limited participation was then offered and we agreed to bring this to +Gene:
1. That if +Gene still wishes to be present throughout the conference that the location best suited for that is the Marketplace where he could be hosted by one of the groups.
2. That +Gene participate in a “high profile” event (yet to be determined) on July 31st (Listening Process day) – something like an interview with a major media interviewer from England.
After consultation with +Gene he respectfully declined the offer, believing that it does not rise to the level of a meaningful and substantial invitation. In declining this invitation +Gene was clear that he is available to serve as a resource to the Lambeth Conference and plans to be available to any variety of groups who are interested in pursuing conversations that would include him. In a moment +Gene will speak more about this and his own thoughts about the nature of his presence in England during the Lambeth Conference.
With this report, we think our assignment is complete and we are grateful for the confidence expressed in us by the Presiding Bishop, Bishop Robinson and the members of the House of Bishops, who we know have been holding us and our conversations in your thoughts and prayers. We hope we have served the House faithfully in this matter and request now to be discharged.
And then we have VGR’s response to this report. He didn’t want to whine but…………….HE DOES!
So yeah Suan Russell and all the LGBT lobbist are in full swing pushing their agenda……Read very carefully! It almost reads like a Poster Boy instead of a Bishop in a Christian Church
[blockquote]Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire
I first want to thank Ed and Bruce and Tom. They have been so true to what they were asked to do by the Presiding Bishop. They have been in close communication with me. I have felt very supported by them. They have represented me extremely well.
I want to be clear than I am not here to whine. I learned of the result of this negotiation on Friday evening. I have been in considerable pain every since.
But I want to acknowledge that I am not the first or last person to be in pain at a House of Bishops meeting.
My own pain was sufficient enough that for 36 hours I felt the compelling urge to run, to flee. My inspiration for staying came from my conservative brothers in this house. I have seen John Howe and Ed Salmon and others show up for years when there was a lot of pain for them. I see Bill Love and Mark Lawrence, and I know it is a very difficult thing for them to be here right now. For me, the worst sin is leaving the table. And that is what I was on the verge of doing. But, largely because of you, I stayed. Thank you for that.
I want to tell you why I declined the invitation as it was proposed. I really had high hopes that something might work out. I have been talking with the Anglican Communion Office for almost a year now. I got my first phone call four days before the invitations to Lambeth went out. I thought something would work out.
The offer to be hosted at the Marketplace is a non-offer. That is already available to me. One workshop on one afternoon and being interviewed by the secular press was not anything I was seeking. I wasn’t going to Lambeth to have another interview with the secular press. If interviewed at all, I want to talk with a theologian. I want to talk about the love of Christ. I want to talk about the God who saved me and redeemed me and continues to live in my life. I want to talk about the Jesus I know in my life.
But my mind boggles at the misperception that this is just about gay rights. It might be in another context, but in this context it is about God’s love of all of God’s children. It’s a theological discussion, it’s not a media show. I have been most disappointed in that my desire was to participate in Bible study and small groups, and that is not being offered. It makes me wonder: if we can’t sit around a table and study the Bible together, what kind of communion do we have and what are we trying to save?
I am dismayed and sickhearted that we can’t sit around a table, as brothers and sisters in Christ, and study scripture together.
It has been a very difficult 48 hours sitting here and hearing your plans for Lambeth.
In my most difficult moments, it feels as if, instead of leaving the 99 sheep in search of the one, my chief pastor and shepherd, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has cut me out of the herd.
I ask two things of you. Some of you have indicated that if I am not invited, you won’t go either. I want to say loud and clear – you must go. You must find your voice. And somehow you have to find my voice and the voices of all the gay and lesbian people in your diocese who, for now, don’t have a voice in this setting. I’d much rather be talked to than talked about. But you must go and tell the stories of your people, faithful members of your flock who happen to be lesbian and gay.
For God’s sake, don’t stay away.
And second, please don’t let them separate me from you. Please don’t let that happen. It will be difficult, and we will have to be intentional. I know that the last thing you will need at the end of the day is another meeting just so I can catch up with you. But I hope you will be willing to stay in touch with me.
From the day I have walked into this House I have been treated with respect and welcome, even, and perhaps especially, by those of you who voted no on my consent.
I can never thank you enough for that. I will always and every moment treasure your welcome and your hospitality.
Don’t let them cut me off from you.
All this is really sad for me and for my diocese. I won’t have the experiences you will have, to share with them. But I will be there in the marketplace, willing to talk with anyone who wants to talk, especially with those who disagree with me. If you know me at all, you know that that’s true.
Now, my focus has to change. Maybe this is what God has in mind. I had hoped to focus on the community of bishops at Lambeth, making my own contribution to its deliberations. But now, I think I will go to Lambeth thinking about gay and lesbian people around the world who will be watching what happens there. I will go to Lambeth remembering the 100 or so twenty-something’s I met in Hong Kong this fall, who meet every Sunday afternoon to worship and sing God’s praise in a secret catacomb of safety – because they can’t be gay AND Christian in their own churches. I will be taking them to Lambeth with me. They told me that the Episcopal Church was their hope for a different, welcoming church. They told me they were counting on us. Yes, the things we do in the Episcopal Church have ramifications far, far away – and sometimes those ramifications are good.
I hope we can talk about the ways we can stay in touch in Lambeth. I will be praying for you, all the time. I know it will seem very strange, being separated from you. But we can do it if we want to. I have nothing but respect and sympathy for the Archbishop of Canterbury and the difficult place he is in. I was trying to help him, and it just didn’t work.
Pray for me. I will need that. A lot.[/blockquote]
Thank you for posting that reply, ODC, because I never would have seen it otherwise.
What a fabulously narcissistic victim-player this man is, and what an embarrassment.
And, as I stated some time ago, Gene Robinson the ‘June Bride’ fully intends to be hanging around the Lambeth Conference, grandstanding, giving interviews and promoting The Cause. http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_95572_ENG_HTM.htm
Can y’all not all see the wisdom of those who have decided to give the World’s Most Expensive Bible Study a miss?
If this was an apostolic church, he would have been expelled and deposed from the ministry many years ago.
The dangers are truly satanic.
We see everywhere the manipulation of language such as I spoke about in connection to Susan Russell and Integrity. Indeed, this is precisely what has been lost in TEC’s approaches, the loss of semantic integrity, and this loss shows clearly in what they say – accepting their words as we commonly define them -and what they in fact do.
Reconciliation for the Russel’ls and the TEC’s of the world has come to mean assimilation, which is precisely why the conservative Anglicans are so thoroughly afraid of what they see in TEC, for assimilation into a collective is genuinely worthy of being feared. It is as if America has generated its own Borg – resistance is futile is their unspoken message, is it not? – and those who fear them would rather die than be assimilated. The conservative objection to the TEC redefinitions of Scripture are bad enough, good cause to separate, but the ancient fear of being assimilated is at least as great.
Semantically, what TEC wants is to Redefine, and they have been remarkably successful nationwide for this is the standard liberal practice; what the conservative Anglican wants is to Clarify, a very different matter. LM
14, yes in that sense you are right, nevertheless Israel did go into exile. God will win and we know how the story ends, but TEC will go into exile and that is what I meant. We should no longer be concerned about what they say and do. We no longer have any voice or say in the matter.
[blockquote]I write because I want to make sure that the hard work that has been done by scores of committed progressive leaders over this last decade+ toward [b]reconciliation with the conservative minority in the Episcopal Church is recognized.[/b][/blockquote]
Since Susan Russell says it must be so! Those in TEc who are viewed as [i]”Conservatives”[/i] or are [i]”Conservatives”[/i] are a ]b]MINORITY![/b]
Once again, they want reconciliation as long as it means we endorse, bless, and like what they do–i.e., totally cede our own beliefs. The self-centeredness of this response is stunning, and yet undoubtedly invisible to its author (because of the same).
If TEC is serious (which it is not) about reconciliation, allowing parishes and diocese who choose to align with a different Province to leave with good wishes, and the property, will go a long way towards reconciliation. That TEC will not do this just shows that all of the talk of reconciliation is just empty rhetoric.
Actions speak louder than words.
So far, their actions have amounted to nothing more than persecution, prosecution, and revenge, while their words have been meaningless.
[blockquote]We are absolutely committed to this Church and we are absolutely committed to the Continuance of as broad a diversity—including theological—as is possible for us to maintain together. This commitment is, in part, a commitment to continued messiness and frustration …[/blockquote]
Some how I don’t think that Jesus would be very pleased with a [i]”continued messiness and frustration.”[/i] That sounds more like someone else to me:
Deut. 28:20
“The Lord will send on you curses, confusion, and frustration in all that you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly on account of the evil of your deeds, because you have forsaken me.
“Including theological”? Inclusivity goes THIS far? You can hear my sigh of relief knowing that Integrity includes theology as a matter for the church to consider. Even as an afterthought! I am so relieved! Aren’t you? This changes everything, doesn’t it? There something about messiness, as if the problem were body fluids, working together with theology to make…….to make……. a…….I don’t know….a New Thing.
I am too pleased with her address to say more. Larry
It is coming to something when reconciliation means we’ll let you stay if you do exactly what we tell you. I remember being “reconciled” in exactly that way by several school teachers.
“Integrity” – an organization largely led by divorced parents who have taken up homosexual relationships. Surely the most inappropriate name for an entity since the Soviet “Ministry of Justice”.
Why should we be reconciled to sin?
Protestations of loyalty to TEC are best read in conjunction with statements about membership in the Anglican Communion. The homosexualists control the former, but not the latter, and, based on their statements, they will certainly cut loose the Anglican Communion, unless, of course the AC can be “reconciled” to sodomy.
To quote George Costanza, “It’s not a lie…if you believe it.”
To quote… ” Liberals and conservatives, progressives and traditionalists, must learn to live together in this Church or there will be no Church in which for us to live. ” By jove I think she’s got it!!! 😉
It’s gauling I know, but we must recognize that TEC is in Integrity’s hip pocket. It’s going to get worse and it will not get better. The only reconcilliation they want with us is to bury us.
Gordy, why should they want to live with us? We lost. It’s their church. They call the shots.
I know Michael. But think about what you say…. we most definitely DID NOT lose!! We are the WINNERS…we stayed the course..remained faithful to our LORD!!! Plus you say its their church….by Ms Russell’s own admission the church will die without us…as it should.
TEC has forgotten what Orthodoxy is all about. They talk about “progressive” and “liberal” however my question is “how do they guard the faith once given?” Cennydd, you’re fortunate that you have a conservative and faithful parish/diocese where you can reside, worship, pray and minister. My wife and I have no such hope here in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. We, along with another couple with whom we have had weekly Bible study and prayer since 2003, are moving to the OCA and are preparing for Chrismation. May you and those who battle for the faith against the hersey and apostasy of TEC be blessed and strengthened in your efforts. You folks may want to check out the link posted below.
God bless,
Barry
http://www.oca.org/
Heh.
Oh yeh . . . we’ve “recognized” the “reconciliation” alright. ; > ) Gives new meaning to the word. . . .
The juxtaposition of this with the Bishop of Springfield’s address is really wonderful particularly this passage:
[blockquote] As the service proceeded, I was particularly struck by the first question the bishop poses to the ordinand at The Presentation: “Will you be loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them?†The answer was in the affirmative, of course, as it should have been. But, for me at the time, Robert’s answer wasn’t the only thing on my mind. Sharing the “stage†of my consciousness was an inquiry as to the disconnect that seems so obvious and pertinent in The Episcopal Church today. Part of that was my awareness that on almost a daily basis, numerous “inhibitions†and “depositions†come to my office declaring over a bishop’s signature the termination of diaconal, priestly and, now, episcopal ministries. The stated cause of many of those “inhibitions†and “depositions†are for the “abandonment of the communion of this church.†But because most of those being inhibited and deposed have transferred to another Anglican Province, the question must be asked, “To what does the ‘the communion of this church’ refer?†It would appear a goodly number of those in episcopal leadership positions in our Church believe “the communion of this church†is no more than The Episcopal Church, itself, rather than the wider Anglican Communion. [/blockquote]
“We are absolutely committed to this Church and we are absolutely committed to the Continuance of as broad a diversity—including theological—as is possible for us to maintain together.”
Hmmm… tell that to the liberal bishops who prevent those of us with traditional theology from receiving approval when a church in their diocese wishes to call us. This just happened to me. When I asked the bishop about the “broad tent of anglicanism” that their communications officer had touted in the press, he honestly replied, “the tent has narrowed.”
Don’t believe their “inclusive” mantra. They are inclusive but only of non-traditional, non-biblical beliefs.
And Integrity’s Star in the House of Bishops Show, the Rt. Revd. V. Gene Robinson is quoted in ENS March 10th regarding not being invited to Lambeth:
“I want to be clear than I am not here to whine”.
and then:
“I have been in considerable pain”, ” I really had high hopes that something might work out (about being invited)”, “I am dismayed and sickhearted that we can’t sit around a table”, “It has been a very difficult 48 hours sitting here and hearing your plans for Lambeth”, “the Archbishop of Canterbury has cut me out of the herd”, ” I was trying to help him, and it just didn’t work”, “Don’t let them cut me off from you”,…and on it goes. The House of Bishops turned encounter group and alcoholic support buddies all in one.
But he’s not here to whine.
To all of those who endorsed this Integrity pillar: did you not know that you were in for this?
I attended the first of the two “reconciliation events” in the Diocese of Western Massachusetts, with Brian Cox and Joanne O’Donnell. I had several discussions with Ms. O’Donnell, who is an “out” lesbian. At one point she expressed that she just couldn’t understand why orthodox Episcopalians just couldn’t peacefully co-exist with those in same-sex relationships. I replied that the reason was rooted in our understanding that Holy Scripture speaks clearly about the subject. She answered that she had grown up a Roman Catholic, and had joined the Episcopal Church later in life, and was not that familiar with the Bible. I don’t think that I said it, but I thought, “there’s the problem.”
It was also very curious that during the brainstorming part of that event that one of the options for the orthodox that was put on posterboard was to “leave the Episcopal Church.” The next evening, we “ran out of time” before that option was discussed, and it was never revisited.
I am not surprised that Integrity applauds this type of “ministry,” since it does nothing but allow the leadership of TEC to continue its “containment” of orthodox believers into ecclesiastical ghettos.
Please don’t bother me..I’m Listening to my Reconciliation.
intercessor
Anybody who might be confused about the LGBT activists really trying to push their agenda this [url=http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/3-10_HOB_Report(1).doc]HoB report[/url] from Bishops Ed Little, Bruce Caldwell and Tom Ely shows just how hard they have pursued and to what lengths they have gone to and time they have spent on trying to secure any kind of invitation or participation for VGR.
[b]AMAZING!!![/b] They are and will always be relentless for their cause. To bad they aren’t that relentless for Jesus and His transforming grace.
Sorry about the lik not working so here is the report. It’s long but interesting:
[blockquote]Report from Bishops Ed Little, Bruce Caldwell and Tom Ely to the House of Bishops regarding conversations about Bishop Gene Robinson’s participation at the Lambeth Conference
March 10, 2008
Following the September 2007 meeting of the House of Bishops in New Orleans, the Presiding Bishop appointed Bishops Little, Caldwell and Ely to serve as the team to be in conversation with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Communion Office to discuss the possibilities of +Gene’s participation in the Lambeth Conference. This was in response to the hope expressed in our New Orleans communiqué in which we said that it is “our fervent hope that a way can be found for his (Gene’s) full participation.” We have tried to be faithful servants of the House of Bishops and to reflect in our own way some measure of the diversity within the House.
Over the past few months the three of us have been negotiating with Mr. Chris Smith from the Archbishop’s staff and the Reverend Canon Kenneth Kearon from the Anglican Communion Office hoping to arrive at a substantial invitation for +Gene’s participation in the Lambeth Conference. To date we have held five conference calls and have had several internal conversations among the three of us. We have kept the Presiding Bishop and Bishop Robinson informed about our process along the way. Each side of the conversation has participated in good faith throughout.
We began the conversation by sharing several hopes which were developed in consultation with +Gene. Those hopes are:
1. That +Gene have the opportunity to pray with other bishops at Lambeth.
2. That +Gene have time with and access to other bishops from around the Anglican Communion in order to build relationships.
3. That +Gene have a voice at the table regarding the Listening Process and the discussions on human sexuality.
Early on, our colleagues from “across the pond” expressed the understanding that the Archbishop of Canterbury intends to respect the Windsor Report’s recommendation with respect to “exercising extreme caution” regarding +Gene’s participation in the Councils of the Church. Throughout our conversation they referenced the “optics” involved in all of this, meaning the inter-communion perceptions and perspectives attached to +Gene’s participation.
After exploring various categories of participation (i.e. observer, guest, etc.) the three of us felt that the least derogatory, apart from a full invitation, was a consulting role. With that in mind, as well as the hopes earlier expressed, we offered a proposal that included:
1. An invitation to attend the Retreat and worship.
2. An invitation to attend/observe any plenary sessions.
3. An invitation to offer a workshop on several days as one of the self select groups, focused on listening to the voices of gay and lesbian persons.
4. An invitation to participate in some way in the July 31st Indaba groups when the theme is human sexuality.
In response we heard:
1. A restatement that full invitation is not possible.
2. The Retreat session is a closed session at Canterbury Cathedral (i.e. no media, no ecumenical guests) and it would present the Archbishop of Canterbury with a problem for +Gene to attend something so intimate. The same would be true of the Bible Study/Indaba groups.
3. There is really no concept of “observer” built into the conference structure.
The following proposal for limited participation was then offered and we agreed to bring this to +Gene:
1. That if +Gene still wishes to be present throughout the conference that the location best suited for that is the Marketplace where he could be hosted by one of the groups.
2. That +Gene participate in a “high profile” event (yet to be determined) on July 31st (Listening Process day) – something like an interview with a major media interviewer from England.
After consultation with +Gene he respectfully declined the offer, believing that it does not rise to the level of a meaningful and substantial invitation. In declining this invitation +Gene was clear that he is available to serve as a resource to the Lambeth Conference and plans to be available to any variety of groups who are interested in pursuing conversations that would include him. In a moment +Gene will speak more about this and his own thoughts about the nature of his presence in England during the Lambeth Conference.
With this report, we think our assignment is complete and we are grateful for the confidence expressed in us by the Presiding Bishop, Bishop Robinson and the members of the House of Bishops, who we know have been holding us and our conversations in your thoughts and prayers. We hope we have served the House faithfully in this matter and request now to be discharged.
Faithfully submitted,
Ed, Bruce and Tom[/blockquote]
And then we have VGR’s response to this report. He didn’t want to whine but…………….HE DOES!
So yeah Suan Russell and all the LGBT lobbist are in full swing pushing their agenda……Read very carefully! It almost reads like a Poster Boy instead of a Bishop in a Christian Church
[blockquote]Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire
I first want to thank Ed and Bruce and Tom. They have been so true to what they were asked to do by the Presiding Bishop. They have been in close communication with me. I have felt very supported by them. They have represented me extremely well.
I want to be clear than I am not here to whine. I learned of the result of this negotiation on Friday evening. I have been in considerable pain every since.
But I want to acknowledge that I am not the first or last person to be in pain at a House of Bishops meeting.
My own pain was sufficient enough that for 36 hours I felt the compelling urge to run, to flee. My inspiration for staying came from my conservative brothers in this house. I have seen John Howe and Ed Salmon and others show up for years when there was a lot of pain for them. I see Bill Love and Mark Lawrence, and I know it is a very difficult thing for them to be here right now. For me, the worst sin is leaving the table. And that is what I was on the verge of doing. But, largely because of you, I stayed. Thank you for that.
I want to tell you why I declined the invitation as it was proposed. I really had high hopes that something might work out. I have been talking with the Anglican Communion Office for almost a year now. I got my first phone call four days before the invitations to Lambeth went out. I thought something would work out.
The offer to be hosted at the Marketplace is a non-offer. That is already available to me. One workshop on one afternoon and being interviewed by the secular press was not anything I was seeking. I wasn’t going to Lambeth to have another interview with the secular press. If interviewed at all, I want to talk with a theologian. I want to talk about the love of Christ. I want to talk about the God who saved me and redeemed me and continues to live in my life. I want to talk about the Jesus I know in my life.
But my mind boggles at the misperception that this is just about gay rights. It might be in another context, but in this context it is about God’s love of all of God’s children. It’s a theological discussion, it’s not a media show. I have been most disappointed in that my desire was to participate in Bible study and small groups, and that is not being offered. It makes me wonder: if we can’t sit around a table and study the Bible together, what kind of communion do we have and what are we trying to save?
I am dismayed and sickhearted that we can’t sit around a table, as brothers and sisters in Christ, and study scripture together.
It has been a very difficult 48 hours sitting here and hearing your plans for Lambeth.
In my most difficult moments, it feels as if, instead of leaving the 99 sheep in search of the one, my chief pastor and shepherd, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has cut me out of the herd.
I ask two things of you. Some of you have indicated that if I am not invited, you won’t go either. I want to say loud and clear – you must go. You must find your voice. And somehow you have to find my voice and the voices of all the gay and lesbian people in your diocese who, for now, don’t have a voice in this setting. I’d much rather be talked to than talked about. But you must go and tell the stories of your people, faithful members of your flock who happen to be lesbian and gay.
For God’s sake, don’t stay away.
And second, please don’t let them separate me from you. Please don’t let that happen. It will be difficult, and we will have to be intentional. I know that the last thing you will need at the end of the day is another meeting just so I can catch up with you. But I hope you will be willing to stay in touch with me.
From the day I have walked into this House I have been treated with respect and welcome, even, and perhaps especially, by those of you who voted no on my consent.
I can never thank you enough for that. I will always and every moment treasure your welcome and your hospitality.
Don’t let them cut me off from you.
All this is really sad for me and for my diocese. I won’t have the experiences you will have, to share with them. But I will be there in the marketplace, willing to talk with anyone who wants to talk, especially with those who disagree with me. If you know me at all, you know that that’s true.
Now, my focus has to change. Maybe this is what God has in mind. I had hoped to focus on the community of bishops at Lambeth, making my own contribution to its deliberations. But now, I think I will go to Lambeth thinking about gay and lesbian people around the world who will be watching what happens there. I will go to Lambeth remembering the 100 or so twenty-something’s I met in Hong Kong this fall, who meet every Sunday afternoon to worship and sing God’s praise in a secret catacomb of safety – because they can’t be gay AND Christian in their own churches. I will be taking them to Lambeth with me. They told me that the Episcopal Church was their hope for a different, welcoming church. They told me they were counting on us. Yes, the things we do in the Episcopal Church have ramifications far, far away – and sometimes those ramifications are good.
I hope we can talk about the ways we can stay in touch in Lambeth. I will be praying for you, all the time. I know it will seem very strange, being separated from you. But we can do it if we want to. I have nothing but respect and sympathy for the Archbishop of Canterbury and the difficult place he is in. I was trying to help him, and it just didn’t work.
Pray for me. I will need that. A lot.[/blockquote]
Do not resist – you will be “reconciled”.
Thank you for posting that reply, ODC, because I never would have seen it otherwise.
What a fabulously narcissistic victim-player this man is, and what an embarrassment.
#24 – thank you.
People, can we please remember that this isn’t about petty party politics.
Souls are in mortal danger. Does this not make us tremble before God?
And, as I stated some time ago, Gene Robinson the ‘June Bride’ fully intends to be hanging around the Lambeth Conference, grandstanding, giving interviews and promoting The Cause.
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_95572_ENG_HTM.htm
Can y’all not all see the wisdom of those who have decided to give the World’s Most Expensive Bible Study a miss?
If this was an apostolic church, he would have been expelled and deposed from the ministry many years ago.
The dangers are truly satanic.
Continuing to tithe just funds the blasphemy.
We see everywhere the manipulation of language such as I spoke about in connection to Susan Russell and Integrity. Indeed, this is precisely what has been lost in TEC’s approaches, the loss of semantic integrity, and this loss shows clearly in what they say – accepting their words as we commonly define them -and what they in fact do.
Reconciliation for the Russel’ls and the TEC’s of the world has come to mean assimilation, which is precisely why the conservative Anglicans are so thoroughly afraid of what they see in TEC, for assimilation into a collective is genuinely worthy of being feared. It is as if America has generated its own Borg – resistance is futile is their unspoken message, is it not? – and those who fear them would rather die than be assimilated. The conservative objection to the TEC redefinitions of Scripture are bad enough, good cause to separate, but the ancient fear of being assimilated is at least as great.
Semantically, what TEC wants is to Redefine, and they have been remarkably successful nationwide for this is the standard liberal practice; what the conservative Anglican wants is to Clarify, a very different matter. LM
14, yes in that sense you are right, nevertheless Israel did go into exile. God will win and we know how the story ends, but TEC will go into exile and that is what I meant. We should no longer be concerned about what they say and do. We no longer have any voice or say in the matter.
Br. Michael, I honestly don’t care about what The Episcopal Church says or does. I stopped caring long ago.
driver8m you got the quote slightly off:
“Resistance is futile — prepare to be reconcilled”
— The TEC Collective
[blockquote]toward reconciliation with the conservative minority in the Episcopal Church is recognized. [/blockquote]
Wait…I thought THEY were the minority? O.o