The House of Bishops was informed March 10 that full invitation is “not possible” from the Archbishop of Canterbury to include Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire as a participant in this summer’s Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops.
Robinson, addressing the House, urged the other bishops of the Episcopal Church to participate fully in the conference, and thanked all who are willing to “stay at the table.”
Robinson told the House that he respectfully declined an invitation to be present in the conference’s “Marketplace” exhibit section.
Robinson confirmed for ENS that he plans to be in Canterbury during the July 16-August 3 once-a-decade gathering, but not as an official conference participant or observer.
Read it all and please take the time to read Gene Robinson’s address to the House of Bishops as well.
1075 words in + Gene’s letter. 50 or so references to “I” (some twice in a sentence) and 22 or so to “me” or my.”
No references to scripture – closest he can come are two ridled with “I” and “me” sentences: “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.”
#1, don’t you recognise the following references to scripture?
“If interviewed at all, I want to talk with a theologian. I want to talk about the love of Christ.”
“my desire was to participate in Bible study and small groups, and that is not being offered.”
“sit around a table, as brothers and sisters in Christ, and study scripture together.”
“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 appreciate that you can’t bear to say a good word about the fellow, but at least let your bad words be true ones.
ABp Drexel Gomez has stated that it will be a scandal if Gene Robinson shows up, something that VGR states that he will do.
Gene Robinson states in his letter that he doesn’t want to talk to reporters but wants to talk to a “theologian.” Boy, that would be a first. Perhaps William Witt could talk pop over to New Hampshire and save him an airplane ticket? Should we take him at his word that he won’t make it a media circus? I am surprised that he declined to be at the marketplace section. I understand that he has a new book coming out, “Please Let Me Be Just the Bishop of New Hampshire.”
What a travesty. Someone posted the words of the primates at SF regarding his possible ordination:
[blockquote]If his consecration proceeds, we recognise that we have reached a crucial and critical point in the life of the Anglican Communion and we have had to conclude that the future of the Communion itself will be put in jeopardy. In this case, the ministry of this one bishop will not be recognised by most of the Anglican world, and many provinces are likely to consider themselves to be out of Communion with the Episcopal Church (USA). This will tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level, and may lead to further division on this and further issues as provinces have to decide in consequence whether they can remain in communion with provinces that choose not to break communion with the Episcopal Church (USA).[/blockquote]
The only way to avoid this folly is for Rowan Williams to say forcefully that Robinson’s presence would be disruptive and thus to stay away. A simple request. But does the person occupying the seat of St Augustine have the spine to make a such a simple request?
I can see why Abp Gomez could see Bishop Robison’s presence as a scandal – but what does presence mean? Does it mean presence in any official capacity? Or does it mean presence on British soil, in the county of Kent, in Canterbury? Walking the roads in a purple shirt?
Strikes me that many thought Jesus was a scandal, too. Christian witness is often scandalous, and Bishop Robinson is offering what he believes to be a witness to the Good News of Christ.
[blockquote]The only way to avoid this folly is for Rowan Williams to say forcefully that Robinson’s presence would be disruptive and thus to stay away. A simple request. But does the person occupying the seat of St Augustine have the spine to make a such a simple request?[/blockquote]
The problem I have with this is the attitude that gay and lesbian Christians are like gnats to be swatted away. There is great irony in Bishop Robinson being consigned to the Marketplace should he wish to come. Here is a Christian seeking respect the dignity of every human being, and the powers that be want to consign him to an area that reinforced human existence as commodity. In this sense, I agree with either “come” or “Don’t come” – at least that treats him as a human being.
In the larger view, though, gay and lesbian Christian are just that – Christians. We are baptized. We seek to follow the way of Christ, like every other fallen Christian, to the best of our understanding and ability. We are adopted children of God and brothers and sisters with every other baptized person. To say “Shoo. Go away. get out of here” is a scandal as well . . .
(Amazing how Chrisitan often say that to anyone they disagree with.)
Dirk
Hard to fault Gene for the notion of the “personal Jesus” since this is a thread that runs through Protestantism.
In reference to VGR’s statement that he would like to talk to a theologian, Robroy suggests, “Perhaps William Witt could pop over to New Hampshire and save him an airplane ticket?”
I’m still laughing, and remembering when “candidate for bishop” VGR said he would stop traveling so much and pay attention to New Hampshire. Then, after the election, it was “I want to be the good bishop, not the gay bishop.”
Go ahead and send Dr. Witt to NH, but don’t expect VGR to be here! You might have to buy Dr. Witt a plane ticket to England, or Texas, or wherever VGR is spouting off this week while he’s “traveling less”!!!
Chris [#1], the entire topic is about +VGR, so unless he were to refer to himself in the third person, it’s hard to see how he could avoid X number of uses of “I” and “me.”
Gene Robinson’s message in Lambeth: homosexuality, homosexuality, homosexuality, vague God thing, homosexuality, homosexuality…
Gene Robinson calls on his followers “to boldy [sic] risk the institution of the church to advance†the homosexualist agenda.
Ahh – none so blind as those who will not see. You know who you are.
Jesus came with a sword. God demands obedience.
It’s all in the book. Or did some of you just watch the movie?
bl
Thus spake Bob Lee:
[blockquote]Jesus came with a sword. God demands obedience.
It’s all in the book. Or did some of you just watch the movie?
bl[/blockquote]
Erh, ah – actually, didn’t he tell Peter to put away his sword, and take the Cross instead?
Matthew 26:51-52
[blockqoute]Suddenly, one of those with Jesus put his hand on his sword, drew it, and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.[/blockquote]
Perhaps the cross has a little more power than the sword?
Dirk
Sorry for the bad blockquote, and of course, Matthew doesn’t identify the sword-bearer as Peter . . .
Dirk
I am stunned and stirred by the graciousness of Bishop Robinson’s response. I see Jesus radiant inside of him. Gene Robinson is a holy man dripping with the weight of ripe fruit, the fruit of the Spirit. One day many will repent for excluding such a brother and so many like him. “He drew a circle that left me out
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout,
But Love and I had the wit to win.
We drew a circle that took him in.”
(Edwin Markham)
archangelica – I see someone else “radiant” inside of him – the father of lies! After all, the devil can be very gracious when he thinks he is winning.
VGR is usually absent from the HOB and the DioNH on his touring for gayness, how will not being at Jambeth be any different? Especially since he says he’ll be there – undoubtedly giving another journalist another interview? This is the best of all possible worlds for him: media, media, and more media – if he can get their attention. The real pain will begin when the media ignore him.
By the by, the whole “summation of pain” as a non-entity was dealt with in THE PROBLEM OF PAIN by CS Lewis. Perhaps VGR would like to tackle that whilst busy being “NOT” at Jambeth. Something different, philosophy and theology, that sort of thing, for a new take on life, perhaps? Or whistling, like Brian recommended in a Monty Python flick?
“I was in pain.†“I felt a compelling urge to flee. “For God’s sake†“Don’t let them cut me off from youâ€
As Catholic Mom over at SF says the guy writes like a 15 year old girl that hasn’t gotten an invite to the prom.
dcreinken (#4) – Yes, Jesus was scandalous. But expelling the money changers, sitting with sinners (so they might turn from their sinful ways not blessing their sinfulness!) were good types of scandal.
However, if I spit into the chalice this Sunday that is bad scandal. Unrepentant sinners bringing shame to the bride of Christ is bad scandal.
[blockquote]VGR is usually absent from the HOB and the DioNH on his touring for gayness,[/blockquote]
Most ENS news released mention him being there . . .
Dirk
It’s now 30 years ago I recall hearing two Episcopal clergy in a bookstore muttering about a convention they’d attended. They were recalling Malcolm Boyd who, every chance he got, would come to a microphone to remind everyone *yet again* that he was a homosexual. Tiresome, gross then, mainstream now. Time for Lambeth to get the American treatment.
dcreinken wrote: “We seek to follow the way of Christ…” How can you ‘seek to follow the way of Christ’ and yet toss the words of scripture behind your back?
Gene Robinson is an unashamed, unrepentent, and willfully disobedient Christian spreading false teaching. Of course he should be excluded. But so, should those who consecrated him. His invitation should be dependent upon one thing and one thing alone, repentance from his immoral life and teaching.
Episcoanglican,
That’s what I was going to say! Fortunately, you said it first, so you get to stand in the way of the firestorm, and I can safely take refuge in the bunker! 🙂
Jim Elliott <><
VGR is a contradiction everytime he opens his mouth. As NancyNH states above: [i]”he would stop traveling so much and pay attention to New Hampshire. Then, after the election, it was “I want to be the good bishop, not the gay bishop.â€[/i]
That has not come to fruition. He’s traveling all over and it’s all about “Gene, the gay bishop from New Hampshire.”
Now he says in is reply to the HoB report on his invite that he has declined the “Marketplace” solution because he didn’t want secular interviews, yada yada yada. But…..He will be there for interviews and anyone who wants to talk with him.
Dose this man know any truth? AB ++Gomez is spot on! VGR’s appearance will be a media circus and the Anglican Communion will be vilified by those in the UK and many other places as homophobics and ++RW has helped this liberal lefty gay rights campaign right along its course. IMHO, RW must bare just as much of the responsibility for the tearing and possible demise to the WWAC.
I have a question. It’s a serious question, and not meant to be negative. Why do you folks always, always, need to be so nasty and sarcastic? Even if one were interested in seeing your point of view, you ruin your position by such un-Christian nastiness. I’m betting you’ll respond to this comment in the same way. Where can our society have civil discourse if not on a supposedly Christian blog? Or has Christianity as you see it totally adopted to snide remark as a means of communication?
[i] This elf agrees that sometimes nastiness and one-up-man-ship over-takes a thread. We encourage all commenters to seriously consider what kind of Christian witness they are presenting prior to posting a negative or sarcastic comment. [/i]
-Elf Lady
EpiscoAnglican wrote:
[blockquote]dcreinken wrote: “We seek to follow the way of Christ…†How can you ‘seek to follow the way of Christ’ and yet toss the words of scripture behind your back?
Gene Robinson is an unashamed, unrepentent, and willfully disobedient Christian spreading false teaching. Of course he should be excluded. But so, should those who consecrated him. His invitation should be dependent upon one thing and one thing alone, repentance from his immoral life and teaching.[/blockquote]
We aren’t tossing the words of Scripture behind our back. Rather, we are looking at Scripture in its totality from Creation to the final Amen. When we do so, we wonder if the injunctions regarding homosexuality as experienced when Scripture was written might be in the same category as other laws that have been seen to no longer apply.
There is a body of scholarship which supports this. It might not be scholarship that you like or agree with, but its there. If you read it, scholars do seek to Scripture seriously, but also take equally seriously the redeeming grace given to us in Jesus Christ. Deirdre Good (a bete noire among many around here no doubt), one of my NT professors at GTS was clear that we shouldn’t try to explain the verses away. They say what they say. What we have to do is measure them against the trajectory of the New Testament as a whole and the life Christ calls us to lead. When we do that, might the injunctions against homosexuality be in the same category as telling women they can’t speak in church and urging a slave to return to his master?
Maybe, maybe not. But don’t think for a minute that I’m not (or VGR isn’t) trying to follow Christ as we best understand the life Christ calls us to lead. For me, it fits in with what Paul says about working out our own salvation in fear and trembling. I might be right. I might be wrong, but I can’t be any other than I am and trust that if I am in error, God will guide me out of it. If I fail to see that error, I trust in God’s mercy shown in arms stretched wide on the cross to draw me into His saving embrace.
As for being a willful and unrepentant sinner. Wouldn’t that also apply to those who ignore Jesus’s own words to “Judge not, let ye be judged?”
libraryjim wrote:
[blockquote]Episcoanglican,
That’s what I was going to say! Fortunately, you said it first, so you get to stand in the way of the firestorm, and I can safely take refuge in the bunker![/blockquote]
Bunker eh? How do you think those of us who disagree with the dominant thought on T1:9 feel? We sure aren’t seeing the Good News around here . . .
#22: OK, I’ll forbear the temptation to be sarcastic and answer you plainly. If Robinson made no pretension to be a Christian bishop, we’d be sorry for him and his delusions. But the truth is, he should never have been made a bishop, in the judgment of worldwide Anglicanism. What he represents and promotes is a false gospel that imperils the souls of men and women.
That probably sounds histrionic and bizarre to you – as bizarre as faux Christopaganism sounds to most of us. But our standard is contemporary post- or anti-Christian culture. We are striving to be apostolic, biblical Christians in the historic Anglican way. But Robinson and his supporters have made that impossible for hundreds of thousands.
Is that clear?
“But our standard is NOT contemporary post- or anti-Christian culture.”
#23: All those issues have been rehearsed endlessly here. Everyone of them – and many you haven’t mentioned – are dealt with in enormous detail by Robert Gagnon and others.
“I might be right. I might be wrong, but I can’t be any other than I am and trust that if I am in error, God will guide me out of it.”
The Gospel IS about other than we are. How do you think God will guide you?
“If I fail to see that error, I trust in God’s mercy shown in arms stretched wide on the cross to draw me into His saving embrace.”
Conscientious error is one thing, but an individual’s conscience can’t be prayed in aid when it stands in conflict with the Word of God.
Thank you, Gordian. Though you might have forgone the word “delusions.” And while you are within your rights to deny the validity of his orders, how can you call it a “false Gospel”? I thought the Good News (Gospel) was that God has reconciled the world to himself in Jesus Christ. I’m not aware that qualifications for the office of Bishop, as important as they are, are part of the Good News. The ordination of Robinson to the Episcopate can be called a violation of Church order, even an act lacking sacramental validity. But to call it a “false Gospel” is a bit defamatory. I’m sure that Robinson’s understanding the the core Good News and yours (and mine) are probably identical.
I assume your phrase “faux Christopaganism” refers to me. I’m not sure there is any such animal as “Christopaganism,” so I don’t see how there can be a “faux” version of it. Or are you saying there really is a viable expression called “Christopaganism,” but that my version of it is false? You see, name-calling makes it very hard to make a logical argument.
Finally, while it is true that a large part of “worldwide Anglicanism” (if indeed there is such a thing) did not approve of making Robinson a Bishop, at least two very large parts of worldwide Anglicanism (the U.S. and Canada) did and do approve of it. Contrary to those who would press for an “Anglican” statement of belief, the Anglican Communion has always been about a community of churches, not an agreement of theology. We have no equivalent of the Augusburg or Westminster Confessions because Anglicanism has always been a catholic, creedal church, not a confessing protestant one.
[i] If you two would like to take your personal discussion off-line, I’ll gladly help you exchange email addresses. [/i]
My bishop told me that he wishes that VGR would just stay away from cameras and microphones. I reminded the good (but oblivious) bishop that it’s a bit late for that, and that those who supported VGR knew what he is all about. I say keep putting him “out and about” like he wants. It will speak volumes about the benefits of enabling recovering alcoholics to have uncriticized leadership, and narcissists taking the passive majority captive. Don’t bury the truth. Let him begin (as he did) that “I will certainly not whine”, and then let him do so for three weeks to every media outlet. The June bride is the reasserters’ best spokesman for orthodoxy.
Bill, Robinson promotes the acceptance of homosexuality as a holy lifestyle. That is a ‘false Gospel’ against which the Apostle Paul warned (1 Cor 6). I believe that our Lord’s condemnation of ‘porneia’ in Mark 7.19 includes this, and likewise the proclamation of the apostolic church in Acts 16 (in reference to Lev 18-20). As for his other beliefs, to judge from what he has said elsewhere, they do not seem at all profound but rather appear to that generic, doctrinally indifferent universalism that is endemic in Tec.
Yes, ‘faux Christopaganism’ was an allusion to views you have espoused before; whether you still hold them, I don’t know. Maybe the ‘faux’ was redundant; but what I intended was that modern Western ‘paganism’ (and ‘Druidism’) is a nonsensical confection based on 19th century faux scholarship. Real paganism has never been a pretty thing.
I sense I’m being ticked off, so this is my last contribution to this thread. Ave et vale.
Mr. Melynk,
With all due respect, and I mean that, I must post to remind you of your statement of recant and repentance date in Nov. 2004:
November 1, 2004
[i] This is totally off topic and most has been deleted. There is no need for this type of questioning and the commenter is warned to discontinue.[/i]
#24 The Gordian: “But the truth is, he should never have been made a bishop, in the judgment of worldwide Anglicanism.”
Simply not true.
If you are referring to Lambeth, please note that the final vote was not unanimous. There are provinces within the WWAC who would welcome +VGR.
[i] Slightly edited to eliminate off topic remarks. [/i]
#32: I think you are aware that I am referring to all the meetings since 2003, including the strong admonition not to proceed given to Griswold – which he signed, then hypocritically tore up within days. Lambeth was in 1998. 86% of bishops is pretty clear speaking, I would have thought.
No more from me on this thread.
#32 Blimey, if you demand unanimity for a vote to have any authority then we’re all free to ignore almost every vote of the General Convention. Sauce for the goose and all that…
elves, please bear with me:
dcreinken wrote:
[i]Bunker eh? How do you think those of us who disagree with the dominant thought on T1:9 feel? We sure aren’t seeing the Good News around here . .[/i]
The Good News is more than just a feel good “let’s all sing ‘Kumbaya’ and get along’ message. it is repentance from sin and turning towards God’s standard; It is holding Jesus as the unique revelation of God in flesh, the only way to the Father; it is keeping all that Jesus commanded us; it is following His word as taught by the Apostles and leaders of the Church for 2000 years. That is what I see as the dominant thought on T1:9.
The Good News is NOT: continue to follow your own way, and we will find a way to bless that, even if ‘we have to re-write the Bible’ to do so (Bps. Bennison and Frank Griswold). It is NOT paring down the Gospels to only those parts that are comfortable; It is NOT all ways are merely different paths to the divine, with Jesus being one of these ways, but only one, not THE only one. That is what I see as the dominant thought among TEC right now.
Praise God for T1:9, where faithful Christians can express themselves without censor (well, not too much. The Elves keep a pretty good tab on things.)
As to those things in the law which no longer apply, the thirty nine articles makes it clear that only the civil and ceremonial laws have been fulfilled – -the moral laws still apply. Acts 15 also re-iterated the need for the moral law when they commanded the Greek converts to avoid ‘sexual impurity’.
Peace to you in the fullness of the Gospel message!
Jim Elliott <><
Don’t disagree with you, LibraryJim. But the “Good News” is also not about who should be chosen to be a Bishop in the Church. Last time I looked, all references to Bishops are in the pastoral epistles, not the Gospels.
And please remember that the Episcopal Church has never recognized the “Thirty-nine Articles” as having authority.
And regarding “those parts that are comfortable,” we might remember “Comfort, comfort ye my people.”
It is sad that, from the begining, the words of Jesus that were uttered to bring comfort to the broken hearted have been used by folks on all sides of issues as weapons of war.
Have you not heard that the Words of the Gospel are a comfort to the afflicted and an affliction to the comfortable? Let’s not get comfortable accepting that which God has called “sin” as something good.
Oh, and last I heard, the pastoral Epistles were still considered Scripture, and therefore, part of the ‘Good News’ and part of the ‘Word of God, written’.
1 Tim. 3:1-13
The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. [2] Therefore an {b]overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled,[/b] respectable, hospitable, able to teach, [3] [b]not a drunkard,[/b] not violent but gentle, [b]not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. [4] He must manage his own household well,[/b] with all dignity keeping his children submissive, [5] [b]for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? [6] He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.[/b] [7] Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
[8] Deacons likewise must be dignified, [b]not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine,[/b] not greedy for dishonest gain. [9] [b]They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. [10] And let them also be tested first;[/b] then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. [11] Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. [12] [b]Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well.[/b] [13] For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
The bolded areas IMHO, feel VGR fails in the qualifications!
libraryjim – funny thing, I agree with nearly everything you have just said – and yet we come to different conclusions . . .
As for the areas of disagreement: 1) I never signed on to the 39 Articles. True – they are of historical relevance and a source for understanding the development of Anglican theology, but they aren’t binding or infallible.
2.) Since when were the place of women in church and the existence of slavery [b][i]not[/i][/b] moral issues?
Dirk
[i] Don’t even think of discussing 1 or 2 right now. [/i]
Just to add – when I mentioned not finding the Good News around here (admittedly strong words, and probably not totally appropriate), I was referring to name calling and judgmentalism not passionately, but respectfully argued differences of understanding.
Dirk
Re #38 –
LibraryJim, are you saying all Scripture is part of the Gospel?
Cudo’s to the elf (elves) at work on this thread. A commendable job!
DC,
[blockquote]Just to add – when I mentioned not finding the Good News around here (admittedly strong words, and probably not totally appropriate), I was referring to name calling and judgmentalism not passionately, but respectfully argued differences of understanding. [/blockquote]
Oh, why didn’t you be more explicit in your original? I agree with you in that respect, but that’s not how I define ‘the Good News’. 🙂
#41 – Actually Bill – I would go there, too. I think all Scripture (properly understood) is part of the Gospel if the Gospel. Even those things that reflect us at our worst (dashing babies against the rock) set up the need for redemption, which God answers in Christ. To me, those aspects of the Law that we have trouble with (or don’t matter anymore) are about the call to holiness before God. I’m assuming this is what you are referring to. If not, apologies.
Dirk
[i]LibraryJim, are you saying all Scripture is part of the Gospel? [/i]
I’m saying you can’t just say “I’m a Christian, but I will only accept parts of the Bible”, The Gospels, the epistles, the history and prophetic books are ALL entertwined together to make one seamless whole. In this I fully agree with the thirty-nine articles on the Bible and our response to it.
[blockquote]
VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
VII. Of the Old Testament.
The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.
VIII. Of the Creeds.
The Nicene Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.
XX. Of the Authority of the Church.
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.[/blockquote]
Dirk (#17), you misunderstand my straightforward statement that when VGR is on tour for gayness he is both away from the HOB and his Diocese. ENS has NOT once reported to my knowledge that VGR was accompanied on his gay promotional touring junkets by either the HOB or the Diocese of NH. So, his absence from the HOB is not new, but normative. His absence from his dioceses is -during his junkets to tout gayness or go to Jambeth- normative. I suspect that when he is not on tour for gayness he is likely in his diocese, except when he’s at the HOB meetings or vacationing to junket as the gay bishop.
Which brings up the reality that VGR is not with the HOB most of the time. Even in Lambeth for Jambeth (uninvited not-withstanding), he won’t be with the HOB or the Diocese of NH. He will, however, have much to say to his Diocese about his intended post-civil ceremony sojourn in Lambeth where he was NOT able to be at Jambeth, I’m sure.
#46 dwstroudmd,
Thanks for clarifying. I misunderstood you as saying VGR was absent from HoB for purpose of touring.
Not directed to you specfiically, but for all who bring this up, shouldn’t those who criticize the bishop of New Hampshire’s travel schedule check with the people of NH to determine if they feel he is not paying them adequate attention? After all, I can think of several other bishops who spend a lot of time outside their dioceses, apparently without complaint from their people.
Dirk
Yeah, well, that’s one area I wouldn’t criticize. After all, few positions in power in the Church travelled as extensively as St. Paul. Travelling should be a part of the job of bishop. Aren’t they canonically required to visit EVERY parish in their diocese at least once a year? And confrences, etc.
I think what people here are talking about (and forgive me for putting words in mouths) is travelling to advance the homosexual/LGBT cause/agenda as opposed to travel to strengthen the flock or for study to better be equipped himself to strengthen his flock or to meet with other bishops/clergy, etc.
But I could be wr…
hmmm.
I could be wro…
ahem.
I could be WRRRRong.
Peace
Jim Elliott <><
ahem,
few [b]person[/b] in power in the Church travelled as extensively as St. Paul.
#48 – Jim, thanks for your response. I haven’t felt called to let my personal life define my responsibilities as rector (or, for that matter, even my opinions on human sexuality); but I do see how Bishop Robinson connects his travels with sharing his understanding of the Gospel. In some ways, because he’s out front and the conversation is frequently about him, the rest of us can go about looking and acting like typical everyday clergy. . .
Dirk
Dirk, [url=http://12.0.101.92/reports/PR_ChartsDemo/exports/ParishRPT_311200855205PM.pdf ]here are the statistics for New Hampshire[/url]. Down, down, down. While the population has the fastest growth of the region apparently, an impressive 14% drop since taking over. Do the people complain? Who knows? From what I hear, Robinson squelches dissent vigorously.
dcreinken wrote: “For me, it fits in with what Paul says about working out our own salvation in fear and trembling. I might be right. I might be wrong, but I can’t be any other than I am and trust that if I am in error, God will guide me out of it. If I fail to see that error, I trust in God’s mercy shown in arms stretched wide on the cross to draw me into His saving embrace.” — Well I certainly won’t argue with this. If we all keep this humble attitude toward scripture, God will and does correct us. Of my gay friends, I always found they had one of two decided opinions about sexual morality. The first, was a militant assertion, the second was a seeking in the face of a personal experience that seemed to overwhelm all other arguments – but still a seeking. God is kind and does correct us if we humble ourselves before him. Thank goodness we can all trust in that.
You might also read what Leanne Payne writes in The Healing Presence about these issues. Her understanding of the trajectory of scripture and what it says about our humanity and the Incarnation may give you something to think about. Peace.
#52 – thanks for the suggestion, I’ll look into her writings. I would say I fall into your second category.
Dirk
I do believe that Lambeth’s double standard merely further erodes it’s credibility. To ban the Consecrated Bishop and woo the consecrators does nothing to sooth members of either side of the issue. Perhaps the Good Bishop should try another avenue that is acceptable to the gatekeepers.
[i] Off topic link deleted. [/i]
#55. I do agree about the double-standard. Reading 1 Timothy 3, let’s exclude from Lambeth 2008 all bishops and archbishops who are not above reproach in any respect, or who have had more than one wife, or who are not temperate and self-controlled, or who have a drink problem, or who are violent, or quarrelsome, or who love money. Let’s exclude all those who have not managed their own children and spouses well, and all those who have any children who do not obey them with proper respect. Let’s exclude all those who do not have a good reputation with outsiders.
This would meet the teachings of the Apostle. It would also make the Lambeth Conference a much smaller affair. I think Rowan Williams would still be there, however.