Although some liberal clergy have carried out “blessing ceremonies” for homosexual couples in the past, this is the first time a vicar has performed a “wedding ceremony”, using a traditional marriage liturgy, with readings, hymns and a ÂEucharist.
Both the conservative and liberal wings of the Anglican communion expressed shock last night.
The Most Rev Henry Orombi, the Archbishop of Uganda, said that the ceremony was “blasphemous.” He called on Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, to take decisive action if the Anglican Church were not to “disintegrate”. Archbishop Orombi added: “What really shocks me is that this is happening in the Church of England that first brought the Gospel to us.
“The leadership tried to deny that this would happen, but now the truth is out. Our respect for the Church of England will erode unless we see a return to traditional teaching.”
The Rt Rev Michael Scott-Joynt, the Bishop of Winchester ”“ a powerful conservative figure ”“ said that the service represented a wedding “in all but name”. He said: “Strictly speaking it is not a marriage, but the language is clearly modelled on the marriage service and the occasion is modelled on the marriage service. This clearly flouts Church guidelines and will exacerbate divisions within the Anglican Communion.”
The bishop said that it was up to the Rt Rev Richard Chartres, the Bishop of London, to act, adding that it would become a high-profile test case of Church authority.
Update: Episcopal Cafe helpfully provides the bulletin from the service here.
A grand occasion, worthy of Nero and Doryphorus.
(Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars)
Can anyone now say the Gafcon people are wrong?
This shocking blasphemy is a stain on the Body of Christ.
This is the bitter fruit of Rowan Williams’ ‘Body of Grace’.
Can we expect any suspensions or withdrawals of licenses?
/crickets
We have certainly been seeing an increase in the ‘noise level’ from the left in the UK recently, what with dodgy Dean Slee’s petition for one clause on Women bishops, Rowan Williams’ undercover [backed by some dishonest answers from +London to London Synod questions] ‘Gay Eucharist’ and Williams’ inexplicable defense of the drunken bishop of Southwark a year ago.
Not clear what is going on or what it is hoped to achieve other than destabilisation of the solid centre of the CofE.
Toys are being thrown out of prams as well as in cars.
#3: & what is the ‘Fulcrum’ group doing about this, other than being useful idiots for the subversion of the biblical faith?
Nothing, I predict – because half of the posters on their site actually sympathize with the homosexualist cause. That’s why their churches are emptying too.
#5 Fulcrum – babble without a cause.
No idea whether some of their slightly nuttier belicose commenters are representative of their target audience. Perhaps one must give them the benefit of the doubt.
#5: I think Fulcrum indicates the trend that liberal evangelicalism is taking in our day, just as the liberal evangelicalism of the 1950s followed the culture then, until it largely disappeared, to be replaced by a resurgent conservative evangelicalism in the 1960s, which in turn …
In any case, their enthusiastic adoption of feminism and Anglican establishment politics can only be followed by acquiescing in (never actively resisting) the gay agenda. This is very clear from those who psot on their site. Completely incapable of drawing a line in the sand.
For me I ceased to find anything particularly helpful on Fulcrum after a time which co-incided with the start of the Wycliffe Hall purges which have left them daggers drawn with some of the more conservative evangelicals. While this was not necessarily of their making and I have some sympathy it has rendered both them and their opponents pretty useless for representing the large body of Evangelical witness in the UK.
Where in the service did the guy kiss the guy?
You know, this, not vgr, may be the kiss of death for the church. To permit this should be intolerable, for it is a flagrant violation of established practice. It’s flagrantness is a deliberate slap in the face – or a gauntlet thrown, to change a metaphor – and i expect we will see the ABC try to play both sides of the net at the same time. Here in America, this challenge should be answered immediately and forcefully.
American needs its own ABC for the real Anglican church. it’s time for our own Lambeth and it’s time for an open declaration of war. Larry
The Collect for Purity immediately followed by a declaration of intention to join “these Men” in — whatever they’re calling it. The irony hits you in the face.
The score stands Satan one, Church of England nil.
Waiting for Susan Russell flyby in three…two…one
Intercessor
#3, Pageantmaster, help me …. “Toys are being thrown out of prams as well as in cars.” … it’s a wonderful image, but I have no idea what it means …
Larry Morse #9…..It’s called GAFCON! Bring on a new See! Canterbury is becoming nil!
Seeing this and related articles pop up like mushrooms on numerous sites, both Anglican and secular, a paraphrase occurs to me:
“Narcissistic is as narcissistic does.”
Yawn. Anyone claiming surprise at this has been living on another planet. Given what has gone before, this was as predictable as the setting of the sun. And the reaction is equally predictable. There will be pious expressions of indignation followed by… nothing.
I think this is a good place to stop typing lest I offend someone through comments that might be perceived as lacking in Christian charity and the proper ecumenical spirit.
ICXC NIKA
John
The gauntlet is thrown down – will ++Rowan pick it up?
Okay, now go clean the Diet Coke off your monitor.
Agree with #16. When the camels nose was allowed into the tent many years ago, we were all heartily assured that the rest of the beast would not follow-and as we can plainly see, it has.
I have never read from the Bible that a little bit of sin, or just a small departure from Holy Scripture was acceptable.
In a study of the Book of Deuteronomy, you can read [as I remember] some three or four times where God, through Moses, warns the people not to turn to the left, or to the right from all that He had commanded them in His Law.
This ungodly blurring of Biblical sexual distinctions did not BEGIN as homosexual marriage blessed by the church, of course. Satan is usually much more clever then that. But if scripture teaches anything, it teaches that permitting a little “Now, did God really say?” at the beginning will produce utter chaos & ruin in the end. Its much like ignoring a tiny crack in a large dam. Harmless little bugger, eh? Sure. Just let it alone, and see how harmless it becomes.
The damage to the communion has been done. Has the lesson been sufficiently learned?
#14 Spell out for me how GAFCON is actually going to supply the leadership here in the US. If it can, I am ready and waiting to throw in my lot. Larry
Larry,
Go [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/13322/]here on Stand Firm[/url] and read all about it.
What you tolerate today, tomorrow you embrace. #18 is spot-on…non-celibate homosexual clergy have been tolerated for decades, and this is the whirlwind that is being reaped; likely to the destruction of the Anglican Communion.
#15 – Not sure what you mean, but your mention of narcissism is, I think, apropos. Homosexual attraction may well boil down to a kind of narcissism. Why commit to trying to love the other when I can choose to give my love to someone whose body is just like mine? It’s so much easier to understand. Affirmation of homosexual unions may not be liberation but bondage to worship of one’s self and one’s sexuality.
In any event, this recent ceremony of matrimony between two male Anglican priests shows them to be more fixated on their own status than on the preservation of doctrine and the communion. That, at any rate, is a species of narcissism.
I may be wrong, and, given the trajectory of our church and of our communion, I hope that I am — i.e. that this new attitude toward homosexuality is in fact liberation and that I am just a hidebound, thoughtless dinosaur. That way there’ll just be a few of us sinning by intolerance rather than a whole church sinning in both their bodies and in their abdication of both reason and tradition. But the Scriptures, tradition, and (I think) plain, simple reason point toward homosexual unions being a mistake; and if so, then it would be a mistake for the church (the putative trustees of Scripture and tradition) to affirm them.
Christ, give us light and eyes to see it, that we might not sin against one another in what we say, do, or hold in our hearts.
#13 Denbeau, a pram is a baby stroller. So Pagentmaster can clarify later. It seems to mean that the tantrums and rebellion start younger and younger and/or that there seem to be no grown-ups in charge of the CoE so the selfish little brats are running the show with no one willing to discipline them.
Well, #22, the paraphrase about Narcissism that came floating into my mind applies to, I think, everything you mention in your first 2 paragraphs. The advocates in this particular matter have created a sort of media echo-chamber with the coveted ATTENTION always boomeranging back to them. Theirs is the opposite of Christian conduct, on several levels, and is consonant with identity politics.
(As an aside, after posting #15 I found that Baby Blue at her Cafe blog has a quite insightful evaluation of what this latest incident indicates. It should be popping up everywhere rather than this article!)
Your 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence is I am sure correct, while the first 2 sentences seemed a tortuous route to get there.
Oddly enough, a distant relative who was an American author wrote on Narcissism in the 1930s or so, something I only discovered in the past 3 years. Not a new problem in the realm of societal moral conduct!
#9 [url=http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/throw_one’s_toys_out_of_the_pram]to “thrown ones toys out of the pram”[/url] is idiomatic UK English for losing ones temper.
It was combined by Pageantmaster with a reference to the [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/dec/11/religion.topstories3]unusual story[/url] in which an allegedly drunken Bishop of Southwark was seen throwing children’s toys out the window of a parked Mercedes into which he had climbed whilst inebriated.
The link should be:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/throw_one's_toys_out_of_the_pram
Apologies for some reason the apostrophe in “one’s” is being removed when I submit the link.
[blockquote]The marriage calls into question the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury – one of four fundamental points of unity for the worldwide communion – and tears at the very heart of Anglicanism.
Only three years ago, Dr Williams flew to meet the African archbishops to reassure them that the Church’s teaching on sexuality would not be compromised by the introduction of the Civil Partnerships Act. The Church issued guidelines allowing clergy to register their relationships on the condition that they assured their bishop that they would abstain from sex. It said homosexual couples should not be given formal services to celebrate their relationship.
The archbishop stressed that priests who broke these rules would be disciplined. However, a number of clergy have since performed so called “blessing services” for homosexual couples. These are significantly different from wedding services: they involve no wedding rite; there is no exchange of vows, no bridesmaids or pageboys. Most are carried out quietly. Despite being controversial, not one has resulted in disciplinary proceedings.
The fact that one vicar has actually conducted a proper wedding service, using such traditional liturgy and furthermore, between two priests, makes the issue impossible to ignore.[/blockquote]
The Revd Martin Dudley, the vicar, performed the ceremony against the express wishes of the Bishop of London, and against the guidelines from the House of Bishops.
This ceremony was clearly designed as a ‘wedding’ in all but name. Such a rewriting of the Book of Common Prayer is preposterous. It seems to have been a deliberately provocative act and is reported just before GAFCON and the Lambeth Conference. The irony of 31 May being the Feast of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary will not be lost on many. There needs to be a robust response to this.
Discipline – yes. But how effective is church discipline?
The strategy of the LBGT movement in the Anglican church reminds me strongly of the Ritualists in the late nineteenth century. Put facts on the ground. Breach existing regulations and dare the system to do anything about it. And if necessary become a temporary martyr, knowing that there is a wider body of sympathy which will make the sanctions imposed look ridiculous.
It is something of an irony (to this Evangelical, anyway) that the existence of modern Anglo-Catholicism in the CofE is based on the success of very much the same tactics the LGBT lobby are using now.
For the benefit of The Gordian at #4 & #6.
Graham Kings at #29 is a clear Fulcrum leader response. “There needs to be a robust response to this.”
Available also at [url=http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/forum/thread.cfm?thread=6983]name of link[/url]
TACit #24, thanks for your reply. As for this:[blockquote] Your 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence is I am sure correct, while the first 2 sentences seemed a tortuous route to get there. [/blockquote] I apologize for the torture. But slow and careful thinking seems to be a virtue not often practiced by our church or our communion. Instead, we seem to have decided already what the conclusion of our reasonings ought to be, and are hastening past the proof itself so we can triumphantly announce “Q.E.D.!” without checking to see if we got there correctly or not. Why think at all when popular opinion seems to have already decided the matter?
One of the few things I can offer my church right now, as it races headlong on the course of whim and passion, is slow thinking tempered by humility. So while I cannot see any reason to think that I am wrong (in that 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence that you affirm) I do know that human reason is also befouled by sin, and that absolute pronouncements of being correct ought to be tempered with at least enough humility to allow the Holy Spirit room to correct me without having to bludgeon me. Even if the bishops have forgotten the weight of sin and its effects on reason, I can still try to remember them myself.
And here you have the explanation of why I have chosen this alias, Laocoon.
The peace of Christ Jesus be with you today and always,
Laocoon
#13 Denbeau – Driver8 has it expressed clearly at #25; apologies I tend to forget that not everything translates in an international medium like this.
#29 Dr Kings – thank you for your clearly expressed and unequivocal view. Something I and others are in need of for leadership and encouragement at this time.
#29: Agreed. Now let’s be clear what a ‘robust response’ should mean: the withdrawal of licenses from Dudley+ and the two priests involved, and Cowell’s and Lord’s suspension from the priesthood for sexual immorality and causing scandal to the Body of Christ.
Graham, is that the discipline you think right? or do you have something else in mind? a private rebuke followed by nothing?
Remember that an evangelical clergyman in London (Cookin) had his license removed for hosting an ordination by a bishop from the Church of England in South Africa, and Fulcrum strongly supported the bishop (+Butler, IIRC) in this action.
I hope Fulcrum will now support the same response for the promotion of homosexual marriage by COE clerics.
Anything less would not be ‘robust’, it would be hypocrisy.
Thanks, Gordian – BTW, what is your real name? A few comments:
1. The name of the evangelical clergyman you mention as Cookin is Richard Coekin. To read again the Fulcrum reasoning behind our response on that particular issue, see [url=http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2005/newsletter04.cfm?doc=64]’Judicious or Precipitate? Evangelicals and Order in the Church of England'[/url].
2. You mention the word ‘hypocrisy’. Peter Ould, on his site, has produced an excellent [url=http://www.peter-ould.net/2008/06/15/gay-wedding/]comparison[/url] of the Book of Common Prayer Marriage Service and the St Bartholomew-the-Great Blessing Service. When this is read alongside seeing the BBC TV [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7455187.stm]interview[/url] with the Rector, Martin Dudley, you may well get the impression of hypocrisy.
3. I am meeting the Bishop of London this week and do not intend to say anything more here.
4. Is it really worth distracting a proper and robust conservative response to such a blatant contradiction of the House of Bishops Guidelines, and such a mangling of Cranmer’s Liturgy, by trying to score inter-evangelical points?
Very well, Laocoon – though I said only ‘tortuous’, not ‘torturous’, to suggest the path seemed not at all straight to me, and it took a few reads until I finally got those two sentences.
TACit #36. I confess that I’ve always seen “tortuous” as a misspelling of “torturous.” A quick visit to the OED, prompted by your posting, has enriched my vocabulary. Thanks! And thanks for your initial post on this thread, and for the “conversation” here. May Christ Jesus enrich your life in every way today.
#35 Yes – Fr. Dudley seemed positively defiant. It really is so dis-spiriting to see clergy proudly break their ordination oaths, tell lies….
It is just this kind of thing that is so, so, so wrong with elements of English Anglo Catholicism – especially in the, as we might say “shrine” parishes in London. These three self aware Prayer Book traditionalists – are actually concocting a faith entirely of their own invention. All those thees and thys and Mozart and Latin becomes nothing more than a kind of “style” – a post modern ornamentation on a faith that is as radically individualistic as they come.
Screwtape is in seventh hell with the joy of this (?) marriage.
#35 – thank you, Graham, ‘Coekin’ it was. I appreciate your intnetion to act, and hope that many others in your church will issue a complaint to your bishop. I can’t imagine All Souls Church (which I visited years ago) being at all happy, or Holy Trinity Brompton.
It’s true I have been critical of ‘Fulcrum’ but not because I have any interest in ‘scoring inter-evangelical points’. Instead I am troubled that evangelical witness in the Anglican Communion (which John Stott did so much to foster in EFAC) has been divided by Fulcrum’s attacks on conservative evangelicals (or so I read them) and what I see as a default position of supporting the English Establishment, even when your bishops are undermining the Gospel (or so I read it). So you supported the suspension of Coekin, even while you have many clergy in London living in same-sex relationships – against the discipline of your church but entirely undisciplined as long as they keep quiet (‘don’t ask, don’t tell’). Where is the Gospel integrity in this? Where is the concern for the integrity and purity of the Bride of Christ?
Further, I have read your website on many occasions, and while you’re not responsible for what posters say, I find that many self-described ‘open evangelicals’, like +George Day and others, are open supporters of ‘Changing Attitude’, so I can only imagine they would really have to support the ‘blessings’ of homosexual relationships, whatever you make of this mock-wedding in London. So I see that as a harbinger of the future, whatever you official policy in Fulcrum is – if I were a betting man, I’d say that in five years’ time your group will have shaded into supported same-sex relationships, just as today you are fully behind the innovation (for the English) of women bishops. All of this means the destruction of the kind of evangelical unity that John Stott labored for all those years ago.
I don’t mean to offend with my tone but I sometimes think the understatement of the English people can come across as resigned acquiescence to the inevitable. If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who will get ready for battle?
Do I hear more feet stomping as they walk out of the TEC? The seed has continued to be sown – the whirlwind is yet to come!!!
The issue of narcissism is central to the present conflict. Ameriuca has become, thanks to the Baby Boomers, a country tht has institutionalized narcissism. On t his subject, see Christopher Lasch, Culture of Narcissism. Larry
Or, #42, readers could even go back to *1938* and read literary critic Allen Tate, in the context of speaking on his own poetry: “…Narcissism, or any other ism that denotes the failure of the human personality to function objectively in nature and society. Society (and “nature” as modern society constructs it) appears to offer limited fields for the exercise of the whole man, who wastes his energy piecemeal over separate functions that ought to come under a unity of being. (Until the last generation, only certain women were whores, having been set aside as special instances of sex amid a social scheme that held the general belief that sex must be part of a whole; now the general belief is that sex must be special.) Without unity we get the remarkable self-consciousness of our age. Everybody is talking about this evil, and a great many persons know what ought to be done to correct it. ”
I maintain that this is not a new social problem at all, but few have ever taken heed of those who warned of its development.
Not too surprisingly, Tate eventually became a Catholic in 1950.