Now, while the activists will emphasize that we should send the toasters and gift cards, the point remains that this was a direct political action. It’s goal is political.
It was timed to coincide just as GAFCON is convening and a month out before Lambeth. Last weekend we had Gene Robinson’s wedding in the Episcopal Church. Looks like the brethren in England did not want to let him hog all the limelight.
But what it means is that the COE activists have borrowed the infamous TEC activists’ playbook of recent years. When there is organized opposition to their marketed strategy of prophetic inclusion, then it’s time for drama. Now that drama is crossing the Atlantic from Minneapolis to London on the eve of the Lambeth Conference.
We remember that Bishop John Spong had a meltdown in a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury where he accused Rowan Williams of ecclesiastical treason, that Rowan Williams was picked because he endorsed by word and action the inclusion of men marrying men and women marrying women. When Dr. Williams made several key decisions that undermined those activist goals, the street activists in the Episcopal Church were outraged.
They were emboldened when Rowan Williams was appointed the new Archbishop of Canterbury. They threw all caution to the wind and flew forward at an accelerated pace, confident that Canterbury would not blink but look the other way. The Episcopal activists were very worried that their momentum had peaked at Denver’s General Convention and if they did not move fast, they be set back decades. Their base of support was aging – who could guarantee that they would have sufficient numbers in another 20 years to achieve their political goals? It did not look good….
Will this atone for the non-invite of the simple country bishop to Lame-beth when the CoE tries to join the episcopal communion, do you think?
If my recollection is correct, another such attention-distracting event was +Bruno’s presence at (and the very occurrence of) a ‘blessing & commitment ceremony’ of a retired priest and the priest’s partner days before the ‘Plano West’ conference in Long Beach oh-these-many-years-ago.
I find no evidence that +Rowan” was picked by the Ecclesiastical Appointments committee, the Prime minister and ultimately the Sovereign because of his academic speculations about gay relationships. I find that idea unsupported by evidence and highly unlikely. Certainly his position since becoming Archbishop of Canterbury has been consistent and orthodox.
Even a self-deluded man like ++Rowan cannot deny what is going on in the Church he is charged with leading. It’s time for him and his bishops to act. Another impenetrable, 10,000-word missive will not suffice. Either put a stop to the insurgency or admit that you are nothing but a cipher, a wooden Indian of no consequence at all.
wvparson writes: Certainly his position since becoming Archbishop of Canterbury has been consistent and orthodox.
It has? Perhaps wvparson can provide more convincing evidence than the recent Radner-ACI defense of the ABC?
To be fair, Dan #5, ++Rowan has occasionally made noises and animadversions that have riled revisionists and encouraged reasserters on the issues that have roiled the AC. However, these were words only. When actions are examined, ++Rowan has an almost perfect record of undercutting orthodoxy and promoting revision, the single exception I can think of being the non-invitation of VGR to Lambeth.
I would include the suppression of Jeffery John’s advancement among the ABC’s more orthodox acts. Granted, many consider that he did it for political rather than theological reasons, but it ticked off the homosexualists in a most admirable manner.
A real archbishop would have excommunicated the two priests and the presiding vicar after the service of (?) marriage at Westminster. Rowen was selected because he was an ivory tower academic. They rarely are administrators thus, a safe candidate, as he would try not to rock the boat and would do almost anything to avoid schism during his time in office.
#7: It did tick off the homosexualists, but Johns was given the consoaltion prize of Dean of St Albans, and he went on to form a ‘civil partnership’ with his male partner, with whom he’d bought a house.
But the real reason Johns was rejected as bishop was because the evangelicals in the Diocese of Oxford, including St Aldate’s Church (ASA 1000) threatened to secede from the Church of England and appoint their own bishop. The CoE leadership collapsed in the face of this threat.
Why would the street activitists want to force the issue BEFORE GAFCon and Lambeth? Don’t they play into orthodox hands by doing so?
#10 Irenaeus, that was my thought also. Abp. Orombi has already denounced the ceremony as (IIRC) blasphemous. Maybe they actually want to force the conservatives out of the AC?
#9 The Gordian: Thanks for reminding us of the history. Surely none of this is surprising. This ABC was a highly skilled academic administrator before he was brought into his current post. He is a wily bureaucrat, a veteran of much faculty warfare. He has consistently remained true to the revisionist stance he was known for before becoming ABC. I only hope and pray that the GAFCON bishops make a public stand and say ‘good riddance’ to the AC, which has already left Christendom.
#10 and #11: Remember, the Marxist methodology of “doing the revolution” is to establish ‘facts on the ground’ by doing the forbidden, crossing the boundary, violating the law. That was the template for the first women’s ordination in ECUSA, and it remains the technique for the gay agenda as well. I believe the theological justification goes like this: “We must do the prophetic thing which the spirit is moving us to do!” When those who are supposed to be the Adults (i.e. the ABC and others) fail to maintain the boundaries, and refuse to exercise discipline, the revolution is on its way to de facto victory.