“We have heard the reports of the recent service in St Bartholomew the Great with very great concern. We cannot comment on the specific circumstances because they are the subject of an investigation launched by the Bishop of London.
On the general issue, however, the various reference points for the Church of England’s approach to human sexuality (1987 Synod motion, 1991 Bishops’ Statement- Issues in Human Sexuality- , Lambeth motion 1:10, House of Bishops’ 2005 statement on civil partnerships) are well known and remain current.
Those clergy who disagree with the Church’s teaching are at liberty to seek to persuade others within the Church of the reasons why they believe, in the light of Scripture, tradition and reason that it should be changed. But they are not at liberty simply to disregard it.”
[blockquote]Those clergy who disagree with the Church’s teaching are at liberty to seek to persuade others within the Church of the reasons why they believe, in the light of Scripture, tradition and reason that it should be changed. But they are not at liberty simply to disregard it.”[/blockquote]
It is disappointing that all clergy and laity in the church are not committed to this stand of intellectual and moral integrity. This is the true and only Anglican way.
joe, actions speak louder than words. I’ll regain a tiny bit of respect for the ABC & Co if and when the Vicar is disciplined….not simply a committee meeting with some mushmouth bureaucratese statement being issued, but severely disciplined. Ain’t gonna happen.
Discipline? Investigation? A (yet another) public statement? The pretense of ignorance by +York and the ABC is a bit hard to believe. Removal and defrocking for being spiritually unqualified is the only reasonable response to Dudley’s actions.
A lucid and robust response.
#4: Graham, do you think they didn’t know this service was going to happen? With 300 present, including scores of clergy and members of the Bishop of London’s staff, it must have been the worst kept secret in London Town.
(Like RW’s own ‘gay eucharist’).
Ruth Gledhill of the London Times on why she thinks Dudley has nothing to fear from the Bishop of London’s “investigation” (what’s there to investrigate? This wasn’t done ‘in a corner’):
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2008/06/archbishops-vie.html
The Archbishops write, “On the general issue, however, the various reference points for the Church of England’s approach to human sexuality (1987 Synod motion, 1991 Bishops’ Statement- Issues in Human Sexuality- , Lambeth motion 1:10, House of Bishops’ 2005 statement on civil partnerships) are well known and remain current.”
Somewhere I think I read a statement by Archbishop Williams that Lambeth 1.10 is the position of the Anglican Communion or words to that effect, but I can’t remember where I read that. Could someone give me an accurate quotation and reference?
Tom Rightmyer trightmy@juno.com Asheville NC
#5 Why should they have known it was going to happen? Well, eventually it was going to happen anyway.
But there is no reason for the two priests to have told them, because then they would be faced with having to obey the Archbishop. Forgiveness is easier than permission.
What is a “gay eucharist”?
What is a “gay eucharistâ€
An oxymoron.
“Forgiveness is easier than permission” ?? yes, by all means, let’s do things easily.
“…But they are not at liberty simply to disregard it.â€
And what are the consequences if they do?
Nothing…zero…zip….nada.
Graham Kings (#4),
There may be a difference between American and British usage here, but even after taking into account the famous English tendency toward understatement, I would have to disagree with you. The statement of the two archbishops in the CoE is “lucid,” yes. But “robust?” No. It is far too mild to be “robust.”
Among other things, there is no heaping of approbrium on the actions as wrong in themselves. There are no threats of any dire consequences for any one else foolish enough to try the same stunt. And not least, it’s noticeable that once again, ++Rowan Williams has merely said, “this is the state policy of the Anglican Communion, and it remains current.” He still has not yet endorsed it himself and clearly identified himself with holding the same opinion. That is, he has still failed to repent clearly and publicly for his past support of the “gay is OK” delusion and admitted that he was wrong.
Only someone in Fulcrum or the ACI could regard a mild rebuke such as this one to be “robust.” Such a low-key response won’t suffice to deter other determined pro-gay activists from following suit.
David Handy+
Oops. Let me correct a typo and further clarify and amplify what I’m saying. Canterbury (and York) have merely repeated the tired, worn=out line, reaffirming that the “stated” (not state) policy of the Church remains the official policy. But Cantuar hasn’t said that he’s changed his mind and now agrees with that policy himself. And especially they haven’t made the crucial theological claim that this farce of a “wedding” is directly, flagrantly, and inexcusably contrary to the will of God himself. Canterbury and York haven’t roundly declaared that those who believe such actions to be prophetic and morally justified are simply self-deceived and totally wrong. Now that kind of thing would be “robust.”
David Handy+
Proudly American and highly prone to being confrontational
Thanks to Ms. Gledhill, we have this — “The study of theology at King’s College, London, was rigorous, critical, comprehensive, and above all engaged with a rapidly changing world. As Dean Sydney Evans posed the existential “Who am I?†he taught us not to accept the “I†as a fixed point but a point in motion, always becoming.”
Et cetera, et cetera; in England as in America, with Boomers, it’s always about the sacred “I.” And the editors of major newspapers (see the Gledhill piece).
[blockquote] Yes, it is the case that the Bishop of London has asked the Archdeacon of London to investigate. But I don’t think Bart’s Rector, Fr Martin Dudley, will be too worried. The Archdeacon was an honoured guest at his recent birthday party, and the two are great friends. [/blockquote]
From Ruth Gledhill.
So much for due process.
Can I summarize the “investigation” now?:
“I am shocked, shocked to find homosexual marriage going on at this parish!!”
“Your service booklet, sir.”
“Oh yes, thank you.”
Oh, my! A robust statement of dismay! Well, that’s the end of that. Witness the Lambeth Report, the Committee on Non-investigation and non-action (aka the panel of dismissal after brief junkets to pleasant places and genetic inability to respond confirmed by inaction), the ABC’s delightful Committee for the acceptance of any response at the New Orleans HOB farce, and the ignoring of the Primates by the alleged focus of un-intentionality-by-misdirection-and-failure-to -endanger-USA-funding regardless of the very public and in-your-face actions of “bishops” of the General Convention Church of Polity. Yes.
#4: Graham, I can understand with Gafcon about to kick off, this is about the worst possible poke in the eye for orthodox believers, and Fulcrum (having fulminated against Gafcon as divisive) wants to shore up the reputation of the Establishment in the eyes of Africans, but I have to agree with Fr Handy that this is hardly ‘robust’.
‘Robust’ was the response of the Russian Orthodox Church a couple years back when a purported ‘gay marriage’ took place in a chapel in Moscow (I think).
You know what the hierarchy did? They defrocked the cleric and demolished the chapel. Can’t imagine that happening to a money spinner like St Bartholomew’s (‘For [gay] Weddings and a Funeral [of the COE]).
Anyway, how can Fulcrum be against? Your regular posters L Roberts, ‘Pluralist’, +George Day and +Simon Butler all support the action, while others are not so happy (some on procedural grounds). This doesn’t sound to me like the ‘evangelical center’ of English evangelicalism that I’ve read about in the past (Stott, Green, Packer, Millar) but the general imprecision of the COE.
The idea that nobody in the hierarchy knew about this event ’til it had happened is preposterous.
Might it just be that one reason the Archbishops do not say much in this statement is that they have one eye to possible future legal proceedings?
It seems to me very likely that this will end in Revd. Dudley having his licence withdrawn, at the very least. The Archbishops will therefore be proceeding carefully to make sure he has no grounds for appeal against such a decision, such as prejudicial comments at this stage from them might represent. The CoE has had a bad time in the courts recently on various points – they’ll be looking to run this one tightly.
Who knows what Rowan now thinks in the depths of his heart re. homosexuality? It is by no means clear that he does still hold the revisionist position explored in ‘The Body’s Grace’: the LGCM crowd certainly don’t think he does anymore. But what it is clear is that he cares about how we treat each other in the Body, and that this liturgy was a calculated slap in the face by ‘liberals’ to ‘conservatives’. My guess is that he is livid, and that fairly stern consequences will follow – though carefully and cautiously executed, to make them stick.
#19: On the first matter, fair nough. Less said, soonest mended, & don’t give hostages to fortune etc.
On the second, I hope you are right, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. You know there is a deep feeling among the orthodox that RW has subverted the whole ghastly Windsor-Dromantine-DES etc process by dragging it all out & preventing the Primates from meeting. But little point now in trying to close the stable door.
The whole problem stems from allowing clergy in England to have civil partnerships. The church should never have agreed to this.
Folks, let’s hear the words of #4 (Graham) and who’s saying them. The statement from the ABC & ABY is certainly both lucid and “robust” compared to what appears under the Fulcrum banner. That, presumably, is all #4 is really saying. And in my book it’s a good reason to pay heed more closely to the Archbishops than to vapid FulcRuminations.