But Dr [Martin] Dudley, who insisted he was “robustly heterosexual”, wrote that he had not carried out the ceremony to provoke traditionalists.
“It is not we who have whipped up the whirlwind, replacing words of love and inclusion with those of hatred and exclusion,” he added.
He described the service as “not a gay rally or demonstration, but a truly joyful celebration”.
“Amazing flowers, fabulous music, a ceremony both solemn and oddly homely, familiar words reordered and reconfigured, carrying new meanings.
“Nothing jarred, nothing felt even vaguely inappropriate. New and untried – but not wrong.”
More on Dr. Dudley’s take on things.
http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2008/06/gay-relationship-marriage-love
Incredible on many levels.
“It is not we who have whipped up the whirlwind, replacing words of love and inclusion with those of hatred and exclusion”
Isn’t it creepy how they’ve all internalized the GLBT cant? I feel the ick factor coming on…
[blockquote] “It is not we who have whipped up the whirlwind, replacing words of love and inclusion with those of hatred and exclusion,” [/blockquote]
Now I want everyone to see the true words inspired by Satan. This individual, who claims to be a minister of God’s Word, has slandered all the orthodox in the church by saying that they hate and exclude. This is a total lie – A false witness! Mixing up the exclusion of people and that of behavior is totally inappropriate and follows no logic. To make such a statement is in fact HATE and used only to justify one’s own agenda.
In reading the rector’s piece in the New Statesman, I wondered why on earth he thinks he cannot be accused of being naive? Indeed when his words are clearly parsed one is left with a statement of immense sentimentality and extraordinary naivety.
Hell, all wrapped up in pretty flowers, music and flowery words. “… the fruit was…pleasant to the eyes … to be desired…”
from #1:
“On 31 May, my birthday and the feast of the Visitation, when Mary said “My soul doth magnify the Lordâ€, 300 people gathered in St Bartholomew the Great to celebrate the Eucharist, to witness Peter and David commit themselves to each other in an exclusive loving relationship.”
I think I’m going to barf.
Now it’s interesting that it’s clergy who were first “joined” (like that verb, very useful). They seem to be blazing (flaming?) the trail for all. I repeat the layout for the clergy directory in the Diocese of Olympia; every clergy-person is listed with a space next to their name reading “Spouse/Partner”. It’s been assumed they were shacked up til otherwise noted, now no need to even notice that. Will the diocisan officials *expect* joining ceremonies to take place to recognize the pre-existing joining or is it still optional as with straight couples? Every ECUSA marriage is now
concubinage according to the style sheet. And you WILL APPROVE.
The bishop of London has asked the archdeacon to investigate. Ruth Gledhill is saying the Martin Dudley and the archdeacon are great pals.
It is difficult to read this without a mix of laughter and despair, for which American has no word. Dudley shows no sign of being a hypocrite, indeed seems to be sincere in everything he says. Is he speaking a different language? Well, yes and no. That is, there is no reason to suppose that objectively, the marriage is not precisely described by Dudley. But his fundamental premise is incommensurable within Christianity…. and yet, he will claim that he is a Christian, and he would surely believe it. How can one make it clear to him in a way that he can understand that he is not Christian? There is no way. And so, we must conclude that he is speaking a different language because the concepts from which he draws meaning are entirely at odds with the same process within ourselves. HIs conceptual framework – that complex linguistic gestalt which unites intent and established denotation – is radically different. He cannot understand us, nor we him.
This tectonic shift has been going on for a long time and I have watched these continents shift and fall apart with real fear and anxiety. It is as if speciation has been going on linguistically, as if we could see this change before our eyes. We must face this reality, and we must therefore train people who can speak both languages – silly as I know this sounds – for communication is not possible without such linguists. We have seen this bifurcation and its resultant incomprehensibility with TEC and TECspeak. Earlier, this confusion simply raised my hackles. Now, I realize that this is like Cantonese and the dialect of Fujian. They read the same characters, but when they speak, they are incomprehensible, each to the other.
Larry
[i]”Amazing flowers, fabulous music, a ceremony both solemn and oddly homely, familiar words reordered and reconfigured, carrying new meanings.
“Nothing jarred, nothing felt even vaguely inappropriate. New and untried – but not wrong.”[/i]
Ah, yes, the quintessence of religious liberalism: sentimentalism.
I was going to quote the same passage, Todd. What struck me is that this is how we are to judge right from wrong, good from evil? If it *feels* good?
Despite the mention in the article, I’ve seen no one comment on whether this couple are following the church’s rule of “celibacy” for same sex civil partnerships–or whether that’s a rule that has any meaning at all. The matter is highly private, of course, and I respect that. But after a wedding . . . well, usually there’s a more personal celebration. What with all the lovely music and flowers and such, are we to assume the investigation of this ceremony will go no further than the ceremony itself and not enter into the nature of the partnership? Where do the Archbishops draw the line?
“Nothing jarred, nothing felt even vaguely inappropriate.”
Er…right!
#13, of course nothing felt inappropriate. Nothing feels inappropriate when you’ve entirely lost the meaning of what “appropriate” IS.
…but the flowers were [i]amazing![/i] So, it’s all good.
*whew!* Theological crisis averted!
#12. Does anyone believe that these two men will live celibate lives?
This is patent nonsense. We all know this. And yet, England has made the unions possible provided the men declare they will celibate lives.
We say, “They are lying in their store teeth.” They will have a different explanation, and they will believe it even though it will notmatch our definition of celibacy. We ask, “Is the CofE so naive that it can make a stipulation that everyone knows will not be kept?” BUt it is not naivete but a different language whose roots are not in the Johnsonian tradition of lexicography, but in the utterly private semantics of the solipsist. The speaker makes the definitions because they are right to him; they meet his standards. This priest uses words which we think familiar; we jeer when he seems unaware that his meaning and ours don’t jibe. I tell you again, there has been a radical shift in western lexicography, and the roots are to be found in the evolution of the language of narcissism. For the priest, words are what you make them; the source of denotation now comes from the individual, not the induction from massed examples.
I had a very bright high school senior say to me, of her track coach, “He’s a really rowdy guy.” I looked at her strangely and asked why she would insult him so. She got angry and said she wasn’t insulting him. I pointed out what “rowdy” meant. She shrugged it off and said, “That not what it means to us.” I responded that she couldn’t change language in so cavalier a way. She shrugged and said the SHE could and that was all that mattered. And there you have the matter in a nutshell. And this is what is happening now.
Larry
Larry – I don’t always agree with you, but once again you have expressed so well the problem of “private semantics.” We’re all used to instances where someone says “that’s what it means to me.” This has a lot to do with the inability of people to participate in discursive argument and to understand propositional logic.
Martin Dudley will have passed on at a very, very old age before this “investigation” and its iterations of reception, review, comment, etc. are done with. Avoidance of decisions seems to be the order of the era.
“fabulous music” – well, all is forgiven, then.
The heretical and very confused rector Dudley must also have a true wannabe personality – look at the size of his pectoral cross, perhaps he believes he is the ABC!? I guess the article in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pectoral_cross) will have to be altered!
This priest must be one of the worst examples of the “AffCaff” lot!
#18 I don’t think so – timelines are built into the Clergy Discipline Measure. Once the Archdeacon has formally complained the Registar (diocesan lawyer) has I think up to 4 weeks to gather written evidence. He or she then passes it to the Bishop of London who has up to four weeks to impose a punishment (if the accused consents) or pass the case on to an independent Tribunal (if the accused demands a hearing as is his right). The Tribunal will then make a judgment over the next 3 months. So at the longest we’re talking 5 – 6 months.
I know it seems slow given the precipitate way that TEC bishops exercise discipline. But you need to think of it as a judicial process – a court case. Even if it seems clear that the law has been broken (as it does in this case) the law needs to proceed fairly in order that the verdict will stand. (That is, if this process isn’t followed Fr. Dudley will get off scot free because his human rights have been violated).
To make the pantomime even more amusing….the Archdeacon who is conducting the investigation is a very close freind of Dudley – and recently attended his birthday bash. Now if a really good freind of mine was planning this – I would have known. So a soft disciplinary here I am guessing. ‘Now Dudders- I will have to tell you off publically.. you do understand’. ‘Oh yes- you poor thing..don’t worry I will take it like a man’. ‘Exactly- another scone Dudders?’ ……….
#16 It seems in this case the Bishop of London was not informed and so no assurances have been requested or given. In other words they disobeyed their bishop’s instructions. They won’t be the first priests or the last to do that! Nevertheless in itself it is a potential disciplinary offence for the guy licensed in the Diocese of London.
The issue that I don’t see anyone talking about was that the church was desecrated, among other things being used for a parody of the Mass celebrating homosexuality. The church has been defiled and is now unclean (I believe the Catholic Church would call it “pollution.”) What is Anglican procedure on this? Is there a rite for cleansing and reconsecrating the church? I know the Catholic Church has procedures for this and the Russian Orthodox Church would take the position the church is permanently defiled and must be destroyed and rebuilt if this shouid occur,* but obviously that won’t work here.
* http://www.washtimes.com/news/2003/oct/08/20031008-113616-3077r/
21, I don’t think that the time delay is the problem, nor is due process. We just don’t have any confidence that it will either ever happen or that the discipline won’t be anything other than a slap on the wrist. The church in recient times has shown itself incapable of disciplining progressives when they do something to further their agenda when it is against church discipline.
Fulcrum has published a letter from the Bishop of London to the Rector of Great St. Bart’s on the relevant thread. I presume it is available elsewhere in the British press. An outake:
…St Bartholomew’s is not a personal fiefdom. You serve there as an ordained minister of the Church of England, under the authority of the Canons and as someone who enjoys my licence. I have already asked the Archdeacon of London to commence the investigation and I shall be referring the matter to the Chancellor of the Diocese. Before I do this, I am giving you an opportunity to make representations to me direct…
If I may hazard a guess: there will be no discipline offered either Fr. Dudley, or the two clergymen receiving his ministrations.
The ABC is on personal record (a book, I believe!) of being open to the holiness of just this kind of committed relationship. The ABY is not likely to act.
The investigation will go the English route: “muddle through, avoid confrontation, lay on many heavily contextualized paragraphs…kick the can down the road”. I will be amazed if any action is taken to hold these 3 men responsible. And, that is why the Global South primates are largely skipping the ABC’s Lambeth Tea Party.
27, as well they should because of the reasons you have just given.
If the ABC tolerated this for so long in the American church, is it any wonder to find this sort of thing now “playing at a theater near you”?
The chickens always come home to roost-and they seem to be quite comfortable roosting in the environs of the CoE.
Its quite apparent that the Anglican communion has split in two. It must. GAFCON ho!
“Then those who feared the LORD spoke with one another. The LORD paid attention and heard them, and a book of remembrance was written before him of those who feared the LORD and esteemed his name.” (Malachi 3:16)
To the Dudleys and their ilk: “He who kills a bull is as if he slays a man;
He who sacrifices a lamb, as if he breaks a dog’s neck;
He who offers a grain offering, as if he offers swine’s blood;
He who burns incense, as if he blesses an idol.
Just as they have chosen their own ways,
And their soul delights in their abominations,
So will I choose their delusions,
And bring their fears on them;
Because, when I called, no one answered,
When I spoke they did not hear;
But they did evil before My eyes,
And chose that in which I do not delight.†(Isaiah 66:3-4)
When his sperm mixes with his stool is the result a spool or a sterm?