“We have 700 men here. Do you think any of them beat their wives? Chances are they do,” argued Roskam, in The Lambeth Witness, a daily newsletter for gay-rights supporters in the 77 million-member Anglican Communion.
“The most devout Christians beat their wives. … Many of our bishops come from places where it is culturally accepted to beat your wife. In that regard, it makes conversation quite difficult.”
The key, she added, is that “Violence against women, and violence against children for that matter, is violence against the defenseless. With women, it goes hand-in-hand with misogyny.”
The New York bishop’s accusations rocked the conference, which was already tense due to the absence of about 280 conservative bishops – many from Nigeria and Uganda – who declined to attend due to the presence of U.S. leaders who backed the 2003 consecration of the openly gay and noncelibate Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. Only 617 Anglican bishops pre-registered and some of those failed to attend, according to a report in The Living Church magazine. Thus, nearly a quarter of the bishops in attendance came from the small, but wealthy, U.S. Episcopal Church.
Read it all but also make sure to read Bishop Roskam’s own comments about this (entry #9 for July 31,2008):
So it was on this day that I was one of the press briefers for the Episcopal Church. And no, I did not say that clergy in the Third World beat their wives! In fact I said nothing about violence in the developing world per se. All my comments were made in the context of the pervasive nature of vioence against women all around the world. The only area I singled out was our own context, siting the recent spate of murders in the New York area of women, and sometimes their children also, by husbands or boyfriends. But of course, those comments were not quoted.
I thought only diocesan bishops were at Lambeth, that being the reason for not inviting persons such as Bps Minns. Why was this suffragan present?
I find Ms. Roskam’s explanation unpersuasive. Unless, of course, she’s saying that the bishops present from the New York area are the likely wife-beaters.
+Roskam’s comments come from a mindset that men are predators and must be treated as such – particularly if they haven’t been properly pacified by (feminist) women. It reminds of the feminist group at Harvard several years back who published a list of all of the male students at Harvard under the title, “Potential Rapists.” The following day a list of the feminists was published with the title, “Potential Housewives.”
Words Matter, it’s because Schori would’ve pouted, stamped her foot, and said that TEC wouldn’t send Lambeth any more money if any more of TEC’s bishops weren’t invited.
I read the article. I find nothing in the way of research or actual collection of data, interviews, etc., nothing that would suggest that the good bishopess is doing anything more than spouting an opinion. Her words certainly support the MDG initiative to “empower women”, and, I would suspect, her next move will be to link this alleged wife-beating to violence against gays. After all, anyone who would beat his wife, and that means anyone who is male, is just as likely to be beat up gays and lesbians. It’s all a continuum, you know.
Roskam:
“Many of our bishops come from places where it is culturally accepted to beat your wife. In that regard, it makes conversation quite difficult.”
Roskam:
“I said nothing about violence in the developing world per se.”
Just. Stop. Lying.
I’m so tired of all this lying by the American Bishops. The lies being told by the American Bishops are what make conversation quite difficult.
A bit more of her mindset can be seen here.
A few quotes of interest:[blockquote]
ENY: What do you see as the origins of the current controversies in The Episcopal Church (TEC) and the Anglican Communion?
Bishop Roskam: The tensions have a long history, but the immediate controversy around homosexuality has been driven by the dissidents in this country. The deeper causes have to do with the wealth and power of The United States and the disregard in the past for the voices from the developing world …[/blockquote]
[blockquote]
ENY: I’d like to follow up on what you said about the dissidents driving the agenda. What’s that about?
Bishop Roskam: Opposition to the ordination of gay and lesbian people and the blessing of same sex partnerships is only the most recent chapter in the dissatisfaction of the dissidents. It began more than 30 years ago with the ordination of women. That is when the primates began meeting regularly. … [/blockquote]
[blockquote]
ENY: How much is cultural?
Bishop Roskam: Alot. The preoccupation with male homosexuality has to do with issues of maleness. So many parts of the Communion have no experience of Christian gays and lesbians in committed relationships. It’s too dangerous for gay and lesbian people to come out. In some countries they can be jailed or even executed. The undergirding issue is patriarchy, and also clericalism. … [/blockquote]
Of even greater interest is the comments by the reporter who first reported the good Bishop in, it must be remembered, the [i] Lambeth Witness [/i] ie it was in the newspaper put together by the liberal side and distributed by Changing Attitudes and other such groups:
[blockquote]
As the reporter who first picked up on what Bishop Roskam had said, I would like to challenge this idea that I misrepresented her.
She did not, contrary to what she now claims on her blog, just talk about domestic violence existing in the world generally or specifically in New York.
She quite clearly stated that among the 700 men present at the Lambeth Conference, “chances are” that some of them beat their wives.
I would say that unless she has any evidence, this in itself is a fairly offensive claim to make about a group of church leaders.
She then went on to claim that “many of our bishops come from places where it is culturally accepted to beat your wife”.
In another quote from the Lambeth Witness story, much of which was about Sudan, she talked about violence being used “as an act of war”.
Where exactly do you think she is talking about? If she just meant New York then I’d be happy to correct the story to say: ‘American bishop calls fellow clergy wife-beaters’.
However I do not believe she meant New York and apart from what she has said on her blog, at no point in the past week have Bishop Roskam or anyone in the Episcopal Church asked me to correct my story or suggested there was anything wrong with it.
[/blockquote]
Martin Beckford on here (about halfway down):
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/003362.html
Well done, MargaretG, locating that comment. It is obscured in that blog thread, and it’s not getting much airtime, is it. Three comments later another person, though critical of Beckford’s reporting, nonetheless confirms that Roskam indeed said ‘chances are’. What a gracious conversation opener: “Chances are, someone among you bishops beats his wife”! She wasn’t inclusive enough to suggest someone beats their spouse or partner, I notice, therefore restricting the possibility of accusation to married men present.
What particularly distressed me about this episode as reported from Lambeth was the number of male, mainly African bishops who were quoted immediately following, denying that they as individuals were culpable of this. How humiliating – none of them should ever have been put in such a position!
Recall that in ’88 or ’98, Barbara Harris is said to have remarked at the Lambeth, “If a$$holes could fly, this place’d be an airport.” Such disgusting crudeness. Roskam’s remark stands, I suggest, in that fine tradition.
Words Matter, #1, assistant/suffragan bishops attended from all over the world so long as they had diocesan responsibilities, that is, they do what diocesan bishops do, working with parishes.
What I want to know is why someone like Bishop Epting, who works out of the TEC national offices, was there. He has no current diocesan assignment.
Thank you, Katherine. I thought it was just diocesans. I would say, then, that CAPA and AMiA bishops, having responsibilities for parishes in Communion with Anglican primates, could have been invited, no?
#11 – the argument given by Rowan and his folks when Gene Robinson adn the CANA and AMiA bishops were all left off of the invitation list (as well as the Bishop of Recife and the Bishop of Harare) was that those bishops who had caused division in the Church were not being invited. At the time the answer seemed flimsy (obviously lots of other bishops have been the cause of division – those who ordained G. Robinson, those who approved, the Bishop of New Westminster, the bishops of Brazil who deposed the Bishop of Recife, etc – but were still invited). The argument still seems flimsy.
A detail to point out from +Roskam in #7: apparently those of us who stand for 2000 years of Christian tradition are now “dissidents.” A new way of being dismissed, or “dissed”? I suppose this particular term has used in this way for awhile, and I am just beginning to notice it.
Good question Number One: I think that Suffragan bishops were first invited to Lambeth in 1998 so that the distinguished women Bishops within the Communion could be seen and heard. This was, naturally, American pressure for the innovation. And otherwise, since very few were actually Diocesans, it would not have had the same impact. It would have cost less and been more effective to return to the older polity of just Diocesans for 2008, but we live in innovating times. 🙁
One really must wonder if +Roskam is an advertisement for the level of stupidity one must have with regard to statistics and materiel and insouciance to become a bishop in certain states or the HOB? A better exemplar could scarcely be found.
[i]She then went on to claim that “many of our bishops come from places where it is culturally accepted to beat your wifeâ€. [/i]
In that case, shouldn’t we follow the lead of TEC in adopting accepted cultural norms, such as “committed SS relationships” and approve spouse beating? Maybe even develop a rite for couples who practice this?
{/sarcasm}
Jim Elliott <><