Later you issued a statement saying that if homosexuals want to be received in the life of the Church, they will have to change their behavior. I found that statement incredible. If you mean they have to change from being homosexual then you are obviously not informed about homosexuality. It is not a choice or a sin, anymore than being left handed, or male or female, or black or even transgender is a choice or a sin. All of us simply awaken to these aspects of our identity. That truth is so elementary and so well documented that only prejudiced eyes can fail to recognize it. No one in intellectual circles today still gives that point of view credibility..
Next you declined to invite Gene Robinson to the Lambeth Conference of 2008. All of the closeted homosexual bishops are invited, the honest one is not invited. I can name the gay bishops who have, during my active career. served in both the Episcopal Church and in the Church of England? I bet you can too. Are you suggesting that dishonesty is a virtue?
You continue to act as if quoting the Bible to undergird a dying prejudice is a legitimate tactic. It is in fact the last resort that religious people always use to validate “tradition” over change. The Bible was quoted to support the Divine Right of Kings in 1215, to oppose Galileo in the 17th century, to oppose Darwin in the 19th century, to support slavery and apartheid in the 19th and 20th centuries, to keep women from being educated, voting and being ordained in the 20th and 21st century. Today it is quoted to continue the oppression and rejection of homosexual people. The Bible has lost each of those battles. It will lose the present battle and you, my friend, will end up on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of morality and the wrong side of truth. It is a genuine tragedy that you, the most intellectually-gifted Archbishop of Canterbury in almost a century, have become so miserable a failure in so short a period of time.
You were appointed to lead, Rowan, not to capitulate to the hysterical anger of those who are locked in the past. For the sake of God and this Church, the time has come for you to do so. I hope you still have that capability.
There is something positively surreal about +JSS passionately invoking the name of God about, well, anything.
Good lord. We can start with the untruth that homosexuality is undeniably genetic. In fact, the genetic hardwiring theory has never had one credible scientific story supporting it, and mounds of evidence against it. I personally know of people who have said that they choose a homosexual lifestyle. Still others are obviously bisexual in some form or fashion (Gene Robinson, Jim McGreavey, Larry Craig being public examples of men who fathered children and later took up the gay lifestyle) but perhaps at the subconscious level (or perhaps secretly conscious) drifted towards homosexuality. You can’t call that genetically hardwired one way.
Then you have the undeniable example of casual homosexuality all throughout history, such as in the Greek and Roman military, baths, and cults. It is simply not accurate to say or imply that homosexuality comes in one form–genetic hardwiring. In fact, a great deal of evidence is otherwise.
There are even obvious explanations for those who are purely homosexual–that their heterosexual side for some reason got snuffed out or otherwise did not get well nurtured and died on the vine early. I personally know someone for whom that is the likely explanation, and most of us probably do, as well. That’s part of the whole point of a Church fostering an environment that grows and nurtures heterosexuality as preferable.
He knows it, and yet he writes the above. His intellectual dishonesty is manifest. This is a man who has essentially no willingness to engage in the listening process.
“Credible scientific story” should be “credible scientific study.” Point being, even those few from 15-20 years ago that suggested some predisposition have been since either thoroughly discredited or at least the major methodological shortcomings well documented, and there are plenty of studies that suggest essentially no consistent or plausible genetic causal factor (even partial). Even the most pro-genetic hardwiring theory study only posited something in the order of a 25% causal factor (i.e., perhaps some genetic predisposition as with alcoholism but none that is hard-wired like skin color).
The skin color analogy is what is intellectually dishonest on its face.
“It is a genuine tragedy that you, the most intellectually-gifted Archbishop of Canterbury in almost a century, have become so miserable a failure in so short a period of time.” JSS
That may be a statement that many on both sides of the debate may agree on.
Boilerplate from Spong, he caricatures those who disagree with him unfairly.
Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.
A very encouraging letter by Bishop Spong. With enemies like this, things must be looking up! ; > )
Re:#4
George,
You wrote…
[blockquote] That may be a statement that many on both sides of the debate may agree on.[/blockquote]
That is an extremely insightful and sadly accurate observation.
#4, George Gray writes,
[blockquote] “It is a genuine tragedy that you, the most intellectually-gifted Archbishop of Canterbury in almost a century, have become so miserable a failure in so short a period of time.†JSS
That may be a statement that many on both sides of the debate may agree on. [/blockquote]
No, I don’t think so. I may disagree with how he’s handled things, but I appreciate what a difficult situation TEC has put him in. They seem bound and determine to tear the Communion to pieces. Rowan is trying hard to save the Communion and to restore the wayward flock which is the American [strike] church[/strike] denomination.
I “read it all” and I found it really sad. Three things seem particularly sad:
First, when the former bishop of Newark tells the Archbishop of Canterbury, “…you, my friend, will end up on the wrong side of history, …”, it reminds me of nothing so much as Trotsky telling those walking out of the congress of Soviets in October, 1917, to join “the rubbish heap of history.”
Those were certainly ironic words in Trotsky’s case. The Episcopal Cafe introduction to the former bishop of Newark’s letter and the sound pack baying at his heels in the comments following suggest that the former bishop of Newark should probably start thinking about his own place in history.
Second, the silly introduction by the employee of the diocese of Washington and the crowd howling for the former bishop of Newark’s head on a pike, seem to assume that the Rowan Williams is so weak minded that this letter will somehow affect his judgement at the New Orleans event.
Perhaps what is saddest is the utter lack of loyalty or even simple feeling for the former bishop of Newark who has done so much of the heavy lifting, or at least carrying the banner, for those who are now so appalled at his letter. It should be a warning to anyone who cause is taken up by the likes of the employees of the diocese of Washington.
Father Dean A. Einerson
Rhinelander, Wisconsin
“It is a genuine tragedy that you, the most intellectually-gifted Archbishop of Canterbury in almost a century, have become so miserable a failure in so short a period of time†—Spong
It is a genuine tragedy that Spong, bitter and willfully ignorant, has held such undeserved prominence for so long.
JSS is an embarrassment to all Christianity, let alone TEC. His demonstrated hostility to orthodoxy makes me wonder why he doesn’t trade his purple shirt for a checked sport coat, and sell used Edsels. ++Cantuar once characterized JSS’s theology as being like something from a clever fifth former. Perhaps JSS is merely demonstrating his rancor toward ++Rowan. Spong’s intellectual dishonesty is exceeded only by his intellectual vacuity. Tch!
And back to the core issue … It is fairly safe to say that most males are born with an orientation towards promiscuity. Are we, in the name of diversity, to affirm that orientation and do our best to live it out?
Or are we, in the name of Christ, and through the power of the Holy Spirit, to overcome and “suppress” that orientation to live in the delightful one-ness of marriage between one man and one woman?
Scripture is not “nuanced” about fornication. Shall we then live out our baser orientations in the name of “self-fulfillment?” Shall we demand affirmation (from the church) for that desire to fornicate or live into adultery? I doubt it.
No, even the former Presiding Bishop of ECUSA admitted in so many words that had Gene Robinson done what he did with a [i]woman[/i] he would not have made it past the secretary’s cut on the candidate list.
Thus, in the name of cultural ‘relevance,’ ‘inclusion,’ and ‘diversity’ the Episcopal church has, as an institution, chosen to blaspheme the Holy Spirit (because in their view He cannot change homosexuals because the “can’t change”). At the same time they not only accede to the demand “If you love me, you’ll let me do what I want” — which is the mental model of a three-year-old — but the make the very same demand of the Anglican Communion as a whole.
Very sad. Very lost.
I am a fan of the Archbishop and anyone who is publicly sponged. Rowan must be doing something right to be the object of Spong’s rage, not that it takes much to enrage the man. Along with Louie Crew, this man has done the most to shape the consciousness of TEC. Another example why TEC is dangerous and should be institutionally contained asap.
The extremes on both sides – Akinola and Spong – don’t help either side.
Spong apparently has an Islamic view of science along with his aberrant views on church history and theology, recent and remote. Credibility, however, is not a virtue he is in possession of in these matters.
Somebody needed to write this letter. Good job!!
I agree with Fred – John Shelby Spong has done the Church a great service by writing this letter.
Of course, I believe that the letter will only help the reasserters and help those in the middle to remember that JSS is where people who decide that scripture is not the rule (=canon) of faith in the Church.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
My initial thought was that JSS had provided the orthodox a great gift in his letter, as surely the ABC would not wish to be seen as siding with Spong. But the danger to the orthodox is that Spong is so easily dismissed, and so plainly “out there,” that he almost makes the HOB appear moderate by comparison. So the Spongs almost enable the ABC to claim the HOB as the middle ground. So I think this is great entertainment, but I’d not be too thrilled about it. Spong may not win this argument, but those who think just as he does–but are just more politic–might just prevail yet.
I may be mistaken, but I don’t think the Magna Carta mentions the “Divine Right of Kings,” but only that the king was king by the grace of God.
Near as I know (and again, I may be wrong) the phrase “D.R. of Kings” doesn’t show up until 1609 in the eponymous speech by James I.
It is amazing how an intellectual who claims to be so “with it” can be so backward when it comes to being aware of the exploding of so many fraudulent claims that homosexuality is somehow genetic or engrained in one’s being.
Even if such were the case it wouldn’t justify or condone behaviour traditionally considered a sin and clearly detrimental to society and the individual indulging in homosexual sex.i. Supposedly there is a gene that makes men more prone to violence than women are. According, then, to justifiers of homosexual activity, men should get a “pass” if they indulge in violent behaviour.
With a lot of time on his hands, this man struggles to
somehow remain relevant.
Somehow – and I hope I don’t sound too flip – I can’t help imagining that the archbishop will be more amused by this letter than indignant. As to its impact on what the ABP will do or say while in the U.S., I’d estimate that at nil, either way.
If I was Rowan…
Dear +Jack,
Thank you for your letter. Please, however, do not confuse the right to be heard with the right to be heeded.
++Rowan
The bad man seems nervous.
There is an article in “Mother Jones” this week questioning what will happen to the GLBT rights movement if scientific justification for this particular set of behaviors proves to be inadequate or inaccurate. And that is not exactly a conservative rag!
Randall
Spong, [i] my friend [/i] , you are one pompous & condescending laughing-stock.
“It is fairly safe to safe that most males are born with an orientation toward promiscuity.” OH-oh. Is there something wrong with this? You mean I’m NOT supposed to? LM
Conming soon by J S Spong
How not to win friends and influence people…
Mercy, people, how can you let yourselves get all stiff and sniffy over anything this man says? He is without integrity and without repute. Let him be for heaven’s sake; if you get any closer you will get his fleas. Larry
The best way to handle trolls is to ignore them.
Unfortunately John Spong reminds me of Hugo Chavez–he has to make enemies to keep his voice heard.
Laocoon, you are correct. The “Divine Right of Kings” is a Renaissance not a medieval concept. One of the things that deeply annoys me about Spong’s writings is his carelessness with historical fact.
Were I +++Rowan, I would simply acknowledge his letter and thank him for his imput. No need to be anything but correct.
“Somehow…I can’t help imagining that the archbishop will be more amused by this letter than indignant” —Sherri
Sort of like being bitten by a clothes moth.
“The extremes on both sides – Akinola and Spong – don’t help either side.” 15# Mark Johnson
I disagree.
Spong is beyond extreme. His “side” is something “other,” and thus, beyond the teachings of the Church catholic.
Akinola is not extreme. He calls the AC to be true in thought, word, and deed to the teachings of the Church catholic. That is not extreme within Christian faith and practice.
#35
Hear, hear.
This is trivial, of course, but may I put in a word on behalf of southpaws against my condition being used as an argument for homosexual behavior? All of us born with hands MUST reach for things to live. I have to feed myself, wash, open doors, and so on. I do use my left hand for the most part and I appreciate society’s new understanding that my use of my left hand is not satanic. Recent research indicates it is only partly genetic. As I understand it, I lack a gene which most of you right-handers have. People lacking the gene become left-handed only sometimes, and the causes of that are unclear.
However, we don’t HAVE TO have sex. This is an interest that almost all people have but one which God calls us to exercise only in the context of marriage as traditionally defined across all cultures and in all times — man and woman. Comparing this basic design of human nature to which hand I use to reach for my toothbrush is just silly.
The one significant problem with this letter is that if Williams ends up taking the 1/4 loaf that TEC might give him in a few weeks and doesn’t revoke the invitations, Spong & co. will claim victory and say that he agrees with them. This letter is written as much to TEC liberals and is political spin control as it is an attempt at persuading Williams.
Ah, is Jack running around being a moderately intelligent sixth former again?
Yawn.
The only real news here is that, of course, the Left is not even mentioning him, let alone repudiating him. In spite of the fact that his opinions imply dire & detrimental consequences for Christian Africans for being associated by violent Muslims as being in the same organization. But who cares if a couple thousand Africans get slaughtered, huh? After all, as Jack screamed loudly at Lambeth ’98, they are merely a bunch of “animals.”
Ye old Leftist double standard, alive and well. Interesting.
“Is Jack running around being a moderately intelligent sixth former again?” —MJD_NV
Objection, your honor: By including “again,” the question assumes a fact not in evidence.
Begging your pardon sir – I was just paraphrasing the ABC in his 1998 condemnation of Jack. That was, however, merely Rowan’s opinion. 😉
The thing that makes no sense is Spong’s appeal to the cultural intellectualism as the norm for Christianity. For even if it were true, which clearly it isn’t (e.g. St. Augustine’s rejection of prevailing high culture), it would not include men like himself. Indeed, honest scholars with real PhD’s don’t come down anywhere near Spong’s take on just about anything. I mean, what group of intellectuals does he have in mind –N.T. Wright or Raymond Brown or the present Pope? These men have honest credentials and standing. Spong acts as if the world’s intellectuals are a block in agreement with him. Nonsense. He panders to the untrained and indulges their prejudices. Nothing but pure sophistry.
Note the following contrast.
Dear Rowan,
John Shelby Spong, 8th Bishop of Newark, Retired
Perhaps Spong is having an episode.
What a sad spectacle! Spong’s letter reminds me of Richard Holloway’s apparent departure from Christianity for a secular despair. He and Spong simply can’t get over the Anglican Communion’s firm resolve to teach the Christian Faith, as was made clear at Lambeth ’98, Windsor, the Primate’s Communiqué, etc. Like a blind bulldog, they seem determined to hold on with their last breath to a secular, weather-vane-pointing “gospel†that is repudiated by authentic scholarship from the likes of N.T. Wright, and many others. Spong’s bile-filled missive is a dying gasp of an invincible ignorance of a lesser faith destined soon for the trash heap of history. Authentic Christianity has left these errant bishops behind, and so TEC, I fear. It’s enough to make Arius blush with envy.