Telegraph George Pitcher Anglicans struggle to find a safe place for sex
Times Ruth Gledhill’s blog Lambeth Diary: ‘Pastoral Forum’ proposed
The Bishop of New Westminster, Michael Ingham and the Bishop of Mississippi, Duncan Gray gave statements to the WCG hearing. Both can be read by scrolling down at this page.
ENS has video of last night’s news conference about the document, here.
Integrity issued a press release, LGBT Anglicans Back on Chopping Block
The Inclusive Communion response is available as a PDF here.
Could it be that the Battle of the Bishops is caused not by one openly gay bishop but the absence of any more? The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality contains one gem which seems to support his theory, in a section of the chapter on “The Witness of Science” which asks: “What evolutionary rationales might account for homosexuality?”. One reason given is:
“Although homosexuals may have few children, their empathic and nurturing qualities may promote cohesion among family or clan groups”.
Bishop Ingham nails it. And Bishop Gray’s comments show up the border-crossers for what they are. There is nothing remotely principle about their incursions. They are raiding and poaching, pure and simply.
Well in the two bishops varied statements, I do hear the familiar TEC witness. Alas, in the WCG groups recommendations that we must immediately sacrifice all queer folks as citizens, not even regretfully and reluctantly, but with enormous chutzpah, courage, gusto, and all the glittering good will that spin and modern media savvy public relations packaging will muster for us as Anglicans drawing up a new deal for policing and punishment – well this reveals, but it does not mainly reveal what the group no doubt dearly and fervently wishes it did reveal. The real revelation, heard like those previous… Read more »
Has anyone else thought this strange, that the other really important sexual conundrum that might have caused even more of a division within the Church – that of Divorce and Re-Marriage – did little more than ruffle a few hetero-sexual feathers with the hierarchy of the Church? There are not only clergy but bishops of the Church who are divorced and remarried – without losing their jobs or pensions, or the right to minister. (And, one might say, with the right to criticise those in faithful monogamous same-sex relationships). Why is it that these bilically-unsanctioned hetero-sexual relationships did not come… Read more »
“Has anyone else thought this strange, that the other really important sexual conundrum that might have caused even more of a division within the Church – that of Divorce and Re-Marriage – did little more than ruffle a few hetero-sexual feathers with the hierarchy of the Church?” Not at all, and the reason why is obvious: these “heterosexual” bishops (because can we really say they all are?) are married themselves, and may one day need to avail of the right to divorce and remarriage. God forbid THEY should be required to be celebate all their lives. God doesn’t want one… Read more »
Ford
“Even if they would define such remarriage as immoral, they obviously think heterosexual immorality is less significant than homosexual immorality”
I think you haven’t quite understood it yet.
Heterosexual immorality is bad, but at least we acknowledge it to be a sin while we commit it. And once we’ve divorced and repented we’re free to move on.
Homosexual immorality is realy really bad because the libruls are trying to justify it and claim that it’s not a sin.
Frankly, I read with utter incredulity the comments of the Bishop of Mississippi. I was born and raised in that state, and, in fact, I was confirmed by his grandfather 51 years ago. And as far as I am concerned, I do not believe for a moment that most Episcopalians, then or now, living in that state ever thought of themselves as Evangelicals. In fact, up until relatively recent times, most Episcopalians–at least on this side of the pond–had no idea that there were Anglican churchmen calling themselves Evangelical. Low Church, yes, no doubt, but NOT Evangelical. No mainstream Episcopalians… Read more »
On bp Ingham, The bishop still does not get it. He presumed within the ACC to flout the standards of the communion for years. Now he acts as if there is no place for reflection on how the communion can stay together (as in Windsor). It is all a little like a household with spoiled children (they decide when and what to eat when or if to go to bed etc). A household without regard for and the presence of order becomes impossible, without appropriate consequences we may simply expect power plays and conflict that ends in chaos. The question… Read more »
Who has a Veto on “good order”?
Power play – mentioned by Ben W, usually means patriarchal power play. Women and Gays don’t usually have the muscle for it.
Patriarchy has had it’s day. God made just as many women as men – and the human sexual continuum made sure that there were varieties of sexuality more complex than simply male/female.
The question is, what does the Church do about it?