Updated Thursday evening
Today, the Bishop of Winchester has published a lengthy article, The Lambeth Conference 2008 – and the future of the Anglican Communion A Report to the Diocese of Winchester although I cannot at present find it on the Winchester diocesan website, but only on the Global South Anglican website, and, in part, on the Anglican Mainstream website.
Anyway you can read it all here.
Update
Jonathan Wynne-Jones has written about this letter, see Senior bishop predicts Anglican battle ahead.
Of course, from a liberal perspective, I think this man is not very wise. But I think that, if anyone, of whatever persuasion, counts up the first-person singulars, he or she will be dismayed by the egocentricity of the perspective.
Remember, this Bishop of Winchester, who is so unyieldingly unrealistic and unpastoral in his attitude to his gay fellow-Anglicans (“we graciously allow you to attend our churches and put money in the plate, but don’t for a minute think we approve of you in any way”); this is the same Bishop of Winchester who expended so much energy arguing that the C of E really had to be more pastoral in its attitude to straight people’s unbiblical relationships, and relax its traditional prohibition on the remarriage of divorcees in church.
From Roffen’s Global South Anglican article: “… over and over again participants were encouraged to think especially of their “context” – with the tacit but clear impression that “context” could indeed, as some insist, powerfully influence Christian teaching; and that a world-wide family of Churches could continue with radically different teaching on the content of the Holy Life in different parts of the world, even when all are in communication in seconds through the Web.” What does this really mean? That communication in Communion is not our context?? That we shouldn’t let either communication or Communion influence us??? “There was… Read more »
This looks like an error: By the second full week of the Conference I and many other bishops had come to the view that the programme as a whole was designed to ensure that the Conference should not seek to offer any clear guidance or teaching on any issue, because of the potentially divisive effects of our starting upon the plenary debates, and the voting, which alone would enable the Conference to articulate a particular view comparable to that of “Lambeth 2008”. Surely it should say Lambeth 1998 It is a pessimistic piece, narrow and dogmatic (as expected), probably realistic… Read more »
“There was little if any sense that the Conference was bound by Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference…”
That would be, my lord bishop, because it was not.
Unfortunately, the Bishop of Winchester seeks to present his views only on the global South web-site – to people with whom he is most in sympathy. Why is he not propounding them on his own Diocesan web-site? His desire to split the Church is sadly counter-productive to the desire of the ABC towards some sort of plan of careful reconciliation. Winchester’s arguments can be directly linked to his determination to support the status quo on the Statement made at Lambeth 1998 – which resulted in the obnoxious reference to homosexuality as being ‘disordered’ and not consistent with the teaching of… Read more »
Yes alas, Bishop Scott-Joynt is still heir to the exclusive heterosexuals only faith – all the rest may visit, indeed visit each and every Sunday if they have the masochism to do so, but they must know – and know deeply in the fibers of their poor, unstraight beings – that they are less than, second class and one presumes, must be ready to behave in a properly subservient and pseudo-neo-kenotic manner especially when face to face in some parish life moment with their exclusively heterosexual betters. Anybody who thihks otherwise, for whatever reasons, is just – well – carried… Read more »
Not sure I agree he is trying to ‘split the church’ as implied above. He seems to simply be projecting where the current divisions will take us. TEC is leading an agenda that is apart from the church’s accepted teaching. Either the rest of the church goes along, or it does not. If it does not, it is TEC that has initited the split.
A TEC diocese in Texas seems to think their future is not within Anglicanism at all:
http://wildernessgarden.blogspot.com/2008/08/so-how-do-you-feel-about-being-roman.html#link
The poor darling was clearly out of his depth without an adversarial way of discussing things. Sounds like the moanings of one who was operating at a disadvantage, or attending the wrong event. Doesn’t he realise that if he’d wanted plenary sessions and the chance to get down and synodical he should have gone to GAFCON……..?
Folks – it’s time, a la Gandhi, to seek a truly post – colonial dispensation in these matters. Let Abp. Orombi et al therefore be hoist by their own petard. They can have their post-colonial cake and eat it, if only that we strive not to feel the need to live off the crumbs from their table. If we do have to labour under such terms, let us at least replace Indaba with Swaraj: Indaba: is an important conference held by the izinDuna (principal men) Swaraj: can mean generally self-governance or “home-rule” (swa- “self”, raj- “rule”) but the word usually… Read more »
It’s difficult to know how to describe the Bishop of Winchester – dishonest? naive? He is a member of the House of Bishops of the Church of England. Other bishops in dioceses adjacent to him support their LGBT clergy (some of them Deans and Canons in Cathedrals). Some bishops have attended the Civil Partnership ceremonies of their clergy. He has lesbian and gay clergy in his diocese. Some of them are partnered. Either the Bishop of Winchester knows this and he is dishonest or he doesn’t know and he’s naive. Since Lambeth I have been trying to understand the Church… Read more »
The efflorescence of gay couples on every side these days is a vast threshold in gay culture and in our civilization generally. The churches should be appreciating this instead of agonizing within a cocoon of self-obsession. “Though the Conference was not, as I expressed my fears to the Diocesan Synod, “engulfed in, taken over by, the profound disagreements that exist among us around the legitimacy for Christians of same-sex sexual behaviour”, I found that these were never far below the surface, indeed that they were explicit, in every Bible Study and every meeting of the “indaba” of which I was… Read more »
Yesterday I read both Bishop Scott-Joynt’s reflection on Lambeth and my own bishop’s reflection. I am left wondering whether they were at the same conference. The one I believe is the message from my own bishop: it says very similar things to what I have read elsewhere, from both English and other bishops. It doesn’t pretend that all was sweetness and light. It doesn’t pretend that the sexuality issues were ever very far from the surface. But it does rejoice in new understandings of people which were arrived at, and new relationships made. It does express deep regret at the… Read more »
“Not sure I agree he is trying to ‘split the church’ as implied above. He seems to simply be projecting where the current divisions will take us. TEC is leading an agenda that is apart from the church’s accepted teaching. Either the rest of the church goes along, or it does not. If it does not, it is TEC that has initited the split.” So, lay presidency does not initiate a split. The real presence (or not) does not initiate a split. Veneration of the BVM and intercession of the saints does not initiate a split. But what one single… Read more »
Goran wrote at 8.29 pm 11 August:
“From Roffen’s Global South Anglican article:”
Small correction here (wouldn’t want you to be accused of putting words into +Michael Roffen’s mouth) – the article is by +Michael Winton – Michael Scott-Joynt, Bishop of Winchester.
Winchester’s very poor reflections and Durham’s inability to keep his mouth shut make Rochester’s silent boycott look like an act of positive support for Rowan Wiliams’ Lambeth
“Small correction here (wouldn’t want you to be accused of putting words into +Michael Roffen’s mouth) – the article is by +Michael Winton – Michael Scott-Joynt, Bishop of Winchester.”
Sorry about that, I was heading for bed (we are an hour before you) and probably mixed up the “chester” as well (as bad)…
“it is TEC that has initited the split.” – Posted by harvardman
This canard is getting very tired, harvardman (Do they teach “Anglican History & Polity” at Harvard Divinity? Pity you didn’t take it…)
“TEC is leading an agenda that is apart from the church’s accepted teaching.”
Um, see, much of what is preached by those on the conservative side goes against the “church’s accepted teaching”, yet there is no accusation that, say, Sydney has “initiated” a split. Why is that?
True, Ford. So called “lay presidency” represents a far greater break from Anglican doctrine and practice than anything going on in Gene Robinson’s bedroom, but everyone just looks the other way.
But lay presidency doesn’t make those who are insecure about their masculinity say “eeeewwww!”
Well, if people see nothing wrong with redefining the Trinity to keep a collar off a woman’s neck, their understanding of what it means to be “orthodox” is a bit warped. What can you expect in that instance?
MS-J’s family has divorce in it like most, and it has to be acknowledged and lived with. Perhaps those who have had a son or daughter with homosexual inclinations can better understand the issues than those without. refusing to be exposed to this seems to be part and parcel of the necessary human element in this ethical issue.
You know, Andy, I appreciate what you’re saying, even agree with it, especially the bit about refusing to be exposed to things. But, after all this arguing and bitterness and hatred that is denied as such, I’m really sorry, but I just can’t feel anything warm about someone who considers what I am to be an “inclination” much less an ethical issue. I am gay. That’s what I am, not something I am inclined to, and while what I do with that sexuality may well have an ethical component, what I am, my “isness”, is not an ethical issue. I… Read more »
Ford,
Thank you!
I add to that that I’m also not exhibiting behaviour or chosing a life style.
Erika, what if we all started talking about how conservatives have an “inclination” to conservativism that they could fight if they wanted to? It’d be a lot more factual. Or how 90% of the population has “heterosexual inclinations”? It also amuses me that people who insist on adherence to the Mosaic Law in “moral” issues denounce the “gay lifestyle”. After all, depending on the religion, believers are required to eat certain foods, to celebrate, grieve, fast and feast at specific times, dress in a particular fashion, not use certain language. The practice of any religion is a conscious choice to… Read more »
Ford I’m convinced the “inclinations” tag came originally from at least partly bisexual people who genuinely have a choice. Combined with a strong moral aversion to same sex love they could easily experience a desire for a person of the same sex to be an inclination outside their normative experience. And maybe if you see sexuality purely in terms of sex (how often to we use the terms synonymously!) you begin to talk about “behaviours”. From then it’s only a short step to “choosing a lifestyle”, forgetting that straights and gays can both chose a variety of lifestyles which can… Read more »
“I’m convinced the “inclinations” tag came originally from at least partly bisexual people who genuinely have a choice.” I’m afraid I can’t be that Christian about it, Erika. For some, you are probably right. Yet I think that for many, this idea of “gay incinations” comes originally from people who are gay, but hiding it. They know they have “inclincations” but can’t face it, so they hide in a marriage, genuinely loving their spouses, and perhaps wracked with guilt that they can’t escape these “temptations”, wondering why God won’t just make them straight, since surely they pray for that as… Read more »