Colin Coward has penned four notes to correct various claims made by Anglican Mainstream recently.
Misapprehensions by Anglican Mainstream – 1
On August 17th, 2011 Dr Philip Giddings, Convenor of Anglican Mainstream, responded to the open letter from Rev Benny Hazlehurst (writing on behalf of the LGBT Anglican Coalition) about conversations with the two groups of bishops appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, one broadly conservative, the other broadly liberal.
The first issue I want to address is whether or not the broadly liberal group, then convened by John Saxbee, Bishop of Lincoln and now by Peter Price, Bishop of Bath and Wells, had engaged in conversations with Changing Attitude or any of the other LGBT groups…
Misapprehensions by Anglican Mainstream – 2: What happened at Lambeth 1998
Misapprehensions by Anglican Mainstream – 3: The Listening Process
Misapprehensions by Anglican Mainstream 4: The Listening Process will change the Church
Section three is where the meat of the issue is and I’d welcome comment on the “via media” I put across in response to Colin there.
I’m sorry, have I missed something? I just don’t see why this is important. Whether or not ‘Anglican Mainstream’ is trying to rewrite history the fact is that GLTB people have quite a lot to say to the church for everyone to hear and maybe rather more than ‘Anglican Mainstream’ and Mr Ould would like will actually listen.
“I fear that Anglican Mainstream and other Anglican bodies want to rewrite history and deny the experience of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, make us non-persons in the Church.”
Where the rubber meets the road. Lord have mercy!
Anglican Mainstream is anything but mainstream but their hubris in choosing that name is consistent with the conservative tendency to rewrite history and obfuscate by using looking-glass like names for operations. Giddings is clearly shown to be badly mistaken, if not an outright liar, by Coward, yet the Anglican tendency (at least on the more liberal side) to appear nice will prevent that from being said openly. And in the end it matters little since Lambeth 1:10 is not doctrine nor law and has little bearing on anything 13 years after the fact, despite the ugly machinations of the conservative… Read more »
Richard says “I’m sorry, have I missed something? I just don’t see why this is important”. I think it is important. Conservative groups like Anglican Mainstream do not want to participate in the listening process, as they already know the answer and don’t need to listen. But such groups also place great emphasis on Lambeth 1.10 as being a hugely authoritative statement (because it give them a statement about homosexuality they like). So if it can be demonstrated that the listening process is a direct response to, and authorised by, Lambeth 1.10, then it would place some form of obligation… Read more »
Anglican Mainstream and other right wing religious organizations not only want to devalue the glbt communities by their homophobia and hatred, they also want to disenfranchise the glbt communities from the Churches. It is particularly disturbing that the Archbishop of Canterbury is NOT showing that he has a spine by standing up to the Fundamentalist elements in the Anglican World. He seems to be accommodating them in every way while he has turned his back on the glbt communities both inside and outside the Church.
There are three reasons why it’s important, Richard. First, the letter was signed by Philip Giddings, Convenor of Anglican Mainstream. Philip is Lay Chair of General Synod and Canon Chris Sugden, Executive Secretary of Anglican Mainstream, is a member of General Synod. They are both influential on Synod and with the hierarchy of the Church of England. It worries me that Dr Giddings presents in his letter a version of history in relation to Lambeth 1.10 and the Listening Process that is either ignorant of the facts or a deliberate rewriting of history. He above all, and in connection with… Read more »
Peter Ould Surely in Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10, parts (c) and (f) should be read in the light of part (a). Overall, this resolution follows 1978 Resolution 10 and 1988 Resolution 64. It is not only Lambeth Conferences which have emphasised the need for deepening understanding of complex issues of human sexuality across the Communion, of which study and dialogue involving listening are a part. For instance Resolution 39 of the Anglican Consultative Council 2005 noted ‘the recommendations of the Anglican Peace and Justice Network on Theological Education set out at paragraphs G, H, I, J and K of its… Read more »
‘Mainstream’ devotees obviously have not understood the biblical injunction: “He who has ears to hear, let him hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church”. But then, selective interpretation of the Bible, for ‘Mainstream’, may be more important than the implementation of justice in the Church.
I’ve long thought that ‘Slipstream’ might be a more apt title for this sodality.
So if it can be demonstrated that the listening process is a direct response to, and authorised by, Lambeth 1.10, then it would place some form of obligation on those conservative groups to a) participate in the listening process and b) take account of the outcomes.
Perfect summary Simon.
Thanks, Simon and Colin, that’s helpful. I suppose that the other question is: why now? Since ‘listening’ has been offical policy since 1998 one might ask why ‘Anglican Mainstream’ has suddenly decided that it doesn’t mean what most of us thought it meant. Is the answer that with the recent establishment by the Bishops of the two groups, there is now an official mechanism for ‘listening’ and that there is a possibility that the process might actually lead to some change in the offical position? It is therefore necessary to undermine the basis of these groups at this early stage… Read more »
‘Angican Mainstream’ has no authority.
Why do they seem to imply otherwise.
I am glad to see that Peter Ould has accepted the listening process, in his post here.
Not only did Lambeth 1.10 call for listening to gay folk, it actually a matter of common decency.
Peter Ould, It doesn’t need to be demonstrated that the listening process is a direct response to, and authorised by, Lambeth 1.10, and this places an obligation on conservative groups to a) participate in the listening process and b) take account of the outcomes. That has been the position of the Anglican Communion since 1998 and it is only groups like Anglican Mainstream that 13 years later are still trying to deny reality. Richard Ashby, maybe it is that the setting up of the two groups has convinced Anglican Mainstream that a change in the official position is now possible.… Read more »
Thinking Anglicans might be interested to learn that, at their very recent Synod Meetings, two New Zealand Dioceses, Auckland and Waiapu, have given evidence of their ‘LISTENING’ to the LGBT people in their dioceses. The outcome of this is that both dioceses have accepted the fact that LGBTs are entitled to be part of the Church, and that this should not prevent them from being considered for the process of discernment for ordination. Further, the Waiapu Diocese has asked our Church (ACANZP) to approve a form of Same-Sex Blessings. I am proud to be a part of the Anglican Church… Read more »