Ruth Gledhill wrote in The Times about Archbishop criticises anti-gay clergy.
Ruth also appeared on the BBC Sunday radio programme. Link to audio here, and transcript here.
The South African branch of Anglican Mainstream expressed its opinions here. Greg Venables also had an opinion. So did Church Society.
Once again we see the insistence that resolutions from Lambeth 1998 are considered binding — an astonishing innovation that would have been news to the bishops who met there (& every previous Lambeth — never anything but a self described consultative group).
Worse, they are selectively binding — gays are not to be ordained nor their unions blessed, but rather the resolution calling for their pastoral support and listening to their experiences is not only ignored but their open persecution is condoned.
This doublethink is truly contemptable.
“This doublethink is truly contemptable.”–Prior Aelred
Right on, Prior!
The Canadian Link via Greg Venables says this “…concluded their meetings in Rwanda today with a statement demonstrating the consequences for churches that stray from authentic, biblically-faithful Anglican teaching.” To be honest, I don’t think the content of Lambeth matters one iota. If the wording of Lambeth was not convenient, they would have touted out another document. They have a clear position, and no one is going to move them from it. Let them be and have their church the way that they like it. In the meantime, those of us who approve of the ordination of people such as… Read more »
Prior Aelred is unfortunately quite right. I find one of the most amazing things about our current situation to be that those who insist on multiple innovations in church life and order (e.g., attributing a jurisdictional aspect to the Anglican Communion that it never had, giving completely unprecedented authority to Lambeth conferences, Archbishops of Canterbury, the Primates and other instruments of unity, insisting on a completely untraditional and unAnglican method of reading Scripture while ignoring the application of reason and tradition) have had the nerve to arrogate to themselves the description “orthodox” as if they were following our tradition instead… Read more »
Bravo to Ms Gledhill for her deft spinning of selectively collected facts/quotes. She is getting better at spin in this current piece than she has been in other pieces published before under her byline. It is ever so helpful to the rest of us to have Ms. G. modeling her astonishment that anybody is not already a new conservative conformed Anglican – via the new orthodoxies published all over the place during the last thirty to forty years of vigorous new conserve efforts. It becomes almost impossible to actually recall that, in historical fact, these new conserved folks are just… Read more »
drdanfee
Just ‘cos I haven’t said it an a while, I really enjoy most of your postings. Don’t be discouraged by bad manners.
I agree!— and Yours too, Cheryl !
(I have left a comment on co-incidence and synchronicity for you on the other day’s thread)…..
Am I the only one to find it troubling that the “Kigali Statement” comes geographically from the only country on earth in which mass participation in genocide has taken place? This is no comment on Rwandans, as history and the scriptures teach us that such a horrifying capaciy for evil is within every person. And in the person of such people as Paul Rusesabagina, who was personally responsible for saving the lives of about 1,260 people, Rwanda gave us an inspiring example of the heights to which humanity can rise. However, in the aftermath of church participation in the genocide… Read more »
Rob, you forget that genocide is scripturally sanctioned and therefore a legitimate area of Christian diversity. Remember the Calvinist dictum, that only that which is explicitly permitted in Scripture may Christians do.
It also explains elegantly why some African Christians can speak in dehumanising language about homosexuals, since that springs from the same genocidal instinct and again has scriptural sanction.
So let’s hear a resounding Christian ‘Yes’ to Genocide — you know it makes Biblical sense.
Laurence, thank you, I will go looking for that other posting. Rob, good point, and synchronously it parallels some of my own contemplations in the last few days. They are in uproar that ~2% of souls might be homosexual and sexualy active. Are they worried greater atrocities such as the ones that you mentioned? Or what about other statistics e.g. reports indicate that globally one in three women are beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in their lifetime? http://www.unece.org/stats/gender/genpols/keyinds/crime/violence.htm Then there is child abuse and neglect: http://www.unicefusa.org/site/c.duLRI8O0H/b.262152/k.221E/State_of_the_Worlds_Children__Publications__Media_Center__US_Fund_for_UNICEF.htm Then there is terrorism, ranging from State to individuals simply acting out… Read more »
While Rwanda was certainly the site of unbelievable atrocities I wouldn’t say that it was “the only place where there was mass participation in genocide”. IIRC there are more than a few places in the former Yugoslavia that would fit that description equally well.
Nonethless, it strikes me as very sad that the Global South meeting in Kigali was held at the Hôtel des Mille Collines, the original Hotel Rwanda. The difference was that then those considered to be “cockroaches” were in the hotel.