The Church Times has this news report of the matter, Archbishops reprimand priest who blessed gays by Pat Ashworth.
And it has this leader: Let no man put asunder which starts like this:
THE ARCHBISHOPS are clearly worried about how Anglicans in different provinces might interpret the recent service at St Bartholomew the Great, Smithfield, at which the partnership of two gay priests was celebrated. This can be the only reason they produced their brief but erroneous statement on Tuesday that clerics in the Church of England are “not at liberty simply to ignore” the Church’s teaching on sexuality, which they define, interestingly, as: the 1987 Synod motion, the 1991 Bishops’ statement Issues in Human Sexuality, the 1998 Lambeth Conference motion 1.10, and the House of Bishops’ 2005 statement on civil partnerships…
and ends like this:
…The service
is[in] Smithfield is a little thing, not deserving of pronouncements by archbishops. Its only political purpose is to show the impossibility of carving up the Anglican Church into conservative and liberal provinces or dioceses. Or even parishes: some of those interviewed at St Bartholomew’s at the weekend approved of the Rector’s actions, others did not. The challenge for the Lambeth Conference, and for GAFCON before it, is to demonstrate how Christians can disagree profoundly and yet recognise the working of the Holy Spirit in those with whom they disagree.
“…and yet recognise the working of the Holy Spirit in those with whom they disagree.”
I see only works of the devil: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery, dissensions, factions and envy.
robroy: surely it doesn’t behove you, from your American Conservative standpoint, to have such strong views about what is the appropriate way for the English Church to minister to its flock in liberal London!
ah, but you see those all over the place, robroy. boo!
No one could have predicted a week ago that New Hampshire would be upstaged by St Bart’s, at the heart of the C of E, as we proceed to Lambeth. If blessings of civil partnerships can take place with joy and creativity at the grassroots, and the most that bishops can do is issue stern rebukes, the emphasis on conformity on the last two days of the Lambeth Conference will be misplaced. The question is how we can live with diversity, and reaffirm what Anglicans have always done.
“A lucid and robust response.”
from the Church Times leader writer.
I was amazed that at a time when nearly all were considering how wise the bishops and Primates were NOT to make any public response to this nonsense – they then did.
Perhaps, sadly, they now have people like Graham King advising them ……
“I see only works of the devil: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery, dissensions, factions and envy.” As do I, robroy: dissensions, lies, slanders, scheming, reviling, oppression of some of the most vulnerable of God’s children, arrogant defense of these behaviours as being somehow “Christian”, self deception, self aggrandizement, hubris, hatred, self righteouness, and so much anger born of fear. That is just a partial list. Yet I still think it would be wrong to break communion with these people. What I don’t understand is why, if I am still willing to be in communion with people whose behaviour is so… Read more »
The devil is a Christian.
“that New Hampshire would be upstaged by St Bart’s” – Yeah, was thinking the same thing. The news of the Bp Robinson getting ‘cupped’ (my neologism for civil union partnershiped) was little covered over here; my local paper had it hidden in New England newsbriefs.
Interesting that a religious service of union between two people who have promised to care for each other for life is now viewed as “debauchery” by the so-called “orthodox.”
(robroy, the more you say these kinds of things, the better we look. By all means, keep it up; you’re our best advocate of all!)
The vision I have is of a huge gang of ostriches who, for one moment, lifted their heads from the sand! Even from my thousands of miles distance, I know at least seven partnered gay clergy in CofE, at least six of whom have had their “unions” blessed in church. It seems the real offense here is not so much what actually happened (since, believe me, it happens with great frequency in the CofE) but that “noise” has been made about it. And that IS, after all the most serious offense against the long English tradition of “delicate avoidance” and… Read more »
I urge robroy to read this article in GQ magazine: http://www.men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_6948
(I also commend it to everyone else.)
Robroy, do you understand “by their fruits you shall know them”? Do you understand what the sin against the Holy Spirit is? (Matthew 7:16-20, 12:32-33, for starters.)
“Interesting that a religious service of union between two people who have promised to care for each other for life is now viewed as “debauchery” by the so-called “orthodox.””
Is it a surprise that people who define radical redefinition of the faith as “orthodoxy” would consider monogamy to be debauched? Sorry, I know that’s what you were saying anyway, but subtlety doesn’t seem to work. The again, neither does this kind of bluntness.
“Interesting that a religious service of union between two people who have promised to care for each other for life is now viewed as ‘debauchery’ by the so-called “orthodox.”–bls.
Don’t we get it? According to the perverted minds of the Akinolites, there is only One SIN–GAY sex. God gives us a pass on theft, lies, mirepresentations and power-grap, as long as the latter is undertaken by the likes of Big Pete of Abuja, Henry Luke of Kampala, et al.
I do agree pretty much, the louder and more outrageous the false presuppositional witnessing against two men or two women who are pledging lifelong care and commitment – in the face of just that sort of trash talk preaching Oh no you can’t – the sooner we see through the conservative realignment scrims dropped constantly down to confuse and blind us. What unseemly spin doctoring by the very people who most often claim they are holy and biblical above all others. Oh yeah, very straight talkers, pun intended. These damning traditional preachments against ethical life and relationship commitments between two… Read more »
Marvellous church times piece.
Yes the archbishops are misleading us
I have said it before and I reiterate:
How people sill laugh in 50 years! And ccry. But to the difference to the issues of 50 years ago, the Internet is there…
In 50 years time people will know what everybody thought and said today, taking sides. And some of them will change their names…
No one needs to do that today because of what their parents or relatives said 50 years ago…
The diffence is the Internet.