Gledhill: Rowan celebrates ‘secret’ gay communion service

Okay, this is a no whining zone, but it is really tempting! However, instead of whining, I will pray the prayer that my new church affiliation (Orthodox) encourages: Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.

I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say….

You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons. Are we trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

1 Corinthians 10:15, 21-22 (New International Version).

http://tinyurl.com/33l6nd

The organisation helps them cope with staying faithful to what they regard as a Christian lifestyle while dealing with a sexuality that sometimes does not emerge until later in life.

And since the highest (liberal) moral aspiration in life is to be both authentic and happy, any such emergence immediately invalidates all prior commitments and responsibilities that might happen to conflict.  Nothing but self-centeredness dressed up in new clothes.

BTW, is there a transcript available of RWs talk to this group?  Please now, no guffaws.  I can dream can’t I? 
carl

Ain’t that sweet.

All gay, all the time. Well done, Your Grace.

Ephesians 5:11-14 (NKJV)
11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.
12 For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret.
13 But all things that are exposed are made manifest by the light, for whatever makes manifest is light.
14 Therefore He says: “Awake, you who sleep, Arise from the dead, And Christ will give you light.”

It is a sad day when the ABC refuses invitations to godly Bishops but makes room for Mark and “Bp.” Gene at Lambeth to honeymoon.  And then the ABC goes off and gives the body and blood of Christ to those involved in the “works of darkness”  is this not open Apostasy from the doctrine of Christ and His Apostles?

“I will pray the prayer that my new church affiliation (Orthodox) encourages: Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.”

Welcome aboard, Margaret.  I feel you’ve made the right choice.

This is the second foot in mouth opportunity seized in a week.

Rowan wants to keep sexuality as much off the agenda as he can at Lambeth, to avoid a repetition of 1998. He is trying to make it as prayerful as possible. But I don’t rate his chances much, given the joyful presence of the honeymooners. Lambeth is looking as if it will be wonderful for the media. Even in the unlikely event that we’ll be invited to any seminars, we won’t actually have to attend them. We will be free to make mischief on the highways and byways of Kent University, like we did last time. And the time before that.

I’ve not been looking forward to Lambeth. But it is looking up. I’m starting to get into the spirit of the thing. Thank you, Mark and Gene. And congratulations.

As you can see, Ms. Gledhill is smokin/. Free to make mischief… yes, thank you, thank you, thank you very much. HA! HA! HA! HA!

‘The Archbishop of Canterbury is committed to the listening process which was agreed at the Lambeth Conference as part of the discussions on human sexuality. That means listening to and engaging with gay and lesbian clergy in a pastorally sensitive setting. That is what he is doing.’

When is the ABC going to start listening to orthodox Anglicans in a pastorally sensitive setting?  Heck, we would settle for any setting.  He is so concerned about hearing the concerns of the GLBT folks; it is a shame that the orthodox don’t command the same amount of his attention.  Again, we would settle for any attention.

What I find so disturbing is the lame excuse that the ABC had to celebrate a eucharist with this group in order to engage in the much-vaunted “listening process.”  Come on, get serious.  If Cantaur was the preacher and celebrant, how much “listening” did he do?

To the appropriate Scripture texts cited above, I’ll add a couple strong admonitions from Paul:
“But now I am writing you that you MUST NOT ASSOCIATE with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy…With such a one do not even eat!”  (1 Cor. 5:11)

Or this even more striking and ominous warning:
“I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned.  KEEP AWAY FROM THEM!  For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites.  By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.”  (Romans 16:17-18, NIV).

Listening is one thing.  Sharing eucharist is a totally different matter.

David Handy+

You can see the details of who runs Clergy Consultation at the bottom of this post (19:00 GMT Update) - http://www.peter-ould.net/2007/11/29/secret-communion-goes-ahead/

N.R.A. said it well above.  It is really amazing just what, and how much, action is involved in “listening”.  I wonder what action does NOT fall under the “listening” process…

If this is just “listening” as called out in Lambeth 1.10, why all the whsipering and cloak-and-dagger?

Now, where is that amiable revisionist gentleman who was posting about how “open and above board” revisionists are, as opposed to us “secretive” reasserters?  I’d really love to hear from him…

Why is it that Rowan Williams is always so anxious to listen and engage the GLBT folks and revisionists in TEC, but always so hesitant to do likewise with the orthodox? Perhaps…......he’s showing his true colors?
On with the realignment….......please. Just like TEC, Canterbury is quickly becoming less and less relevant in the larger scheme of things.

Has there ever been a man less fit for his position in the time in which he holds it?

There won’t be a Lambeth Conference.
Archbishop Williams won’t be the Primate anymore.
But it’s already over for the Anglican Communion.
There’s no way back.

Jeffersonian-
my Rorschach response would be Norv Turner coaching the 2007 Chargers, but if you give me a few minutes…

Jeffersonian asks,

Has there ever been a man less fit for his position in the time in which he holds it?

There have been people like Vidkun Quisling or Kofi Annan who have been controlled by other bad leaders or simply miserable—(the pure evil leaders, such as a Hitler are precluded by your question)—

Anyway, my response after a few minutes is:

Neville Chamberlain

... rhetorical question…? 

Oh, sorry, nevermind.

It’s mentioned that some of the people at this eucharist are married, with children, are not “out” - is it wrong to think of this as “private” instead of “secret”? People were spared some pain by keeping it private - and these people surely needed ministering to?

“For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.” (John 3:20,21)

oscewicee: I think you’ve noticed something a lot of people have overlooked, that this appears to be a particular kind of GLBT group. It includes a number of people who wish to keep their homosexuality confidential.
That’s fair enough, and I can see the ABC should respect that confidentiality.

But:
1. The Bishop of London’s reply to the straight question about whether the meeting would happen now looks sly and duplicitous (as Sarah Hey perceptively discerned at the time).
2. The ABC or the Bp of London could have said ‘A pastoral meeting will take place but the time and venue will be kept confidential to participants for pastoral reasons’. But they gave the impression of no meeting, then hey presto, there’s been a meeting. There is a name for saying one thing and doing another, and it isn’t a very nice one.
3. A pastoral meeting to facilitate listening does not necessarily entail a eucharist. Presiding at the eucharist implies (in my book) that you see no problem in the lifestyle of the congregation members which is so profound as to raise questions about their communicating. And that is precisely the point at issue.

The ABC has made a statement (by presiding at the eucharist) about which side of the debate he is on. He has done this in a way which looks - well - sly. And I don’t see how either of those features helps just at the moment.

William S., I agree completely with your points 1 and 2 - to lie about the meeting seems to me like an admission that you feel something is wrong with it. It was unnecessary, foolish and lacking in integrity.

As to point 3 - when I receive the eucharist, I am conscious that I am not sin-free, though I yearn to be and struggle to be. I can’t pretend to know what the souls of these individuals are like, what is in their hearts, what struggles they may be having. If sinners don’t need the eucharist, who does?

Thanks for your response above.

That the article mentions specifically that the purpose (or at least one major purpose) of this group is to provide support for those who have same sex attractions but are indeed married, or single and doing their best to live Christian lives is something that we should take note of.  Indeed, we would be hypoctites to do otherwise.  The orthodox argument (at least if I am orthodox) is that we need to draw a distinction between what people desire and the actions they take.  At least a substantial portion of the men and women attending this Eucharist are there in hopes of finding an answer other than wantonly giving in to their own desires.  And remember, also, that it is Ruth Glenhill who wrote the piece.  Given what one reads in the British press, that the description of this group is so understated is truly remarkable.  We should certainly not judge any group of people based on press headlines.
    The ABC did not preside at a gay pride parade or clown mass.  What he did was to attend or preside at a Eucharist for group of clergy of his own church.  To the best of my knowledge, none of these have been convicted of any offense that would excommunicate them.  Should the Archbishop of Canterbury preside at a Eucharist in the US, I would hope to be allowed to approach the Communion rail without having to prove my sinlessness, because I am sure that I cannot.  We cannot answer for the faithfulness or righteousness of these men and women.
  We might also wait to find out what the ABC had to say to them, before making assumptions about it.  Could it be that he offered counsel not so dissimilar to what Bp. Duncan or Bp. Howe might say to a (celibate) gay priest in their diocese?  We will know his official stance soon enough, in his Advent letter. 
  With that said, +Rowan has committed a PR gaffe second only to the timing of Lambeth invitations.  In all probability, some readers of this blog have left the AC since the news broke.  Maybe this and the recent commentary on US foreign policy is aimed at holding the progressives in the Communion when the hammer falls.  It certainly makes him, and the bishop of London, look like Schiori and Chane.

The most disturbing part of this article is Gledhill’s prediction that VGR and his partner will be at Lambeth, and that the whole sexuality issue will be skirted.  If that is true, then the Global South really should boycott, because it will be over.

I really am (or at least was) trying to be committed to the “inside” strategy.  With this news, could someone please tell me why?!?!

I think I feel the fork sticking in me, because, with this news, I may finally be done.  I had hung in this long in the vain hope that the Communion would find a way to discpline itself.  I have not been able to call myself an Episcopalian for a long time, but I was hoping to remain Anglican.  With this news, I really don’t know why I would want to be an Anglican either.

I simply don’t see the point in trying to continue working to preserve my parish and diocese to be a part of such a mess.  If anyone can find a reason for hope after reading this article, please let me know what that reason is.

The most disturbing part of this article is Gledhill’s prediction that VGR and his partner will be at Lambeth, and that the whole sexuality issue will be skirted.

  Well, if the ABoC thinks that inviting VGR and his partner to Lambeth will skirt the sexuality issue, then he really, really needs to get a better PR guy to advise him.  Cause this is going to assure that the lead story every night for 10 days this summer will be about the GAY (anglican) bishop meeting with the other 150 bishops of the former Anglican Communion now known as TEC Worldwide.  On the other hand, there won’t be much else to report on, other than the council of 550 Anglican bishops meeting somewhere in the Global South.

How so very patriarchal…gay and lesbian men!  I am appalled.  Truly.  Now perhaps they meant “homosexual persons” but they clearly fell into the misogynistic realm of the gay agenda here…denying female homosexuals equal rights in nomenclature and billings.  Tsk. Tsk.  There clearly are limits which the liberal and radicalizing elements of the theologians du jour have not yet reached in the benighted alleyways of Greater London.  :>)

I’m with Eddie Swain above - two questions I’ve put on other posts -
1) Why would we want to be in communion with ++ABC (Lambeth) given the latest?
2) The ++ABC is a great “Bully Pulpit,”  what has Rowan done to advance Christianity?
Seems to me he’s only increased tension and division and watched as part of God’s church crumbles. (I may be early with this - the jury still’s out - but the direction seems determined.)

The most disturbing part of this article is Gledhill’s prediction that VGR and his partner will be at Lambeth…

Of course this will happen. Robbie’s never missed a photo-op yet.

Hear, hear Eddie Swain…this does take me about to the end of my rope. I was holding on down here….

Jeffersonian,

Jimmy Carter?
At least Neville Chamberlain later admitted that he’d be wrong.

“Most gay clergy are married and have children”.

Interesting.  They’re gay, but have children(ok, possibly some adopted or born through ART), but have obviously managed to have sex with women(or lesbians with men). 

Oh, by the way, are they keeping their marriage vows?  Or are those optional for this bunch? 

Let’s all share Eucharist and celebrate and bless it—better yet, how about we ask the SLC/TEC to write a liturgy for a “Blessing of Complete Dysfunction”? 

God help me, I think I need the barf bucket…

How about a little charity for men/women who are heterosexual marriages but feel desire for their own sex and are struggling with it? Trying to do the right thing? Is there nothing the rest of us struggle with?

Many consultation members are married, one with six children, and are faithful to their partners.

The article says they are faithful to their spouses. We have nothing to indicate that that is not so.

oscewicee,
You are assuming a shared understanding of the meaning of the word “faithful”.
We are in a situation of repeated artful deception through word manipulation as Ireneaus demonstrated so well last August.
I am skeptical that “faithful and committed” means the same thing to the people who use these words in their arguments as it does to us.
Just as many predicted this event would go forward, simply at a different location, I suspect that “faithful” may be a code word that will be revealed in time to mean maintaining the relationship and returning to the relationship despite other sexual trysts rather than sole commitment to the one sexual partner.

I suspect that “faithful” may be a code word that will be revealed in time to mean maintaining the relationship and returning to the relationship despite other sexual trysts rather than sole commitment to the one sexual partner.

Which would mean ... they fall into sin, as do we all? I’m not going to assume the worst of these unknown individuals without a more substantial reason.

Neville Chamberlain

To be fair, Chamberlain was a dupe but the scales fell from his eyes once Germany stormed into Poland.  ++Rowan has had the equivalent of the invasion of Poland, France, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Romania, Greece, Austria and Hungary and he’s still stroking his beard trying to figure out what Der Fueherer’s intentions are.

re:” Many consultation members are married, one with six children, and are faithful to their partners. The organisation helps them cope with staying faithful to what they regard as a Christian lifestyle while dealing with a sexuality that sometimes does not emerge until later in life. Some members but by no means all are ‘out’ as openly gay…”This is confusing. On first reading the reference to married members and their effort to stay faithful sounds like clergy who experience same-sex attraction but seek the fellowship of others with similar temptations for mutual assistance in staying faithful to their marriage vows. If that’s the sort of organization it is, IMO we should be applauding rather than decrying the ABC’s meeting with them. In her article, Ruth Gledhill links to what she calls an “interesting paper” on a theology of sexual ethics. This paper is not at all along the lines I’ve just described, but I notice that it was put out by Changing Attitude, not by the Clergy Consultation.

Clarification from someone familiar with either or both organizations about the nature of each and the relationship between the two would, I think, be very useful right about now.

On the discussion of the married gay priest with multiple children issue ....
how does this square with the “its all in our genes and we can’t help it or change” argument?

kyounge, THANK YOU because this article confuses the heck out of me, too. When it says they’re married with kids and are faithful to their partners, does that mean they’re married to women and have kids in the traditional sense or are they “married” to other men and adopted kids?

In other words, is this a group of people struggling with homosexual tendencies but living heterosexual lives? If that’s the case, it changes the matter a LOT!

As to Ruth Gledhill’s last two paragraphs, I think she was being sarcastic but I’m not sure.

how does this square with the “its all in our genes and we can’t help it or change” argument?

MargaretG, even if it is genetic, would we be bound to accept it?  Would we accept that argument from these people?

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/280943

Cantor says it’s not known why this wiring flaw might prompt pedophiliac desires, or what stunts the white matter growth.

While innate brain differences might explain a pedophile’s sexual desires, they cannot excuse acting on them, he says. Just as a heterosexual man can’t succumb to his urges and commit rape, a pedophile is responsible to obey the law, he says.

But:
1. The Bishop of London’s reply to the straight question about whether the meeting would happen now looks sly and duplicitous (as Sarah Hey perceptively discerned at the time). 

I’m not sure this accusation will fly…

Richard Chartres is well-known to be against this. If my memory serves me correctly, when his name was put forward for potential ABC, one of the LGCM leaders said ‘if he becomes ABC, I will leave the church.’ Chartres then said that it was the best endorsement he could have. He has threatened to act against openly gay clergy before.

“how does this square with the “its all in our genes and we can’t help it or change” argument?”

...... every time I wear these Levi’s…...

Alanon has a saying about relating to the alcoholic:  “they (the alcoholic) ignore what we say and watch what we do.  We listen to what they say and ignore what they do.”  I just figured out the whole listening process!!!  All it’s ever been is force feeding of fecal matter while Rowan et al do what they darn well please.  I am ALL DONE with listening.  I’m moving pretty rapidly through wondering. I think action is coming really soon.  Ed S., et al, I’ve been asking myself ever since the HOB meeting in NOLA why in heaven’s name would I want to be in any communion - verbal, eucharistic, etc., with one as “snakey” as Rowan?????

Poor old LGBT crowd has their leader, the ABC, sneak them around London looking for a place to meet after not daring to show up at St. Pete’s for their party.  Wonder where he found for their festive conclave,  a warehouse in the docs?  Looks like with the ABC’s firm beliefs and the theology of AC/TEC showing that homosexuality is OK with the Man upstairs and a new kosher thing from the Holy Spirit, looks like they woud insist on being able to come out of the closet and have a service like “normal” folks.  Don’t know how they put up with his leadership.  +<(:>)——+

“I’m not going to assume the worst of these unknown individuals without a more substantial reason”...

Fair enough, but I’m cynical with good reason. 

Let’s see—How many times have I seen people, gay or straight, maintain their marital “relationship” while stepping out on their spouse?  And, for the record, I don’t agree with that, gay or straight.  Lifelong marriage vows(of fidelity among them) should be just that, and kept. 

I’ve not known the revisionist community for their honesty. 

This crowd has basically just advertised its sexual ambivalence.  Well, if you’re ambivalent, why take lifelong marriage vows to the opposite sex?  And, no one in the crowd has explored their “tendencies”?  I find that very hard to believe…

Geek in Dallas wrote:

This crowd has basically just advertised its sexual ambivalence.  Well, if you’re ambivalent, why take lifelong marriage vows to the opposite sex?  And, no one in the crowd has explored their “tendencies”?

Geek, the article refers to “dealing with a sexuality that sometimes does not emerge until later in life.” To me this suggests that at least some of the members of the group married and then afterwards began to experience same-sex attraction. Or maybe they were bisexual all along but are looking for support in keeping their marriage vows.

From the description, this Clergy Consultation could be anything from an “out & proud” LGBT advocacy group to an “ex-gay” organization. I just can’t tell from the article. In the absence of further details I will join oscewicee in refraining from jumping to conclusions.

oscewicee at 04:49 - yes, but my third point wasn’t about receiving communion, it was about presiding at a eucharist.

Ruth Gledhill’s headline doesn’t do this group or the ABC any favours. If it said ‘ABC in confidential pastoral meeting with gay clergy’ it wouldn’t be so explosive.

But as other people have said, the ABC has made a PR gaffe here. He may have intended simply to meet confidentially with some gay clergy who struggle to be faithful to the church’s teaching - and they would be just the kind of people I hope we’d all want to support and encourage. However, arranging a meeting which can be called ‘secret’ makes it look as though some backstairs skullduggery is going on (even if it isn’t). And presiding at the eucharist (rather than, say, being part of the congregation while someone else presides) looks like an endorsement (even if it isn’t).

And just as the moment, sad though it is, the ABC has to keep an eye on how his actions look to others as much as on what he intends.

Pardon me, but this is in response to a much earlier, rather disheartened post by Eddie Swain (11/29, posted 5:33 pm, quite a ways above).  As we are friends, and partners in the effort to promote the cause of orthodoxy in the overwhelmingly liberal Diocese of Southern VA, I want to offer a belated word of encouragement to Eddie and to the many who are doubtless also wondering how long they can continue the fight. 

I understand how discouraging it often seems, when things happen like the ABC’s decision to go through with preaching and celebrating that “secret” eucharist with the somewhat mysterious group, “The Clergy Consultation,” that apparently includes a lot of gay priests and members of Changing Attitutde, the English equivalent of Integrity.  Eddie asked what is the point of continuing, when the AC is so deeply mired in such a mess, and when the prospects appear so poor that Canterbury actually will finally and reluctantly choose to impose some kind of real discipline on the main activist bishops supporting the “gay is OK” delusion.

Here is my answer. 

Eddie.  It appears that you are finally coming around and realizing that the inside strategy is doomed, my friend.  Pardon me for being cynical, bu “Welcome to the club.”  Of course, we both knew that the battle for TEC was already lost AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL.  What I think I detected in your recent SF post was that it’s dawning on you that the same may be true at the INTERNATIONAL LEVEL.  By that I mean that it is increasingly clear that the whole Anglican Communion (AC) is inevitably going to split, since Canterbury has continued to dither and delay and to refuse to take clear actions that are fully within his power (summoning the Primates, or disinviting scandalously wayward bishops and redesigning the Lambeth Conference so that it actually addresses the severe crisis we face).  Well, again, pardon my cynicism from showing so bluntly, but “surprise, surprise.”  What else did you really expect from a liberal like +++Rowan Williams?

But if I may say so, I think you are over-reacting now that this tragic realization is setting in.  You seem to have concluded that if the AC does indeed undergo a major split, as appears more and more certain every week and almost every day now, well, you leap to the conclusion that there is no point in continuing the struggle, at least within Anglicanism, for it will have utterly failed.  I know many so-called ComCons feel that way.
With all due respect, I strongly and even vehemently disagree.

There is still much that is unique to Anglicanism as a Protestant-Catholic hybrid that is very precious and worth preserving, even if the AC shatters like a pane of glass.  There is a strong countermovement afoot that is working in the opposite direction, to gather the now widely scattered fragments of Anglican orthodoxy in the promising new Common Cause Partnership (CCP).  Remember last Sunday’s OT reading from Jeremiah 23 and similar exilic passages that promise that God will gather the scattered exiles and bring them safely back to the Promised Land (e.g., Ezek. 34 and much of Isaiah 40-55).

Although there is much more that could be said along these lines, let me simply appeal to a famous incident that seems to get to the heart of the matter.  Appropriately it comes from England, and involves the man who almost singlehandedly rallied the disheartened people of Britain during the darkest days of WWII and inspired them to fight to the bitter end against the seemingly invincible Nazi war machine that had already overrun all the rest of Europe.  I mean Winston Churchill, of course.

Now I’m well aware that Churchill was not a good Christian, if he was even a believer at all.  He once joked that he was like one of those “flying buttresses” you see at English cathedrals, for he observed that he supported the Church…from the outside!  But do you know the story of the memorable commencement address that he gave toward the end of his life at Eton, or one of those other super-elite schools for the most privileged young men in England.  Though feeble and frail physically, Churchill remained as indominatable inwardly as ever.  Everyone wondered what the eloquent old elder stateman might say, in what might be his last major public address.  And boy, was it ever a doosie. 

Removing that ever-present fat cigar from his mouth, Churchill stepped to the podium and delivered what is certainly the shortest, and probably the most unforgettable and inspiring commencement address of all time.  In the oral tradition that has come down to me, it is only nine words.  But what tremendous nine words!  Here is what the English bulldog, the epitome of stout determination to fight on against all odds said on that historic occasion:

“Never give up!  Never give up.  Never.  Never.  Never.”  And then he sat down. 

That was it.  That said it all.  And so, my friend, I would say the same to you, and to all those who may be tiring of the struggle and wondering if they can still go on.  This battle we are in is so much bigger than Anglicanism.  We are fighting for the truth of the Gospel and the survival of authentic Christianity throughout the secular, pluralistic western world that is increasingly hostile to biblical religion.  This is NOT primarily about Anglicanism, but about ORTHODOXY.  I urge you to stay the course.

Eddie, I have great respect for you.  You are a hero.  And what I say to you, I say to us all (myself included):

NEVER GIVE UP!

David Handy+
Advocate of High Commitment, PostChristendom Anglicanism
Passionate Supporter of the New Reformation

re: Post by “New Reformation Advocate” - Handy+
Of course the unknown of time frame and where to go is ‘scary’ - “I hope it’s within my lifetime…” is what many older Anglicans/TEC’ers hope. Even me too - it may be decades… Thanks Fr. Handy

I’m basically with <a >oscewicee</a> on this whole business; all of the participants—including both the ABC and the Consultation clergy—are presumably simply dealing with a complex and difficult situation (both institutional and personal) as best they can.  I see no reason to attribute bad faith or duplicity to anyone involved, except possibly to whoever leaked the announcement to the Church Society a while back.  We have no real idea what the ABC said; I’ll grant him the benefit of the doubt.  No one here would seriously expect him to preach Hellfire to this or any other group; it’s both pointless and foolish to condemn apples for not being oranges.  And given the actual facts on the ground in the C of E—however regrettable they may be and however one might rightly decry an entire generation of decisions that have led to this situation—the ABC has a pastoral and institutional responsibility towards all involved.  I’d prefer to pray that he be granted wisdom and strength, both of which are needed here in manifestly superhuman abundance, rather than to simply tut-tut-isn’t-it-awful.
<hr width=40%>
That said, though, reading through the <a >Changing Attitude paper on sexual ethics</a> produced by the “working group” of the Consultation (Mrs G’s pointer to it describes it as “interesting”) is a somewhat disturbing experience, particularly in light of the claim that the document provides theological guidance specifically to clergy. 

There is often an implicit assumption in using the words ‘faithfulness’ and ‘commitment’ in this discussion that we are always talking about sexual relationships persisting over a long period of time. And of course time provides the vital conditions for development, change and growth. To be committed is to take things seriously. It is to say ‘Tomorrow I will be here as well as today, which means that we have time. Time for facing up to the reality of each other. I am not going to run away (from you or myself).’ However, the biblical theme is primarily about the overwhelming demand to remain faithful to our covenantal relationship with God through the Spirit (which, as the gospels warn, may challenge conventional family obligations) Thus while it is clear to us as LGBTs when we survey the gay scene, and indeed much of contemporary social life, that casual sex can often be addictive and destructive, we think it is important to remain open to the possibility that brief and loving sexual engagement between mature adults in special circumstances can be occasions of grace. Risky, but then as Paul Tillich said ‘A Christian is safest taking risks!’  [p. 10, emphasis added]

... A problem with the word ‘friendship’ is that it has been understood mostly to exclude specifically sexual relationships, (e.g. “just good friends” and “She’s not just my wife: she’s my best friend!”). We would argue that it is precisely this compartmentalisation of sex that our culture needs to adapt in favour of greater integration of our capacities for desire, tenderness and passion into the full range of our relating.  [p. 12]

This would appear to be not so much theological guidance as a rationalization for ignoring essentially every central teaching of the Church on the subject of sexual ethics.  In particular, it’s not easy for me to comprehend how any parent could cheerfully urge a teenager into “greater integration of our capacities for desire, tenderness and passion into the full range of our relating”, regardless of one’s views on homosexuality.

This would appear to be not so much theological guidance as a rationalization for ignoring essentially every central teaching of the Church on the subject of sexual ethics.

It appears to be also an example of hiding truths by assigning new meanings to innocent words. Like “friendship.” They’re creating code here. We will pay the price for the continual loosening of moral restraints. And I don’t mean that we will pay the price in the Kingdom Come. We’ll pay it now. Our children and grandchildren will pay it.

I would hope that many of the Primates,and most certainly Archbishops Akinola and the Global South would openly ask and demand a clear(open) answer from Archbishop Williams as to did he offer Communion to practicing LGBT clergy in contradiction to the Scriptures and the historic marital teaching of the church.
If he did that,for a man committed to the ongoing life of the AC it seems he’s fumbling opportunities right and left.

“Thus while it is clear to us as LGBTs when we survey the gay scene, and indeed much of contemporary social life, that casual sex can often be addictive and destructive, we think it is important to remain open to the possibility that brief and loving sexual engagement between mature adults in special circumstances can be occasions of grace”.

“Grace” for whom?  Those who want to relieve their arousal or just need the “release”?  What does that have to do with the teachings of Christ? 

It was probably not your intent, Craig Goodrich, but thank you for making my point a little more clear. 

True, I also have no idea what the AB of C said at this gathering.  But, in my view, this “listening process” is not a listening process; it’s a manipulating process that has absolutely nothing to do with the Kingdom of God and standard Christian sexual ethics.  Instead it’s “well, we really love each other, and we’re consenting adults, so let’s just accept that and call it all blessed”. 

That’s not what the Scriptures teach, it’s what a secular, egocentric, self-gratifying humanity is trying to teach, and I for one want no parts of it, for me or my children.

... this “listening process” is not a listening process; it’s a manipulating process that has absolutely nothing to do with the Kingdom of God and standard Christian sexual ethics.

No question.  But one point that I (and others) are trying to make here is that we have both <a >manipulators</a> and manipulatees, and I would put many gay clergy, and tentatively +++Rowan himself, in the latter class (along with many Primates and ACC delegates, TEC and CoE nebbishops, and countless others).  This may be naive, but at least it has the advantage at this point of retaining some small hope for the future of the Communion, and it distinguishes usefully between the <a >evil</a> and the merely <a >foolish</a>.

Has someone discussed the language I have placed in capitals?—

“[Lambeth Palace] Chief of Staff Chris Smith replied: . . . ‘The purpose of the meeting was to listen to the concerns of individuals and to give the Archbishop the opportunity to engage with them FROM THE POSITION OF THE RECEIVED MIND OF THE CHURCH.’ ”

++Rowan has pointed out elsewhere that the “received mind of the Church” is embodied in Lambeth 1.10.  Why do we assume that this was not what he conveyed to the group?  I quote him below (Feb. 24, 2007 after the Dar communique):

“The stance of the Anglican Communion is clear: It has never said anything other than that. The ordination of active homosexuals is not acceptable. It has never said anything other than that the marriage of same sex-couples is not to be admitted.

“That`s what the Lambeth Conference said in 1998, and every meeting has said so since then. . . . The phrasing of the resolution in 1998 was that homosexual relations were not compatible with scripture. As Archbishop, bishop, priest of the church, that is the teaching which I must keep my allegiance with.”

http://www.ippmedia.com/ipp/guardian/2007/02/24/85060.html

In August 2006 (Netherlands interview), too, he said “the tradition and teaching of the Church is what it always was.”

Many consultation members are married, one with six children, and are faithful to their partners.

Can’t same sex partners be legally married in England?
Don’t Gene Robinson, Elizabeth Kaeton and Susan Russell each have children and each say they are faithful to their partners?
So, did you assume this sentence meant that the consultation members: 
were married to members of the opposite sex?
that they were currently living with the opposite sex parent of their children?

And just to be clear about the meaning of the word “faithful”:
The report “Sexual Ethics” is “A Report of the Lesbian and Gay Clergy Consultation Working Group”. It was published by Changing Attitude, but written by the Clergy Consultation. The Clergy Consultation‘s report clarifies what they mean by faithful on page 10:

There is often an implicit assumption in using the words ‘faithfulness’ and ‘commitment’ in this discussion that we are always talking about sexual relationships persisting over a long period of time. ... However, the biblical theme is primarily about the overwhelming demand to remain faithful to our covenantal relationship with God through the Spirit (which, as the Gospels warn, may challenge conventional family obligations) ... The exploration of our sexual selves can be something which benefits from involvement with more than one person.

So some members of the Clergy Consultation are stating publicly in their report that they think that being faithful to their covenantal relationship with God through the Spirit requires the exploration of their sexual selves and may benefit from involvement with more than one person.
(Stating publicly, but keeping the membership secret, and meeting with the Archbishop at an undisclosed location for Holy Communion)

handy+ says:

Pardon me, but this is in response to a much earlier, rather disheartened post by Eddie Swain (11/29, posted 5:33 pm, quite a ways above). As we are
friends, and partners in the effort to promote the cause of orthodoxy in
the overwhelmingly liberal Diocese of Southern VA, I want to offer a
belated word of encouragement to Eddie and to the many who are doubtless
also wondering how long they can continue the fight.

for both of you… “I like Iker” buttons have shown up in southern virginia and i haven’t even ordered mine yet!

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, views his taking part in the meeting and celebrating the eucharist as part of the ‘listening process’ outlined in Lambeth 1.10. A spokeswoman said: ‘The Archbishop of Canterbury is committed to the listening process which was agreed at the Lambeth Conference as part of the discussions on human sexuality. That means listening to and engaging with gay and lesbian clergy in a pastorally sensitive setting. That is what he is doing.’

I have yet to observe (please let me know if I’m incorrect) Archbishop Rowan engage in listening to those who struggle against homosexuality in their own lives and regard it as sin, in concurrence with holy scripture.  If he (and the rest of the church) hasn’t or won’t do that part, he/they will certainly have not truly listened, and will have the very predjudiced and faulty perspective that the homosexual is a victim of the church rather than a victim of the world, the flesh, and the devil.

Deja Vu, thank you for the great detective work, and Craig, you point is well-taken. 

The “foolish” might not be “evil” but, upon waking, might just find themselves in a world of hurt. 

Both of your excerpts from the Changing Attitude document illustrate the fact that, despite the LGBT quest/demand for “full inclusion” or “equal rights”, that’s not what they want at all.  What they want is to toss or ignore the entire OT/NT definition of porneia.  If that can be tossed or ignored, then maybe it’s not forbidden anymore.

It seems to me that “full inclusion” or “equal rights”(others’ term, not mine, because I agree with the point that the language of civil rights has no place in ecclesial decision-making) denotes the committed monogamy that all of us vow in Christian marriage(certainly God’s intent, even though too many don’t keep their vows).  But, this document goes way further than the supposed entitlement to a SSB of committed monogamy; it continues with an espousal of fornication, as I quoted before: 

“Thus while it is clear to us as LGBTs when we survey the gay scene, and indeed much of contemporary social life, that casual sex can often be addictive and destructive, we think it is important to remain open to the possibility that brief and loving sexual engagement between mature adults in special circumstances can be occasions of grace”.

You know, my next-door neighbor is a nice guy.  A sex act between us could possibly be “brief and loving”.  Maybe his wife and my husband would note the special circumstances(he likes me and I like him) and it would be an “occasion of grace”.  The five children in the picture notwithstanding.  I’ll have to talk to my husband about this; maybe he would be open to this sort of exploration on my part. 

If Rowan is going to “listen” to these ideas and go so far as to celebrate Eucharist for said meetings, then he may as well go the route of Province I TEC and invite Marvin Ellison as the keynote speaker for the next gathering.  I’m sure the climate of polyamorous justice invites many opportunities for “occasions of grace”...

Am I supposed to barf now?

Thus spake Changing Attitude:

Fundamentalist adherence to selective and literalist interpretations of scriptural texts about sexual behaviour seem to stem from fear of what might follow if the validity of sexual relationships outside marriage was accepted by the churches; a major consequence might be the final collapse of any rationale for insisting that the letter of scripture can be used like a rule book.

Nice, huh?  But wait!  There’s more!

Infidelity .... may wound the partner: it can be destructive of trust and relationships - not just between the two partners, but in social networks and wider society: it can cause emotional and psychic damage to the person themselves.

Yet to leave a failing relationship can be a creative move towards allowing oneself to discover in another relationship new experiences and a new phase of growth.

And more…

Thus while it is clear to us as LGBTs when we survey the gay scene, and indeed much of contemporary social life, that casual sex can often be addictive and destructive, we think it is important to remain open to the possibility that brief and loving sexual engagement between mature adults in special circumstances can be occasions of grace. Risky, but then as Paul Tillich said ‘A Christian is safest taking risks!’

See?  It’s a Christian lifestyle!

The exploration of our sexual selves can be something which benefits from involvement with more than one person.

Really?  Do tell us more!

All friendships probably use erotic energy. Whether or not they include sexual expression is a matter for the discretion of those concerned, based on the complex of considerations we outline below – particularly balancing the destructiveness of sexual jealousy against the enriching potential of variety.

I’m… speechless.

And the good stuff keeps on coming:

Realistic assessment of any consequences of starting a new sexual relationship on existing commitments of both parties. Respect for existing partnerships and friendships. A realistic assessment of the likely effects of the jealousy factor on all involved.  These considerations are not always easy to take into account, but we do not think there should be any attempt to proscribe particular sexual activities between consenting and mature adults who genuinely believe they have thought about the ‘Rights and Wrongs’ outlined above.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you… the New and Improved Anglican Church!

And you are welcome to it…

Although we have been calling it the “Changing Attitude paper” it is titled “Sexual Ethics: A Report of the Lesbian and Gay Clergy Consultation Working Group”. I bolded Clergy Consultation because this is the group we are talking.

The Lesbian and Gay Clergy Consultation is the full name of the group referred to as “Clergy Consultation” by Ruth Gledhill.
Here is the link that she provides in her article for the group:
http://www.clergyconsultation.co.uk/index.htm
Notice that at the top of the webpage it calls itself “Clergy Consultation” but in the first paragraph refers to itself as, in italics, the Lesbian and Gay Clergy Consultation .

The Convenor of the Lesbian and Gay Clergy Consultation from 1994 to 1997, Colin Coward, is now the Director of Changing Attitude. He was at the Eucharist and here is the Press Release he wrote about it on the Changing Attitude website:
http://changingattitude.org.uk/news/newsitem.asp?id=333
Notice he says:

Some reactions to yesterday’s meeting fail to acknowledge the reality that at every Eucharist, Christians may well be receiving communion in the company of faithfully partnered lesbian and gay Anglicans. The priest presiding at the Eucharist may well be a partnered lesbian or gay man. We were not and are not invisible to our chief pastor, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

When he says married or partnered, do you really think he means opposite sex as implied in the phrasing of the article by Glendhill:

Many consultation members are married, one with six children, and are faithful to their partners. The organisation helps them cope with staying faithful to what they regard as a Christian lifestyle while dealing with a sexuality that sometimes does not emerge until later in life. Some members but by no means all are ‘out’ as openly gay but it is not difficult to understand why, in today’s Church, most prefer to remain ‘in’.

Want to know more about Colin Coward? Here is a bit on the BBC radio website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/saturdaylive/2006/12/gay_priest_colin_coward.html

When he first became a priest, sexuality wasn’t seen as a problem and so long as you were discreet, being gay and being sexually active was not an issue. After 3 years Colin got a parish of his own and was quite open about his sexuality.
  Following the 1997 Lambeth Conference Colin began to encounter opponents.

An oft-quoted snippet from the Changing Attitude paper: “we think it is important to remain open to the possibility that brief and loving sexual engagement between mature adults in special circumstances can be occasions of grace.”

Sinners that we are, the dice are heavily weighted towards all circumstances being “special.”

southernvirginia1,

Hmmm.  As much as I admire Bp. Jack Iker of Ft. Worth (and I LOVED his defiant letter to the PB after she threatened to depose him), you have to admit that “I like Iker” just doesn’t have the same pleasing ring that the old presidential “I like Ike” buttons did.  But I’d be delighted to see them popping up here just the same.

It does remind me of something amusing that happened back at the disastrous General Convention of 2003 in Minneapolis.  I attended it as an assistant to Bishop Herzog of Albany and an AAC volunteer.  As any of you who were there will recall, there were lots of liberals running around wearing these obnoxious big “Ask me about Gene” buttons (that was in support of Gene Robinson of course).  After seeing those things for several days, we did want to come up with some kind of rival PR vehicle. 

Well, after Robinson’s election was confirmed, someone on our side came up with an absolutely brilliant idea.  Because planning was already underway for the big gathering of orthodox clergy and laity that eventually took place in Dallas/Plano in the fall, some of us started sporting a spoof on the “Ask me about Gene” buttons that had been annoying us all week.  The AAC version:  “Ask me about Plano.” 

Boy, did they get a strong reaction!  Liberals looked shocked, and often grimmaced.  But what I’ll always remember is the huge smiles that broke out on the faces of +John Howe (CFL) and especially +Keith Ackerman (Quincy) when they saw me wearing one of those.  Priceless.

David Handy+
currently serving an AMiA church in Newport News, VA

For the Iker button, why don’t you just make the letter R a different color than the rest of the lettering?  That way it reads as “I Like Ike” at first, then “I Like Iker” on closer inspection, and people will get the reference.

Thank you St Anonymous,
It is important to realize that the Clergy Consultation report on Sexual Ethics concludes that there should not be any attempt to proscribe particular sexual activities between consenting and mature adults, given that they have genuinely thought through the ethics of their actions:

These considerations are not always easy to take into account, but we do not think there should be any attempt to proscribe particular sexual activities between consenting and mature adults who genuinely believe they have thought about the ‘Rights and Wrongs’ outlined above.

Deja Vu pointed out:

The report “Sexual Ethics” is “A Report of the Lesbian and Gay Clergy Consultation Working Group”. It was published by Changing Attitude, but written by the Clergy Consultation.

Oops, I didn’t read the title page, and missed that. I just waded in and started reading the report. Sadly, that appears to clear up the ambiguity in Ruth Gledhill’s description of the group.

The Working Group is described (on pg 1) as “five members included two women and three men from a range of traditions, - three broadly liberal catholic, one ecumenical and feminist, and one ‘reformed evangelical’.” Depending on whether “reformed” means Reformed in theology or “used to be one but I saw the error of my ways” this committee has either a lone evangelical outnumbered four to one, or comes entirely from the liberal side of the spectrum.

Under “A number of important general points…”  on page 2 the report continues “Rather than adhering uncritically to historically established ethical tenets, there is a common view among us that we and the Church need to trust and to work from our current human experience in the sexual field, in the light of our understanding of the christian tradition.” And further states on page 9, “our view of christian authority and tradition, expressed through scripture, creeds and doctrine, is that they should never be seen as static and permanently unchanging ‘deposits of faith’.” It appears that the committee were agreed beforehand that “current experience” is a better ethical guide than either scripture or tradition.

It just goes to verify what Sarah Hey wrote some months ago about the Methods of our Worthy Opponents, and the Importance of Getting on Committees.

These considerations are not always easy to take into account, but we do not think there should be any attempt to proscribe particular sexual activities between consenting and mature adults who genuinely believe they have thought about the ‘Rights and Wrongs’ outlined above.

Uh-huh.  And I can point to any number of adulterers, polyamorists and at least one famous incestuous brother-sister couple who “genuinely believe” they are doing nothing wrong.  Since the individual conscience is apparently all that matters, people in the Church of the New Thing could do virtually anything as long as they feel good about it.

St. Anonymous is right.  And: 

“...there is a common view among us that we and the Church need to trust and to work from our current human experience in the sexual field…” 

Even if your “human experience” includes stuffing sheep in the pasture and anything else one might find in the do-over of Sodom and Gomorrah. 

Oh, yeah, that’s a much better ethical compass than any teaching you’d get from Scripture and Tradition…

Pass me the bucket…what’s worse is all the wooden-headed who don’t see the inherent demonic corruption driving this sort of thing…