Wow, how refreshing to see her taking a personal responsibility of her post as an example—but only after she gets caught and her sin becomes obvious.

We’ve said it here before, Satan’s most potent weapon against the Body is sexual attraction.  We read Ephesians last night at prayer meeting, well worth re-reading for all believers, especially the part on ‘putting on the whole armor of God’.

I would submit that Satan’s most potent weapon against the Body is in keeping us concentrating on the mote in someone else’s eye.
I agree that it is indeed good to see her understanding the wider picture, and acting on that understanding.

I don’t think I read any details as to how she became pregnant. I would not assume that is was by a sexual act. She may have wanted a baby and gone in for fertilization. THese days that happens more often than people know. I don’t know if Satan had much to do with it, unless you are suggesting the anti-christ.

One of Satan’s most potent weapons is women who practice the old game without bothering about silly old rules. Am I unsympathetic? You bet I am. At 42, you should be a big girl and make good decisions. LM

Slightly edited by elf.

Loveridge’s resignation highlights the difference between Abp. Sentamu and the leaders of ECUSA.

Had Loveridge held a similar position in ECUSA, ECUSA’s leaders would have discerned no inconsistency between holding church office and having extramarital sex. They would probably have urged Loveridge to have an abortion. But if she had gone forward with the pregnancy (as she admirably has), they might well have hailed her continuance in office as another victory for their brand of inclusion. Their sermons extolling that victory might even have noted that the Virgin Mary’s unplanned pregnancy elicited similar disapproval.

Larry [#5]: Just “women who practice the old game”?

I read nothing about her being asked by anyone to resign.  I read that she left March 31st, having given her notice three months previously.  Whatever the details of how she got pregnant, whether by Satan, the Antichrist, or by turkey baster, it was HER decision… to leave and to carry the child to term.  My prayers go with her.

Actually, I think Satan’s biggest weapon is shame and secrecy.  You fall, but don’t want to admit it, so you try to hide that fact from others (and yourself).  You start to do all sorts of crazy things to hid your sin.  This generally traps you into greater sin.  You start to try to hide that too.

The solution is not to embrace the sin, but know that God waits for our return like the Father in the story of the Prodigal Son.  The secret is to say “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you.”  To this, the Father always says:  “Bring a robe!  Bring a Ring!  Bring Sandles!  Let’s have a party and celebrate!”

Knowing that God loves us and waits for our return frees us from the need to hide our sin.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

From the link:  “Her responsibilities included managing a number of his other senior staff, including communications officers.
Dr Loveridge trained at Cambridge and was ordained in 2000. She is associated with the ‘open evangelical’ wing of the Church of England.
Open evangelicals broadly believe in the importance of Biblical teaching and the spread of the Gospel while rejecting conservative views of traditional morality. Until last year, she was an unpaid minister at St Mary’s, Islington, North London, one of the country’s best-known evangelical churches.”
I don’t know if that is a fair description of what they call ‘open evangelicals’ in England, though most of the posters on the English site ‘Fulcrum’ seem to be pro-gay (but not Andrew Goddard). What I don’t understand is how a relatively young woman with no parochial experience became ‘principal adviser’ to the Archbishop of York. What did this post entail?

Thanks, Phil (8). Very Good Point.

Will no one here congratulate her? She’s relatively old for motherhood, even by today’s standards. Bet she didn’t conceive after a quickie after a disco. This has absolutely nothing to do with Satan: grow up, boys and girls! Bet Sentamu wouldn’t have batted an eyelid either.

Catherine [#7]: You may be right about the departure being entirely voluntary. But the article states that she “is also understood to have resigned her licence to practise as a priest and to have effectively stepped down from the clergy.” That’s not (to my knowledge) something women priests customarily do when they take time out to have a child.

Plainsparson [#3]: You may be right about in vitro fertilization. But I suspect that if she had gone that route, she would have discussed it in advance with Abp. Sentamu (even though secular law would not oblige her to do so) and had no occasion to relinquish her clerical license.

# 12: no, I can’t agree that a single woman, deciding to have a child by IVF would be ‘conduct becoming’ of the clergy - not exactly an example to the laity, is it? Then again, fathers have become fairly superfluous in much of modern western society - and it shows, in the chaos afflicting the underclass of youth.

In any event, Emma Loveridge seems quite a remarkable person.

—- Did research for her Ph.D. at St. Catherine’s Monastery in the Sinai, developed strong ties to the Bedouin (“‘Miss Emma’ is something of a phenomenon in Sinai”), and later led tours to the Sinai:
http://www.windsandstars.co.uk/content_library_article_independent.htm (background)
http://www.windsandstars.co.uk/frameset_aboutus.htm (her travel organization)

“Emma Loveridge founded the company Wind, Sand and Stars 16 years ago, working with the Bedouin tribes to enable visitors to travel and work in the mountains and deserts of Sinai. It operates as consultants on responsible tourism, as well as on safety with young people in wilderness areas.”
“She is an ordained minister in the Church of England, has published three guide books on Egypt and the Sinai, speaks Arabic and the local Bedouin dialect, and her company has won several awards for environmental schemes and ethical tourism.”
http://www.blakefriedmann.co.uk/bookClients/_124/ (publisher’s bio)

—- Led relief mission to Sri Lanka:
http://www.stmaryislington.org/news/2005/20050105sri_lanka.htm

A 42 year old single woman preggers?? That’s breaking news? Is she married, is she not? Goodness gracious….that any of us, including myself, take the time to comment on this is a silly waste of time. Surely there are more pressing issues…...and good for All Saints Beverly Hills for keeping her in their paryers. An example more should follow!

I would, however, given the prevailing ethos on this side of the Atlantic, give her credit for actually carrying the child, and not slipping off to exercise her “reproductive rights” in the local clinic (assuming that the pregnancy was unplanned).

Fred:
You ask: Is she married, is she not?
From the article:
One of the Church of England’s most senior women clerics has quit her job after becoming pregnant while unmarried.

Sexual purity is a concern for those who have answered a call to God’s priesthood. The standard is higher, which is why this IS a valid issue.

The burning question (hitherto delicately unexpressed) is: who is the father? John Sentamu? Rowan Williams? Tom Wright (personification of the virile Christian, after all)?

I think we have a right to know.

I hope that the child she has is healthy, a source of joy and witness to the miracle of life and God’s care for us.  I think she was right to resign and hope that she is putting all her energy into caring for the child within her womb.  No matter the circumstances of conception all children are to be welcomed within the Body of Christ with great happines.

#19
Paula,
What beautiful, charitable (= grace-filled) sentiments. I whole-heartedly (though humbly) agree.

# 18: John, your attempt at humor lacks charity.

#18 John S—what evidence lead you to name these particular men? I could find nothing to suggest any of them in the article.

“Not worth a farthing,” as my close English friends say.

Irenaeus (12): I see it to be entirely possible/probable that, finding herself to be pregnant (planned or unplanned), The Rev. Ms. Loveridge chose, voluntarily and of her own free will, to resign her orders so as not to create more difficulty for the Church.  There are many ways to serve God, the priesthood being one.

Since this child will apparently be “fatherless” (who needs men these days except as sperm donors) there will be one more child growing up emotionally and psychologically cheated . At least the child is better off than is usually the case in such situations: executed by an abortionist.

Lots of assumptions being made here, it seems.  There’s a lot we don’t know about the story.

#6. Ha ha ha ha, you’re point is well taken. LM

#19: No matter the circumstances of conception? What? For a priest, unmarried, the circumstances are of no consequences? Can you really mean that?
The invisible father - of no consequence? Let’s suppose that this pregnancy is accidental - since we have no way of knowing - this would be of no consequence? And if it is deliberate, knowing that this would cost her her job and the priesthood, the circumstances are of no consequence? (I might add that since she resigned the priesthood, the implication is that the pregnancy was unsought, accidental, yes?) 

Am I being judgmental? You bet I am. And so should you be, for this woman has should an absolute absence of good judgment and a distinct lack of knowledge of what priestly behavior ought to be. ANd look at the people above who are cheering her on for being honest, as if honesty in matters of the worst judgement wipes the record from the slate. LM

Larry (#28),

I believe what #19 was attempting to convey is that life is always a blessing from God and therefore children, in and of themselves are never “a mistake.”  The labeling of children as such is a symptom of our anti-Christian contraceptive culture—even in the Church.  Certainly there may be a place for moral judgment in this situation, but it is not one that should condemn the child.  So yes, I would say we should agree with #19, “No matter the circumstances of conception all children are to be welcomed within the Body of Christ with great happines.”  If we cannot rejoice for a child, who bears no responsibility for how he or she was concieved, then how can we be against abortion?

Let us not be too hasty to judge here

I can think of another scandulous pregnancy to an unmarried woman…her name was Mary!

#30
I knew someone was going to say that sooner or later. I think it will be alright once this “virgin birth” mother can explain when the angel came and why God called her to do this. That was the circumstance for Mary after all. Yes, sometimes God does call people to do things apart from His normal order, but there is always Purpose in that call - and God’s provision in His ways. In Mary’s case, His provision was called Joseph (who also had God’s call if you remember).

Yes #31 I appreciate the (HUGE) difference between the two cases.
But my point was to do with our attitudes towards others rather than a comparison between two pregnant women.

I guess it worries me how quickly we can point fingers without knowing much detail at all. And ultimately it was only those who were non-judgmental who got to worship the Messiah and befreind Mary- they had not seen the angel! So I am simply saying let us tread carefully . It is too easy to begin plucking motes from eyes if we are not careful.

Having said that I do actually feel her situation warrants her resignation. She has done the right thing..now we should seek to offer compassion, support and God’s forgiveness surely?

Has she done the right thing, or has she done only what is inescapable? Has she done the right thing or has she chosen the best course which will permit her to hide? Give her compassion? Sure. Support? Support for what? And as to God’s forgiveness, I will leave that to Him; it is not in your power to offer in His place.

For Heaven’s sake, people, this is not some tart from the streets of Miami. She’s 42, been all over the world, and so can hardly be a Sweet Young Innocent. And a priest,now that I think of it. I wonder if some man will own up to his side or if she has no interest in establishing paternity - which would tell us a good deal about this interesting woman.  LM

Dear Abby: Please explain the difference between gossip, interesting conversation and expressing an opinion.
                                        AVIS IN HOUSTON

Dear Avis: Gossip is saying something unkind or embarrassing behind someone’s back. Some people mistake this for “interesting conversation.” However, interesting conversation usually involves discussing ideas—not the behavior (or misbehavior) of other people. Expressing an opinion is what I have just done.

Larry Morse,

I was indeed referring to the child she is expecting.  You should note that I said she did the right thing by resigning.  I do not think she should be in a position of moral authority.

It is a very sad truth in today’s world that the preborn are in very real danger.  One of the commonest excuses we hear for killing the preborn is that it will place too great a burden on the mother’s life.  Not a medical burden or even necessarily an economic one.  No it is enough of a burden that plans must change and goals may be delayed.  So when so many feeble justifications are given for killing I will support those who choose life.

PS
I think a priest who preaches heresy is much more a danger to the Body of Christ then one who is unmarried and pregnant.  At least the one will birth a source of joy and love the other births only dissension and rebellion against God.

Given a choice between a sinner in the pulpit who preaches Truth while making clear his repentence and the one who gives no public evidence of personal sin but preaches heresy I would choose the repentent sinner.

“making clear his repetence” is the operative phrase. Is she repentent? Who can tell? Will she give birth to a source of love and joy? YOu don’t know tht either. She may not want the child; she probably did not want to become pregnant. I am speculating on what evidence I have, to be sure, but her actions do not suggest that she is pleased with being pregnant. Will this child be a source of love and joy? In another context, maybe, but in this one, I would rather bet on Texas Hold-‘em.

Is she a danger to the Body of Christ? This wasn’t my argument. The heretical preacher is a misleading dichotomy, although what you say re the B of C is probably sound. But the question is the other judgment, that many of the above were patting her on the head and saying ‘There,there, I’m sure you are fine and everything will work out.” If a man had committed an equally eqregious blunder, I doubt very much that he would feel the balm of sympathy.
Larry

Paula,
surely they are equally as dangerous to the witness and spread of the Gospel of Jesus the Christ? 

Repentance comes with a price:  sin (public or private) has consequences!

The response of a Christian is that once sin in our life is recognized, we must turn from sin, and accept those consequences.  The woman in this story has done the second, but we have no report on whether she has done the first.  I pray that she has, however.

By the way, before someone says “But Jesus took away the consequences on the cross”, let me clarify:

Sin has both temporal and eternal consequences. 

Jesus took away the eternal aspect (Spiritual death and separation from God) on the Cross, but the temporal/earthly consequences remain:

You steal—you go to jail;
You abuse alcohol, you end up addicted;
You have sex outside of marriage—you get pregnant or you father a child; you get STDs; you loose your effective witness; and, if a minster, you lose your pulpit as well.

You repent and turn back to Jesus, you re-gain God’s grace working in you, but you still have to:
go to jail for breaking the law;
to AA or NA and abstain from alcohol;
if a man—marry the girl or support the child; if a woman—have the child and raise it the best you can;
undergo treatment for STDs—depending on the severity this can be a lifetime of treatment, or even result in a slow physical death.

So, yes, I recognize Jesus took the spiritual consequences on the Cross, but we still bear in our own bodies the consequences of our sins.

#32

I guess it worries me how quickly we can point fingers without knowing much detail at all.

Exactly—but then there is all the fingers you have been pointing at everyone else as well. Are they not also somewhat quick off the mark?

And then there are the fingers pointed by John scholasticus in #18 - she at least has said she is involved; not one of the men that he names is even mentioned. To be even-handed you should have also made your views on that kind of fingerpointing as well.

Larry and Library Jim,

I do not know this woman’s teaching I hope it is faithful and orthodox.  I still say heresy is more of a danger to the Body of Christ than an unwed pregnant woman. 

  She sinned by having sex outside of wedlock.  But unlike other sins which we deceive ourselves into believing our private,  the results of this sin are very evident.  Which puts her at a disadvantage.  Just think how dreadful the last day will be when any sin still left unrepented will be made known to all. 

Should I give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she has repented?  I think I should.  Should I give her or any other woman who is pregnant out of wedlock my prayers that her child be a source of joy?  I think I should.  Should she be allowed to continue as a minister of the Gospel without publicly repenting her sin and doing what ever she can to atone for that sin.?  No she should not.  But she is retiring to private life.  Her sin and the repentence of that sin remain a matter for her and God.

And I still maintain that the birth of a child should always be greeted with joy.  That she or he be reared up for the glory of God.  That her life be a testament to the love and care that God has for us.
God has forgiven me so much and He is not through doing so.  I try to be charitable because He is charity.

Paula,
Thank you for your testimony.

“...her growing bump was obvious as she strolled near her home this week.”

I wonder…As the father of this child strolled near his home this week, was anyone commenting on his body due to this pregnancy?  Or can he just continue with his life, job, etc. as they were before with no one knowing anything about his involvement in this
“situation” as long as he keeps quiet?

Pregnancy outside of marriage is certainly not part of God’s plan.
But part of God’s design is that it takes a male and a female.
I’ve read a lot about what this woman should/shouldn’t do or have done?  Aren’t there two sides to this story?

There is a lot the story does not mention.  The father of the child is one of them; their relationship with each other is another.  Her recognition of her need for repentance is a third.

But we all agree she did the right thing in resigning, right?  And we all agree that we need to pray for her that she will seek and heed God’s will on sexual relations outside of marriage (Lambeth 1.10 ? I can never remember the right numbers!), right?

So let’s get praying, people!

#40 and others.

It was a joke. It wasn’t a joke against the lady in question - it was a joke against those who are condemning her. Of course, I don’t believe that any of those mentioned is the father.

Odd joke, John, Please explain it to me.

“I try to be charitable….” And admirable sentiment, Paula, but too often distant from the real world, I have seen too many parents, too many students, been in too many homes, to suppose that what was needed was charity. What was - and is - needed is self-discipline, standards of behavior, a strong and steady demand for responsible behavior, - in short, sound rules and the power to maintain them, informing their every act and judgment. I think I said this before: I know a parent whose daughter (being adolescent obnoxious)  informed her mother that she hated her. Well, nothing new here. Her mother responded, “We’ll worry about love later on. For now, you will do as I say. Period.” To be sure, this is love but it ain’t charity.
  What will this women give this child?  Experience says that if she does not want it but takes it to term, it’s in for a tough life. This is the way the world wags. Still, I admire your sentiment.  Larry

Larry, the joke lies in the sillinesss and offensiveness of the speculation. Since you personally ‘do offensive’ (I’m not insulting you), I’d have thought you might recognise this. At the same time, there were supposed to be serious points: (1) in this area of all areas, it takes two to tango; (2) as I said before, I found some of the original comments inappropriate, and this was a sort of reductio ad absurdum (I’m not insulting you or anyone else).

My view (OK, a very ‘liberal’ one) remains as before. I’d add: I suspect this woman, obviously a very admirable person and with an impressive CV, ‘came to love’ rather late. I know what the Bible says about these matters. I also know (or think I know) from observation and from experience that this can be a very good thing for a person and that this good can outweigh the bad (if any). So I wish her well, hope she has a safe delivery, and am sure she will be an admirable mother. I also naturally hope she has a partner to share this wonderful thing.

Best.

John your joke borders on slander (or is it “libel” when in print?).

Larry I believe that discipline is a form of charity.  So I see no conflict in what you write and what I believe.
As parents we do not love our children if we allow them to become feral.  The boundaries we set for them are evidence of our care and love not of our being despots. 

The same is true of God.  God chastizes those whom He loves because it is for the good of our souls.  Without discipline we do not have freedom we have anarchy.  The risk of spiritual anarchy is too high for me to contemplate.

This woman should have exercised self discipline but that failing does not prevent me from hoping and praying the best for her and her child.

#48

Oh, come on, Jim. It was silly - and meant to be silly! You have a great sense of humour. Indulge mine.

Not when it’s a slur on and meant to cast a shadow on the reputation of men like these.  No, John, it was just in very bad taste. If an attempt at humor, it failed miserably, and as I said, bordered on slander/libel.  I cannot ‘indulge you’ in things like this.
Please go re-read Philipians and Ephesians.

whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.

But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving….Walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light ... Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.

Note: that doesn’t mean we can’t have a sense of humor, but when it’s more gossip and slander than joke, that crosses the line.
And thank you for the compliment:

You have a great sense of humour