The tragedy of Lambeth ‘08 will be complete with VGR and partner in attendance in some capacity playing the role of the martyr treated so unjustly with a great cast of TEC camp followers. Bet on it. The ABC just got caught with the disclosure of the confidential communication from his office.

The reports of +VGR’s summons were greatly exaggerated…

Sounds as if the usual suspects were caught with a fabricated leak.  Not the first time, and if +Cantuar doesn’t clean house, the last.

Oh, the little games people play. Kearon was doing his spin (technically no difference in official policy, but alluding to a lot, Ruth Glenhill publishes it, so Cannon Kearon is caught, now a little clarification, which does not disagree with Kearon’s letter. However, the release says Lambeth felt a little heat. Good work Times, keep it up.

Reality check—think 9/30/2007.  By 10/1/2007 you will find out who is really going to Lambeth, and I will wager it will be very FEW. Those who decline know who has accomplished the whole deconstruction of the AC, but they won’t care whether Vickie Gene is there or not.

Sure, blame Kearon. The egg is on Gledhill’s face. Famous for trial balloons and getting it wrong. There was nothing in the form letter she quoted that supported the headline she used. Nor did she say anything like source close to the ABC. I really don’t know if she was over eager for a scoop or was lighting a fire from the other direction to kill the success of a guest invite for VGR. The fact is VGR was and is still after a full invite, and may well get it given that most opponents have already committed to not attending.

Also, look at the previous ABC press release. Also a correction of The Times. Is this the best that London has to offer the news reading public?

Sorry #6, but Gledhill would not have much to do with the choice of a headline (egg on John B. Chilton’s face for not knowing that editors choose headlines) and she did a pretty sly job of giving Kearon’s whole letter and made her editorial comments around it as to how she understood it. Thus you still had the entire primary source document. I note that nothing she wrote or this response contradicts that +VGR may still be at Lambeth, which was her point (and same with Cannon Kearon in his letter).

Let’s see:
1. It wasn’t Kearon’s letter.
2. Headlines aren’t in my control with Gledhill’s excuse the last time. It didn’t wash then and it doesn’t wash now. The headline in this case does match the content. (And see her related blog entry for this even more emphatically.)
3. I rest my case in my criticism of The Times. It writes its the headlines and it hires and fires the journalists.

As an outside observer it astonishes me how far the ACC/Kearon and the ABC seem willing to go to find some way to invite Robinson even though his confirmation is, morally speaking, as irregular to the Communion as Minns’ is.  Williams needs to be honest about it and say that if it weren’t for protests from the Global South primates he wouldn’t hesitate a moment to invite him.

In reply to #8

ON point #1 I do stand corrected, it was “Canon Flora Winfield’s letter to those enquiring about Gene Robinson’s attendance at Lambeth,” Canon Kenneth Kearon is noted for his lack of response to this or the story or his comment to the Anglican Church of Canada message.

Point #2 - Which only means you didn’t learn anything from last time. The egg looks good on you, do you do this often then? You really should learn a little bit more about the profession if you’re going to keep making the same accusation.

Point #3—So you make as poor jurist as literary critic? This was a great journalistic move, a non-story that says nothing that has not been speculated already, a smoking gun of a reply from Lambeth, that suggests what has already been speculated, an obvious editorial, but primary source (as on NPR, when they ask, ‘so what does this mean?’), it causes enough trouble that Lambeth issues a statement which restates one but does not directly rebut the Winfield letter. Best of all the Times got people like you making comments (if you ‘booed’ they’d be even happier).

That’s a close parenthesis but I was attacked by the random smiley monster again ...

Maybe I’m being naive here, but would it really be so bad if Bishop Robinson were to attend Lambeth ‘08 in some sort of guest capacity? Given that so much of the controversy in this “current unpleasantness” has seemed to circle around him, what’s wrong with some of the other bishops getting a chance to meet the actual person as opposed to a convenient caricature?

Kevin Montgomery

#12, since it was the consecration of VGR as bishop, that set the cat among the pigeons, it would be unwise to further aggravate the problem, by inviting VGR to Lambeth, in ANY capacity.

It would be rather like inviting Typhoid Mary, to become a teacher at an elementary school.  No good can come from it.

#12, Kevin, it would be something like nominating Norman Bates as surgeon of the year. “With his skills, it would be good if the other surgeons have a chance to meet the actual person as opposed to a convenient caricature”.

#13,
First of all, homosexuality is not a disease.  You cannot catch it by being close to someone who’s gay. I’m sorry if that’s what you’ve been told, but it’s not true.

Second, what harm is caused by actually having him there, even if just in some sort of observer status?  Is is presence THAT polluting?

Kevin

#15, I agree that homosexuality is not a disease and it is not catching in that sense.

IMO, it is an undoubted fact that the consecration of VGR in TEC, IS the presenting cause for all this Anglican angst. 

There are a large number of primates of the AC who hold that VGR, due to his (Scripturally defined) sinful and unrepentant manner of life was/is thereby manifestly inelligible to be consecrated as a bishop.  However, TEC did the deed and thereby in effect, lifted a middle finger at the AC.

To have VGR in attendance at Lambeth ‘08, in any manner whatsoever, is indeed a pollution.  Others may well say that having those bishops who consecrated and supported VGR gaining his see, is likewise a pollution.  The presence of VGR & his allies at Lambeth ‘08, will simply serve to completely split the AC into a vibrant group generally to be found in the GS, and another smaller group generally to be found in the wealthy but declining provinces in the great white north.

Kevin, unless you hold that the words of +Uganda, +Kenya, +Southern Cone, +Nigeria, +Rwanda et al have no actual meaning, you must know that if VGR & his allies go to Lambeth ‘08, then the GS primates will not go and the split in the AC is both de facto and de jure.

RE: “Second, what harm is caused by actually having him there, even if just in some sort of observer status?  Is is presence THAT polluting?”

They do not wish to acknowledge him as a fellow bishop of the Communion not to mention the fact that they don’t want to share Eucharist with a person who is in notorious, public, and unrepented sin.

Doesn’t have anything to do with polluting presence, just simple facts.

#16,
I have no doubt that the official statements from those provinces have actual meaning and strong emotion behind them. What I question is the reason for such powerful emotions. How does Bishop Robinson’s presence as a guest pollute everyone else?

#17 writes:  “they don’t want to share Eucharist with a person who is in notorious, public, and unrepented sin. “

You mean they only share Eucharist with the pure?  I find it hard to believe that they haven’t received Eucharist with or from (or given it to) people who were sinners, even “notorious” ones.  If the moral status of the priest does not negate the validity of the sacrament, then how is the sacrament sullied if someone else receiving it has a questionable moral status?

If nothing else, Gene Robinson’s presence would give ‘the orthodox’ the opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to the principle: ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’. After all, did not Peter Akinola ipsissimus shake the hand (that besmirched, sinful, faggot hand) of the dishonest, mendacious, opportunist Nigerian gay activist?

Kevin Montgomery #19: Come now—We are trolls of action;  strawmen do not become us.
There is a difference, dontcha think, between a “sinner” (a/k/a not “the pure”) and a “notorious, public and unrepentant sinner”?  The reason the global south has anathematized VGR and those who acquiesced to his consecration is simply that VGR et al are anathema.  The primary role of a bishop is to uphold and defend the faith once delivered, not to rewrite it.  This is not to say you are not free to believe what you want.  Just don’t call yourself a bishop in the Christian Church (or even a Christian) if it doesn’t match Christian doctrine.

#20, To love the sinner and hate the sin, implies that the sinner is aware of, recognizes and accepts, the reality that he is in a state of sin, or is at least open to the possibility that he is in a state fo sin.  Those who love that sinner as a Christian brother or sister are only able to bring the sinner back into grace, if and only if, that sinner does in fact acknowledge his sin.

In the case of VGR and the position of the homosexualists within TEC, the homoerotic sex acts are NOT regarded as sin.  In fact, it is being touted as holy even though it is contrary to Scripture.

Therefore in this case, VGR is trying to crash the party and force his presence on those who reject homoerotic sex as a sin.  At best, this is boorish.  At worst, it is a deliberately provocative act designed to finish the fracturing and breaking, of the AC.

Finally, if +Nigeria shook hands with a homosexual activist from Nigeria, it was in a social setting, not the setting of a Eucharist.  The hand-shake also may have been prior to +Nigeria even being sure of who the person was.  Anyone ought with little difficulty, see that there is a huge difference in being socially polite in a public, non-liturgical arena AND including a notorious, public and un-repentant sinner in a liturgical setting.

A ‘sinner’ knows what he does is sinful and he repents.

A ‘notorious, public and unrepentant sinner’ denies what he does is sinful and seeks to lead others into that sin (Romans 1:31-32).

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

Ok, I’ve got it now.  Bishop Robinson has the gay cooties, and the so-called “Global South” bishops don’t have enough Purell to get rid of them.  Thanks, I’m beginning to understand.

#24, that’s a pretty juvinile response to a serious theological issue.
It’s not cooties.  Nor is the fact that VGR is homosexual.

What it is Kevin, is that VGR is play-acting at being a bishop, all the while living a lifestyle condemned in Scripture.

He thinks this is good.  Others think it is a disaster.

To use a child’s phrase to try and demean or belittle the seriousness of the situation, doesn’t get the ball very far down the field.

#24, Kevin, Mr Robinson needs to repent his sin, but doesn’t appear to be ready to do that. What can you, or we, do to help him repent?

Appreciate the calls to avoid juvenile language, etc.  Thanks #25 in particular.

As you may know, Kendall is travelling, as is one of the elves.  That means we have VERY VERY little elf coverage on the blog much of the time, and much of our blogging time is now taken up with posting stories on Kendall’s behalf, not monitoring comments.  So, we very much appreciate:
1) self-moderation; and
2) other commenters’ patience in not overreacting to an inflammatory statement

Thanks in advance.  These 2 weeks are shaping up to be a huge challenge for the elves and we really do need our commenters’ help to keep things civil when we cannot intervene.

I’m sorry.  Perhaps, my attempt at lightening things up was misplaced. I will be much more serious from now on.

How about this:
Gene Robinson is not “play-acting” at being a bishop.  He IS a bishop.  Whether you like it or not, that’s a fact.  I could just as easily say that Martyn Minns and all those other rapidly proliferating (faster than rabbits) episopoi vagantes (I hope my spelling is correct) are play-acting at being real bishops, but I’ll refrain. 

I’ve tried to figure out why his mere presence (even in a diminished capacity) would be so evil, and all I get are the same lines over and over again. The best I can tell is that it’s one of two things: (1) Either they are so insecure in their own stance that they don’t want to risk meeting the actual, flesh-and-blood person at the middle of this and realize that he’s not the diabolical ogre that he’s made out to be, or (2) they are so afraid of us who are gay that they don’t even want to be in the same country, much less the same room as us. For some (e.g. Akinola by his own words), it’s definitely the latter.  (Of course, that kind of attitude makes me wonder about the reason for that irrational fear, but this isn’t the place for such speculation.)

Perhaps I’m wrong about all of this.  If so, prove it.  Would meeting Bishop Robinson really be so bad?

Kevin

Kevin

It is not meeting +Gene that is the problem.  It is not his presence either. 

The concern for these conservative Bishops is that an invitation is a de facto acknowledgment that the Anglican Communion supports his ministry.  Whether they want to believe he is a Bishop is irrelevant.  He is indeed.

Kevin, as long as VGR claims to be a bishop in good standing, the face to face you want, will not happen.  For the GS primates to meet with VGR, or any of the bishops who voted for him or who themselves in their dioceses allow SSB etc., it would be for the GS primates to give them standing.  This *face time* would tend to indicate an accceptance of those people, while they are unrepentant and in a state of sin.

For most, words do indeed have meaning.  The words spoken by the GS primates mean what they clearly say.  The words written in Holy Scripture, mean what they clearly say.

Kevin, one last time, let me say this.  The fact that VGR is homosexual, is in and of itself of no matter.  The fact that VGR engages in an activity that is condemned by Holy Scripture, is of great matter.

For the same reasons that VGR should not have been consecrated, neither should +Beisner have been consecrated, due to his serial marriages and divorces. 

Whether it is openly homosexual acts, or openly adulturous heterosexual acts, they are all the same. They are sinfull conditions and they are both, similarly condemned in Scripture, making a person so acting as unacceptable for election into the position of a Christian bishop.

#29,
How, pray tell, is it necessarily a sign that we “approve” everything about him if he’s invited as a guest, such as, for example, a bishop from another church might be invited in a special capacity to provide a report to the Anglican bishops from one of our ecumenical partner?  Or perhaps a secular leader? 

#28,
As far as repenting of sin, is Archbishop Akinola prepared to repent of his sin of pushing for the imprisonment of gays and lesbians and their supporters merely for crime of existing and speaking out and, by demonizing those people, of putting their lives at even greater risk?  Is he prepared to repent of that sin?

Kevin, as long as VGR claims to be a bishop in good standing, the face to face you want, will not happen.  For the GS primates to meet with VGR, or any of the bishops who voted for him or who themselves in their dioceses allow SSB etc., it would be for the GS primates to give them standing.

Well, since the damage was already done when they met with ++Katharine, we shouldn’t really need to worry about this.  She voted for +Gene and allowed SSBs in her Diocese

#30,
You don’t get it.  The so-called “Global South” bishops (and that hardly includes all of them, trust me) won’t meet with us because were supposedly unrepentant, but if Bishop Robinson and all of us else were to suddenly “repent” and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness, then there’d be nothing to discuss.  Sorry, we’re not going away, and we’re not going to be made scapegoats either. 

As for Bp. Robinson’s orientation not being the issue, that’s hogwash. If he were celibate, he’d still be vilified and shunned.  We’ve seen it before.

Unfortunaately, Kevin, VGR WILL go away (and you too) if there’s no repentence for homosexual sin. Read Revelation 20:10-15 real slowly. And that is VGR’s betrayal of you and even of himself: He knows the Word but he refuses to accept it and he leads others to refuse also. See again Romans 1:32-33.

And, of course, that applies to all sins not repented.

If Gene Robinson were to be invited as a guest, it would be a circus, a distraction, a fiasco. The media would cover Gene and his husband. They would be crying on the “injustice of it all.” No discussion about millenium development goals, covenant,..., just poor Gene. As the ABC has said, Lambeth is not a legislative conference, so guest or regular attendee is about the same except guest status is in some sense worse. He can cry about his victimization. “Oh, the horrors. Oh, the shame. Oh, the injustice.”  Jamboree? At least there is some value in a Jamboree. Some scouts get merit badges. The Gene show would be of no value is except to bring more infamy in the worlds eyes to the Anglican church.

Interesting, one person makes a lighthearted comment and gets called on it.  Another consigns that person to hell and nothing is said.  I see how this place works. 

Btw, Romans chapter 1 has only 32 verses (at least in the Bible I have).  Besides, as Paul continues, “Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because [and here’s the kicker] you, the judge, are doing the very same things.”  (Rom. 2:1)

Kevin, I actually should have been more careful in my comment.  It was not merely your cooties remark that bothered me in this thread.  It was also #13’s Typhoid Mary analogy and #14 Norman Bates’ analogy.  Those weren’t at all helpful to the discussion, nor was the general tone of many of the other comments. 

Apologies for appearing to single you out.  It honestly was not intended, but ended up seeming that way.

It’s getting really tempting to shut this thread down.  It was a very simple correction and clarification from Lambeth folks.  Not that much “new news” and I think this story may have been beaten to death at this point.

No, that one isn’t my sin; sorry!! I have others, but I repent them. It’s repentence which makes the difference.

Ssorry about that misquote; my eyes aren’t what they used to be and those little numbers have got smaller and smaller. Try Romans 1:31-32.

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

The point I was trying to make (and presumably part of the point that KM was trying to make, even though neither of us accept that there is necessary ‘sin’ involved) is there has been precious little ‘love’ displayed by the orthodox. When that is displayed - and properly displayed, as by Jesus himself - THEN and only then can we properly debate the issues.

Elves: you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Your bias is patent. I know other blogs - like e.g. Susan Russell’s - are even more controlling - but nevertheless there is a gross disparity between what you concede reasserters - often vile and ignorant abuse - and what you concede reappraisers.

As one who T19 would classify as a reasserter I must dissent from Scholasticus’ comment. Kendall and The Elves do a very respectable job of being evenhanded in policing comments. Thank you.

————
John, we think you mean reappraiser?  In any case, thankyou.  We generally get complaints from both sides which we hope means we’re doing something right.  No we don’t edit every comment fairly.  We know that.  We appreciate feedback and try to admit when we’ve made a mess of a comment thread