Will Gene perform Hocus Pocus?
As I’m sure you’re all aware, over two months ago Rowan Williams wrote to Gene Robinson, refusing to grant him the right to preach or preside at the Eucharist whilst he was over here in Blighty during the Lambeth Conference. Having already completely ignored the prohibition on preaching last night at St Mary’s Putney, now it looks as though he might be getting ready to go one better.
On the 20th of July (this coming Sunday) at 14:30 he will be attending a picnic outside St Stephen’s Church, Canterbury which is billed as "Eucharist". The Rector of St Stephen’s, Justin Lewis-Anthony, is operating as chaplain to the Inclusive Church / Changing Attitude / Integrity team of volunteers for the Lambeth Conference. I was intrigued as to who was going to be presiding at this event so I batted this email off to Changing Attitude:
Who will be presiding at the Eucharist on the 20th?
Thanks,
Short, sharp and to the point. I was expecting an answer on the lines of "That’ll be Justin seeing as it’s his parish" (which would seem reasonable), but the response was different:
Hi Peter
Hope you will be able to join with many other loyal orthodox Anglicans from many provinces as we break bread together and pray for the Bishops as they meet in conference.
Regards
Brenda Harrison
Hon Administrator
Changing Attitude
OK, I admit that there are times when I myself am busy and don’t read emails properly, so I thought I’d give Brenda the benefit of the doubt:
I don’t believe you answered my question, so let me ask it again.
Who will be presiding at the Eucharist on the 20th?
Thanks,
It’s a simple question isn’t it? All Brenda has to do is to either give me a name or tell me to take a running jump (both of which are, I guess, reasonable things to do). Hmmmmm….
Hi Peter
I didn’t answer your question, which strikes me as disingenuous. What is your real question?
Our hope that you will join us in celebrating our Lord’s Supper remains. The table is God’s not ours, all are welcome.
Regards
–adjective
lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous.
Now I’m really not sure that I fit into any of those brackets. I’m being absolutely frank about what I want to know (who is presiding), there is no lack of candor as I’m being totally open and I really am sincere in wanting to know who will be saying the magic words. I mean, that’s the reason I asked her. I could have pretended to be a journalist or used another email address so she wouldn’t realise it was me asking (Changing Attitude love me…) but I didn’t. I just came out and asked a straightforward question.
Shall we have yet one more go? No pretence, no messing about, let’s just get a straight answer.
My real question is simply who is planned to preside at the Eucharist? I don’t believe that’s disingenuous in the slightest. The picnic is organised by Changing Attitude and within the Parish of St Stephen’s Canterbury, so whoever is presiding at an Anglican service will need to have been given permission by the Rector of the parish and, by extension, the diocesan.
If you simply don’t want to tell me then say so.
Peter+
Y’see, you don’t even need to tell me Brenda. I’m asking you a simple straightforward question – just give me a simple straightforward answer. In fact, if you want to tell me to go mind my own, then just do so. I won’t mind – I’ve told you so.
What’s the big secret?
The picnic and Eucharist is organised by Changing Attitude and Integrity USA. All due permissions have of course been sought and granted – I assume that was your real question?
Er no. My real question was, "Who’s going to preside at the Eucharist"? That’s why I asked you "Who’s going to preside at the Eucharist". But that issue of permissions is interesting.
But hey, we’re dealing with people who are inclusive and loving and forgiving and just want to talk and listen, so in the spirit of unity, let’s have one more go.
OK Brenda, I’ll try gracefully one more time. Are you able to tell me who is going to preside at the Eucharist on the 20th of July? If you don’t want to tell me then simply say so, but please let’s not beat around the bush like this.
I guess I will have to take a non-answer as a refusal to tell me.
And the response?
Hi Peter
We are not publicising names of participants in the Eucharist service – we want folk to join with us in worship and prayer, not focus on personalities.
I don’t really understand why you want to know who is presiding – as an evangelical Christian I have never put great store by the identity of the President at communion. It’s enough that we recognise each other in the body of Christ broken for us.
I do hope you will be among the worshippers on Sunday as we pray for our Bishops.
It’s very simple Brenda. I want to know who’s presiding because I’m curious. Precociously indeed you might argue.
By the way, and bringing up that permissions thing you spoke about, I have it on the highest authority that the Changing Attitudes team have had it spelt out to them in no uncertain detail what the implications are if Mr Robinson as much as waves a finger towards anything vaguely resembling the elements.
So obviously Gene won’t be presiding.
And that’s obviously why it was so easy for Changing Attitude to simply say to me "Don’t worry, Gene won’t be presiding".
Probably.
If I were a betting woman, my money would be on Gene presiding. Hmmm, wonder if there will be any reporters there?
Peter, you write: I have it on the highest authority that the Changing Attitudes team have had it spelt out to them in no uncertain detail what the implications are if Mr Robinson as much as waves a finger towards anything vaguely resembling the elements.
So the highest authority has made it clear to you that if the simple country bishop waves a finger (even the middle finger), the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Consultative Council will be compelled to issue an invitation for further dialogue and graceful conversation in one or many of the INDABA (dabadoo) groups? I can see Gene sweating already.
Dear Rev. Ould,
I sincerely hope that subsequent to the service you will inform your readers as to who actually presides at the subject Eucharist. And I know that I am not alone in my desire for information.
Blessings and regards
Well, at least we know for sure that Gene will preach and preside in the Scottish Province on the 3rd of August (@ the St Mary’s Cathedral Glasgow to be exact). No hiding the facts here.
Doesn’t Blighty mean Britain, not England?
+ Gene is under no such restrictions when in SEC churches (looking forward to seeing him)
Frankly, as TEC has ignored every line in the sand, why should there be any concern about repercussions, there surely won’t be any. It’s my belief that the ABoC is in on the cahoots, and knows full well. The public face is just for show, until it’s too late to do anything about it.
With this lot, one only has to look at the labels they assign themselves, and recognise the opposite will be true. “Integrity” US, lol, that’s rich.
Amazing. How ‘Paxman’ of you, Peter.
Such a simple question, and yet such a strained answer. I think we all know what’s on the cards.
Peter,
Who is the ‘the highest authority’, would you care to name them?
What authority do they have over Changing Attitude?
I am just curious.
Pax, Winston.
Peter, every time I read one of your seemingly self satisfied and smug comments IÂ am in mind ofÂ
Matthew 7:1-5. I wonder if you have ever read Matthew’s gospel in full? Perhaps your version of the bible omits this chapter or verses?
So a rather simple question for you this time: are you without sin? are you able to cast stones?
Sound,
I have this huge whopping, monster of a plank coming straight out of my eye. Frankly, my wife is sick of it as when she tries to go to sleep, every time I turn round under the sheets I knock her out of the bed.
That and the blood stains she keeps getting on her pyjamas. Can’t help the blood. I seem to be covered in it, head to toe, all over.
Peter
I see you are not able to answer a straightforward question. Are you without sin? Are you able to cast stones?
Of course Robinson won’t preside- because he won’t have Tom Butler’s permission. And of course Butler would discipline Justin Lewis-Antony and Giles Fraser, just as he disciplined Richard Coekin for inviting a CESA bishop to ordain. Wouldn’t he?
Steve Walton
Steve,
You seem to be mixing up dioceses. St Mary’s Putney is in Southwark, St Stephen’s is in Canterbury. I say that again. Canterbury.
Sound,
I think I more than answered your question.
I’m quite capable of casting stones by the way, just don’t do it very often. Not enough lakes around here to get the right amount of flat water to skim a fair distance (which, I believe, is the best thing to do when casting stones).
You don’t seem to answer my question seriously at all Peter. So I’ll graciously ask one more time. Simple answers will do very well.Â
a: Are you without sin? (yes or no)Â Â
And as a supplementary:
b: Being a sinner yourself (as we all are) why do you think it is fine for you to cast stones at other people? Â
Peter,
You have also not answered my question – who is the highest authority? It is important because I want to know if they are authorised to make such a pronouncement.
By the way, Freud would have had a great time with your description of your bedroom earlier.
Yes, I’d be interested to know what the highest authority is….and what the implications are? And would they still apply if Bishop Gene was to be a concelebrant?Â
And I agreee with the comment about Freud…fascinating…..Â
Mmmm yes, Freud, fascinating.
I’m afraid I don’t give away my sources. As for the question over whether I’m a sinner, I refer the honourable gentleman to Roman 3:23 and I also think that Jesus’ words in Matthew 7 are absolutely spot on. I wouldn’t cast stones if I denied I was a sinner – it would put me in a very dangerous position.
Unless of course sound is implying that no-one is allowed to mention anybody’s sin ever. Ever. EVER?
I went to St. Mary’s Putney and to the Southbank Centre to hear Gene Robinson.
He seems quite approachable and his ideas are not at all extravagant. I cannot see why some people in the Church feel threatened by him… he was elected, was he not? His flock back in New Hampshire obviously prayed and thought about it…  Robinson is legitimised by that process.
I worship at a parish where people are accepted and welcomed and it makes a huge difference in people’s lives. I am sad that some are more concerned in what people do in their intimacy of other’s bedrooms rather than in the important issues.
Kind regards,
Angelo
His flock back in New Hampshire obviously prayed and thought about it…  Robinson is legitimised by that process.
Ah, so if a diocese elected someone who was in a polygamous relationship, that would be OK? What about someone who was a serial adulterer? Someone having a consensual sexual relationship with a minor (it happens)? Someone who sacrifices children to Molech?
Truth is not determined by majority vote.
No, I’m simply impying that you seem far too keen on otehr peiople;s sins than you do on your own. That’s why your blog can seem so slef righteous and self satisfied and sub-Christian.
I’m sure +Gene thinks he is a sinner – in fact I’ve heard him say so. He just interprets the question of whether homosexuality is sinful differently to you. Yet still you prefer specks in other people over beams in yourself…
And the answer to the question of implications and if they would apply if +Gene was a con-celebrant?
Do you see that you seem just as incapable of answering questions as Changing Attitude are? Â
Sound,
I’m perfectly aware of my sin. Already today I’ve blasphemed, been impatient, let pride get the better of me. If you’d like, I could email you with a nice list of regular sins? The usual address?
The issue with Gene Robinson is that he interprets the Bible incorrectly and that he, and many others, are leading people down a wide path to hell. Y’ wanna give ’em a push? I don’t – I want to see a church that preaches God’s love and holiness, the amazing healing and restoring power of the cross and the life eternal that begins by dying to self and to see as many people as possible to be part of that community of the saved.
And to be honest, I’m slightly tired of a chap who just wants to be a simple country bishop, but can’t help going all the way across the world to talk about his sexuality despite saying he wouldn’t, and pulling off publicity stunt after publicity stunt.
I hope that Robinson won’t be the celebrant because he’s a heretic and because I want my church to respect archiepiscopal authority. However, as the validity of the sacrament is independent of the worthiness of the minister, the real worry for me is Robinson preaching here, not celebrating communion.