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.
Peter,
On the basis of what you said about Gene Robinson, it seems to me that the you ought to have a member of your constituency at the eucharist that concerns you. It seems to me that anyone who gives communion to Gene Robinson should be disciplined in that they are giving communion to someone who is leading people to hell. On that basis, many of the episcopalian bishops, John Gladwin, the archbishop of Wales etc, should not be given communion on the basis of their apostasy.
I think you are setting your sights too low, being too charitable – if you are to be consistent, it seems to me that discipline should be exercised a lot earlier than you are advocating. In fact, what about the fact that the church is giving communion to many lay people in same sex relationships in accordance with Issues in Human Sexuality. It seems to be me that more consistently evangelical churches would not allow such a compromise of the Gospel to take place.
I am also intrigued with your list of sins and the choosing of bishops. I note that you that you chose all sexual ones. What about people elected or chosen to be bishops who are not pacifists, advocate the death penalty, have shares in immoral companies that exploit others, do not give all their possessions away to the poor etc. Why the sexual ones all the time? It seems to me all of the ones that I have listed are much more significant in Gospel terms?
Additionally, in order to protect your source, you refuse to tell us they are. I think likewise Changing Attitude should be allowed to have such liberty with regard to the celebrant at their eucharist.
It’s not +Gene’s fault that, due to Christian homophobia, he is perceived as (at best) an inconvienient poof rather than a Bishop. As Jeffrey John’s situation showed, not discussing the issue ( I recall a press release that noted just how few of John’s sermons etc had involved sexuality)hardly placates evangelicals (and of course the fact that John was celibate makes a mockery of the idea that it is just homosexual *practise* that conservatives are objecting to.
I don’t need a list of your sins thanks all the same Peter. They are no different to mine or Bishop Gene’s. But you are pretending being judgemental and self righteous is not a sin. And I see Jesus pretty roundly condemning them in the gospels. But does he say anything directly abouyt homosexuality? Let me check….umm..no. Not one thing. And you seem to have no understanding of the concepts of specks and beams…
And I’ll ask, graciously, if you would answer the question you have STILL avoided answering. I’m not sure how I can make it any clearer…but here goes…you can of course tell me if you don’t know the answer…or don’t wish to tell me…no pressure…if I have no reply I will assume one of those applies.
What are the implications you are so sure of if +Gene does preside at the Eucharist, and will they still apply if he is a concelebrant?
Ah Ryan I think you’ll find that once they discovered that Jeffrey John was celibate, the homophobes decided that he still could not be a bishop becaude he had written a book called Faithful Stable etc etc…..Even when he promised to abide by the teaching of the church and only to teach that they still went for him…..
James Jones has of course repented publicly of doing so….let’s hope others will have the christian integrity to do the same…
I have to agree that the emails looked shady – it could be that she doesn’t want to say that +Gene won’t be presiding because that draws attention to it in a way which could be hurtful to +Gene and his supporters; ie a headline saying “Bishop not allowed to preside at Lord’s supper” would be more negative than “Hundreds attend eucharist with Gay Bishop”. Although just having the rector presiding would be the simplest option.
I think that both of you were being a bit cheeky – I’m assuming she gave you permission to publish her emails on your blog?
I am impressed by the level of opposition you receive on your blog, many of +Gene’s supporters appear to be advancing above the simplicity of “Jesus ate with prostitutes, do you wear Nylon?” sort of arguments, which gives me hope for informed, thoughtful dialogue which might actually have a positive outcome. Having said that, you said something quite direct about +Gene leading people to hell, what do you mean by that? That the sin of those who follow of +Gene won’t be forgiven, or that +Gene is preaching a false gospel with no power to save? If the latter, do you have proof? From what I have seen of the guy (which isn’t a lot) he hasn’t said anything which implies he is wrong about anything other than sexual morality, which I feel is very important, but isn’t something which denies the cross of Jesus Christ in my opinion.
Sound,
Do you find the faithful daring to question the hypocrisies of some priests and bishops problematic? I believe you’ll find that Christ required us to do so. Read Matthew 23 and educate yourself.
Blimey sound, I like your logic. Jesus says nothing about sacrificing children to Molech, so Reuben is for the knife tonight….
Can we try to engage in slightly better arguments than this? You don’t want to give the impression that revisionists are biblically illiterate do you?
Tiffer,
Robinson is on record being extremely loose with the Creeds – “take whatever bits you like” is basically his approach. Mmmmmm… sounds wonderfully orthodox to me.
Sorry to be a pedant, but any links – not that if you don’t have any that means they aren’t there, I just would like to know whether the guy has been preaching heresy or not. Even if he’s a bit wobbly, that’s still better than many other clergy I have come across in the UK. I sometimes wonder if we should go back to using the book of homilies!
Still like an answer to the question Peter…any chance it is forthcoming?
Tiffer – let’s start here – http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/12261/#217629
Sorry sound, which question would that be? To the best of my knowledge I’ve answered your queries several times.
Oh, and you seem to be missing bits out of the Gospels at will again Peter..Jesus was very clear about how we should behave with children…
The bible was much clearer about Bishops having more than one wife than it was about Bishops being gay…but of course you and your homophobes are silent on that one too…
I don’t think this is getting us anywhere sound is it? You just used the magic word “homophobe” that kinda acts like Godwin’s Law on this blog.
However Peter, you haven’t answered any of mine. It would be great to have some responses, or you seem to be committing that which you accuse Changing Attitude of – not answering direct questions.
Again, I just want to reiterate that if you are to be consistent in your accusations against Gene Robinson, you need to broaden your targets – there seems to be much too much compromising going on Peter when it comes to who you believe is going to hell. Step up the anti – how many of us do you believe are hell bound! Which of the other bishops do you want to damn? What about your own? Has he knowingly given communion to any practising homosexuals recently? If so, it seems to me that you have no choice but to break communion with him.
Sound is it really constructive to start accusing people of being homophobes? If you really believe that this position always comes from inherent prejudice (it sometimes does for sure) and not from an attempt at a faithful reading of Scripture and an honest attempt to discern What God Thinks then what is the point in even debating? I can’t debate with someone who has determined me to be inherently prejudiced. It’s just a waste of time. I happen to know homosexual men who have opted to be celibate because they hold conservative views on sexuality – are they homophobes too?
And actually I would argue there is more warrant in scripture for polygamy than homosexuality, a lot more. There are good reasons why it is less than ideal, but we don’t rant about them because it isn’t a very current issue in the UK. Many African bishops are just as openly negative about polygamy as homosexuality (sometimes too much so IMHO)
Peter I don’t see that link as being conclusive. It is a common bit of advice, which I hear all sorts of people saying to lay people, to not feel they have to say the bits of the creed they don’t get yet. I have no problem with a congregation member who takes their time coming to a full nicene faith, however it would be incredibly worrying in an ordained person or anyone in Christian leadership. +Gene was a layperson when he was told this, and presumably he says the whole creed now.
Tell you what Winston, why don’t we set up a live video feed – you and me and a bunch of emailed in “Ask Peter” questions? Who’s up for “grill a priest”?
Glad to see that it’s so important to know what little old me thinks….
No webcam unfortunately!
Asking you is important Peter, you are the only evangelical priest who I really have any discussions with – you are my window into the psyche of the evangelical at large – what a joy for you!
However, I am wondering if you might not be kosher enough – just far too liberal, seeking out poor Gene Robinson when there are so many other targets. Maybe, I need to find someone whose target is not one lone bishop from the US, but someone who wants to root out heresy wherever it may be found.
I am going to book you in for a session with Akinola. Here is a great quote from him:
“We must rescue what is left of the Church from the error of apostates … we cannot dare not to allow ourselves and the millions we represent to be kept in a religious and spiritual dungeon … We can no longer trust where some of our Christian leaders are taking us.”
I note the emphasis on ‘leaders’. So, who will be first in your deanery Peter? You might even reach Jeffrey John by the evening with the bishop next.
For clarity Peter, no you haven’t answered all questions..you are doing exactly wat you accvuse Changing Attitude of doing at the beginning of this silly episode….so..I am copying and pasting from an earlier post. A reply would be much apprecizted…
And I’ll ask, graciously, if you would answer the question you have STILL avoided answering. I’m not sure how I can make it any clearer…but here goes…you can of course tell me if you don’t know the answer…or don’t wish to tell me…no pressure…if I have no reply I will assume one of those applies.
What are the implications you are so sure of if +Gene does preside at the Eucharist, and will they still apply if he is a concelebrant?
Sound I do believe Peter said that he is a sinner, ergo he answered your first question.
I think we know the point you’re making Winston, and it’s a fair one. The issue is this though – the presenting issue is homosexuality and in particular the elevation of a practising homosexual to the episcopacy. That’s the current point of debate and it’s the most serious because it IS a mission issue. We need to sort out definitely where we’re at on this subject because we can’t go forward until we do.
I take no delight in taking pot-shots at Robinson et al, but let’s be absolutely clear. Robinson has come over here to the UK on an agenda of being as visible and as vocal as possible. Having done that he demands scrutiny in the same way that I doing this blogging thing publicly invite scrutiny from you and others.
So let’s get this specific issue settled once and for all – then we can continue with everything else.
If Gene Robinson celebrates or con-celebrates it will not only be a violation of his not having a licence to celebrate in the Province of Canterbury, but taking place within the Archbishop’s own diocese it will be a deliberate snub to him and to the whole system of mutual respect and accountability in the Communion.
It demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that Inclusive Church / Integrity et al are not interested in listening or in following the rules they so loudly ask the conservatives to adhere to.
But given that their philosophy is “innovate, carry out and then let the rules catch up”, what more are we to expect?
You are still not answering part of the question..what are the IMPLICATIONS…not your own view about what it demonstrates, but the IMPLICATIONS you speak of early on this thread. In case you forgor, you wrote:
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.
What do YOU think the implications are sound? We could start another thread…
Let’s all speculate.
I don’t think there will be any implications….you told us confidently you knew what they would be in ‘no uncertain detail’… so either you do, or you don’t? Which is it?