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
What about the Jeffrey John point? Certainly one agree that apposing homosexual practise should be allowed without warranting the homophobia label, but surey it is appopriate for opposing the consecration of a *celibate* man with homosexual orientation?
sound,
I believe that the statement you posted at 4:03pm, that he “told us confidently (he) knew what they would be in ‘no uncertain detail…’. is not borne out by the very quotation from Rev. Ould in your immeditately prior comment. In no manner does his statement (for clarity, here it is, cut and pasted from his original post: “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.”) support the assertion that Rev. Ould knows precisely what those consequences will be. Rather, it makes the categorical statement the Changing Attitudes has been given a precise understanding of the consequences.
It really does help in respectful and charitable dialog when every party takes the time and effort to understand exactly what the other parties are actually saying.
Blessings and regards
I know that my source says that CA have been made aware of the implications. Would you like me to go back and ask my source what the implications are?
Damn Keith, you beat me to it.
I do like the fact though that you actually read carefully what I did write, not what you assumed I meant by what I wrote…
Thanks Keith. Peter may or may not know these implications are. The quotation is ambiguous. But he speaks about having things on highest authority…I am asking him for clarity. If he does not know, he only needs to say. It’s that simple.
Ryan,
I think the problem with Jeffrey John was firstly down to what he taught in “Permanent, Stable, Faithful” and secondly the fact that he was unrepentant about the previous sexual nature of his relationship with his (now) civil partner.
For the record though, I was one of those who did not think so much of a fuss should have been made about him being made Dean of St Albans. The appointment to the Abbey Church of St Albans, after his withdrawal from Reading, was a de facto admittance that he would not make purple after all.
For the record, several Deans have gone on to be Bishops…..the Bishop of Salisbury, the Bishop of Gloucester….to name but two.
OK sound, let’s do it again.
If you ask me, my understanding of the implications are what I posted above, which I’ll copy again here now:
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 upâ€, what more are we to expect?
So what I’m basically saying is that the implication is that they will be sticking two fingers up at the rest of the Communion, the Primates and Rowan.
Whether this is the implication that CA have been indicated they will be understood by the powers that be as implying, I don’t know.
Now, what the *consequences* of all that are, well, who knows….
Thank you Peter and sound,
I simply try to ensure that my comments respond to the precise meaning of that to which they are a response, and certainly when that meaning is readily accessible, just as I try to write with a corresponding precision, lest my thoughts be so ambiguous as to be taken amiss by my correspondents.
Blessings to you both
Aaahh, well there we differ Keith. There are times I deliberately write with precision and times I deliberately write with ambiguity.
I’m an Anglican…
Peter
How exactly would repentance for Jeffrey John’s past sexual relationship worked; should he have publicly denounced his past behaviour or something? Isn’t moving *from* a sexual relationship to being in a celibate relationship – in and of itself – indicative of repentance? I seriously doubt that a *straight* bishop who had written something supportive of homosex (didn’t ++Rowan do this in “The Body’s Grace”?) would have been prevented from becoming Bishop in the way John was. Serious question : did *you* never experience discrimination or the like from Christians due to your admittance of past SSA?
Tiffer
No, Peter did not seek my permission to publish a private email exchange on this blog.
Proves I was right in my hunch that he was being disingenuous in asking Who is presiding? (Hm – No `please’ either, maybe Christian lesbians don’t warrant common courtesies?), as he clearly has another point to make.
`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”. It may have been easy Peter, but you didn’t ask me who wasn’t presiding. Why didn’t you ask me whether Gene was presiding if that is your real concern? Honest communication has the capacity to help build trust and genuine relationships.
Peter
I’m sad that you felt the need to spin this tongue in cheek exchange as sinister. Please recover your sense of humour and lighten up.
Keith
You are a better man than I then…like Peter..I sometimes write provocatively.
The issue is about dialogue. Peter is convinced that active homosexuality is clearly a sin and that the bible can only be interpreted that way. I am very clear the bible is unclear about anything other than some very specific contexts. Serious biblical scholars are divided about the issue. We have no choice but to dialogue, and the conservatives are slowly recognising that the liberals are not going anywhere. So we have to find ways to get along…I respect Peter’s views. I think they are completely wrong. But he still has a valued place within the church. But I do object to the judgemental attitude he takes with phrases like ‘leading people to hell’.
Peter,
Your publishing the exchange without permission and putting such as spin on it really does you no credit at all. I am glad that Brenda has had the honesty to point that out.
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’.
Am curious to know from your source (`highest authority’? – thought that was God) who exactly has spelt out these mysterious `implications’ to the CA team. It’s news to us. Perhaps your highest authority is spinning. By the way – it’s ATTITUDE without the `s’.
Ryan wrote, Isn’t moving *from* a sexual relationship to being in a celibate relationship – in and of itself – indicative of repentance?
No, not at all. So much is obvious. Random example: a man is treated very badly by his girlfriend and breaks off all relations with her, including the sexual ones. He decides that he is going to take ayear to sort himself out before going into another relationship. Repentance? Not even close. 2nd ex.: two men in a sexual relationship cool off on each other and then discover that, because of certain things about their situation in life, they gain financial benefits from a celibate relationship. Repentance? Not necessarily.
Pre-emptive explanation: a) I am _not_ saying or implying that these are explanations for J. John’s actions. I refuse to speculate. b) The point is that moving to a celibate relationship does NOT in itself show anything about repnetance. (In the present case, a retraction of the views put forth in his book would be solid evidence.)
Douglas
I meant the moving from the sexual relationship to a celibate one is – in John’s case – indicative of repentance. In fact it wouldn’t suprise me if many evangelicals thought that he had just temporarily stopped having sex with his partner for the benefit of his career. And academics (which I garner John was or is) should be allowed to explore issues without later having to recant them (or do we really want alleged theologians hedging their intelletual bets with an eye to career advancement?).
Nice to have you here Brenda. Perhaps you can answer us a simple question.
Who will be presiding at the Eucharist outside St Stephen’s church, Canterbury on the 20th? Your complete failure to answer this simple question is frankly starting to be a little embarrassing. What is the problem with simply telling us the answer? What’s the mystery? Are you protecting someone? Shades of Michael Howard…
“Did you threaten to preside at the Eucharist on the 20th”?
Proves I was right in my hunch that he was being disingenuous in asking Who is presiding?
You need to look up disingenuous again in the dictionary. I was quite clear about what I wanted to know – who was presiding – and that is the subject of this thread.
I’m sad that you felt the need to spin this tongue in cheek exchange as sinister. Please recover your sense of humour and lighten up.
Tongue in cheek? You’re suggesting that when I asked you a straight forward easy to answer question, I was actually just being tongue in cheek?
Tell you what Brenda. I’ll do you an extra special favour. Email me with the details of who will be presiding and I’ll make sure that it’s published for all to read on this website.
Unless of course there’s something to hide…
You people absolutely break my heartp stating with your Hocus Pocus which in this context clearly dishonors both the Blessed Sacrament, to your ignoring the Episcopal consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire as Gene instead of +Gene (Anglican tradition don’t you know), to the vindictive pettiness of so many of the comments, perhaps most graphicly the comment on footwear.
How can you possibly expect people of good faith to take you seriously.
Anywhere else I’d mistake you for a bunch of simpering queens.
Who are these people you are referring to? This is the comments page of an individual’s blog, with many commentators with differing views.
Hocus pocus was originally slang for an important part of a Eucharistic prayer, which presumably is the sense in which Peter O is using it. This can still be offensive, but in many different church circles in the Uk (catholic, liberal, evangelical etc) I have experienced this would be considered risque but not in bad taste.
Where was the shoe comment -I clearly missed it?
My, my Peter. You certainly seem to have hit some sore spots of your Worthy Opponents.
Keep up the good work.
Alas, Peter simply does himself and his cause a great disservice with the whole of this ‘thread’. He has published a private correspondence without permission. He has not apologised and he is dissembling about his reasons for writing in the first place. Maybe CA simply haven’t decided who is to preside yet? Maybe it will be a general concelebration? Maybe it will be lay presidency?
And if Peter wants to talk about people having no respect for ++Rowan, he might ask himself what all the people at Gafcon were doing, when Rowan clearly had no sympathy for the thing happening.
CA and any other group can hold a picnic whenever they wish. The can incorporate a eucharist and ask whoever they wish to preside. I believe that legally Rowans’ ‘prohibition’ would only actually extend to authorised services in authorised buidlings if legal push came to shove.
Peter, you need to be careful how you refer people to the word honesty when you are sometimes less than honest yourself. And your post today simply smacks of arrogance and self righteousness once again, and dishonours all Christian people.
As the Director of Changing Attitude England, I step reluctantly into this thread. Peter, we know who will be presiding at the Eucharist on Sunday. The service is not about personalities, but about God and our offering to God of the worship and prayer by hereosexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Anglicans and others. We will give praise and glory to God.
By focussing on Changing Attitude in this way, you do us a great service and we are reluctantly thankful You increase the hits on our web site and bring our work and mission to the attention of many more people.
We have not asked for permission for the person who will preside at the eucharist. We have been open about our Eucharist and those who will particiapte in it with those for whom such openness is appropraiet. You are not one of those people. Out of courtesy, we have informed Lambeth Palace, the Diocese of Canterbury, and St Stephen parish, of our desire to worship God on Sunday afternoon in the open air in Canterbury. Changing Attitude has always tried to respect people’s need for privacy and confedentiality and to relate approprately to the authorities of the Chuirch of England. As a result, we find that we are held in considerable respect.
As I have written on the CA web site, people will judge you by the language you used in your original post on this thread and by what you have written eslewhere. Gene Robinosn is a bishop in the Anglican Communion as as such his title is Rt Revd and not Mr. It is by such deliberate abuse of people that you reveal yourself and your own failures, Peter.