Sunday, July 20, 2008

Dear Cantuar, RE: inclusiveness, understanding

Hidden in the lemon ice cream post is a great comment from Leonardo:"let us see if the 'challenge" to address one's fears in fellow bishops is simply empty words...let us see if the Archbishop of Canterbury seeks Bishop V.G. Robinson out!" Leonardo expanded on these thoughts at his blog, Eruptions at the Foot of the Volcano.

Rowan Williams' Sunday address is *here, courtesy of ENS; do read the advice he is giving his fellow bishops. What say we give him a bit of advice back? Leonardo shared his thoughts, please do add yours.

*Just a little teaser from the full address: ...If you have not had the chance to hear directly of the experience of gay and lesbian people in the Communion, the opportunity is there. If you do not grasp why many traditionalist believers in various provinces feel harassed and marginalised, go and listen.... No-one's interests are best served by avoiding the hard encounters and the fresh insights. Bear in mind that in this Conference we are committed to common prayer and mutual care so that the hard encounters can be endured and made fruitful.

(A word of caution - I will review comments as if I were sending them on to my mother! You can be annoyed, angry, sarcastic, and human - but please, not vulgar. Unless it is darn funny.)

p.s. the comment is hidden in the lemon ice cream, not Leonardo...


Anonymous said...

Of course Leonardo is "right on".

And, with regard to the TEC bishops' provincial meeting (caucus), why don't they hold the meeting somewhere else so that +Gene can be included?

"Where would Jesus be?"
- opening salvo of the +ABC, Lambeth 2008

Leslie Littlefield said...

I agree Scott. Where would Jesus be? Certainly He does no approve of the exclusion of anyone. I am very upset by all of this.

Cany said...

With respect, I have no clue where Jesus would be. I may have glimpses and hints of where I "think and hope" he would be, but nothing more than that, really.

I don't tend to live in absolutes when it comes to the Trinity. As with those that absolutely know where Jesus "would" be (e.g. Akinola, Orombi, Schofield, Venables, Nzimbi etc.) I tend to lean to the side of where Jesus certainly needs to be, places we often don't enter... the life of the prostitute, the abused, the drug addict and criminal for instance. Or the life of circumstance, an aggrieved family or someone that just lost their home and, with their dogs and cats, have no place to go. The life of a terminally sick child, mother, father, brother, sister or friend, etc.

I believe that that while Jesus died on the cross, he remains and lives. I believe he never really went anywhere, was always here, is here now, and will always be here. I think he is with everyone.

But honestly, I don't know what Jesus "would" do.

The best I can hope for is to do what I "think" I understand Jesus to BE (verb), and that is one that doesn't stand for injustice, one that is involved in helping one or more of the many elements of God's world, one that is called to "do", not just speak, and one that seeks mercy in the face of all my misinterpretations and mistakes which must be in the billions by now.

I am certainly with +Gene, and he remains in my prayers. I personally believe in the Episcopal incorporation of all of our brothers and sisters in Christ. I would go so far as to say I don't believe in hell, nor do I personally believe ANYONE cannot be saved by Christ regardless of their human words for or against him.

But, I just don't know what he "would" do.

Cany said...

drat. should read:

"As opposed to that absolutely..."

Anonymous said...



ok, then....

how about if our bishops show up off-campus where Jesus *will* be?


Cany said...

Since Jesus is everywhere, I guess it is safe to say he will be there:) Unless of course, he won't be...


Anonymous said...

his choice I guess


Zigzag said...

The quagmire, in my view, is arising out of Rowan Cantuar's insistent equivocation of the suffering of GLBT Anglicans being openly excluded and persecuted by the church with the reasserter's claims of being "harassed and marginalised" because they aren't able to exclude and persecute. They are not the same and the results are the not same. It is comparing apples and oranges.

The reasserters want to be free to exclude based on their scriptural justifications, but they demand that all adhere to their views -- there is no middle ground there.

Those who advocate full inclusion are hopeful that all will someday see the justice and righteousness of their position but they don't demand full adherence and never have.

TEC didn't send out an edict to other provinces demanding that they too consecrate gay bishops and bless same-sex unions and elevate female primates. The danger perceived by the GAFCON primates is that their own people will see the justice of this position and demand the same justice, hence their labels of "false teachings".

The FOCA groups have sent out a few edicts demanding that all provinces accept their interpretations of Christianity and their rules or else they will be excluded as well by fiat.

There will be no "communion" as long as Rowan Cantuar continues to treat these 2 very divergent positions as having equal status. This is the sham of Bishop Gene's treatment and the reason their will be no covenant.

For a covenant to work to bring these wildly different viewpoints together, it would have to be far too restrictive to maintain the Via Media and thus is anathema to the progressive/liberal churches and will not be nearly vengeful and punishing enough for the reasserters, making it anathema to them (as they recently pointed out about the SAD).

Better to walk apart and bless the departure ASAP.

Quiet Contrary said...

Zigzag, I agree - rather like the parent who comes on two kids fighting - or rather one kid being beat on by the other, and separates them with a stern warning that they're both wrong for fighting and they need to get along.

Yeah, but...