Windsor 'Compliance': More from BabyBlue

Apr 14, 2008 by

LATER:  If this is the real deal and Bishop Wright is not just whistling Dixie, how audacious will Rowan Williams actually be? What would cause him to finally pull the proverbial plug on the one big happy tent and actually say to a group of personally-selected, no money back guarantee group of bishops "here’s your hat, what’s your hurry?" Does he think this will help keep GAFCON at bay? "You can’t boycott Lambeth if I say you can’t come," or some other kind of whine. And how about those 815 lawsuits? Thing (sic) aren’t going so well at the moment – might they need a little foreign intervention?  From:  http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/2008/04/bishop-tom-wright-reports-that-rowan.html Thanks too, BabyBlue, for naming the entire list of the almost two dozen Windsor-compliant bishops!  Given the low to almost non-existent profile of the Windsor-To-The-Rescue project, I had forgotten that so many had originally signed on.  One just wonders where most of them have been in recent days.  It is also good to have a list of those who consecrated Gene Robinson.  Lots of names there too… For Tom Wright  see here:  ...

read more

Windsor compliance: From the Bishop of Durham's talk to the Fulcrum Conference

Apr 14, 2008 by

From BabyBlue Here’s what Tom Wright said yesterday: When the Archbishop issued his invitations, he made it clear as I said that their basis was Windsor and the Covenant as the tools to shape our future common life. That invitation was issued only three months after the remarkable joint statement from the Primates issued in Tanzania in February 2007. After a summer and autumn of various tangled and unsatisfactory events, the Archbishop then wrote an Advent pastoral letter in which he reiterated the terms of his initial invitation and declared that he would be writing to those bishops who might be thought particularly unsympathetic to Windsor and the Covenant to ask them whether they were really prepared to build on this dual foundation. Those letters, I understand, are in the post as we speak, written with apostolic pain and heart-searching but also with apostolic necessity. I am well aware that many will say this is far too little, far too late – just as many others will be livid to think that the Archbishop, having already not invited Gene Robinson to Lambeth, should be suggesting that some others might absent themselves as well. But this is what he promised he would do, and he is doing it. If I know anything about anything, I know that he deserves our prayers at this most difficult and fraught moment in the run-up to Lambeth itself. So, the Archbishop of Canterbury has written letters to bishops he’s identified as being "particularly unsympathetic to Windsor and the Covenant" and that his letter will ask those bishops whether they are really prepared to "build on this dual foundation."   Read the whole article...

read more

Lambeth 2008: To Go or Not to Go

Mar 3, 2008 by

Each bishop must decide before Almighty God what to do. I am aware of the immense spectrum of views and voices speaking into and upon this issue, each from her/his own vantage, each with the best of intentions, no doubt. For many conservatives it is imperative that orthodox bishops attend Lambeth, for otherwise the traditional Christian sexual ethic – lifelong heterosexual marriage between a man and woman, with a positive celibacy for all others – well may be lost. I believe it is too late – Lambeth has already been lost. The very air of Lambeth 2008 will be mandatory gay-friendly and gay-affirmative, which is one reason Changing Attitude (CA) et al is so insistent that all come, all be present. And it is this issue I wish to explore in a moment. However, two brief comments need to be made here. AB Peter Akinola has very clear memories of what happened in 1998 (see below). However, much has changed in the past decade. Now GLBT advocates and allies are matter-of-fact, relaxed, confident, chilled – even assertive. And why should they not be? It is fully to be expected that they will be on the inside, helping to run Lambeth in the offices of the secretariat, press corps etc. Lambeth can not ‘happen’ without significant volunteer help from the staff of western bishops. What is incontrovertible, though, is that CA et al is simply thrilled about Lambeth – is presently raising large amounts of money to pour into it – is gearing up to be an integral part of it. I believe it will be almost impossible for the conservative voice to speak up or be heard, let alone be taken seriously. As the CoE’s ‘Gay Wednesday’ synod debate clearly demonstrated, the ‘Hear My Pain’ line – which is powerful, no doubt of it! – works its magic and shuts the potential opposition up efficiently and effectively. The conservative position is continually back-footed and on the defensive, reminiscent of those posed with the question of whether they had stopped beating their wife (or husband) yet. And in relation to this Lambeth, of course, we all realise that Rowan Williams fully supports and actively endorses partnered lesbian/gay clergy in the CoE (think 29 November 2007) – while there are just under 200 Civil Partnerships (think Gay Marriage – they do!) of Anglican clergy and laity registered with CA alone. At some point in the very near future, the penny will drop and people across the theological spectrum on this fair isle will realise that in fact, significant parts of the CoE mirror and echo TEC perfectly – but lack the courage and honesty to admit it in public. Here, however, I would like to focus upon the role of the overtly gay ‘presence’ at Lambeth and explore some of the rationale behind why CA et al is so insistent that all the good bishops attend. My old gay mentors, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, are the authors of After the...

read more