September 8th, 2008

Why did TEC invest so heavily persuading people to come to Lambeth? And did its strategy pay off?  One of its key people shares how important the ‘listening’ process had been to gain support for TEC – and affirms that yes, indeed, its strategy worked.  Read the rest on AAC’s site below.

All of this was mostly positive, and it gave me the opportunity to describe the polity of the Episcopal Church to bishops from other provinces – how we are governed by the voices and votes of the laity, clergy and bishops and not by the solitary decision making of the bishop or primate of the province. Some African bishops expressed wonderment that American bishops had very little decision making and enforcement power and saw our system as difficult, if not unworkable. One bishop from Sudan came up to me after I spoke at a hearing on the Windsor Report and apologized for his primate’s position on human sexuality. He told me he had been threatened with losing his diocesan oversight if he attended the Lambeth Conference. Others from Africa, India and Asia had not been aware of the incursion of primates and bishops from overseas jurisdictions into the Episcopal Church and were saddened to learn that such behavior was seemingly tolerated by some in leadership positions within the Communion.

It was reassuring to me that many bishops, even those who do not share our understanding of human sexuality in the life of the church, said their disagreement with me and the Episcopal Church was not a “breaking point” in our relationship. Some said they knew in time they would have to be facing the same issue in their own countries, and we all needed to have more conversation about human sexuality in a non-legislative format. All of these reflections, although problematic in some instances, were centered on an optimism that can hold us together as a Communion if we continue to work at it and not remain in isolation from one another.

More………………

Listening to Bp Gene Robinson … again

September 8th, 2008 Posted in Culture, From Lisa’s Lookout, Homosexuality, Politics |

But now it’s time to get serious. It is no longer enough to make a decision to vote for Barack Obama. The polls – unbelievably and frighteningly – are close. The election of a LGBT-friendly candidate is not a foregone conclusion. We now have to WORK for his election. That means calling your parents, your siblings, your friends from college; it means talking to your co-workers at the water cooler and your next door neighbors – about why this election is important to you as a gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender person, and how it will make a difference to you and your family who inhabits the White House. It’s time to tell them that a vote for the Republican nominee is a vote against YOU, against YOUR rights, YOUR family. And if they don’t understand how that could be true, be ready to tell them.

More………….

September 7th, 2008 Posted in From Lisa’s Lookout10 Homosexuality | No Comments »

Of course, all this really says is that along with other ‘progressive’ Christians in the Anglican Communion, Tutu has abandoned the biblical claim that certain moral behaviours actively embraced will cause one to forfeit one’s eternal salvation.  He no longer believes such is the case and admonishes others to join him. In matter of fact, the entire sexual realm would appear to be unimportant – certainly not a cause for concern! - and what people get up to sexually - and the soaring cost of these behaviours in terms of the individual, marriage and the family, the community and the nation - are matters which are downplayed or ignored entirely.

I have no doubt but that Tutu’s concern for the Have Nots is very close to the heart of God. However, I have huge doubt that he is correct in his sexual ethic and its impact on church and culture or in his evaluation of the present Anglican crisis.

But that is only the first part of the saga.  Given the fact that Tutu is one of the most vocal and popular advocates for gay rights now on the planet, why did the Tearfund organizers invite him to speak?  Did they not realise what they were letting themselves in for?  Or is Tearfund shifting, ever so slowly, ever so incrementally, from its mooring in a strong, compassionate evangelical heritage which embraces both grace and truth?  If not, then perhaps the organization might wish to distance itself from Tutu’s sexual ethic.

If you would care to contrast the BBC’s account with what is on Tearfund’s site, the addresses are here.  And if you wish to contact Tearfund directly, its details are here as well.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7602498.stm

http://www.tearfund.org/News/World+news/Tutu+conference+news.htm

Email: enquiries@tearfund.org Tel: 0845 355 8355

News Analysis

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
9/4/2008

The recently concluded Lambeth Conference which calls for diversity and inclusivity by ultra-liberal Western bishops will not heal the wounds in the Anglican Communion, and will do nothing to stop the inevitable schism they have caused. In a pointed editorial entitled “The Turning Point That Wasn’t”, John Bryson Chane, the Bishop of Washington described the once-in-a-decade gathering of bishops from around the Anglican Communion in two words, “optimistic and troublesome.”

“This Lambeth Conference could have been a positive turning point for the Anglican Communion, but instead the powers that be chose to seek a middle way that is neither ‘the middle’ nor ‘the way.’ It will therefore be up to bishops from around the Communion who have continuing partner and companion relationships to work toward a more holistic view of the church.”

Chane ripped the Archbishop of Canterbury saying Dr. Williams sought what he believed was a middle way that unfortunately continues to marginalize the Canadian and American churches. “Once again, more emphasis was placed on the sexuality issue as being the ‘line drawn in the sand’ that threatens Anglican unity, with little attention paid to the invasion of primates and bishops from other provinces who continue to wreak havoc in some dioceses within the Episcopal Church.”

Chane failed to say that the sexual innovations he and his ilk are forcing on the Anglican Communion is the actual cause of the slow moving schism.

Wrote Chane, “The Archbishop of Canterbury has called for sacrifices to be made to keep the garment of the Communion together. And for the American and Canadian churches, that clearly means sacrificing once again the full participation of gay and lesbian persons in the life of our church. I for one will not ask for any more sacrifices to be made by persons in our church who have been made outcasts because of their sexual orientation.”

His views were shared by the revisionist Bishop of Massachusetts, Tom Shaw who told “The Boston Globe” that he will continue to ordain gays which he called “pastorally important” and will also consult on same-sex weddings. He said that local priests will continue to bless same-sex marriages, although Shaw said that those priests are doing so on their own and that he hadn’t authorized anybody to do anything.

As for whether he would follow up on his earlier intention to push for ending the moratorium on gay bishops and allowing church recognition of same-sex marriage when the Episcopal Church meets at its General Convention next year, Shaw said he would now wait until he meets with all the American bishops next month to decide how he will proceed.

Read Full Article

Some of you may have read the article, “Anglican leader on gays and marriage” published in the Straits Times (ST) on 8th August 2008. It is necessary that the following clarifications be made to address any possible concerns, confusion or misperception.

The ST article was a report on the news by The Times (UK) on 7th August 2008, which was released almost immediately after the conclusion of the Lambeth Conference on 3rd August. It is regrettable that these letters, written in private correspondence some eight years ago, gives the impression that it is a fresh statement of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s views. His theological viewpoints on this issue were not totally unknown in the public arena then.

Whatever his personal views may be on the subject, the Archbishop has since made a press statement on 8th August which states, “I wish to make it plain that, as I have consistently said, I accept Resolution 1.10 (which views homosexual practice as incompatible with Scriptures) of the 1998 Lambeth Conference as stating the position of the worldwide Anglican Communion on issues of sexual ethics and this as providing the authoritative basis on which I as Archbishop speak on such questions.” As the ST article rightly reported, the Archbishop of Canterbury “recommitted the Anglican Communion to its orthodox position” at the recent 2008 Lambeth Conference.

The Diocese of Singapore, in its teaching on biblical faith and order, is firmly committed to this orthodox position on sexual ethics. I need to express as clearly as I possibly can; that what the church here believes (in essential beliefs and moral ethics) needs to be taught and upheld personally and publicly by all our clergy, lay leaders and members of the Diocese. While we can continue to discuss the pastoral challenges on the ground, we need to remain faithful to the teaching of the Church by virtue of the trust committed to us by the Lord and our love for our fellow human being

Read More here

News Analysis

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
8/24/2008

When he was at the Lambeth Conference last month in Canterbury, the newly consecrated first black Bishop of Maryland, Eugene T. Sutton made the following statement; he said that the use of Scripture to reject homosexuality in the Anglican Communion evokes previous eras’ biblically based arguments in support of slavery and racism.

He was supported in his views by all eight black Episcopal bishops at the conference who believe rights for homosexuals and their behavior is acceptable based on similar logic.

Another bishop, the black Suffragan Bishop Gayle E. Harris of Massachusetts agreed saying, “As a person who knows what it means to be oppressed, I refuse to allow my brothers and sisters in the faith to be discriminated against.”

Not everyone agrees with this linkage.

“As a black Christian, these types of remarks are extremely disturbing, as they in no way reflect the level of scriptural literacy, knowledge of theology, history and methods of biblical interpretation bishops (and other church leaders) should possess,” says a fourth generation black Evangelical Episcopal layman, Dr. Michael Howell.

Howell, a former professor of Marine Science, is a member of the Diocese of SW Florida Standing Committee and also serves on the boards of Trinity School for Ministry, (TSM) the American Anglican Council (AAC) and Forward in Faith, North America (FIFNA).

He wrote to VOL saying that one cannot cite erroneous uses of the Bible as justification for slavery as an argument for dismissing scriptural passages that condemn homosexual behavior.

“That’s not godly wisdom, but rather, sheer ignorance. Have they forgotten that the witness of the bible was an integral part of William Wilberforce’s (British Evangelical politicians’) argument for the eradication of the slave trade and (later), slavery?

“Slavery is never glorified in scripture and in the New Testament; it is a situation that should be avoided. There is a clear trajectory from conditional practice and tolerance (e.g., Exod. 21:1-11, Deut. 23:15-16, etc.), towards an end where emancipation is a moral imperative. In Philemon, Paul makes a compelling case for Onesimus (a slave), to be welcomed as a brother in Christ, rather than the continuation of his pre-imprisonment status as Philemon’s slave.

The bible is very clear that God has always intended for people of all races, cultures and classes to be fully reconciled with Him. We see this throughout the Old Testament (e.g., Gen. 18:17-19; Ps. 67: 4; Is. 49: 6; Is. 56: 7; Is. 60: 3, 5; Dan. 7: 14; Mal. 1: 11) and certainly in the New Testament (e.g., Mt. 12: 18, Mt. 28: 19; Mk. 13: 10; Lk. 2: 32; etc.). In Acts 15, James justifies the acceptance of the Gentiles by the Church not solely on the testimonies of Peter, Paul and Barnabas, but by appealing to scripture (c.f., Acts 15: 13-21).”

Howell, a Ph.D. who has been a General Convention deputy who recently attended GAFCON and serves on the Common Cause Partnership Council said that by contrast, no scriptural parallel exists for the acceptance of homosexual behavior, despite the fact that biblical writers were certainly familiar with the notions of different sexual “orientations” and other ideas used in antiquity to support acceptance of such behavior (see “The Bible and Homosexual Practice” by Prof, Robert A.J. Gagnon for a through discussion of this topic).

“A biblical justification of slavery can only be made by ignoring and distorting the spirit, letter and trajectory of scripture – clearly unacceptable methods for exegesis and formulating hermeneutics. Those who attempt to discredit the clear and unambiguous witness of the bible towards homosexual behavior, use the same flawed approached to support the notion that homosexual behavior is compatible with Christian belief.

“For the Church, the matter of homosexual behavior can never be a “rights” or a “justice” issue. No one is barring anyone from participating in any aspect of church life or governance simply because they have same-sex attractions, weak or strong. Sex is a blessing that God has reserved for the context of (heterosexual) marriage. Sexual expression is not a “right” and scripture does not support such thinking.

Read all of this article here