Why Not Gene?
I have read of the many "ecumenical visitors" who were welcomed to the Lambeth Conference on July 19 and are fully participating in the conference. People from Jewish, Muslim, Orthodox, Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh faiths, Lutherans, Methodists, Old Catholics – even the Salvation Army, for godsakes! All were welcomed and embraced by the Archbishop Bishop of Canterbury as welcome and valued guests. From what I read, they are being fully included in the plenary sessions, Bible studies, indaba groups, and today's MDG Walk.
Many of these people come from faiths that share virtually nothing of our Anglican faith, and many don't even share the basic tenets of our Christian faith. But they are welcomed as honored guests by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Photo/Matthew Davies
© 2008 Episcopal Life Online
And the duly elected Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire? Nope. Not there. Not allowed in any venue. He is Officially Shunned.
Shame on you, Rowan Williams.
Many of these people come from faiths that share virtually nothing of our Anglican faith, and many don't even share the basic tenets of our Christian faith. But they are welcomed as honored guests by the Archbishop of Canterbury.Photo/Matthew Davies
© 2008 Episcopal Life Online
And the duly elected Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire? Nope. Not there. Not allowed in any venue. He is Officially Shunned.
Shame on you, Rowan Williams.
posted by Lisa Fox at 7/25/2008 12:03:00 PM
18 Comments:
And, did you read Gene's blog today? He could not be filmed (videoed) entering Canterbury Cathedral because they wanted to keep it a place for "all" people. I am speechless.
I saw that too, Sharecropper. Shameful...
I've wondered the same thing, Lisa---every time I hear about this or that non-Anglican attending or addressing the bishops. Feh.
It diminishes the lot, doesn't it?
Lisa,
Thanks for keeping on top of some of the unkinder goings on. Here's my response to Archbishop Deng Bul's words. Long but I hope helpful.
http://thanksgivinginallthings.blogspot.com/2008/07/of-apology-apologies-rhetoric-and.html
I have been wondering the same thing and the news of +Gene today was just shocking.
For me, so far, there is not any way to understand this and in many respects I feel like a yo-yo spiritually and otherwise.
There is no explaining these things.
What needs to happen is for enough of the Lambeth-goers (bishops and others) to absent themselves and stand outside with +Gene. They need to take on some "voluntary suffering", for lack of a better term, and remain outside the proceedings that +Gene is not allowed to attend. The question is, will anyone, or will enough of them, be willing to do that?
There's a palpable FEAR of "+Gene's Gay Cooties" which is just pathetic. Truly, homophobia. :-(
Off-topic request: Lisa, could you put in your permalinks "Newer Post" "Older Post" buttons? In blogs that get good discussions, they're very useful to navigate a thread at a time. :-)
Sorry to be so long in joining the conversation, y'all. I'm taking some time out to be with friends instead of continually hitting the "refresh" buttons on all the web-sources and blogs (including my own).
Yes and amen to all you have said about Gene's experience at Canterbury. When I read his posting yesterday, I was just gobsmacked. The sheer insanity of it leaves me (yes, even me!) speechless ... for now.
Suzer, I disagree strongly. Remember, it was Gene at the HoB meeting who urged the rest of TEC's bishops to attend the Lambeth Conference. If we were not there, the voice in support of a generous orthodoxy would be terribly, terribly diminished.
Gene did also ask them not to allow our bishops to be "separated," and I think they've done the best they could by attending the Sunday eucharist with him and others on the lawn, having the Wed. night event to meet him, meeting with him in the Marketplace, etc.
With the accusations that have been made against TEC, I believe it's important for our bishops to obey +Rowan's/Lambeth's rules absolutely as far as their consciences will allow.
Thanks for the link, Christopher. Your writing is always so thoughtful and rich. I'll pop over and take a look.
JCF, I am sinfully envious of those who have the "Newer Post" "Older Post" linky things. And if I knew how to have them here, I would have had them months ago. I, too, am frustrated by having always to go back to the "Home" page to navigate.
I have a very old e-address for you. I'm going to try contacting you thru it to request assistance offline. That way, perhaps I can avoid showing the utter depths of my HTML ignorance for the rest of the MMOL world. :-)
Lisa, thanks for the correction and update. I updated as follows:
Lisa offers some important insights, and a correction, about how this is playing out among bishops. I must still say though that public statements by bishops can have longlasting ramifications, and the episcopal leadership of the AC has played fast and loose with their tongues to the real potential harm to others. Perhaps, all of our bishops in the AC should make fewer public pronouncements, as I once proposed, for the health of the Communion and the safety of those who are too often the subjects of such speech. This sort of news made it to The Advocate, Towleroad, and PlanetOut and has farreaching consequences for the gospel. By not having a brief public submission either orally or in letters, our own bishops have once again let the word from The Sudan stand as the Anglican public response. We can point to how this was handled "gospel-like" later on, but that does not undo the public words. We should at least be mindful of this.
Amen to that, Christopher! And I do remain hopeful that there will be a public statement from TEC's bishops, perhaps even jointly with those from Sudan. Alas, it won't make the 24-hour news cycle in which we live nowadays. :(
On the one hand, the news isn't as bad as I had originally understood: the way I heard it, +Robinson had been denied entry into the cathedral in order to preserve its safety "for all people."
On the other hand, the news is bad enough as it is. I simply do not understand the rationale behind this insulting move on the cathedral's part.
It took me a couple of readings before I understood you, BillyD. You're right; he was not denied entry. According to his blog:
. . . we were met by a gentleman, representing the Dean and Chapter of the Cathedral, I think. He intercepted me and told me that I could not be filmed walking into the Cathedral (even from the public street outside) after all. The reason he gave took me by surprise, rendering me speechless (an uncommon experience for me!). "We can't have any photographs or film of you entering the Cathedral," he said, "because we want this to be a church for ALL people." Presumably he meant that my being seen walking into the Cathedral would cause others not to want to come.
Kinda like: You can come in here, just so there's no evidence you came in here. As JCF put it so well, the terror of Gay Cooties is palpable in Kent.
Well, I concur with everything people have said here. But what I find interesting is how counterproductive this has been for Rowan. Not tied up with tedious meetings, Gene has been preaching, giving interviews, and maintaining probably the highest visibility of any bishop. And the more people see him I think the more they wonder what the fuss is all about.
It's clear, isn't it? They have decided that Gene is "not human". Humans are welcome. But the Abp Sudan says gene is not human, they love him but he needs to go away. Obviously that's what Rowan thinks too since he will welcome only humans.
I say, it's time to "out" all those lily-livered power-loving gay bishops who are shivering in their closets.
IT
Post a Comment
<< Home