We had a fabulous service this morning in St Mary’s. The place was full of people, good preaching, gorgeous music (Haydn’s Little Organ Mass with organ, full choir and strings) and a glorious time was had by all. We ran out of service books and consecrated hosts (again).
At the end of the service, I made the following announcement:
“I have been giving much thought as to how we should mark the Lambeth Conference this summer. All the duly consecrated bishops of the Anglican Communion have been invited to Canterbury for a conference with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. Well, all bar one – the Rt Rev Gene Robinson, the first bishop to acknowledge that he is living in a gay relationship will not be there as he has not been invited.
I have been invited several time to go to Lambeth, to campaign and wave banners and speak and generally campaign. I have decided not to do this. We must simply be who we are.
However, that has left me wondering how we can mark this Conference at St Mary’s. My response to this consists of 4 events:
Firstly, Bishop Idris has kindly agreed to meet with members of the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans) group which meet here at this Cathedral.
Secondly, The Most Rev Fred Hiltz, the Primate of All Canada has agreed to come and to preach here at St Mary’s on the Sunday before the Lambeth Conference (13 July 2008).
Thirdly, on the same day, those bishops who will be enjoying the hospitality of the Diocese will be invited here for Evensong. This will be an opportunity to greet them, pray with them and send them on their way to Lambeth with all our best wishes and goodwill.
Finally, it seems to me to be desirable to have someone at the end of the conference to come and preach to us. But who would the best person to have be? After all, all the bishops of Communion will be busy with Rowan Williams in Canterbury at the Conference. Well, all bar one. I’m delighted to announce that the Rt Rev Gene Robinson, the Bishop of New Hampshire has agreed to come and celebrate the Eucharist and to preach the gospel on 3 August 2008 at 1030 here in St Mary’s.
I have met Bishop Gene, prayed with him and heard him preach. He is well worth hearing and I invite you all to bring your friends along on that Sunday to hear him.
Further details will be announced in due course.”
Thanks for the reply and the clarification Kelvin.
I’m just wondering whether enough consideration has been taken with regards to the negative effects on surrounding churches that it has, to choose such a controversial figure.
I could understand that to invite him to share his reflections on his situation might be beneficial in the interests of discussion, but surely asking him to come and *preach* suggests that you accord him with certain rights that the church authorities do not? If the purpose is to share the Good News, surely the severity of this conflict can only serve to distract from that News at best, or subvert it for political purposes at worst.
I just get the feeling that it’s being vaunted as “no big deal” when in fact it really *is*. Surely there are plenty of good preachers, (with or without mathematical signs before their names) whose infamy is not likely to distract from the importance of their message?
>asking him to come and *preach* suggests that you accord him with certain rights…
+Gene is bishop in good standing in his church, a church with which the Scottish Episcopal Church is in full communion. He has the same status whilst in Scotland as any other bishop from the Communion. The question of rights does not really come into it.
Sacramentally speaking, every time we share communion in the SEC, we share it with those with whom we are in communion whether they are present or not and whether we agree with them or not.
As a regular and longstanding member of S Mary’s congregation, I, my husband and many others are very pleased that Kelvin has extended this invitation to +Gene – and that +Gene has accepted.
The Bible as we have received it seems to indicate consistently that Christ Himself accepted others as they were – including under a fig tree or taken in adultery. He did not insist they talked the right talk, or walked the right walk before He would relate to them. Such humility and acceptance of the other seems appropriate. Who do I think I am to sit in self-righteous judgement ? ‘Gayness’ is not a personal choice of lifestyle but a very very difficult fact which individuals involved have to wrestle with before being at all able to accept. That some are also Christians is a cause for rejoicing. That some of these are also then chosen and inspired to be leaders who point carefully and meekly to Christ is amazing.
It seems to me, from the standpoint of my simple faith, that Our Venerable Leaders would do well to sit in equal humility at the feet of Him who set the ball rolling in the first place…….
B –
St.Silas has had African Bishops speak and denounce homosexuality; should they have been prevented from doing so as, in this climate, extending such an invite is inescapably political? This never occured to me nor did the idea that they were being invited primarily to wind up liberals.
The world, happily, does not revolve around evangelicals :-).
Hi Ryan. In a sense I see your point (see my big facebook email reply BTW mate). It’s not something you can say categorically or legalistically “you cannot invite this guy to speak”. It’s a free country, and as Kelvin indicates, they are free to invite him in that sense.
All I mean is that there is a significant tension in the AC at the moment, and circumstances have meant that it centres around +Gene. So to invite him to speak brings that battle right to our doorstep. Is this a suitable time to have that (very public) disagreement? Is the forum of blogs, sermons, newspaper articles and gossip the ideal location for this issue to be played out?
Or is it just there to shake things up? To draw things to a head. I suggest that it is not innocuous, it is incendiary.
To say “the world, happily, does not revolve around evangelicals” betrays a lack of concern for the feelings of those same evangelicals who are your spiritual family. And that is what I suspect is the statement being made here.
Can I draw a parallel:
Bob’s parents are talking about splitting up. The reason is that Bob’s dad is in love with another woman, Anne. He is not happy in his marriage, but they are still married. How would Bob’s mum feel if Bob’s dad invited this other woman round for coffee? Just for a chat? Maybe to do dinner and watch a movie with the family?
Of course, if there is an issue here Bob’s mum and Dad need to sit down with a counsellor. Maybe they both need to speak to this other woman, and understand where the situation has arisen from. But those circumstances should be controlled. It is appalling to think of Bob’s dad saying “oh, by the way honey, Anne is coming over tonight for dinner. Thought I’d let you know”.
Yes, I admit that parallel is limited, but do you see how it shows certain disrespect?
Now the point you make about other bishops denouncing homosexuality at evangelical churches… These bishops are *not* the “bishop in question”. Their presence is not surrounded with the same political electricity. People can hear them and evaluate them without the distraction of their political position.
Would the French be bothered by a political commentator in the Times opinion column who makes a generalisation about surrendering or frogs’ legs or something? Probably not. But if the prime minister of Great Britain wrote it? Front page headlines all over Europe…Politics blows things out of proportion.
I don’t care if an authoritative speaker addresses a congregation on a matter that I don’t subscribe to. It is their right, and I might challenge it if this speaker came to my church. But +Gene is the third rail. You can’t create an environment that encourages good discussion over a dispute such as homosexuality when you bring in such a controversial figure. All this indicates to me is that certain people desire a war rather than brotherly diplomacy.
You know, I really love discussion. I love to hear other people’s points of view and I love that we can minister to and educate one another. (Ryan, I know that you and I disagree on many things, but I love that we can respect each other as friends despite that, and work towards greater understanding).
Gail, I’d love to chat to you some more about the points you’ve brought up about The Whole Gay Thing, but it’s not possible in a thread about +Gene…which is kind of my point.
Kelvin, don’t you think that inviting +Gene himself is only going to create heat in a situation that is strongly in need of light? I’d urge, at the very least, a reconsideration of the format as a sign of consideration to your evangelical brethren.
It’s a funny thing, but the concessions asked for are nearly all asked from the side who support the equal rights of gay people within the church, and those who in all good conscience seem to fail to see the pain that we on our liberal side feel.
And so so often the cry is the same: ‘Let’s talk about homosexuality, but lets not hear those who are homosexual speak.’ Let me direct you back to the top – the very person who you would think actually has something to important to say on the issue is not going to be at Lambeth saying it, because many there do not want to hear him speak. We are asked to respect their pain. Sure, I respect it. And what about us? Our pain?
Well my pain on this issue is deep and lasting – and I’m not even gay. And I really do not find those debating with me hearing either my pain – and to be honest, SOME of them do not hear my integrity.
p.s the marriage analogy does not hold at any point. The church on both sides belongs to Christ, and neither side is leaving him for another. The liberals are not leaving the church at all, although some in the church no longer want them there, it seems. We are not remotely in love with Gene Robinson. A better analogy would be that Bob was threatening to leave because his wife, while straight herself, had a lesbian friend she wanted to invite to the house, and because of this Bob was threatening to leave home. The wife, meanwhile, was happy to entertain Bob’s friends, although they were homophobic. That is a far better analogy.
In fact, to make the analogy correct, we must say that Bob is asking his wife to leave home because she has asked her lesbian freind round for dinner.
Hi Rosemary, I think that we are talking about different things here. My analogy was not so useful because it implied a certain guilt or unfaithfulness on the part of the husband, which makes it a bit of a biased analogy.
To abstract it one level, all I’m saying is that A&B have fallen out seriously over C. For A then to invite C to “dinner” without considering B’s feelings is an agressive action, and it would be difficult for B not to consider it as such. (but let’s not get too bogged down in weak parables!)
I don’t think Evangelicals are saying “let’s not hear homosexuals speak”. Rather it is “do not allow them to preach”. The first implies a denial of certain basic human rights, the second I think is more with regards to what qualifies a person to preach, and it is *that* which we are disagreed upon.
Of course, both sides are extremely hurt in this circumstance. When I fight with my wife we both tend to lash out because we feel hurt, and say and do things that we later regret. All I’m saying is that I think this is what is happening on a larger scale.
When we suspect that we are not being loved by our brothers and sisters because of how they act it causes us to react rashly. So let us spend time recovering common ground, such as identifying our common goals as Christians. There is likely to be plenty that is salvageable in this relationship if both sides work hard at being considerate and God blesses us with understanding.
Finally, I’m wary that I’ve never met Kelvin apart from over the internet, and that I don’t know his congregation. I understand that he is an intelligent man with a significant responsibility, and strikes me as very patient (especially with those who disagree with him!)
Therefore I wish to respect that, and don’t want to come treading all over his blog without so much as a “by your leave”. I hope the tone of my posts has not been too provocative, and I will withdraw (inviting personal dialogue with whoever wishes it) having made my point in as best a way as I can.
I really do wish you as a church family every blessing as you seek to discern His will and glorify Him in all that you do, and I hope that Kelvin will reconsider the nature of this invitation for the reasons I’ve outlined.
Beat & Rosemary – many thanks for your comments. I’m very happy for them to appear on the blog. Although there are limits to how effective this kind of discussion can be in a comment thread, it seems to me to be one of the great gifts that blogging has brought us.
Such conversations seem less possible elsewhere and so I’m happy for them to happen here.
Of course, I’m bound to note that without the announcement of +Gene’s visit, this worthwhile conversation might not have begun…