Help me out here. I am trying to finish working on the bathroom and tidying up before my wife gets home, so I really don’t have time to read through Rowan Williams’s Pentecost letter as thoroughly as it no doubt ought to be read. What it seems to add up to, though, is this (readers of Billy Bunter school stories will be familiar with the scenario):
The pupils of the lower fifth have been warned about talking in class, but that naughty Jefferts-Schori girl, sitting at the back with her friends, has done it again. The patience of kindly-but-stern Dr Williams has snapped, and he has decided to keep the whole class in from break.
Meanwhile, he plans to ask the school council what else he can do to stop this class from disrupting the entire fifth year. But of course Ms Schori, along with the other talkers in the lower fifth is on the council, so that is going to be a difficult move.
Dr Williams has meanwhile retreated to his study, where he is perhaps wishing he could go back to the good old days of giving out six-of-the-best.
That seems to be the sum of it, unless I’ve missed something vital.
Yarooh!
John Richardson
29 May 2010
Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.
29 May 2010
"That seems to be the sum of it, unless I’ve missed something vital."
ReplyDeleteDr Williams was waiting for his postal order to arrive.
Chris Bishop
Devon
Cripes! That'd be the one for five bob from Aunt Bessie, but she's also chairman of the School Governors, and I hear rumours she's not at all happy about what's happened to the school since Dr Williams took over from dear old Dr George (Porgie) Carey.
ReplyDeleteI think that you are missing another vital part of the story however John. The other 'gang' (who think themselves to be 'better' than Jefferts Schori) have also been found wanting - they were in fact trying to take over the class. So they have been detained as well.
ReplyDeleteAu contraire, Andrew. The point is, the whole class has indeed been warned about talking, but Katie and her gang are the ones who have actually just talked, yet the result is a class detention.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the message here?
The other gang are also inviting former pupils who have been banned from the grounds to their Christmas parties.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.christiantoday.com/article/orthodox.anglicans.in.us.and.england.plan.clergy.swap/25942.htm
Katie is in trouble for giving Mary an illegal prefects badge. The gang are in trouble for setting up a stall on Katie's patch. George is always a good boy and there are others but Rowan has not issued the certificates yet.
ReplyDeleteKatie's parents are major benefactors to the School and they underwrote the costs of Sports Day. But some of those beastly scholarship oiks didn't show up; they went off to play cricket and rugger elsewhere on the day.
ReplyDeleteDavid, as you say, the other gang were in trouble for raiding Katie's dorm. But Dr Williams had already given everyone a good telling off about that. The problem is, he'd said that if anyone else misbehaved there'd be trouble.
ReplyDeleteBut now Katie's gang have been talking again, he's imposed a class detention on everyone. So really Katie's gang can say they've got away with it, because they've not been put in detention on their own. In fact, they'll actually be quite happy the other gang have also been kept in, because it makes it look like everyone's been just as naughty.
Everyone knows that Dr Williams likes to give everyone a certificate at the end of the year, so no one is expecting to miss out!
An interesting analogy, it almost works.
ReplyDeleteDr Williams does not, of course, have the powers vested in a headteacher. However, it might well be true to say that everyone is behaving like children...
Perhaps it would be better to think that Katie and her friends have been talking in class and refusing to do the course work, designing an alternate set of things they'd rather do. The other kids have asked Katie and company to be quiet and do the required work so they and everyone else can get on with the class. The teacher has decided to punish both the children doing the wrong work and the ones attempting to do the correct work, but the punishment is only being prohibited from going to the large school assembly coming up. Otherwise both sides are allowed to continue as they were.
ReplyDeleteKatherine, North Carolina, USA
A teacher who allows misbehavior can't suddenly restore order by punishing the whole class.
ReplyDeleteVery good. I in fact have likened this to grade school discipline.
ReplyDeleteAnother analogy which I stick to, although it is not without fault:
The arsonists have been at work in TEC for awhile - indeed they are the very leadership. Once the fires began (some decades ago...), first responders (Rwanda, Uganda, Nigeria, Southern Cone) began to come to the rescue of people in the burning building, providing refuge from the flames. Now - it seems - both the arsonists and the first responders are being put in "time out". Not sure how that works.
Fr. Darin Lovelace+
St. John's Anglican Church
Park City, Utah (USA)
Dr Williams has given a good wigging as assembly but he has not yet posted the detention list. He has spoken in the plural so Katie will have company in the naughty corner. The world stopping Father Ted suggests it will be Southern Cone Nigeria Uganda Kenya Rwanda Canada and TEC
ReplyDeletehttp://frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com/2010/05/canteburys-pentecost-punishments.html
How good are his sources, is the teachers common room bugged?
Andrew Brown, writing in a local rag ( which shares the initial of Greyfriars)has muttered about "unfairness" but some doubt that he is a friend of the school
SueM's comment is spot on...
ReplyDeletewe can also add that Katie is a fellow headteacher with Rowan - and that he is a headteacher i another country and has no real jurisdiction in Katie's school anyway.
The problem with Darin's analogy is that Rwanda, Uganda, Nigeria etc have plenty of fires in their own back yard that they show no interest in putting out - preferring instead to see fires where they don't actually really exist....
Andrew, (and Suem), Rowan does clearly have a jurisdiction that Katie doesn't. He has put out the Pentecost Letter, and it would be most odd if she put out one in the same terms.
ReplyDeleteKatie may be a head girl, but she is not the head teacher!
John, the clue is in the word 'proposing': Rowan is making a proposal. I suspect anyone can write a pastoral letter to their fellow archbishops. in those letter thy can make proposals. I don't think they can take decisions.
ReplyDeleteDo you actually recognise that Katherine J-S and Mary G are bishops? That's a key question - and I can't get any conservatives to answer it.
I suggest you throw the first stone John!
"Do you actually recognise that Katherine J-S and Mary G are bishops? That's a key question - and I can't get any conservatives to answer it.".
ReplyDeleteFrom a low-church conservative perspective, it's an irrelevant question.
From a low-church perspective, church governance titles (and positions) are functional, not fundamental. They do provide a useful shorthand, in that describing someone as a 'bishop' implies that they have been vetted for and assigned certain roles by whatever church organisation appointed them as a bishop.
But if I don't trust the vetting organisation, then it doesn't really matter what titles they care to bestow. The untrustworthiness or organisation or individual destroys any utility of the title as a shared authorisation.
Again from a low-church perspective, the fundamental difference between a faithful bishop and a faithful layperson is the people and tasks that the church (organisation) has placed under their care. And the fundamental difference between a heretical bishop and heretical layperson is their capacity for damage to the church. Appointment carries no inherent sanctification (nor wisdom).
Andrew, the ABC is defined on the Anglican Communion website as an "instrument of communion" and therefore "a unique focus for Anglican unity". So when he tells a class off (or writes a letter to everyone), it has a certain, shall we say, 'weight'.
ReplyDeleteKatie, the last time I looked, is not an instrument of communion. She is on one, but I notice that Kings (who has recently been made a prefect) and his chums jolly well think she shouldn't be ("Actions have consequences"). They also made it jolly clear that they thought Dr Rowan ought to sort the class out ("unless he gives a clear lead"), and they say all this talking "is a clear rejection of the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury".
Curiously, though, Kings's dorm have put up a notice where they seem to think that keeping the whole class in is a good thing. When they say actions have consequences, they apparently think Katie's actions ought to have consequences for everyone!
I think most of us are of the opinion that Dr Williams has authority in terms of who can say what to whom. However, I await the letter from Katie to the other head boys telling them she thinks Dr Rowan ought to stand down.
My question to you is not whether Katie and Mary are prefects but whether you think they ought to be.
I must abstain from further comments for a few days.
RE: "The problem with Darin's analogy is that Rwanda, Uganda, Nigeria etc have plenty of fires in their own back yard that they show no interest in putting out - preferring instead to see fires where they don't actually really exist...."
ReplyDeleteOh dear . . . Canon Godsall clearly isn't a member of TEC, where the fires are raging in every single diocese.
What Canon Godsall and many revisionist activists like him desperately hoped for was that when [not if, when] Episcopalians left TEC they'd have no alternate Anglican entities to turn to.
But . . . thanks to certain Primates recognizing the raging fires still burning in TEC, that happy outcome did not occur for the revisionist activists. How bitter many of them are that so many man many many many Episcopalians managed to escape to someplace they wanted to go.
If only they could have been forced to stay and pay and shut up, things would have gone far more nicely for the Episcopal church on a local level.
Sarah
'Sarah' - are you happy that the Anglican bishop of Uyo in Nigeria, Isaac Orama, has described homosexuals as "inhuman, insane, satanic and not fit to live"? And that the Primate of Nigeria wants Nigeria to disassociate from the UN because of its views about homosexuality?
ReplyDeleteJohn, I am quite happy that Katherine J-S and Mary G are Anglican bishops. I am more concerned that the two nigerian bishops just named are Bishops - their stance makes it look like the whole Anglican church is tainted with the active hatred of homosexual people.
And I'm all for revision - we were certainly taught at school what an excellent thing it was to do! The story of the Church has always been a story of revision. What's wrong with being revisionist? It's part of our vocation as Christians to continually see things afresh.
Hi "Canon Godsall" --
ReplyDelete1) Primary source please, with specific quote and link.
2) Yes -- there are any number of excellent reasons to disassociate from that corrupt thieving waste of money and time, stock full of people of your foundational worldview.
And of course, I'm sure you are all for revision. Like I said . . .
You're just one of the bitter who hate to see TEC deprived of all of that prey and money from the departed, while in the meantime publicly pretending that various Primates just made up out of whole cloth the fires that are raging in TEC -- and that will continue on raging too. Heh.
Sarah, a member of TEC
That is the exact quote Sarah..."inhuman, insane, satanic and not fit to live". Quoted in many newspapers, not denied. Easily found online with a quick google search.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm not bitter at all, thankfully.
Oh dear.
ReplyDeleteReaders of this thread will note an interesting vagueness in "Canon Andrew Godsalls'" response. There's a reason for that.
Practically every single clause is false. And easily misproven.
Let's name them one by one, for the benefit of readers.
RE: "That is the exact quote Sarah..."inhuman, insane, satanic and not fit to live"
No, actually, that is not "the exact quote" -- what was purported to be said by Bishop Orama was this: “Homosexuality and lesbianism are inhuman. Those who practice them are insane, satanic and are not fit to live because they are rebels to God’s purpose for man.”
That would be "the exact quote" that was purported to be said by Bishop Orama in September of 2007.
Now let's turn to the assertion that the "exact quote" may be "easily found online with a quick google search."
Certainly a "quote" may be found mouthed by the incompetent or the lying all over the Internet -- at such luminous news agencies as Pink News and a couple of UK newspapers, along with the usual foaming gay activist sites that Canon Godsall no doubt frequents, like "Akinola Repent", etc. My goodness, if one googles "Ugley Vicar" and the "quote" one will find it *right here* at this very website, mouthed by one Canon Andrew Godsall.
But the original and primary source -- a Nigerian news agency distributed through UPI -- is not at all "easily found online with a quick google search" -- and that is probably the source of Canon Godsall's interesting vagueness when challenged to come up with that source.
Why can he not come up with that source?
Because UPI pulled the story and took down the link, issuing an email retraction, that's why. Canon Godsall is unable to find that original UPI source because . . . It. Is. Gone. Which is why the likes of Canon Godsall must say things like it is "easily found online with a quick google search."
Canon Godsall adds to the tissue of false statements above by claiming that these words -- this "quote" -- was "not denied."
Of course, that is not true either.
The Province of Nigeria denied the statement -- as well as Bishop Orama -- and The Living Church reported on that denial, even prior to UPI's pulling its story link and issuing a retraction:
http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2007/9/7/reporter-apologizes-for-misquoting-nigerian-bishop
Here is the UPI email quoted at StandFirm:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/sf/page/5672/
The original link to the UPI story -- the thing you're not able to find via Google since it was pulled -- was here -- the link now simply reverts to UPI's home page:
http://www.upi.com/AfricaMonitoring/view.php?StoryID=20070902-831713-6007-r
Here's the emailed retraction of the Nigerian News Agency reporter, posted at StandFirm:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/sf/page/5853/
Here's the further story on the UPI withdrawal of the link:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/sf/page/5662/
Sarah, a member of TEC
So let's recap.
ReplyDeleteMy exchange with Canon Godsall began by my pointing out that he was claiming that certain Primates were seeing fires "where they don't actually really exist" when in reality and what is transparently obvious is that such fires did exist and continue to exist in TEC, as parishioners and bishops and clergy and whole dioceses vote to depart TEC.
He then countered this by throwing up the red herring of some "exact quote" that he's encountered on some foaming revisionist activist blogs that he reads, and making all sorts of false statements when challenged to provide a primary source for this "exact quote" which he is enitrely unable to do.
Here one encounters a dilemma. Is Canon Godsall merely demonstrating incompetent buffoonery in his further spreading of false statements that were entirely and pulverizingly demonstrated to be false back in 2007?
Or is he well aware that they are false, did he just try to toss out something as a red herring knowing it to be false, but hoping that nobody would point it out? In other words, is he a malicious liar, and demonstrating for the blog thread to see that he has no integrity?
I will give him the benefit of the doubt and allow him to be merely demonstrating incompetent buffoonery, as I wait to see him apologize and retract the false statements he made about Bishop Orama on this thread.
It is certainly possible for some revisionist activists to be led astray by their own fellow travelers and yet not themselves be lying shams and disgraces.
We shall see which it is.
Sarah, a member of TEC
Oh dear Sarah you are so angry. I will take it up with the Observer newspaper who quoted it in England last weekend and see what their source is. If it is incorrect then I apologise. No problem about doing that.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, perhaps you could confirm you think it right that Nigeria should withdraw from the UN because of its stance about homosexuality? Or is that report inaccurate also?
Ohh.. sorry.. forgot to give the source for the Observer article as you may wish to challenge it yourself if it is incorrect. It was last Sundays' edition.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/23/editorial-homophobia-africa-anglicanism
Interestingly I have no recollection of the story appearing in 2007 so I must be (in your lovely words Sarah) an incompetent buffoon rather than a malicious liar.
RE: "Oh dear Sarah you are so angry."
ReplyDeleteNow how could that be when you're the one that has been publicly shown to have acted in an incompetently buffoonish manner? ; > ) Are you sure you're not . . . projecting . . . ?
Or . . . do you think that when people point out, in grinding detail, just where you've radically muffed it that that means that they're "so angry"?
Tsk tsk, Canon Godsall -- try to take defeat a bit more graciously.
RE: "I will take it up with the Observer newspaper who quoted it in England last weekend and see what their source is."
Heh -- oh their "source" is the same as yours, Andrew Godsall. There's one other UK newspaper -- as I mentioned above -- that has chosen to regurgitate the long-ago misproven false "quote."
RE: "Meanwhile, perhaps you could confirm you think it right that Nigeria should withdraw from the UN because of its stance about homosexuality? Or is that report inaccurate also?"
Already answered above -- here let me repeat it for you.
"2) Yes -- there are any number of excellent reasons to disassociate from that corrupt thieving waste of money and time, stock full of people of your foundational worldview." The new Primate of Nigeria is precisely right -- I would love to talk to him more about the many *other* reasons to disassociate from the UN, other than that they are trying to import the morality and gospel of TEC revisionist activists into as many countries as possible.
But hey -- I would think that the UN would be the *perfect* organization for the likes of you and your foundational worldview, Canon Godsall.
RE: "Interestingly I have no recollection of the story appearing in 2007 so I must be (in your lovely words Sarah) an incompetent buffoon rather than a malicious liar."
Oh, now, let's read a bit more carefully, rather than with the lovely sweeping grand vague gestures that you apparently make of words. I said: "Is Canon Godsall merely demonstrating incompetent buffoonery in his further spreading of false statements that were entirely and pulverizingly demonstrated to be false back in 2007?"
Now -- it remains to be seen as to whether one must *be* an "incompetent buffoon" in order to *demonstrate* incompetent buffoonishness. Perhaps it's a matter of the regularity and frequency with which one demonstrates incompetent buffoonishness that determines whether that person may reasonably be shown to have an identity of "incompetent buffoon."
Despite the lack of graciousness in the apology, which I can only attribute to the projected feelings you have over being shown up in a public blog for commenting in an incompetently buffoonish manner, I accept your assertion that you did not mean to deliberately spread malicious lies.
Many of your revisionist activist allies *do* mean to deliberately spread malicious lies. But not all revisionist activists are liars. Just a whole lot of them.
Sarah, TEC member
Well, we shall see if the Observer Newspaper has found the report to be inaccurate before confirming anything shall we?
ReplyDeleteAnd, yes, I'm sure it is not projection. Your anger is very apparent, and very public.
And yes, I'm most happy to be a supporter of the excellent work the UN does.
RE: "Your anger is very apparent, and very public."
ReplyDelete. . . Of course, of course . . . it's better to think so. Maybe it will help salve the wound to think that public demonstration of the falsity of your assertions means the demonstrator is angry. Why begrudge you that small hope?
No doubt about it -- people who point out with copious facts Canon Godsall's own false statements *must* be angry. It's better that way.
RE: "And yes, I'm most happy to be a supporter of the excellent work the UN."
Of course you are. Our foundational worldviews are mutually opposing and antithetical. The UN is a *perfect* organization for those of your values and your gospel.
All of this is what makes the organization in which we both reside -- the Anglican Communion -- so conflicted and full of division.
Ultimately the two gospels -- antithetical to one another as they are -- will not be able to reside in the same organization.
It's been a refreshing and fun exchange.
Happy Memorial Day -- and hope you are enjoying some of the French Open. Nadal is looking good . . .
Cheers,
Sarah -- TEC member
Goodness!
ReplyDeleteI am reminded of a teacher of mine when she rebuked a girl in my class for screeching profanities across the road, "Young woman", she said, "No-one will respect you if you persist in making a spectacle of yourself in a public place."
They don't make them like that anymore!
Cheers Sarah - I'm sure you think it's better to think that someone you despise so much is wrong. And I'm not aware of any wound that needs salving. As I've said before, if the quote from the Observer is wrong, then I apologise for repeating it here.
ReplyDeleteUltimately there is only one Gospel. I know it suits you to think that there are two. (You will no doubt think that yours is, ultimately the only one. Like a proper liberal, I believe that both can, and will, reside in the Anglican Communion. We have no other choice about that it seems).
And obviously the United Nations organisation is part of what it means to be Christian because it involves taking on board other cultures, other world views, and seeing the face of Jesus Christ in the stranger, the outcast and the poor. But you have a different world view, so you will be sure that isn't part of what it means to be Christian.
(No doubt you will return in anger to pour scorn on that as well, but like John I'm away for a couple of days now, so won't get chance to respond.)
And actually I'm enjoying Coldplay rather than the French open at the moment....
RE: "I'm sure you think it's better to think that someone you despise so much is wrong."
ReplyDeleteI don't despise you in the least, since I don't know you, although certainly I do despise your ideas, which have been on this very thread seen to be . . . what they are.
But anyone can go to all the links and see for themselves the numerous factual errors you made in your above spreading of false statements.
RE: "Ultimately there is only one Gospel."
I completely agree. But there is no way that the differing gospels you and I proclaim and believe can both be correct.
RE: "I know it suits you to think that there are two."
Oh -- more than that. But in the Anglican Communion right now, there are two primary gospels engaged in dissent, conflict, and opposition, because they both hold mutually contradictory views.
RE: "And obviously the United Nations organisation is part of what it means to be Christian. . . "
Well, to those of your gospel, yes. But then . . . that is my point.
RE: "(No doubt you will return in anger to pour scorn on that as well. . . "
Yes indeed -- I am sitting here quite boiling with rage over how disturbing it's been to so beautifully and factually demonstrate your spreading of false assertions on this blog.
Not only that, but as I sit here and enjoy Nadal and Bellucci battle it out on the red clay, I am actually seething with rage over your blond hair and blue eyes.
And full of jealousy over . . . well . . . any number of things about your title.
And quite depressed too -- did I mention depressed? -- over uh . . . the sunny summers of England. Anything to make you feel better, Canon Godsall.
; > )
RE: "Young woman", she said, "No-one will respect you if you persist in making a spectacle of yourself in a public place."
Now now, SueM -- not nice to compare Canon Andrew Godsall to a woman. ; > )
But never fear, I'm confident that revisionists will respect Canon Godsall, just as traditionalists respect me and I them.
The key question is . . . will there be anyone who does *not* respect us whom *we* respect?
I'll be getting plenty of huzzahs and shout-outs and praise from traditionalists, and surely Canon Godsall will get the same from his allies [although perhaps a few nudges to check carefully before posting false assertions -- *at the least* make sure they are not so easily crushed into the ground.]
It is fitting, considering the two gospels that reside in the one organization. Even the threat of being "not respected" by the various on the other side creates no concern whatsoever. Rather like, you know, someone threatening SueM or Canon Godsall with not being respected by Archbishop Orombi, or my not being respected by Katherine Jefferts Schori.
Neither side gives a flying fig.
Enjoy your travel, Canon Godsall.
Sarah, TEC member
Sarah, you say:
ReplyDelete'I don't despise you in the least, since I don't know you, although certainly I do despise your ideas,'
My worldview, my values, and my ideas, that you say you despise, are all part of who I am. That's what integrity means. In despising those things, you despise me.
And I have brown eyes, not blue.
The one encouraging thing is the pride with which you seem to wear the badge 'TEC member'. I should certainly be proud to belong to TEC - it shares so many of my values and ideas and my worldview, so perhaps we are not so far away as from each other as you like to think?
Interested to see how you prove that UN is 'corrupt' and 'thieving' by the way.....
Oh, nonsense, Canon. Of course we're allowed to despise ideas. You despise plenty, yourself. Let's keep the debate at least tangentially in synch with objective reality.
ReplyDeleteCanon Godsall,
ReplyDeleteSo, there are no ideas or values that you do not despise?
Is there no room for dispising ideas without dispising the people who espouse them?
I do quite a bit of prison ministry and I deal regularly with rapists, murderers, and child molesters - some of them unrepentant. I love them, but I do not love what they did and their actions were outgrowth of their ideas - some of which they still hold.
When Sarah says there are two (at least!) gospels operating within the Anglican Communion, she is right.
One espouses Jesus as God incarnate. The Word made flesh who came to defeat sin and death by dying on the cross. This Jesus cares how we act and there are moral boundries that are not to be crossed. This Jesus is present in His body, the Church. The Church is both fully human and fully divine (like her Lord). It is subject to the same christological heresies as the person of Jesus. This Gospel is the Gospel that the Apostles died for. It is the faith of our Fathers. It is life changing and Life giving.
The other gospel (which is a false one) talks of Jesus as a person who came to make us nice to each other - to lead us to tolerance of other views and other outlooks. Instead of saying "go and sin no more." this Jesus says "that's all right." or "how does that make you feel?" Sin and death are not defeated, but "dealt with." This Jesus is not uniquely God Incarnate, but the best representation of the divine in all of us. This Jesus is "Jesus the Warm Fuzzy."
Warm fuzzies are not stronger than death.
Which Jesus will you follow?
Phil Snyder
RE: "My worldview, my values, and my ideas, that you say you despise, are all part of who I am. That's what integrity means. In despising those things, you despise me."
ReplyDeleteGoodness me -- another funny and irrational statement -- like a caricature of the thinking processes of a revisionist activist. I hope nobody is merely pretending to be "Canon Andrew Godsall" and saying such silly things in order to give revisionist activists a bad -- or worse -- reputation for logic!
Obviously it's perfectly possible for people to despise ideas -- like the ideas of the KKK, for instance -- without despising the people.
RE: "Interested to see how you prove that UN is 'corrupt' and 'thieving' by the way....."
I'm sure you *would* be happy to see my follow that little red herring of yours. No such luck for you, though. But all that really needs to be noted is that you think the UN is a perfect organization for your values -- and I think it is too. It's just another demonstration of the antithetical values and worldview that we hold. Good to know, but nothing all that important to "dialogue" [sic] about.
RE: "The one encouraging thing is the pride with which you seem to wear the badge 'TEC member'."
Lol -- whenever I point out the serious errors of non-TEC members I make sure they know that I actually know TEC. Recall that you were busy attempting to claim that TEC really didn't have fires and that certain Primates were making those fires up out of whole cloth, thus demonstrating your ignorance.
But TEC does indeed have a rich tradition of Christian and Anglican orthodoxy. The fact that it is currently led by a rabble of foaming revisionist heretics desperate for relevance does not take away from its wonderful heritage which is carried on by many who believe and promote the Gospel.
Fortunately, the current leaders are driving the organizational structure into the ground -- it's engaged in a meltdown of epic proportions -- and those who believe the Gospel will have the opportunity to restore TEC to that heritage in the years to come.
RE: ". . . it shares so many of my values and ideas and my worldview . . ."
Yes indeed -- certainly the revisionist activists currently in leadership of TEC share your gospel.
As I said -- two gospels, in one organization.
RE: "And I have brown eyes, not blue."
Well in that case, I want to assure you that not only am I quite boiling with rage over how disturbing it's been to so beautifully and factually demonstrate your spreading of false assertions on this blog, but I have just seethed with rage over your blond hair and your brown eyes. I promise you -- just seethed! ; > )
Nadal won.
Safe travels . . . thanks for the fun skirmish.
Sarah, TEC Member
"My worldview, my values, and my ideas, that you say you despise, are all part of who I am. That's what integrity means. In despising those things, you despise me."
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, completely, utterly and totally not true. As a secondary school RE teacher I spend a lot of time with Year 7's (11 and 12 year olds) overcoming the above attitude to disagreement and teaching them how to disagree in a respectful way. Together, we learn to challenge the idea not the person. Later, when aged 15 they tackle Critical Thinking AS-level exam, they learn that an ad hominem argument is a flawed argument. Fortunately I have an excellent role model - his name is Jesus. He's my King - do you know him?
Fenella Strange
Sarah, TEC member,
ReplyDeleteI do believe that you have "hit for six" in several of your comments. Very well done, indeed, for such a {relatively) short thread.
Love. Set. Match. Sarah.
ReplyDeleteWow
Oh yes ABSTRACT ideas and so on can be despised. Of course. But when a worldview, or values or ideas are embodied in a person - then it is rather different. Jesus was despised because he enfleshed those values and world views - some of which you seem to find so difficult. Gay and lesbian people embody the values and worldview and idea that you find so impossible to accept. The only way you can then justify is comparing with rapists, or murderers, or the KKK. How telling that is.
ReplyDeleteAnd so yes, Fenella, I have an excellent role model too. I know him as my saviour too. And indeed, ad hominem arguments are very flawed.
And Sarah, interesting that you introduce the idea that the UN is 'corrupt and thieving' but when asked to justify that view, you simply call it a red herring. But I'm glad that your membership of TEC means that we are in communion. That is a good starting point for our on-going fellowship. My travels continue...have a good day!
I think you're setting up a false dichotomy here, Andrew.
ReplyDeleteI am a liar; it is in my nature. But I despise lying. I neither champion lying nor extol lying as blessed. When someone speaks against lying, I feel chastised, but do not conclude that they hate me.
I lust; it is in my nature. But I despise lust. I neither champion lust nor extol lusting as blessed. When someone speaks against lust, I feel chastised, but do not conclude that they hate me.
If I embraced lying, and declared this evil to be good, perhaps then I may feel hated. But it is not the preacher who speaks hatred against me, rather it is because I feel threatened, that something I clutch to my breast as precious is seen as evil. I do not want to give this up, to work against my nature, and I protect myself by thinking ill of the messenger.
The message of the gospel is, among other things, unnatural. It is about God's holy nature transforming my corrupt nature. Jesus did not come to affirm the weak and broken in their brokenness, nor the prideful in their pride; he came to save and transform them: "Your sins are forgiven.", "Salvation has come to this house today", "Neither do I condemn you; go and leave your life of sin". Paul welcomes all manner of sinners into the church: "that is what some of you were".
So yes, it is right to despise evil in others, just as in ourself. But we must do this as fellow sinners in need of (and in the process of) God's salvation, not in pride. The gospel - and those who embrace it - must make all who come into contact with it at once welcome and uncomfortable. Uncomfortable in that the gospel shows our evil and helplessness, and welcome in that the gospel can overcome it and rescue us from it. Without both, there is no salvation.
Andrew thank you for your dialogue and in many ways I think that's a very helpful analysis. But let's substitute one word in your first sentence: I am a liar; it is in my nature. Let's make it:
ReplyDeleteI am gay; it is in my nature.
The majority of gay people don't despise being gay. But they have concluded (with some good evidence) that some, not least within the Anglican Communion, despise the 'gay' issue, and do indeed despise gay people who live out gay lives, knowing, in their own consciences that this is not a wrong way to love and to live. Here in Britain, Bishop James Jones has helpfully spelled that out.
I am a liar; it is in my nature.But I despise lying.
ReplyDeleteI lust; it is in my nature. But I despise lust.
Hmmmm...
But do you every say to yourself:
"I love; it is in my nature. But I despise love."
It does sadden me when people see gay relationships as about lust! Just like straight people, gay people fall in love and long to express that love intimately.
What do you mean by "lust"? Do you mean "sexual desire", or do you mean "sexual desire divorced from love and tenderness"? What is lust? Can you accept that the sexual love between a same sex couple is not always "lust", but something rather different?
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteThe presumption behind my analysis is that lying or or lust are bad things, part of the "sinful nature". They are (hopefully) uncontroversial examples to show that one can despise sin, even native sin, without implying an equivalent loathing of the sinner. If you can't say "Lying is wrong" without me getting huffy and saying "Well *I'm* a liar, so you must hate me" then we're never going to make any progress.
But the whether lying is wrong or not isn't critical to my core point. What's under dispute is whether we're even allowed to ask the question. Substitute "eating cake" or "sunbaking" for lying and the logic is the same. If my response to "Sunbathing is wrong" is "How dare you say that!" rather than "Huh? No it's not!" then I'm introducing baggage into the discussion to avoid actually facing up to the claims being made.
Incidentally, this is exactly analogous to your comments to Sarah re "embodied ideas".
Andrew- I didn't see anyone getting huffy actually. And, as I said before I think you make some useful points about embodiment.
ReplyDeleteBut how about addressing the points I and then SueM made? Substitute 'being gay' or 'love' and then see how it all reads. Then we can try to move discussion on?
Back from holiday I find this thread has wandered almost entirely from the topic of the post!
ReplyDeleteThat is true John. But at least now you are back you can read Katie's pastoral letter in response to Rowan's - which is a very good one in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteFor (some) completion here, the Observer has now published a piece about the alleged remarks of Bishop Isaac Orama. You can read it here.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2010/jun/06/readers-editor-nigerian-bishop-gay-rights
A fellow Canon Chancellor has also written about the situation here:
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=95642
Andrew, it still seems to me that you have argued that ideas that are important to someone's identity are unassailable. That argument makes a mockery of traditional theology of sin and salvation. I'm very capable of cherishing, embracing and justifying lying, greed, or lust - and feeling offended when called on it - but that doesn't sanctify those ideas.
ReplyDeleteChristian argument must run from "this behaviour is holy" to affirmation of those who practice it. To argue that we wish to affirm those who practice a behaviour and therefore that behaviour is holy is fraught with folly. The gospel message begins with salvation despite our behaviour (thank God!).
(Sorry Sue if it seems like I'm ignoring you, but I'm deliberately restricting my comments to "rules of engagement", not the specific topic of homosexuality. Likewise, my examples were chosen because they are personal struggles with sin for me, and thus tangible rather than hypothetical.
If something is good, yet I call it bad, then people will be offended, and I should cease and repent. Especially if I am prideful in doing so. But it is a nonsense to argue that because people are offended it must not be bad.)
(Sorry John for being off topic)
Andrew - I'm arguing that SOME 'ideas, values, and worldview' are part of a persons identity and that therefore to attack those ideas are to attack the person. Sue and I have given you examples of how that works.
ReplyDeleteAndrew (Godsall), just as a matter of curiosity, would you say that those 'ideas, values, and worldview' which are part of a persons identity can never be wrong?
ReplyDeleteJohn, I think ideas values and worldviews which are part of a persons identity can sometimes be wrong, yes. What I am trying to argue against is despising people because of ideas,values and worldviews with which you just happen to disagree. And the case in point was the sending to jail of 2 men in Malawi for having a same sex sexual relationship. Gay and lesbian people know what it is to be despised, and we need to ensure that it does not happen. In supporting gay and lesbian people in their relationships, I (and others i know) have been despised.
ReplyDeleteSo John..out of curiosity.. under what circumstances, in your view, is it permissible and fine for two people of the same sex to have a sexual relationship?
As I understand it, then, Andrew, all we are saying is that some ideas which are part of a person's identity can be wrong and should be critiqued, but that you believe an acceptance of homosexuality for oneself or others is not one of these wrong ideas, whereas others, like myself, think the opposite.
ReplyDeleteOn sexual relationships, the Church of England recognizes marriage as signifying the 'mystical union' between Christ and the Church. This 'signifying' is a matter of analogy, not merely metaphor. There is a correspondence of reality, not simply a similarity, between the two. Marriage, moreover, is the sexually-exclusive covenantal union of one man and one woman for life.
Therefore anything which falls outside these parameters is, to a greater or lesser extent, a declension from what marriage should be, and partakes of the nature of sin to some degree.
I hope that is clear, though I admit it is not punchy!
John I think you carefully avoid the question, so let me put it again and add to it. Under what circumstances, in your view, is it permissible and fine for two people of the same sex to have a sexual relationship? If (as I think you are saying) the answer is 'never permissible', should such relationships be made illegal, or should there be punishment for those who engage in such relationships? Should 'Issues in Human Sexuality' (a C of E teaching document) have made it clear that, while the same standards apply to all, the Church did not want to exclude from its fellowship those lay people of gay or lesbian orientation who, in conscience, were unable to accept that a life of sexual abstinence was required of them and instead chose to enter into a faithful, committed relationship? Maybe you think that such people will be 'lesser' rather than 'greater' in the kingdom of heaven?
ReplyDeleteAndrew, I'm not avoiding the question at all. It is rather like saying, "In football, when is the ball out of play?" If you define when it is in play then it is out of play in every other situation.
ReplyDeleteWhat we do about 'out of play' situations in sexuality is quite another issue. Should adultery be made illegal (I think I'd be right in saying 'again')? It is certainly immoral, but not everything which is immoral can be made a matter of statutory law (despite New Labour giving it a go).
Personally, I think the provisions of Issues in Human Sexuality were flawed precisely at the point you identify. Who will finally be lesser or greater in the kingdom of heaven, however, is not ours to judge, fortunately.
Canon Godsall, I really do strongly recommend that you listen to the two excellent broadcasts from Premier Christian Radio which John has posted. They cover in simple terms all the tedious questions which you keep asking over and over again, to which he is replying very patiently. Then you will have no need to ask them any more.
ReplyDeletehttp://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2010/06/premier-radio-debate-homosexuality-and.html
Jill
Jill
ReplyDeleteThanks - they are not tedious so far as I am concerned and clearly don't have clear answers - hence the differing views in the programme and in the C of E and in the Anglican Communion - and John's inability to agree with what the C of E agreed way back in 1992.
John - the provisions in 'Issues' are where we have been for decades now - as they were what was observed for some time before 'Issues' was published. There has, so far, been no mind to change them. So - using your analogy - the ball is certainly in play in more than one situation.
And in terms of despising ideas and world views and values - you will recall that Jesus was despised AS A PERSON - because of his ideas and world views and values (which were nothing directly to do with homosexuality). So the matter of personalities embodying those things is rather larger than just that one topic.
Something else that needs finesse and wisdom: there are three different applications of a right doctrine of sin.
ReplyDeleteFrom a fundamental perspective, "Does it hurt anyone?" is the wrong question. The starting question is "Does it hurt/offend God?".
The second application is within the church. All sin is sin, and we are to repent of all of it. And yet we, as both fallen and forgiven, must make judgement calls as to how we will tolerate sin in the church. It is not unreasonable to suggest that sins that are more premeditated, more wilful and of greater impact to the church community need stronger sanction. We are - and should be - quicker to forgive a brother who is irritable one morning vs one who advocates and practices public vandalism.
A relevant practical example might be that we rebuke more gently a single man who indulges in yet struggles with pornography (hetero- or homo-sexual) than a pastor found to be embezzling finances.
But even though the church must needs forgive sin within it, it should never welcome it.
The third application is "the world". In this age, the church is not called to be judge _over_ the world, though both holiness and preaching the gospel it will challenge the world in its sinfulness. Yet it seems to me that out of compassion for all humanity we will want to lobby the secular government to protect the weak, and sometimes even protect people from themselves.
But which issues are worth lobbying for, and which cost more than they benefit? For example, I believe that pre-marital sex is destructive in several ways, but that doesn't mean it's worth legislating and prosecuting consensual offenders. Sometimes it is valuable to get the law on our side, and sometimes we can only explain how God's way is better and then let others ruin their lives if they are determined not to listen. Even so, our place is not to self-righteously condemn them, but to weep and pray for them.
In todays age, possibly the right response to homosexuality outside the church is to say "We believe this falls way short of what love and sex are meant to be, but we will not try to stand in your way.". In contrast, I think the church has not stood firm enough on adultery and cheap divorce, not so much because of harm to the participants but because of the destructive effect on families and children.