Well, the signatories of the letter above have little to worry about, as it seems that at least 3 out of 4 CoE bishops, although they signed the recent statement on marriage and civil partnerships, are now apologizing for signing it, or stating that although they signed it, no one should pay attention, or claiming that they would not have agreed to it if they knew that it would be published (that last leaves one wondering what they thought “statement” meant).
The only honorable course would be for those bishops and clergy who are unable to continue to uphold the doctrine of the Church to resign. But, rather than the honorable course, will continue instead to follow the TEC method- keep pretending until such time as they gain a 1 vote majority on the matter, then reverse 2000 years of Church law, ignore Christ and Scripture, and depose all clergy and drive out all laity who stand for orthodox Christianity, and seize all the parish property to be sold off to the highest secular bidder.
One assumes that “prolocutor” is some fancy Roman empire title adopted by Synod to refer to the most inflated clerical ego from each “province” of the CoE. Unless the signatories are mid-level military officers of the Romulan Empire on Star Trek.
This letter is complete nonsense, as those who wrote it very well know.
The House of Bishops’ pastoral statement was a straightforward clarification of the present situation regarding the Church of England’s extremely long held position on marriage. It was necessary to issue the statement at this time directly and solely because of the recent legal ruling and subsequent adjustment to the law that heterosexual couples could now enter into Civil Partnerships. The LLF project is in process but is not at the stage of issuing its thoughts or suggestions for any future innovations of teaching or liturgy. It was therefore not in the bishops’ gift to assume or pre-empt anything which might or might not be forthcoming from LLF at some future date.
Mr Butler and Mr Newlands are entitled to their views as private citizens. But they should not be using their exciting titles as office holders – servants – within the Church of England as signatories to a public letter which directly challenges their bishops when those bishops are conducting the church’s business both legally and honourably. Of course Messrs Butler and Newlands are making clear their expectations that LLF will facilitate a radical new direction for the church’s approach to sexual ethics. The angry, aggressive and dishonest terms in which they are doing so reflect exactly the malignant spirit which now appears to have a firm grip of the Church of England.
It looks ever more likely that LLF is going to kick off the most vicious, dishonest and ungodly battle within the C of E.
Nonsense it may be, but to me as an outsider, it sounds like a carefully considered attempt at emotional blackmail in advance of the LLF conclusions. One can almost tangibly feel the ‘hurt’ oozing from every sentence, all of which will play well with the media and, to the extent it cares, the public.
These authors and others in their camp must feel that all that’s needed is one last heave to get doctrine officially overturned. But even if they are thwarted, the likelihood that they would undertake the sorts of intimate enquiries of couples, clergy or otherwise, as envisaged in these guidelines, to ascertain whether their relationships fall within the compass of the Church’s doctrine , is vanishingly small. And so the deception would continue.
I have to agree with your last sentence. However perhaps the time has at last come for a definitive resolution, even if it leads to a formal split in the CofE. Then we will see which side is truly serving God , by their fruits.
Surely there will be a split in the C of E after this!
There has been a concerted and determined strategy by gay clergy (and their friends in the media, civil service, politics, etc) – at least since the late 1980s in and around the London area – largely unnoticed or avoided, whether out of fear or compassionate misunderstanding, by the great majority of clergy – to undermine and eventually remove the orthodox, historical, biblical, plain teaching of scripture from discussion on this and other matters. Their goal has been to ‘include’ the very practices (as opposed to people) the scriptures state or indeed did not need to state were ‘sinful’ IN SO MUCH AS THEY SERVE TO WEAKEN AND DESTROY COMMUNITY AND INDIVIDUALS RATHER THAN TO STRENGTHEN AND BUILD THEM UP IN CHRIST.
That they have been extremely successful in their plans and machinations is well illustrated by a number of tell-tale statements, meanings, and interpretations in a letter from, it must be noted, influential ‘Officers’ of the decision-making body of the Church of England. It is tellingly significant that their interpretation of the word ‘pastoral’ leaves out vitally important elements of proper pastoral care as set out in the Pastoral Epistles, replacing them with the promoting of a self-indulgent sexualised agenda as if THAT were all that human beings amount to. They are mistaken because they refuse to find their ‘identity’ in Christ but, rather, in their sexuality which Christ, because he too in their eyes sees like them, must undoubtedly ‘affirm’. Their grip will continue to tighten; of that we can be sure.
Welby and Sentamu have indeed apologized for the statement, according to The Guardian.
No, I’m not kidding.
It is amazing that they can completely reverse themselves on the doctrine of marriage at least 4 times over 2 years, and neither has resigned. 2 years ago, bishops issue statement that marriage is as it always has been. Synod refuses to “take note”, so the archbishops invent “radical inclusion”- stating outright that they intend to completely rewrite doctrine. Now bishops state errr…issue statement saying that marriage is as it has always been (again), followed in days by archbishops reversing course.
I rather imagine Gavin Drake had this latest apology written for the archbishops BEFORE they issued the “civil partnership” statement last week.
The House of Bishops’ pastoral statement and the archbishops’ apology for the process used to publish it were both published by the Church of England.
I do not work for the Church of England, so I don’t know why you think I would be preparing statements for them.
Mr. Drake,
I do apologize if I misunderstood your position. I am of course aware that you are (forgive me if this is not precisely correct) the Director of Communications for the Anglican Communion Office. I was under the impression, apparently incorrectly, that you also held a position on the staff of the ABoC. It is not unusual for others (including many liberals of my acquaintance and at least occasional publications) to refer to you as employed by “Lambeth Palace”. As I have read several of your articles on Abp. Welby’s website (this is based on recollection, but a quick “google” shows that indeed several of your articles are published there), I took that as additional confirmation.
[…] a result, a week later, after the inevitable howls of protest, archbishops Welby and Sentamu have issued an apology, dripping with all the right words like […]
Well, the signatories of the letter above have little to worry about, as it seems that at least 3 out of 4 CoE bishops, although they signed the recent statement on marriage and civil partnerships, are now apologizing for signing it, or stating that although they signed it, no one should pay attention, or claiming that they would not have agreed to it if they knew that it would be published (that last leaves one wondering what they thought “statement” meant).
The only honorable course would be for those bishops and clergy who are unable to continue to uphold the doctrine of the Church to resign. But, rather than the honorable course, will continue instead to follow the TEC method- keep pretending until such time as they gain a 1 vote majority on the matter, then reverse 2000 years of Church law, ignore Christ and Scripture, and depose all clergy and drive out all laity who stand for orthodox Christianity, and seize all the parish property to be sold off to the highest secular bidder.
One assumes that “prolocutor” is some fancy Roman empire title adopted by Synod to refer to the most inflated clerical ego from each “province” of the CoE. Unless the signatories are mid-level military officers of the Romulan Empire on Star Trek.
This letter is complete nonsense, as those who wrote it very well know.
The House of Bishops’ pastoral statement was a straightforward clarification of the present situation regarding the Church of England’s extremely long held position on marriage. It was necessary to issue the statement at this time directly and solely because of the recent legal ruling and subsequent adjustment to the law that heterosexual couples could now enter into Civil Partnerships. The LLF project is in process but is not at the stage of issuing its thoughts or suggestions for any future innovations of teaching or liturgy. It was therefore not in the bishops’ gift to assume or pre-empt anything which might or might not be forthcoming from LLF at some future date.
Mr Butler and Mr Newlands are entitled to their views as private citizens. But they should not be using their exciting titles as office holders – servants – within the Church of England as signatories to a public letter which directly challenges their bishops when those bishops are conducting the church’s business both legally and honourably. Of course Messrs Butler and Newlands are making clear their expectations that LLF will facilitate a radical new direction for the church’s approach to sexual ethics. The angry, aggressive and dishonest terms in which they are doing so reflect exactly the malignant spirit which now appears to have a firm grip of the Church of England.
It looks ever more likely that LLF is going to kick off the most vicious, dishonest and ungodly battle within the C of E.
Nonsense it may be, but to me as an outsider, it sounds like a carefully considered attempt at emotional blackmail in advance of the LLF conclusions. One can almost tangibly feel the ‘hurt’ oozing from every sentence, all of which will play well with the media and, to the extent it cares, the public.
These authors and others in their camp must feel that all that’s needed is one last heave to get doctrine officially overturned. But even if they are thwarted, the likelihood that they would undertake the sorts of intimate enquiries of couples, clergy or otherwise, as envisaged in these guidelines, to ascertain whether their relationships fall within the compass of the Church’s doctrine , is vanishingly small. And so the deception would continue.
I have to agree with your last sentence. However perhaps the time has at last come for a definitive resolution, even if it leads to a formal split in the CofE. Then we will see which side is truly serving God , by their fruits.
Surely there will be a split in the C of E after this!
There has been a concerted and determined strategy by gay clergy (and their friends in the media, civil service, politics, etc) – at least since the late 1980s in and around the London area – largely unnoticed or avoided, whether out of fear or compassionate misunderstanding, by the great majority of clergy – to undermine and eventually remove the orthodox, historical, biblical, plain teaching of scripture from discussion on this and other matters. Their goal has been to ‘include’ the very practices (as opposed to people) the scriptures state or indeed did not need to state were ‘sinful’ IN SO MUCH AS THEY SERVE TO WEAKEN AND DESTROY COMMUNITY AND INDIVIDUALS RATHER THAN TO STRENGTHEN AND BUILD THEM UP IN CHRIST.
That they have been extremely successful in their plans and machinations is well illustrated by a number of tell-tale statements, meanings, and interpretations in a letter from, it must be noted, influential ‘Officers’ of the decision-making body of the Church of England. It is tellingly significant that their interpretation of the word ‘pastoral’ leaves out vitally important elements of proper pastoral care as set out in the Pastoral Epistles, replacing them with the promoting of a self-indulgent sexualised agenda as if THAT were all that human beings amount to. They are mistaken because they refuse to find their ‘identity’ in Christ but, rather, in their sexuality which Christ, because he too in their eyes sees like them, must undoubtedly ‘affirm’. Their grip will continue to tighten; of that we can be sure.
Welby and Sentamu have indeed apologized for the statement, according to The Guardian.
No, I’m not kidding.
It is amazing that they can completely reverse themselves on the doctrine of marriage at least 4 times over 2 years, and neither has resigned. 2 years ago, bishops issue statement that marriage is as it always has been. Synod refuses to “take note”, so the archbishops invent “radical inclusion”- stating outright that they intend to completely rewrite doctrine. Now bishops
stateerrr…issue statement saying that marriage is as it has always been (again), followed in days by archbishops reversing course.I rather imagine Gavin Drake had this latest apology written for the archbishops BEFORE they issued the “civil partnership” statement last week.
The House of Bishops’ pastoral statement and the archbishops’ apology for the process used to publish it were both published by the Church of England.
I do not work for the Church of England, so I don’t know why you think I would be preparing statements for them.
Mr. Drake,
I do apologize if I misunderstood your position. I am of course aware that you are (forgive me if this is not precisely correct) the Director of Communications for the Anglican Communion Office. I was under the impression, apparently incorrectly, that you also held a position on the staff of the ABoC. It is not unusual for others (including many liberals of my acquaintance and at least occasional publications) to refer to you as employed by “Lambeth Palace”. As I have read several of your articles on Abp. Welby’s website (this is based on recollection, but a quick “google” shows that indeed several of your articles are published there), I took that as additional confirmation.
[…] a result, a week later, after the inevitable howls of protest, archbishops Welby and Sentamu have issued an apology, dripping with all the right words like […]