Question about Gene Robinson.

[Cary.Melvin]

Did the Arch-Bishop of Cantebury Rowan Williams approve or condemn the ordination of Gene Robinson?

Thanks,

[gtsecc]

The College of Bishops said don't do it.
It was done, and then the Presiding Bishop Okayed the diosies of NH's "authority" to Ordain him.
At least that is my rough understanding of how it happened.
Some other folks may knwo more details.

[gtsecc]

The ABC said don't do it, and told ECUSA to stop doing it.

[Cary.Melvin]

The ABC said don't do it, and told ECUSA to stop doing it.

Did he say this publicly? Does this mean that the ECUSA is now in schism with the Anglican Communion? Can you give me a link to a news article?

[AngCath]

No, ECUSA is not in schism with the AC. Relations have been damaged but ECUSA is still a part of the Communion.

[Finella]

The College of Bishops said don't do it.
It was done, and then the Presiding Bishop Okayed the diosies of NH's "authority" to Ordain him.
At least that is my rough understanding of how it happened.
Some other folks may knwo more details.
gtscc, that is not at all accurate. The bishop was elected by the diocese of New Hampshire. The House of Bishops was required to ratify his election at the next general convention because the election was held so closely to the convention's date. (From what I understand, this ratification is not usually done for diocesan bishops, because dioceses are autonomous can elect their own bishops without any other governing authority. If it should ever happen that the House of Bishops has to ratify the election, it's usually been just a formality. The fact that the House had to ratify Gene Robinson's election was just a matter of timing.)

The House of Bishops ratified the election, and +Robinson was consecrated.

Here is the Diocese of New Hampshire's website with press releases that will fill in the details:
http://www.nhepiscopal.org/BishopSearch/bishop_search_news.htm

[gtsecc]

gtscc, that is not at all accurate.
Tell me more.
1. Didn't the College of Bishops say don't do it, before he was elected?

2. Didn't +Griswold somehow affrim what was done, after he was elected - not sayign he had to, or didn't have to, merely that he did affirm it to some degree, and with careful words, something to the effect of affirmign the right of the Diosies of NH to elect him.

[Finella]

Tell me more.
1. Didn't the College of Bishops say don't do it, before he was elected?
Not as a body, that I'm aware of. Individual bishops may have voiced their concern in the debate, but the body approved his election. If you have sources saying otherwise, I'd like to see it.

2. Didn't +Griswold somehow affrim what was done, after he was elected - not sayign he had to, or didn't have to, merely that he did affirm it to some degree, and with careful words, something to the effect of affirmign the right of the Diosies of NH to elect him. I'm confused about what was "affirmed" in your question. Can you clarify?

It's quite likely +Griswold said that the Diocese had the right to elect its own bishop, because that's a fact. I'm not sure why this is problematic.

ETA: you keep referring to the College of Bishops... in the ECUSA it's the House of Bishops. Maybe we're talking about different bodies of Bishops here....?

[pmcleanj]

Did he say this publicly? Does this mean that the ECUSA is now in schism with the Anglican Communion? Can you give me a link to a news article?
You are mistaking the level of authority exercised by the Archbishop of Canterbury. He has authority only over the See of Canterbury and the Bishops therein. Since the Bishops of ECUSA are not under his authority, his statements are opinions and advice, not orders. Disobeying someone's advice, even the advice of a senior and respected prelate, is not in and of itself cause for schism.

And it is something of an oversimplification to say "The ABC said don't do it, and told ECUSA to stop doing it." Archbishop Rowan is well aware that he is not "the Anglican Pope" and doesn't make a habit of telling the heads of autocephalous Provinces what to do or not do. Nor does he generally act autocratically or without consultation.

So it is more accurate to say that "certain reports and resolutions issued by bodies of the Anglican Communion advised ...thus-and-so"

[gtsecc]

Not as a body, that I'm aware of. Individual bishops may have voiced their concern in the debate, but the body approved his election. If you have sources saying otherwise, I'd like to see it.
before it happen they were told not to do it.


I'm confused about what was "affirmed" in your question. Can you clarify?

It's quite likely +Griswold said that the Diocese had the right to elect its own bishop, because that's a fact.
yes.
I'm not sure why this is problematic.
me either

ETA: you keep referring to the College of Bishops... in the ECUSA it's the House of Bishops. Maybe we're talking about different bodies of Bishops here....?
yes - same thing

no sure where the percieved disagreement is

[Cary.Melvin]

You are mistaking the level of authority exercised by the Archbishop of Canterbury. He has authority only over the See of Canterbury and the Bishops therein. Since the Bishops of ECUSA are not under his authority, his statements are opinions and advice, not orders. Disobeying someone's advice, even the advice of a senior and respected prelate, is not in and of itself cause for schism.

And it is something of an oversimplification to say "The ABC said don't do it, and told ECUSA to stop doing it." Archbishop Rowan is well aware that he is not "the Anglican Pope" and doesn't make a habit of telling the heads of autocephalous Provinces what to do or not do. Nor does he generally act autocratically or without consultation.

So it is more accurate to say that "certain reports and resolutions issued by bodies of the Anglican Communion advised ...thus-and-so"

Has the Arch-Bishop of Cantebury made any statements to effect that what happened was wrong or that homosexual relationships are still sinful in the Anglican Church?

[Finella]

before it happen they were told not to do it.
Who told whom not to do it ("it" being to consecrate +Robinson, I presume? Or elect him?) The House of Bishops as a body? Or individual bishops? Where and when? Why would the House of Bishops make such a statement? As I said, they would have no authority over the matter, and it was just coincidence that they had to ratify the election at all.

no sure where the percieved disagreement is Because I was wondering if you were thinking of a different body in regard to this issue, because I have not ever heard the House of Bishops making such a statement.

And I'm still confused about what you were saying +Griswold had said/done about the matter.

[ebia]

Has the Arch-Bishop of Cantebury made any statements to effect that what happened was wrong
Just about all he can say is that it might have been better for the Communion as a whole if it hadn't happened (for reasons of unity, not doctrine).

or that homosexual relationships are still sinful in the Anglican Church?
Again, that isn't his call to make. Rowan Williams was absolutely clear, even before his election, that the role of the ABC isn't to decide anything, particularly on contraversial issues.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

So, does our position on Christian moral doctrine come from the consensus of the majority of bishops, then? Where do we get our moral doctrine from, generally speaking? If Scripture and Tradition are always reinterpreted to 'fit the times', is something a sin one day and the next perfectly fine?

This seems to be true, as was seen in our changed view on Birth Control in the early 20th century.

[Aymn27]

So, does our position on Christian moral doctrine come from the consensus of the majority of bishops, then? Where do we get our moral doctrine from, generally speaking? If Scripture and Tradition are always reinterpreted to 'fit the times', is something a sin one day and the next perfectly fine?

This seems to be true, as was seen in our changed view on Birth Control in the early 20th century.
I agree with the sentiment of your post - partially...I disagree that "birth control" was sinful prior to the 20th century. There is no indication in Scripture that birth control is wrong and according to my knowledge of Tradition there is none either. The thing is - before "birth control" would entail some sort of abortion. In the mid-twentieth century to today, science has advanced methods of birth control that do not require abortion..so your making a jump on judgment here, I think..

[ebia]

So, does our position on Christian moral doctrine come from the consensus of the majority of bishops, then?
On the whole, the Anglican Communion doesn't take a position on very much.

Where do we get our moral doctrine from, generally speaking? If Scripture and Tradition are always reinterpreted to 'fit the times', is something a sin one day and the next perfectly fine?

This seems to be true, as was seen in our changed view on Birth Control in the early 20th century.
Of course our view changes.

[gtsecc]

Other Bishops do have authority in the sense that one part of the body should not do something which hurts the other part of the body. The way the churhc was set up, and hwo I beleive we should try to run it today, is have the Bishops meet, and agree before doing things that are new and effect doctrine.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

I agree with the sentiment of your post - partially...I disagree that "birth control" was sinful prior to the 20th century. There is no indication in Scripture that birth control is wrong and according to my knowledge of Tradition there is none either. The thing is - before "birth control" would entail some sort of abortion. In the mid-twentieth century to today, science has advanced methods of birth control that do not require abortion..so your making a jump on judgment here, I think..

I think the birth control issue I mentioned could be a bit of a distraction from what I meant to convey in my post, sorry about that! Though it is true Lambeth condemned it at one point, and OKed it at another. That is probably best left to a different discussion. :)

I do find it disturbing, however, that our Church doesn't take an authoritive stance, or any stance at all, on moral living. Some may consider that a virtue. I have trouble with this.

[ebia]

I do find it disturbing, however, that our Church doesn't take an authoritive stance, or any stance at all, on moral living. Some may consider that a virtue. I have trouble with this.
Why? Do you need the church to tell you want to do?

[Aymn27]

Why? Do you need the church to tell you want to do?
No, but there are obvious fundamental answers to certain questions that it seems all Christian Institutions would hold in common if they are truly based on the principles of Christ - despite some of their theological differences.

[ebia]

No, but there are obvious fundamental answers to certain questions that it seems all Christian Institutions would hold in common if they are truly based on the principles of Christ - despite some of their theological differences.
If the answers are obvious and non-contraversial what purpose is served by the church taking a stance?

So, I ask again:
Why? What purpose would be served?

Its funny how no-one ever wants the church to take a position in order to tell them what to do - only to tell other people what to do. I guess the necessary corollory to that is that the position must agree with theirs.

[Naomi4Christ]

I do find it disturbing, however, that our Church doesn't take an authoritive stance, or any stance at all, on moral living. Some may consider that a virtue. I have trouble with this.

It's because we believe in discipleship

[karen freeinchristman]

No, but there are obvious fundamental answers to certain questions that it seems all Christian Institutions would hold in common if they are truly based on the principles of Christ - despite some of their theological differences.

I am wondering what these obvious fundamental questions/answers are... :confused:

[Finella]

I agree with the sentiment of your post - partially...I disagree that "birth control" was sinful prior to the 20th century. There is no indication in Scripture that birth control is wrong and according to my knowledge of Tradition there is none either. The thing is - before "birth control" would entail some sort of abortion. In the mid-twentieth century to today, science has advanced methods of birth control that do not require abortion..so your making a jump on judgment here, I think..

Not to derail things here, but actually for thousands of years there have been barrier methods of birth control using everything from lemons to alligator dung... before the Pill or condoms one did not have to resort to an abortion as a form of birth control. Just wanted to correct that :)

[Mysterium_Fidei]

It's because we believe in discipleshipWhat does that mean?

[Mysterium_Fidei]

If the answers are obvious and non-contraversial what purpose is served by the church taking a stance?

So, I ask again:
Why? What purpose would be served?

Its funny how no-one ever wants the church to take a position in order to tell them what to do - only to tell other people what to do. I guess the necessary corollory to that is that the position must agree with theirs.

The problem with Christian morals is that they are never obvious and rarely non-controversial. When the Church defines a stance on an issue, it lets us know what behaviors are in line with Christian living, and which are not (and are therefor sinful).

The purpose served is clarity on what could potentially cut us off from God's grace.

I think the Church has an obligation to take a stance on moral issues, whether anyone like it or not. I'm not very fond of being prevented from going around and having premarital sex, but I realize that behavior is sinful and not in line with Christian living. We need barriers. These do not put God in a box, but they keep the 'spirit of the world' from infecting the members of the Church.

[Naomi4Christ]

What does that mean?

Discipleship is the process of becoming Christlike, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, when you die to self and rise to new life in Christ.

Basically, you don't need the church to command you to behave in a certain way. As you grow in faith (through worship, bible study, spending time with other Christians, prayer etc.), you come to your own realisation as to what is the right way to behave, as your former bad ways fall away from you.

I'm sure someone else can describe it better than this. :)

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Discipleship is the process of becoming Christlike, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, when you die to self and rise to new life in Christ.

Basically, you don't need the church to command you to behave in a certain way. As you grow in faith (through worship, bible study, spending time with other Christians, prayer etc.), you come to your own realisation as to what is the right way to behave, as your former bad ways fall away from you.

I'm sure someone else can describe it better than this. :)

Mmmhm. I agree that method is certainly one that works for a good deal of Christians, but not all. We humans have a nasty habit of retaining what temporal behaviors benefit us, or make us feel good. The Church is called to gentlyb (and sometimes not-so-gently) rebuke sinful behavior. The Scripture is pretty clear on that:

"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." (Matthew 18:15-17)

While this is a situation when a brother sins agaisnt you, we still see that the Church is called to handle the behavior. While I disagree with the 39 Articles strongly, I believe they call Christian men to rebuke ministers who live in sin. I also recall the prayer book instructs ministers to keep certain people from the Lord's Supper.

Today we can't really say what is sin and what isn't, or we might just offend someone. True compassion comes in rebuking dangerous behavior.

[SeenAndUnseen]

Today we can't really say what is sin and what isn't, or we might just offend someone. True compassion comes in rebuking dangerous behavior.

If I could rep you, I would. :amen:

[higgs2]

Today we can't really say what is sin and what isn't, or we might just offend someone. True compassion comes in rebuking dangerous behavior.

I totally agree :) I am so proud of the the way the Episcopal CHurch stands up for what is right and promotes social justice, love and charity and "rebukes" sins like racism, discrimination, capital punishment, etc. It is a good feeling to belong to an organization that stands for something important and is not afraid to show it. :thumbsup:

[Torah613]

I totally agree :) I am so proud of the the way the Episcopal CHurch stands up for what is right and promotes social justice, love and charity and "rebukes" sins like racism, discrimination, capital punishment, etc. It is a good feeling to belong to an organization that stands for something important and is not afraid to show it. :thumbsup:



"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to higgs2 again."

[Inside Edge]

.

[Inside Edge]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to higgs2 again.

And again...

[Aymn27]

Not to derail things here, but actually for thousands of years there have been barrier methods of birth control using everything from lemons to alligator dung... before the Pill or condoms one did not have to resort to an abortion as a form of birth control. Just wanted to correct that :)
did those work?? highly doubt it...

[Aymn27]

If the answers are obvious and non-contraversial what purpose is served by the church taking a stance?

So, I ask again:
Why? What purpose would be served?

Its funny how no-one ever wants the church to take a position in order to tell them what to do - only to tell other people what to do. I guess the necessary corollory to that is that the position must agree with theirs.
I never said they would be obvious and non-controversial..where did you get that idea. Would you say a stance on the war in Iraq, abortion, homosexual marriage, etc etc are "obvious and non-controversial"?

However, I think the Church has an obligation to address all these issues and make declarations on them based on Scripture, Tradition, and the power of binding and loosing received from the Lord. Not taking a stance is a sign (to me) of empathy and political correctness- an idol of post-modernity . Jesus was not shy about taking stances on issues.

RE the church addressing such issues - I fully believe that the weight of the Churches voice should be heard no matter what side of an issue you are on - and when the church speaks on an issue with authority - then if you are on the "wrong side" of the argument - you should heavily weigh your opinion against the common stance of Christianity. For instance, in my own experience, the war in Iraq - I am a conservative Republican who voted for Pres Bush both times - I initially supported the war but after listening to and acknowledging the stance of almost every denomination - I have had to rethink whether or not it was just. I've come to believe that my initial idea of the war was contrary to the mind of Christ b/c the church (in the universal sense) came to a different conclusion than my own. We can't possibly accept that we are correct on every issue...the Church needs to be a "city on a hill" to shine the light for all us lost souls --

[Aymn27]

I totally agree :) I am so proud of the the way the Episcopal CHurch stands up for what is right and promotes social justice, love and charity and "rebukes" sins like racism, discrimination, capital punishment, etc. It is a good feeling to belong to an organization that stands for something important and is not afraid to show it. :thumbsup:
I suppose one person's heresy is another person's pride?? LOL

[ebia]

The problem with Christian morals is that they are never obvious and rarely non-controversial.
You will note that my post was responding to a demand that the Church take a stance on issues that are "obvious".

When the Church defines a stance on an issue, it lets us know what behaviors are in line with Christian living, and which are not (and are therefor sinful).
Does it? In the Anglican church it's far more likely to be seen for what it is - the Church taking a stance. People will still go with their opinion.

The purpose served is clarity on what could potentially cut us off from God's grace.
As I said above, no-one ever want the Church to tell them what to do, (or takes much notice when it does). What everyone wants is for the Church to tell other people what to do.

I think the Church has an obligation to take a stance on moral issues, whether anyone like it or not. I'm not very fond of being prevented from going around and having premarital sex, but I realize that behavior is sinful and not in line with Christian living.
But do you realise that because the Church says it is so? I rather doubt it.



We need barriers.

This virtually always means "other people need barriers, so they do what I think is right".

[ebia]

I never said they would be obvious and non-controversial..where did you get that idea.
From:
No, but there are obvious fundamental answers to certain questions that it seems all Christian Institutions would hold in common


However, I think the Church has an obligation to address all these issues and make declarations on them based on Scripture, Tradition, and the power of binding and loosing received from the Lord.
Would you still hold this to be true if the Church did take a stance - and took the opposite to your view on each?
If not, what you are actually asking for is for the church to back up your answer to each and force that onto others.

[higgs2]

I never said they would be obvious and non-controversial..where did you get that idea. Would you say a stance on the war in Iraq, abortion, homosexual marriage, etc etc are "obvious and non-controversial"?

However, I think the Church has an obligation to address all these issues and make declarations on them based on Scripture, Tradition, and the power of binding and loosing received from the Lord. Not taking a stance is a sign (to me) of empathy and political correctness- an idol of post-modernity . Jesus was not shy about taking stances on issues.

RE the church addressing such issues - I fully believe that the weight of the Churches voice should be heard no matter what side of an issue you are on - and when the church speaks on an issue with authority - then if you are on the "wrong side" of the argument - you should heavily weigh your opinion against the common stance of Christianity. For instance, in my own experience, the war in Iraq - I am a conservative Republican who voted for Pres Bush both times - I initially supported the war but after listening to and acknowledging the stance of almost every denomination - I have had to rethink whether or not it was just. I've come to believe that my initial idea of the war was contrary to the mind of Christ b/c the church (in the universal sense) came to a different conclusion than my own. We can't possibly accept that we are correct on every issue...the Church needs to be a "city on a hill" to shine the light for all us lost souls --
I think it is admirable that you would rethink your stance on something and even change your opinion if necessary. Not everyone is able or equipped or willing to do that. I have had to do the some on some issues, and it is difficult to let go of my previous certainty. :thumbsup:

[Aymn27]

From:




Would you still hold this to be true if the Church did take a stance - and took the opposite to your view on each?
If not, what you are actually asking for is for the church to back up your answer to each and force that onto others.
ok...point taken (LOL - they are obvious to me!!)..
and to answer your question - yes I would still believe/hold that stance - because the mind of the church should reflect the mind of Christ - the Holy Spirit will guide it to the end of the age...

[Aymn27]

I think it is admirable that you would rethink your stance on something and even change your opinion if necessary. Not everyone is able or equipped or willing to do that. I have had to do the some on some issues, and it is difficult to let go of my previous certainty. :thumbsup:
Hey - I've been married 11yrs - I've come to the conclusion that I am wrong almost all the time!!

[higgs2]

Hey - I've been married 11yrs - I've come to the conclusion that I am wrong almost all the time!!
You, I'm sure, are right about *that*! YOu sound like a snag (sensitive new age guy)! :D:D:D

[ebia]

ok...point taken (LOL - they are obvious to me!!)..
and to answer your question - yes I would still believe/hold that stance -
Good on you, but I suspect you are in a minority.

because the mind of the church should reflect the mind of Christ - the Holy Spirit will guide it to the end of the age...
Given that, perhaps God doesn't want the Church to issue an simple answer to some questions. Perhaps demanding that the church give a straightforward answer to every question amounts to demanding that God do what we tell him. Perhaps the Church does give a universal answer to those questions God chooses to answer in such a way, and doesn't where God wants us to think through the issues for ourselves because that is what serves his purposes.

[Aymn27]

You, I'm sure, are right about *that*! YOu sound like a snag (sensitive new age guy)! :D:D:D
SNAG?? rofl...
Definitely suffering from post-sexual revolution disorder!!

[higgs2]

Good on you, but I suspect you are in a minority.


Given that, perhaps God doesn't want the Church to issue an simple answer to some questions. Perhaps demanding that the church give a straightforward answer to every question amounts to demanding that God do what we tell him. Perhaps the Church does give a universal answer to those questions God chooses to answer in such a way, and doesn't where God wants us to think through the issues for ourselves because that is what serves his purposes.

And that's certainly not the way the Anglican church works. It would be a shame to see the Anglican Communion move towards legalism. Maybe God wants the RC church to give those answers but wants those who choose to be Anglican to be free to think through the issues and concerns for ourselves?

[Aymn27]

And that's certainly not the way the Anglican church works. It would be a shame to see the Anglican Communion move towards legalism. Maybe God wants the RC church to give those answers but wants those who choose to be Anglican to be free to think through the issues and concerns for ourselves?
Then what exactly are the Lambeth declarations for? I acknowledge that they have no "binding authority" but that is a matter of eccliesology and , in my view, a major problem. Hopefully a new conventual communion will have some authority to decide what is inside and what is outside acceptable teaching and have the ability to admonish and/or correct the questionable teachings of another province.

[Finella]

did those work?? highly doubt it...
Yes. Yes, they did. :) http://www.mcmaster.ca/health/hwc/Student%20Writers/hx_contraception.htm