... from bishops weighing in on the "who's going to Lambeth" list.
I do not believe it is Bishop Robinson's "manner of life" that has "caused exceptionally serious division or scandal within the Communion," rather it is the divisive actions of those who have used it in an intentional effort to divide both The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. -- +Mark Hollingsworth, Diocese of Ohio
Until we are able to separate ourselves from our fixation on human sexuality as the root of our divisions and address the dynamics of power and leadership in the Communion, we are doomed to fail in Christ's call to engage the world in the act of inclusive love and a mission-driven theology that claims justice, the rule of law and the respect for human rights as the core of our work as a Communion. -- +John Chane, Diocese of Washington
The isolation and exile of Bishop Robinson rebukes the bright vision of the unity of the Church, and substitutes the mechanism of the diabolic, the shattering of communion and integrity. -- +Marc Andrus, Bishop of California
8 comments:
Have divorced and remarried bishops been invited?
I feel soory about the State of the Anglican communion. How much exclusivity the Chuurh can bear. I feel that I am a memeber of an exclusive golf club where women, afro americans (canadians), gays , lesbians.. are not admitted because of their differences. Come on stop it !
Have divorced and remarried bishops been invited?
Probably. Unfortunately.
RonF
After Bp. Robinson was ordained, one of my Diocese's bishops travelled around leading what were billed to be discussions on the topic. I say "billed to be" because when he showed up, said Bishop told us he had some brief remarks and then proceeded to speak (in favor of the ordination) for fully 90 minutes before allowing anyone else to speak. At which point, on a weekday evening when people had to go to work the next day, he'd pretty much used up all the oxygen in the room.
Having said that, in the question and answer period that followed, he pointed out that following the Bible would also required that divorced persons not be permitted to be or remain bishops, and that the ECUSA would lose a lot of bishops that way. My response was along the lines of "So? Where's the problem?"
Gene Robinson is not someone I would choose as a bishop because of his manner of life. Where he fails is his lack of fidelity and commitment to his marriage vows, not his sexual orientation. If he were faithfully married to a gay partner from day one, I could accept that his life was in accordance with God's plan. But he was married, terminated the marriage, and selected another partner. That kind of conduct is wrong, whether committed by a partner to an opposite sex marriage or a same sex marriage. I say this because I was the victim of a wife who abandoned me. IT DIDN'T FEEL GOOD! On the basis of that experience, I have concluded that God intended us to have lifelong, faithful relationships regardless of whether that is with a same or opposite sex partner. Nonetheless, Robinson was duly elected and consecrated, and Rowan Williams has failed to respect that because of his sexual orientation. How appalling! The other Bishops should stay home and the National Church should withhold its funding.
david justin lynch,
your protest would hold weight if ALL divorced bishops were refused an invitation. My understanding is that there are many.
But if only Bp Robinson is refused, it is not the divorce that is the problem.
IT
he was married, terminated the marriage, and selected another partner.
DJL, this comes very close to the sort of *malicious lie* that ought to get your post moderated. +GR and his ex-wife MUTUALLY AGREED to end their marriage, parting as beloved friends (and co-parents to their children). *She* then "selected another partner": +Gene only met Mark Andrew some years after that.
I say this because I was the victim of a wife who abandoned me. IT DIDN'T FEEL GOOD!
My ex-husband did the same to me---but that is NOT true in the case of +Gene Robinson!!! Learn the facts, and quit spreading falsehoods.
I was not aware whether + Gene's divorce was voluntary or involuntary, and for me, that distinction is important. Divorcing someone against their will is always wrong. The remedy is forgiveness and reconciliation. If the perpetrator is not willing to do that, the Church is justified in refusing a further marriage TO THE PERPETRATOR. The Church's role vis a vis the victim is one of healing and support and assistance in finding a replacement spouse.
My view is that if you've said "I DO" and you have a sacramental marriage, you've bought the farm and not a bed of roses. I fully understand the risks and benefits and choose to be married. For those who want the opportunity for no-fault walkaway, there is a choice of a non-sacramental (civil) marriage or just cohabitation.
Divorce by mutual consent is a different and more delicate analysis for which there is no one rule applicable to all situations. For example, the situation where a person with a gay sexual preference enters into a marriage with an opposite sex partner may involve an issue of dishonesty as contrasted with two people who have been honest with each other and "grown apart" for reasons that have nothing to do with sexual orientation.
Then there is fidelity, which I view as THE key issue. Jesus did permit divorce for adultery, and I think that is a good rule, except that it should apply to both genders and should apply to persons of all sexual orientations and not just to men divorcing women.
The Church needs to deal more proactively with what it means to be in committed relationship, for EVERYONE.
Post a Comment