Should the ECUSA apologise

[TomUK]

Should ECUSA apologise for the consecration of a homsexual bishop?

 

[chalice_thunder]

Apologize? No.

Should Martin Luther have apologized for the Reformation?

Should Rosa Parks have apologized for not giving up her seat?

Should Jesus have apologized for healing on the Sabbath?

 

[Bonifatius]

But would it be wise not to apologize and then risk the breach of the Anglican Communion??

I personally do not have a problem with Bishop Gene Robinson, but honestly I think it would be good to find a way to keep us together ... not to mention our ecumenical partners in the RC and Orthodox Churches ...

 

[chalice_thunder]

Perhaps a recognition that parts of the communion has been hurt by our actions is in order. Maybe even an apology...though I am not sure about it. Because, when I make an apology, I usually intend to not do the hurtful action again.

But the Church needs to continue to recognize the full inclusion of gays and lesbians - which includes the sacrament of ordination - not because we are gay and lesbian, but because we are BAPTIZED Christian ministers. And, by extension, that is going to hurt the communion again and again.

Rather than an apology, I think ALL sides of the communion need to stay open to dialog, repentance and reconciliation.

 

[TomUK]

As Dr Eames said, the announcement today wasn't a judgement- rather, it was a way of opening further dialogue and communication with all members of the communion. Absolutely we must all be prepared to remain in discussion and debate about the issue, and hopefully the Lamebth conference will make that a more practical possibility, provided its recommendations are met. One final point, if all sides are willing to remain in discussion, then ALLl sides MUST be prepared to concede on a number of issues. This is a debate between all branches of the communion, and all branches must be seen to be making an effort, rather than some in the church who are far more willing to just sit and wait, and hope that ultimately their side will be the victor.

 

[seeking.IAM]

I did not vote in your poll since I obviously am not Episcopal/Anglican, except as a "step-child" since Methodism sprang forth from the Anglican Communion. Recently, I have begun to question whether I wished to continue with Methodism. When I questioned and decided to look elsewhere, I first chose to visit the Episcopal Church as a possiblity for my new church home. I have been attending an Episcopal Church and have felt very comfortable there. I might have joined except that this whole matter as become a "stopper" for me, at least for now.

The bind that I see is that either way it goes, there is great risk of leaving someone out. I have chosen not to join until I see if the future of the Episcopal Church leaves me out. I wonder how many folks like me there are out there, and what the long-term impact is on all of this for the ECUSA?

I would hope the ECUSA/Anglican Communion finds a solution that honors conservative thinking without calling conservatives "bigots" while also honoring liberal thinking without branding liberals as "heretics." I believe thinking on both side is rooted in sincere belief about what should be the nature of Christianity.

I wonder if it's possible for the ECUSA to find a solution that keeps people together while honoring their differences? Until then, I stand and wait, maybe along side others like me?

A respectful guest and convert waiting-to-happen,
seeking.IAM
<><

 

[chalice_thunder]

As Dr Eames said, the announcement today wasn't a judgement- rather, it was a way of opening further dialogue and communication with all members of the communion. Absolutely we must all be prepared to remain in discussion and debate about the issue, and hopefully the Lamebth conference will make that a more practical possibility, provided its recommendations are met. One final point, if all sides are willing to remain in discussion, then ALLl sides MUST be prepared to concede on a number of issues. This is a debate between all branches of the communion, and all branches must be seen to be making an effort, rather than some in the church who are far more willing to just sit and wait, and hope that ultimately their side will be the victor.

I agree with much of what you say, TomUK. I just wonder how much more the anglican gay and lesbian community is going to be asked to concede. We are often treated as second-class, yet we are also often leaders of ministry and mission.

 

[chalice_thunder]

I did not vote in your poll since I obviously am not Episcopal/Anglican, except as a "step-child" since Methodism sprang forth from the Anglican Communion. Recently, I have begun to question whether I wished to continue with Methodism. When I questioned and decided to look elsewhere, I first chose to visit the Episcopal Church as a possiblity for my new church home. I have been attending an Episcopal Church and have felt very comfortable there. I might have joined except that this whole matter as become a "stopper" for me, at least for now.

The bind that I see is that either way it goes, there is great risk of leaving someone out. I have chosen not to join until I see if the future of the Episcopal Church leaves me out. I wonder how many folks like me there are out there, and what the long-term impact is on all of this for the ECUSA?

I would hope the ECUSA/Anglican Communion finds a solution that honors conservative thinking without calling conservatives "bigots" while also honoring liberal thinking without branding liberals as "heretics." I believe thinking on both side is rooted in sincere belief about what should be the nature of Christianity.

I wonder if it's possible for the ECUSA to find a solution that keeps people together while honoring their differences? Until then, I stand and wait, maybe along side others like me?

A respectful guest and convert waiting-to-happen,
seeking.IAM
<><

This is a great post - thanks so much!

I served a liberal cathedral congregation for 8 years. (talk about heaven for me!!) While we strove to be in dialog with the conservatives in the community, it was often apparent that they felt somewhat marginalized. The result was that leadership worked hard at including all the members of the community - striving to listen to all voices. We took our baptismal vows to heart: seeking the face of Christ in every person, and respecting the dignity of every human being.

It was difficult (downright painful for some!) at times, but it made us all stronger.

 

[Bonifatius]

Dear all,

as far as I understood the Windsor report, it doesn't say that the consecration of Gene Robinson in itself was right or wrong. It just states that in regard of the rules of the Anglican Communion it was wrong to go forth with it although other parts of the communion and the ABC were against.



In my eyes the crucial point is whether ECUSA ("the strong in faith") will be willing to drop these consecrations in respect of other parts of the communion ("the weak in faith") until we come to a common understanding. Maybe this solution which St. Paul recommended when asked about the meat of animals that was used in pagan rites could be way for us too?

 

[Bingley]

I think both sides in this controversy can and should apologise for behaviour that does little to bring honour to Our Lord's name.

 

[ahab]

Perhaps a recognition that parts of the communion has been hurt by our actions is in order

The report outlines that this action was a breach. We already knew that. The subsequent breaches included alternative episcopal oversight being offered form one part of the Anglican Communion to another. I am somewhat surprised this was mentioned as this did of course follow the first breaches, ordination of Robinson, same-sex blessings and ordination of Jeffrey John as Dean and his teachings, during a period of supposed restraint and reflection.

But the Church needs to continue to recognize the full inclusion of gays and lesbians –

I am afraid not. The church already has celibate homosexuals and ex-gay in ministry. What is being promoted here is same-sex sex, that’s contrary to Lambeth 1.10, let alone the scriptures.
Lest be quite clear here. The CofE and the Christian church includes homosexually orientated people. It does not exclude them as we even have examples of such people on this forum (ie Homosexual Film Shows Change Can Happen) What it does exclude is those who promote same-sex sex. That is scripturally correct and the majority are going to keep it that way as Paul and the other NT writers reveal we must.This isnt a case of saying sorry for mant people as Paul is quite clear (1 Co 5:9) "I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people– " This was to the church, believers not unbelievers. We are to reach our and associate with all unbelievers to tell them the gospel, we are also to be toleratant of one another 2 Tim 2:14- etc, but not to tolerate willfull continuous disobedience on certain issues 1 Cor 5, 2 Cor 11:4, Gal 1:1-8)


Griswold doesn't believe Paul understood, but Paul understood Greek and Roman culture and religion very well, and he was an expert in Jewish law and prophets, ie. the scriptures that Jesus knew and fulfilled. Anyway Paul 'was taught' received his revelation form Jesus.

 

[Ave Maria]

This is just my personal opinion. I don't know. I say leave it up to them.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Ahab - does the phrase "honest disagreement about the teaching of Scripture" mean anything to you? Or do you assume that those who disagree with your stance are conciously rejecting Scripture?

 

[ahab]

Karl -Liberal Backslider,

Ahab - does the phrase "honest disagreement about the teaching of Scripture" mean anything to you?

Yes. Does the scripture mean anything to you? Griswold believes its limited by lack of understanding.

Or do you assume that those who disagree with your stance are conciously rejecting Scripture?

On the contrary, generally there are often different revelations from scripture, in this case however I have put the scriptures and my stance. How do you deal with these scriptures and where are those that support same-sex sex. Also would you like to respond to the Lambeth statement and present contradictions, rather than just make a comment about my stance (which seems to be acknowledged by Eames as more with the majority)

 

[Cjwinnit]

What an unholy mess.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Karl -Liberal Backslider,

Yes. Does the scripture mean anything to you? Griswold believes its limited by lack of understanding.

He might well be right. It's certainly the case that what we are looking at today, with monogamous same sex relationships, may well differ considerably from what the Scriptures are talking about.

On the contrary, generally there are often different revelations from scripture, in this case however I have put the scriptures and my stance.

You mean "On this issue there isn't room for honest divergence of interpretation". So where does this leave people who do disagree with your interpretation?

How do you deal with these scriptures and where are those that support same-sex sex.

Unfortunately, discussion of both these questions would break CF rules for this forum - discussion of this long deceased equine is restricked to particular fora.

Also w

ould you like to respond to the Lambeth statement and present contradictions, rather than just make a comment about my stance (which seems to be acknowledged by Eames as more with the majority)

Sure. It's a shame that Eames has come to the conclusion that he has to allow the conservatives' threat of schism to over-rule the honest conclusions of the ECUSA.

 

[ahab]

Karl Liberal Backslider,

It's certainly the case that what we are looking at today, with monogamous same sex relationships, may well differ considerably from what the Scriptures are talking about.

Well I would say monogamous same-sex relationships do because there is no countenance to sexually active same-sex monogamous relationships in scripture. So in this respect it is a different gospel to the one Paul preached. Paul says “If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!” Thats the problem, this may be a move of God rather than an unholy row. All same-sex sex references are condemned and sexually active monogamous relationships are exclusively marriage between a man and a woman. What we have therefore seems to be a made up scenario apart from the one given by Paul and the NT writers.

But my point is not about same-sex sex, but that Bishop Eames acknowledged Lambeth 1.10 as what the Communion should adhere to and what the ECUSA and Canadian provinces have breached.

You mean "On this issue there isn't room for honest divergence of interpretation". So where does this leave people who do disagree with your interpretation?

It leaves them in disagreement to Lambeth 1.10. As I said my stance, the scriptures and Lambeth 1.10.

Sure. It's a shame that Eames has come to the conclusion that he has to allow the conservatives' threat of schism to over-rule the honest conclusions of the ECUSA.

No absolutely not! Bishop Eames didn’t write the report on his own, he wrote it with others. Bishop Eames also said that the majority of the Anglican Communion have been hurt by the ECUSA breach. The idea that a majority adhering to an agreed current position should be the ones to leave is some sort of denial of reality. My point is that Lambeth 1.10 is the default agreement for the Anglican communion and if that is 'conservative' then the Anglican Communion 75 million can be comnsidered largely conservative as is the 200 odd million Evangleical Alliance laregly conservative, as is the 1 billion Roman Catholic church largely conservative, as is the several hundred million Eastern Orthodox church which is laregely conservative. Should most of Christendom leave their church if they dont accept what liberals want?

These are the crucial points we are still discussing

 

[ahab]

The thread title is whether the ECUSA should apologise. I believe the report suggests and appology for the hurt not for the actions. In this respect I believe the ECUSA may already have complied with that request and I've no doubt sincerely as well.

What I am saying is, the problem remains, in those who are still in breach of and intend to continue to be in breach of Lambeth 1.10

 

[chalice_thunder]

The report asks for an expression of regret - it does not ask for an apology. Frank Grisowld has already expressed regret for the hurt that much of the communion has felt. This is different than an apology for actually consecrating Gene. He goes on to say that it is an extensive report and it will take much time for the whole communion to digest it and respond to it.

 

[ahab]

Hi Chalice_thunder,

Yes, what you have written more precisely is what I understand.