Lambeth: Bishop Gene and Bishop Greg

In the last few days I've interviewed both Bishop Gene Robinson and Bishop Greg Venables. Below is my little bit of nonsense verse to commemorate this 'double' in light of coming events. It is a double, because I've learned that both are coming to Lambeth, even Bishop Greg, who is confounding some expectations thus. Here are my videos of Bishop Gene.

'The Lambeth riddle'

Both are coming to Lambeth, although one is not invited.

The other is coming although unexpected and, surprisingly, not disinvited.

The one uninvited can canonically preach but presiding's not on the table.

The undisinvited can preach and preside but canonically might not be able

To further expand his widening cone as discipleship flees further south.

He uninvited and he not disinvited will both be tried and found wanting.

They'll hang either side of the leader who tried to unite them and failed at the asking.

The Anglican tomb stands waiting and empty. In there, no body will lie.

Which noble Barabbas will go free from the Cross as their leader's agonies cry?

Comments

[David Pickering]

A very genteel, and very charming, interview. It could hardly have been more Anglican. There are a couple of terribly obvious questions, however, which interviewers seem shy of asking this famous bishop.

One goes back to his past statements that in seminary he used to have problems with parts of the Creed. He's never, that I know, said that he's ceased to have problems with the Creed. So which bits of it does he have problems with? In what senses does he believe the bits he does believe?
The second comes from his clearly stated support for not just homosexual but also bisexual practice. Since active bisexuality and monogamy do not mix, there is an issue here. Is he advocating non-monogamous sexual relationships just for bisexuals (which would seem rather unfair) or for everyone? What place does monogamy hold, for him?

[Mike Homfray]

When has gene supported 'bisexual practice'?

The only difference is that bisexuals may fall in love with either a man or a woman. That has no bearing at all on monogamy.

[George Parr]

In the light of overwhelming evidence that human sexual practices are diverse and always have been and that apparent changes in sexual patterns are underpinned by issues of unbridled reportage and consequently burgeoning familiarity (ironically, widely foregrounded by faith groups swimming upstream) why is this such an issue?

Is there absolutely nothing left which is personal and in the private sphere and as such might not form part of religious synods, holy discussion groups and conferences, in which guilt-ridden clerics seek to redefine the human condition against insuperable odds?

Surely a part of human beings ministering to each other is to accept the way they are, without dressing up undoubted issues of genetics in the guise of spiritual evil. It is a palpable nonsense to allow that to form a shaky foundation which mutually excludes more worthwhile issues and leaves only fragments of the more socially valuable tenets of Christianity in its wake.

On another level, to proscribe for the most part a range of acceptable sexual behaviour is a severe attack on the human rights of others. It also liberally daubs the members of faith groups who deny there is a spectrum of human sexual activity, as deluded or hypocrites.

[David Cohen]

Ah, dear George, here to tell the Church how to order its life when you do not even believe in God!

You do have a touching faith in something which you call "human rights" but that simply seems to boil down to whether people agree or disagree with you.

Those who wish to belong voluntarily to the Body of Christ which is called the Church do so as a matter of acceptance that our Creator rightfully has something to say about how we should exercise the gift of sexuality with which he has endowed us, and we base our understanding of that on the holy scriptures, which of course you also logically reject. That is your choice, freely entered into.

Those who wish to live according to the Christian understanding of the purposes of sexuality will equally take a very different view to yours, which must look elsewhere for values by which to create a moral framework.

The cornerstone of Christian sexual moral teaching is that the only proper expression of sexuality is within marriage between one man and one woman. This teaching has been regularly reiterated by the Church of England and by the main denominations, and should come as no surprise to you.

It applies to every single Christian. That includes those who wish to serve as Christian leaders, and was laid down as such in the New Testament. Nobody who serves in leadership can claim that this is a sudden novelty.

Conscience permits people to differ from this requirement, but they may not serve as leaders in this voluntary society while exercising such a profound disgreement with the exemplary pattern of life which is expected of them.

None of this is in any way unusual in secular life. Those who hold socialist views are not chosen to represent conservative parties, or vice-versa. But George reserves the right to heap insults upon those who do not conform to his world-view when it comes to religion. And so he will not be taken seriously.

[Mike Homfray]

But there are plenty on both sides within the Church as far as this debate is concerned - what is clear is that the possibility of remaining together in one institution is no longer feasible.

What needs to be sorted is a civilised split.

[George Parr]

Cohen worldview: Those who find no evidence of gods have no right whatsoever to think about or comment on the policies that faith groups constantly seek to introduce into society. This includes all manner of moral issues involving opting out of human rights legislation, which seemingly Mr Cohen has never heard of. But in order to discuss human rights everyone has to agree. It is possible that Mr Cohen does not believe that anyone will disagree with him.

In order to oppose the activities of fundamentalists, for example Islamicists bent on introducing Sharia Law, or anything else, you have to be religious or your views are deemed to be worthless. This is necessary to maintain the above philosophy of credibility only achieved through membership.

Christian moral frameworks are specific and agreed upon by all Super Christians. There are no areas of interpretation, and those believing there are must try to find different sets of moral values, because Super Christians will not enter into discussions with non-Christians, or people trying to be Christians, but finding difficulty with the moral framework.

The New Testament is infallible. There are 'proper' expressions of sexuality, which possibly does not include enjoyment and no grey areas exist, defined by circumstance or genetics. This applies to all Christians and apparently there is an urgent need to confirm that these morals are not novelties and apply to Christian leaders, presumably in case people think they do not having noticed the enormous schism. Sexuality and gender issues form the cornerstone of Christian thinking and attitudes to them by faith groups circumvent legal processes, human rights legislation and are not discriminatory in any way. They can result in the calculated destruction or demonisation of members of their own faith by Super Christians, so leaders must be very careful.

Exemplary patterns of life are expected from leaders who, on the one hand are human, whilst on the other must perform the magic trick of existing outside of the norms of human nature. It's rather like politics really, with faith groups in opposition to other groups in society and unable to achieve compromise or assimilate in any way. Those who challenge the views of faith groups or disagree with them in any way, just like in politics, are regarded as very insulting and to be made an example of.

All of these issues are internal to those voluntarily entering into something called 'The Body of Christ' and cannot be interfered with by outsiders. However, when other people of all colours suggest that religious faith is indeed a personal matter, and should be separated from those who do not follow it, in the secular society within which it operates (even forming part of the legislature) Christians are allowed to howl in protest at the appalling unfairness of it all. This is perfectly acceptable and does not change anything.

It is a mistake to think that Super Christians within religious groups extend any form of credibility to anyone outside of them, because it is quite obvious they are all wrong in their views.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

To us Roman Catholics references to bishops' spouses and daughters are rather shocking. Anglicans are inured to them. I have no doubt that we will soon be inured also to references to bishops' samesex partners. Venables is barking up the wrong tree when he makes this a limit of Anglican identity. Robinson is a convincing Christian and bishop.

[David Cohen]

More silliness from Mr Parr. The religion-free philosophy you espouse is by definition dismissive of the authority of the beliefs and values of Christians.

The Human Rights Act is a very fallible and limited tool, being open to subjective and political interpretation of what exactly constitute "human rights".

The most important right in society is the right to life, which the Act, the Courts and many of its proponents singularly fail to uphold.

A higher standard is needed than political statements, as the Labour Party has just been discovering. But you are unable to offer one.

[robroy]

"Rowan Williams could have been so 'inclusive' if he just invited everyone." First of all, inclusive is not a virtue. It may be very good or very bad. In the case of Gene Robinson, not inviting him is very Windsor-ish, in that Windsor asked the Americans to withdraw voluntarily. ABp Mouneer talked about how the presence of Katherine Jefferts Schori actually impeded meaningful conversation at the Joint standing committee meeting. The presence of Gene Robinson at Lambeth certainly would have made a circus out of the event. Now, we have Gene Robinson's pseudo-presence still making the meeting a farce. Alas, poor Rowan. His attempt at a love-fest will be a sad joke and shame his place in Anglican history forever.

[J Pearce]

"A higher standard is needed than political statements, as the Labour Party has just been discovering. But you are unable to offer one. "

But Christianity does? Do me a favour!

Christianity has survived for two thousand years - which, in one sense, is certainly a testament some of its core values - but in another sense, it is an indictment of how, even after all this time, it has fundamentally failed to attend to the complexity of human existence.

Put simply - as a panacea for the human condition, Christianity just doesn't work. Which means that either God is highly overrated, or - more appropriately - Christianity is nothing to do with God and is merely an implementation of iron age social engineering, phantasmagorical illusions and all.

Which effectively means that the Bible was the Human Rights Act of its day.

Now, I've given up on moral relativity, so I'm all for making it clear that certain Biblical doctrines are just plain rubbish and should be consigned to the dustbin of history. And those people who still choose to push said doctrines, despite the evidence that the doctrines in question have and still do cause untold human suffering, should be treated with the appropriate amount of disdain.

At least the Human Rights Act, despite its flaws, is a modern human attempt to make the world a better place for all its inhabitants. Christianity, in contrast, has shot its bolt and manifestly failed to do what it says on the tin. In many cases, precisely the opposite, in fact.

I would suggest that any Christian lambasting the humanist approach should cock their jaundiced eyes towards the nearest history book - and failing that, look up the word "hypocrisy" - before doing a compare and contrast.

[George Parr]

Saints preserve us! Mr Cohen, from his religious straitjacket seems to be suggesting that from the attenuated form of hopeless and bad-tempered Christian 'tolerance' and 'virtue' a Phoenix will rise and trump the inadequate human rights legislation it seeks to subvert!

Let's use his own non-argument. It's not possible for you Mr Cohen to criticize policies concerning Human Rights from the padded cell of your private club. You withdrew from the public space when you asserted that those without had absolutely no view - remember?

At least human rights are clearly intended to be inclusive and attempts to protect everyone. They do not arise from a morally-elitist worldview invented by Super Christians who make their own rules and then ignore them - quite the reverse. You have absolutely nothing to say.

[J Pearce]

Actually, I think the best way to illustrate the vacuousness of Mr Cohens position is to return his own rhetoric, albeit slightly modified. To wit:

"More silliness from Mr Cohen. The religionist philosophy you espouse is by definition dismissive of the authority of the beliefs and values of other religions, not to mention non-believers.

The Bible is a very fallible and limited tool, being open to subjective and political interpretation of what exactly constitute "God's will".

The most important right in society is the right to life, which the Bible, the Church and many of its proponents singularly fail to uphold.

A higher standard is needed than Catholic doctrine, as the Roman Catholic Church has just been discovering. But you are unable to offer one."

Ithangyew.

[David Cohen]

Still trumpeting your secular superiority complex, George!

You have a rather touching faith (if I may use that word) in human rights legislation, but ultimately it forms precisely a straitjacket (which you attribute to religion) because of the egalitarian reductionism with which it is fatally flawed, preventing the kind of value judgements and choices which need to be made both by states and by individuals.

The history books in my study, J Pearce, are full of the failures of human thinking to achieve peace, justice, or progress beyond those aspects of technology which have not been subverted to military or commercial exploitation, by leaders whose motivation is anything other than religious.

Human nature has not changed in two millennia, which is why the Christian faith is as fresh today as it was in the beginning. It proclaims God's love for the world which he created, and calls to repentance those who abuse the world or its children.

But in your God-free world, there is nothing to repent, J Pearce, since there are no values by which effectively to measure good or evil. There can therefore be little hope of true progress.

[Brett]

I seem to recall that at the General Convention of TEC which confirmed the election of +Robinson, many who were unenthusiastic were convinced to approve by statements such as this: " I wish only to be a shepherd to my flock, and a quiet pastor to my priests" Rubbish-He was then and now remains an LGBT activist and publicity queen who loves the limelight.