« Our Contribution to the Gibson Street Gala (on Facebook) | Main | Distancing »

11 June 2010



>>She will address the Synod on 'Mission'. I will be leaving the meeting at that point,

How rude is that?!?! I realise you once encouraged people to heckle +Gene Robinson (albeit in England) but, really. And the AB of C's recent statement in no way means that +Katherine or TEC are somehow invalid, unlikely the unlovely border-crossing bigots of GAFcon. Isn't going in a huff (or, worse, threatening to withold money) the kind of infantile/bully-boy tactics that, irrespective of ideology, should be beneath those with a genuine interest in listening to fellow believers with differing views?


well that's a real shame. Perhaps you could have stayed and listened to the message that our Presiding Bishop had to bring from our church to yours? It says a lot that one would march out in a huff when they don't like the person who is speaking.


Thanks for your care and understanding.


Not at all in a huff. Last week, I informed the Primus and my bishop of my intention by letter. I don't want my friends around the world to think that nobody in Scotland was prepared to stand up and suggest that such a visit and welcome was not appropriate right now. You'd be furious if someone like ++Akinola was in the country and addressed our Synod, wouldn't you? I'd back you in that, at this time, because I want to see the church here remain together.

Don't think I mentioned anything about threatening to withold money, Ryan, so that's not very fair. You call it infantile and bullying, but I'm not in a position to bully anyone. I believe that it was a principled decision, only taken after much thought and prayer. I wasn't alone and at least one other had come to such a decision, though from a different perspective and with no consultation with me.

I think you are just annoyed with me because I don't appreciate TEC's innovations as much as you clearly do.


We support you and care for you very much. There is much I would love to say here, but trying to bite my tongue (although sometimes I don't know why I bother given certain peoples proven inability to do likewise).

We know that there will be false teachers and those who water down the gospel and dilute and distort scripture. We all need to pray and work hard lest we do the same - more than we may already do! Stay strong my friend.


Oh, and I of course love and appreciate you very much David. Only loving people you agree with doesn't seem very 'biblical'...


That is right, of course, Ryan. We must try to love even those we find unlovable.

Yet within the body of Christ we must also hold each other to account and challenge one another if and when we fall into error. The problem in this 'debate' is that some have lost the ability to speak the truth whilst others have lost the ability to speak with love. And others still fail to see that sometimes speaking the truth, depending on ones perspective and the truth that needs to be spoken, may seem unloving - when it is actually quite the opposite!

However it still seems to me that for the reasons he has outlined, as well as the reasons outlined by CofE ministers in their letter to the Times, that a stand is required. I pray for David that as he takes this stand that he can maintain what sometimes appears a tension between speaking the truth and doing so in love.


Someone has to say "The Emperor has no clothes"
It must be with a crushing sense of burden
that you feel it has fallen to you.

This does leave me with a problem
I'll have to look for someone else
to take my crystals and get them empowered.

fr dougal

Listening in love and speaking in love have to go together if either are to be meaningful exercises. The Archbishop of Capetown gave us a very powerful example of that in his words to the PB. However, were it Akinola, I'd have walked out as I do not feel there is any communion or fellowship worth having there, so I am not inclined to be critical of those who feel similarly from another point of view. I regret it but also acknowledge the feeling of hurt (be it real or perceived) can be an insurmountable barrier AT THIS TIME. That doesn't (I hope) close the door forever to real listening and talking in the future

David Ould

courageous stand, David. It's entirely correct that you don't allow this provocative invitation to go unchallenged, and also correct that you protest in such a non-confrontational way.

Be assured there are many around the world who will be praying for you and your peers.

The Lakeland Two

Good for you! We would do the same thing, and have come so close to doing just that on a local level, wishing we had and will in the future. God be with you as you stand firm and courageous. Our prayers will be with you now and in the future.


I would encourage you to read this paper which outlines how Katherine Jefferts Schori denies the doctrines of the divinity of Christ and the resurrection:

It is long, but TEC loyalists tend to evoke many different types of "excuses" for what she, and for that matter, Spong, have said on such matters.

It's important that we are informed of what she says and what she does not say on such matters. It is important that the Scottish Episcopal Church knows what it is doing in inviting a Primate of the Communion who has made such pronouncements about Christ. There is always a chance that afterward the Synod will recant and repent of having invited her. It is important that we decide whether we are intent upon being a "church," or if we would not be better off as a kind of charity organization with an emphasis on communal sharing amongst its members.

You might even want to make copies available to synod members who believe that such things as the divinity of Christ and the resurrection are important church teachings.


Your intent has been known across the pond. We former Anglicans in the US are grateful for your stand. If only there was courage among the church to have more men of principle.


Should you not be more concerned with the lack of just and equal treatment of gay people by Anglican churches worldwide? The Anglican Church, with the noble exceptions of TEC and the Anglican Church in Canada, is complicit in the systematic denigration of and lack of pastoral care for its gay members, which is a denial of the image of God, rather more serious than whether a few grumpy old curmudgeons have painted themselves into a corner and ended up choosing to leave their church, surely?

Phillip Shade

Thank you for taking a stand for truth and against the heresy and the attempted ruthless power grab of KJS in such a grace filled manner.


Festivus!? The mighty Frank Costanza invented Holiday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festivus ) is surely (Feats of Strength aside) an inclusive occasion, that really ought not to be yoked to the 'conservative' (!) cause. ;-)


Of course, +Gene Robinson has espoused a theology far more traditionally Orthodox than Spong so I take it he's ok? No?

The notion that gay/wimmin clergy and heretical theology are somehow intrinsically linked makes as much sense as the bad old Reaganite propaganda that Communism and Sodomy are invariably interlinked vices.


David, it must be encouraging that you get so much fan-mail, but posting all these 'you go, girl!' type messages and blocking mine is hardly the stuff of debate and mutual respect now, is it?


>>It's important that we are informed of what she says and what she does not say on such matters. It is important that the Scottish Episcopal Church

Yes, but the SEC stated five years ago that it has no problem with actively gay clergy, so obviously we're all hell-bound heretics anyway! *rolls eyes*


thank you for standing up!



To invite this woman to speak is for many to not respect the Anglican Communion. She just feigned to make an active homosexual a bishop. This active homosexual has expressed no intent to amend her life to come into accord with Holy Scripture.

Yours in Christ,


Ah! That's more like it. Thanks. Today's ++Rowan's birthday, which is surely an occasion for Why Can't We All Get Along type sentiment ;)


Dear Scott+

Encouraging that you should just have a problem with 'active' homosexual clergy. However if the Gagnon-purveyed stereotypes are true (they're not of course, which doesn't bode well for the anti-gay cause), most of them are 'passive' , yet presumably one wouldn't want them at the altar either.

People disagree with you on the INTERPRETATION of Scripture, which is not a rejection of Scripture per se. I do wish people would realise that people can disagree with your 'explanation' are not refusing to *listen* to it nor demonstrating a low view of Holy Scripture; as one might say when cornered by a drunk at a party - 'I UNDERSTAND what you are saying, but I think you are wrong'. If anything, a refusal to engage in puerile textual harassment is more liable to indicate a high as opposed to low attitude towards the Bible.

Also, you'll know that the Scottish Episcopal Church stated in 2005 that it accepted same-sex clergy and always has done (our own dear Gadgetvicar was married by a gay bishop!). It is not, thank Christ (literally), a branch of ++Akinola type fundamentalist bigotry. No doubt you regard 'homosexual' as a fair and neutral word, but that says far more about the assumptions of the conservative side than it does the intrinsic wrongness of +Katherine (or whoever).

Also, given that people are still churning out 'Gene Robinson left his wife for another man!' (he didn't. Fact) nonsense seven years on, I'm curious what sources you're using to make statements on the faith and morals of +Mary. Given that Robert Gagnon - the best (!) source of Biblical Arguments against 'homosexuality' - claimed that lesbians are 200 (or is it 3000?) times more likely to die in a car crash than heterosexuals, I'm not overconfident that the corrective conservative response will scale to Scripture-esque heights of veracity.

Martial Artist

Father McCarthy,

May God bless you for your principled stand at Synod, for which I also honor you, and will keep you in my prayers.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer



I said nothing of the kind, though I think if you'd do a minimum of sleuthing within TEC, you would find that they are very strongly linked in TEC.

If you're of the opinion that the church should be ordaining and consecrating people who engage in same-gender sex, it would be much better for this cause to drop TEC and take up an example where these two aren't so closely tied. If removing the church's teachings about Christ is also a part of your cause, you do better simply to be honest as a non-Trinitarian, if only to avoid social unrest and unnecessary conflict in the church, if you are a peaceable type of person. Creating a new, non-Trinitarian organization is then clearly the way to go.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Books - GadgetVicar is trying to finish:

GadgetVicar serves with:

  • Scottish Anglican Network
    A network in Scotland of Anglican churches and individuals who follow Jesus and are enthusiastic for Him to be known in our communities.
  • St Thomas' Church, Edinburgh
    A welcoming community of people in the West of Edinburgh who follow Jesus and who long for others to join them on that journey.
    Helping faithful Anglicans in the British Isles and Europe to proclaim the Gospel to the nations.
  • Tearfund
    A Christian charity passionate about ending poverty. I serve on the Scottish Advisory Group.