If this is to be said of VG Robinson, then where is the concern that valid bishops of other provinces of the Anglican Communion are also not invited. It was proper to not invite VG Robinson because he in his position has torn the fabric of the Anglican Communion.

dear FR Scott,

I stumbled over 'he in his position has torn the fabric of the Anglican Communion,' and wondered what it could mean.

The image, metaphor, of tearing that you use is respectful or courteous enough not to accuse Gene of personal malice or wrongdoing but leaves us wondering 'who did it' and 'how' this tearing happened. It relies on the metaphorical description of the communion as a 'fabric.' We are community or communion of Christian communions that chooses (or at least chose) to stay together. Some of us have chosen to take offense at a carefully considered action of one community and to declare that the extended global community no longer exists and a new one needs to be made in its place.

What was the precipitating event? The Diocese of New Hampshire elected a priest they knew and trusted to be their bishop. Then following the ordinary procedure of our constitution and canons the majority of the American house of bishops and deputies to General Convention in Minneapolis gave their assent to Gene's election.

When communities fall to scandalization and shame to protect themselves from something or someone they're afraid of or that their rulers tell them to be afraid of (part of the story of Ramses II and Lenin that Steve Charleston tells), they angrily and anxiously ask questions like 'How could you?!?' or 'How dare you!?!' The point of those questions is that they aren't meant to have an answer. The questions are meant to silence people, very like erasing them.

Gene's election, the assents to his election, and his consecration were an act of a whole province of the Anglican communion acting prayerfully, discerning carefully, listening, and respecting good order, decency and due process.

If there's a fabric of the Anglican Communion and if it's been torn, it's because leaders who disagreed with the considered, conscientious decision of their sisters and brothers have judged, condemned, and severed relationship without conversation.

Rather than talking of torn fabric, perhaps we should remember the scandalized apostles in the Book of Acts, first that Peter had eaten with an uncircumcised Gentile, then that Gentiles were being baptized. Christians were breaking a boundary in good faith and because they believed they Spirit was calling them to welcome people that had previously been excluded by a straightforward reading of Old Testament law. Listening to people's lives, sensing the work of the Spirit, and hearing how their fellow apostles had made these startling choices,the church gathered in Jerusalem dared to do a new thing in God's name, claiming, 'It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us...'

Thank you for Bishop Charleston's superb reflection. I have sent it to all bishops in the Anglican Communion, with this introduction:

Suppose Jesus had simply made the Good Samaritan disappear. That would have been easy enough, and even if Jesus didn't, the Gospel writers might have done the same thing; and who now would know?

It is not our job to decide whom God may or may not love. It is our job to
proclaim that God loves absolutely everybody. Any lesser claim diminishes
Christianity and reflects ill on those who claim to be Jesus' disciples.

Pity the Lambeth Conference for selling its Christian birthright for a mess
of Respectability.

Don't ask God to forgive you your trespasses as you forgive +Gene's unless
you are prepared to live with the consequences. Be sure that you love
your lesbian and gay neighbor as much as you love yourselves.

Louie Crew, PhD, DD, DD, DHL, Queer for Christ's Sake!

I'm not sure that Gene +Vermont is in the same category as any other Bishop not invited. He is a canonically elected, sitting Bishop of a recognised diocese - unlike all the others. He is also a sinner like all bishops. I welcome correction on that point.

I do agree with Louie that it is "our job to proclaim that God loves absolutely everybody" but the Church has, for 2000 years, been working on discerning what is the appropriate response to that love. We Christians have *always* agreed that the valid response to that love includes abstaining from certain things - but those things have changed over the years: look at banking, war and the use of images. This is no different.

Right now the issues get painted as "sex" by many (including the media) but that's not it. The real question is more important: "Is allowing something historically rejected now to be understood as a valid response to that Divine, all-encompassing love?" The answer is in our history already: We've changed our position on images, banking and war. We've changed our position on being soldiers, on divorce, on birth control. We can change on sex, too.

But we need to be clear: No one is denying God's love to gay people - and we need to stop painting it as such. I'm willing to wait on those who are weaker brothers and sisters. I'm quite willing to allow that some of my brothers and sisters question my presence at the table. But they don't do so because I *am* gay: they do so because I freely decide to act on that.

Donald hit the right imagery from the NT: that of the Gentile Inclusion which, eventually, resulted in the exclusion of those who disagreed. Shortly the Church became a largely Gentile body - with a serious anti-semitism problem. We are at the same juncture: We risk tearing into two communities each accusing the other of "not getting it right". That's not acceptable.

I think that same story line shows that the Church hit a serious bump on inclusion within 50 years of Easter. We should find a better way to deal with disagreement now. No? People on all sides of the issue need to find our Common Ground in Christ from where we can reach out to each other. I'm worried that no side is yet doing so - for many of us seem to snap at "the other" from assumed legalisms (be they left or right).

Bishop Charleston,

Thanks for this powerful post. It stirs up a lot for me, and makes me think that we've missed out on some of the most obvious issues these days.

Peter+

I am stunned by the simplicity and power of this piece. It reminds me of one of the purposes of crucifixion - to erase the identity of the person crucified.

I remember the young people outside the Convention Center after Gene's election was confirmed. Not many had ties to our or any other church, but they were exuberant over our courage and willingness to stand up for the values we have espoused. Their eyes sparkled, not because of inclusivity, but because for the first time for many of them they recognized the Jesus in what we did and who we are.

The exclusion of Gene marks the death of so much hope in those to whom we have been sent. For me it is like the ABC is leading us in a charge towards old irrelevance to those we need most.

The only other sitting bishop not invited is Kunonga of Zimbabwe - for his support of Mugabe and other acts.

This essay could have been titled "What's wrong with this picture?" Meaning it's very wrong that Robinson and Kunonga are being treated as equivalent.

I do have qualms of using a Stalinist parallel. This is what conservative blogs do on a regular basis.

For those interested in the Stalinist photos go here,

http://www.newseum.org/berlinwall/commissar_vanishes/vanishes.htm