|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Bishops' stance on Jeffrey John
|
Archimandrite
Shipmate
# 3997
|
Posted
This link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/2996006.stm
discusses an open letter sent by, inter alia, the bishops of Carlisle, Winchester, Liverpool and Rochester, and concerns the appointment of Canon John as Bishop of Reading.
Homosexuality within Christianity in general, and within the Church, is a Dead Horse, as we are all aware.
The question remains, however. Is this the sort of thing Anglican bishops should be doing? Why is this not a private matter between the bishops and + Richard Oxon.?
If this is their view, how ought they to express it, and how ought the rest of us to react to that view?
[ 03. September 2003, 21:47: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
"Loyal Anglican" (Warning: General Synod may differ).
Posts: 1580 | From: Oxford | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
As I have said publicly today in local press and radio, I think this is playground bullying of the worst order, and is unacceptable.
Do all prospective Bishops now have to pass an evangelical 'soundness' test? Do they have the monopoly on who THEY think is a suitable Bishop? Did we in Liverpool have a right to 'veto' James Jones?
Of course not. This is about power and influence, and it is a subtle and underhand way of getting at their real target - Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, who they know well is no more 'orthodox' on this matter than Jeffrey John. I think its squalid behaviour.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
This kind of letter exemplifies the kind of sin condemned by St. Paul. For I see in I Corinthians 5:11 that 'revilers' are classified with drunkards, robbers, and the sexually immoral. There it is again in I Cor 6:9---this time revilers and the greedy are included, along with robbers (by which, according to some the Apostle means those who do not tithe). By 'revilers' Paul is referring to those who engage in that which is known to Talmudic scholars as Loshon Hora, evil speech. Speaking ill of one's neighbour, bearing false witness, even believing the worst of one's neighbour fall into this category. As does telling a truth in order to do harm. As words cannot be called back, so loshon hora cannot be undone; this is why it is such a grave sin. But, alas, if no-one who had practiced the sin of evil speech could be ordained, we would have to do without ordained clergy.
In other words, I would to God that Their Lordships of Carlisle, Rochester, et al, were, for the sake of their souls' health, sodomites and not revilers! ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
This kind of letter exemplifies the kind of sin condemned by St. Paul.
Liddell-Scott gives "railing" and "abusive" as meanings for λοιδορος. Was the letter these bishops sent out really railing and abusive? I thought determining the fitness of new candidates for the episcopacy was one of the things bishops were supposed to do.
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
I think this is the letter
A LETTER from 9 Diocesan Bishops concerning the appointment of the Bishop of Reading.
and here is the associated article
Church split as first gay bishop named
They say
quote:
We must, therefore, express our concern because of the Church's constant teaching, in the light of scripture and because of the basic ordering of men and women in creation.
To be honest I don't see any 'basic ordering of men and women in creation' as being at the heart of Christianity but to read their letter you'd think developing other views on the matter was something which ought to be discouraged. If you criticise their view as Jeffrey John has done, you're 'criticising orthodoxy' and that they definitely imply is a BAD THING.
Personally, I wasn't too impressed.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
This kind of letter exemplifies the kind of sin condemned by St. Paul.
Liddell-Scott gives "railing" and "abusive" as meanings for λοιδορος. Was the letter these bishops sent out really railing and abusive? I thought determining the fitness of new candidates for the episcopacy was one of the things bishops were supposed to do.
Possibly, but not, I venture to suggest by means of a public letter to the press. Discreet and sober discernment this is not!
Two issues worry me : firstly, whatever the rights and wrongs of the gay issues, it seems to me that a far more fundamental scriptural precept is being broken, that of charity. For senior bishops to take part in an orchestrated campaign against a newly appointed bishop, turning on the man's most intimate relationships, is just plain nasty .
Secondly, having dissed him to the press, how are these people going to work alongside Fr John once he is consecrated? The question is far more pressing in the church than it would be in a secular organisation. For Fr John has not merely been appointed as a senior manager in an organisation in which Bp. Scot-Joplin et. al. are also managers. Rather, he has been proposed as a fellow member of the episcopal college with these men, sharing in their ministry as a brother in the Lord. For this reason those signatories from the Southern Province will be invited to co-consecrate at his consecration. The whole affair begs questions about the seriousness with which the signatories take episcopal collegiality.
IMHO the worst of the bunch is Winchester, author of a very liberal report on heterosexual ethics, in the form of the marriage document. I tend to conclude that someone who is prepared to be liberal with straights and goes out of his way to appear conservative with gays is just a straightforward homophobe. I have more time for the consistently conservative.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Not to mention the Bishop of Chichester who must have ordained nearly as many gay men as Richard Chartres....
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
I was disappointed to see Exeter on the list. I always had him down as a harmless vaguely AffCathy type.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Isn't this partly a "keep-the-evangelical-constitutency-happy" stratagem ... you know the sort of thing ... "I have banged the table and supported your cause ... don't pull the plug on the money." Rowan Williams might even consider the dissent to be politically opportune. It shows what a tolerant sorta guy he is. Maybe he had a little chat with Fr. Jeffrey first. He will certainly have known about this in advance. Very little in the Church of England at this level isn't choreographed in advance.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Out of curiosity, do any of these Bishops ordain divorced clergy?
Because if so, how on earth can they justify making such a fuss about something Jesus didn't even bother mentioning whilst being prepared to accept on pastoral grounds something which he strongly taught against?
I can't remember ever seeing a letter like this because some straight bishop had been unfaithful or mistreated his spouse, yet we're supposed to be horrified because someone in a committed 20 year relationship may have had sex with his partner!
Goodness only knows what kind of impression it makes on people for whom the issues behind it (of how to interpret the Bible) are a total non-starter because they don't accept the Bible to begin with. To people outside the church it must look like they're obsessed with what gay men do in the privacy of their own bedrooms with their own partners. It's not the sort of image I'd want people to have.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
D.O-D. wrote quote:
Discreet and sober discernment this is not!
Indeed. Though it bears mentioning that there is no way discreet and sober discernment can be excercised. Suffragans are the gift of the diocesan, and notoriously (I can think of a few exceptions) look and sound like their masters.
Just on this subject, what on earth is the theological justification for a suffragan at all? Isn't it just another example of the "earthly powers" model of church? Soon we'll be like ECUSA, with a "Presiding Bishop" who has no church at all to call his own.
If we make our bed this way, we should be prepared to lie in it. Take a look at the USA and the recent election of Gene Robinson. Pretty well the whole purple pack - liberal, conservative, new age... has issued a public statement. This is the way it's going.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Louise has hit on a good point. Divorced people are nowadays ordained as clergy in the C of E, although they need the Archbishop's permisssion, not just the local Bishop. Why does anyone continue to treat gay people as though they suffer from some moral weakness? People aren't gay through choice, it's simply the way they are. I'm sure many gay people wish they could have the freedom from stigma and the joys of parenthood, which heterosexuals accept as their right. It's time the evangelical mafia let ++ Rowan and his supporters "come out" as accepting gay relationships on an equal footing.
If this upsets the African Bishops or Reform then they can schismate and form their own bigoted, morally high organisations. A promiscuous gay priest would be of no more use to the church than a promiscuous heterosexual. That isn'r the issue. People in chaste relationships are, I passionately believe, acceptable to God. This issue, among others, threatens to sunder the worldwide Anglican Communion. So be it. Christians love and tolerate. Bigots don't
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH:
People aren't gay through choice, it's simply the way they are.
That's the crux of the issue. There seem to be several views on the amount of choice a gay person has to be gay. Hard line evangelical teaching appears to be that even if people are born with a homosexual orietnation they can be be 'healed'. Therefore in this view there is no nede for anyone to be homosexual any more thatn there is any need for people to be disabled r ill.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I also believe this letter may, sadly, be a matter of politics.
Since the guys already appointed you might have hoped that 'collegiality' (i.e. sticking together) would advise against a public dissing of his bishopric.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
True, Arietty, but hard line evangelicals spout a load of shite. No one has yet come up with a satisfactory explanantion for being gay. A suggestion exists that it's genetic, inherited from the mother. The zoologist and anthrapologist Desmond Morris disputes this theory on the grounds that hereditary genes are always useful for the survival of the species. How can gay men, who usually don't have children help the survival of the species?
Freud said that weak or absent fathers may cause infant male children to identify with feminity rather than masculinity as a point of identification. Whatever the reason, the evangelicals are plainly wrong. People are gay because they are gay. They don't choose it. In the days when it was illegal, many like Oscar Wilde sufered grievously with imprisonment for their innate sexuality. Others such as Sir Michael Redgrave had and maintained sham marriages to hide their sexual orientation. I dare say that Redgrave, having three children with his wife and staying with her, genuinely loved her in the way he could, but he was gay.
It is time that the church recognisd that gay people can be committed Christians as much as straight people. Gayness is not a choice, its a state people find themselves in. Many gays would rather not be, because they miss out on so much. I think it's time that we all stopped considering being gay to be a sin in itslef. This also applies to the church.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Never Conforming
Aspiring to Something
# 4054
|
Posted
A couple of weeks ago there were discussions here and in the press about the CofE potentially joining the University Milk Round, and now they are whinging about gay people AGAIN.
This does well on the publicity stakes if they are counting the number of lines printed in a newspaper. I didn't think that was the aim of the church. Are we not supposed to presenting an understanding, compassionate, tolerate face to the public? As pointed out the Bishops who wrote this letter are just showing they are bigots. They want to get people into churches yet very publicly show things that are more likely to put them off, than convince them to pay us a visit.
(Takes deep breath before announcement)
As an Anglican about to move into the Exeter Diocese, I am most disgusted that the Bish is being so intolerant.
At the end of the day, it a) isn't for us to judge (think it says that in the bible somewhere ![[Wink]](wink.gif) ) and b) doesn't matter who's slept with whom. I'm sure there are many skeletons in the combined closets of the clergy who are protesting.
I would also like to hope that the new Bishop of Reading has been appointed after prayers from those involved in his appointment. If neither they, nor God have issues with this, why do the other Bishops think they can get away with saying these things. I do wonder if they have actually bothered to pray about this, or are just being judgemental based on their own opinions.
Apologies that this has become something of a rant.
Jo
--------------------
I used to poison Student Minds™ and am proud to have done so
Never Conforming in the Surreal World
Posts: 1419 | From: Oop Norf | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Walker
Contributing Editor
# 14
|
Posted
As the new guy will be our bishop I've been following this story fairly closely. I have to say that this latest stunt by these bishops is disappointing - some of them should have known better.
Some useful links:
Former arkmate Peter Ould has a daily-updated links page following this story.
Interested parties might like to take a look at the Ship of Fools lookalikes page, 'Born Twice'.
And these very very naughty people have been very very naughty.
Dave
--------------------
Cartoon blog / @davewalker
Posts: 1045 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH:
People are gay because they are gay. They don't choose it . . . Gayness is not a choice, its a state people find themselves in.
Actually, many gay people would not agree with you on this crucial point. It is very far from established either psychologically or biologically.
Of course, the absence of proof on this matter is hardly a clincher against the legitimacy of gay sex and I would certainly not use it as such. But neither can it be cited as proof that it therefore is morally legit.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Louise has it. This looks like another prime case of the human tendency to 'compound for sins they are inclin'd to/By damning those they have no mind to'. If it's political as well, it is the more shameful.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I too am surprised at the inclusion of Exeter and Winchester.
Although I do not always agree with J. John (his AffCaff booklet on small churches made me see red), he has been regarded with a great deal of respect for many years now, being a well-known name in liberal church circles, and would be an undisputed logical choice for a bishop if it were not for the gay issue. It would therefore have been unnatural if he had not been chosen.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
One of the more amusing elements in this episode is that Jeffrey John is not actually that 'liberal' at all - the fact that he has been so characterised just demonstrates how sex has become the defining issue in the CofE. He is very much at the 'Cath' end of the 'AffCath' spectrum. Until 1992 he was involved in the Church Union, serving on its theological committee.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
clare
Contributing Editor
# 17
|
Posted
In an interview on today's Today programme (broadcast today) (see date above) the Bishop of Winchester claimed that the appointment was something along the lines of disrespectful to the vast majority of Christians in Britain. Which is a damn presumptious statement to make. This guy wouldn't last a minute here in Purgatory.
If you are fully sound literate, you can hear it here ... if it's not labled up then try the 7.20 link.
I think DO-D is right to say that this is just plain 'nasty'. The Bishop of W hedged and refused to say what should happen to Canon John, treating it just as a Point to be Made. He seemed unable to admit that there was a live human being at the heart of this case... no doubt because to do so would also be to admit that his gang of Bishops are behaving without much in the way of human concern.
clare
Posts: 2317 | From: edge of the peak district | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Panda
Shipmate
# 2951
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Louise has it. This looks like another prime case of the human tendency to 'compound for sins they are inclin'd to/By damning those they have no mind to'. If it's political as well, it is the more shameful.
That's a very useful quote. May I ask where it comes from?
Posts: 1637 | From: North Wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Hudibras by Samuel Butler (of this diocese). It's 1650s--I can't remember the exact date of publication. A classic satire of the Civil War and religious hypocrisy.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH:
People aren't gay through choice, it's simply the way they are.
That's the crux of the issue. There seem to be several views on the amount of choice a gay person has to be gay. Hard line evangelical teaching appears to be that even if people are born with a homosexual orietnation they can be be 'healed'.
No, that isn't the crux of the matter. "hard line" evangelicals, as you call them, would believe that all of us are born with propensity to sin. And that it isn't a matter of choice. And that something being natural doesn't make it right.
And that we don't need to be healed, but to repent and be forgiven. And that that repenting might mean living the rest of your life continually resisting a temptation to do something that is "natural" to you and that is not your fault.
The suggestion that homosexuality is a disease from which someone can be cured is very different. Suffering from a disease is not a moral failing.
So it is the other way round.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
By the way - does anyone know if the Church of England ever has appointed a divorced and remarried bishop whose first wife was still living?
I can't think of any but then the private lives of bishops have never been my area of study.
As someone pointed out a divorced but remarried bishop would be an exact doctrinal equivalent.
If these people were consistent they would have to say to a man who was divorced and whose wife was still living:
- if you remarry it woudl be adultery, and a sin
- so if you remarry you cannopt be a bishop
- wanting to remarry is perfectly natural, and not a sin, but actually doing it would be a sin, so you just have to put up with it. Life's tough.
Exactly the same line they would take with a gay man.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
greenhouse
Shipmate
# 4027
|
Posted
The bishops who sent the letter clearly strongly believe that same-sex relationships are incompatible with the ordained ministry.
Assuming that they did pursue matters within the church first, and this did not change the decision, what else could they have done? It seems to me that they could either have accepted the decision and kept quiet, or spoke out against it. Since it is so important to them, they spoke out against it.
Try looking at things from another perspective. The church seeks to appoint a bishop who is an extreme fundamentalist. A group of liberal bishops protest about this appointment within the church. Nothing happens so they write to the papers. Is that just as bad?
Here is a group of bishops standing up for their beliefs. By writing to the press they are saying publicly that they do not agree with this appointment, and giving their reasons.
Posts: 94 | From: North West | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Thing is, Greenhouse, that the liberals don't do these things. How about when Reform council member Wallace Benn was chosen as Sufragan at Lewes? Did you hear the same sort of protest ? For the sake of 'unity', many of those who take a different, affirming view have chosen NOT to take this to the press. I note Rowan Williams, in particular, has not taken to newspaper diplomacy.
As you said to me on another thread ' if you don't like it, leave'.
Would you give the same advice to the bishops you agree with, as it is not their decision to make, and to behave in this way is very much against the spirit of how these things operate. I think you are trying to defend the indefensible. Whatever one's views, trying to force your view via the media is hardly a way to come to any sort of consensus - only that isn't the agenda here.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Ken ; I'm not sure, but I am pretty sure there is nothing actually preventing it, particularly given the Bishop of Winchester's very liberal report on the matter some months back.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Walker
Contributing Editor
# 14
|
Posted
quote:
greenhouse:
Assuming that they did pursue matters within the church first
This is exactly what (it appears to me) they didn't do. I'm not aware that they sent a letter privately first before taking the 'send the letter directly to the press' route.
Dave
--------------------
Cartoon blog / @davewalker
Posts: 1045 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dorothea:
First gay bishop? Well, I never!
J
The irony is that, of course, he will not be the first gay bishop.
Shame on them (the letter writers). Shame. ![[Frown]](frown.gif) Their lack of humility, compassion and their willingness to stand against the tradition of anglican bishops makes for a sad day.
P
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bongo
Shipmate
# 778
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by greenhouse:
Try looking at things from another perspective. The church seeks to appoint a bishop who is an extreme fundamentalist. A group of liberal bishops protest about this appointment within the church. Nothing happens so they write to the papers. Is that just as bad?
It isn't a fair analogy because Jeffrey John isn't an "extreme" liberal.
A fairer anology would be: the church seeks to appoint a bishop who is a conservative evangelical...
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the liberals in the church didn't moan to the press when George Carey (an evangelical, probably a conservative one) was made Archbish of C. No, we just grinned and bore it, held our tongues, and focussed on the positives.
The open letter really pissed me off. Those bishops should learn to grit their teeth and live and let live. I have been putting up with them in my church for years and I haven't whinged, even though I disagree (strongly) with their beliefs about homosexuality.
--------------------
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!" ~ Dr Strangelove
Posts: 492 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bongo:
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the liberals in the church didn't moan to the press when George Carey (an evangelical, probably a conservative one) was made Archbish of C. No, we just grinned and bore it, held our tongues, and focussed on the positives.
I forgive you. You are wrong. There was a nasty, snide, dishonest, and cruel campaign against him which didn't finish till well after Rowan was appointed. Not so much because he is an evangelical (theologically he's pretty mainstream in the CofE I think) but because he came from the working-class and was Not One of Us and didn't go to a posh school or have a posh accent. He'd have had a better press if he had been gay. The upper-class twits who still run far too much of British society hated him because they thought he was an oik.
And liberal bishops and other clergy (and angloc-catholics) do knock evangelicals who are put up for appointments. They've doen it for years. Not in the open of course but in private with the Old School Tie brigade, behind backs, over the port, mostly by mocking their intelligence or academic achievement. Oh, a nice enough chap, but is he bright enough for the job. Is he up to it?
The public pronouncements are mostly left up to the tame flock of embittered journalists, mostly either no longer Christians at all or if they are mostly ultra-liberal ultra-High ultra-middle-class who cannot being themselves to accept that real people of any intelligence can actually have a genuine belief in the factual basis of Christianity.
And they get very nasty. Heck, even that nice Andrew Brown wrote stuff in th e papers about George Carey that would get him kicked off this thread by a host.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spence
Apprentice
# 4018
|
Posted
Hi - sorry this is long.
Am not quite sure about Ken’s analysis of British society ![[Smile]](smile.gif) but I agree that some people mutter against evangelicals in the same way that some evangelicals mutter against liberals. No-one is really the good guy when it comes to back-biting in the church and everyone has a set of stereotypes which provide a convenient way of dismissing other people’s views.
But I actually don’t think the word ‘liberal’ is the right one to use here because what is occurring is beyond theological disputes about homosexuality and same-sex unions (all of which have been discussed many times on these boards before)it is rather about a small number of people in the church going beyond both the settled Scriptural, pastoral and ecclesiastical mind of the Anglican communion. The settled mind was outlined at Lambeth and although it asked for ongoing and prayerful discussion, it did not permit bishops or dioceses to act unilaterally to institute their own best fit formulas.
Moreover, as much as many people may claim that the reasons for the church affirming same-sex relationships are blatantly obvious, the fact is that they are not and many people (not just evangelicals) have theological and pastoral concerns about the implications of commending same-sex unions. There is a lot of muddled thinking (admittedly from all sides of the debate), but serious evangelical, Biblically-centred scholarship has still posed a lot of questions which have gone largely unanswered. It is as preposterous to claim that hard-line evangelicals (by which I assume is meant those who dissent from the more relaxed view about homosexuality) ‘spout a load of shite’ as it is to claim that liberals are woolly-headed hollow men.
So whilst one could argue that the bishops have acted intemperately by publishing a letter to the press, at the same time it simply reflects the very public actions of other sections of the church in affirming their own view of same-sex unions either by the appointment of practising homosexuals (New Hampshire), the institution of same-sex marriage rites (New Westminster) or the appointment of bishops whose teaching is out of line with the mind of the Anglican communion (Reading). In other words, the claim that liberals wouldn’t take this sort of protest is not strictly true, because it is the proponents of same-sex unions who are making up new laws as they go along, and thereby – it could be argued – abusing positions of authority to institute their own ends.
Rowan Williams has agreed that ‘The Lambeth Resolution of 1998 declares clearly what is the mind of the overwhelming majority in the Communion, and what the Communion will and will not approve or authorize. I accept that any individual diocese or even province that officially overturns or repudiates this resolution poses a substantial problem for the sacramental unity of the Communion’. (Letter of Archbishop Rowan Williams to Primates, 23 July, 2002). This is clearly the correct position, articulated by someone who did not vote for the Lambeth Resolution yet nonetheless accepts its implications. We must make a distinction between the issue of debate about homosexuality and its relationship to Christian faith, and this issue -which is about church governance and the unity of the Anglican communion.
In other words, the debate has been made public by the actions of certain dioceses and bishops, in this case by Bishop Richard Harries of Oxford. Of course, John’s appointment is not leading to the implementation of same-sex union blessings a la New Westminster, but it is obvious why many are concerned that a man who has written against the Lambeth resolution and affirms same-sex unions in his theological work should be appointed to a position of oversight in the church. This is a similar concern, of course, to that held concerning the appointment of Rowan Williams. This case is compounded here - as it was not with Williams - by John’s own sexual relationships. It is nasty that anyone’s most intimate struggles and passions should be brought into a public debate: on the other hand, it is John's sexuality which has informed his teaching on the matter. It is true that if he is indeed committed to a chaste life, then there is little objection to be made from evangelicals and others: however, it is obvious that John does not believe that homosexual inclination is something which needs to be opened to the transforming power of Christ, but which – as he shows by his writings – can be blessed as ordained by God. You may or may not agree with him, but it is clear that this is not what the church teaches, and therefore his own unrepentant stance to his own sexuality and his public statements in his writings are inextricably bound up and cause legitimate concern for those who adhere to the Scriptural narrative and the historic church teaching on this matter. Whether or not you agree with their concern, it must at least be admitted that it is a valid one for people to hold.
The public statement made by the bishops perhaps reflects the lack of clear consultative principles within the Anglican communion; but it also reflects a very genuine sense of frustration and disbelief among many that decisions are being made contrary to the settled will of the church, contrary to the traditional interpretation of scripture, contrary to the serious and pastoral objections raised by those who disagree with the affirmation of same-sex unions, contrary to the manner of church government established in the Thirty-Nine Articles. Now, you are free to disagree with any of these aspects – free to challenge Lambeth, free to engage with the scriptural debate (which is much deeper and more fundamental than the stereotype of a few dubious proof texts), free to formulate theological and pastoral arguments in favour of blessing same-sex relationships, free to re-write the way in which decisions are made in the Anglican communion. But surely all this must be done with care and consideration and not be based on easy sentiments, resort to calling people bigots or intolerant, or suggesting that they are bullies.
It is a great shame that this issue is causing so much pain and hurt: but that does not mean that we can dismiss the thinking and concerns of these bishops just because they seem conviently to fall under some stereotype of haranguing evangelicals. Their concerns are real, rooted in a commitment to and faith in God and based in the conviction that Christ-like love does not necessarily mean taking an attitude of live and let live.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
Although I agree with many of the sentiments of these bishops I am very sad and angry at the method by which they are pursuring what I regard as their legitimate concerns.
However, one might be tempted to think that pragmatically resorting to strong tactics is necessary if their point is to be made at all. I live in the Reading area of the Oxford diocese and it is difficult to avoid the impression that +Richard Harries has ridden roughshod over the feelings and beliefs of many of those under his care, in particular in his recent speech to the Diocesan Synod (see the links above in W's post). This is a particular source of sadness for me as he is a man for whom I have a massive amount of respect and who normally strives to listen to and work with those who disagree with him theologically. He is a very humble and charitable man usually, but I think that at this time he is being every bit as "political" as the 9 bishops who have written to him. I certainly disagree with the writing of the letter - but I can see why they felt they had to write it.
On the analogy with divorce: no divorced and remarried bishop has yet been appointed. Furthermore, for a divorced person who has since remarried to be ordained, they must apply for a special Archbishop's Faculty under canon law, i.e. special and detailed enquiry is made into the specific circumstances to ensure either that it was not their "fault" (a loaded term I know, but you see what I mean) and that they are penitent.
However, the analogy is not valid on another level entirely. Most conservative evangelicals recognise that the Bible contains diverse views on divorce (e.g. the "except for adultery" which Matthew adds to Mark) whereas there are no positive references at all that I am aware of to homosexual behaviour in the Bible. Furthermore, one should not assume that everyone who opposes this appointment does support the ordination/consecration of remarried divorcees. They may well oppose it for all we know (with the exception of Scott-Joynt, who as has been pointed out is quite "liberal" on the issue).
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
Cross-posted with M Spence - excellently put and I agree with almost everything you have said. ![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Just one tiny, pedantic point:
quote:
So whilst one could argue that the bishops have acted intemperately by publishing a letter to the press, at the same time it simply reflects the very public actions of other sections of the church in affirming their own view of same-sex unions either by the appointment of practising homosexuals (New Hampshire), the institution of same-sex marriage rites (New Westminster) or the appointment of bishops whose teaching is out of line with the mind of the Anglican communion (Reading).
The appointment of Gene Robinson isn't really analagous with the other two issues as he was elected by a majority of clergy and laity in his diocese, therefore one could say that it is the will of the local church there rather than being imposed upon the church from above by those who are not necessarily in step with those they lead, so in that sense it is not the same as bishops consciously departing from the Lambeth Resolution, but rather the people of the area expressing their wish to be led by him.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bongo
Shipmate
# 778
|
Posted
(George Carey didn't have a posh accent?!)
But wow. I honestly didn't know that people had been so mean about him. (I was only a child when he was made Archbishop so some of it must have passed me by.)
Nevertheless....
quote:
There was a nasty, snide, dishonest, and cruel campaign against him
But by who? Apparently by upper class snobs. Not by liberals. And they were knocking him because he was working class, not because he was an evangelical.
I think my point still stands:
quote:
...the liberals in the church didn't moan to the press when George Carey (an evangelical, probably a conservative one) was made Archbish of C.
Then you said
quote:
And liberal bishops and other clergy (and angloc-catholics) do knock evangelicals who are put up for appointments. They've doen it for years. Not in the open of course but in private with the Old School Tie brigade, behind backs, over the port, mostly by mocking their intelligence or academic achievement.
Firstly, where's your evidence for this?
Secondly, when I said "the liberals in the church" I was talking about the church as a whole, the leity as well as the clergy. Should have been clearer - sorry.
BUt my point still stands. "Liberals" (for want of a better word) haven't formed pressure groups and written letters to newspapers. THey haven't ganged up on someone and questioned their ability to minister in the national press. They haven't claimed to speak for the "vast majority of Anglicans and Christians," like one of the bishops did this morning on radio 4 (the cheeky beggar).
ARrgh, can't seem to be articulate today. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
--------------------
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!" ~ Dr Strangelove
Posts: 492 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
I think it is a tragedy that a minority group which still faces significant discrimination in our society is being used as a political shuttlecock by the Bishops. A particular disappointment is the signature of +Michael Rochester who I cannot but believe is settling scores with the man who pipped him to the post in the race for Canterbury.
If a debate on the authority of the Bishops of the Apostolic Church (as opposed to the less hierarchical model favoured by most Evangelicals) is to waged, then it should not be fought over an issue with such capacity to inflict harm on innocent bystanders.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spong
Ship's coffee grinder
# 1518
|
Posted
Not many of the comments above have given much weight to the way that Dr Jeffery John has said both that he is now sexually abstinent and that he will stand by the teaching of "Issues in Human Sexuality".
Personally I have in the past found the view that 'the laity can if they must, but the clergy can't' hard to defend. However, seeing the way that ++Rowan has approached it is beginning to change my mind. I have a lot of respect for the sacrifice that is involved in saying that, for the sake of collegiality, you will uphold teaching which you personally do not agree with, and I think he has modelled a way of doing it which manages to avoid the hypocrisy that could otherwise result.
And it seems to me that Jeffery John has done exactly the same. It is wrong to ask him to be hypocritical and 'repent' of what he formerly believed, but as a bishop he has agreed that he will stand by the decisions of Issues, regardless of his personal views. Presumably he will simply not get involved in debates on homosexuality and the priesthood.
The idea that one can't have even PRIVATE views about issues as a bishop which are different from orthodoxy strikes me as ridiculous. How is there ever supposed to be any change if no-one is allowed to suggest that some element of current orthodoxy might, just might, be wrong?
--------------------
Spong
The needs of our neighbours are the needs of the whole human family. Let's respond just as we do when our immediate family is in need or trouble. Rowan Williams
Posts: 2173 | From: South-East UK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
Hmm good point, surely the foundation of the CofE is enshrined in the 39 Articles and nothing more? It seems a bit cheeky to start demanding "I am not now nor have I ever been" statements from priests in addition to that. What next, political affiliations?
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spence
Apprentice
# 4018
|
Posted
quote:
The appointment of Gene Robinson isn't really analagous with the other two issues as he was elected by a majority of clergy and laity in his diocese, therefore one could say that it is the will of the local church
Sean - yes, I suppose here it is a question of quite where authority inheres within the Anglican communion: one could argue that although Robertson himself is elected on the will of the people, the whole diocese has still to convince the rest of the communion that its position is such that the rest of the church can remain in communion with it. It is, of course, much harder to make such a case when it is the bishop's own sexuality rather than a new rite or teaching that is being introduced. It's one thing for a greedy bishop to be appointed, for example, another to introduce a rite affirming greed.
I think the New Hampshire issue simply draws attention to the rather 'political' nature of those on the left (and thus stands against those who claim that it is only the right who are behaving badly) given the celebrations and 'victory' declared after the election of Robertson.
I also agree that + Richard Oxford is usually very aware of his pastoral responsibility to all within his diocese and it surprises me that he has taken this stance which seems deliberately intended to provoke (and even hurt) the large evangelical constituency of the Oxford Diocese.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
I think it's a great shame that a small number of hardline zealots in the Anglican Communion are determined to provoke schism by their public antagonism.
And I'm not referring to the letter-writers.
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
I also agree that + Richard Oxford is usually very aware of his pastoral responsibility to all within his diocese and it surprises me that he has taken this stance which seems deliberately intended to provoke (and even hurt) the large evangelical constituency of the Oxford Diocese.
I agree, M. Spence, but I'm more surprised that another liberal Oxford theologian has risked throwing ++Rowan and ++David into such hot water. Although I support the appointment of Canon John, it is appalling timing and I admit it does look rather like liberal triumphalism. Of course the Left can behave as badly as the Right, everybody does where politics are involved; I certainly agree that secular liberals were ruthless towards ++George Cantaur, who was I believe our first non-Oxbridge Canterbury since the Reformation.
The fact remains that the left has a genuine grievance - that at any point before 1998 there would have been no question concerning Canon John's appointment, and one has to wonder if this is +Richard Oxon's attempt to cause the Lambeth Declaration to be rescinded. How long before it becomes untenable?
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spong:
And it seems to me that Jeffery John has done exactly the same.
I am not so sure that the similarities between him and Dr Williams are so strong for several reasons. Firstly is the vitriol with which Dr John has attacked those who disagree with him, for example he termed Issues as "unchristian". There is a significant difference between saying "I respect but disagree" as Dr Williams has done and saying "people who disagree are being unchristian". Personally, I am not so against his appointment that I will oppose it no matter what - but it seems vital that he apologises for comments like this in order for him to be able to work alongside some of the very people he has branded unchristian.
Secondly, there is an issue of biblical authority. Rowan Williams takes his stand by arguing that conservative evangelical exegesis of the relevant texts is incorrect, i.e. he argues that the Bible does not condemn all homosexual activity. This is why, though disagreeing with him, many evangelicals (including myself) welcomed his appointment - as he was not "liberal" in the sense of ditching the Bible but simply disagreed with how a very small number of passages ought to be interpreted. However, when reading Dr John's booklet I was repeatedly struck by the way in which (although he did include some brief exegesis) his main argument seemed to be "we have ditched the Bible's teaching on women, now it's time to do the same for what it says about homosexuality". So, this is very concerning for evangelicals as it is to do with far more than the gay issue itself but rather his reasons for believing as he does on that particular issue.
Thirdly, on the issue of sexual abstinence. The precise circumstances are very unclear. It is not openly in the public domain whether he is still in a relationship with a partner with whom in the past he has had sex. If he spoke out and said that "We had sex in the past but I have since come to believe that was wrong and therefore we no longer do" I would instantly cease to disagree with his appointment. However, we just don't know why he is abstinent now. It could even be that he and his partner have split up - in which case his practice disagrees with his own stated beliefs that homosexual relationships ought to be permanent.
It seems to me therefore that the issue is not so much his behaviour in the past but his current attitude to it now.
So, whilst I am not opposed irrevocably to his appointment and potentially could change my mind, it would have to be if he addressed these concerns. Again, this is in great contrast to Rowan Williams, who bent over backwards to state publicly his commitment to biblical authority and so on. Simply saying he will uphold Issues (which he so criticised at the time) without more detailed explanation is not sufficient to allay my concern.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
It will all be a lot easier when we get to elect our own bishops
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Greenhouse:
quote:
Try looking at things from another perspective. The church seeks to appoint a bishop who is an extreme fundamentalist. A group of liberal bishops protest about this appointment within the church. Nothing happens so they write to the papers. Is that just as bad?
Given that one of the signatories of the letter believes that homosexuality is wrong because, among other reasons, demons can enter the body through the rectum, I'd suggest that the appointment of Canon John is merely the cosmic scales righting themselves. Oh, and as MM points out one of the suffragan signatories is the Bishop of Lewes, who is a member of Reform.
Ken - the reason people criticised Carey was because they could. Simillar kickings were administered to Runcie and Williams. Andrew Brown's criticism of Carey was largely inspired by the his captiulation to the forces of reaction and obscurantism at Lambeth '98. Carey's case was not helped by the fact that, unlike Williams and Runcie, he was manifestly unsuited to the job having been chosen by the Blessed Margaret on the grounds that he wasn't John Hapgood.
Frankly I'm beginning to think that Merseymike has a point. Dialogue and discussion are all very well but it appears to be the case that those of us on the liberal end of the spectrum are to tolerate the traditionalists whilst they are to tolerate no-one. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Are you suggesting that we all have to agree with the evangelical line on biblical authority, Sean.
Does that mean we now have to believe that a book, written by men, 200 years or more ago, is somehow infallible, and does not contain much that is culturally bound, some of which has - as Jeffrey John honestly stated - has now been discarded ?
You are welcome to take that view. But I do not. Nor do many Church of England bishops. To say something has 'authority' does not mean an interpretation that suggests that certain terachings are for their time, is invalid. That approach is the basis of liberal theology. You may find that Jeffrey John is, indeed, far LESS liberal than some who currently inhabit the Bishop's bench. Or should they go too?
I don't think you, or any other evangelicals, have the right to grill Jeffrey John. I don't agree with very much my own Bishop says, but that doesn't mean I should have a veto on him just becvause he doesn't pass my own belief test. Its the fact that these Bishops seem to believe they have some sort of special insight which gives them the right to do this which many people are objecting to. It is not appropriate.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bongo
Shipmate
# 778
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Yaffle:
Dialogue and discussion are all very well but it appears to be the case that those of us on the liberal end of the spectrum are to tolerate the traditionalists whilst they are to tolerate no-one.
THANK YOU, that's exactly what I was trying to say!
--------------------
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!" ~ Dr Strangelove
Posts: 492 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
welsh dragon
Shipmate
# 3249
|
Posted
1. I feel extremely sorry for the guy's partner.
2. We were having a discussion at work yesterday, and a Christian colleague was giving a fairly standard evangelical position on this. Our workmates were astounded. The church is way behind popular perceptions on this.
I seem to occupy a sort of hinter land position, which is that I perceive myself as pretty heterosexual and I suspect I would have considerable issues personally reconciling my faith with a gay culture lifestyle, had this not been the case. I might have felt quite guilty, I suspect, for rational or irrational reasons.
But, although being gay/lesbian would raise various complicated problems, I just can't see it as the moral disaster that it is for the evangelical wing of the church proper. Suppose someone were avowedly gay, but worked full time as a volunteer, say, for a children's charity in Africa? Surely a life of commitment and hard work would outweigh the business of sexual preference?
And how are we in a position to know how God would judge this?
There are other sins, or differences, or preferences, that might be both more common and more acceptable in our society, that would speak far more of disregard for others or hard heartedness.
I have been trying to understand the evangelical line on repenting, and being forgiven, and being saved, as I have been exploring the (to me) new and exotic world of evangelical Christianity in recent months.
If that is what people really believe, then surely there wouldn't be a problem with someone, in a loving relationship for 20 years, who has even eschewed sexual contact with the person he loves, to try and follow a path that will allow him to do work which he is otherwise very fit to do - and has been called to do.
Surely, this man has been unusually open and honest about his sexuality, in a very difficult and public way. Surely honesty is good? Surely that is very Gospel?
If he is attracted to men, but is committing himself to live a chaste and celibate life, surely that commitment too is very Gospel?
Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
