|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Bishops' stance on Jeffrey John
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Yaffle:
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.
I think someone must have told her that all evangelicals were political conservatives.
George isn't, or at any rate didn;t use to be.
Then he thought up this Archbishop's Council, whose first version included (if I remember correctly) John Gladwin (somewhat on the left, if a bit of a Fabian), Pete Broadbent (who has actually been a Labour councillor I think) and Christian Baxter (who I never thought of as a Tory) all of whom have a Durham background back when George was vicar there...
Oh NO! The Church of England was taken over by New Labour! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by welsh dragon:
If he is attracted to men, but is committing himself to live a chaste and celibate life, surely that commitment too is very Gospel?
That is exactly the position of the Lambeth conference.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
hehe...the odd thing is that I always thought John Habgood probably was a Tory, of the old-school 'wet' variety.
George Carey I believe was usually a Tory voter, but with some green sympathies.
Rowan Williams is Old Labour!
But if you compare the rather snotty remarks made about Carey ( and lets be honest, he wasn't inspiring ) , does that really compare to the barrage of stuff printed and written about Rowan Williams, which hwe has had the grace and patience not to rise too, although he is more than intellectually capable of doing so.
--------------------
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
|
|
greenhouse
Shipmate
# 4027
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Yaffle:
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.
I do not see that this paragraph answers my question in the slightest.
Do you have a source for the demons and rectum thing?
quote:
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.
I think to subdivide the church into 'liberals' and 'traditionalists' is unhelpful. Many who consider themselves traditionalist would be against women priests, for example. However many evangelicals are far from traditionalists but would still oppose this appointment as bishop. There are many groups within the church.
Or are you using the word traditionalist to mean anyone who is not a liberal?
Posts: 94 | From: North West | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Ken ; I think the pint is that the letter appears to suggest that all Bishops should actually be personally committed to a particular approach which many legitimately disagree with.
I think it is the fact that they seem to be arguing that no-one with a different view should be allowed to become Bishop that I find disturbing. Had that been the case with womens ordination, would the change there have ever occurred? I don't think it is fair to try and maintain your position by keeping everyone else out who disagrees with you.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
George Carey I believe was usually a Tory voter, but with some green sympathies.
I'm petty sure he wasn't when he was my vicar. I suppose it is always possible he changed. Pete B (who was his curate back then) was always a lefty as was John Gladwin.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
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)
Green sodomite or red sodomite? The latter often has unpredictable effects, such as giving someone the head and antennae of a giant -- no, wait, wrong thread. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Seriously, I think I'd agree here, and I think with Merseymike above. It does look like bullying with a political (rather than doctrinal) agenda to me. It never ceases to amaze me that people have raised more of a stink over sexual morality issues (important though I think they are) than over things like the Divinity of Christ, the Resurrection of Christ, etc. People in the US jumped all over Spong for his stance on gay issues, but less so over his view of the nature of God and of Christianity itself. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
Ken ; I think the pint is
Mine's a pint!
I did a Google search for "bishop" and "rectum" and "demon" but none of the sites I found were very wholesome. ![[Embarrassed]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Yaffle:
[QB]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.
I heard all the signatories of the letter have horns and pointy tails and sacrifice children on alternate Tuesdays. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
No, I don't have a source. Just trust me. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
[I heard all the signatories of the letter have horns and pointy tails and sacrifice children on alternate Tuesdays.
On the other Tuesdays they dispose of the virgins. And they want to ban the theatre! And smoking in public! And cakes, and ale...
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
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".
I don't know the context of this quote, but I think all of us occasionally, in the heat of church debates, put things in unhelpful ways. George Carey famously denounced opponents of the ordination of women as 'heretics', which was hardly eirenic.
In general, far from being vitriolic, Fr John's contributions to the sexuality discussion have been thoughtful and rooted in scripture and tradition. One of the sillier accusations thrown around is that this scriptural theologian (and former Dean of Divinity at Magdalen, Oxford) has a low view of scripture. The fact that someone draws a different conclusion from reading scripture from your own, doesn't mean that they don't value it.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
The demons thing is at least in part true. Bishop Graham Dow, now of Carlise, formerly of Willesden, has certainly made wild claims about associations between homosexuality (amongst other things) and demon possesion. His tracts on demons are in the public domain and fairly accessible.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
His involvement - continuing - with Ellel Ministries, which take the same view, is well documented. Check Roland Howard's excellent book ; Charismania, which details these dangerous and harmful ideas.
I wonder where the protests were when this man was created a Bishop. The different approach is notable.
--------------------
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
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
Are you suggesting that we all have to agree with the evangelical line on biblical authority, Sean.
Certainly not. Although it's worth noting that one doesn't need to take an evangelical line to agree with evangelicals on this particular issue.
quote:
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 ?
Clearly some of it is culturally relative, and rightly discarded. I was simply saying his particular analogy was a poor one as the Bible has numerous positive examples of women in ministry. What I was also arguing was that as this seemed to me to be the mainstay of his argument, rather than offering a persuasive case for revision of the particular texts themselves his argument fell down on its own terms.
quote:
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?
Probably not - but if they were to publicly speak out saying that a certain aspect of the church's teaching was unchristian then I would be very concerned. Similarly, if they had done so in the past and had not That is my point - not simply that I personally disagree with his interpretation (as I made very clear I am completely in support of Rowan Williams) but for the other reasons I outlined. Please do not put arguments into my mouth - what I was doing was saying why I do not consider Drs John and Williams' cases to be the same.
quote:
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.
But it's not about that. If James Jones said that practising gay people were by definiton unchristian then I would want him out too. The point is that using terms like that denies integrity and love to those who disagree with him. I accept that you and others like ChastMastr have come to different conclusions to me and have done so whilst remaining faithful and committed Christians. I can disagree with your position whilst respecting its integrity. But when terms like unchristian are bandied around then it is a very different matter.
Welsh Dragon pointed out:
quote:
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?
It is of course very good and commendable. I have a great deal of respect for him personally. But that doesn't mean that I would be happy for him to be my bishop as he has offered no explanations for the reasons for his change in behaviour and teaching.
quote:
Quoth Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:I don't know the context of this quote, but I think all of us occasionally, in the heat of church debates, put things in unhelpful ways. George Carey famously denounced opponents of the ordination of women as 'heretics', which was hardly eirenic.
You are, of course, quite right that one small utterance is hardly representative of a whole viewpoint, especially given the thoughtful and intelligent contributions he certainly has made to the debate. If Dr John were to say that he no longer thought so and apologised for the use of this term I would be relieved and significantly happier about this appointment. However, I believe he published it in his booklet and has repeated the charge in speaking. I will attempt to locate the source.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
I'm sending a PM to Fiddleback who, I believe, has chapter and verse on Graham Dow's infamous 'rectal demons' quote. In fact, as I recall, I have seen said quote framed, in pokerwork, in the Fiddleback vicarage.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
There's also the issue that if someone is going to be in a position of authority over a group of people -- one which specifically involves moral teaching -- and a question is raised about their own behaviour and beliefs on a certain matter -- particularly if that group of people is specifically devoted to the notion of repentance and change and growth -- then I think making his position clear is appropriate, because for one thing the matter of what he will teach, and encourage others to teach. If he, as a bishop, believed that he sinned in some serious sexual way but has repented -- or that he has not sinned in a sexual way at all -- then I think he should be clear on the subject, not because of people bullying him but because the man is going to be in a position of spiritual power. Did St. Paul ignore his own behaviour in his own past? Was he not open about it?
And if the man is being bullied, then isn't the right Christian thing to do to turn the other cheek to their behaviour but also say, clearly, "yes, I did act this way but I don't now," or "no, I did not act this way," or "yes, I did do this but I do not believe it is a sin; come, let us reason together"?
I think the vagueness, whatever its motive, is not going to help in this situation; it makes it look like he's dodging the issue. I think he should speak plainly about it, as he's going to be in a position of responsibility in which he'll be expected to speak plainly about other people's lives. I'd like to know what advice he'd give me if I came to him with concerns about such matters.
David
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spong
Ship's coffee grinder
# 1518
|
Posted
Sean, I think we're in favour of ++Rowan's position for different reasons...
I hope I'm not over-simplifying, but your view seems to be that ++Rowan may have come to a different conclusion to you, but he's approaching it on a basis that you can respect - exegesis. That's not the point that I'm making about his approach.
Regardless of how he gets to his decision, ++Rowan actually believes that Issues is wrong and that gay priests are OK. But he's specifically said that whilst Archbishop he will uphold the view of the Communion as a whole - he will sacrifice his right to speak about his personal and indivdiual beliefs in order to do his duty as leader of the communion. I have no doubt that, when he steps down as Archbishop, if the issue is still unresolved he would revert (after a decent interval) to arguing his view that gay priests are OK.
Similarly John Jeffery has presumably not in any way concluded that what he has done in the past is 'wrong'. But according to +Richard he committed himself some time ago to a life of sexual abstinence that is in line with Issues.
The point is not that he agrees with you, or that he only disagrees with you in a way that is one that you can respect. The point is, as he himself put it (according to +Richard) quote:
Jeffrey draws a clear and legitimate distinction between his previous role as a theologian, whose job it is to explore new ways of thinking, and his future role as a bishop, whose job it is to teach the doctrine of the Church and maintain its unity. He has a very strong sense of the importance of corporate loyalty to the position of the House of Bishops and has committed himself to maintaining it.
As +Richard goes on to comment, there are other bishops who disagree with Issues, but who don't comment on it because they are bishops and therefore have to uphold the collegiality of the decision. John Jeffrey wasn't obliged by that before, he is now, and has committed himself to doing so.
The response from +Richard is here, and seems to me to be a very cogent explanation of why his decision is right.
--------------------
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
|
|
Archimandrite
Shipmate
# 3997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
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.
[trivial knowledge tasselled-cap on]
'Twas in three parts, published from 1663 to '78, though he began it in about 1658.
[/trivial knowledge tasselled-cap off]
--------------------
"Loyal Anglican" (Warning: General Synod may differ).
Posts: 1580 | From: Oxford | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
There is a certain point to what you say, David. I don't think we should underestimate the amount of pressure the poor man must be under at the moment, though, it is very easy to ask people to be direct and open in the abstract!
However, nobody would be making these sort of demands in the CofE if this wasn't all about sex, and gay sex at that! If the man had a history of being bad tempered, lacking in devotion or unsymapthetic to the oppressed nobody would be demanding public statements.
I might add that it is indicative of how screwed the official sexual ethic is that considerably more fuss is being made over the appointment of a bishop who has been engaged in a loving and faithful relationship than there was some years back when a bishop was appointed who had a criminal conviction for importuning in a public loo! The idiocy of Issues subsists in the fact that it awards dishonesty and subtefuge, and that, paradoxically, it makes promiscuity more attractive than stable relationships.
Yesterdays Guardian put the point well, "[the Anglican Communion] is threatening to tear itself apart over a handful of people who live in monogamous, stable, long-term, loving relationships." The quote refers to gay blessings, but is equally applicable to the Reading case.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spong
Ship's coffee grinder
# 1518
|
Posted
Jeffery John, not John Jeffery...
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
For a short while I thought it was J John. That was confusing...
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
There is a certain point to what you say, David. I don't think we should underestimate the amount of pressure the poor man must be under at the moment, though, it is very easy to ask people to be direct and open in the abstract!
However, nobody would be making these sort of demands in the CofE if this wasn't all about sex, and gay sex at that! If the man had a history of being bad tempered, lacking in devotion or unsymapthetic to the oppressed nobody would be demanding public statements.
I suspect you hit the nail on the head there, DOD. Because of course nobody is suggesting that it's perfectly Christian and downright OK to be constantly bad-tempered, or that impiety is just as good as piety in a bishop, or that lack of sympathy to the oppressed is simply a different lifestyle choice.
If somebody were suggesting such things, I expect there'd be quite as much sensitivity over the appointment of a bishop with such problems as there is over a bishop dealing with the issue presently under discussion.
--------------------
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
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
But, Kyralessa, the Bishops are not complaining that Jeffrey John has criticised Issues - a significant number of current CE bishops have done that, including several diocesans and the ABofC. They are criticising him for having 'fallen short' of its teaching. So it does sound very much like getting at him for (what they perceive to be) sinning, so my comparisons do seem to be relevant.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
welsh dragon
Shipmate
# 3249
|
Posted
Well, I still don't see why having *been* a practising homosexual should be such an unforgivable blot as to make someone inelgible for episcopal office.
Even if you argue that practising as a homosexual is wrong - and I think that is *such* an old and hotly debated chestnut on the ship - the fact is that Dr. John isn't a practising homosexual *any more*.
And he is - from +Richard's letter - sexually abstinent and has been for some time, well before this appointment was mooted.
I can't see either why having, in the past, expressed controversial views about sexual issues would necessarily be a problem. We have a precedent in ++Rowan for a sort of loving and tactful silence which is careful but honest and meant to hold the people of the church together.
It sounds as though Dr. John would attempt something similar, although in his case at great personal cost, at the cost of a loving, physical relationship with someone very dear to him.
I *still* don't see why he deserves to be criticised for that...
Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Degs:
Is it mere coincidence that three of the signatories were pipped to the post by ++Rowan?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
I don't think we should underestimate the amount of pressure the poor man must be under at the moment, though, it is very easy to ask people to be direct and open in the abstract!
![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Agreed!
quote:
Originally posted by the Bishop of Oxford:
I want a diocese that stands in support and solidarity with all harassed minorities whoever they are. Whatever the difficulties or danger of misinterpretation, that is where, I believe, our loyalty and obedience to Jesus should lie.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
... and I can't help but wonder whether its the fact that an openly gay, content with his sexuality man is to become a bishop that really throws them, p[articularly given the paucity of credibility of the argument which separates 'orientation'and 'practice'.
It is a step forward, and if they didn't recognise that, then they wouldn't be in such a paddy about it.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
given the paucity of credibility of the argument which separates 'orientation'and 'practice'.
But do they believe the argument is incredible?
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
I am told that Graham Dow's 'rectal demons' pronouncement was made at a meeting of London Area Bishops some time before he became Bishop of Carlisle, where he also strongly implied that they could be exorcised by the episcopal laying on of hands. The same source informs me that the Bishop of Carlisle was on Newsnight tonight (or was it last night?--did anyone else see this?) and said 'The penis belongs to the vagina', at which point the programme cut away fast.
I mention these things to indicate to some of our transatlantic shipmates just which wing of the hospital we are inhabiting here.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Archimandrite
Shipmate
# 3997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Degs:
Trekker Tangent
I just looked at the list of signatories again and +Roffen (Michael Nazir-Ali) comes out as Seven of Nine!
Just for the record, the spelling of "Jeffrey John" is "J E F F R E Y".
As to whether the spelling of the Bishop of Rochester's surname is "Nazi-Rally", I couldn't possibly comment.
--------------------
"Loyal Anglican" (Warning: General Synod may differ).
Posts: 1580 | From: Oxford | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Boam
Shipmate
# 4551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
I am told that Graham Dow's 'rectal demons' pronouncement was made at a meeting of London Area Bishops some time before he became Bishop of Carlisle, where he also strongly implied that they could be exorcised by the episcopal laying on of hands. The same source informs me that the Bishop of Carlisle was on Newsnight tonight (or was it last night?--did anyone else see this?) and said 'The penis belongs to the vagina', at which point the programme cut away fast.
I mention these things to indicate to some of our transatlantic shipmates just which wing of the hospital we are inhabiting here.
Does he think these demons go for gay men only, or do they also penetrate married hetero Christians having anal sex?
What about single lads? Their penises belong to vaginas they haven't met yet?
Where does he get this stuff?
--------------------
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
Posts: 2165 | From: Miskatonic University | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
In answer to your questions:
1) The latter.
2) Yes.
3) I cannot tell. However, there is an ECUSA diocesan bishop who is fond of prefixing his more controversial utterances with the phrase "The risen Christ has told me..."
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
2) Also raises questions for celibates. Which vagina does a monk's penis belong to I wonder?
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Amos
Yes, I heard that. I was pleasantly relieved actually because the bishop stopped skirting the issue and came out with something which probably did honestly reflect his feelings. If the discussion had been pursued we could have explored the idea in the context of human sexuality, bonding and reproduction. This is too much to ask of mainline TV of course. The English find it very difficult to talk about sex so it usually reverts to the usual, "don't be beastly to people" line ... which doesn't cut the mustard when it comes to the debate we should really be having on sex and love. There is also the problem that the debate focusses on the "plumbing" and not on the crucial issue of desire and falling in love. However, since I am now trespassing on Dead Horse territory I shall move it back to the OP now.
It struck me today that there is so much we don't know about all of this ... politically and personally. Perhaps a public debate is NOT what we should be having. I'm sure that Fr. Jeffrey (and his partner ... current or ex) have been knocked about enough already. (Everyone's a damned celebrity nowadays ... objects of adulation or scorn or pity ... it's all the same in this goldfish bowl culture ... the press love it).
As to the resolution of the issue ... that lies outside my sphere ... I will say though that IMO Anglicans (from personal experience) do often get into the bind of thinking that everything contentious has to be high profile and subjected to public debate and scrutiny,; which is necessary in cases of illegality but entirely out of order when it comes to pastoral issues. This inevitably boxes people into tight positions. You'd think that other churches never consider such issues. No doubt some Anglicans justify this in terms of what they see as their (alleged) national role. The fact that many DON'T see it in those terms leaves these bemused at the cynicism, boredom or antagonism such airings often promote.
I still think it's about evangelicals not pulling the plug on the money though. I still think that it suits Rowan's agenda to let them let off some steam. It will soon be forgotten ... until the next crisis and the next series of threats.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Degs:
Personally I'm praying that ++David stays in York a long time
That would be Archbishop David 'my sexuality is a grey area' Hope, would it?
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Archimandrite
Shipmate
# 3997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
2) Also raises questions for celibates. Which vagina does a monk's penis belong to I wonder?
It sounds rather like having a bullet with one's name on, doesn't it?
If anyone remembers the scene in Blackadder Goes Forth of which that makes me think, they may join me in wincing.
--------------------
"Loyal Anglican" (Warning: General Synod may differ).
Posts: 1580 | From: Oxford | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
I think the 9 Bishops should all club together to buy Dr John a webcam for his bedroom, then they could reassure the 'orthodox' at any hour of the day or night that no episcopal gay rumpy-pumpy was occurring.
Problem solved, the 'orthodox' can sleep at night knowing that Dr John and his partner are going without, (unless of course they're up on cam-monitor duty making sure...) and if they make it pay-per-view they could do something for church finances too.
His fans could then get him to set up a wish-list at Amazon so they could buy him weighty theological tomes of his choice.
The thing is, it doesn't matter how strongly people claim their views are respectably-derived from scripture, once it takes them to the point where they start obsessing over what two consenting adults may or may not have been doing/be continuing to do in the privacy of their own bedroom as an expression of their love, I think it makes the church look like an ass.
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
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Which is exactly how most people outside the church think of it, in my view.
And that doesn't please me, but it is certainly deserved, and if the church is to have any future at all in 21st century Britain, it better get real - and soon.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
From Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
2) Also raises questions for celibates. Which vagina does a monk's penis belong to I wonder?
Obviously some nun's somewhere. Isn't this what Martin Luther ended up concluding? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote:
Also from Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
But, Kyralessa, the Bishops are not complaining that Jeffrey John has criticised Issues - a significant number of current CE bishops have done that, including several diocesans and the ABofC. They are criticising him for having 'fallen short' of its teaching. So it does sound very much like getting at him for (what they perceive to be) sinning, so my comparisons do seem to be relevant.
I guess that's what it comes down to: Was the guy sinning for these twenty years, or was he not? Obviously if you think he was, then twenty years is a darned long time; I doubt anybody would elect someone as bishop who'd had a serious gambling for twenty years, or been committing adultery for twenty years, or been shoplifting for twenty years. But then I can't say for sure because I'm not Anglican...
quote:
From welsh dragon:
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.
That's a disturbing point of view. Certainly the Church has to help every age understand its doctrine; but the notion that the Church is "way behind" popular perceptions implies that the popular perceptions mark progress, whereas quite often they mark the opposite. (But that's all I'll say there since I'm straying dangerously close to Dead Horse territory.)
--------------------
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
|
|
DitzySpike
Shipmate
# 1540
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
he also strongly implied that they could be exorcised by the episcopal laying on of hands.
On the butt? Cool.
Posts: 498 | From: Singapore | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DitzySpike
Shipmate
# 1540
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
quote:
Originally posted by Degs:
Personally I'm praying that ++David stays in York a long time
That would be Archbishop David 'my sexuality is a grey area' Hope, would it?
Also known as Edna the Cruel.
Posts: 498 | From: Singapore | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
'Ena', please. As in Ena Sharples.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
gbuchanan
Shipmate
# 415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
That's a disturbing point of view. Certainly the Church has to help every age understand its doctrine; but the notion that the Church is "way behind" popular perceptions implies that the popular perceptions mark progress, whereas quite often they mark the opposite. (But that's all I'll say there since I'm straying dangerously close to Dead Horse territory.)
...I'm afraid that I see that as sort of the nub of the problem with this letter though, that it reinforces prejudices against the church in contemporary society.
Whilst I agree that in the broad scheme of things more often than not it is a case of the church needing to articulate its position in a way that makes its teaching more clearly useful and considered, than of the church needing to "catch up", sometimes catching up does need to be done.
In the case at hand, the problem is that the Church's model of what is "being done" is out of line entirely with modern understanding and knowledge. To place, as you do, the question in terms of "popular perception" is to miscomprehend the entire issue, and the problem provoked by the letter writers. Perception is not simply the same as understanding, opinion is not simply the same as knowledge.
What comes across in the letter, at least to me, is a model of homosexuality which is radically outdated and inaccessible to many outside the Church. Whatever the issue at hand (that's a Dead Horse) and whatever one's position it is quite possible to articulate matters in a manner more connected to modern knowledge. Thus, the letter fails to show any alertness or insight into contemporary society, and more smacks of the ivory tower than Jesus of Nazareth in terms of its groundedness in contemporary understanding.
A second problem I have is that it is clearly a matter of first resort, which I think as an issue of Church unity ought to have been addressed in an entirely different manner. Furthermore, though it is quite clear as to whom the letter is being written about, there is no demarcation, at least in my reading of any affirmation or acknowledgement of the good that that person has done. Whatever one's position, this smacks more of the crowd wishing to stone the woman taken in adultery than Jesus' approach when faced by people whose morality he wished to question. This simply does not give a good mirror of how we should behave as Christians, even when deeply troubled and in profound disagreement with someone or something. The letter, as written, is not simply an attack on JJ's appointment as bishop, but upon his priesthood, his calling as a Christian at all. Come on, do tell me that for a person in his position such treatment is fair and just?
Furthermore, the letter is also written in a manner which I think is a deep attack upon Catholicity (rather than Catholic teaching, to be clear) in the Church. Firstly, JJ is described as being unacceptable because of his "criticism of orthodox teaching", and secondly his appointment could "prejudice the outcome of the Church's reflection". Now, let's consider those two observations very seriously indeed. This is a two-pronged attack. The first is a claim that any novel opinion is not to be tolerated. The second is a claim that novel opinion must be excluded in order to ensure an unprejudiced outcome.
What this is in fact saying is that novel opinion cannot and should not be included in any debate on the church. Now, one role of bishops is to represent and shepherd the church as a whole, and for a healthy church we really need a diversity of skills, talents and opinions. Someone of JJ's opinions, and it is very clear that those form part of his unacceptability from the letter, does reflect part of the church. Were those views disproportionately represented, were they given particular authority over others would be ethically wrong. What is being argued, and I would posit this is being entirely inconsistent, is that the writers opposite views have a unique authority and are the only ones worthy of being represented. This cuts not at the branches of the church, but at its very roots.
Anglicanism, as I understand it, attempts at its best to provide an umbrella for people who in witness to the catholicity of faith wish to be part of a diverse communion of churchmanship. It is not simply a Catholic or Evangelical or Liberal ghetto. To commit to membership is to commit to the significance of that diversity and that all belong together, whatever the differences. To argue otherwise, that certain voices should not be heard, is to argue against the entire model of Anglicanism that I believe in. Each of these writers certainly has the right to debate the issues, but not to attempt to stifle other strands of the Anglican fold or their representation. There are many celibate gay bishops and straight bishops who support JJ's views. If his views should not be represented, then this is also an attack upon them.
It seems to be that JJ in his commitment to the church as a whole has paid a considerable personal price in order to minimise the gap between himself and those with whom he disagrees. I'm not sure that I could have done the same, but I feel that that gesture and its cost should have more seriously been recognised and understood by his critics.
My problem with the letter is not that some folks are uncomfortable with the appointment, but the manner in which they have made their views made and the poor reflection which it makes of the church. I believe that they could have posited their problem and difficulty in a more humble and more sensitive manner, and these are bishops for crying out loud! Secondly, it is quite clear that it is a trojan horse for an intolerance of the very diversity that makes Anglicanism tick. Anglicanism's diversity is difficult for everyone, liberal and conservative, catholic and evangelical, but there is a price to be paid for the good within that diversity, by everyone.
Posts: 683 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Thank you for a superb, serious reflection. I have been being jocular (savagely jocular, I hope!) but the matter is grave. Personally, I am also angry at the colossal waste of the Church's time and energy on this matter. It is displacement activity pure and simple; it is procrastination in the face of the mission we are called to in the world.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
gbuchanan
Shipmate
# 415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
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.
Oh, rent-a-bile is with us I see. Now, bar hiding behind a bit of innuendo, whom exactly do you think is attempting to provoke schism?
In Ireland, it is remembered that the Celtic Church was demanded to be suppressed by Papal Bull in 1164 and that's pretty free and easy with the church discipline and handling diversity, ain't it? (That bull was used to validate the conquest of Ireland by the Normans two years later).
Perhaps someone voicing an opinion that differs from the tradition in the Holy Catholic Church is not acceptable, but I do somehow seem to remember that we split from that crowd some time ago. Indeed, the entire origin of the CoE is a painful history in the debate over churchmanship and theology. We grew up and embraced diversity over many theological matters, finding bit by bit ways of staying together whilst being different. Hence, we can have women priests and, well, not at the same time, we can have reserved sacrament or, well, not.
You're perfectly entitled to your narrow interpretation of what Churches should do, but as in your own terms we're already schismatic, worrying about how big the schism is seems pretty irrelevant. However, for those of us in the Anglican tradition, we've got different priorities, and keeping the Holy See happy isn't one of them.
In the Anglican tradition, diversity is not the same as being schismatic. It is pretty clear, unless your shallow innuendo is less effective than you intend it to be, that you see those of liberal opinion as schismatic. When it comes to appearing condescending and biased, that's a pretty good way to start. I hope that is not what you intended. Certainly "hardline zealots" and "schism" is strong language where I come from, and I don't see either party as being either. I also certainly know that having served on a number of Diocesan and Deanery synods and Parish Councils of differing persuasions, this letter would have caused a lot of discomfort in many of those circles, as would have the appointment. My personal reckoning is that the overall balance would be pretty 50/50. It may appear from outside the Anglican communion, and from parts of it, that there is a "small number" of radical liberals causing problems, but the reality on the ground is far from that. As with N.Ireland, most folks get along fine, its the hard liners of both sides cause problems, and in the grand scheme of Anglicanism, JJ isn't a hardliner.
The tragedy of this particular incident is that those on both sides are well-respected people who are generally anything but hardline, and those outside are painting naive and poorly understood pictures to that end. This does the CoE in particular, and the Church in general no favours.
Posts: 683 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
Gbuchanan,
"Rent-a-bile"? That's a new one. Actually, my point was that schism is being generated within the Anglican Communion. Far weightier issues than this have already driven a wedge between the Catholic Church and Anglicanism.
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
