|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Bishops' stance on Jeffrey John
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
You got there before me Divine Outlaw ![[Smile]](smile.gif) but here's my contribution ....
I thought so but I wanted to have that intuition confirmed by others. So, I suppose he would now have to publically say something to the effect ....
quote:
I am a gay man. I am celibate now but I had gay sex in the past. I repent of this evil and turn to Christ for forgiveness and restoration.
Wow! Public confession returns with a vengeance. Private auricular confession is not to be trusted nor its judgements relied upon. Double whammy of course since evangelicals don't believe in private auricular confession.
If a heterosexual ordinand had at one time been unfaithful to his / her partner would the evangelical constituency "out" that ordination and demand evidence of public repentance? No, I suspect not.
I am not making any judgements here ... just pointing out the hypocrisy behind the double standard.
"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."
[ 30. June 2003, 15:42: Message edited by: Fr. Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flying_Belgian
Shipmate
# 3385
|
Posted
I think Fr Gregory is being a touch harsh here. The bone of contention seems to be the fact that he might be forced into making a "public confession". I understand the concerns with this, but the public confession stems from Fr Gregory's hypothetical question: "What can he do or say".
Put the issue the other way round- the fact that the guy does not consider his relationship to be a barrier to his ordination is exactly what is causing the problem. The issue about repentence comes in because some are claiming it is a witchunt against gay people, and that his sexual orientation (as oppose to its outworking) is what is the issue.
Had Jeffrey John said that he did have a homosexual experience, but that it was wrong and he has repented before the appointment stuff kicked off, then I cannot imagine that such a fuss could possibly have been generated. Clearly, once the issue has become public, then it takes on a new dimension- because any statement then looks like a recantation extracted under duress.
Posts: 984 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flying_Belgian
Shipmate
# 3385
|
Posted
Also, in response to the comparison with the heterosexual case, I think that the situation would be the same.
If a candidate had had an affair, and had said it he didn't have a moral problem with it, then I am sure there would have been similar concerns. If he was living under the same roof as the person he committed adultery with, but said that he hadn't slept with her for "years", then I think that would arouse disquiet too.
Perhaps the fury would not be so great, but nevertheless, the issue about upholding certain behavioural standards would still remain.
Posts: 984 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear FB
quote:
the fact that the guy does not consider his relationship to be a barrier to his ordination is exactly what is causing the problem.
Do you mean his PAST relationship or his PRESENT relationship (celibate, life-long commitment) as well?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear FB
quote:
I think that the situation would be the same.
PUBLIC confession? Letters to the press? Withheld quotas?
quote:
Perhaps the fury would not be so great
So adulterous heterosexuality is less heinous than faithful homosexuality?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flying_Belgian
Shipmate
# 3385
|
Posted
Yes- I refer to both relationships.
Since the past (sexually active one) and the current (non sexually active one) are (rightly or wrongly) both against the church's teaching on the issue, then these are both relevant to the issue of repentence.
Posts: 984 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear FB
I think I understand Anglicanism quite well. Are you really saying that even a gay person who is in a relationship but who has NEVER had gay sex with that or any other person is not acceptable?! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flying_Belgian
Shipmate
# 3385
|
Posted
Sorry FG cross posted.
Let me be a little clearer of my own view and what I was trying to say.
Imagine the above example was the case (a bloke living with a woman he was not married to, who he committed adultery with), then in my own personal opinion, he would be in exactly the same quandry as Jeffrey John- namely that in my opinion he is transgressing the churches teaching on the issue, and that whilst maintaining that position it would problematic for him to become a Bishop.
My point about the furore being slightly less, was merely an admission, that there are those in the church of England, who, whilst I agree with their view on sexual morality, seem to be far more stringent and active in their criticism of same sex relationships which they don't approve of, than of mixed ones. With this in mind, I think that there would be slightly less furore from those in the church who opposed him, but nevertheless there would be strong opposition.
I think as well, the issue about how much of a fuss is being raised, and the demand for a personal recantation needs also to be sign in the light of what I discussed earlier on the boards- namely that Jeffrey John's case has become a "litmus test" for the church, totemic of a bigger discussion about same sex relationships; and so the specific and personal details of the case have inevitably become central to the debate.
Posts: 984 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flying_Belgian
Shipmate
# 3385
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear FB
I think I understand Anglicanism quite well. Are you really saying that even a gay person who is in a relationship but who has NEVER had gay sex with that or any other person is not acceptable?!
Pardon me- for being imprecise.
The CoE's position is that celibate relationships are OK for the laity but not for Bishops; and that practicising relationships are in the same category.
Is that not the case? (pardon me if I am wrong)
Posts: 984 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I understand all of that and I know we have cross posted but what about the different situation in which the response would be "never mind if he hasn't EVER had gay sex ... he's still a raving poofta and he'll wear a mitre over my dead body." That would seem to identify orientation as an impediment to ordination as well.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear FB
Whoops ... cross posted again. Is that really what "Issues in Human Sexuality" says ... I thought that only gay sex was banned (only) for the clergy?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flying_Belgian
Shipmate
# 3385
|
Posted
I shall try to terminate the cross posting by answering both here:
1. Orientation as an Impediment
"never mind if he hasn't EVER had gay sex ... he's still a raving poofta and he'll wear a mitre over my dead body." is not something I would go along with, and I believe neither would many of the current objectors. Granted there is a rump who would take this view, but the furore would not be nearly as widespread. In fact, I think the appointment would attract quite a lot of positive support from moderate evangelicals because it would boost the credibility of their line that homosexuals should remain celibate.
2. I am not exactly sure what issues said. I believe that its line was that gay relationships are OK for laity, but not for clergy. I am not 100% certain about the line it takes on celibate relationships for clergy, but I think that the line is stricter for Bishops. I should also add that I think the issue is slightly tangential to my original point, which was that if he had were to repent of his relationship (celibate and non!), the issue would be defused. Bringing in the issue of exactly what the CoE document says has clouded the issue!
Posts: 984 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I agree ... it was tangential ... but it can't be ignored in the wider context. I am not at all sure that "Issues" says that gay laity can't have sex without impugning their status (presumably) as communicants. But, that's another red herring from a deeply flawed document. You can't have two classes of Christians.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flying_Belgian:
The CoE's position is that celibate relationships are OK for the laity but not for Bishops; and that practicising relationships are in the same category.
Is that not the case? (pardon me if I am wrong)
You are pardoned.
The CofE's official position is that sexual relationships outside marriage are wrong. But it isn't going to actually excomunnicate anyone (we don't do that sort of thing these days old chap) so the chap in the pew can, in practice, get away with more or less anything (though in some places might be more comfortable moving churches)
However the CofE isn't in the business of actively ordaining or consecrating anyone whose way of life does not conform to the rules. So someone living in a homosexual relationship, or an adulterous relationship, or who is known to be promiscuous, ought not to be ordained and if ordained ought not to be made a bishop.
That's the Lambeth rule, as far as I understand it.
There is no such restriction of anyone who is homosexual and celibate. Traditionally that would be regarded as a Good Thing, because it shows Christian obedience, and abstinence, and other such virtues. So Jeffery John, as far as I can tell, and assuming what he says in publis is in fact true, is covered by the rule anyway.
Nor would there be such a restriction on a priest who has a Special Friend, but doesn't get physical with them. Heck, if there was, how many priests and bishops would we have had to lose? Starting with John Henry Newman. Oh, he left anyway.
Of course this raises the Horrid Notion of some committee of archdeacons playing part of the the DHSS and spying on on the Revd. Mr. So-and-so and his Special Friend to make sure they don't sleep in the same room and get no steamier than the occasional Manly Hug, or just possibly a peck on the cheek to say goodbye and perhaps a holding of hands in moments of great emotional anguish.
Which, seeing as this is the Church of England, and we don't do things like that, boils down to Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flying_Belgian
Shipmate
# 3385
|
Posted
Agreed on your last point. I am no expert in CoE internal machinations, but my take is that Issues was a classic CoE fudge.
You are exactly right to say that you cannot have two classes of Christians. The Bible does say that those in positions of leadership have to adopt higher standards, but that doesn't mean they obey different rules. Those in authority may be those who lead more Godly lives, but that doesn't extend to saying X is wrong for clergy but OK for normal christians. Rather, I think the meaning is that Y is a common moral standard, of which we all fall short, but that those in leadership will are expected to fall "less short" than the laiety.
I probably didn't explain that very well- but hopefully you get the idea!
Posts: 984 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Originally posted by Flying Belgian
quote:
Since the past (sexually active one) and the current (non sexually active one) are (rightly or wrongly) both against the church's teaching on the issue, then these are both relevant to the issue of repentence.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, and I can't lay my hands on the exact quote, but wasn't there something about 'loving, caring non-sexually active partnerships' being positively approved? Can anyone remember the quote?
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Of course this raises the Horrid Notion of some committee of archdeacons playing part of the the DHSS and spying on on the Revd. Mr. So-and-so and his Special Friend to make sure they don't sleep in the same room and get no steamier than the occasional Manly Hug, or just possibly a peck on the cheek to say goodbye and perhaps a holding of hands in moments of great emotional anguish.
Which, seeing as this is the Church of England, and we don't do things like that, boils down to Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
There are good reports that, in the Church of England, we now do do things like that.
It is widely reported that the wife of a particular Archdeacon (who shall remain nameless) sits in her car outside the Vicarage's of clergymen she suspects of 'unnatural caresses' with their 'lodgers' and reports back to the Archdeacon on the number of lights turned on and off in bedrooms and drawing rooms and such like.
Just thought you'd like to know.
Cosmo
[ 30. June 2003, 17:10: Message edited by: Cosmo ]
Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flying_Belgian:
The Bible does say that those in positions of leadership have to adopt higher standards, but that doesn't mean they obey different rules. Those in authority may be those who lead more Godly lives, but that doesn't extend to saying X is wrong for clergy but OK for normal christians. Rather, I think the meaning is that Y is a common moral standard, of which we all fall short, but that those in leadership will are expected to fall "less short" than the laiety.
I probably didn't explain that very well- but hopefully you get the idea!
Noit only well explained but backed up from the Bible!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Obscure
Shipmate
# 4149
|
Posted
Right, am now not going to feel guilty for posting a long comment as it's outside work hours:
With regard to my earlier comment on repenting: the point is that those signatories to the document by the bishops are saying that yes, homosexual acts are a sin, and therefore repentance is required. The reason as far as I can see for public repentance is because of his article in the Times in which he implied that his behaviour was not a sin, and that the only reason for becoming celibate was because it would upset fewer people (that's a paraphrase of my understanding of it).
The reason I think the bishops have gone public is to have a rebuttal to the previous public statements made by the Bishop of Oxford and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Originally, discussions with Jeffrey John and with the Bishop of Oxford were held in private, and THEN documents were made public.
The churches opposed to this stand feel that by sitting by and not saying something would be to have the public believe that the church felt that homosexual acts were perfectly acceptable in a modern Britain, and this was not a view that they could let go out in all conscience.
I hope that makes sense.
Posts: 121 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
It is widely reported that the wife of a particular Archdeacon (who shall remain nameless) sits in her car outside the Vicarage's of clergymen she suspects of 'unnatural caresses'
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) ![[Frown]](frown.gif) ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Sorry about the smilies.
Trollope with knobs on.
Yuck.
The archdeacons round our way are women so I know it can't be them...
--------------------
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 Cosmo:
It is widely reported that the wife of a particular Archdeacon (who shall remain nameless) sits in her car outside the Vicarage's of clergymen she suspects of 'unnatural caresses'
Sorry about the smilies.
Trollope with knobs on.
Yuck.
The archdeacons round our way are women so I know it can't be them...
--------------------
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 The Obscure:
Right, am now not going to feel guilty for posting a long comment as it's outside work hours:
With regard to my earlier comment on repenting: the point is that those signatories to the document by the bishops are saying that yes, homosexual acts are a sin, and therefore repentance is required. The reason as far as I can see for public repentance is because of his article in the Times in which he implied that his behaviour was not a sin, and that the only reason for becoming celibate was because it would upset fewer people (that's a paraphrase of my understanding of it).
But the point is that he is abstaining from sex - the reason why is neither here nor there.
All sorts of people, some of whom are ordained, get up to all sorts of things I think are sinful. For example, I think that the practice of one central Oxford church which provides a ceremony near-as-makes-no-difference to re-baptism, and allows those undergoing the ceremony to linger under the misapprehension that they are being re-baptised, is objectively sinful and implicitly heretical. It also contravenes the constant teaching of the vast majority of Christians for two thousand more years far more clearly than does homosexual practice (like it or not, the obsession with sex is a quaintly modern phenomenon). I somewhat grudgingly, however, accept the people of that church as fellow Anglicans and am unlikely to call for their public repentance in the foreseeable future. I return to the point I made earlier about Anglican Diversity. Why does it not apply to the gay issue?
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flying_Belgian
Shipmate
# 3385
|
Posted
In my opinion- the point is NOT that he is abstanining and that the reason why is here nor there.
The point is that he affirms a belief which is contrary to the churches teaching on same sex relationships, and is quite unrepetant about his earlier relationship.
Suppose we take the example of the guy shacked up with his Mistress. The issue arises because he has committed adultery, which is not squared away simply by saying "I haven't slept with her for ages".
Posts: 984 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Walker
Contributing Editor
# 14
|
Posted
quote:
Cosmo:
It is widely reported that the wife of a particular Archdeacon (who shall remain nameless) sits in her car outside the Vicarage's of clergymen she suspects of 'unnatural caresses' with their 'lodgers' and reports back to the Archdeacon on the number of lights turned on and off in bedrooms and drawing rooms and such like.
Just thought you'd like to know.
It is also widely reported that a number of Clergy (who shall remain nameless) wander the streets at night with torches looking in parked cars for Archdeacon's wives, and if they spot one they nip into the Vicarage and turn light switches on and of at random intervals.
Just thought you'd like to know.
--------------------
Cartoon blog / @davewalker
Posts: 1045 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flying_Belgian:
In my opinion- the point is NOT that he is abstanining and that the reason why is here nor there.
The point is that he affirms a belief which is contrary to the churches teaching on same sex relationships, and is quite unrepetant about his earlier relationship.
Suppose we take the example of the guy shacked up with his Mistress. The issue arises because he has committed adultery, which is not squared away simply by saying "I haven't slept with her for ages".
The use of the phrase the 'Church's teaching' here is IMHO glib. 'The Church' has teaching on things like the Incarnation, the Trinity and so on. These developed over the course of centuries, as the result of disagreement, thought, struggle and prayer. It is sobering to recall that it took 'the Church' 300 odd years to pronounce on the divinity of Christ.
To say that 'Issues' does not constitute the Church's teaching in this strong sense is to understate the matter. The Church universally is just beginning to grapple with the issues surrounding homoseuxality, in the light of developments in our understanding of sexuality etc. We can expect this process to take decades. 'Issues' is a teaching document, written by some Church of England bishops (not by 'the Church'), and was never intended to be understood as dogma.
I suspect that what many of those going on about 'the Church's teaching' mean is 'my personal reading of the Bible.' But if we're playing the game of 'the Church's teaching', I repeat, the stance of certain Oxford churches on baptism, the sacraments in general, the doctrine of the Church, (implicitly) christology etc. etc. etc. is in contradiction of statements of 'the Church's teaching' with far more universally recognised status than 'Issues'. What is sauce for the goose...
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spong
Ship's coffee grinder
# 1518
|
Posted
The sentence I take issue with in +James' statement is quote:
Canon John’s recent comments in the media about his past and present intentions already place him at odds with the House of Bishops on issues of human sexuality.
How? As I understand it, he has said that he is and will remain celibate, and that he's going to uphold the position of Issues in public, though obviously he's not intending to talk much about it publicly. I don't see how that puts him at odds with what the bishops say, unless +James knows something we don't about what's in the study guide.
What is the reference to the 1987 General Synod motion about, I'm only familiar with what Issues said?
--------------------
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
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flying Belgian
Since the past (sexually active one) and the current (non sexually active one) are (rightly or wrongly) both against the church's teaching on the issue, then these are both relevant to the issue of repentence.
No - relationships which are not sexually active are not as far as I am aware prohibited by any statement of the CofE. It is only sexual activity outside marriage which is condemned. (If you can find evidence to the contrary please do let me know - this is an honest request not a rhetorical one!)
Those who oppose Dr John's appointment are essentially in the invidious position of asking him to repent of what is, as far as I can see, a committed and very intimate friendship. Incidentally, loving and deep same-sex friendships are found all over the shop in Scripture - one even involves a covenant (1 Samuel 18 and 20) and of course Jesus had extremely close friendships with his disciples. It seems abundantly clear to me that since these were not sexual they are very analagous to the relationship of Jeffrey John and his partner.
quote:
Originally posted by angloid:
Forgive me if I'm wrong, and I can't lay my hands on the exact quote, but wasn't there something about 'loving, caring non-sexually active partnerships' being positively approved? Can anyone remember the quote?
You are quite correct - it came from the open letter from the 9 diocesan bishops mentioned earlier. The quote is:
quote:
We value, of course, the gift of same-sex friendship and if this relationship is one of companionship and sexual abstinence, then, we rejoice. We warmly commend such relationships to the Church as a whole.
The full text of the letter can be found here, with a bit of luck.
quote:
Originally posted by The Obscure:
The reason as far as I can see for public repentance is because of his article in the Times in which he implied that his behaviour was not a sin, and that the only reason for becoming celibate was because it would upset fewer people (that's a paraphrase of my understanding of it).
I don't think this is at all the reason for his change in behaviour. If we are referring to the same article (see here , he said:
quote:
As a bishop I will have to abide by that [i.e. Issues in Human Sexuality]. It is a matter of corporate discipline.
Repentance is not required because in all conscience he does not regard it as a sin. For example, should I have to repent of going shopping on a Sunday, even though some Christians believe it is wrong? Clearly, on some issues there can be legitimate diversity amongst Christians in beliefs, even if in practice those Christians who feel called to ordained and episcopal office must obey the teaching of the church on these disputable matters, which is precisely what John has said he does and will do.
quote:
The churches opposed to this stand feel that by sitting by and not saying something would be to have the public believe that the church felt that homosexual acts were perfectly acceptable in a modern Britain, and this was not a view that they could let go out in all conscience.
I agree with the idea, but I firmly believe that evangelicals are picking the wrong battle - to everyone else we simply appear homophobic as we appear to be condemning this man not for his behaviour but his sexual orientation (being gay clearly not being condemned in Scripture, but only homosexual practice). Were a practising gay person to be appointed, or a bishop to authorise blessings/marriages for same-sex couples, that would be an entirely different matter. If we were to support John's appointment we would not be supporting homosexual activity but loving, humble sexual abstinance.
Ironic, isn't it?
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Cantata
Shipmate
# 3304
|
Posted
The Rector of St James' King Street was recently preaching at the Patronal Festival of a well known Sydney Anglo Catholic Parish on the Lower North Shore.
In his sermon he stated that "So keen are the conservatives to uphold so-called biblical values, that Bishop Glenn Davies, a noted critic of homosexual practices, was even moved a few days ago to express cautious support for the idea that polygamy could be acceptable to Christians, claiming support for the practice in Scripture."
I am keen to invite Bishop Glenn Davies to a "Sodomy and Seafood Night" in the parish hall - and see what occasional speech he provides on the undertakings.
Bring your lovers, partners, wives, husbands and lots of shellfish.
--------------------
Mr Cantata Signing Off
Posts: 88 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
the obsession with sex is a quaintly modern phenomenon
Hmmmmm... I've recently been reading Mark Jordan's book The Ethics of Sex (a very interesting read, by the way), and he indicates that an intense interest in (if not obsession with) sex is a long-standing Christian phenomenon, extending back to at least the second generation of Christians. Of course, their obsessions were somewhat different that ours, at least in the sense that good healthy heterosexual copulation was seen as almost as much of an impediment to holiness as homosexual couplings.
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Cantata:
In his sermon he stated that "So keen are the conservatives to uphold so-called biblical values, that Bishop Glenn Davies, a noted critic of homosexual practices, was even moved a few days ago to express cautious support for the idea that polygamy could be acceptable to Christians, claiming support for the practice in Scripture."
Sadly for all would be Anglican polygamists, it's a proposition unsupported by either Federal or State law in Australia, which inconveniently recognises only one legal wife at a time.
quote:
I am keen to invite Bishop Glenn Davies to a "Sodomy and Seafood Night" in the parish hall - and see what occasional speech he provides on the undertakings.
Bring your lovers, partners, wives, husbands and lots of shellfish.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) No doubt you'll be serving oysters.
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
But FCB do you really think a situation such as the current one in the CofE - where people think all sort of weird and wacky things about the Trinity, the divinity (or otherwise) of Christ, and every element of classical Christian doctrine, and this is (albeit grugingly) accepted, but schism is threatened over gay sex - would have existed at any point before the 20th century?
It seems as though for some Christians 'being anti-gay' is now a fundamental organising principle of the Church.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
But FCB do you really think a situation such as the current one in the CofE - where people think all sort of weird and wacky things about the Trinity, the divinity (or otherwise) of Christ, and every element of classical Christian doctrine, and this is (albeit grugingly) accepted, but schism is threatened over gay sex - would have existed at any point before the 20th century?
No, I do not think such a situation would have occurred, but this is at least in part because there was not widespread and public challenge being made to the sexual norms of the church, whatever people's private practice might have been. Also, it is interesting how, in the history of the church, accusations of heresy and sexual deviancy have often gone hand in hand. I'm not quite sure what to make of this, apart from being pretty sure that there is no actual correlation.
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Obscure
Shipmate
# 4149
|
Posted
originally by divine outlaw dwarf
quote:
For example, I think that the practice of one central Oxford church which provides a ceremony near-as-makes-no-difference to re-baptism, and allows those undergoing the ceremony to linger under the misapprehension that they are being re-baptised, is objectively sinful and implicitly heretical.
Sorry, I'm going for a tangent here - I'm intrigued by this one - two points:
1) In the bible it says 'repent and be baptised' - we repent more than once, why would it be heretical to be baptised more than once? (I'm not advocating it, and don't think it's necessary or advisable generally, though if someone was baptised and then became seriously apostate, but came back at a later stage, I can see that re-baptism might be appropriate)
2) Once your baptised into the church of England, how can it be possible to be baptised again into it? I can understand the public re-affirmation of baptismal vows (at which point, there's no reason at all to assume why God wouldn't accept it as a re-dedication of oneself), which is what one automatically does at confirmation.
Can you explain where you're coming from, so I can understand please?
Thanks
Posts: 121 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
[obligatory apology for baptism tangent - and annoying pedantic note that there are baptism threads here and here if we want to continue the topic!]
quote:
Originally posted by The Obscure:
Sorry, I'm going for a tangent here - I'm intrigued by this one - two points:
1) In the bible it says 'repent and be baptised' - we repent more than once, why would it be heretical to be baptised more than once?
I am familiar with a number of churches (mine is one - I suspect probably the same one as The Obscure) which do something called "reaffirming your baptismal vows" in which immersion in water is a part, presumbaly something akin to what DO-D is referring to. However, it seems to me that one can only be baptised once not because it is only to do with repentance (although clearly that is a part of it) but also because it symbolises (and conveys in some traditions) forgiveness and washing clean from sin, which comes at the beginning of the Christian life. It is also to do with becoming a member of the covenant community of faith, and in this sense presumably one cannot really become a member twice - once you're in, you're in.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
I'm talking about a Church in Oxford where 'reaffirming one's vows' involves being immersed in a font and having the entire baptism service bar the 'magic words' used! Those undergoing this ceremony often refer to it as 'my baptism'.
My point is, make of the re-baptism controversy what you will, it is the clear and ancient teaching of the overwhelming majority of Christian churches that re-baptism is wrong, a view which the Church defined against the Donatists. Those who are willing to invoke 'the Church's teaching' on one matter and yet sit very lightly to it on another are open to the charge of hypocrisy - in fact I think that con. evos. use the phrase as code for a narrow biblicism.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
Agreed that such selectivity is often used. Personally I am conservative on homosexual activity and believe that baptism is to be done once, and once only.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flying_Belgian
Shipmate
# 3385
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
[The use of the phrase the 'Church's teaching' here is IMHO glib. 'The Church' has teaching on things like the Incarnation, the Trinity and so on. These developed over the course of centuries, as the result of disagreement, thought, struggle and prayer. It is sobering to recall that it took 'the Church' 300 odd years to pronounce on the divinity of Christ.
Dear DOD
I don't believe it is "glib" to use the phrase "the churches teaching", since the teachings on homosexuality correspond to a specific issue paper of the Church of England. One may disagree with it, but it remains the official position of the Church of England. One of the interesting point from James Jones speech was that the appointment goes against the CoE's position on this, and that any change in the stance on homosexuality would have to be conducted through the proper processes, rather than being done (I shouldn't say this) via the back door by making a test-case.
I have absolutely no idea where you get the idea from that it took the church 300 years to pronounce that Christ was divine, but that is a tangential issue.
Posts: 984 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flying_Belgian
Shipmate
# 3385
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
[
Those who oppose Dr John's appointment are essentially in the invidious position of asking him to repent of what is, as far as I can see, a committed and very intimate friendship. Incidentally, loving and deep same-sex friendships are found all over the shop in Scripture - one even involves a covenant (1 Samuel 18 and 20) and of course Jesus had extremely close friendships with his disciples. ?
I disagree. What is at stake is not his "very intimate friendship", but rather the fact that sexually active element of that relationship, which he has not repented of. As Fr Gregory said many moons ago on this thread, it is this, rather than a timely abstinence that is the issue.
It is of course regrettable that anyone's private life has been subject to such a degree of scrutiny and public debate. However, this is an inevitable consequence of this kind of "test case". Had the issue of gay bishops been dealt with by the church in a policy paper, rather than through indirect means; the scrutiny of one man's private life would have been avoided. But by conducting the debate in terms of one special "test case" as opposed to the general principles (in the absence of an immediate application of those principles), this rather unseemly spectacle has played itself out.
Clearly there would have been the same kind of passionate debate between the different factions, but at least it would not have been conducted in reference to one particular individual, for whom the whole process must be extremely stressful and unpleasant.
Posts: 984 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
Does Issues work retroactively? Does JJ have to repent for breaking it prior to 1991? That would seem very odd.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flying_Belgian
Shipmate
# 3385
|
Posted
Interesting point!
However, correct me if I am wrong, but presumably the chuch had an offical position on homosexuality before 1991. And, I presume that was, if anything more conservative.
Posts: 984 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flying_Belgian:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
[The use of the phrase the 'Church's teaching' here is IMHO glib. 'The Church' has teaching on things like the Incarnation, the Trinity and so on. These developed over the course of centuries, as the result of disagreement, thought, struggle and prayer. It is sobering to recall that it took 'the Church' 300 odd years to pronounce on the divinity of Christ.
Dear DOD
I don't believe it is "glib" to use the phrase "the churches teaching", since the teachings on homosexuality correspond to a specific issue paper of the Church of England. One may disagree with it, but it remains the official position of the Church of England.
Yes, Issues is a discussion document issued by the Church of England (not by 'the Church', the two are not coterminous, Anglican arrogance notwithstanding). As such it deserves respectful consideration. What it does not warrant is being treated as though it were part of the deposit of divine revelation, which is how some people seem to be treating it at the moment.
[tangent] The Council of Nicea, in 325, declared that the Son is consubstantial with the Father [/tangent]. Interestingly, this declaration was preceded and followed by no little amount of wrangling, in-fighting and 'campaigning.' The Arians, condemned as heretics, took their stand partially on 'using only scriptural terms', again, interestingly. Plus ca change...
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
welsh dragon
Shipmate
# 3249
|
Posted
Well, a few points re diversity of opinion
1. The C of E is a broad church. That means it includes people with different opinions, across the Catholic/Protestant, liberal/conservative spectrum. I think this is remarkably healthy (having been brought up RC with a rigid set of rules having been handed down...)
However it means that there will be variance of opinion. Canon John sounds as though he is theoretically very much in favour of stable homosexual relationships but practically is willing to make huge sacrifices in his personal/emotional life because of where the church is at, and because his vocation is enormously important to him.
and meanwhile he has been unusually honest about his own emotional and sexual preferences and struggles.
I think this is a hugely scrupulous and ethical way to proceed. It may have been brave/foolhardy of +Richard to go here at the moment but I would have thought the combination of honesty and self sacrifice and obedience to the church would make Canon Jeffrey an excellent candidate for preferment.
The campaign against his appointment would sem to me to be trying to ignore the debate within the church, and the fact the C of E has been set up as a broad structure in which fervent debate will be ongoing.
2. I rather think Sean, The Obscure and I are going to the same church in Oxford. As you can see, we are not singing from the same hymnsheet on this. Just because church leaders feel passionately on a topic, it does not follow necessarily that they speak for the entire congregation.
3. And the church leaders themselves are I think confused on this. One, from the Reading diocese (from, I may add, a different church) has said to me that even if Canon John is celibate, someone with such a background should not be put in such a position of authority.
If that is the view of a significant number of the opposing clergy, then public repentance wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.
It begs the question of why they feel that way though, especially when so many clergy are secretly homosexual, and if these people are active sexually it is likely to be in far less stable and loving relationships than Canon Jeffrey's. That, it would seem, is tolerable - but a dignified and brave statement of your (celibate) position is not.
Makes me feel this has a great deal to do with politics and the status quo in the C of E...
Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
The 300 years and Jesus' divinity point:
Divine Outlaw-Dwarf is referring to the Council of Nicaea, which pronounced that Jesus was as divine as God the Father (of one nature/substance). Before this there was no "official position" which ruled out various forms of subordinationism (i.e. saying that Jesus was divine or a god but not equal to The God). Of course, the ascription of divinity itself can be found much earlier than this - but this was the point at which it became formulated much more precisely.
quote:
Originally posted by Flying_Belgian:
I disagree. What is at stake is not his "very intimate friendship", but rather the fact that sexually active element of that relationship, which he has not repented of. As Fr Gregory said many moons ago on this thread, it is this, rather than a timely abstinence that is the issue.
Dr John can hardly be called upon to repent of something which he simply in all conscience does not regard as a sinful. What he can be called upon to do is to life a lifestyle in accordance with church teaching. This is what he is doing.
There is nothing in Issues which says that one should repent of past homosexual behaviour to be ordained etc, just that you should not do it.
quote:
Had the issue of gay bishops been dealt with by the church in a policy paper, rather than through indirect means; the scrutiny of one man's private life would have been avoided. But by conducting the debate in terms of one special "test case" as opposed to the general principles (in the absence of an immediate application of those principles), this rather unseemly spectacle has played itself out.
I agree and disagree: the issue of gay bishops per se is a non-issue - the question is of practising gay bishops, which Dr John is not.
We are therefore having this debate at the wrong time, and about the wrong person.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flying_Belgian
Shipmate
# 3385
|
Posted
PS- Apologies for using the term "the churche's teaching"; I was referreing specifically to the Church of England. I used the term "church" referring to Jeffrey John's churuch rather than the universal church.
Posts: 984 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Walker
Contributing Editor
# 14
|
Posted
I don't think that practicing or not practicing is the issue for a lot of people locally. It's to do with Canon John's teaching in the past, Berkshire being used as a playing field for a game of church politics and the way the issue has been handled by the Diocese.
None of the above are my position by the way, I'm looking forward to meeting the guy (if he ever gets here), but they're the points of view being put forward at meetings I've been to in the last few weeks.
--------------------
Cartoon blog / @davewalker
Posts: 1045 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W:
I don't think that practicing or not practicing is the issue for a lot of people locally. It's to do with Canon John's teaching in the past, Berkshire being used as a playing field for a game of church politics and the way the issue has been handled by the Diocese.
I think that those are all good points to express and legitimate concerns to raise - but I cannot see why any of them should prevent the man from being consecrated. Whether it is or isn't the issue for people locally, it's what they (or perhaps more precisely, their leaders) are saying is the issue, much of the time. And practising or not is still the issue as if John is not practising then it is a lot harder to see Berkshire as being used as a political football as +Richard isn't exactly trying to do anything new. I certainly think the issue has been handled badly - but now we are where we are I do not see that this should stop the appointment going ahead.
[Not directed at W as he has made it clear it is not his position!]
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
If Fr John has been practising for so long he should be about perfect by now.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spong
Ship's coffee grinder
# 1518
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flying_Belgian:
However, correct me if I am wrong, but presumably the chuch had an offical position on homosexuality before 1991. And, I presume that was, if anything more conservative.
The only people who can pronounce on doctrine in the Church of England are the bishops. As far as I am aware, they had not issued any corporate statement on homosexuality until Issues, although it is possible that there was something in one of the earlier Doctrine Commission reports.
And can I ask Flying Belgian to read what Jeffrey John has said about when the relationship stopped being physical, and accept that there was nothing 'timely' about it. Once Issues had been published and he had had time to think about it and make what must have been very personally dififcult decisions, he accepted that he had to act in obedience to the church as an ordained priest. He did so well before any possibility of his preferment to the episcopacy. This has been rehearsed several times above, I fail to see why this snide comment continues to be made.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spong:
The only people who can pronounce on doctrine in the Church of England are the bishops.
I report, without comment, Stewart Headlem's statement that the 19th century equivalent of the House of Bishops, "is not the voice of the Church. It is not even the squeak of the Church."
I'm not sure that the ecclesiological anomaly that is the CofE has ever made explicit how it thinks doctrine is 'pronounced.' This Catholic Anglican, taking his lead from Newman, actually thinks that the People of God (all of them, not just Anglicans), reflecting on the deposit of revelation, 'make' doctrine. The role of bishops is to articulate the consensus of the faithful, when that exists. If bishops are continually having to magic a consensus into being then that suggests to me that something is going wrong somewhere, that perhaps we need to allow one another a bit more time and space (as ++Rowan very wisely suggested), pray for the Spirit's guidance, and give up on the control-freakish idea that Christians have to agree about everything.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
