|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Bishops' stance on Jeffrey John
|
Spong
Ship's coffee grinder
# 1518
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Well in one sense, yes. And in another, very real sense, no... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
My point is that the definition of doctrine is not down to Synods, as it might be in a more presbyterian or congregational denomination. I'm pretty sure it is specifically excluded from the competence of any part of the synodical system, from PCC up to General Synod. It's certainly excluded from the role of the PCC.
Still waiting for a retraction from the Flying Belgian...
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
I'm not sure that the ecclesiological anomaly that is the CofE has ever made explicit how it thinks doctrine is 'pronounced.'
And there I was thinking that we thought it was
- revealed in the Holy Scriptures
- set forth in the Catholic Creeds
- and witnessed to by the historic formularies of the Church of England
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flying_Belgian
Shipmate
# 3385
|
Posted
My remark about Jeffrey John was not snide.
The point at hand was that Jeffrey John disagrees with the view of the CoE on this issue, and has publically pronounced it to be junk. His abstinence was timely in the sense that it corresponded to the issues paper. Whilst I respect the fact that he amended his behaviour in line with this report, it did not represent a recantation of his earlier relationship; nor has he ever made any pronouncement of regret. The fact that he pronounced it a gift from God, is a statment directly contrary to the CoE's position and a statment which he still stands by.
[ 03. July 2003, 07:22: Message edited by: Flying_Belgian ]
Posts: 984 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
welsh dragon
Shipmate
# 3249
|
Posted
I don't see there is a problem with a celibate man saying that a loving relationship is a gift from God...how is that counter to C of E thinking?
Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
To rehash a point I've made before, but with a different example.
The Bishop of Carlise's many and various pronouncements (and presumably actions) on deliverance, demonology etc. are not in accord with the very measured 'teaching', and clearly structured practice of the CofE about exorcism. Why is it OK for this Bishop, whose beliefs and practices are not in accord with the CofE, to be a Bishop, but not for a man whose practices used to be contrary to issues?
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bongo
Shipmate
# 778
|
Posted
*sigh* is it really necessary for Divine Outlaw-Dwarf to yet again post something deeply intellingent and insightful about conservatives having to accept diversity within the Church of England that everybody ignores?
I'll do it, then: I accept and tolerate (even welcome) the presence of the Bishop of Liverpool, that Nigerian Bishop, and a host of others in "my" church even though I wholeheartedly disagree with them on the gay issue. So why can't they extend me and Jeffrey John the same courtesy?
(Edited to say I cross posted with Divine Outlaw-Dwarf, who indeed did say something fabulous about diversity! Am I a mind reader or what? )
[ 03. July 2003, 12:24: Message edited by: Bongo ]
--------------------
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!" ~ Dr Strangelove
Posts: 492 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spong
Ship's coffee grinder
# 1518
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flying_Belgian:
Whilst I respect the fact that he amended his behaviour in line with this report, it did not represent a recantation of his earlier relationship; nor has he ever made any pronouncement of regret. The fact that he pronounced it a gift from God, is a statment directly contrary to the CoE's position and a statement which he still stands by.
quote:
5.15 Some would argue [that the Church] needs to undergo a profound and radical transformation of its attitude to and understanding of the whole of human sexuality, including homophile relationships.... To this we would reply that, though the Church is not infallible, there is at any given time such a thing as the mind of the Church on matters of faith and life. Those who disagree with that mind are free to argue for change. What they are not free to do is to go against that mind in their own practice.
...5.19 This, however, leaves unanswered the question of those clergy who feel it is their duty to come out...
5.20 [One such group are those who] are themselves in active homophile partnerships, and who come out as a matter of personal integrity. They believe their relationship to be right in the sight of God, and find concealment both repugnant and destructive. ...[This] raises the issue we have identified in 5.15 above.
5.21 We respect that integrity. But it is also our duty to affirm the whole pattern of Christian teaching on sexuality as set out in these pages, and to uphold those requirements for conduct which will best witness to it. We therefore call on all clergy to live lives that respect that teaching and we shall do everything in our power to help them do so...
Issues in Human Sexuality, emphasis added
Bishop Jeffrey John was in an active homophile partnership when Issues was promulgated by the House of Bishops. He believes, with all integrity, that his relationship is right in the sight of God. He has a right, under Issues, for that integrity to be respected - see above.
He has argued, perhaps too intemperately, against the stance taken in Issues. I think I'm right in saying that he has apologised for the words he used but not the stand he took. He has a right, under Issues, to argue against the current position of the CofE at least until the point at which he becomes a bishop, and still to do so in privacy with his fellow bishops - see above.
He is required, under Issues, to refrain from a physical relationship as a priest for so long as Issues is the statement of the mind of the CofE. That is the only requirement placed upon him under Issues, and he has met it.
He has not recanted his previous position. He is not required, under Issues to do so. If you believe he is, please give the reference.
He has not expressed regret at the life he has led. He is not required, under Issues, to do so. If you believe that he is, please give the reference.
He is entitled, under Issues, to have all the help that his fellow Bishops can give him to respect the Church's teaching in his conduct. Since he has done so, and is now told by nine of those bishops that he should still be barred from being a bishop - who is in breach of the requirement of Issues, him or them?
[ 03. July 2003, 20:25: Message edited by: Spong ]
--------------------
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
|
|
gbuchanan
Shipmate
# 415
|
Posted
To slightly underline what Spong has said above - the problem here is, FB, that you seem to suggest that disagreement CANNOT be accepted. However, this is quite at odds with how the CoE works at a number of levels. Firstly, we have changed position on a number of topics (e.g. women priests) over the years. Dissenting views on the "current" practice before those changes were made were, IMHO, an entirely appropriate part of the debate, whichever side of the debate those views came from. To exclude a point of view from any part of the CoE, particularly from the HoB, seems entirely inconsistent with the ecclesiology of the CoE. What is certainly required is that those in a position of leadership, whatever their position in principle on any given issue, follow the current agreed position in practice.
For instance, however strong one's position in favour of women priests was, it would have been entirely wrong (and logically impossible in any case) to have "ordained" a woman into the priesthood before the change was made. Wesley's falling out with the CoE was as a consequence of such practice.
However, what is 'agreed' is a fudged matter extraordinaire in CoE land.
The honest fact of the matter is that, and I speak from personal knowledge here, bishops turn a blind eye to priests in active, committed, gay relationships - even bishops who have publicly been bombasting about how this should never be done. I know of one bishop who delivered such a polemic one day, and the next day got all chummy with the partner of a long-standing and extremely well respected priest whose testimonial was coming round shortly. The reality is much more complex than the public practice on BOTH sides of this argument - and actually that's not altogether a bad thing.
Whatever JJ's previous practice, I doubt that he will have received any instruction from his diocesan superiors on it, and that he did draw his own conclusion post Issues is entirely commendable, even if I can't comprehend how he could voluntarily do something so personally traumatic. The fact is that his position cannot be fairly represented as an expedient volte-face.
Pre-Issues, most senior clergy that I know (and they split 50/50 on their position on this issue) were expecting a more liberal stance to be agreed than what was finally consented to. That JJ was 'ahead' of the game was somewhat unsurprising in many ways - practice was much more liberal than the 'official' position, and from what I've seen, that remains the case.
Had JJ gone against direct instruction from his Bishop, that would be one kettle of fish, but I suspect what he would have been hearing was a tacit acceptance of committed relationships, so long as no official 'okay' was ever required and no worms came out of the woodwork - pretty much the common coin of what goes on even now.
Posts: 683 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by gbuchanan:
For instance, however strong one's position in favour of women priests was, it would have been entirely wrong (and logically impossible in any case) to have "ordained" a woman into the priesthood before the change was made.
Well, FWIW, women were ordained in the US before the change was made. Their ordinations were considered irregular, but valid.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
I think St. Vincent said it all:
"In things essential unity,
in things inessential liberty,
in all things charity."
[ 03. July 2003, 22:46: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw-Dwarf ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W:
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.
It is also widely reported that a particular Archdeacon is in the habit of ringing around the proprietors of all the corner shops in the diocese on a Monday morning to find out who they sold torch batteries to that week.
Just thought you'd like to know.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Following scurrilous rumours in the press, I wish to declare categorically that I am not "fruitknife", the shadowy enforcer of the northern area archdeaconry hit-squad. My regular purchases of batteries have a perfectly innocent explanation - they are for use in vibrators. I shall now be retiring from the public gaze to spend more time with my family.
Thank you
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spong:
5.15 Some would argue [that the Church] needs to undergo a profound and radical transformation of its attitude to and understanding of the whole of human sexuality, including homophile relationships.... To this we would reply that, though the Church is not infallible, there is at any given time such a thing as the mind of the Church on matters of faith and life.
(My emphasis)
Admittedly those who post to this board may not be representative of the Church of England as a whole, but it seems clear to me from reading this thread that there is not one "mind of the Church" on this issue at all and no-one should be claiming that it exists and that they know what it is.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
I know of one bishop who delivered such a polemic one day, and the next day got all chummy with the partner of a long-standing and extremely well respected priest whose testimonial was coming round shortly. The reality is much more complex than the public practice on BOTH sides of this argument - and actually that's not altogether a bad thing.
The word 'hypocrisy' springs to mind for such behaviour; yes, it is altogether a bad thing. It is the reason why I can't take the CofE seriously, and am entirely unwilling to support my local church financially as by its full payment of large quota it is supporting such evil and corrupt habits.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
What do people make of the news that Jeffrey John himself has now said that he won't take up the post in view of the controversy? BBC News Story Personally, I think it was the gracious thing to do.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I hope it will gain him even more respect. Shame, though. Hope his opponents don't start thinking they are victorious and making even more demands.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tina
Shipmate
# 63
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
What do people make of the news that Jeffrey John himself has now said that he won't take up the post in view of the controversy? BBC News Story Personally, I think it was the gracious thing to do.
Carys
Gracious, yes. But I'm afraid on hearing the news after church, my first words, and those of others around me, were of the expletive variety.
It was a no-win situation, many people were going to feel hurt and betrayed by the Anglican church whichever way it went. But this feels to me like a victory for hypocrisy.
--------------------
Kindness is mandatory. Anger is necessary. Despair is a terrible idea. Despair is how they win. They won't win forever.
Posts: 503 | From: South London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Witch-hunt, bigotry, unchristian ... the first three printable words that came into my head. Never mind episcopal consecration - canonisation should be Jeffrey John's eventual reward. Meanwhile though, in a year or two, he could very usefully fill the role of Archbishop of York, which would put one at least of his persecutors in his place.
--------------------
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
|
|
DitzySpike
Shipmate
# 1540
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angloid:
Never mind episcopal consecration - canonisation should be Jeffrey John's eventual reward. Meanwhile though, in a year or two, he could very usefully fill the role of Archbishop of York, which would put one at least of his persecutors in his place.
AMEN!!!! (first time i've shouted on the net) :-)
Posts: 498 | From: Singapore | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
It is very much in keeping with what I have heard about him, and shows a proper concern for the welfare of the C of E which has IMO been sadly lacking in the actions of some who are already cosily ensconced in their bishoprics.
Jeffery John's potential ministry as Bp of Reading was impaired not by his personal suitability but by a witch hunt.
When it gets to the point that George Carey admits consecrating gay bishops, presumably because, as an evangelical, he does not wish to be associated with the evangelicals who have been so vociferously judgemental in this issue, I am bound to think those who have led the 'resistance' have completely lost the plot.
Sorry to be all OT about it, but I have not the slightest doubt that God will reward everyone's actions as he sees fit. I hope all those calling for Jeffery John's 'repentance' and declaring him unfit for the calling of bishop considered the issue of motes and beams before they went public.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
There's only a problem with witch hunts if the victims are harmless woman who haven't done anything wrong. If in fact they are genuinely in contact with evil forces, causing objective damage to others, then hunting them down is as valid an exercise in prosecuting criminal behaviour as seeking burgulars or rapists.
Thus to dismiss the pursuit of JJ as a witch hunt is to make certain assumptions about him, which may or may not be justified..... Undoubtedly the 'witch hunt' in the labour party against 'Militant' was entirely justified ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Personally, I think Richard Harries' position is now equally intolerable and he should retire asap, leaving the suffragan post to be filled by his successor.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
There's only a problem with witch hunts if the victims are harmless woman who haven't done anything wrong. If in fact they are genuinely in contact with evil forces, causing objective damage to others, then hunting them down is as valid an exercise in prosecuting criminal behaviour as seeking burgulars or rapists.
Whatever one thinks about homosexuality, the implicit comparison with 'criminal behaviour', and, in particular, with rape, is as offensive as it is idiotic.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
....
r.e. the 'Militant' comparison. The real entryists in the current CofE are a certain sort of evangelical who see the CofE as the 'best boat to fish from' but have no belief in the historic episcopate, no respect for Anglican diversity and are continually threatening to withdraw quota etc. - the ecclesiatical equivalent of 'if we don't play by my rules I'm taking my ball home.'
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Royal Peculiar
Shipmate
# 3159
|
Posted
I feel sorry for whoever does become Bishop of Reading . Everyone will know he was not the first choice.
--------------------
Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.
Oscar Wilde
Posts: 405 | From: Barking, London | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
* sigh * One thing that seems to be escaping some people’s notice is that at the heart of this issue there are people with thoughts and feelings – made in God’s image and loved by him. Any principle needs to be applied in light of that. (And if you want to trade proof texts, maybe start with the one that the measure you use to judge others is the one that is used to judge you!).
Ender’s Shadow wrote:
quote:
It is the reason why I can't take the CofE seriously, am entirely unwilling to support my local church financially as by its full payment of large quota it is supporting such evil and corrupt habits
So, you justify your presence there how?
quote:
Thus to dismiss the pursuit of JJ as a witch hunt is to make certain assumptions about him, which may or may not be justified
And these are? Are you seriously saying that it’s right for the press to poke around someone’s private life; for Christians to send hate mail to the Archbishop of Canterbury; for someone to be judged by others solely on what they may have (or not have) done in bed?
Tubbs
[fixed code]
[ 06. July 2003, 22:08: Message edited by: Scot ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Not
Ship's Quack
# 2166
|
Posted
I'm so angry at the moment that a good, godly man, who has chosen to live in accordance with some of the church's nuttier teachings should be harried and abused like this, that I am probably limited in my response by this thread being in Purgatory.
Ender's Shadow, that's exactly the defence the Salem elders would have given, and with about as much justification.
I'm ashamed to be an Anglican today.
--------------------
Was CJ; now Not
Posts: 600 | From: the far, far West | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
I haven't contributed to this thread yet because I haven't got a clue what I believe.
All I can say is, thank God Rowan's in charge!
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Which witch is which?
Why on earth should Richard Harries step down? All he did was say who he thought would be best for the job. He will now have to work with someone else, which I am sure he will do to the best of his ability and try to put behind him the fact that his first choice caused so much aggro.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ms Lilith
Shipmate
# 1767
|
Posted
I just heard. Channel 4 news is still on in the background ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
I am ashamed to be a christian today, the church has been held ransom to bigotry and it has allowed bigotry to win.
Posts: 266 | From: birmingham | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
I am not acting as a host on this because my overwhelming urge to tell Ender's Shadow where to stick his post would prejudice me so.
However I have started a relevant thread on this in Hell where people can go to let off steam and keep it out of Purgatory.
Your presence is requested there Ender's Shadow. I will be PMing you to make sure you know.
Louise
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Glimmer
Ship's Lantern
# 4540
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
....
r.e. the 'Militant' comparison. The real entryists in the current CofE are a certain sort of evangelical who see the CofE as the 'best boat to fish from' but have no belief in the historic episcopate, no respect for Anglican diversity and are continually threatening to withdraw quota etc. - the ecclesiatical equivalent of 'if we don't play by my rules I'm taking my ball home.'
DOD: ![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork
Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
welsh dragon
Shipmate
# 3249
|
Posted
Just learned about the move by Dr. John to withdraw acceptance of the job.
Was in one of the Oxford churches which most vociferously opposed him, when an announcement was made in the service.
Feel very sad. He seems a fine and honest man.
On the other hand, I have just got back from 2 weeks away today to discover that some of the older members of my other church community - whom I care for very much - were very upset and confused by all of this.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
the real entryists in the current CofE are a certain sort of evangelical who see the CofE as the 'best boat to fish from' but have no belief in the historic episcopate, no respect for Anglican diversity and are continually threatening to withdraw quota etc. - the ecclesiatical equivalent of 'if we don't play by my rules I'm taking my ball home.'
Oh rubbish. The evangelicals were here all the time. Nothing "entryist" about them at all.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Which is why, Ken, is you read my post, I talked about 'a certain sort of evangelical.'
[ 06. July 2003, 20:03: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw-Dwarf ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by welsh dragon:
Just learned about the move by Dr. John to withdraw acceptance of the job.
I'm 95% sure the withdrawl would have been after lots of meetings in the Anglican equivalent sof smoke-filled rooms. And lots of behind-the-scenes pressure on him to do the decent thing old boy.
It all feels very very shabby to me.
The sooner we clean out our cruddy way opf appointing bishops & have something much more open and transparent the better.
Everything is so semi-secret and confidential at the moment. The whole system could have been set up to encourage rumour and backbiting and behind the scenes influences. Someone who had actually been openly nominated and selected by the people of the diocese would not be vulenerable to this sort of pressure, woudl have been in a much stronger position.
quote:
Was in one of the Oxford churches which most vociferously opposed him, when an announcement was made in the service.
Our new vicar talked about the withrawl in the evening sermon today - the first time I've heard anyone actually mention this business in Real Life, up to know its all been on the radio or in the papers or on the Net. She was pretty certain that he would be a good bishop & seemed pissed off that he's been squeezed out.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
I'm with you on elected bishops.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
I've replied in Hell as requested, and that includes:
"As to Richard Harries' resignation - of course he should go. In appointing a suffragan, it is his responsibility to discern what is acceptable to the diocese and to the wider church. That he made such a complete cockup of this situation is clear evidence that he is totally out of touch with the realities on the ground, and so has absolutely no right to continue in the office."
To other matters:
As far as the issues about witches are concerned, we have to be careful about what we believe here because that is crucial to the discussion. If we believe there really are evil, personal forces around whose pleasure in life is to make life extremely miserable for humans, then witches, by facilitating their operation, are extremely evil. If however they are merely harmless, then of course hunting them is deeply obnoxious.
As to who are the entryists in the CofE, one has to look at the history of the church. It is clear that at the time of Cramner, Latimer, and Ridley - a time when you got burnt for mistakes in theology, not promoted, the theology of the CofE was essentially similar to what we would identify as evangelical today. It was only in 18th and 19th centuries that we became ever less clear about what we believed - though still generally within the bounds of traditional Christianity apart from a few 18th century unitarians. The lesson that everyone took into the 20th century from the rejection of the Methodist revival in the 18th century and the Anglocatholic revival of the 19th was that we should 'let 1000 flowers bloom' - and unlike Mao, we actually did. The result was the total confusion of theology that we have today. On the whole I'm not a fan of cracking down hard - I am more willing to live and let live (though let each pay for his own project - that way we see if God is in it); however when the confusion starts to result in the church being unable to speak clearly on issues that endanger the salvation of its members (see I Cor 6) then a line has been crossed that we need to hold.
Clearly JJ has got it in the neck from a lot of homophobes - and that is very unfortunate; I accept no responsibility for my allies, any more than the Lesbian and Gay Christian movement should welcome the support they get from people who also support the substantial lowering of the age of consent.
As to:
quote:
Are you seriously saying that it’s right for the press to poke around someone’s private life;
yes - it is, because the standard laid out in I Tim is that a bishop should be 'above reproach'.
[deleted duplicate post]
[ 06. July 2003, 22:14: Message edited by: Scot ]
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Ender's Shadow, the idea that the classical Reformed strand in Anglicanism is near-as-makes-no-difference to St. Aldate's/ Gumbelism is preposterous nonsense undeserving of a reply.
So I'm not going to make one.
So there.
Now go back to Hell like a good boy. There are people waiting for you.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
To other matters:
As far as the issues about witches are concerned, we have to be careful about what we believe here because that is crucial to the discussion. If we believe there really are evil, personal forces around whose pleasure in life is to make life extremely miserable for humans, then witches, by facilitating their operation, are extremely evil. If however they are merely harmless, then of course hunting them is deeply obnoxious.
And your point in mentioning this in regard to the witch-hunting of someone over his sexuality is...? You still appear to be implying that a gay relationship is somehow equivalent to doing something which deserves to be 'witch-hunted'. Dissociating yourself from 'homophobes' whilst posting something like this is not convincing to say the least.
quote:
It is clear that at the time of Cramner, Latimer, and Ridley - a time when you got burnt for mistakes in theology, not promoted, the theology of the CofE was essentially similar to what we would identify as evangelical today.
Churches actually change in belief and move on. Evangelicals turned against earlier church belief and became prime movers for the abolition of slavery in the 19th century. Coming from an evangelical tradition doesn't necessarily commit you to theological stances which result in persecution and discrimination against others. There are plenty of Evangelicals on this board whose posts on the subject of homosexuality show that.
quote:
Clearly JJ has got it in the neck from a lot of homophobes - and that is very unfortunate; I accept no responsibility for my allies, any more than the Lesbian and Gay Christian movement should welcome the support they get from people who also support the substantial lowering of the age of consent.
Perhaps you'd like to explain precisely what you mean by that and provide some links and evidence, just to make yourself clear?
Louise
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
Ender's Shadow, the idea that the classical Reformed strand in Anglicanism is near-as-makes-no-difference to St. Aldate's/ Gumbelism is preposterous nonsense undeserving of a reply.
No it isn't. It's a lot more in the Anglican mainstream than the Oxford movement ritualism was.
I'm not sure "Gumbelism" is a meaningful word in this context. And I have a strong suspcicion that the sort of CofE churches that might be members of the Reform group are amongst the minority of evangelical churches that hold out against Alpha anyway. They tend to see it as tainted by the Charismatic movement.
And, frankly, whatever you think of their politics, the idea that the ecclesiology of people like the Vicar of Jesmond isn't classicly Anglican is so obviously untrue as not to be worth a reply.
I can't stomach them ranting on about gays all the time, but their opinions on bishops are pretty sound.
[fixed code]
[ 06. July 2003, 22:16: Message edited by: Scot ]
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Look at their website. They have lots about bishops. Mostly along the lines that the ministry of oversight is not the same as management.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
Personally, I feel this whole mess could have been avoided if the appointment of suffragan bishops was jointly between representatives of the people of god (through the a diocesan committee) and the Bishop. As it stands now suffragan bishops are in the gift of the Local Bishop. The bishop may consult other people but then they may not.
If it had been a joint appointment, it would have given a greater sense of legitimacy to Jeffrey John and harder for people to say they did not have a voice. Involving the laity would mean that they get a voice on who is to be a spiritual leader in their area which can only be a good thing.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly JJ has got it in the neck from a lot of homophobes - and that is very unfortunate; I accept no responsibility for my allies, any more than the Lesbian and Gay Christian movement should welcome the support they get from people who also support the substantial lowering of the age of consent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps you'd like to explain precisely what you mean by that and provide some links and evidence, just to make yourself clear?
The obvious example of this is the blessed Peter Tatchell, whose interuption of ABC's sermon once is well known. On his website he is quoted as being in favour of an age of consent of 14. Is that proof enough? I'm trying to balance the 'dubious allies' on both sides, but admit I can't offer a lot of examples on the other side, though I imagine the real peds would be there as well. But as I say, we're not responsible for our allies....
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Personally, I feel this whole mess could have been avoided if the appointment of suffragan bishops was jointly between representatives of the people of god (through the a diocesan committee) and the Bishop.
I couldn't agree more.
No-one should go forward to the final stage of choice (which AFAIAC might as well be by lot as any other way - its got a lot to commend it) unless they are at least acceptable to the current bishop and to the representatives of the clergy and people (whyc not give diocesand synods something to do? Or even Deanery synods?)
Same should apply for diocesan bishops, with added input from Province in some way. Replace the PM with someone choosing from the last two by drawing names from a jar (you can't say it's not traditional!)
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
I now hope Richard Harries chooses a married, rabid Anglo-Catholic who marches into St Aldate's and St Ebbe's with thurible flying. Anything to stick two fingers up at Reform's aim of forcing the Church into its own image.
Our vicar preached powerfully on the subject this evening. He encouraged us to ponder on Colossians 3, 12-15. I believe that Jeffrey John's behaviour throughout has followed this well. His opponents on the other hand wouldn't have a clue what it means.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
