|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Bishops' stance on Jeffrey John
|
Stephen
Shipmate
# 40
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
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.
Someone might even do an MW report on it!! ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Perhaps it's time for the C-of-E to adopt the Welsh practice of an Electoral College?
--------------------
Best Wishes
Stephen
'Be still,then, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the nations and I will be exalted in the earth' Ps46 v10
Posts: 3954 | From: Alto C Clef Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saviour Tortoise
Shipmate
# 4660
|
Posted
Fantastic. Anyone else go to evensong using the standard CofE lectionary this evening? God does have a sense of irony. Heard about JJ on the news in the car this afternoon. NT lesson at evensong was Rom 14.1-17. Brilliant. Not proud of my church just right now.
--------------------
Baptised not Lobotomised
Posts: 745 | From: Bath, UK | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138
|
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.'
Hear Hear. As far as I can see, some of them openly hate everything about Anglicanism except the stipend. Why on earth do we let them in?
About JJ - if we let the bullies win, where will it all end?
About homosexuality - the bible is ambiguous at best on this. The main issues of morality which concern the bible writers are greeed, wealth and (in St Paul) drunkenness. Why do some people get so obsessed with a subject about which the bible has little if anything to say? Whoever heard of a bishop designate being hounded out because he had been drunk in his past (but is no longer a practicing drunkard)?
The deepest immorrality in this whole debate is the bullying. 9 bishops should resign. Including mine.
[ 06. July 2003, 22:34: Message edited by: ptarmigan ]
--------------------
All shall be well. And all shall be well. And all manner of things shall be well. (Julian of Norwich)
Posts: 1080 | From: UK - Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
HOSTING
Ender's Shadow, I believe I understand the actual points underlying your various posts today. Don't bother trying to defend them, because this post is not about your actual points. This post is about your needlessly inflammatory style. You are throwing loaded words into a charged atmosphere in the apparent hope of starting a fire. By doing so, you are disrupting the conversation and being rude to the other posters. Stop it now.
From this point forward (and this goes for everyone) there will be no further discussion here of witch-hunting or alliances with pedophiles because those topics are not within the scope of this thread. There will also be no further discussion of the morality of homosexuality because that belongs on the thread in Dead Horses.
scot
Purgatory Host
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
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....
I have responded to this in Hell.
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
|
|
Flying_Belgian
Shipmate
# 3385
|
Posted
I have just got in and heard the news which came as a suprise to me. Whilst I have been critical of Jeffrey John's appointment, it has clearly been a very difficult time for him, and his partner, who, whatever ones views on their relationship, must be under great pressure and strain at this time. My first thought on all of this was for them as two individuals- my views on the relationship are irrelevant in this respect- they are both going through a terrible time, and I hope and pray for them both.
First of all, I would like to say that I greatly respect and admire the decision. I do not say this as some kind of condescending, triumphalist remark ("You have realised you evil ways" type thing)- indeed, it would be palpably wrong to respond in this way, not least because today's decision was not based on a recantaiton of his views on relationships. What I admire about the decision on a personal level is that he has, in the face of a troubling public debate and great stress, decided that even though he profoundly disagrees with those who oppose him, he will stand down to avoid further disunity in the church. To act in this way is a noble thing- regardless of the particular issue at stake, which side you take in a controversy, or whether you thought the person should have stood down.
The second point I would make is that I am a little unhappy with the way that the decision has been greeted by some- who equate what has happened as some kind of bullying witch hunt where a bloke was hounded out of office by bigots.
The reason I reject this account, is that those who opposed his appointment did so on a point of high principle. Whilst there may be those who passionately disagree with this principle- it was nevertheless a stand on (what those who made the stand) saw as a key issue. Clergy at my church were opposed to the appointment, and I can categorically state that they are not prejudiced, and it is quite wrong to label them as being on a par with those who go around beating up gay people, or bombing gay bars. Unfortunately some of the rhetoric that I have heard has been rather overblown. It seems to be more about labelling the individuals involved and attacking them, then the substance of the debate. However, this point has already been exhaustively discussed on this and other threads, so I don't see much merit in continuing the discussion.
My third observation ties in with something I have felt all along, was that if a debate on homosexuality was to take place in the CoE: then focussing it on the appointment of one person was not the way to do it. The appointment unfortunately became a litmus test- some opposed it because they felt it gave a stamp of affirmation to an unbiblical relationship; others
supported it because they felt it sent out an important signal that same sex relationships were valid. Sadly, the debate about what was and wasn't acceptable got focussed on to one man- which was unpleasant for the individual involved and an inappopriate way to debate the issue.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, whatever ones views on all of this we must all recognise the genuine pain and suffering that Jeffrey John and his partner are going through. As Christians we are called to pray for all those who suffer- and not to do this conditionally on whether we approve of their private lives or not. Regardless of our views of the whole episode, we should all unite in lifting the Jeffrey John and his partner up in prayer to God, in this difficult time. This isn't about judging them, it's about concern for those in need. As people in times of stress, we are called to look out for them and love them unconditionally. God bless them both.
Posts: 984 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
shareman
Shipmate
# 2871
|
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.
One is tempted to make comparison with St. Chad of Litchfield.
--------------------
Israel also came into Egypt, and Jacob was a stranger in the land of Ham.
Posts: 516 | From: on a rock AND a hard place | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
]No it isn't. It's a lot more in the Anglican mainstream than the Oxford movement ritualism was.
............
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.
Firstly don't confuse the Oxford movement with Ritualism. The Oxford Movement, dating from Keble's Assize Sermon in 1833 gave birth to ritualism, but was in many respects a different movement. It was ritually constrained, looked to the early Church and the Caroline divines for inspiration and in some respects represented a kind of prayer book fundamentalism. Whatever else it was it was Anglican. Ritualism was a development, a legitimate one I believe, but that's a different topic.
I disagree about Reform's ecclesiology. It seems to me that the Anglican divines at the Reformation (many of whom could be described as Protestant, 'evangelical' is an anachronism) retained the three-fold order of bishop priest and deacon, transmitted by tactile succession, as an ancient institution 'not repugnant to the meaning of Scripture'. The Reform view of bishop as 'overseer', but without the understanding of apostolic succession, is purely functional and thus discontinuous with this earlier view. Crucially the ex opere operato view of sacramental efficacy, implicit (although more or less clearly in different places) in classical Anglican formularies has gone from the Reform model, which is one of the reasons we have had all this fuss over JJ. Once the confidence that a Bishop can confer sacramental grace by virtue of his office and the sacramental action goes, all the emphasis shifts onto the worthiness of the Bishop as teacher/ model (undoubtedly important as that aspect of episcopal ministry is.)
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
It seems to me that the Anglican divines at the Reformation (many of whom could be described as Protestant, 'evangelical' is an anachronism) retained the three-fold order of bishop priest and deacon, transmitted by tactile succession, as an ancient institution 'not repugnant to the meaning of Scripture'. The Reform view of bishop as 'overseer', but without the understanding of apostolic succession, is purely functional and thus discontinuous with this earlier view.
Surely both views were present in the CofE from the begining?
I'm pretty sure that Hooker (for example) did not accept the Apostolic Succession in the way that it would have been understood by the non-Jurors or the Oxford Movement.
And surely all the Elizabethan and Jacobean Anglican divines would have answered to the name of Protestant? And even the 18th-century ones?
[fixed code using 'Edit Post' button, then checked it using 'Preview Post' button.]
[ 07. July 2003, 04:10: Message edited by: Scot ]
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
Half right, flying belgian - Jeffrey John's decision to step down certainly witnessed both to obedience to the Anglican Church's teachings and to his willingness to put the unity of the Church ahead of his own interests. Indeed by living as a celibate gay priest he has put the interests of the Church over those of his relationship with his partner. I,too, think it was noble.
I disagree that objections based on high principle can in this case be separated from bigotry. I though the reference to Romans 14 1-14 above apposite. The really relevant bit (from the KJV translation of the Bible) is: quote:
For it is written,
As I live, saith the Lord,
every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall confess to God. Is. 45.23
12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
13 ¶ Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
God is the one to whom we must account for our actions.
The interpretation of the Bible verses dealing with homosexuality is unclear. What is not unclear is the reality of God's forgiveness for our sins. I happen to believe that gay people are simply made that way - and that's no sin. But even if homosexual practice is a sin on Bible authority - how dare Canon John's detractors presume to dictate to him what counts as repentance and obedience, under threat of schism?
Basically the thoroughly un-Biblical message being sent is : Gay people not welcome here, because we won't forgive them, even if they promise not to do it again.
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Itchfinder General
Apprentice
# 4548
|
Posted
Apparently the Archbishop of Canterbury has acknowledged there would have been an quote:
"obvious problem with the consecration of a bishop whose ministry would not be readily received by a significant proportion of Christians in England and elsewhere."
Well the ministry of a bunch of homophobic bigots will not be readily received by an equally significant proportion of Christians in England and elsewhere.
So where does that leave us?
--------------------
The world was all before them, where to choose
Their place of rest, and Providence their guide:
They hand in hand with wand'ring steps and slow,
Through Eden took their solitary way.
Posts: 3 | From: London | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
Flying Belgian ![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
The repeated references to Rom 14 are one side of the story - the alternative is of course I Cor 5 and 6; the question is whether homosexual practice is one a level with vegetarianism or a cause for the loss of salvation.
--------------------
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
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
STILL HOSTING
Ender's Shadow, I dislike having to repeat myself. Even my children know that I mean what I say the first time I say it. In case you missed it:
quote:
There will also be no further discussion of the morality of homosexuality because that belongs on the thread in Dead Horses.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adrian1
Shipmate
# 3994
|
Posted
I think Canon Jeffrey John has done the right thing in withdrawing his acceptance of the suffragan bishopric of Reading. On one level it can rightly be claimed that his sexuality and the outward expression of it is, so long as he is discreet, his own business. However, given that his honosexuality is public knowledge and the church has yet to reach a common mind over that particular matter, he is right to abide by the present direction of the House of Bishops expressed in "Issues in Human Sexuality" - until or unless further order is given.
For good or ill the church is a naturally conservative institution and, like the monarchy, changes but slowly. There may well come a day when views within the church regarding this delicate subject are very different and homosexual bishops and clergy are looked upon as acceptable. At the present time though it is important that as many people are kept on board as possible and this includes respecting the viewpoint of people, including myself, who take a fairly conservative line on human sexuality.
![[Wink]](wink.gif) ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
The Parson's Handbook contains much excellent advice, which, if it were more generally followed, would bring some order and reasonableness into the amazing vagaries of Anglican Ritualism. Adrian Fortescue
Posts: 1986 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glimmer
Ship's Lantern
# 4540
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MarkE:
Fantastic. Anyone else go to evensong using the standard CofE lectionary this evening? God does have a sense of irony. Heard about JJ on the news in the car this afternoon. NT lesson at evensong was Rom 14.1-17. Brilliant. Not proud of my church just right now.
What a laugh I had last night at Evensong!! I howled and cackled and tears ran down my face. All inwardly, of course, and quite un-Christian. The reason was, the reader was one of our most 'justified' anti-gay proponents! ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork
Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ms Lilith
Shipmate
# 1767
|
Posted
Anyone hear Radio 4 this morning. JJ' s boss, (whose name I have forgotten) says he wouldnt have withdrawn of his own accord and that he refused to sign the letter of resignation he was presented with by the staff at Lambeth palace.
Oh Rowen, Rowen. What have you done?
Wonder if I can call in sick, "i will not be coming in to work today as I do not wish to be a christian today" ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
Posts: 266 | From: birmingham | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Yes, we too had that same bible reading, and even a sermon preached on it ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Adrian1
quote:
so long as he is discreet
I make the following charges against this phrase:-
(1) DISHONEST - "you can be gay (actively or not) so long as you are not plain speaking about it."
(2) HYPOCRITICAL / COWARDLY - "we welcome gay people - (but actually we think they should keep their heads down)"
(3) DAMAGING - forcing people to lie and dissemble to others is psychologically damaging ... not only to the persons concerned but also to others who relate to them.
Even if being discreet in a mandatory manner was acceptable (which it is not) ... who ratcheted this up in the public domain in the first place?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
*The lowly Church mouse*
Ship's Animal & Nature Lover
# 4690
|
Posted
Those without sin casting first stone comes to mind.
If Jeffrey John was the best choice why should his sexuality come into it?
How many clergy have committed adultery? Should this preclude them from a good ministry? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Surrounded by water, swans, ducks, birds & animals.
Posts: 1333 | From: Surrey | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rev per Minute
Shipmate
# 69
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ms Lilith:
Anyone hear Radio 4 this morning. JJ' s boss, (whose name I have forgotten) says he wouldnt have withdrawn of his own accord and that he refused to sign the letter of resignation he was presented with by the staff at Lambeth palace.
Oh Rowen, Rowen. What have you done?
Wonder if I can call in sick, "i will not be coming in to work today as I do not wish to be a christian today"
To be honest, that doesn't sound like Rowan's style. I can't imagine him presenting Canon John with the Anglican equivalent of a pearl-handled revolver and a quiet room: but he must, in all conscience, have provided the Canon with his expectations of what would happen if he accepted the appointment. Even if Rowan had said, "I'm with you all the way, butty" (sorry, south Wales slang!), he would still have explained that even his support would not stop the reaction by the religious right.
I imagine that Rowan presented the options and their consequences, and that Jeffrey John took a decison based on the least harmful option as he saw it. I can't imagine how the Canon is feeling, having been the target of such vitriol and the 'personification' of an ongoing argument for the past month or so: he is certainly in my prayers. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
"Allons-y!" "Geronimo!" "Oh, for God's sake!" The Day of the Doctor
At the end of the day, we face our Maker alongside Jesus. RIP ken
Posts: 2696 | From: my desk (if I can find the keyboard under this mess) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rev per Minute
Shipmate
# 69
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
<snip> However, given that his homosexuality is public knowledge and the church has yet to reach a common mind over that particular matter, he is right to abide by the present direction of the House of Bishops expressed in "Issues in Human Sexuality" - until or unless further order is given.<snip>
But. He. IS! I have yet to see anyone prove that his current relationship is in any way contradictory to 'Issues': what he did in the past is between him and God. His current relationship is NOT a bar to becoming a bishop under 'Issues'.
--------------------
"Allons-y!" "Geronimo!" "Oh, for God's sake!" The Day of the Doctor
At the end of the day, we face our Maker alongside Jesus. RIP ken
Posts: 2696 | From: my desk (if I can find the keyboard under this mess) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
And, more significantly, again according to the Guardian, those staff members were appointed by George Carey. Rowan was not allowed to bring any staff with him. Also, Carey's son has been vociferous in the campaign. Jensen rides again?
--------------------
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
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W:
Extreme pressure was exerted on Jeffrey John by a group of Lambeth Palace staff says the Guardian.
Now why doesn't that surprise me. For some reason the phrase 'whitewashed tomb' has just come into my head.
quote:
Posted 06 July, 2003 23:03 by Fying belgian My third observation ties in with something I have felt all along, was that if a debate on homosexuality was to take place in the CoE: then focussing it on the appointment of one person was not the way to do it. The appointment unfortunately became a litmus test- some opposed it because they felt it gave a stamp of affirmation to an unbiblical relationship; others supported it because they felt it sent out an important signal that same sex relationships were valid. Sadly, the debate about what was and wasn't acceptable got focussed on to one man- which was unpleasant for the individual involved and an inappopriate way to debate the issue.
First of all, I'd like to thank Flying Belgian for his thoughtful and kindly post which I appreciate, even though I differ from him in opinion. However what Flying Belgian describes and what we see described in this morning's Guardian and on the BBC is an individual being singled out by forces in his community who have made him a scapegoat over an issue and damaged him in the process. He wasn't appointed to this post because he was gay but he has certainly been forced out of it because he is gay.
What demonstrates that this has gone beyond 'principle' for some is that even though he has conformed to the relevant doctrinal statement and leads the kind of life it envisages, as Icarus Coot put it in Hell 'the bar has been raised' for him.
It's evident from Flying Belgian's post and from other remarks on the Ship that many decent people who do happen to hold conservative views on sexuality feel extreme discomfort about how he has been treated.
On the other hand, I think it has to be faced that however principled some of the 'opposition' might be that a great wrong has been done here and appeal to 'principle' doesn't justify what has happened. The result is still the same: it doesn't matter whether it was brought about by raving homophobes or jolly nice people with a high view of scripture. This man and his partner have been treated abominably.
I think it's time the decent conservatives asked what they are going to do about this. Are you going to pass by on the other side of the road whilst gay members of your church are roughed up like this? Does your view of the Bible really justify seeing people treated like this rather than tolerating their different interpretations of the Bible and sharing your church with them?
What has been done to Jeffrey John and his partner should never have been done in the name of Jesus. It's an appalling witness and I don't know what the Church of England can do to redress it.
L.
[ 07. July 2003, 11:32: Message edited by: 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
|
|
Flying_Belgian
Shipmate
# 3385
|
Posted
First of all, can I retract some of the comments made in my previous post about the nature of Jeffrey John's refusal. At the time of writing I wasn't fully aware that JJ's departure had been preceded by meetings at Lambeth Palace, and other such machinations. I had written the post on the assumption that he had stepped down entirely of his own volition, and without any machinations from the church hierachy (the wider debate not withstanding). Having seen the media this morning, clearly the move was surrounded by various machinations at the Church of England and so my comments on the manner of his departure were based on a false premise.
Posts: 984 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
I was intrigued by Andrew Brown's comment in today's Times that: quote:
It is a public defeat for Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who now seems lacking in judgment, principle, and strength. He could have hung on to one or two of these virtues. Had he merely betrayed his principled beliefs about homosexual clergy, he could have stopped Dr John’s nomination without fuss before his name went forward. This would have shown judgment, of the strength of the likely opposition, and it would also have exerted the power which — as we now see — an archbishop clearly has, even if the rules don’t say so. To exert that power under duress, as he now has been forced to do, merely shows that he isn’t running the show.
The winners and losers when a Church prices its principles in pieces of silver
Do Anglican Shipmates agree? Has this episode damaged his position?
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flying_Belgian
Shipmate
# 3385
|
Posted
I don't want to veer onto the wider issue of the morality of homosexuality which is on another thread- but suffice to say, in response to some previous postings, for the record, I do not believe one's orientation is a bar to salvation.
Louise was right to identify my concern about the whole affair- both in terms of how Jeffrey John was treated and in terms of what it has done to the church.
Unfortunately, amongst those who hold to a traditional view on same sex relationships there is a group who I would call prejudiced and bigoted. There is a natural human instinct to pick on minorities, and there are elements who have an unbelievably naive view of homosexuality (it's unnatural, there were none of them in my day, they should get married instead); or simply treat the Bibles teaching as an excuse to align themselves with the sheer prejudice of some elements of society. I too am concerned that some individuals seem to think that attacking anything that looks like "Gay rights" is some kind of Shibboleth. I hold up the frenzied stand against gays in the military as an example. It seems an entirely separate thing to whether you approve of someone's sexual conduct.
What saddens me too is that the evangelical wing of the church of England has been tarred with the same brush. From my experience, the majority of evangelicals are not like this- they hold to traditional teachings without being prejudiced, unloving or bigoted. I was really upset to see the Guardian's leader today under the heading "The Bigots win". Elements of the media seem to have been relishing the chance to put the boot in on evangelical christians and branding them as fundamentalist, right wing rednecks.
I am still left with a sense of dismay at how the whole thing was handled. Surely someone must have realised that this move would be hugely controversial, and that it may have been better to have conducted a debate on the general principle of ordination of gay bishops first- rather than having to have a very public row about an individual case. The spectacle of JJ resigned after a very public battle was hardly an edifying spectacle for the church.
The questions I am left with are why did the church act in the way they did- surely they could have foreseen an almighty row in the offing?
Posts: 984 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ms Lilith:
Anyone hear Radio 4 this morning. JJ' s boss, (whose name I have forgotten)
Colin Slee.
I don't know if "boss" is the technical term.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
Well Jesuit, I am not so much disappointed with ++Rowan as more aware of the enormity of the task before him.
As to canonisation, the so-called Liberal movement (i.e. those who follow Romans 14, Mark 12, &c.) has been throwing up a lot of martyrs recently - remember the gay priest who was forced to resign after adopting a mentally ill child?
One final point - if you don't like the CofE because its too "liberal" you can become an RC or any number of Protestant churches of various flavour - where does one go if the CofE isn't liberal enough?
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
So far, I would say this is enormously damaging to ++Rowan.
It will emerge in due course whether he is able to assert his authority on those who currently believe they have 'won'. I don't think this is the end of it though maybe things will go quiet in public.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GeordieDownSouth
Shipmate
# 4100
|
Posted
Been following this whole thing with a vaguely interested eye. I'm hoping that though there will obviously be a small number who see this as a victory, many who disagreed with the appointment would still regard the way this outcome was reached as a defeat all round.
I've got friends at one of the Reading churches who were going to consider withholding their rent (or whatever it was) and I've got enough faith in their character that they will not be crowing over this issue.
Posts: 689 | From: Birmingham | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angloid:
And, more significantly, again according to the Guardian, those staff members were appointed by George Carey. Rowan was not allowed to bring any staff with him. Also, Carey's son has been vociferous in the campaign. Jensen rides again?
Not at all significant.
There's no need to rehash the anti-Carey bigotry that some journalists and part of the CofE heirarchy shamed themselves with back when he was appointed.
And there is no reason to think that people appointed by George are neccessarily part of the drive to get Jeffrey John to withdraw. For example John Gladwin and Christina Rees were both put on the Archbishop's Council. As far as I know they have not been campaigning against Dr. John's appointment. Though Pete Broadbent, also a Carey appointment, has. Just because someone got promoted in George's time doesn't mean they are on one side of the other of this.
I use the example of the Archbishop's Council just because we know who was on it - shadowy ideas like "Lambeth Staff" could mean anybody.
Personally I fear that the Government as represented by the Church Commissioners, perhaps backed up by what's left of the old pre-Carey lay Tory establishment that used to run the CofE has more to do with this than Rowan Williams does. It is horribly reminiscent of those "Men in Grey Suits" who used to do the ritual sacrifice of Tory politicians.
It is all far, far too murky and semi-secret. The apppintment of senior clergy in the Church of England is a business that is done in a hole in the corner. It neads to be brought out into the light of day. And it needs to ensure the approval of elected representatives of the laity and clergy of the diocese before an offer is made. If that had been done - if this had been through a diocesan symod rather than a matter of private correspondence between the bishops and some government flunkies - then Jeffrey John, or whoever had been offered the post, would have had the pubic approval of the people of the diocese and would have been in a far stronger position.
This mucky business may or may not be good for the reputation of Rowan Williams, but it is bloody bad for the reputation of the system of establishment of the Church of England. Which, in the long term, may be a good thing. A pity that Jeffery John has had to be keelhauled to get there.
[ 07. July 2003, 12:58: Message edited by: ken ]
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
socks
Apprentice
# 4458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
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.
A point of information: as far as I am aware, St Aldate's Church, Oxford is not (and its leadership individually are not) part of Reform and while united with them on many issues, would not agree with some of the core values of the Reform group. I realise you didn't exactly say that they are, but I think it is important to make the distinction.
--------------------
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be shot at from both sides (that's how you know you're doing it right).
Posts: 29 | From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W:
Extreme pressure was exerted on Jeffrey John by a group of Lambeth Palace staff says the Guardian.
The Guardian is the one paper that I hope will shield itself behind the walls of a subscription system. Its chronically-biased pages would be MUCH safer then.
It's amazing how great The Guardian is at proclaiming the irrelevance of the Church of England, until something happens and it wants to put its tuppence-worth in.
Whatever happened to objective standards of journalism?
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Wasteland
Apprentice
# 4700
|
Posted
Here is no water but only rock
Rock and no water and the sandy road
The road winding above among the mountains
Which are mountains of rock without water
If there were water we should stop and drink
Amongst the rock one cannot stop or think
Sweat is dry and feet are in the sand
If there were only water amongst the rock
Dead mountain mouth of carious teeth that cannot spit
Here one can neither stand nor lie nor sit
There is not even silence in the mountains
But dry sterile thunder without rain
There is not even solitude in the mountains
But red sullen faces sneer and snarl
From doors of mudcracked houses
If there were water
And no rock
If there were rock
And also water
And water
A spring
A pool among the rock
If there were the sound of water only
Not the cicada
And dry grass singing
But sound of water over a rock
Where the hermit-thrush sings in the pine trees
Drip drop drip drop drop drop drop
…
--------------------
but there is no water...
Posts: 27 | From: The wilderness | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angloid:
Jensen rides again?
Please do not confuse ++Carey with ++Jensen.
++Jensen's official comment is here . Some shipmates might be surprised that he says:
quote:
There is no doubt that everyone must feel profoundly sorry for Dr John. This is a courageous decision, and we should remember him in our prayers.
Or then again, they might not.
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
welsh dragon
Shipmate
# 3249
|
Posted
I don't know that anyone can put it better than Colin Slee...
quote:
He is absolutely vindicated in all that we have been saying about his honesty and integrity. He was asked to do the job and he said yes, ...he has been asked to withdraw and he has again said yes. What more powerful statement of the high doctrine of obedience that he holds towards the Archbishop could there be than this? It stands in stark contrast to the manifest campaign [against him] we have been witnessing
quote:
Let us be clear the withdrawal of Canon John’s nomination will not only hurt those who are gay ...[but]...thousands of Christian people who are not gay but believe strongly in God’s love and redemption for all his children equally....whether people are male or female, slave or free, black or white, gay or heterosexual. We are addressing spiritual apartheid.
He also speaks about the cultural gulf left by colonial missionaries. It is all rather good...
Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
The Wasteland, welcome to hell and for introducing a bit of surreal weirdness to the discussion and I hope you visit purgatory soon.
Nightlamp
Hellhost
--------------------
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
|
|
Flying_Belgian
Shipmate
# 3385
|
Posted
Anglican Rascal was spot on about the Guardian- there standards seem to have been fatally lacking in this case. I am a regular reader and have been apalled by the bias that has crept into just about every article. No opportunity has been wasted to brand all evangelicals as fundamentalist bigots. I don't understand why they have taken such a visceral dislike to evangelicals- usually the Guardian is at pains to avoiding branding groups with stereotypical labels.
I also disagreed with Colin Slee's remark which seemed to make a similar implication- that all those who opposed Jeffrey John somehow thought that God did not redeem all people equally, and which seemed to equate opponents to the ordination with racists. These kinds of remarks are hardly helpful to the unity of the church.
Posts: 984 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Walker
Contributing Editor
# 14
|
Posted
quote:
Nightlamp:
The Wasteland, welcome to hell and for introducing a bit of surreal weirdness to the discussion and I hope you visit purgatory soon.
I think the hell hosts have once again got their boards crossed...
Anglicanrascal / Flying_Belgian. I'd be interested to know exactly which details of the article I linked to are incorrect.
--------------------
Cartoon blog / @davewalker
Posts: 1045 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ms Lilith
Shipmate
# 1767
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Ms Lilith:
Anyone hear Radio 4 this morning. JJ' s boss, (whose name I have forgotten)
Colin Slee.
I don't know if "boss" is the technical term.
I stand corrected. I am not a morning person.
Posts: 266 | From: birmingham | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Astro
Shipmate
# 84
|
Posted
As someone who sometimes worships at an anglican church in the diocese of Oxford - despite being an evangelical Baptist! - I have been finding this whole thing very sad. Having heard the prayers for unity and love I find the differences disheartening. I was slightly gladened by the reports that ++Carey had admitted ordaining clergy who were gay, but then Canon John decided not to become a bishop.
I think somewhere there has been an error of judgement in the CoE after all the agonising over the ordination of women, which should of happened much sooner, they somehow pressed ahead with this issue perhaps a bit too quickly.
In the end it is too easy for the press to make his opponents appear anti-gay bigots and his supporters appear racist (well anti-nigerian) bigots.
It took someone as conservative evangelical as ++Carey to pull through the ordination of women, now the only answer I can see is for another conservative evangelical like ++Carey to come along and pull through teh acceptance of gay people. Though God may have other plans.
--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)
Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flying_Belgian
Shipmate
# 3385
|
Posted
"African bishops denounced homosexuality as an abomination, with the Archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, claiming that such conduct was lower than that of beasts - a clear breach of the 1998 Lambeth conference of bishops' call for tolerance and understanding to be shown towards gays."
=> Why does it not mention that many evangelicals consider the appt of JJ to be a breach?
=> And why does it deliberately pick this comment to represent the evangelical case?
Dr John's acknowledgement that, although he was in a relationship he was now celibate and would not campaign for a change in church policy, did not win over opponents who demanded that he should also openly "repent" of his past.
=> What this doesn't make clear is that the reason for the repentence was that it the evangelicals felt that this repentence was necessary because otherwise he would be violating the document: Issues in Human Sexuality"
Section 5:2
"The first is that homophile orientation and its expression in sexual activity do not constitute a parallel and alternative form of human sexuality as complete within the terms of the created order as the heterosexual." Scripture, tradition and reasoned reflection on experience "make it impossible for the Church to come with integrity to any other conclusion".
5.15 "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"
"Dr Williams was not allowed to bring any staff with him from his previous post and has inherited all his predecessor's officials."
=> "Not allowed?": Was he banned from appointing his own staff? This is an incredibly loaded phrase which suggests that he was banned from employing his own people. AR makes this point in his earlier post.
In addition- they carried a leader headed "The Bigots Win"- which was a shocking way of tarring all evangelicals with the same brush of fundamentalist prejudice.
It then claims the "decision won't endear him to the evangelicals who opposed his election"- which directly contradicts the claim of the above article.
The leader also chooses to name only one opponent of Jeffrey John, The Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola who it describes as "bigoted".
It also claims that the decision to declare his celibacy was "quite unecessary"- not a view supported by even a liberal interpretation of Issues in Human Sexuality which made celibacy a key requirement.
Throughout the affair the Guardian has continually sought to misrepresent and blacken the evangelical christians with poor journalism littered with selective quotes and loaded terminology.
[ 07. July 2003, 16:18: Message edited by: Flying_Belgian ]
Posts: 984 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Degs:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
the pubic approval of the people of the diocese
oooops!
Oh bugger.
![[Embarrassed]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
I was simply blending in with the weirdness of the post.
--------------------
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
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
