Thread: Purgatory: Bishops' stance on Jeffrey John Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001116

---

Posted by Archimandrite (# 3997) on :
 
This link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/2996006.stm

discusses an open letter sent by, inter alia, the bishops of Carlisle, Winchester, Liverpool and Rochester, and concerns the appointment of Canon John as Bishop of Reading.
Homosexuality within Christianity in general, and within the Church, is a Dead Horse, as we are all aware.
The question remains, however. Is this the sort of thing Anglican bishops should be doing? Why is this not a private matter between the bishops and + Richard Oxon.?
If this is their view, how ought they to express it, and how ought the rest of us to react to that view?

[ 03. September 2003, 21:47: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
As I have said publicly today in local press and radio, I think this is playground bullying of the worst order, and is unacceptable.

Do all prospective Bishops now have to pass an evangelical 'soundness' test? Do they have the monopoly on who THEY think is a suitable Bishop? Did we in Liverpool have a right to 'veto' James Jones?

Of course not. This is about power and influence, and it is a subtle and underhand way of getting at their real target - Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, who they know well is no more 'orthodox' on this matter than Jeffrey John. I think its squalid behaviour.
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
This kind of letter exemplifies the kind of sin condemned by St. Paul. For I see in I Corinthians 5:11 that 'revilers' are classified with drunkards, robbers, and the sexually immoral. There it is again in I Cor 6:9---this time revilers and the greedy are included, along with robbers (by which, according to some the Apostle means those who do not tithe). By 'revilers' Paul is referring to those who engage in that which is known to Talmudic scholars as Loshon Hora, evil speech. Speaking ill of one's neighbour, bearing false witness, even believing the worst of one's neighbour fall into this category. As does telling a truth in order to do harm. As words cannot be called back, so loshon hora cannot be undone; this is why it is such a grave sin. But, alas, if no-one who had practiced the sin of evil speech could be ordained, we would have to do without ordained clergy.
In other words, I would to God that Their Lordships of Carlisle, Rochester, et al, were, for the sake of their souls' health, sodomites and not revilers!
 

---

Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
This kind of letter exemplifies the kind of sin condemned by St. Paul.

---

quote:

---

We must, therefore, express our concern because of the Church's constant teaching, in the light of scripture and because of the basic ordering of men and women in creation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyralessa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
This kind of letter exemplifies the kind of sin condemned by St. Paul.

---

Liddell-Scott gives "railing" and "abusive" as meanings for λοιδορος. Was the letter these bishops sent out really railing and abusive? I thought determining the fitness of new candidates for the episcopacy was one of the things bishops were supposed to do.

---

quote:

---

Discreet and sober discernment this is not!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH:
People aren't gay through choice, it's simply the way they are.

---

That's the crux of the issue. There seem to be several views on the amount of choice a gay person has to be gay. Hard line evangelical teaching appears to be that even if people are born with a homosexual orietnation they can be be 'healed'. Therefore in this view there is no nede for anyone to be homosexual any more thatn there is any need for people to be disabled r ill.


I also believe this letter may, sadly, be a matter of politics.

Since the guys already appointed you might have hoped that 'collegiality' (i.e. sticking together) would advise against a public dissing of his bishopric.
 

---

Posted by PaulTH (# 320) on :
 
True, Arietty, but hard line evangelicals spout a load of shite. No one has yet come up with a satisfactory explanantion for being gay. A suggestion exists that it's genetic, inherited from the mother. The zoologist and anthrapologist Desmond Morris disputes this theory on the grounds that hereditary genes are always useful for the survival of the species. How can gay men, who usually don't have children help the survival of the species?

Freud said that weak or absent fathers may cause infant male children to identify with feminity rather than masculinity as a point of identification. Whatever the reason, the evangelicals are plainly wrong. People are gay because they are gay. They don't choose it. In the days when it was illegal, many like Oscar Wilde sufered grievously with imprisonment for their innate sexuality. Others such as Sir Michael Redgrave had and maintained sham marriages to hide their sexual orientation. I dare say that Redgrave, having three children with his wife and staying with her, genuinely loved her in the way he could, but he was gay.

It is time that the church recognisd that gay people can be committed Christians as much as straight people. Gayness is not a choice, its a state people find themselves in. Many gays would rather not be, because they miss out on so much. I think it's time that we all stopped considering being gay to be a sin in itslef. This also applies to the church.
 

---

Posted by Never Conforming (# 4054) on :
 
A couple of weeks ago there were discussions here and in the press about the CofE potentially joining the University Milk Round, and now they are whinging about gay people AGAIN.

This does well on the publicity stakes if they are counting the number of lines printed in a newspaper. I didn't think that was the aim of the church. Are we not supposed to presenting an understanding, compassionate, tolerate face to the public? As pointed out the Bishops who wrote this letter are just showing they are bigots. They want to get people into churches yet very publicly show things that are more likely to put them off, than convince them to pay us a visit.

(Takes deep breath before announcement)
As an Anglican about to move into the Exeter Diocese, I am most disgusted that the Bish is being so intolerant.

At the end of the day, it a) isn't for us to judge (think it says that in the bible somewhere ) and b) doesn't matter who's slept with whom. I'm sure there are many skeletons in the combined closets of the clergy who are protesting.

I would also like to hope that the new Bishop of Reading has been appointed after prayers from those involved in his appointment. If neither they, nor God have issues with this, why do the other Bishops think they can get away with saying these things. I do wonder if they have actually bothered to pray about this, or are just being judgemental based on their own opinions.

Apologies that this has become something of a rant.

Jo
 

---

Posted by W (# 14) on :
 
As the new guy will be our bishop I've been following this story fairly closely. I have to say that this latest stunt by these bishops is disappointing - some of them should have known better.

Some useful links:

Former arkmate Peter Ould has a daily-updated links page following this story.

Interested parties might like to take a look at the Ship of Fools lookalikes page, 'Born Twice'.

And these very very naughty people have been very very naughty.

Dave
 

---

Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH:
People are gay because they are gay. They don't choose it . . . Gayness is not a choice, its a state people find themselves in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
Louise has it. This looks like another prime case of the human tendency to 'compound for sins they are inclin'd to/By damning those they have no mind to'. If it's political as well, it is the more shameful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH:
People aren't gay through choice, it's simply the way they are.

---

That's the crux of the issue. There seem to be several views on the amount of choice a gay person has to be gay. Hard line evangelical teaching appears to be that even if people are born with a homosexual orietnation they can be be 'healed'.

---

quote:

---

greenhouse:
Assuming that they did pursue matters within the church first

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dorothea:
First gay bishop? Well, I never!

J

---

The irony is that, of course, he will not be the first gay bishop.

Shame on them (the letter writers). Shame. Their lack of humility, compassion and their willingness to stand against the tradition of anglican bishops makes for a sad day.

P
 

---

Posted by Bongo (# 778) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by greenhouse:
Try looking at things from another perspective. The church seeks to appoint a bishop who is an extreme fundamentalist. A group of liberal bishops protest about this appointment within the church. Nothing happens so they write to the papers. Is that just as bad?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bongo:
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the liberals in the church didn't moan to the press when George Carey (an evangelical, probably a conservative one) was made Archbish of C. No, we just grinned and bore it, held our tongues, and focussed on the positives.

---

I forgive you. You are wrong. There was a nasty, snide, dishonest, and cruel campaign against him which didn't finish till well after Rowan was appointed. Not so much because he is an evangelical (theologically he's pretty mainstream in the CofE I think) but because he came from the working-class and was Not One of Us and didn't go to a posh school or have a posh accent. He'd have had a better press if he had been gay. The upper-class twits who still run far too much of British society hated him because they thought he was an oik.

And liberal bishops and other clergy (and angloc-catholics) do knock evangelicals who are put up for appointments. They've doen it for years. Not in the open of course but in private with the Old School Tie brigade, behind backs, over the port, mostly by mocking their intelligence or academic achievement. Oh, a nice enough chap, but is he bright enough for the job. Is he up to it?

The public pronouncements are mostly left up to the tame flock of embittered journalists, mostly either no longer Christians at all or if they are mostly ultra-liberal ultra-High ultra-middle-class who cannot being themselves to accept that real people of any intelligence can actually have a genuine belief in the factual basis of Christianity.

And they get very nasty. Heck, even that nice Andrew Brown wrote stuff in th e papers about George Carey that would get him kicked off this thread by a host.
 

---

Posted by M. Spence (# 4018) on :
 
Hi - sorry this is long.

Am not quite sure about Ken’s analysis of British society but I agree that some people mutter against evangelicals in the same way that some evangelicals mutter against liberals. No-one is really the good guy when it comes to back-biting in the church and everyone has a set of stereotypes which provide a convenient way of dismissing other people’s views.

But I actually don’t think the word ‘liberal’ is the right one to use here because what is occurring is beyond theological disputes about homosexuality and same-sex unions (all of which have been discussed many times on these boards before)it is rather about a small number of people in the church going beyond both the settled Scriptural, pastoral and ecclesiastical mind of the Anglican communion. The settled mind was outlined at Lambeth and although it asked for ongoing and prayerful discussion, it did not permit bishops or dioceses to act unilaterally to institute their own best fit formulas.

Moreover, as much as many people may claim that the reasons for the church affirming same-sex relationships are blatantly obvious, the fact is that they are not and many people (not just evangelicals) have theological and pastoral concerns about the implications of commending same-sex unions. There is a lot of muddled thinking (admittedly from all sides of the debate), but serious evangelical, Biblically-centred scholarship has still posed a lot of questions which have gone largely unanswered. It is as preposterous to claim that hard-line evangelicals (by which I assume is meant those who dissent from the more relaxed view about homosexuality) ‘spout a load of shite’ as it is to claim that liberals are woolly-headed hollow men.

So whilst one could argue that the bishops have acted intemperately by publishing a letter to the press, at the same time it simply reflects the very public actions of other sections of the church in affirming their own view of same-sex unions either by the appointment of practising homosexuals (New Hampshire), the institution of same-sex marriage rites (New Westminster) or the appointment of bishops whose teaching is out of line with the mind of the Anglican communion (Reading). In other words, the claim that liberals wouldn’t take this sort of protest is not strictly true, because it is the proponents of same-sex unions who are making up new laws as they go along, and thereby – it could be argued – abusing positions of authority to institute their own ends.

Rowan Williams has agreed that ‘The Lambeth Resolution of 1998 declares clearly what is the mind of the overwhelming majority in the Communion, and what the Communion will and will not approve or authorize. I accept that any individual diocese or even province that officially overturns or repudiates this resolution poses a substantial problem for the sacramental unity of the Communion’. (Letter of Archbishop Rowan Williams to Primates, 23 July, 2002). This is clearly the correct position, articulated by someone who did not vote for the Lambeth Resolution yet nonetheless accepts its implications. We must make a distinction between the issue of debate about homosexuality and its relationship to Christian faith, and this issue -which is about church governance and the unity of the Anglican communion.

In other words, the debate has been made public by the actions of certain dioceses and bishops, in this case by Bishop Richard Harries of Oxford. Of course, John’s appointment is not leading to the implementation of same-sex union blessings a la New Westminster, but it is obvious why many are concerned that a man who has written against the Lambeth resolution and affirms same-sex unions in his theological work should be appointed to a position of oversight in the church. This is a similar concern, of course, to that held concerning the appointment of Rowan Williams. This case is compounded here - as it was not with Williams - by John’s own sexual relationships. It is nasty that anyone’s most intimate struggles and passions should be brought into a public debate: on the other hand, it is John's sexuality which has informed his teaching on the matter. It is true that if he is indeed committed to a chaste life, then there is little objection to be made from evangelicals and others: however, it is obvious that John does not believe that homosexual inclination is something which needs to be opened to the transforming power of Christ, but which – as he shows by his writings – can be blessed as ordained by God. You may or may not agree with him, but it is clear that this is not what the church teaches, and therefore his own unrepentant stance to his own sexuality and his public statements in his writings are inextricably bound up and cause legitimate concern for those who adhere to the Scriptural narrative and the historic church teaching on this matter. Whether or not you agree with their concern, it must at least be admitted that it is a valid one for people to hold.

The public statement made by the bishops perhaps reflects the lack of clear consultative principles within the Anglican communion; but it also reflects a very genuine sense of frustration and disbelief among many that decisions are being made contrary to the settled will of the church, contrary to the traditional interpretation of scripture, contrary to the serious and pastoral objections raised by those who disagree with the affirmation of same-sex unions, contrary to the manner of church government established in the Thirty-Nine Articles. Now, you are free to disagree with any of these aspects – free to challenge Lambeth, free to engage with the scriptural debate (which is much deeper and more fundamental than the stereotype of a few dubious proof texts), free to formulate theological and pastoral arguments in favour of blessing same-sex relationships, free to re-write the way in which decisions are made in the Anglican communion. But surely all this must be done with care and consideration and not be based on easy sentiments, resort to calling people bigots or intolerant, or suggesting that they are bullies.

It is a great shame that this issue is causing so much pain and hurt: but that does not mean that we can dismiss the thinking and concerns of these bishops just because they seem conviently to fall under some stereotype of haranguing evangelicals. Their concerns are real, rooted in a commitment to and faith in God and based in the conviction that Christ-like love does not necessarily mean taking an attitude of live and let live.
 

---

Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
Although I agree with many of the sentiments of these bishops I am very sad and angry at the method by which they are pursuring what I regard as their legitimate concerns.

However, one might be tempted to think that pragmatically resorting to strong tactics is necessary if their point is to be made at all. I live in the Reading area of the Oxford diocese and it is difficult to avoid the impression that +Richard Harries has ridden roughshod over the feelings and beliefs of many of those under his care, in particular in his recent speech to the Diocesan Synod (see the links above in W's post). This is a particular source of sadness for me as he is a man for whom I have a massive amount of respect and who normally strives to listen to and work with those who disagree with him theologically. He is a very humble and charitable man usually, but I think that at this time he is being every bit as "political" as the 9 bishops who have written to him. I certainly disagree with the writing of the letter - but I can see why they felt they had to write it.

On the analogy with divorce: no divorced and remarried bishop has yet been appointed. Furthermore, for a divorced person who has since remarried to be ordained, they must apply for a special Archbishop's Faculty under canon law, i.e. special and detailed enquiry is made into the specific circumstances to ensure either that it was not their "fault" (a loaded term I know, but you see what I mean) and that they are penitent.

However, the analogy is not valid on another level entirely. Most conservative evangelicals recognise that the Bible contains diverse views on divorce (e.g. the "except for adultery" which Matthew adds to Mark) whereas there are no positive references at all that I am aware of to homosexual behaviour in the Bible. Furthermore, one should not assume that everyone who opposes this appointment does support the ordination/consecration of remarried divorcees. They may well oppose it for all we know (with the exception of Scott-Joynt, who as has been pointed out is quite "liberal" on the issue).
 

---

Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
Cross-posted with M Spence - excellently put and I agree with almost everything you have said.

Just one tiny, pedantic point:

quote:

---

So whilst one could argue that the bishops have acted intemperately by publishing a letter to the press, at the same time it simply reflects the very public actions of other sections of the church in affirming their own view of same-sex unions either by the appointment of practising homosexuals (New Hampshire), the institution of same-sex marriage rites (New Westminster) or the appointment of bishops whose teaching is out of line with the mind of the Anglican communion (Reading).

---

quote:

---

There was a nasty, snide, dishonest, and cruel campaign against him

---

quote:

---

...the liberals in the church didn't moan to the press when George Carey (an evangelical, probably a conservative one) was made Archbish of C.

---

quote:

---

And liberal bishops and other clergy (and angloc-catholics) do knock evangelicals who are put up for appointments. They've doen it for years. Not in the open of course but in private with the Old School Tie brigade, behind backs, over the port, mostly by mocking their intelligence or academic achievement.

---

Firstly, where's your evidence for this?

Secondly, when I said "the liberals in the church" I was talking about the church as a whole, the leity as well as the clergy. Should have been clearer - sorry.

BUt my point still stands. "Liberals" (for want of a better word) haven't formed pressure groups and written letters to newspapers. THey haven't ganged up on someone and questioned their ability to minister in the national press. They haven't claimed to speak for the "vast majority of Anglicans and Christians," like one of the bishops did this morning on radio 4 (the cheeky beggar).

ARrgh, can't seem to be articulate today.
 

---

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
I think it is a tragedy that a minority group which still faces significant discrimination in our society is being used as a political shuttlecock by the Bishops. A particular disappointment is the signature of +Michael Rochester who I cannot but believe is settling scores with the man who pipped him to the post in the race for Canterbury.

If a debate on the authority of the Bishops of the Apostolic Church (as opposed to the less hierarchical model favoured by most Evangelicals) is to waged, then it should not be fought over an issue with such capacity to inflict harm on innocent bystanders.
 

---

Posted by Spong (# 1518) on :
 
Not many of the comments above have given much weight to the way that Dr Jeffery John has said both that he is now sexually abstinent and that he will stand by the teaching of "Issues in Human Sexuality".

Personally I have in the past found the view that 'the laity can if they must, but the clergy can't' hard to defend. However, seeing the way that ++Rowan has approached it is beginning to change my mind. I have a lot of respect for the sacrifice that is involved in saying that, for the sake of collegiality, you will uphold teaching which you personally do not agree with, and I think he has modelled a way of doing it which manages to avoid the hypocrisy that could otherwise result.

And it seems to me that Jeffery John has done exactly the same. It is wrong to ask him to be hypocritical and 'repent' of what he formerly believed, but as a bishop he has agreed that he will stand by the decisions of Issues, regardless of his personal views. Presumably he will simply not get involved in debates on homosexuality and the priesthood.

The idea that one can't have even PRIVATE views about issues as a bishop which are different from orthodoxy strikes me as ridiculous. How is there ever supposed to be any change if no-one is allowed to suggest that some element of current orthodoxy might, just might, be wrong?
 

---

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
Hmm good point, surely the foundation of the CofE is enshrined in the 39 Articles and nothing more? It seems a bit cheeky to start demanding "I am not now nor have I ever been" statements from priests in addition to that. What next, political affiliations?
 

---

Posted by M. Spence (# 4018) on :
 

quote:

---

The appointment of Gene Robinson isn't really analagous with the other two issues as he was elected by a majority of clergy and laity in his diocese, therefore one could say that it is the will of the local church

---

quote:

---

I also agree that + Richard Oxford is usually very aware of his pastoral responsibility to all within his diocese and it surprises me that he has taken this stance which seems deliberately intended to provoke (and even hurt) the large evangelical constituency of the Oxford Diocese.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spong:
And it seems to me that Jeffery John has done exactly the same.

---

quote:

---

Try looking at things from another perspective. The church seeks to appoint a bishop who is an extreme fundamentalist. A group of liberal bishops protest about this appointment within the church. Nothing happens so they write to the papers. Is that just as bad?

---

Given that one of the signatories of the letter believes that homosexuality is wrong because, among other reasons, demons can enter the body through the rectum, I'd suggest that the appointment of Canon John is merely the cosmic scales righting themselves. Oh, and as MM points out one of the suffragan signatories is the Bishop of Lewes, who is a member of Reform.

Ken - the reason people criticised Carey was because they could. Simillar kickings were administered to Runcie and Williams. Andrew Brown's criticism of Carey was largely inspired by the his captiulation to the forces of reaction and obscurantism at Lambeth '98. Carey's case was not helped by the fact that, unlike Williams and Runcie, he was manifestly unsuited to the job having been chosen by the Blessed Margaret on the grounds that he wasn't John Hapgood.

Frankly I'm beginning to think that Merseymike has a point. Dialogue and discussion are all very well but it appears to be the case that those of us on the liberal end of the spectrum are to tolerate the traditionalists whilst they are to tolerate no-one.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Are you suggesting that we all have to agree with the evangelical line on biblical authority, Sean.

Does that mean we now have to believe that a book, written by men, 200 years or more ago, is somehow infallible, and does not contain much that is culturally bound, some of which has - as Jeffrey John honestly stated - has now been discarded ?

You are welcome to take that view. But I do not. Nor do many Church of England bishops. To say something has 'authority' does not mean an interpretation that suggests that certain terachings are for their time, is invalid. That approach is the basis of liberal theology. You may find that Jeffrey John is, indeed, far LESS liberal than some who currently inhabit the Bishop's bench. Or should they go too?

I don't think you, or any other evangelicals, have the right to grill Jeffrey John. I don't agree with very much my own Bishop says, but that doesn't mean I should have a veto on him just becvause he doesn't pass my own belief test. Its the fact that these Bishops seem to believe they have some sort of special insight which gives them the right to do this which many people are objecting to. It is not appropriate.
 

---

Posted by Bongo (# 778) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Professor Yaffle:
Dialogue and discussion are all very well but it appears to be the case that those of us on the liberal end of the spectrum are to tolerate the traditionalists whilst they are to tolerate no-one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Professor Yaffle:
Carey's case was not helped by the fact that, unlike Williams and Runcie, he was manifestly unsuited to the job having been chosen by the Blessed Margaret on the grounds that he wasn't John Hapgood.

---

I think someone must have told her that all evangelicals were political conservatives.

George isn't, or at any rate didn;t use to be.
Then he thought up this Archbishop's Council, whose first version included (if I remember correctly) John Gladwin (somewhat on the left, if a bit of a Fabian), Pete Broadbent (who has actually been a Labour councillor I think) and Christian Baxter (who I never thought of as a Tory) all of whom have a Durham background back when George was vicar there...

Oh NO! The Church of England was taken over by New Labour!
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by welsh dragon:
If he is attracted to men, but is committing himself to live a chaste and celibate life, surely that commitment too is very Gospel?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Professor Yaffle:
Given that one of the signatories of the letter believes that homosexuality is wrong because, among other reasons, demons can enter the body through the rectum, I'd suggest that the appointment of Canon John is merely the cosmic scales righting themselves. Oh, and as MM points out one of the suffragan signatories is the Bishop of Lewes, who is a member of Reform.

---

quote:

---

Frankly I'm beginning to think that Merseymike has a point. Dialogue and discussion are all very well but it appears to be the case that those of us on the liberal end of the spectrum are to tolerate the traditionalists whilst they are to tolerate no-one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
George Carey I believe was usually a Tory voter, but with some green sympathies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
In other words, I would to God that Their Lordships of Carlisle, Rochester, et al, were, for the sake of their souls' health, sodomites and not revilers!

---

Green sodomite or red sodomite? The latter often has unpredictable effects, such as giving someone the head and antennae of a giant -- no, wait, wrong thread.

Seriously, I think I'd agree here, and I think with Merseymike above. It does look like bullying with a political (rather than doctrinal) agenda to me. It never ceases to amaze me that people have raised more of a stink over sexual morality issues (important though I think they are) than over things like the Divinity of Christ, the Resurrection of Christ, etc. People in the US jumped all over Spong for his stance on gay issues, but less so over his view of the nature of God and of Christianity itself.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
Ken ; I think the pint is

---

Mine's a pint!

I did a Google search for "bishop" and "rectum" and "demon" but none of the sites I found were very wholesome.
 

---

Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Professor Yaffle:
[QB]Given that one of the signatories of the letter believes that homosexuality is wrong because, among other reasons, demons can enter the body through the rectum, I'd suggest that the appointment of Canon John is merely the cosmic scales righting themselves. Oh, and as MM points out one of the suffragan signatories is the Bishop of Lewes, who is a member of Reform.

---

I heard all the signatories of the letter have horns and pointy tails and sacrifice children on alternate Tuesdays.

No, I don't have a source. Just trust me.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyralessa:
[I heard all the signatories of the letter have horns and pointy tails and sacrifice children on alternate Tuesdays.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean D:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spong:
And it seems to me that Jeffery John has done exactly the same.

---

I am not so sure that the similarities between him and Dr Williams are so strong for several reasons. Firstly is the vitriol with which Dr John has attacked those who disagree with him, for example he termed Issues as "unchristian".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
Are you suggesting that we all have to agree with the evangelical line on biblical authority, Sean.

---

quote:

---

Does that mean we now have to believe that a book, written by men, 200 years or more ago, is somehow infallible, and does not contain much that is culturally bound, some of which has - as Jeffrey John honestly stated - has now been discarded ?

---

quote:

---

You may find that Jeffrey John is, indeed, far LESS liberal than some who currently inhabit the Bishop's bench. Or should they go too?

---

quote:

---

I don't think you, or any other evangelicals, have the right to grill Jeffrey John. I don't agree with very much my own Bishop says, but that doesn't mean I should have a veto on him just becvause he doesn't pass my own belief test.

---

quote:

---

Surely, this man has been unusually open and honest about his sexuality, in a very difficult and public way. Surely honesty is good? Surely that is very Gospel?

---

quote:

---

Quoth Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:I don't know the context of this quote, but I think all of us occasionally, in the heat of church debates, put things in unhelpful ways. George Carey famously denounced opponents of the ordination of women as 'heretics', which was hardly eirenic.

---

quote:

---

Jeffrey draws a clear and legitimate distinction between his previous role as a theologian, whose job it is to explore new ways of thinking, and his future role as a bishop, whose job it is to teach the doctrine of the Church and maintain its unity. He has a very strong sense of the importance of corporate loyalty to the position of the House of Bishops and has committed himself to maintaining it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
Hudibras by Samuel Butler (of this diocese). It's 1650s--I can't remember the exact date of publication. A classic satire of the Civil War and religious hypocrisy.

---

[trivial knowledge tasselled-cap on]
'Twas in three parts, published from 1663 to '78, though he began it in about 1658.
[/trivial knowledge tasselled-cap off]
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
There is a certain point to what you say, David. I don't think we should underestimate the amount of pressure the poor man must be under at the moment, though, it is very easy to ask people to be direct and open in the abstract!

However, nobody would be making these sort of demands in the CofE if this wasn't all about sex, and gay sex at that! If the man had a history of being bad tempered, lacking in devotion or unsymapthetic to the oppressed nobody would be demanding public statements.

I might add that it is indicative of how screwed the official sexual ethic is that considerably more fuss is being made over the appointment of a bishop who has been engaged in a loving and faithful relationship than there was some years back when a bishop was appointed who had a criminal conviction for importuning in a public loo! The idiocy of Issues subsists in the fact that it awards dishonesty and subtefuge, and that, paradoxically, it makes promiscuity more attractive than stable relationships.

Yesterdays Guardian put the point well, "[the Anglican Communion] is threatening to tear itself apart over a handful of people who live in monogamous, stable, long-term, loving relationships." The quote refers to gay blessings, but is equally applicable to the Reading case.
 

---

Posted by Spong (# 1518) on :
 
Jeffery John, not John Jeffery...
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
For a short while I thought it was J John. That was confusing...
 

---

Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
There is a certain point to what you say, David. I don't think we should underestimate the amount of pressure the poor man must be under at the moment, though, it is very easy to ask people to be direct and open in the abstract!

However, nobody would be making these sort of demands in the CofE if this wasn't all about sex, and gay sex at that! If the man had a history of being bad tempered, lacking in devotion or unsymapthetic to the oppressed nobody would be demanding public statements.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
By the way - does anyone know if the Church of England ever has appointed a divorced and remarried bishop whose first wife was still living?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Degs:

Is it mere coincidence that three of the signatories were pipped to the post by ++Rowan?

---

 

---

Posted by Degs (# 2824) on :
 
Thank you DO-D. Personally I'm praying that ++David stays in York a long time so that all of those twonks are too old to move up!
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
I don't think we should underestimate the amount of pressure the poor man must be under at the moment, though, it is very easy to ask people to be direct and open in the abstract!

---

Agreed!

quote:

---

Originally posted by the Bishop of Oxford:
I want a diocese that stands in support and solidarity with all harassed minorities whoever they are. Whatever the difficulties or danger of misinterpretation, that is where, I believe, our loyalty and obedience to Jesus should lie.

---

 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
... and I can't help but wonder whether its the fact that an openly gay, content with his sexuality man is to become a bishop that really throws them, p[articularly given the paucity of credibility of the argument which separates 'orientation'and 'practice'.

It is a step forward, and if they didn't recognise that, then they wouldn't be in such a paddy about it.
 

---

Posted by Degs (# 2824) on :
 
Trekker Tangent

I just looked at the list of signatories again and +Roffen (Michael Nazir-Ali) comes out as Seven of Nine!
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
given the paucity of credibility of the argument which separates 'orientation'and 'practice'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Degs:
Trekker Tangent

I just looked at the list of signatories again and +Roffen (Michael Nazir-Ali) comes out as Seven of Nine!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
I am told that Graham Dow's 'rectal demons' pronouncement was made at a meeting of London Area Bishops some time before he became Bishop of Carlisle, where he also strongly implied that they could be exorcised by the episcopal laying on of hands. The same source informs me that the Bishop of Carlisle was on Newsnight tonight (or was it last night?--did anyone else see this?) and said 'The penis belongs to the vagina', at which point the programme cut away fast.

I mention these things to indicate to some of our transatlantic shipmates just which wing of the hospital we are inhabiting here.

---

Does he think these demons go for gay men only, or do they also penetrate married hetero Christians having anal sex?

What about single lads? Their penises belong to vaginas they haven't met yet?

Where does he get this stuff?
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
In answer to your questions:

1) The latter.

2) Yes.

3) I cannot tell. However, there is an ECUSA diocesan bishop who is fond of prefixing his more controversial utterances with the phrase "The risen Christ has told me..."
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
2) Also raises questions for celibates. Which vagina does a monk's penis belong to I wonder?
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Amos

Yes, I heard that. I was pleasantly relieved actually because the bishop stopped skirting the issue and came out with something which probably did honestly reflect his feelings. If the discussion had been pursued we could have explored the idea in the context of human sexuality, bonding and reproduction. This is too much to ask of mainline TV of course. The English find it very difficult to talk about sex so it usually reverts to the usual, "don't be beastly to people" line ... which doesn't cut the mustard when it comes to the debate we should really be having on sex and love. There is also the problem that the debate focusses on the "plumbing" and not on the crucial issue of desire and falling in love. However, since I am now trespassing on Dead Horse territory I shall move it back to the OP now.

It struck me today that there is so much we don't know about all of this ... politically and personally. Perhaps a public debate is NOT what we should be having. I'm sure that Fr. Jeffrey (and his partner ... current or ex) have been knocked about enough already. (Everyone's a damned celebrity nowadays ... objects of adulation or scorn or pity ... it's all the same in this goldfish bowl culture ... the press love it).

As to the resolution of the issue ... that lies outside my sphere ... I will say though that IMO Anglicans (from personal experience) do often get into the bind of thinking that everything contentious has to be high profile and subjected to public debate and scrutiny,; which is necessary in cases of illegality but entirely out of order when it comes to pastoral issues. This inevitably boxes people into tight positions. You'd think that other churches never consider such issues. No doubt some Anglicans justify this in terms of what they see as their (alleged) national role. The fact that many DON'T see it in those terms leaves these bemused at the cynicism, boredom or antagonism such airings often promote.

I still think it's about evangelicals not pulling the plug on the money though. I still think that it suits Rowan's agenda to let them let off some steam. It will soon be forgotten ... until the next crisis and the next series of threats.
 

---

Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Degs:
Personally I'm praying that ++David stays in York a long time

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
2) Also raises questions for celibates. Which vagina does a monk's penis belong to I wonder?

---

quote:

---

From Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
2) Also raises questions for celibates. Which vagina does a monk's penis belong to I wonder?

---

Obviously some nun's somewhere. Isn't this what Martin Luther ended up concluding?

quote:

---

Also from Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
But, Kyralessa, the Bishops are not complaining that Jeffrey John has criticised Issues - a significant number of current CE bishops have done that, including several diocesans and the ABofC. They are criticising him for having 'fallen short' of its teaching. So it does sound very much like getting at him for (what they perceive to be) sinning, so my comparisons do seem to be relevant.

---

I guess that's what it comes down to: Was the guy sinning for these twenty years, or was he not? Obviously if you think he was, then twenty years is a darned long time; I doubt anybody would elect someone as bishop who'd had a serious gambling for twenty years, or been committing adultery for twenty years, or been shoplifting for twenty years. But then I can't say for sure because I'm not Anglican...

quote:

---

From welsh dragon:
2. We were having a discussion at work yesterday, and a Christian colleague was giving a fairly standard evangelical position on this. Our workmates were astounded. The church is way behind popular perceptions on this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
he also strongly implied that they could be exorcised by the episcopal laying on of hands.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Degs:
Personally I'm praying that ++David stays in York a long time

---

That would be Archbishop David 'my sexuality is a grey area' Hope, would it?

---

Also known as Edna the Cruel.
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
'Ena', please. As in Ena Sharples.
 

---

Posted by gbuchanan (# 415) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyralessa:
That's a disturbing point of view. Certainly the Church has to help every age understand its doctrine; but the notion that the Church is "way behind" popular perceptions implies that the popular perceptions mark progress, whereas quite often they mark the opposite. (But that's all I'll say there since I'm straying dangerously close to Dead Horse territory.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
I think it's a great shame that a small number of hardline zealots in the Anglican Communion are determined to provoke schism by their public antagonism.

And I'm not referring to the letter-writers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Degs:
Personally I'm praying that ++David stays in York a long time

---

That would be Archbishop David 'my sexuality is a grey area' Hope, would it?

---

That's the one!

Ena the Grey.
 

---

Posted by Degs (# 2824) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Actually, my point was that schism is being generated within the Anglican Communion. Far weightier issues than this have already driven a wedge between the Catholic Church and Anglicanism.

---

Yes, and there are far weightier issues for the Anglican Comunion to concern itself with.

Crippling Third World debt. The devastation brought by AIDS in Africa.

No, forget those. Lets tear the Communion apart over what two men do with their d***s!

The recent Primates' meeting came to a very tenuous agreement that each Province should handle this issue in a manner pastorally appropriate for their situation.

This is not being handled sensitively(certainly not pastorally), and some of the nine are, in theory, old enough to know better.
 

---

Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :
 
David Hope was not subjected to any hounding when he deflected enquiries about his personal life with his famous 'grey area' comment.

Turnbull's importuning in public toilets was brushed under the carpet as a 'youthful indiscretion'. It came out because the papers got hold of it.

Maybe the amount of hounding is connected with stance on other issues? E.g. DH had no problem making a clear statement about women bishops iand as I recall stated he would see the acceptance of women bishops by the C of E as a resigning matter. Michael Turnbull undetook a reveiw of church structures which could be seen as strengthening the centre via the creation of the unelected Archbishops' Council and giving the 'membership' less power.

It's also (sadly) no surprise that someone who is trying to be honest about difficult issues is subject to considerably more bile than those who attempt to retain 'grey areas'.
 

---

Posted by welsh dragon (# 3249) on :
 
Went to prayer meeting in Oxford this morning. Everyone fervently praying over exactly this. Prayers "from the floor" were invited and I found myself praying for the poor bloke in the middle of all of this, who has, after all, said he is committing himself to a life of sexual abstinence...

There was some fervent singing of the chorus "Jesus we enthrone you" (the point being I think that in order to do this you had to make sure there weren't any gay bishops around). During this, I had the mental image of a very sad looking Jesus standing "in the midst of us" as we made a huge fuss over a matter that he never ever mentioned in any of his recorded teachings...
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I think what we also need to remember is that this issue is one where there is, firstly, supposed to be a continuind dialogue about, and, most importantly, that whilst Bishops 'stand by' every position in the sense of not defying it via actions, there has never been any implication that this means agreeing with it. So, women were not ordained by Bishops before the change allowing this, but Bishops were allowed to have different views.

By the 9 presenting this as a question of 'orthodoxy' (and I would describe Jeffrey John's general theology as certainly orthodox) this is tantamount to trying to close the door on debate by preventing anyone with publicly expressed difference of view from becoming a Bishop.

Jeffrey John has explained that, like many couples, straight and gay, his own relationship no longer includes sex. That is by no means unusual. Given that the Church obsesses only about where willies are placed , I see no reason at all why these Bishops should have any cause for concern from their stated perspective. However, Jeffrey is not altering his inclusive view and belief in change - which is shared by many Bishops, and, as I think these 9 Bishops know, by ++ Rowan himself. This is, indeed, a large part of the agenda of some of the signatories.

I would suggest that they have another agenda which reflects, far more, their deeper unease about gay people more widely. This may explain why their stated position on just about every civil matter involving gay issues has opposed reform - +Liverpool's public support for the retention of Section 28, for example.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Every now and again in the Church of England the comprehensive consensus is put under great strain and the various traditions / emphases / factions ... call them what you will .... become adversarial. What I can't understand is why the clash of the Titans has to happen in the court of the world and its onlookers rather than first and foremost in the counsels of that particular church. There will be a time for public airing but NOT at the beginning of the process. Perhaps there was a race as to who could "jump the gun" first. It's hardly a seemly or appropriate way of going about things I would have thought. Perhaps ecclesiastical party politics is unavoidable in a Church culture that is so deeply permeated by the English way of doing things. I would have thought that the Church's standards would have been higher .... and indeed, more catholic.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I think you are right, Gregory, but I have never heard of a group of Bishops ganging up on a prospective Bishop before in a public way. To be fair to both +Oxford and Jeffrey John, they did not ask for matters to be discussed in the public eye. All the running has been made by those who wish Jeffrey to step down.
 

---

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
There is another point about this which worries me - there is a ludicrous contradiction in Issues in that it claims that gay priests must be celibate whereas gay laity needn't be. This undermines one of the cornerstones of the Reformation: that the same moral standards should be applied to both priests and laity.

If we can understand JJ saying he will campaign to change this to rescind the requirement for celibacy, could it be that the 9 are "jumping the gun" to kick-start a campaign to go the other way and oblige all gays to be celibate, as in the Roman Church?

And as to "gray-area" ++David, isn't he retiring shortly? I thought the rumour was +Michael (N-A) would be translated there with a brief to aid Christian-Muslim understanding, on which he's an expert. If so, how disappointing this fringe issue should have overtaken his energies.

At least the Bp. of Norwich is doing his usual trick of keeping a low profile....
 

---

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
One has to admire the political nature of the no sex / same gender relationship. It is just SO COOL. It breaks the mould and leaves the right wingers no where to go. Still smiling at that one. The great joy of liberals is that when they play the game they really play the game. Soon Bishop Jeffrey will be old news and we will have an openly gay bishop. Works for me.

P
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I agree with your interpretation of events Mike; it's just that anyone could see this showdown coning sooner or later. It's how things happen in the Church of England. I am sure that RH, JJ and RW knew what would happen and built that into the equation. Perhaps they didn't foresee a direct approach to the press though of this dimension. The only issue really is whether or not they will be a break in episcopal unity (highly unlikely) and a turning off of the financial tap by some congregations, (very likely but hardly significant in the bigger scheme of things).
 

---

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
I agree Pyx. The one thing the right-wingers didn't expect - sensible, abstentious obedience from the man they said was possessed by daemons.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Thats exactly the point, Ordinaire. Thing is, that the 9 know perfectly well that there is no way they could actually implement such a policy, as much as some may like to in their ideal Church( and they would look a mite daft after stressing so much how they stand by 'Issues').

I think the rubicon of compulsory celibacy for gay people was actually jumped then, and with same sex civil partnerships on the horizon, the likelihood of going back is nil. Hence the overblown reaction of the bishops who feel society is drifting away from their 'ideal'. Praise God that IS the case!
 

---

Posted by Yo Yo (# 2541) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
I think the 9 Bishops should all club together to buy Dr John a webcam for his bedroom, then they could reassure the 'orthodox' at any hour of the day or night that no episcopal gay rumpy-pumpy was occurring.

---

I'd been thinking along those lines too. Maybe the signatories above could be put on a rota and take turns sharing a bed with Dr John and his partner. They could sleep in between them to ensure that nothing untoward occurs. The Bishop of Carlisle could use the time to begin a search for those demons! (this could start a new, very modern, translation of the Bible: "take the demons out of your own rectum before trying to remove..." )
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
...all this goes to show why the indefensible separation of 'orientation' and 'practice' is so very silly. Given that orientation wasn't recognised when the Bible was written, even more so....

Think of Jeffrey John in all this hubbub though. He is a brave man indeed.
 

---

Posted by I_am_not_Job (# 3634) on :
 
Interestingly, Bp Carlisle was at the Church COmmissioners AGM yesterday which ++Rowan was chairing. When he stood up and spoke, the ABp did not let a flicker of a frown cross his brow.
 

---

Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by welsh dragon:
During this, I had the mental image of a very sad looking Jesus standing "in the midst of us" as we made a huge fuss over a matter that he never ever mentioned in any of his recorded teachings...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyralessa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by welsh dragon:
During this, I had the mental image of a very sad looking Jesus standing "in the midst of us" as we made a huge fuss over a matter that he never ever mentioned in any of his recorded teachings...

---

Did he mention bestiality? Drunk driving? Gambling? Pornography? Child abuse? It seems rather an absurdity to imply that anything not specifically forbidden by Jesus in Scripture is therefore permitted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyralessa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by welsh dragon:
During this, I had the mental image of a very sad looking Jesus standing "in the midst of us" as we made a huge fuss over a matter that he never ever mentioned in any of his recorded teachings...

---

Did he mention bestiality? Drunk driving? Gambling? Pornography? Child abuse? It seems rather an absurdity to imply that anything not specifically forbidden by Jesus in Scripture is therefore permitted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
I think the 9 Bishops should all club together to buy Dr John a webcam for his bedroom, then they could reassure the 'orthodox' at any hour of the day or night that no episcopal gay rumpy-pumpy was occurring.

---

And then if they give in, they could raise money by selling the tapes...

"Hot episcopal action!" etc.

Kyralessa quoth:

quote:

---

Certainly the Church has to help every age understand its doctrine; but the notion that the Church is "way behind" popular perceptions implies that the popular perceptions mark progress, whereas quite often they mark the opposite.

---

I'd suggest that popular perceptions may be good at recognising problems with a previous approach, but not necessarily at coming up with a solution. People may realise they need to add calcium to their diets, but eating chalk is not the way to do it -- yet who can blame them if they are shown no other source?

quote:

---

Originally posted by DitzySpike:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
he also strongly implied that they could be exorcised by the episcopal laying on of hands.

---

On the butt? Cool.

---

I wondered about that too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DitzySpike:
Also known as Edna the Cruel.

---

Agh, Dame Edna in a mitre just popped into my head. "May the peace of the Lord be always with you, possums!"

Gbuchanan:

David
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
HOSTING

Kyralessa, as other shipmates have pointed out, the context of your comments suggests some implicit equivalence between homosexuality and bestiality or child abuse. These sorts of implications, even if completely unintentional, have been the cause of a great deal of turmoil on the Ship in the past. As a result, statements of the type which you made are not acceptable here.

Please retract or rephrase your post from 13:31, 19 June, and refrain from making similar comparisons in the future. A wise man might also consider an apology to those any shipmates who he had inadvertently offended.

scot
Purgatory Host
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Big ol' long post -- lost.

Summing up...

Yay Pyx_e, Praying for Jeffrey MM, this specific sort of thing is a hot button from way back (I agree with the argument re spuriousness, it's just that people have equated them before and it's been a problem) Kyralessa...
 

---

Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
Kyralessa, as other shipmates have pointed out, the context of your comments suggests some implicit equivalence between homosexuality and bestiality or child abuse. These sorts of implications, even if completely unintentional, have been the cause of a great deal of turmoil on the Ship in the past. As a result, statements of the type which you made are not acceptable here.

---

I notice no one accused me of equating homosexuality with drunk driving or gambling. Perhaps that's because the point of what I posted was actually obvious enough that I shouldn't have had to explain it over and over, but some people are always determined to get their hackles up.

Let's try again, as clearly as possible.

It is not valid to argue for or against the importance of an issue or the sinfulness of an action based on whether or not the words of Jesus as recorded in Scripture mention that issue or action.

This is Purgatory, a place for discussion and debate. If somebody wants to debate that point, I'm game. If somebody wants to start a new thread for it, sounds good.

But if somebody wants to tell me to apologize for saying things I did not say or even imply, then I would reply that the very idea doesn't even make sense.

On the other hand, if "I'm sorry some people chose to misunderstand me" counts, I'll happy post that apology.
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
Kyralessa, thank you for clarifying your point.

Please note that I did not tell you to apologize. I told you that a wise man might choose to do so. You may do with that what you will.

scot
Purgatory Host
 

---

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
[Tangent]

Grins and notes that Scot forgot to change his mask before he posted Scot's got a sockpuppet!

[/Tangent]
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
I have no idea what you're talking about, Sarky.
 

---

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 

quote:

---

I have apologized for imprudent remarks in the past. However, I will not be bullied into apologizing for a point I did not make.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
I think you are right, Gregory, but I have never heard of a group of Bishops ganging up on a prospective Bishop before in a public way.

---

Henson, as Bishop of Hereford nearly a century ago, was opposed very publicly by at least two bishops - Charles Gore, then Bishop of Oxford and Frank Weston, the Bishop of Zanzibar. The latter wrote an open letter to his missionaries. Plus ca change...
 

---

Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Whose bullying you ?

---

Nobody, because as I said, I won't let it happen.

quote:

---

I was not suggesting you apologise for the point but for the fact that because your post was unclear it was not conducive. Can you not see what I am trying to say? Why are you (deliberately?) not accepting that the way in which you posted is both open to interpretation and of a sort that has caused problems in the past?

---

In the future I will strive for greater clarity, and I will attempt to include any necessary disclaimers with any remarks I make tangential to such touchy subjects in the future.

By the way, Pyx_e, if you think I've misconstrued your original suggestion to me, then you understand my own point quite well.

quote:

---

(From Pyx_e earlier:)
It is not acceptable to equate homosexuality with child abuse or many of the other things you point to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
I think you are right, Gregory, but I have never heard of a group of Bishops ganging up on a prospective Bishop before in a public way.

---

Henson, as Bishop of Hereford nearly a century ago, was opposed very publicly by at least two bishops - Charles Gore, then Bishop of Oxford and Frank Weston, the Bishop of Zanzibar. The latter wrote an open letter to his missionaries. Plus ca change...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
Except that there were genuinely important doctrinal issues between Gore/ Weston and Henson. Oh for the days when there were more important things to argue about than sex!

---

AIUI the main issue they were disputing was the Virgin Birth, so they were arguing about sex...

I know what you mean, though - it was essentially about how you had to believe the Creeds. OTOH, +Richard on Thought for the Day last week was clear that he understood the depth of feeling for those on the other side of the issue - indeed, those on both sides.

Without agreeing with it, I could understand the view that said "I have great difficulty accepting episcopal oversight from someone who is practising a form of sexuality that I believe to be profoundly unChristian." But for the life of me I can't understand why that should be a problem when the person concerned has accepted in obedience that the church's view should govern his sexual practice as a priest, and even his speaking as a bishop.

[ 23. June 2003, 09:26: Message edited by: Spong ]
 

---

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
It occurred to me this weekend that this is the last gasp for Reform. They have gone from their position in the eighties of expecting the C of E to be all conservative evangelical by 2010. to seeing it all slip away in a see of post- evangelicalism and their ordained minions being subsumed by the pastoral nature of the real work of the C of E.

They realise that the vast majority of the church is distancing themselves from them, that the country thinks them old fashioned and even bigoted, that the power base they dreamed of never really happened and now never will and so they have latched on to this issue/matter with a zealousness that betrays their desperation.

P
 

---

Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :
 
That analysis tends to be supported by the fact that the announcement of imminent schism is coming from the conservative evangelicals. Peter Jensen says the Anglican movement could become a

quote:

---

federation or network of churches related by history and ties of affection.

---

I thought that is what is already was - what does he think it is?
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Yes ; I agree. I think, also, that they cannot cope with the fact that the broader cultural pattern of life is drifting away from them, and they see this issue as a key to highlighting it it. I think they recognise that they are kicking against the tide - goodness, even the Daily Telegraph has been reasonably sympathetic on this one! Hence their desperation.

There has been lots of encouragement for me at a parish level, seeing the response of p[eople in our church.

One other thing. The statements made by the Archbishops of the West Indies, Congo, and Nigeria, have had little to do with theology. They essentially reflect the prejudices of their own culture and the Victorian culture from which their churches have hardly changed. The homophobic language used is simply not acceptable, and I would challenge the 9 Bishops to refute this, as publicly as they have hounded Jeffrey John. If they don't, their claims not to be homophobic are somewhat flimsy. Evangelicals often talk about Christianity being counter-cultural - so it should be - challenging homophobia in the developing world, for example. The South African church has done it bravely, Desmond Tutu being a prime example.
 

---

Posted by GeordieDownSouth (# 4100) on :
 
<warning: possibly tangential and waffley post ahead>

I was at Greyfriars in Reading last night (one of the churches that may with hold funding) for Steve Chalkes FaithWorks gig.

I used to attend Greyfriars for a bit before finding my way to my present church, so still know a few people there. Unfortunately i was called by divine(ish) prompting to the pub soon after the end of the service so didn't have much chance to gather a "grass roots" view to report here. Had one chat with a guy i know who'd been collared by Channel 4 that morning (though he didn't end up on telly). His main concern was that because of the questions the media put it was difficult to express God's love in the whole situation. Didn't have chance to find out more than this.

BUT my main point is to do with the contrast between what the thrust of the Faithworks stuff going on inside the church was about and the media frenzy over a gay bishop. Faithworks is about encourageing grassroots invovlement in communities, in politics in setting up proffessional standard sustainable projects that really benefit your area. Stuff that will really make a difference. Its got support from the top of government (apparently Gordon Brown is a fan), and will hopefully effect peoples lives. May have to start another thread on this.

Media attention on Faithworks: negligible.

Media attention on Gay Bishop: Frenetic.

Which is most likely to have an effect on the churches mission? What slightest bit of difference will i see in my church (ok i'm Methodist, but i'm at an LEP so it does have some relevance) from this appointment?

As far as i can see its about politics and power games, and is a huge distraction.

(for information, i have conservative evangelical tendencies, though in many aspects of this i have ceased to practice.)
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I wonder how many clergy who don't want women priests want gay bishops, and vice versa?
I wonder how much of an overlap there is between the two groups?
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
GDS ; agreed. I really think that the Bishops who initially took their campaign to the Press have a lot to answer for. It was obvious how they would respond.

Interestingly, as you mentioned Steve Chalke, he takes a far more open and less absolute 'line' then do many other evangelicals on this issue, and I heard him on the radio saying much the same as yourself.
 

---

Posted by GeordieDownSouth (# 4100) on :
 
Yeah, he alluded to it only very very briefly last night, in the middle of tirade about the Elightenment, but didn't really say what he thought about the whole affair. Had more important things to talk about.

It was a churches together (or something similar) type meeting so there were lots of random clergy from various places taking part (Chalky made a joke about the anglicans knowing the they were really THE Clergy and the rest were just mucking about) and the only real mention was that after a week where division in the church had been so highlighted it was great to have meeting so unified.

Frankly I'm narked off with both "sides" in this debate/controversy/storm in teacup. but TRYING not to let it bother me.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I think there is one matter of concern here. The Times (I think) alleged that Jeffrey had said in a lecture some time ago that David Hope had counselled him IN CONFESSION at St. Stephen's House when Principal to continue in his relationship as it would make of him a better priest. Any prospective bishop who is prepared to disclose what a confessor has said under the seal gives me cause for concern. David Hope cannot respond without breaking the seal himself. If this happened, maybe it was an attempt to flush out David Hope's policy on the matter. I think we must consider this a "grey area."
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I think alleged is the word. The lecture was far less explicit and all sorts of assumptions have been made after the event, no doubt with the intent of outing people. That is definitely not Jeffrey John's style

[ 23. June 2003, 11:40: Message edited by: Merseymike ]
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
That qoute came from the same Telegraph article which gave the names the Bishops were known as at Theological college.
 

---

Posted by Ian S (# 3098) on :
 
Originally posted by Merseymike:

quote:

---

I think, also, that they [Reform] cannot cope with the fact that the broader cultural pattern of life is drifting away from them, and they see this issue as a key to highlighting it it.

---

quote:

---

The statements made by the Archbishops of the West Indies, Congo, and Nigeria, have had little to do with theology. They essentially reflect the prejudices of their own culture and the Victorian culture from which their churches have hardly changed.

---

Of course, your views on the subject don't reflect the prejudices of your own culture
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Of course they do, Ian - I fully accept that.

And I am willing to defend the western acceptance of gay people as a mark of human progress and revelatory in itself. Part of the reason I am happy tocall myself liberal is my belif that Christianity should be able to take on the best parts of enlightenment thinking , so remaining relevant to a progressing and changing situation. I guess I am a cultural elitist,and not a relativist in that sense. I think I once said to you in a private mail that I'm a tough, not a wet liberal - thats what I meant. I positively believe liberal values are superior.

Re ; the Telegraph article - we are talking, then, at least third hand.

[ 23. June 2003, 12:45: Message edited by: Merseymike ]
 

---

Posted by Uriel (# 2248) on :
 
Sorry to be late on this thread - just got back from holiday.

The only comment I have which does not repeat much that has been said already is to consider the plank in the eyes of the bishops pointing out the speck in Jeffrey John's.

They are attacking him on the grounds that his lifestyle is against biblical teaching. Is this the same Bible that says 'foxes have their holes, birds have their nests, but the Son of Man will live in a sumptuous seven bedroom Palace with maintained grounds all at the expense of the wider Church'?

Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of Canon John's lifestyle, is it wise for the bishops to risk a 'whose-lifestyle-is-the-most-biblical' contest? They should seek to measure themselves against the clear teaching delivered directly by Jesus on power, privilege, luxury, self-aggrandisement, etc. before they seek to criticise someone else on what they assume Jesus disapproved of, despite biblical silence on the matter.

Cheers,

Uriel.
 

---

Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Uriel:
The only comment I have which does not repeat much that has been said already is to consider the plank in the eyes of the bishops pointing out the speck in Jeffrey John's.

---

Hmm, young Uriel - but surely you can only cast stones at those bishops if (hope I have got this right) you are sinless too...

If judgements on others can only made by those who are blameless, then doesn't your criticism of the bishops mean that you think that your eye is completely free of four-by-twos?

May you have heaps of Pax, anyway,
anglicanrascal
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
In my experience in my Christian life ... judgement is like a boomerang. If I throw it at someone, it veers back and hits me on the head. I should know, I have a sore head to prove it.
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
As a wise man once wrote, exposing hypocrisy does not in and of itself make you a moral person.

But as long as you're honest about your own motivations - and your own flaws - as long as you're aware that no one is above reproach, and you're prepared to take any flak coming to you, there's no reason why you shouldn't dish it out.

having sai that, it doesn't give you a carte blanche to go about it the wrong way. I had this conversation with my mother-in-law, who, unlike me, agrees with the bishops, but who, like me, is well aware that the way they stated their complaint was well bad.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Wood! WELL BAD! AAAAAAARRGGHHHHHH!

What this is all about is keepng the conservative evangelical constituency happy so that they won't pull the plug on the money. At the end of the day a bishop has to run a diocese. As an evangelical or just someone watching his back he is less likely to be compromised if he makes PUBLIC statements. That's not to say that Dow & Co. don't personally believe what they say ... but there are other motivations I'm sure.
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
This letter has been issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the principal points are that the current policy on homosexuality has not been changed and there are more importnat things for the church to be thinking about.
 

---

Posted by GeordieDownSouth (# 4100) on :
 
Good lad. Very balanced.


How much wieght does the arch bish actually carry in these matters? I'm a poor little methodist here so has no idea how a "proper" heirarchy works
 

---

Posted by Rhisiart (# 69) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
This letter has been issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the principal points are that the current policy on homosexuality has not been changed and there are more important things for the church to be thinking about.

---

quote:

---

...the concentration on this in recent weeks has had the effect of generating real incomprehension in much of our society, in a way that does nothing for our credibility

---

Translates as 'this is doing more harm than good, and think about what effect you're having on our overall mission'. He is clearly supporting the right of the diocese to choose whomsoever they wish (although an election process would have the advantage of showing wider support for the appointment). As a civil servant, I appreciate the nuances of this letter: as a church-goer, I doubt that either the congregations or the bishops will take much notice.
 

---

Posted by Archimandrite (# 3997) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
That's not to say that Dow & Co. don't personally believe what they say ... but there are other motivations I'm sure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Wood! WELL BAD! AAAAAAARRGGHHHHHH!

What this is all about is keepng the conservative evangelical constituency happy so that they won't pull the plug on the money. At the end of the day a bishop has to run a diocese. As an evangelical or just someone watching his back he is less likely to be compromised if he makes PUBLIC statements. That's not to say that Dow & Co. don't personally believe what they say ... but there are other motivations I'm sure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Wood! WELL BAD! AAAAAAARRGGHHHHHH!

---

Got a prob with my usages of the lingo, Greg?
 

---

Posted by IanB (# 38) on :
 
Divine Outlaw-Dwarf wrote

quote:

---

The real issue here is not about sexuality at all. The question is; is the CofE fundamentally an episcopal church, or is it a congregationalist church which has bishops as a matter of administrative convenience?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:


makes threats which call into doubt its loyality to the episcopal ordering of the church, then no more curates should be licensed to that church. Even freehold is not absolute in its power to let the incumbent do what they like. against the incumbent.

---

quote:

---

Well, I still don't see why having *been* a practising homosexual should be such an unforgivable blot as to make someone inelgible for episcopal office.

---

quote:

---

For the period up until 2001 JJ was in a gay relationship as a priest in active ministry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
And what's your source for the exact sexual nature of this relationship 1991-2001 and whether any proscribed 'genital acts' were occurring? I didn't see such explicit information in the press. A link would be welcome.

L.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
The threat to not license curates is weak because a local church with money could directly employee people and simply ignore any church restrictions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Degs:
Yes, but they cannot function without a licence.

---

Once a church says it is refusing to accept the authority of the Bishop it can pretty much do as it likes in the short term. It would be up to the rest of the Diocese to refuse to accept the ministry of a person who was not correctly licensed but you couldn't stop them doing what they chose if they were invited. It happened at Little Gidding I believe. The vicar whose licence was removed due to 'aggravated serial monogamy' which his bishop felt unfitting to his position was invited to carry on unlicensed by his flock and did so for several years. I think that situation was eventually resolved amicably.

As I said above, unity is a choice made by churches and individuals who accept a Bishop's authority. Once a church chooses to opt out, the only thing that will really bring them back IMO are the financial and other practical outworkings of their decision. For example, the C of E system of faculties replaces local council planning regs from which they are exempt. If CE churches are deemed to have opted out of that system by refusing to pay their Diocesan share they would be unlikely to be allowed by local councils to exist without regulation for very long.
 

---

Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
unprecedented announcement

Sean D has changed his mind!

Having read Jeffrey John's statement I am very satisfied by his commitment to an abstinent lifestyle and his sincere regret at the polemical tone of his talk at the AffCath conference. Whilst from a pragmatic point of view I wish his appointment had not taken place at this particular time (in the sense that it has been very divisive etc.) nevertheless given the nature of his humble and loving assurances my concerns have been very adequately expressed and I certainly can no longer see any objection to him being a bishop. The Anglican church is by its very nature diverse and one cannot demand that your bishop agree with you on every particular!

Not that my opinion on the issue matters a great deal (not meaning this sarcastically, it is genuinely the case!) but thought y'all might like to know it is possible for us tub-thumping evos to change our minds!!

However, I strongly suspect that this will not be the end of the matter as churches in the diocese will almost certainly be quota-capping in the near future.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I'm sure you are right. I think a split is now more likely than not, and that James Jones is lining himself up to be the first Archbishop of the Reformed Evangelical Anglican Communion.

I've got to be honest. I want there to be a split. I don't want to be in the same denomination as people with his view any longer. I think the Church of England would be a better place without them.
 

---

Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on :
 
Just a note asking people to remember that James Jones and Jeffrey John have the same initials. Seeing as both gentlemen are being discussed, this might be a good thread to avoid referring to people just using their initials.

I was rather shocked to read earlier that for the period up until 2001, James Jones was in a gay relationship as a priest in active ministry!!

Thanks and Pax, y'all,
anglicanrascal
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Degs:
Yes, but they cannot function without a licence.

---

Once a church says it is refusing to accept the authority of the Bishop it can pretty much do as it likes in the short term.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
I've got to be honest. I want there to be a split. I don't want to be in the same denomination as people with his view any longer. I think the Church of England would be a better place without them.

---

I feel like that sometimes. But then I think, are "they" conveniently grouped into nice, neat, separate parish churches?

Probably not. My church's congregation is (to put it crudely) 70% evangelical, 30% liberal. If the clergy decided to split from the C of E, some of the congregation would be thrilled, others would be devastated. Very very messy and sad business. Who would go where? Friendships and families rent assunder, etc etc.

I had a lovely civilised chat with an ultra-consertive Anglican the other day, and I felt better for it. I like it when people disagree with me. The C of E would be a duller place without "them."

I just hope we can somehow hold it all together.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
If there is a split, what's the betting that the group who are anti the Bish of Reading will call themselves the TRUE Church of England?
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Take your point. But we can't carry on like this. Rowan Williams was right - to the outsider, we appear simply incomprehensible. Nothing but a sad, outdated joke.
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
We can somehow hold it all together only if conservative evangelicals play ball as regards Anglican diversity.

The historical accident that is the CofE has always been a 'mixed bag' and only 'works' when people accept it as such. So, an Anglo-Catholic such as myself has to accept that there will be people in 'my church' who deny the real eucharistic presence, preach substitutionary atonement, double predestination and the like. Conversely, those who do these things have to accept that there are people who lean suspciously towards Rome. 'Twas ever thus. Homosexuality is no different in kind to these other issues. It's about the interpretation of Scripture? Well so are debates about the sacraments, justification etc.

Basically, I think, the deal is - you can have Nicky Gumbel if we can have Jeffrey John.
 

---

Posted by Bongo (# 778) on :
 
Nicely put, DOD.

I think they'd call themselves the Real C of E. Has a certain ring to it, don't you think?
 

---

Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
If there is a split, what's the betting that the group who are anti the Bish of Reading will call themselves the TRUE Church of England?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
Without being a great canon lawyer, I would think that any diocese with sufficient willpower could drag a parish declaring UDI through the courts.

---

quote:

---

I've got to be honest. I want there to be a split. I don't want to be in the same denomination as people with his view any longer. I think the Church of England would be a better place without them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Degs:
Yes, but they cannot function without a licence.

---

Once a church says it is refusing to accept the authority of the Bishop it can pretty much do as it likes in the short term.

---

Without being a great canon lawyer, I would think that any diocese with sufficient willpower could drag a parish declaring UDI through the courts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:


I was rather shocked to read earlier that for the period up until 2001, James Jones was in a gay relationship as a priest in active ministry!!

Thanks and Pax, y'all,
anglicanrascal

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
I fully accept, as a supporter of women priests, that it broke with both catholic tradition and scripture

---

Myself, I don't believe that, and when I thought it did, I was unable to accept the validity of their orders.

However, this changed for me and largely due to a discussion here on the Ship, as well as an excellent and helpful discussion with Tomb. And I'm also glad of this because I would not have the excellent sermons of Mother Leslie, priest at my own church , but I could only change my belief if it was based on the right reasons -- which, for me, cannot violate Catholic tradition and Scripture (as interpreted through the lens of same).

I have not seen the revision of the rules on divorce thus far, so I don't know if I would accept them as true or not till I do.

David
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
More to the point (and... erm... on topic ), I think that there are a few different issues going on here: (1) the gay issue (and related issues relating to celibacy, orientation, etc.) and whether or not JJ is a good candidate for bishop -- and (2) what the appropriate behaviour is for those who think JJ is not a good candidate. Even if the man were openly and clearly living in a way which I would not think right for anyone -- for that matter, even if I thought his theology was heretical from beginning to end -- I still find the singling of him out this way, by his detractors, really troubling.
 

---

Posted by W (# 14) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:


I was rather shocked to read earlier that for the period up until 2001, James Jones was in a gay relationship as a priest in active ministry!!

Thanks and Pax, y'all,
anglicanrascal

---

And if you're a subscriber to the school of thought which condemns 'genital acts' but not sexual orientation, how exactly do you know that there were any 'genital acts' going on in that relationship at the time you mention? Have you and Ender's Shadow been up a ladder with a pair of binoculars, do you have a reliable source for the exact nature of the relationship, or are you two just jumping to conclusions and enjoying the frisson of being 'shocked'?

L.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Degs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
The threat to not license curates is weak because a local church with money could directly employee people and simply ignore any church restrictions.

---

Yes, but they cannot function without a licence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by W:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:


I was rather shocked to read earlier that for the period up until 2001, James Jones was in a gay relationship as a priest in active ministry!!

Thanks and Pax, y'all,
anglicanrascal

---

And if you're a subscriber to the school of thought which condemns 'genital acts' but not sexual orientation, how exactly do you know that there were any 'genital acts' going on in that relationship at the time you mention? Have you and Ender's Shadow been up a ladder with a pair of binoculars, do you have a reliable source for the exact nature of the relationship, or are you two just jumping to conclusions and enjoying the frisson of being 'shocked'?

L.

---

Oh dear. I think we've been up two different ladders here with two pairs of binoculars and got them all in a twist.

Louise, I think anglicanrascal was referring solely to the potential for misunderstanding when he acronym 'JJ' is used.

---

His point is well and truly made!

cheers,
L.
 

---

Posted by Spong (# 1518) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
For the period up until 2001 JJ was in a gay relationship as a priest in active ministry. In 1991 this was ruled to be unacceptable for the CofE, and it was expected that bishops would enforce this. So for 10 years JJ was in clear violation of what was expected of him as a priest.

---

quote:

---

Nor is it the case that sexual expression was recently abandoned for the sake of preferment. The relationship ceased to be sexual in the 1990s at the time when Issues in Human Sexuality was becoming the policy document by which clergy were being called to abide. I have had, and I still have, an overriding regard for the mind of the Church in its interpretation of scripture, whatever my personal interpretation. This means that I have always submitted the facts of this relationship both to my confessors and to my canonical superiors, and I have obeyed their direction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
What JJ's detractors are demanding of course is evidence of repentance for his former acts, not simply timely abstinence.

---

quote:

---

We see a reordering of the Anglican Communion taking place in the Providence of God. We do not attempt to predict its future shape and constitution, but we rejoice that we live in the days when finally such a necessary transformation is imminent. We align ourselves with all leaders in the Anglican Communion whose commitment is to the revealed religion of orthodox Christianity – Biblical, Evangelical, Catholic, and Apostolic, and we pray fervently that we be obedient to God’s Word and Will.

---

There seems to be some sort of 'deal' going on between FiF and Reform. But I think many of the FiF members who sit on their hands when the gay issue is discussed (thinking guiltily of their boyfriend, sorry, LODGER, Doris, back in the vicarage) will think twice before abandoning the CofE for a junior role in a church which would be just as riven with disputes, with a group which is protestant and reformed through and through - can you just imagine the rows on lay presidency??!

[quote UBB added]

[ 24. June 2003, 17:42: Message edited by: Louise ]
 

---

Posted by Professor Yaffle (# 525) on :
 
Apropos of any repentance on behalf of Canon John, he implies that the decision to embrace celibacy was made, at least in part, at the behest of his spiritual director and therefore, one assumes, in the context of the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation.

Isn't that enough? Or is he also supposed to cast himself on the floor in front of the High Altar of Carlisle Cathedral crying out "Tread on Me! I am as salt which has lost it's savour"? Or spend four days kneeling in the snow outside the Bishop of Liverpool's Palace clad only in sackcloth? If I were a traditionalist I would hesitate before insisting that the state of Canon John's private life and the state of his soul be pored over in the Daily Mail. One can hardly accuse liberals of selling out to the spirit of the age when one has adopted the mores of the producers of 'Big Brother'.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Professor

I suspect that is exactly what Big Brother in Carlisle wants. Secular culture has variant and deformed residuals of both evangelical and catholic culture. Public voyeurism and emotion laden testimonies are a feature of early puritanism. Private counsel and the psychotherapy derives from the confessional. When two worlds clash! ..............
 

---

Posted by Flying_Belgian (# 3385) on :
 
I shall not wasde in with a general post at this late stage, but rather would offer this observation on the Big Brother issue:

Is it unreasonable to suggest that if a devoted Christian servant felt that his appointment would cause a schism in the church, then the greater good dictates that he should step aside? (rhetorical question to make the point- not one for discussion)

If however, one takes the view that the objections to his appointment are unreasonable and amount to bullying, then of course, the honourable thing to do is stand ones ground and defeat the bullies.

Jeffrey John and his supporters appear to take the latter view (about which I make no comment in this post). In which case, the appointment becomes a "litmus test" of the church's view on appropriate sexual relations.

With the issue now elevated to such status, it is not suprising that we have reached this "Big Brother State", because the debate is not so much about whether person X should be Bishop, but whether activity Y is acceptable for the church as a whole.

I think it reasonable to surmise that if Jeffrey John were appointed, it would be heralded as a "victory" for those who wish to see a change in attitude of the church towards sexuality. In this case, the individual case becomes totemic for both sides.

For this reason, I think it is inevitable that the specifics of the case (in this case Jeffrey John's relationship) are subject to such scrutiny. I use the term inevitable deliberately- because I don't necessarily think this is a good thing.

For the record, I think the matter is best dealt with in private, and see little point in internal church proceedings being dragged into the secular media- especially when the case revolves around the private life of one bloke.

However, if the case is something of a test case- then consideration of the general principle; then the specifics of the case become highly germane to the discussion- not because the living arrangements of Jeffrey John are intrinsically earth shattering, but because their relation to his position as a Bishop has profound implications for the churches stance on the issue of the conduct of bishops.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
That's fair FB. However, insofar as a Christian has (albeit willingly) been dragged into this totemic dispute this badly reflects on those bishops (perhaps on both sides of the argument ... who knows) who, rather than talk and pray through their differences, would rather clash their mitres inn the public domain, (in an ever so English way ... even the Welsh men). Is it a game of who can make whom look more plausible or stupid in the court of masses. Abp. Rowan seems to be aware of the PR stakes ... I presume Big Brother in Carlisle is as well. I suppose that both sides in this antagonism have counted the odds, the risks and the payoffs. This is very unedifying and not bound to commend the gospel to the country. Still I suppose if it's the struggle for the truth that counts it can hardly be kept out of the public domain. I suspect it's another case of "well, chaps, we are not going to agree we might as well just slog it out."
 

---

Posted by Flying_Belgian (# 3385) on :
 
Well said Fr Gregory.

I don't think the public domain is really the place for this kind of dispute to be fought over- it hardly creates an edifying spectacle for the non-Christian world.

It creates the impression that all the church cares about is sex- which, is not a fair or representative reflection of any church I have been to.

I am not sure that the antis thought they would look superior in the court of the masses. They have hardly come across in the media as a particularly nice bunch. If this was their intention then they need a major PR rethink. Their stance has hardly come across as loving, or unpersecuting towards gays- and I say this as someone whose view on same sex relationships is traditional.

I guess the reason for doing this was that both sides felt it was the only way to energise the wider church into engaging with this debate, which, of totemic significance was too important to be conducted in private.

It is somewhat galling to see one man and his dog pitching in with their own view on church affairs; and every non church going newspaper columnist suddenly trying (and failing) in some in depth Biblical exegesis.

I sense that ++Rowan is not particularly glad to be plunged into this kind of controversy, given that his views on same sex relationships aroused so much debate prior to his ordination; and he is doing his best to keep out of it by insisting that he won't block the appointment, but equally is not wading in on the "pro" side.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I think most of us are actually in agreement about the tactics of the 'anti's'. Obviously, I am involved in this one, given my own work on behalf of lesbian and gay Christians and which Diocese I happen to be in, and I'm as biased as you can get.

However, the tactics have been heavy-handed, and I seriously believe their failure to challenge the quite awful homophobia ( I rarely use that word, but what other is there for those outbursts of loathing?) of the three overseas bishops has raised all sorts of questions about what they really do think.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
"He who sits on a fence better not have big man fall on top of him," (Old Chinese proverb - not)[sexual innuendo not intended].

Seriously I don't think Abp. Rowan's nuanced position is for self preservation ... it's a political stratagem to try and keep the 'ole girl together. That is a serious misjudgement. Big Brother & Co. have already made their mind up about him. If I were him and I had nailed my colours to the mast (which he has) then there would come a point when I would have to face everyone down and crack the whip. The only trouble is that's not very Anglican. I don't know whether it's very "Rowan." Anyone in Monmouth care to comment?
 

---

Posted by Flying_Belgian (# 3385) on :
 
I have some sympathy with MerseyMike here. We have disagreed in the past on sexual issues- see the chaplaincy and CU thread- but I do wonder about the motivations of some of the parties involved.

Whilst I agree with the Nigerian Bishops on the basic question of same sex relationships, it was rather revealing to find out that they seemed to be rather less intolerant towards other non-standard sexual practices which were prevalanet in their own dioceses.

What alarms me about the current episode is the message that it sends to the wider community, and in particular to gays and lesbians. It hardly suggests that the church of England is a welcoming place. Much more, it hardly suggests that the evangelical wing of the church consists of anything other than right-wing bigots- something that I don't believe is a fair statement of reality.

If the evangelical wing of the church wants to preserve its teachings on same sex relationships but avoid being seen as bigoted (something that I hope it does), then it needs to be far stronger in disassociating itself from bigotry and outright prejudice. Yes, I do believe that the Bible prohibits same sex relatioships- but this view will only avoid the charge of homophobia, if this is articulated in a loving way.

I am also saddened by the fact that secularists in the media have not hesitated to put the boot in, and use the dispute for their own anti-religious ends. My own paper, the Guardian, seems to be having a field day in bashing the evangelical movement.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I don't think its his style, Gregory. But I think he will continue to be dignified, and at least at the end of it all, he will undoubtedly appear to be fair, have listened to their point of view, and I think will have more authority because his approach will have been refreshingly free of bullying.

Belgian : I think, though, that those seeking change in the church have been supported in the liberal press - you wouldn't expect a pro-gay paper like the Guardian to be sympathetic to the evangelical point of view, really.
The fact is that the responses of those Bishops were not theological. It was all about feel;ings of personal disgust and reflection of their own culture - which is not the same as our changing culture, itself becoming more liberal on these matters.
I'm afraid my experience has been that certainly the most conservative (ie Reform) do not really wish to see any sort of gay relationships at all, for laity as well as clergy.

[ 24. June 2003, 19:13: Message edited by: Merseymike ]
 

---

Posted by Flying_Belgian (# 3385) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:


Seriously I don't think Abp. Rowan's nuanced position is for self preservation ... it's a political stratagem to try and keep the 'ole girl together.

---

Agreed. What I meant by my original remark was that Rowan was keeping out of things to try to defuse the situation and remain relatively impartial.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear FB ... yes, I agree. Oh, we are so agreed!

Dear Mike ... I have a lot of respect for Abp. Rowan. He would make a mighty fine Orthodox bishop, (and he wouldn't have to change his facial hair!). However, as to your prediction ... I wouldn't assume that reason will always win the day when passions are aroused. This is probably not a candidate for a gentleman's agreement.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Oh, I agree with that ( hehe) - I think there will be a split. But I think RW will have won a lot more admiration for the way he has not waded in without consideration for all involved.
 

---

Posted by Flying_Belgian (# 3385) on :
 
I wouldn't expect the Guardian to be sympathetic to the evangelical stance on same sex relationships, no; BUT, that this is a view on a particular ethical issue.

My point was that this specific issue has been used as a stick to beat the evangelical church as a whole, something which goes far beyond its views on one particular subject. Judging by today's letters page I am not alone in this.

Was it really necessary to label the letters on the Jeffrey John issue "The Bishop and the Bible Bashers"?
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
"He who courts the media sups with the devil and had better use a long spoon." (Old Chinese Proverb - not)
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I must be honest. Belgian ; the Guardian's coverage has reflected my own viewpoint, and I think they have 'reaped what they sowed'. Its well known around here that James Jones is only to be found whenever there's a TV camera or a microphone.

Live by the sword.....
 

---

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 

quote:

---

In the light of this, I am sure Ender's Shadow will want to withdraw his previous statement. Since his misunderstanding also seems to be the basis on which ES thinks he can't be a bishop, I assume we can look forward to a change of heart by ES that will be as welcome as that of Sean D.

---

It's a fair cop - that is certainly not the reading that I absorbed from other sources, but this quote does make my argument void.
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
Well if you think this is causing problems I wonder what will happen if the rumour is correct and Canon Gene Robinson comes to speak at Manchester Cathedral in October.
 

---

Posted by Rex Monday (# 2569) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flying_Belgian:

If the evangelical wing of the church wants to preserve its teachings on same sex relationships but avoid being seen as bigoted (something that I hope it does), then it needs to be far stronger in disassociating itself from bigotry and outright prejudice. Yes, I do believe that the Bible prohibits same sex relatioships- but this view will only avoid the charge of homophobia, if this is articulated in a loving way.

I am also saddened by the fact that secularists in the media have not hesitated to put the boot in, and use the dispute for their own anti-religious ends. My own paper, the Guardian, seems to be having a field day in bashing the evangelical movement.

---

quote:

---

Canon Gene Robinson comes to speak at Manchester Cathedral in October.

---

quote:

---

inclined to give any holy book an uncritical exemption from sceptical analysis

---

[ 24. June 2003, 23:33: Message edited by: Merseymike ]
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
I'm getting in this thread rather late. And I haven't followed the situation that closely. But I wonder if the bishops are picking the wrong fight. John has stated that he is living a celibate lifestyle. The scriptures that address homosexuality address homosexual conduct, not orientation as far as I can see. So, from what I know, a case can be made by even an fundie-leaning evangelical that John has not disqualified himself.

If you're going to fight over the appointment of a gay bishop, here in the U.S., a man who is by his own admission not celibate and in a gay relationship is up for bishop. It seems to me that is more worth fighting about.

Again, I've followed neither situation closely. But if a Fundamentalist such as myself is wondering about the wisdom of the bishops' course, maybe that says something.

(I hope I didn't make anyone faint. )
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
No dearie, for nothing is impossible with God...
 

---

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 

quote:

---

which, in ++Rowan's words, would be to 'trying to pre-empt, undermine or short-circuit the reflection of the Church as a whole.'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
John has stated that he is living a celibate lifestyle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
It's a fair cop - that is certainly not the reading that I absorbed from other sources, but this quote does make my argument void.

---

Well... I have to apologise too. I was sure that you wouldn't back down, and my previous post was a bit too close to trolling for comfort. Sorry, and thank you for your post.
 

---

Posted by Degs (# 2824) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by socks:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Degs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
The threat to not license curates is weak because a local church with money could directly employee people and simply ignore any church restrictions.

---

Yes, but they cannot function without a licence.

---

What exactly can't a person who would otherwise be curate do that they could do if they were licenced?

I'm genuinely curious

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Degs:

That's if they give any weight to the Canons and Ecclesiatical Law.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Clergy have been ignoring canon law for years parishes use unauthorised liturgy, don't use robes ect and no one does anything.The diocese could spend a lot of money taking a parish to court and in the process look silly. I think a vicar can invite anyone to take the pulpit on a one off basis anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Degs:
I think even the most 'laid back' of Bishops or Archdeacons would get a strop on about an unlicensed curate exercising a full ministry!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Degs:
I think even the most 'laid back' of Bishops or Archdeacons would get a strop on about an unlicensed curate exercising a full ministry!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Degs:
I think even the most 'laid back' of Bishops or Archdeacons would get a strop on about an unlicensed curate exercising a full ministry!

---

They probably would, the question being raised here is what could they practically do about it in the short term without making themselves and the C of E look (more) ridiculous?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flying_Belgian:
Ok- pardon me for the misjudgement. Perhaps I can rephrase things to make the point less personal and a little clearer:

What is the point of an episcopalian system if you profoundly disagree with the Bishop?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Well if you think this is causing problems I wonder what will happen if the rumour is correct and Canon Gene Robinson comes to speak at Manchester Cathedral in October.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flying_Belgian:
Ok- pardon me for the misjudgement. Perhaps I can rephrase things to make the point less personal and a little clearer:

What is the point of an episcopalian system if you profoundly disagree with the Bishop?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Well if you think this is causing problems I wonder what will happen if the rumour is correct and Canon Gene Robinson comes to speak at Manchester Cathedral in October.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Degs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Well if you think this is causing problems I wonder what will happen if the rumour is correct and Canon Gene Robinson comes to speak at Manchester Cathedral in October.

---

I don't know about him speaking in Manchester Cathedral (though I do hope so), but he is taking part in the LGCM Conference taking place at Manchester University in October!

---

quote:

---

The Bishop of Oxford is perceived by many to have acted unilaterally in breaching the line by appointing an openly gay priest and to have undermined the Bishops collegiality. I believe that Canon John, whose integrity and merits I do not doubt, has been placed in a distressing situation. 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.

---

quote:

---

It may lead to some parishes withdrawing their voluntary contributions to the diocese, which I fear in the end, would adversely affect poor urban parishes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Obscure:
Fr Gregory, I think the answer would be:

Yes, repent of the sin.

---

Firstly, whether or not there is any 'sin' to be repented of is precisely one of the issues involved. Canon John is, according even to the bishop-signatories, entitled to his own view on this. The point is, it seems, whether his current conduct conforms to the norms expected of clergy at the moment - which it does.

Secondly, the type of evangelical who is now calling for public repentance generally holds a view of forgiveness which is radically individualistic, it happens between me and God. Mediation via the Church (e.g. via the sacrament of reconciliation) and ratification by the community is deemed unnecessary. Consistency?!
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
You got there before me Divine Outlaw 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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

I think that the situation would be the same.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps the fury would not be so great

---

So adulterous heterosexuality is less heinous than faithful homosexuality?
 

---

Posted by Flying_Belgian (# 3385) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
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?!
 

---

Posted by Flying_Belgian (# 3385) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Flying_Belgian (# 3385) on :
 

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?!

---

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)

---

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.

---

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.

---

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!

---

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...
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

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...
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 

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).

---

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.

---

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".

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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).

---

quote:

---

As a bishop I will have to abide by that [i.e. Issues in Human Sexuality]. It is a matter of corporate discipline.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
the obsession with sex is a quaintly modern phenomenon

---

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."

---

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.

---

No doubt you'll be serving oysters.
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 

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?

---

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

 

---

Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
[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?

---

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.

---

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. ?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
Angloid!
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spong:
The only people who can pronounce on doctrine in the Church of England are the bishops.

---

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...

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...
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

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
 

---

Posted by Flying_Belgian (# 3385) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by welsh dragon (# 3249) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by Bongo (# 778) on :
 
*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 ]
 

---

Posted by Spong (# 1518) on :
 

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

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

---

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)

---

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.

---

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

---

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) :-)
 

---

Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
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

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.
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 

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.

---

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

---

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 ]
 

---

Posted by Degs (# 2824) on :
 
Witch hunt? Does that term still apply when the 'hunt' was conducted by the witches?
 

---

Posted by CJ (# 2166) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Rob - ID crisis InDiE KiD (# 3256) on :
 
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!
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Ms Lilith (# 1767) on :
 
I just heard. Channel 4 news is still on in the background

I am ashamed to be a christian today, the church has been held ransom to bigotry and it has allowed bigotry to win.
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by Degs (# 2824) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
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.

---

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:
 

---

Posted by welsh dragon (# 3249) on :
 
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.


 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

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.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by welsh dragon:
Just learned about the move by Dr. John to withdraw acceptance of the job.

---

quote:

---

Was in one of the Oxford churches which most vociferously opposed him, when an announcement was made in the service.

---

quote:

---

Are you seriously saying that it’s right for the press to poke around someone’s private life;

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
I can't stomach them ranting on about gays all the time, but their opinions on bishops are pretty sound.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
If it had been a joint appointment

---

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?

---

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.

---

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!!
Perhaps it's time for the C-of-E to adopt the Welsh practice of an Electoral College?
 

---

Posted by MarkE (# 4660) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by ptarmigan (# 138) on :
 

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 ]
 

---

Posted by Degs (# 2824) on :
 
Just watched a report on BBC News 24 including an interview with the Dean of Southwark (JJ's 'boss'). Apparently his mail was 100 to 1 in favour of his hanging in there!

And he would only withdraw if asked

Well, Oxford Diocese's loss is Southwark's continued gain.
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 

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....

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?
 

---

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
Flying Belgian

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.
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
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.

---

 

---

Posted by Adrian1 (# 3994) on :
 
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.




 

---

Posted by Glimmer (# 4540) on :
 

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!
 

---

Posted by Ms Lilith (# 1767) on :
 
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"
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Yes, we too had that same bible reading, and even a sermon preached on it
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by Angel* (# 4690) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by Rhisiart (# 69) on :
 

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.
 

---

Posted by Rhisiart (# 69) on :
 

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>

---

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.

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ms Lilith:
Anyone hear Radio 4 this morning. JJ' s boss, (whose name I have forgotten)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Do Anglican Shipmates agree? Has this episode damaged his position?

---

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?

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by W:
Extreme pressure was exerted on Jeffrey John by a group of Lambeth Palace staff says the Guardian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by angloid:
Jensen rides again?

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
the pubic approval of the people of the diocese

---

oooops!

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Degs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
the pubic approval of the people of the diocese

---

oooops!

---

Oh bugger.

 

---

Posted by Flying_Belgian (# 3385) on :
 
See this leader in "The Times for a more balanced view.
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
I was simply blending in with the weirdness of the post.
 

---

Posted by The Wasteland (# 4700) on :
 
What, exactly, do you all imagine you are discussing here?

Imagine if the Nazis had won WWII and, during the centuries following their victory, had begun to dismantle/backtrack on all of the distasteful elements of their philosophy…

- The anti-Semitism
- The sexism
- The use of slave labour
- The homophobia
- The pogroms and ethnic cleansings

What would you be left with? Surely only a shadow of the true and original Nazism?

The Judeo/Christian religions, whether people are honest enough to admit it or not, contain all the same views and opinions as Nazism buried within Biblical text. Just take a look at the long, sordid, history of witch-burning, Inquisitions and so forth that this religion has inflicted on the world. Now it is becoming increasingly obvious that Christianity’s hatred of gay people is equally sordid and distasteful. Consequently the more astute of the Christian theologians are realising that it might well be time to conveniently sweep that nasty little prejudice under the carpet as well.

However, this latest flurry of in-fighting over the gay Bishop has allowed everyone else to see the fundamentalist fanatics in their true colours – vicious and hateful witch-burners - full of their own self-righteousness and sense of moral superiority. It is clear they lack any sense of compassion for anyone who happens to be different from themselves. Such crocodile tears as they do shed and the few platitudes they choose to mouth, represent nothing more than a self-engrandizing attempt to try to prove (against all evidence to the contrary) that they actually care about people.

In reality, it seems to me, that they care about nothing apart from their own legalistic obsession with the precise meanings of ancient dusty tombs of made-up fairy tales. And, demonstrating their own rigid adherence to this mumbo-jumbo serves no real purpose beyond filling themselves with a smug sense of superiority at the expense of their fellow man.

No wonder that the literal meanings of dead text and such impersonal concepts as “unity” mean far more to them than the suffering of real people.

However, this is a “blessing” in disguise. Because it shows people the truth! And the truth is that, in the matter of the conflict between religion and sexuality the problem is NOT sexuality – nor has it ever been. The problem is RELIGION! Perhaps now many more people will WAKE UP and GROW UP and ditch all this antiquated fiddle faddle and adopt a more sensible and appropriate philosophy for the C21st – i.e. atheist secular humanism. Ain’t no magic imaginary god gonna save us and make it all better. There is ONLY us. We’ve got to grow up as a species and start taking genuine responsibility for ourselves rather than relying on people who died 2000+ years ago to do our thinking for us. We have to do our own thinking now. This age is not their time anymore & their ideas are (not surprisingly) defunct. This is our age. This is our time. It is up to us to shape it.

As far as I am concerned, the sooner we see the back of these disgusting primitive belief systems the better. It is time to more forward and ditch the crap. This latest incident, perhaps more than any other, will hopefully help many other people in the LGBT community to realise (as indeed I myself realised some considerable time ago) that religion has no role to play in the society of the future & the sooner we see the back of it the better.

As a secular humanist and EX Christian, I accept I have no business on a Christian website really. This is your haven & under normal circumstances I’d quite happily let you get on with it. However at this particular time & in this particular context I think you all could do with reminding of how others outside the Christian community – especially within the LGBT community itself – actually view recent events with regard to JJ. At last people in the LGBT community will be able to see your religion for the enemy it truly is.

I will now leave you in peace & you can get on with discussing the impending demise of your religion.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Oh how cute! An atheist crusader. We haven't had one of those for MONTHS! Isn't it just adorable?
 

---

Posted by makesachange (# 2424) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flying_Belgian:
"African bishops denounced homosexuality as an abomination, with the Archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, claiming that such conduct was lower than that of beasts ...
The leader also chooses to name only one opponent of Jeffrey John, The Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola who it describes as "bigoted".

---

quote:

---

=> 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?

---

quote:

---

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"

---

quote:

---

"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.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

If I was writing that piece I probably would have used the same headline, becuase right now that's just how it feels from where I'm sitting.
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
Moderator Hat On

The Wasteland, thanks for your helpful and constructive contribution to our debate. We haven't had a post like your yours for, oh, days now.

If you do wish to join in, please read the guidelines of the Ship of Fools boards and for Purgatory, and please try and keep on topic.

Thanks awfully.
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
Terry Eagleton once made the point that there is a perverse commanlity of interest between, on the one had, reactionary Christians, and, on the other, atheist humanists, in that both of them deny the possibility of the Christian gospel having emancipatory potential. I think The Wasteland has done a grand job of demonstrating this in practice.
 

---

Posted by Professor Yaffle (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by The Wasteland:

quote:

---

The problem is RELIGION! Perhaps now many more people will WAKE UP and GROW UP and ditch all this antiquated fiddle faddle and adopt a more sensible and appropriate philosophy for the C21st – i.e. atheist secular humanism.

---

quote:

---

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?

---

Fr Gregory, I take your points on board but in the absence of a genuine consensus in the Anglican Church at this time, I feel that doing as he pleases in accordance with his conscience but being discreet about it, is the one honourable course open to Canon John. Having at one time held a far from liberal position on such matters, I've come to take the view that so long as they are acting within the law of the land, consenting adults should do as they please behind closed doors. Not everyone has the same values or tolerance threshhold though and for these reasons, discretion is the better part of valour.


 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Adrian1

If an individual chooses to keep his/her head down so be it; but to make it the policy of a church?!
 

---

Posted by shareman (# 2871) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Oh how cute! An atheist crusader. We haven't had one of those for MONTHS! Isn't it just adorable?

---

quote:

---

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by angloid:
Jensen rides again?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not confuse ++Carey with ++Jensen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Wood <tangent, forgive me>
I agree but atheism is fed by fundamentalism and there is little of that here. Perhaps our atheist friend will spew us out of his mouth as neither hot nor cold.
<end tangent>

---

quote:

---

So the best solution, then, would be to restructure the church - especially its finances - so that theological issues are no longer held to ransom by a wealthy minority with no conscience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by barrea:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Wood <tangent, forgive me>
I agree but atheism is fed by fundamentalism and there is little of that here. Perhaps our atheist friend will spew us out of his mouth as neither hot nor cold.
<end tangent>

---

Fundimentalists If thats what you call us,there are a few of us left and still on the ship

---

Actually, we call you "fundamentalists", since we can spell. Anyway, keep it up. It's good for the atheists to have someone to feed their righteous indignation upon. As for me, I'll just go sit in the corner and despair quietly, if you don't mind.
 

---

Posted by gbuchanan (# 415) on :
 
In response to a couple of postings about the opponents of JJ acting, at least in some cases, from 'High Principle', I have to say that I find that argument deeply unconvincing, and last night I realised why.

As with the gun protection and hunting laws in the UK, I've generally had a fairly strong leaning not to force those who find such activities enjoyable to abandon them. However, the dishonesty with which they have consistently acted - failing to discipline bad practice within their own community, and clear breaches of law to boot, shows a complete lack of high principle across their actions.

Similarly, with the vocal anti-homosexual groups which tout a traditionalist line, and have in this case targetted an individual, the argument of 'High Principle' and how the argument is carried forward clash totally. The approach taken against JJ, as I've observed before in this thread, is clearly intended to prejudice any debate in the area generally, and has been conducted in a highly personal manner. There can be little 'high principle' when the basic tenets of how to treat others as demonstrated in the person of Jesus Christ are so readily thrown away.

I keep on hearing how people can disagree with the acceptability of homosexuality and yet not be homophobic - love the sinner, hate the sin. However, personally, and it may be just imbalance of experience, I've found that there is always a strong overtone of disdain or disgust at least, and I've seen at least two very strong friendships destroyed after people have 'come out' when the other party, despite touting the sin/sinner line, disagrees with there being any moral legitimacy in homosexuality, and actually is not able to demonstrate much love or acceptance of the gay person.

Now, I'm not attempting to argue the ethical point over homosexuality, but the difficulty is that the behaviour of intolerance demonstrated here tends to arouse, as it does in me, a strong backlash which I don't experience when the same view held with some humility and genuine love. I personally would not wish that those who oppose homosexuality being recognised within the CoE to have that ethical view imposed upon them, however, I do feel that they are attempting to impose their view on those of us who are more liberal (in the specific case of this issue). If it is impossible for our views to be represented in the House of Bishops, for example, that is explicitly to nullify our point of view and, implicitly, the validity of our membership. Furthermore, it ensures that our view explicitly must never be represented or permitted to be expressed, even within communities which are predominantly or exclusively so minded.

Fracas such as this actually, as with the gun/hunting/women priests, issues tend to push me emotionally towards a much less inclusive view than I would wish to have. I feel angry at seeing people treated like human refuse, and I feel angry at myself for my emotional response to that.

Also, on a personal note, having been through some really bad experiences in my marriage, I well know that folks who have a conservative view on this tend to be pretty insensitive to my own experiences, though they again decree that they aren't being condescending etc. That presses a bad button too.

I think that the point made earlier on that the 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' viewpoints can't be held readily together due to their contradicting views on the sole primacy of scripture or tradition is an important one. The question, as I see it, is why should pretty much any Liberal view be seen as tantamount to selling out to the Devil and wanting to take others with you, rather than a view which can be reached with integrity and without wishing to impose it on everyone else?

Sorry if this is tangential or otherwise, but I thought it was worthwhile saying...
 

---

Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gareth:
So the best solution, then, would be to restructure the church - especially its finances - so that theological issues are no longer held to ransom by a wealthy minority with no conscience.

---

quote:

---

If it is impossible for our views to be represented in the House of Bishops, for example, that is explicitly to nullify our point of view and, implicitly, the validity of our membership.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Degs:
Jeffrey John was a convenient cause celebre to force the ABC into a corner and hopefully undermine his authority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
... Abp. Rowan's appointment now increasingly looks like tokenism ... which is a shame because I think that he is the best Archbishop the CofE has had since Ramsey.

---

quote:

---

I keep on hearing how people can disagree with the acceptability of homosexuality and yet not be homophobic - love the sinner, hate the sin. However, personally, and it may be just imbalance of experience, I've found that there is always a strong overtone of disdain or disgust at least, and I've seen at least two very strong friendships destroyed after people have 'come out' when the other party, despite touting the sin/sinner line, disagrees with there being any moral legitimacy in homosexuality, and actually is not able to demonstrate much love or acceptance of the gay person.

---

You can only speak as you find. For what it's worth I'm not into "queer bashing" but the thought of what homosexuals do still turns my stomach. However, I'm of a mind that so far as I'm concerned they can do what they like so long as it's consensual, legal and private. I get rather fed up though picking up a newspaper, be it one of the secular press or the church press, only to see one headline after another along the lines of 'Gay this', 'Gay that', 'Gay the other flippin thing.' Haven't people got other things with which to occupy their minds?


 

---

Posted by Flying_Belgian (# 3385) on :
 
I see what you are saying.

Unfortunately, the media only seem interesed in the church when there is a scandal, a big row or something to do with sex. This creates the impression that the churches primary concern is sex.

From my experience, issues of sexuality actually occupy only a very small space the in teaching at most evangelical churches, and elsewhere- but the media is only interested in what the church has to say about sex.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Habgood was (is) a good egg and had (has) a good mind ... but he wasn't really a leader and inspirer as Ramsay was.

The three monastic vows of poverty, chastity and obedience reveal what might be considered the three most explosive, dynamic and important issues of human life when they go wrong ... sex, money and freedom. It's hardly surprising that the media find them interesting as well. Don't we all?
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adrian1:

---

You can only speak as you find. For what it's worth I'm not into "queer bashing" but the thought of what homosexuals do still turns my stomach.

quote:

---

Dr Williams, the leader of the world-wide Church, felt he could not ignore the perspective of the Anglican Communion as a whole, and Jeffrey John was persuaded to relinquish his post.

In a statement the next day Dr Williams said "the estrangement of churches in developing countries from their cherished ties with Britain is in no-one's interests.

"It would impoverish us as a Church in every way".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

If it is impossible for our views to be represented in the House of Bishops, for example, that is explicitly to nullify our point of view and, implicitly, the validity of our membership.

---

I'd remind you that ++Rowan holds the same views and made it despite that; the challengers to him did not focus on the gay issue. So I don't think that is a legitimate reading of the situation after the JJ fiasco.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TonyK:
Since the vocal minority who opposed the appointment 'won' in part at least by their threat to withold their parish quotas, maybe the rest of us should now do the same.

---

quote:

---

For what it's worth I'm not into "queer bashing" but the thought of what homosexuals do still turns my stomach

---

Oh dear - I'm so sorry the thought of two men or women holding hands while watching TV has made you feel queasy.

quote:

---

the complaints about Rowan's appointment were entirely on the 'gay issue',

---

Not entirely - some conservative evangelicals thought he was dodgy on doctrine - Gary Williams at Oak Hill even wrote an analysis and denunciation of Rowan's theology. Ann Atkins regularly knocks Rowan for his likening of God to a spastic child - unaware of how crassly insulting she is being to such children and their families, of course. (And Gary W's critique is hopelessly inaccurate too). Then there are those who refer to Rowan's theology as 'obtuse' or 'vague' - which being interpreted means 'I don't quite get it as it's too subtle / profound for me and he's probably a heretic anyway because he's not like me.' This would be if it were not


And then there's the overseas dimension to the JJ issue. I've never been to Africa but those who have tell me the African Anglican churches often collude with domestic violence, polygamy and heterosexual promiscuity. I am sure many African christian leaders do speak out against such things, but the western church has not objected to the appointment of African bishops who might be 'soft' on these issues - after all, we'd be racist if we did, wouldn't we?!
 

---

Posted by paigeb (# 2261) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adrian1:
For what it's worth I'm not into "queer bashing" but the thought of what homosexuals do still turns my stomach.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gareth:
If there is a shred of truth in this article in The Times today, then the only reason JJ resigned is because of the very real prospect of the Evangelicals bankrupting the Anglican church. In short, it was blackmail.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
What restructuring can you suggest that can take money out of the pockets of members of the congregation and give it to causes they do not want to support?

---

Mmmm - some kind of CofE version of Socialism?
 

---

Posted by Professor Yaffle (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Joanna Porter:

quote:

---

Does this mean that the Church of England will be consulted on (or allowed to object to) appointments made by Diocesan Bishops in other Provinces?

I certainly do not have as high an opinion of the ABC as I did when he was first appointed.

---

quote:

---

The CofE, like every other church, is financed by its members. The people in the pews. The old days when it was supported out of landownings are long gone.

---

That is not strictly true. The cost of maintaining a presence in low income areas and most of the cost of pensions now and in the future is still born by the Church Commissioners ... the inheritors of Queen Anne's Bounty. If the CofE really only did depend on current giving a large proportion of the clergy would have to go because of the pensions issue alone, (see my earlier Hansard link).

[ 08. July 2003, 14:05: Message edited by: Fr. Gregory ]
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Here's that Hansard link for those who can't find it ...

Church Commissioners (Hansard)
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Just want to say:




 

---

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :
 
So those who supported JJ, what do we do now? Go to war? Against whom? Picket NEAC? Or worse attend and be very gay about the place?

There is an idea!

Who wants to come to NEAC with me and engage in some light petting and good dressing. I am sure my wife will let me out.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
That is not strictly true. The cost of maintaining a presence in low income areas and most of the cost of pensions now and in the future is still born by the Church Commissioners ... the inheritors of Queen Anne's Bounty. If the CofE really only did depend on current giving a large proportion of the clergy would have to go because of the pensions issue alone, (see my earlier Hansard link).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
Actually, we call you "fundamentalists", since we can spell. Anyway, keep it up. It's good for the atheists to have someone to feed their righteous indignation upon. As for me, I'll just go sit in the corner and despair quietly, if you don't mind.

---

I guess I asked for that for not checking my spelling before I posted, and no I don't mind if you sit in your corner and quietly despair.
Strange but I never thought of myself as a fundamentalist before I came on the net.

[fixed UBB for quote, and deleted duplicate post]

[ 08. July 2003, 18:51: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
It's the pensions that are the problem Ken, not the stipends. I'm talking about existing commitments in a length of service scheme.

Edward,

Two key questions perhaps could be asked of the Dow-evangelical constituency.

What precisely would a celibate gay person have to do to establish his / her credentials, (assuming that such a thing was possible)?

How will the Church know of the orientation of such a person unless he / she chooses to share it? Will there be questionaires for embarrassed selectors and tick boxes? Someone has mentioned web cams already of course.

I was button-holed by a middle-of-the-road-sorta-low-Anglican moralist teacher colleague of mine today who expressed satisfaction that JJ had stepped down. He no doubt expected me (being Orthodox 'n all) to agree. I had to disappoint him of course. What it all boiled down to in the end ... (after I had pinned him against the wall theologically and in terms of the canons / penitential Anglican practice of course) ... was disgust and abnormality; hence my new thread today on "Disgust." Dealing with that is not a political task but a psychosomatic and pastoral one ... and that of course is where Anglicanism has slipped up here.

[ 08. July 2003, 18:51: Message edited by: Fr. Gregory ]
 

---

Posted by Never Conforming (# 4054) on :
 
I have found the many posts here and in Hell very interesting.

On Sunday I found out about the situation just before I went to church. I headed off to church (URC) and during a time for discussing topics for prayer I suggested praying for the Anglican Church (of which I am also a member). When I mentioned this there were cheers from the other members of the congregation. They are entitled to their opinion, despite the fact that I think they are misguided. Anyway, the service continued, and I thought that it was ironic really. The theme was praying for christians who are being persecuted.

Anyone else see potential irony in this?

The other people there didn't realise that anyone could possibly be offended by the responses made to the news. I will find it very hard to continue worshipping there.

As a result of this I spent large amounts of time despairing at churches in general.

Oh well.

Jo
 

---

Posted by gbuchanan (# 415) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I'd remind you that ++Rowan holds the same views and made it despite that; the challengers to him did not focus on the gay issue. So I don't think that is a legitimate reading of the situation after the JJ fiasco.

---

quote:

---

"as well as Dr John's severe criticism of orthodox teaching, which gives cause for concern".

---

quote:

---

The appointment appears to prejudice the outcome of the Church's reflection on these matters

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adrian1:
gbuchanan (no relative of the Rt Rev Colin, I hope) said:

---

quote:

---

You can only speak as you find. For what it's worth I'm not into "queer bashing" but the thought of what homosexuals do still turns my stomach.

---

quote:

---

I get rather fed up though picking up a newspaper, be it one of the secular press or the church press, only to see one headline after another along the lines of 'Gay this', 'Gay that', 'Gay the other flippin thing.' Haven't people got other things with which to occupy their minds?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:

Two key questions perhaps could be asked of the Dow-evangelical constituency.

What precisely would a celibate gay person have to do to establish his / her credentials, (assuming that such a thing was possible)?

---

quote:

---

On second thoughts, it isn't really about that, is it?

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I'd remind you that ++Rowan holds the same views and made it despite that; the challengers to him did not focus on the gay issue. So I don't think that is a legitimate reading of the situation after the JJ fiasco.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, ES, if you'd actually read the letter from the 9, it states that his appointment would prejudice any debate - that statement said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"as well as Dr John's severe criticism of orthodox teaching, which gives cause for concern".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...erm, sort of seems a bit of a focus, as there is only one area in which JJ's beliefs aren't pretty sturdily orthodox, and indeed earlier in the letter they refer to his previous relationship. Furthermore they state:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The appointment appears to prejudice the outcome of the Church's reflection on these matters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...so, either you are grossly misinformed or wilfully misrepresenting the facts, or being a troll.

---

huh?
++Rowan has a clear pro-gay view. This did not prevent his appointment to ABC. It is therefore acceptable to hold that view, and another candidate for the post who does not have JJ's history (whether or not he has his sexuality) should be acceptable; indeed it is likely that the bishops will want to appoint one to prove the point, and hopefully he will be accepted by one and all. (at least that is my bet when the dust has settled - in the heat of the moment, the 9 may have gone further than they would want to)

JJ caught it as a symbol of something which a substantial group (majority or minority - who knows) of those in the CofE and the wider communion were not prepared to accept. He was a symbol because there is a perception that the liberal establishment is pushing forward its agenda on the gay issue despite deep resistance in the pews, and that the appointment of JJ was 'taking the urine'. Enough was enough; the opposition united and rose to resist. The future will show if this leads to a united front on other issues (like taking the promises about equal treatment of the opponents of women priests seriously ) or whether it is a 'one issue coalition'.

Fr G - there's no problem with the Archbishops of the Anglican communion getting together - there are regular primates meetings. It's just that the West - i.e. the USA and the UK - are dominated by people who think they know better than the combined wisdom of the primates - so the views of the wider church are a matter of total irrelevance to them. The emphasis is 'provincial autonomy' - not 'collective wisdom'.
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
ES I think you are caricaturing your opponents. I, for example, do not believe for one second in 'provincial autonomy'. Indeed, I am more extreme than you appear to be and hold that the Anglican Communion has no right to define doctrine apart from the universal Church.

BUT, there are questions. Firstly, how do matters of faith relate to matters of morals (not just homosexuality, but also polygamy, het promiscuity and other things I want to imperialistically oppress the god-fearing Anglicans of the developing world over )? Secondly, how are we to behave during a period when the Church universally is in a period of debate and discernment. The 'gay debate' is not a peculiarly Anglican phenomenon. I think the Church is going through a period of thought and development on this question. I think this will take decades to issue in anything concrete. I think that over that period diverse opinions and practices will co-exist. I don't have a problem with this, because this is the way the Church goes about developing. We are a pilgrim people - and that entails not always having all the answers.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I think the latest events - which happened whilst I was out of the country, hence no immediate reaction (probably just as well) - makes me think the following.

1. That this was a case of the most appalling bullying - behaviour not worthy of any organisation, let alone a church

2. That the long-held views that I have held about evangelical Christianity as a philosophy, and many evangelical Christians, have been confirmed. I cannot think of their beliefs as anything remotely connected to mine.

3. That the Church of England, as it now stands, is simply not feasible. The sooner a split happens, the better.

4. That the African bishops simply said, honestly and bluntly, what Bishops such as my own really think.

5. That I seriously wonder why I bother with Christianity at all, when secular humanism would lead to a far better society than anything the Church of England's hierarchy has displayed in the past few days.

6. That we need to write to Rowan Williams in the strongest possible terms. Unity on the basis of evil, bigoted bullying is not something worth having.

Heartily sickened.
 

---

Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :
 
I'd just like to say that, as an evangelical, I amappalled at the behaviour of some of the bishops and other fellow evangelicals. We are not all homophobic bigots. This current debacle has done immense harm to the evangelical movement in the CofE.

Why have no evangelicals broken ranks and spoken out in support of JJ? Because Reform and co. would denounce us as 'never really been evangelicals anyway'. Does the label matter then? Personally I think it does, but the more sensible of us have got to speak out now. If that does not happen, then MerseyMike will be right.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I'm glad that some of you are saying it, Charles. Christina Rees has spoken out, but I gather that she has been shunned by the rest of her evangelical colleagues and labelled 'liberal'.

I actually know a priest here in much the same position, who was regarded as a sound evangelical until their views became known. I don't think that the priest concerned thinks of themeselves as evangelical any longer because of this sort of reaction.
 

---

Posted by John Collins (# 41) on :
 
As I'm not a member of the CoE or even (any longer) a Christian I've stayed out of this argument as I wouldn't want to intrude on private grief.

It does seem to me, however, if I might say so, that if the CoE had collectively sat down and tried to think of the most effective way to damage itself, to upset and distress the largest number of people, to make itself a complete laughing stock and to find the most unsatisfactory conclusion to the whole self-inflicted episode they could hardly have come up with anything more comprehensively successful than this.
 

---

Posted by TimSaunders (# 2643) on :
 

quote:

---

It does seem to me, however, if I might say so, that if the CoE had collectively sat down and tried to think of the most effective way to damage itself, to upset and distress the largest number of people, to make itself a complete laughing stock and to find the most unsatisfactory conclusion to the whole self-inflicted episode they could hardly have come up with anything more comprehensively successful than this.

---

quote:

---

Can the decision by those who opposed Jeffrey John's appointment to call their group the 'Anglican Mainstream' when they are quite clearly not be seen as anything other than an attempt to inflame the situation?

---

Cheeky buggers!!!!
 

---

Posted by Flying_Belgian (# 3385) on :
 
Absolutely correct John Collins.
 

---

Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by W:
Can the decision by those who opposed Jeffrey John's appointment to call their group the 'Anglican Mainstream' when they are quite clearly not be seen as anything other than an attempt to inflame the situation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by W:
Can the decision by those who opposed Jeffrey John's appointment to call their group the 'Anglican Mainstream' when they are quite clearly not be seen as anything other than an attempt to inflame the situation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
It's the pensions that are the problem Ken, not the stipends. I'm talking about existing commitments in a length of service scheme.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
I was disappointed to see Andrew Goddard's name on the list. He always struck me as a decent and reasonable person.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:

quote:

---

Originally posted by W:
Can the decision by those who opposed Jeffrey John's appointment to call their group the 'Anglican Mainstream' when they are quite clearly not be seen as anything other than an attempt to inflame the situation?

---

Errmmm - what would name would you have preferred, that they would be happy with?

Orthodox Anglicans?
The Real Anglicans?
Faithful Anglicans?
Continuing Anglicans?

---

• Anglicans against Gay Bishops?
• Conservative Anglicans?
• Anglicans against liberals?
• illiberal Anglicans?
• Anglicans Who Think Things Have Just Gone Too Far?
• Anglicans who would prefer it if other people didn't entertain ideas they don't like?
• James Jones for Pope (just joking, I have a lot of respect for James Jones...I spent a lot of last evening quoting a selection of his very sensible comments at my Fellowship group)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
What you say is fair but do you hold the view that there is no financial storm cloud over the Church of England and that further cuts are unlikely?

---

quote:

---

James Jones for Pope (just joking, I have a lot of respect for James Jones...I spent a lot of last evening quoting a selection of his very sensible comments at my Fellowship group)

---

quote:

---

Originally said by James Jones:
The sexual mores of our society are changing before our eyes. We need wisdom greater than Solomon's to discern the mind of Christ and how to apply the word of God in contemporary culture.

We need to understand that debates about sexuality go to the very core of our being and stir the deepest emotions. All of us need to exercise great restraint while being honest in our arguments. We need to respect the integrity of each other's consciences and refuse the temptation to demonise those with whom we disagree.

If this is to be a genuine debate within the church then we need to be open to at least two possibilities. On the one hand, the mind of the church might well change along the lines that Dr Jeffrey John is arguing...On the other hand, we must be prepared for the alternative scenario which is [the conventional evangelical one]

---

quote:

---

1. That this was a case of the most appalling bullying - behaviour not worthy of any organisation, let alone a church
2. That the long-held views that I have held about evangelical Christianity as a philosophy, and many evangelical Christians, have been confirmed. I cannot think of their beliefs as anything remotely connected to mine.
3. That the Church of England, as it now stands, is simply not feasible. The sooner a split happens, the better.
4. That the African bishops simply said, honestly and bluntly, what Bishops such as my own really think.
5. That I seriously wonder why I bother with Christianity at all, when secular humanism would lead to a far better society than anything the Church of England's hierarchy has displayed in the past few days.
6. That we need to write to Rowan Williams in the strongest possible terms. Unity on the basis of evil, bigoted bullying is not something worth having.
Heartily sickened.

---

I can only agree wholeheartedly
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Welsh ; I should declare an interest as I live in his diocese, and have met him on a number of occasions.
I have written to him to say these words, and received a reply which simply didn't deal with the questions raised.

Which are - relating to the quotes - that his wish for 'dialogue' does not prevent him being in the very vocal forefront of anything within the Church which wishes to prevent further acceptance of gay people, and that I have not once ever heard him support anything pro-gay without consider4able 'but's'.

And if there is one thing that was done in the Jeffrey John case, it was both demonisation, and worst of all , bullying - and I regard Jones as the worst bully of the lot. I have also never got a straight answer from him as to, if his 'side' wins the day, what he actually thinks the gay people in the CofE and those who want to see an inclusive church should do.

To be honest, I don't really want an 'inclusive' church if it has to include those of Jones' ilk. I would prefer a split and then we can get on with being Christians without being held back by conservative evangelicals.

Thanks Angloid ; thewre are many of us here who feel the same way. And did you notice that out of the last batch of ordinands in this diocese, only one was a conservative evangelical?

[ 09. July 2003, 20:14: Message edited by: Merseymike ]
 

---

Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pope Adrian 1:
... but the thought of what homosexuals do still turns my stomach.

---

quote:

---

I have written to him to say these words, and received a reply which simply didn't deal with the questions raised.

---

There was an article about a priest in Southwark in the Church Times recently. Jones had written an article in the Torygraph saying that homosexuality must be wrong because if we were all gay the race would die out. The priest wrote to him saying that if the categorical imperative were to be applied to celibacy, it would also fail. Jones wrote back to the effect that he'd had lots of letters from readers who agreed with him (well, the article was in the Torygraph, after all).

There is an intelligent traditionalist case against homosexual practice. I don't think it would be a wholly bad thing if it were heard. But we don't hear it. What we do hear is:

a) Proof-texting/ selective fundamentalism - it's in the Bible and the Bible is always right. Like slavery, anti-semitism, subordination of women etc.
b) Spin - See above. Clearly +Jones has a great future in Tony Blair's cabinet if the episcopate doesn't work out.
c) Rectal demons - see +Dow.
d) Bastardised sociobiology - "the penis belongs to the vagina". +Dow again.
e) Visceral loathing - see under ++Nigeria.

What is more, those bishops and clergy who don't take such a position are either silent in the face of such crassness either out of political opportunism (criticising one's allies in the midst of the fight is never easy) or in the cause of "unity". I think that this is a betrayal of our gay brothers and sisters in the Church, for whose fidelity and service in the face of such bigotry, we should be profoundly grateful for. It is also a far better argument for atheism than anything that you will find in the works of Bertrand Russell or Richard Dawkins.

Quite where that takes us I have no idea. But a good and decent man has been pilloried and bullied by the leaders of the Anglican communion and as an Anglican I am bitterly ashamed.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Exactly. Honestly, since when was anyone claiming that everyone should be gay or that being gay is anything other than a minority pattern. A bogus argument if I ever heard one.


 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Professor Yaffle

I agree with Merseymike concerning your piece. However, having dealt with visceral loathers quite a bit recently, (in the teaching profession I have to say), I think the "disgust" factor is far more prevalent than we care to admit. Pseudo-rationalists and pseudo-liberals are so ashamed by these base feelings, however, (in that they contradict their "liberal" self-understanding on other matters), that they pretty-up their arguments and explanations with nonsense. Do they believe their own rationalising rhetoric? I doubt it. Better to bring them back to disgust ... the true feeling.
 

---

Posted by egg (# 3982) on :
 
Originally posted by Professor Yaffle:

quote:

---

There is an intelligent traditionalist case against homosexual practice. I don't think it would be a wholly bad thing if it were heard. But we don't hear it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by egg:
I am not ashamed to say that I find buggery disgusting. I like to think that in many respects I am a liberal, but in this one I am a humble traditionalist.

---

quote:

---

long held traditional belief. It is one of the things that has helped to hold the Church together over the years. People who have an assertive gay lifestyle ... do challenge those traditional beliefs in a way that many find rather difficult. ... That is how people behave towards their clergy in the Church of England, and they do not expect to have an alternative lifestyle, as it were, thrust in their face. ... It is held to be a sin by many, and those who are committing that sin are answerable to their Maker, and I just do not wish them to thrust it forward."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Your attitude and insistence on using the more offensive word is not any better.

As for your Tory MP who goes on about people having things 'thrust in their face.' and who says "I just do not wish them to thrust it forward." I simply couldn't make that up - it is beyond satire.

---

Agrees
With Louise
On both counts
And I'll stop rhyming now before someone upon me does pounce...

I did say "good summary," not "I think everything you say is spot on," after all. Wanted to make that clear...

I would say that some of the arguments used in the slave situation were very likely valid ones as well, but that they were also misused to justify things which weren't warranted. I tend to think that the same principle applies here to the way JJ has been treated.
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
IMO Sir Patrick Cormack's contribution to the Today programme had the sole effect of playing into the hands of Richard Dawkins et. al. who question the desirability of the continued existence of Radio 4's 'god slot'.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Egg ; I assume, then , that you have no problem with gay couples who do not have anal intercourse ?
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear David

My mouth cannot agree with the thrust of your rhyme. "Counts" requires that I press my tongue to the roof of my mouth in a sibilant manner; "pounce" however only requires a faint whispering exhalation over the tongue.

However, by modern standards of pseudo-rhyme "you are a poet and I didn't know it!"

This of course has bugger all to do with the OP but I am unrepentant.
 

---

Posted by The Wasteland (# 4700) on :
 
I occasionally pop in to have a look now and again - to see if anyone posts anything useful.

Egg's post is good. I especially like:

quote:

---

In the Middle Ages it was said to be "peccatum illud horribile, inter Christianos non nominandum" ("that abominable sin not to be named among Christians"). The punishment for anyone convicted of buggery both parties were equally liable - was, of course, death, though there is a difference of opinion about the means by which the death sentence was to carried out: burning (Britton), burying alive (Fleta), hanging for men and drowning for women (Coke). The 14th century Mirror of Justices joins buggery with heresy and apostasy as a form of treason against God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
Sadly, many people I know have come to the same conclusion as The Wasteland. If the Church continues in the same vein, there will be many more.

---

quote:

---

Egg, I assume then, that you have no problem with gay couples who do not have anal intercourse ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by egg:
That is my position too; and I was merely trying to show that it was based not only on the moral teaching in the Bible but also on the fixed rule of the common law over many centuries, which is based on the moral teaching in the Bible, that anal intercourse is and has always, until the present generation, been regarded as one of the most unspeakable of sins against God and crimes against humanity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by egg:
That is my position too; and I was merely trying to show that it was based not only on the moral teaching in the Bible but also on the fixed rule of the common law over many centuries, which is based on the moral teaching in the Bible, that anal intercourse is and has always, until the present generation, been regarded as one of the most unspeakable of sins against God and crimes against humanity. JJ is not prepared to say that he was wrong to commit it, so that no question of repentance and forgiveness arises, and he cannot therefore maintain that he supports the current teaching of the Church in Issues in Human Sexuality, even if, for whatever reason, he no longer practises what he once did. I believe there is a good deal of justification for the 'traditionalist' view that, in these circumstances, his undoubted talents would be better not employed in the office of a bishop.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by welsh dragon:
You don't know that this *doesn't* apply to any other bishop, married or unmarried, heterosexual or homosexual. Hadn't you better start writing round to them all about what their sexual experience has been?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Read:
Why have no evangelicals broken ranks and spoken out in support of JJ? Because Reform and co. would denounce us as 'never really been evangelicals anyway'. Does the label matter then? Personally I think it does, but the more sensible of us have got to speak out now.

---

I think that's probably the only hope of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat here. If there was a forceful denunciation by open evangelicals of the way that this campaign was conducted, a firm commitment to abide by the tolerance and love that admittedly is there in Issues, and a call for a genuine and non-homophobic debate, that would be very helpful. If it came in a united statement from, say, the colleges such as Durham, Ridley, Bristol (?) and their alumni, and maybe from those on the bench of Bishops who are evangelical but who are on the side of the angels in this, ISTM it could be quite powerful. With luck and a following wind, AffCath would be able to respond positively, and there might be some hope for a consensus of the sensible to break the sterile party politics of the CofE.

It would obviously take a few weeks to get people onside. Greenbelt is at the end of August. Just a thought...
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Thats what I have been hoping for for a while - but somehow it never seems to happen. I believe Christian Rees and Christopher Herbert have both made encouraging noises, and John Santanu did the same before the 'withdrawal', and this piece by Jonathan Bartley is of interest.

But so far, all the running has been made by liberals and catholics. Where are the open evangelicals ? Cowered into submission by Reform? Or do many of them take the Pete Broadbent line - more insidious , in my view, than the conservatives. At least they don't pretend to be anything other than hostile.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Mike

Any info on "call-me-Pete" Broadbent on this one? (personal agenda from when I was on Synod ).
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Pete Broadbent used to be the curate at a church I attended many years ago.

He wasn't notably right-wing, to put it mildly.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Oh, his usual stuff. Trendy-lefty style covering up very right-wing evangelical theology. About as trustworthy as your average second hand car salesman. At least you know whare you stand with Reform.

Tell me more, Gregory ( in PM if appropriate!)
 

---

Posted by Royal Peculiar (# 3159) on :
 
Dr.Fr.Gregory

Article in Church Times says your mate Pete has written to Canon John thanking him for withdrawing his aceptance of the post and saying he admired + Oxford's efforts to chose the right candidate even if he got it wrong on this occasion. Seems to me a bit like tripping someone up, kicking him in the head and then sending him a get well card in hospital.

Dear Merseymike

I would not have said Chris Herbert was particularly evangelical. He voted for the repeal of s 28 and has always been a keen supporter of women priests ( and appointed a woman archdeacon last year). He did endear himself to the conservatives with an article stating his belief in the Ressurection a while back but if I had to pin a label on him it would be " a bit on the liberal side ". There have been allegations that he is unfair to the anti women priest faction.

The CofE Newspaper reports as a fact and the CT mentions as a possibility that + Oxford may not fill the vacant bishopric. I think that would be a mistake. It would seem rather petty and if a Bishop were needed when Canon John was appointed the need for someone with sensitivity and diplomacy is far greater now.

I find this whole episode hads made me go off bishops altogether. I might become a Presbyterian. Anyone know of a Presbyterian church which does High Mass and Benediction?

[ 11. July 2003, 15:06: Message edited by: Royal Peculiar ]
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
If you really want to go off Bishops, come and live in this diocese
 

---

Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :
 
The kindest description of Bishop Pe'e is that he is a genial w*nker. He is nice enough to talk to and quite good fun, but at the ame time he is an old man who wears jeans with large turn-ups, and ear stud and gel in his hair (he even dyes it purple for Spring Harvest), all to impress the kids.

His 'conciliatory' article in Jezebel's Trumpet today pretty well states that like many Evangelicals he can be selective with OT proscriptions because he soesn't like homosexuals but he does like prawn sandwiches. And any argument he doesn't like 'simply won't do'. He counsels reticence now for the sake of the well-being of the church, but shouldn't he have thought of that before he lent his support to Rectum Dow and Jimmy Loverpool?
 

---

Posted by Astro (# 84) on :
 
What is it about evangelicals in the CoE?

If Pastor Smith of the Very Independant Pentecostal-Evangelical neo-calvinist church (Wirrel Synod) suddenly left his wife to go off and live with his male deacon and indulge in "acts which christians should not mention",
a few years later his hormones die down, he loses interest in his friend and become celibate,
immediately his welcomed back now as a bishop of the Very Independant Pentecostal-Evangelical neo-calvinist church (Wirrel Synod) - with a daily TV program on the God channel, and soon becomes a popular speaker at Autumn Harvest. No problem with him as long as he still speaks in tongues and promises to pray a blessing over every prayer request you send him wrapped in a £50 note.

Yet if he had been a CoE priest no way can he come back as a bishop.
 

---

Posted by Ian S (# 3098) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
Thats what I have been hoping for for a while - but somehow it never seems to happen. I believe Christian Rees and Christopher Herbert have both made encouraging noises, and John Santanu did the same before the 'withdrawal', and this piece by Jonathan Bartley is of interest.

But so far, all the running has been made by liberals and catholics. Where are the open evangelicals ? Cowered into submission by Reform? Or do many of them take the Pete Broadbent line - more insidious , in my view, than the conservatives. At least they don't pretend to be anything other than hostile.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian S:
I think a lot of open evangelicals would take the line that JJ's appointment was inappropriate because of the furore it would cause, particularly re the Third World - rather than any desire to install CCTV in his bedroom.

Sorry to be ignorant, but what is the "Pete Broadbent line"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Royal Peculiar:
I would not have said Chris Herbert was particularly evangelical. He voted for the repeal of s 28 and has always been a keen supporter of women priests.

---

quote:

---

The CofE Newspaper reports as a fact and the CT mentions as a possibility that + Oxford may not fill the vacant bishopric. I think that would be a mistake. It would seem rather petty and if a Bishop were needed when Canon John was appointed the need for someone with sensitivity and diplomacy is far greater now.

---

I think it would be a brilliant idea, at least for a while.

In fact I can't see how he can honourably choose a new man in a hurry, or how anyone else can honourably take the post up.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Royal Peculiar

"call-me-Pete" was not and is not ... most definitely ... my "mate"!

I'm telling what I really feel about him in a PM to Merseymike as invited, (Lord have mercy on my judgemental soul). If I posted here I would be done for character assassination.
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
I,ve just found this on the Affirming Catholicism web site. It puts very neatly what a lot of us have been saying about JJ on this thread.

Such a waste.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
This letter he wrote to the Reading Chronicle emphasises that still more.

I hope I could be so forgiving.
 

---

Posted by angloid (# 159) on :
 
As I said before, a candidate for canonisation if there ever was one.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally written by Jeffrey John:
We have to keep praying, keep moving our communion, keep studying the scriptures, keep loving those who hurt and reject us.

Love wins in the end, and if we are faithful, in the end we will build a Church that looks more like Jesus and that will truly be a home for all God's children.

---

 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:

Love wins in the end, and if we are faithful, in the end we will build a Church that looks more like Jesus and that will truly be a home for all God's children.

---

quote:

---

The history of contacts, cooperation and dialogue between Anglicans and Orthodox is vast and well documented (see Orthodoxy and Anglicanism, V.T. Istavridis, 1966). Beginning with the Russo-Greek Committee of 1862, the Episcopal Church has had a keen interest in the Orthodox. When Episcopal Church missions arrived in Califor-nia, they discovered the Russian Orthodox had arrived via Alaska with a bishop. This led to questions about the Orthodox in General Convention, and thus began the longest-standing Anglican dialogue with any other church. After various conversations, in 1922 the Ecumenical Patriarchate recognized that Anglican orders “possessed the same validity as those of the Roman, Old Catholic, and Armenian Churches, inasmuch as all the essentials are found in them which are held indispensable from the Orthodox point of view for the recognition of the Charisma of the priesthood derived from Apostolic Succession.” Similar recognition was given by the Church of Cypress (1923) and by the Patriarchates of Jerusalem (1923), Alexandria (1930), and Romania (1936). Such recognitions have no practical effect until all Orthodox Churches act and until all recognize that the Anglican Communion is orthodox in faith. [my emphasis]

---

quote:

---

since all the various provinces of the Anglican Church are, like the autocephalous Greek churches, free to do what they want.

---

(1) What do you mean "Greek" churches? Greek Catholic? Greek Independent Evangelicals (there are some). Of course, you mean Orthodox, but that's not clear.
(2) The Orthodox Church in Greece is called the Greek Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church in Russia is called the Russian Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church in Syria and the Lebanon is called the Antiochian Orthodox Church ... and so on. The latter are no more "Greek" than New York Catholics are "Roman."
(3) "Free to do what they want." You obviously know very little about the Orthodox Church!

All our clergy across national boundaries concelebrate with each other and we have one Church polity in matters of the sacraments and common life. I don't that's quite the same as some Anglicans cutting ties with other Anglicans and not recognising their ministries, do you?
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
All our clergy across national boundaries concelebrate with each other and we have one Church polity in matters of the sacraments and common life. I don't that's quite the same as some Anglicans cutting ties with other Anglicans and not recognising their ministries, do you?

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0