Update: according to the Telegraph, Dr. John’s nomination has been blocked.
There is audio of an interview with Canon Chris Sugden here
And from the BBC:
A leading conservative Anglican has warned the Church of England could split if an openly gay man is appointed Bishop of Southwark.
Dr Jeffrey John, the Dean of St Albans, is said to be among a number of clergy nominated for the post.
His supporters say Dr John is the right man for the job in a liberal diocese.
But traditionalist Canon Chris Sugden said his appointment would lose the allegiance of orthodox parishes and clergy.
The conflict over homosexuality and the ordination of gay clergy has threatened to split the Anglican Communion for years, with critics saying it may cause a similar breakaway to that in the US Episcopal Church.
Conservatives insist the Bible unequivocally outlaws homosexuality, while liberals believe the Bible should be reinterpreted in the light of contemporary wisdom.
‘Outrageous’The argument has been reignited after it was revealed Dr John is on a list of candidates being considered by the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC) to replace the Rt Rev Dr Tom Butler, who retired earlier this year as Bishop of Southwark.
In 2003, Dr John, entered a civil partnership in 2006, was forced to step down from becoming Bishop of Reading because of his sexuality after protests from traditionalists.
Speaking to the BBC Radio 4′s Today programme, Canon Sugden said there were important reasons why Dr John, originally from Tonyrefail in south Wales, should not be the Bishop of Southwark.
“He is in a registered civil partnership. Now the Church of England does not believe civil partnerships are the equivalent of marriage.
“Secondly, Dr John, by his own admission, was in an active gay relationship a number of years ago. And he is now said to be celibate, that is fine, one takes that at face value.
“However think of the parallel, say somebody was nominated to high government office, say the cabinet, and they had been involved in fiddling their expenses a number of years ago and never, never apologised or said it was wrong.
“It is breaking the law of the Church in the sense of Christian teaching… the teaching still is that active homosexual practice is not compatible with the teaching of scripture,” he said.
But Dr Giles Fraser, canon chancellor of St Paul’s cathedral, said it was “outrageous” to compare “something like fiddling expenses with the way people love each other”.
“There is absolutely no respect in a comparison like that – this gets to the heart of the problem… the way in which gay and lesbian people love each other has to be honoured and respected,” he said.
Dr Fraser conceded there were international issues and “maverick figures”, but said the appointment of Dr John would not split the Church of England and “he might well be the right person for the job”.
“If you look at the job spec that the diocese of Southwark has put out, it says they want someone willing to honour the ministry of lesbian and gay clergy.
“And they describe the diocese – rightly so, I was there for [nine years] – as a diocese which has become a place where ministry of lesbian and gay clergy can flourish in response to God’s call,” he said.
The CNC is due to decide on two names, in order of preference, to submit to David Cameron as the new Bishop of Southwark.
The prime minister then submits a name to the Queen who then formally nominates the candidate to the post
Tangentially relevant: from yesterday’s, ahem, festivities in Toronto comes a glimpse of the future of Anglicanism:
http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.com/2010/07/all-you-need-to-know-about-anglican.html
Who paid for this? Does anyone know?
http://www.godtube.com/featured/video/adam-hood-rewind
In case you missed it earlier. powerful, truthful
“The prime minister then submits a name to the Queen who then formally nominates the candidate to the post”
Well her choice of worship places is either based on very poor briefings or Her Majesty’s crown has slipped for the first time in Her long and wonderful reign.
I myself do not support the ordination of actively gay people. Now some people don’t like the possible appointment of Dr. John as a bishop. Yet Dr. John is still allowed to function as a priest. This doesn’t make any sense to me.
I believe that the Queen nearly always worships at an Anglican Cathedral during state visits. It was St. James in 1997 as well.
#3 I totally agree. If it is wrong for him to be a bishop, it is wrong for him to be a priest.
On a slightly different note, I wonder how long it will take the Church of England to get out of under the thumb of secular politicians.
#5 Don’t hold your breath waiting for C of E disestablishment. That would require the British parliament to devote time, effort, and resources to undo the complex web of legislation that currently gives the state church its special status. There’s just no appetite for it. Disagreement on the issue transcends the usual ideological lines so the debate would divide British parties from within. Until public pressure for church disestablishment grows overwhelming in the UK (ha!) parliament won’t touch this hot-button cultural issue with a barge pole.
The Church of England started this lide downwards some 500+ years ago and it is still sliding. Interesting, now it appears to be following the “colonialized” churches in the slide.
Gay Bishop—Gay priest…..one’s no different from the other and both should be turfed out of God’s Churches.
Has anybody read the 2 articles in the last ANiC newsletter which linked to the Washington Post? They were about building communities of passion and how one pastor did it in the C of E. I was thinking a bit about it and how it might work in my church. I have heard a lot about small groups but we were usually told to split when we got to around 12 members. In the small group I was in we reached 12 members and started talking about the possibility of dividing and one person got so upset about it that she left the group completely.
It is my opinion that a celebate Homosexual is no different than an ordinary man with same sex attractions. This so called “Registered Civil Partnership” if indeed celebate and by the very nature of the name seems to me to be an acceptable way of ensuring fair financial benefits in long term relationships and does not seem to contradict scripture.
Having said that, and having listened to Canon Sugden’s interview I would have to know the “intimate details”. Since I don’t, my opinion over all is that Episcopal Office should be withheld.
And now we see the thin edge of the wedge driving its way further into our midst. Any homosexual who is not willing to confess that homosexual behaviour is a sin shound and must be barred from Ordinaiton. It is really quite simple. If they will not publically state that it is a sin, than it can be expected for them to teach that it is not, and this would be teaching a false gospel, making them false prophets. This person who is being considered for the position of Bishop should not even be a Priest. He should be excommunicated!
#8 Splitting a small group is the worst thing you can do. You might be interested in reading Sticky Church. It’s the best book on small groups I’ve read in a long time.
#11 What did it say – in general terms? Just curious!
Small groups are great if thier purpose and function is well defined. But, 12 people seems like a lot for a small group as my feeling is that these groups must have a certain level of familiarity between its members if trust is to be built. If the purpose of a small group is to provide opportunities for ministry and fellowship that the larger church cannot provide, then trust is key. It may take a long time to build this level of trust so I can see how a person could react negatively to dividing a group if a lot of effort went into building trust relationships. However, for small group ministry to grow it is essential to keep bringing in new people while keeping the groups to a managable size. I find that a group of 5 or 6 people works well.
I suspect the size of small groups varies with church size. The church I’m currently attending has an ASA of about 1400 and there are many small groups that meet weekly (they’re called communities). As with tradional small groups, they are intended to foster a sense of belonging and ensure that individual spiritual and physical needs are met. The community my wife and I belong to has about 70 members. This is much larger than any other small group I’ve been part of, but, it works quite well. It definitely takes some effort on the part of the leaders, though. Smaller groups would doubtlessly be better (and some of the communities are smaller), but the logistics of runing 50-100 small groups – with appropriate leadership – would be very burdensome.
If Jeffrey John is appointed, does this mean the Church of England will be reduced to consultant status within the Anglican Communion, as having broken one of the Moratoria?
#15 Gordon you would think so, unless my speculation (Amp please note bro.) in #9 has more reality than is known.
By the way amp I agree that the teaching of Homosexuality as a sin must be first and foremost understood before pastoral care can be effective.
Hello Stuck (16)
Not meaning to get obtuse about terminology, but…
I am asuming that the word “homosexuality” as you use in your post in meant to mean the act and not the desire. After all, we all have sinful desires, and simply having sinful desires should not be a barrier to Ordination. But giving into sinful desires and making no attempt to stop should be a barrier to Ordination.
Hi Amp, absolutely! HomoSEXUALITY means participating in (Please note: SO CALLED) sex with the same sex. What homosexuals “do” like what pediphiles, rapists, hertosexual adulterers and any other disobedient to the will of God under the umbrella of so called “human sexuality” is NOT sexuality as God created it but sexuality as fallen man created it.
I still suffer from not properly knowing and understanding this from my youth. My Anglicanism is culpable in this. The church did not sufficently teach this nor present it to marriage candidates. Perhaps Dr. Packer’s (self described) final quest on preparing a Catachism will address this. Included is the necessary understanding that (in my opinion) Catachism begins at baptism with the parents and God parents and continues through in preparation for and receiving the empowerment of the Holy Spirit through the “Laying on of Hands” by the Bishop.
I know I am repeating myself but the measure of how I feel about this asks for no less.
In speaking of the Church’s culpability I in no way ignore or diminish my own accountability for passed sins. Rather I desire the new/old Anglicanism as represented in ANiC and the ACNA (to use Br. Gerry’s phrase) to recognize a shovel when they see it.
Stuck at #9 you suggest that two men (or women) with same-sex attraction (presumably to each other) can live together in a ‘registered’ relationship and this would not contradict Scripture. I disagree. First, it is courting disaster to have two people sexually attracted to each other and ‘in a relationship’ living together. You might as well give them permission to be sexually active, because that’s where it will end up. It’s like de factos or an engaged couple saying they will be celibate (outside of a marriage relationship) while living together – it’s unwise and comes under Paul’s advice to ‘flee sexual immorality’. Second, the community’s concept of ‘registration’ of relationship implies approval of the relationship – at least legally. If Christians experiencing same-sex attraction to each other, and they were ‘in a relationship’, what would that say to the community?
Thanks OZ your observations are more practical than mine.
I am thankfully without same-sex attraction but lived with a declared homosexual for 3 years. He was celebate. Our friendship was a moving and enjoyable experience of love that has never been duplicated.
In Canada we erroneously identify life long committed relationships with marriage. Our reason for this is to equalize financial benefits across the board. If WE had called it “Registered Civil Partnership” and opened it to all committed life long relationships without the connotation of sex, such as a brother and sister, a father daughter, two sisters or two brothers, or two men who are not Homosexual but have found their relationship satisfying, I could live with this. In fact I have known people as described and perhaps you have as well. What human beings do with their personal interpretation of sexuality is in the end between them and God. My first paragraph in # 18 makes this quite clear.
Finally if any two people wish to live together in a “celibate” relationship for life and register this in a declared partnership for tax and other benifits, can you find any scriptural wrongdoing?
In review I must admit that my opening sentence in #9 is confusing. What I was trying to say is this, a man with same sex attraction but who chooses celibacy can not rightly be reffered to as homo-sexual any more than an old married fart like me who is distracted (I use this word to avoid the scriptural “Jimmy Carter syndrome) by a scantily clad young woman, and they seem to be all over the place in this heat, cannot truly be called an adulterer.
The apostle encourages us to flee sexual immorality, not friendship, so I guess it really depends on the individuals in question and their capacity to resist temptation. The idea of two 50-something-year-old gay priests living together celibately after 20 years actually sounds quite plausible to me when I consider the sex life of many long-term married couples who depend upon prescription meds like Viagra to keep the home fires burning.
Hi Noli; ?, If celibacy is in pursuit of the will of God than so be it. Any other reason calls into question the motives of participants particularly those in positions of supposed neutral responsibility such as teachers, priests and dare I say MPs
Two points for Stuck and Noli:
i. I don’t think the nature of co-habitational relationships can be reduced to one of sexual activity, even though much of conservative theology has done that. Surely the biblical account of intimate (ie., marriage or sexually immoral) relationships is much more than sexual activity, even if sexual activity is part of an intimate relationships. This is especially so of the marriage relationship, which determines what is appropriate in intimate relationships – that is, the ‘one flesh’ marriage relationship in Genesis 2 appears to be more than simply the sexual act; it’s about commitment, solidarity, love and other such characteristics of good intimate marriage relationships. We can see this is evident in Eve being a helper to Adam in Genesis 2. So, any relationship that mimics, in whatever form, the intimacy appropriate to marriage (even the living arrangements) would appear to be out of order. Further, we haven’t even begun to broach the propriety or in-propriety of other sexual activities like kissing etc in a relationship like the one Stuck describes. Instead, we reduce sexual activity to genital interaction. So, no it does not simply depend on the ability of, say, two 50-yr old ‘gay’ priests to withstand temptation. Rather, it depends on the nature of the intimacy of the relationship, much more broadly defined.
ii. The idea that two Christian people – same-sex attracted or not – would declare a ‘relationship’ for tax and other benefits seems wrong to me. It places on that relationship a quasi-marriage status. Further, if it is simply a friendship relationship, then to claim something other than this on paperwork for some financial advantage seems to be a subtle form of lying.
Based on the recent news I think Dr. John is not going to be appointed a Bishop any time soon. I also think it is quite possible for single people of either sex can sleep in different bedrooms under the same roof without having unhealthy same-sex relationships.
#12 Basically that small groups are about building relationships, and helping each other grow in Christ, and splitting a small group breaks those relationships.
#25 A small group by its name should remain small (max 12). It has been often taught that the most important factor in the successful operation of a small group is leadership. It must be trained and empowered. Once relationships have been built IAW “that they may be one”- Jesus Christ, it is necessary to develop within the group, leaders. These are the ones who move forward and establish new groups. All with the understanding of the apostolic call for likemindedness.
I agree it seems pointless to split a group unless all are in agreement for the sake of the great commision. A small group is either a club or a ministry. The club serves the participants in the other it serves God.
OZ in your para ii you seem to dissaprove the governments reasoning for SSM – that of financial parity for people in “long term relationships” which has been deemed appropriate as a result of the charter of rights and freedoms. I therefore cannot see any wrongness in those I describe in my #20 as not being eligible. After all when push comes to shove I am sure that the reasoning behind this HAS to be “those in long term committed relationships” and not what kind of sex they are or are not having. Hence my positive feelings about the Brit terminology “Registered Civil Partnership” vis a vis the Canadian, ” Registered Civil marriage”.
As for “Quasi-marriage” What are your terms of reference for a legitimate one? Before you answer I think it is true to say that the only true purpose for the granting of an annulment is failure to consumate.
I disagree. The purpose of a small group is spiritual growth and mutual support of the members. That serves both the participants and God.
Kate; Relating to one another as did the early church is first and foremost service to God. Semantically we are saying the same thing.
#23 It’s not subtle, it is lying, and the whole notion is patently ridiculous. Would we believe a single man, who had been living with a woman in a sexual relationship, and then said “we are still going to live together, but remain celibate”? Would we say that it was ok for him to be the rector of a parish?
Kate you shock me, We believed a man who sold slaves for a living, but by his own description said He was saved by Grace….He got ordained. I don’t think we should judge one of our own by the limited information you have provided. Besides thats what those ridicules search committees are for.
Kate PS – don’t forget about Ananias and Sapphira.
We are talking about Christian leadership here. Leaders have to live to a very high standard. If he was an appropriate Christian leader he wouldn’t be in a registered civil partnership; he wouldn’t still be living with his former sexual partner; he would be open about saying that acting out on same sex attraction is wrong. “By their fruit you will know them”. Would you think it appropriate for a rector to be living with a former (female) lover, even if he claimed they were celibate? We are supposed to flee sin, not see how close we can get to it without being burned, and this applies even more strongly to our leaders.
OK Kate your point is well taken – I will agree that the appearance of sin, real or not should not exist regarding Christian people of authority.
I hope that you would agree that judgement is not based on passed sins that accordingly have been forgiven.
Yes, of course – but that’s not what we are talking about. We are talking about past sins that haven’t been repented of.
If that is the case than I fully agree – but how do you know this?
Because he is still living with his “former” lover and is in a registered civil partnership with him! How much clearer can you get that he doesn’t think he’s done anything wrong?
Kate,
Way late, but I hope you receive this. Thank you so much for the Sticky Church reference. I don’t know if it’s the best book ever on small groups, but it sure helped me think through some priorities here. Every blessing.
You’re most welcome.