Bishops have been in the news a bit recently. Firstly, it is reported that Jeffrey John is being considered for Southwark. Secondly, Synod is going to debate how women should become bishops, including a last-minute amendment proposed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York.
Firstly, it's pretty clear to me that if Dr John is the best man for the job, his sexuality should not be a reason to block him from the post. It's not like he's the first gay CofE bishop - the current Bishop of Edmonton is gay, for example. Jeffrey John abides by the church's teaching, and was shoddily treated seven years ago when he nearly became Bishop of Reading. LBGT people still face discrimination and even violence in our society, and so it's important that the church doesn't succumb to homophobia about Dr John again.
Secondly, we are (hopefully soon) going to see female bishops in the CofE. The revision committee has proposed that parishes that don't want a female bishop be able to ask her to get a male bishop to perform episcopal functions (confirmations and the like) for them, and that this process will be enshrined as a statutory code of practice. As Watch point out, this is still discriminatory, although the Archbishops' amendment is even more so. Elsewhere (e.g. in Canada), Anglicans have more straightforwardly just made women bishops; I read a piece by one in the Church Crimes the other week, where she talked about dealing with the anti-women parishes in her diocese - she visits them for services without communion, and has found that it's been a way for relationships to develop. Synod should avoid enshrining discrimination against women into law - surely our example to a society that continues not to treat both genders equally should be that women and men are equal in the sight of God?
What ties both issues together, to me, is the need for the church to stand up and show that discrimination just won't do.
Firstly, it's pretty clear to me that if Dr John is the best man for the job, his sexuality should not be a reason to block him from the post. It's not like he's the first gay CofE bishop - the current Bishop of Edmonton is gay, for example. Jeffrey John abides by the church's teaching, and was shoddily treated seven years ago when he nearly became Bishop of Reading. LBGT people still face discrimination and even violence in our society, and so it's important that the church doesn't succumb to homophobia about Dr John again.
Secondly, we are (hopefully soon) going to see female bishops in the CofE. The revision committee has proposed that parishes that don't want a female bishop be able to ask her to get a male bishop to perform episcopal functions (confirmations and the like) for them, and that this process will be enshrined as a statutory code of practice. As Watch point out, this is still discriminatory, although the Archbishops' amendment is even more so. Elsewhere (e.g. in Canada), Anglicans have more straightforwardly just made women bishops; I read a piece by one in the Church Crimes the other week, where she talked about dealing with the anti-women parishes in her diocese - she visits them for services without communion, and has found that it's been a way for relationships to develop. Synod should avoid enshrining discrimination against women into law - surely our example to a society that continues not to treat both genders equally should be that women and men are equal in the sight of God?
What ties both issues together, to me, is the need for the church to stand up and show that discrimination just won't do.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
In this case, I think the harm of legitimising discrimination against women is considerable.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
The whole idea of women priests become a lot easier once you realise that we have only one priest and don't need any others to come between us and God, men or women.
S.
(no subject)
Finland just received its first female bishop, the new bishop of Helsinki. \o/ I'm so glad that we FINALLY passed that hurdle. I get really, really twitchy when people can't accept women as priests/bishops.
(no subject)
(no subject)
Also JJ is seen as a figurehead of the gay Christian movement, so making him a bishop would send a signal. I do not think that that is a valid reason for denying him from being a bishop however.
I agree with you that objecting to these people is discriminatory, but not all discrimination is a bad thing. In the epistles there is a fairly discriminatory list determining who can be a church leader, and I don't see any reason to think that discrimination for certain reasons is necessarily always a bad thing. In the case of homosexuality for example, if someone strongly holds to a position that is contrary to the clear teaching of scripture then they ought to be discriminated against so that they cannot become a leader of the church. To take an extreme example to illustrate the point, it is clearly discriminatory to block an atheist from becoming a bishop, but atheism is contrary to the teaching of the Bible, and as a bishop is supposed to teach what the Bible says it would be wrong to allow a someone to become a bishop who held a contrary position.
(no subject)
I'm not certain there's very much of this.
(no subject)
That's what they say -- but if that's the case why didn't they kick up a kerfuffle about Stephen Cottrell who was eventually appointed Bishop of Reading as I believe his position on same-gendered relationships is similar to that of Jeffrey John apart from the fact he's married with children.
(no subject)
I don't know much about Dr John, but what I have heard about him sounds good.
Shall be praying that all goes well. :-)
(no subject)
He's a very intelligent and erudite speaker and preacher, and a clearly godly man.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
Therefore what emperor or robhu or those of you outside the church think (even me!) doesn't really matter apart from that ongoing dialogue, it is obviously irregular to expect the church to make an appointment that flies in the face of it's current convictions. I realise that the issue of JJ is a bit messy because of the way he was treated and portrayed seen years ago, but if the powers that be have decided it would be too big a step to make a man in a civil partnership with his cohabiting former sexual partner a bishop, then surely that makes perfect sense.
+Edmonton and Bishop Lindsey Urwin are allegedly celibate and are not figureheads of the LGBT movement in the church. In fact the latter is pretty hated by many such groups for his betrayal for choosing to be celibate as a result of personal conscience, despite former alleged activites.
(no subject)
(no subject)
a) He never repented of his previous immoral actions
b) Has publicly spoken out that he thinks such actions are moral (and so holds to teaching contrary to that of the church - the church whose teaching he as a bishop would be supposed to teach and promote)
(no subject)
I am struggling to find any evidence that he has been barred in the online media- only not appointed from a shortlist- a shortlist he is actually on, which means Rowan must have signed off on it. Is the assumption that he deserved to get it? No one even knows the other names on the list. I even saw one report say that +Rowan was angry that JJ was nominated- this is an error, he is furious about the leak. This whole story seems very badly reported and interpreted to me.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
I am trying to get to all the other comments here where someone has replied to me, but I do not have unlimited time (I was actually posting while I was meant to be listening to a lecture my work has paid for earlier) and there are so many things to reply to! I'm even being accused of ignoring people's comments now! (despite having replied to a LOT of comments here). Hopefully I will manage to find the time to reply to everything tonight.
(no subject)