emperor: (Default)
Add MemoryShare This Entry
posted by [personal profile] emperor at 02:19pm on 07/07/2010 under ,
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.
There are 228 comments on this entry. (Reply.)
 
posted by [identity profile] robert-jones.livejournal.com at 02:05pm on 07/07/2010
I can't agree with you on the second point. While you and I may believe that "women and men are equal in the sight of God", there are plenty of people who are Christians in good faith who do not share this belief, believing that while men and women are equally valued in the sight of God, they are not functionally equal. In particular there are many who on the basis of their interpretation of scripture and/or tradition are not able in good conscience to accept the episcopal ministry of women. While that ought not to prevent the Church of England from ordaining women bishops, it ought, in accordance with our latitudinarian tradition, lead us to make some adequate alternative provision for those people.
ext_27570: Richard in tricorn hat (Default)
posted by [identity profile] sigisgrim.livejournal.com at 03:08pm on 07/07/2010
I'm sorry, but simply being Christians in good faith who do not share this belief that women and men are equal in the sight of God doesn't make it any less discriminatory, or, in many people's eyes, plain wicked.
 
posted by [identity profile] wildeabandon.livejournal.com at 05:47pm on 07/07/2010
I'm not sure this necessarily follows. Christians in good faith can believe all sorts of things, and whilst there is a benefit to making alternative provisions for people who disagree with us, since it's hard to be certain who's right, that benefit should be weighed against the harm that it causes.

In this case, I think the harm of legitimising discrimination against women is considerable.
ext_15802: (Default)
posted by [identity profile] megamole.livejournal.com at 02:28pm on 07/07/2010
I have the utmost respect for and confidence in JJ. I have quite a lot of contact with him because of where I go to church.
ext_20923: (flying pig)
posted by [identity profile] pellegrina.livejournal.com at 07:45pm on 07/07/2010
Hear hear. I went to a couple of his services when he was D of D at Magdalen, and his last sermon before leaving Oxford was the first (and possibly last) one in my life where I spent the entire time thinking "hear hear" rather than "yawn" or indeed "rolleyes".
 
posted by [identity profile] gayalondiel.livejournal.com at 03:24pm on 07/07/2010
If only. *sighs jadedly*
 
posted by [identity profile] ex-robhu.livejournal.com at 04:33pm on 07/07/2010
I was at St. Helen's Bishopsgate on Wednesday lunch time, and they had a Q and A document (http://www.christchurchwestbourne.com/downloads/sermons/Women-Bishops-QA-May-2010.doc) on this issue (not written by them in fact) that I thought was helpful.
 
posted by (anonymous) at 04:49pm on 07/07/2010
You and your bishops.

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.
 
posted by [identity profile] teithiwr.livejournal.com at 05:24pm on 07/07/2010
Oh, I really hope Jeffrey John becomes bishop.

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.
 
posted by [identity profile] hilarityallen.livejournal.com at 05:30pm on 07/07/2010
The thing that finally pushed me out of the Catholic Church was the election of Ratzinger, and the confirmation that the Church was going to continue in its discriminatory, AIDS-promoting way. So I hope that the church does reject discrimination. I just won't hold my breath.
 
posted by [identity profile] ex-robhu.livejournal.com at 05:38pm on 07/07/2010
As I understand it the issue with JJ being a bishop is not primarily about his sexuality (if by that we mean his inclinations), because the issue with 'homosexuality' is homosexual practice rather than orientation/inclination. The issue is that JJ thinks that homosexual practice is not immoral, and it is having a bishop that does not follow the Bible's teaching on the issue (and the position the church adopts) which is a problem.

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.
 
posted by [identity profile] kerrypolka.livejournal.com at 07:45pm on 07/07/2010
the clear teaching of scripture

I'm not certain there's very much of this.
(no subject)[identity profile] ex-robhu.livejournal.com
(no subject)[identity profile] kerrypolka.livejournal.com
(no subject)[identity profile] ex-robhu.livejournal.com
(no subject)[identity profile] kerrypolka.livejournal.com
sorry i replied in the wrong place![identity profile] tifferrobinson.livejournal.com
(no subject)[identity profile] yrieithydd.livejournal.com
(no subject)[identity profile] tifferrobinson.livejournal.com
(no subject)[identity profile] ex-robhu.livejournal.com
 
posted by [identity profile] yrieithydd.livejournal.com at 12:32pm on 08/07/2010
The issue is that JJ thinks that homosexual practice is not immoral, and it is having a bishop that does not follow the Bible's teaching on the issue (and the position the church adopts) which is a problem.

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.
 
posted by [identity profile] mirabehn.livejournal.com at 05:40pm on 07/07/2010
Yay, I really hope (for you and all my other sensible Anglican friends!) that you get women bishops soon. I like this post a lot. :-)

I don't know much about Dr John, but what I have heard about him sounds good.

Shall be praying that all goes well. :-)
ext_15802: (byzantium)
posted by [identity profile] megamole.livejournal.com at 06:35pm on 07/07/2010
As mentioned in other comments, JJ is Dean of St Alban's Abbey at the moment and came to preach at our Patronal Festival on 2010-06-27, so I've heard him preach, spoken to him, sung at him etc.

He's a very intelligent and erudite speaker and preacher, and a clearly godly man.
aldabra: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] aldabra at 08:42pm on 07/07/2010
Do you also get to require a female cleric, or a gay one, to perform your baptisms if you don't want a straight white man? Just think of the demand you could create for lesbian priests, if anyone in the country could request one and the Church had to provide.
 
posted by [identity profile] lavendersparkle.livejournal.com at 04:55pm on 12/07/2010
I think the issue isn't baptisms, as doctrine is that you don't need the person performing a baptism to be a priest. My husband is a hospital chaplain and his colleagues have talked obstetricians through performing baptisms over the phone when there was no chaplain on site and the baby wasn't going to last long enough for the journey in.
emperor: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] emperor at 12:55pm on 08/07/2010
That's a great shame.
 
posted by [identity profile] tifferrobinson.livejournal.com at 12:36pm on 08/07/2010
I think a fairly important point that is not being fully taken into consideration is that the Church of England, as well as being open to dialogue on the issue, is currently upholding the traditional stance that sex is appropriate only in the context of heterosexual marriage (not vice versa- sex within marriage is often inappropriate!)

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.
emperor: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] emperor at 12:56pm on 08/07/2010
JJ has stated that he is now celibate (and, indeed, said so a while back).
 
posted by [identity profile] ex-robhu.livejournal.com at 03:24pm on 08/07/2010
Whether or not it's an issue to allow a man to become a bishop in a civil partnership with his former cohabiting former sexual partner, I believe the actual voiced concern is that:
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)
 
posted by [identity profile] tifferrobinson.livejournal.com at 12:57pm on 08/07/2010
And for the record, I think that barring a clergyperson from becoming a bishop on the grounds of sexuality where they are celibate (and we hope honest) is discrimination which Jesus would have been angry about (rather than righteous discrimination). Barring someone from becoming a bishop because they hold to certain beliefs is I think perfectly valid, provide you are doing it across the board.

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.
emperor: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] emperor at 01:19pm on 08/07/2010
I gather the names on a shortlist should be secret (and that the members of the commission are sworn to secrecy); the Grauniad's take seemed to be that someone had leaked to stir up trouble to try and ensure he wouldn't get appointed.
(deleted comment)
 
posted by [identity profile] kerrypolka.livejournal.com at 09:00am on 09/07/2010
+1!
 
posted by [identity profile] ex-robhu.livejournal.com at 06:09pm on 08/07/2010
As it keeps coming up in the discussions here I thought it'd be pertinent to note that the question of whether Jesus / the Bible / Jesus original hearers support / would have understood homosexual practice to be immoral came up and got discussed fairly extensively in the last post (http://emperor.livejournal.com/464305.html) you made on this subject. Particularly the bits about whether Jesus hearers would have understood Jesus talking about porneia (http://emperor.livejournal.com/464305.html?thread=3125169#t3125169) to include homosexual acts seems relevant. Here's a key bit from [livejournal.com profile] robert_jones:
You have a point. Jesus and all the whole NT consistently denounce "porneia", traditionally translated as "fornication" and more recently as "sexual immorality". It's difficult at this distance to know exactly what was meant by that (the word literally means "whoreishness" but clearly meant something much broader than sex with prostitutes), but I tend to agree with you and +Tom Wright that it must at least have been understood as including homosexual acts. (I've seen a few attempts to argue otherwise, but I don't find the idea that homosexuality was widely accepted in first century Palestine at all convincing.)
The other bits in there, like Tom Wright's (who is pretty hostile to GAFCON / FCA / the sort of people who are considered to be the bogeymen in these discussions) analysis (http://emperor.livejournal.com/464305.html?thread=3124913&style=mine#t3124913) are important too I think.

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.
 
posted by [identity profile] yrieithydd.livejournal.com at 06:35pm on 08/07/2010
I'm feeling ignored, because last time I looked you had not replied to me at all.

July

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
    1
 
2
 
3 4
 
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9 10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31