I’m surprised no one has posted anything about this yet.
The Bishop of Oxford has appointed Canon Jeffrey John of Southwark to be the next Bishop of Reading. Canon John is an openly homosexual man in a long-term relationship. From here:
The Bishop of Oxford has indicated that he is satisfied with John’s claims of celibacy and thus has no qualms concerning the appointment. The appointment has apparently also been approved by the Queen (in her role as Head of the Church of England), which means that only John himself can officially prevent himself from taking the post (or being ordained or anointed or whatever you do to bishops).
Naturally, the situation is causing a bit of a ruckus in the Church of England, especially abroad:
There’s a Times interview with Canon John here and a BBC Radio 4 story (audio clip) here (or if that doesn’t work, the link to the sound file is about two-thirds of the way down this page).
IANA Anglican (or, indeed, Christian), but I would think that the fact that the man is indeed obeying the letter of the usual Leviticus and Pauline passages prohibiting homosexual intercourse would be welcomed by those who cite those passages to oppose homosexuality in general and homosexual clergy in particular. Yet a number of people apparently will not be satisfied unless John’s openly renounces homosexuality, period.
We are witnessing a very humanistic act on the part of the head of the Anglican Communion, contibuting to the further spiritualization of religion, by rising above sex preferences in the appointment of a homosexual to head a congregation.
What did someone in the New Testament say about religion consisting in helping widows and orphans . . . I will look that one up and return to you.
Better, people here who know the Bible, give it to us.
I’m in the diocese of Reading and when I was younger I used to go to our local Anglican church. If he’s not apracticing homosexual, I can’t see why anyone would have any problem with him. I understand that the church makes certain lifestyle demands on people but if he’s fufilling them where’s the problem?
I’m not “worried” per se, especially as it looks like the appointment will go through. It just seems to me like the more conservative members of the Anglican Church are trying to move the goalposts on the poor guy.
I know, I know. Some people will point out that the verses precisely can be cited to exclude homos from sacred charges.
But remember, the Bible was written at a time when religion was defintely not yet very spiritual. And that is why Bible believers are into all kinds of difficulties with modern civilzation which is getting to be more and more, paradoxically, spiritual, transcending all those unspiritual time-warped developments of primitive religion.
I have been involved in rather lively discussions on the subject elsewhere on the net, and I’m afraid they left me a bit scorched. For what it’s worth, my current priest has known the retiring bishop of New Hampshire since they were boys, and I get the distinct impression he trusts his old friend’s judgement. So do I.
Different bishop-to-be, Siege. This is the Rev. Canon Jeffrey Johns of the Church of England. (What Siege is referring to is that the Rev. Canon Gene Robinson, another gay man in a committed relationship, has been chosen as Bishop of New Hampshire. I’ll try to find a story that does not have a vicious anti-gay slant and link to it; the only two I know of are a New York Times article now in their pay-to-read archive and a short piece from Anglican Press Service that barely mentions his life partner.)
As an nominal Anglican and a conservative, I’m not too sure about ordaining or consecrating people who are sexually active outside of the traditional laws. But if the guy says he’s celibate, I fail to see what’s up the Archbishop of Nigeria’s butt, so to speak.
On what grounds is he being condemned? “Being gay”? (Seems to me that according to Biblical tradition, there ain’t no such thing, or else it’s irrelevant.)
But I also have to ask, does the bishop-to-be repent his previous homosex, or is his current celibacy merely convenient for him? What is he planning on teaching his flock about homosexuality? That’s relevent, wherever one stands on the issue.
Sorry, jr8 – I hadn’t read your link when I responded to Siege’s comment.
This thread over on the Pizza Parlor addresses the Robinson nomination; I used the cite in your OP to link to the John nomination at the very end of it.
My understanding is that the new bishop is living in a committed sexual relationship with another man. This is a good witness from the Anglicans to their Catholic associates. We all know that most Catholic priests are gay and yet oppressive regulations force them into sexual interactions with boys. If it was all above board, they could find responsible adult partners with ease. They could even advertise in the church bulletins.
The Anglicans are getting better and better every day. They already allow women clergy and they are changing the archaic and patriarchial face of Christendom! I have some friends who are lesbian nuns, they would make great clergy, if only the oppressive old men would step out of the way. They say Mass anyway and are regular participants at the East Coast Conference for progressive Catholic theologians.
More gay, lesbian, and transgendered clergy will also change the mind of the Church on important issues. The old men talk as if there are only two options for women: mothers and virgins. We need to repudiate patriarchial traditions and denounce homophobic Scriptures as uninspired.
Who knows, maybe one day the Sunday sermon and services will be followed by a sexual orgy? Now that’s a real agape!
This looks to be the next big issue facing the collective Christian churches in the west. From what I’ve read most of the major denominations are wrestling with this issue. Has anyone here how the Eastern Orthodox churches are handling this?
Perhaps dogface, who is a committed and learned Orthodox man, will stop by this thread and give us an answer. Re: the direct topic, BTW, the question would be somewhat void: Though married men can be ordained to the Orthodox priesthood (but not in the reverse order), Orthodox bishops must be celibate, i.e., whatever they may be oriented towards, they’re under vows not to act on.
(I’m getting to really like dogface, BTW – he reminds me immensely of Monty in that his answers can be relied on absolutely, and he’ll deal with anyone treating him decently on a decent basis but can be prickly when someone gets hostile towards him or what he believes.)
The NY Times article of June 8th is now “premium”, so I can’t link to it. But I do remember reading it, and since I’m generally supportive of gay rights, rooting for Johns, until it was revealed that he abandoned his wife and children when he came out in the mid-80’s. I think this denial of his marriage vows, even if they were made under false pretenses, to follow another man and place his sexual orientation above the needs of the children he’d helped create says a lot about his character. And not in a good way.
Everything I’ve heard indicates that the split was (or at least now is) amicable and the two remain on good terms. As for his relationship with his children, I believe one of them attended the vote in support of him. Doesn’t sound too much to me like he abandoned them any more than any divorced parent does.
Would it have been healthy for his children for him to live a lie? Maybe he is setting a good example for his children by being true to himself and honest with all. That takes tremendous courage.
liberationsusie:
I agree with you that the Catholic regulations regarding marriage are oppressive. But nothing forces them into sexual interactions with boys. The regulation has to do with being in control of their sexual urges – not finding another outlet for their sex drives. Pedophilic priests are abusive of the congregations that have been entrusted to them. They are breaking criminal laws that are designed to protect children. This is not a relationship between two consenting adults.
Oh, OK. It just seemed odd to me. And it speaks well of the children; must be tough knowing that the very act that conceived you was a hateful charade for your father and that he never really loved your mother. It would take me a while to get over that.
But if he was honest and he and his wife talked about it beforehand and decided it was best to part, that’s another kettle of fish. It just was that the article gave the impression he left them flat to run off with a guy. Sorry.
And oh yeah, I just came from a party where there was a priest my family’s known for nearly 40 years. In HS, where my Dad met him, he was dating girls quite happily. Not gay. He just decided he had the vocation, and gave up a blood family for the family of hundreds of parishoners he’s the pastor of in the South Bronx. And the vast majority of child molesters are married or the mother’s boyfriend, and presumably having all the straight adult sex they might want.
Umm…unless you’ve got different sources of information than me and the Bishop of Oxford, everything indicates that John is living in a committed non-sexual relationship with another man, as I mentioned in the OP. This is a rather important point in the C of E’s decision.