http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3050254.stm
After a string of truly groundbreaking changes in the law, I guess we can’t except civil society to move quite as fast.
But this is truly disappointing: it really looked like a new day for the church.
I don’t think this is the last time the church will have to face up to this issue though.
This is a damn sad day, and I use the word advisedly and with its literal meaning.
The “traditionalists” have won the battle, and prepared themselves to lose the war.
I have the utmost respect for Fr. John and Abp. Williams, who have conducted themselves as Christian gentlemen and role models throughout this fracas.
The quotes in that article should burn themselves into the hearts of those on both sides of this fight.
On the other hand, during the Prayers of the People Sunday, my parish corporately prayed for the Rev. Gene Robinson, Bishop Elect of New Hampshire.
In the words of the Norse government-in-exile during World War II, as commemorated on a postage stamp showing the message chalked on a sidewalk, “Ve Vill Vinne.”
At first I had a hard time buying the stated reason that he had to resign to preserve “unity” because either way it seemed to threaten division. But then I realized that sections of the church were threatening to actually LEAVE over this. I can see how that could ruffle some feathers: after all, no one was threatening to leave if he DIDN’T get permanently appointed. A dicey issue, and just terribly disappointing.
Two hundred years ago, Absalom Jones, a black man, founded the African Methodist Episcopal Church because the Episcopal Church in Philadelphia would not treat him as an equal.
One hundred and fifty years ago, in the American South, verses from the Bible were still being cited as justification for slavery.
Fifty years ago, “Separate but equal” was still the law of the land in the American South while more subtle racism applied in the North.
Today, Absalom Jones is honored by the Episcopal Church as a man to be emulated, slavery is abominable, and, while the old prejudices still exist, those who espouse them only are considered contemptuous old dinosaurs whose day is passing.
As it was for my Afro-American brothers and sisters, so shall it be for my homosexual ones. I will pray that I live to see such a day, but, more than that, I will work for that day to come. The Episcopal Church has its Annual General Convention next month, and I’m sure that homosexuality will be a hot topic. As an Episcopalian, I am encouraged to pray for the General Convention. I will do so, praying that God opens their heart that they might respond with justice and mercy with regard to that issue and see homosexuals for what they are: our brother and sisters who are no less worthy of the blessings of God, including marriage and the priesthood, than the rest of us.
Ve vill indeed vinne. Among other things, I come by my user name honestly!
Seige
That was beautifully stated, Seige.
The Anglican Church. Sweeping things under the carpet and papering over the cracks for years.
I really hope that someone realises that running things for the benefit of what the homophobes might think is narrow in the extreme, equivalent to running things for the benefit of what the racists might think, and ultimately counterproductive.
I have no problem with gay clergy members. Iindeed in the past I’ve often recommended the clergy as a possibility for the believing gay man or woman, for which I’ve been blasted by some Dopers. However, the simple fact of the matter is that there are doubts that this particular man is really celibate.
All we have is Jeffrey John’s word that the relationship is celibate, but I don’t think that suffices. When two people who are attracted to each other are asserting that they are in a relationship, there’s going to be some amount of lust, in the mind at least, even if it isn’t physically expressed.
If John was living on his own and described himself as not being involved with anyone, I’d favour his appointment in a heartbeat. As it is now, there are too many doubts.
UnuMondo
And, Unu Mondo, all we have is your bare word that your posts here represent your true views, as opposed to “trolling” for the sake of watching people get irritated at them.
I am inclined to make a presumption of truth in public statements, whether they be yours or Canon John’s. There are a wide variety of untruths which he might have told with regard to a man with whom he was once physically intimate but has not been for some years, and with whom he has never lived. He might, for example, admit to past sexual intimacy with a man with whom he remains friends but no longer has sex with. He might have downplayed the relationship entirely, as a past surrender to temptation. Other scenarios will come to mind, I’m sure.
He chose to answer with the truth – he remains in love with and in a committed relationship with him but has not expressed that relationship sexually.
I will concede that it is not uncommon for men to lie about whether or not they have had sex with someone, in the cases of adulterous or quasi-casual relationships.
What we are speaking of here is a lifelong commitment which unfortunately is not recognized as such by church or state. Let’s do a parallel: Twenty years ago a man and a woman fell in love, and committed to each other. They decided to legalize their relationship in the future, when their life circumstances and careers would be more stable. They had sexual relations at the time. However, he is an environmental biologist specializing in the stabilization of tropical savannah biomes; she is a professor of medieval literature with aged and feeble parents. As a result, they have lived apart for the past eighteen years, and have never seen the time as right to marry. And they have not had sex (with each other or anyone else) for fifteen years. Nonetheless, they remain very much in love with and committed to each other.
Can you see any reason in the world why either of them would ever make a statement outlining the above other than that it was the truth? I honestly cannot.
Now, address one final question: supposing that Canon John and his partner did still have sex, within a committed relationship. Accept that the present laws of the United Kingdom and the canon laws of the Church of England do not permit the solemnization of unions between gay couples. In what way does this disqualify him? If he were straight and married and having sex with his wife, would that disqualify him? If he were one of those two people in my hypothetical professional man/woman scenario above, would that disqualify him? Identify why his having sexual relations would involve “some amount of lust” in a meaning that does not exclude the desire of Canon Smith for his wife of 20 years, presuming you don’t address the sexuality of married couples with the term “lust.”
But the whole point is that he isn’t straight. You act as if homosexuality doesn’t matter to many higher-ups in the Church, but it plainly does and one had best try not to ignore the widespread existence of that sentiment. The current policy of the Church of England is that gay clergy must be celibate. Heterosexual clergy are under different rules. Now, I understand you and a lot of people want to see that policy disappear. But while that policy still exists it would be contradictory for the Church leaders to support John.
UnuMondo
Um…since the only person who apparently doubts that this guy is celibate is you, what exactly is the problem with church leaders supporting him?
The people who should be condemned are the ones using the threat of spiritual blackmail to hold this man and his appointment hostage.
Right there is a perfect example of why gay people and those who support them tend to see the other side as hypocrites. (I’m not accusing you, Unu; relax – just using your stated argument to illustrate the point.
We have here a gay man nominated to a see. He is in a committed relationship with another man, with whom he does not live, but avers that he is celibate.
He is meeting the rules of the church regarding sexual morality. Yet “it would be contradictory for the Church leaders to support” him for that position (never mind that his own bishop and the Primate both do).
In short, a “poster boy” for meeting every objection ever raised about gay people is still “immoral” by the standards of the homophobic wing – who cannot even admit the truth: they are repulsed by the idea that anyone might be gay, and cannot conceive of a gay person acting morally.
And they, not Canon John, are the ones in danger when Christ separates sheep and goats.
JFTR, since it seems to have escapted you, my last paragraph was posing some hypothetical questions that I sought your opinions on.
Just curious, UnoMondo, but beyond your own personal (and, judging from past threads, most likely biased) conjecture, what do you have to suggest that this man is lying?
But the most vociferous condemnation did not come from the “leaders” - the Queen has said nothing. The Archbishop of Canterbury kept out of it until recently. The Bishops were divided. Thus the split was not between the upper echilons of the church and the lower order.
Second, those who have been agains Canon John’s appointment have claimed it is more of a matter of what the man will teach as regards homosexuality, rather than his homosexuality/celebacy. Now whether we can take their word for it is more a matter of doubt for me.
Third, the former Archbishop of Canterbury has admitted to ordaining men he suspected of being homosexual. In other words, Canon John’s was too honest - if he had not spoken out regarding his homosexuality, there would not have been this fuss.
Fourth, (and not related to the above quote) I take issue with the idea that Canon John had to step down (or rather not step up) for the good of the Church. Do the “evangelicals” - to use the samewordas the the press here to characterise this group - not see the harm that they have done, or don’t they care? A conspiracy theory has already been put forward, with the Dean of Southwark suggesting that the real target of the “evangelicals” is the Archbishop of Canterbury, whos appointment was not so popular with them, either.
It was the other foriegn wings of the church that were threatening to leave that really scared people.
Pardon me for quoting His4Ever, of all people, in this thread of all places, but one thing that she and I agree on is that we are supposed to say and do things pleasing to God, things He has commanded as right, rather than worry about what other people may think of them.
Which means the Nigerians can take their dolls and dishes and go home in a snit if they wish – if Canon John is a suitable candidate, then he should be duly “elected”* and consecrated as a bishop in God’s church.
- Church of England style of choosing a bishop is that he is nominated by “the Crown” – the Government, influenced by church leaders – and then a letter is issued to the Cathedral chapter to elect a bishop. To make their deliberations easier, their choice is to be made from a list with only one name on it – but their ancient right to elect the bishop is preserved.
Hmph.
As a member in slightly good standing (but better lying down) of the Church of England, I have to say I’m very disappointed in this turn of events.
It’s not a question of whether a gay man should be appointed as a bishop. Anyone who thinks gay men haven’t been appointed as bishops in the Church of England needs a good strong dose of “get real” administered to them, pretty darn quick. The problem, it appears, is that Jeffrey John is not lying about his sexuality. And that shouldn’t be a problem.
I’ve heard all the arguments about how the ordination of an open homosexual will “split the Church”. I heard much the same at the time of the big flap about the ordination of women in the C of E - and from much the same quarters. In the event, the majority of C of E worshippers simply agreed that the time was right for that change, and if a few die-hard reactionaries refused to go along with it, that was their problem. And I am quite confident that the same reaction would have greeted Jeffery John’s appointment.
As far as I can see, God has seen fit to create women, and gay men, in this world, and to call some of them to His service as ordained ministers. And if the Evangelical Alliance and the Bishop of Nigeria have a problem with this, well, it’s their problem, and they should blinking well keep it to themselves.
I wonder (and not being familiar with this particular Church has more’n a little to do with it) if the majority of people in the church are actually fine with it, but there’s some sort of disconnect between leadership and parish regarding what they’re okay with and what they aren’t okay with, and if those who aren’t fine with it are being especially loud because they believe they’re supposed to be The Voice of Reason on this matter.
For a look at Bishop (elect) Robinson’s own views on life, God, etc., check out his interview with Terry Gross of Fresh Air, July 24.
I heard this interview on NPR yesterday while at work. What a wonderful, spiritual man he is. It made me proud to be a member of his church - the world needs more men like Bishop Robinson (and yes, I’m calling him a Bishop because he belongs in that position).
Ava