|
|
|
Letter from Anglican Mainstream - July 3rd Jeffrey John clearly has many gifts. Many warm to his character and his concern for the Church’s mission. Why then are so many concerned about his nomination as a bishop? Is it just 'homophobia'? Is the Bishop of Oxford right that, ‘looked at rationally, the arguments against it do not stand up’? Or was the Archbishop right to say that ‘the concerns of many in the diocese of Oxford are theologically serious, intelligible and by no means based on narrow party allegiance or on prejudice. They must be addressed and considered fully’?
Matters of
principle Initial reassurances he would ‘support’ Issues were obviously false. Although reluctantly implementing its policies, he will criticize traditional teaching--not just privately but publicly. His recent statements show the confusion he will create when he uses his teaching office to undermine the common mind of the House of Bishops. Of course, other bishops do not agree with Issues but there has been collective responsibility until now. To consecrate so vocal a critic and allow him to speak out publicly is a novelty already undoing recent hard-won gains in church discussion. As for his pattern of life, Jeffrey is in the sort of 'permanent, faithful and stable' same-sex partnership his writings commend. This, too, is a radical novelty. Although all disapprove of intrusion into his private life and local clergy consistently rebuffed early press investigations in this area, this issue cannot now be ignored. Through most of its existence, this same-sex partnership has been expressed sexually. The 1987 General Synod motion, Issues (1991) and the 1998 Lambeth resolution all clearly reject such a way of life. Those who consistently disobey other teaching on sexual ethics are not normally 'starred' candidates for preferment! This appointment therefore assumes a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex is to be viewed differently from other non-marital sexual relationships. Jeffrey may have convinced some of this view but he has not convinced the Church. Debate on this issue is now being effectively 'pre-empted' by conceding this principle implicit within this appointment. The fact the relationship is now abstinent is important but does not nullify this key point. In fact, on his own account and terminology, Jeffrey John remains in a same-sex covenanted union. But Lambeth 1998 rejected ordaining (let alone consecrating!) 'those involved in same gender unions'. If this consecration were to proceed, it would therefore undermine the very Lambeth resolution the Archbishop has himself pledged to uphold. In Oxford’s ivory towers an interesting case may be made that - unlike marriage - such a permanent union somehow dissolves after sexual activity has ceased for a certain length of time. In this country and abroad, however, such niceties will be overlooked. As a bishop he will be viewed as being in a ‘gay relationship’ equivalent to marriage and this will cause widespread confusion and distress. The church must continue discerning what patterns of friendship are acceptable among unmarried Christians. Perhaps Jeffrey’s relationship could now be described in ways that do not contradict church teaching but as yet that has not happened. Nobody welcomes scrutinizing one particular relationship. This is unfair to those in the relationship and to those wishing to ask important questions without being accused of being prying or uncaring. Regrettably, Bishop Richard's nomination places the spotlight onto this one intimate relationship and highlights its most problematic aspects rather than its more Christ-like features. When appointments are used to short-circuit proper church discussion that discussion risks becoming unhelpfully personalised rather than addressing important theological issues. There are clearly many novelties in this appointment. There is no acknowledged change of heart about living in a sexual relationship with another man. There remains confusion as to how to describe the present relationship. There is continued public advocacy of non-abstinent same-sex partnerships. While still being ‘gay-friendly’ and engaging in further discussion, many therefore cannot accept Jeffrey John as a bishop in the Church of Christ.
Practical
concerns Moreover, relationships are now strained at every level within the Anglican Communion. Despite differences between this and recent events in New Westminster and New Hampshire, their similarities and sudden simultaneity worries people about Anglicanism’s direction. Many Primates sense their recent unanimity on this subject has been flouted through unilateral actions. Major questions are raised about how the Anglican Church looks to ecumenical partners and those of other faiths. Not surprisingly, African Anglicans do not want to be identified with the 'decadent west’ in the eyes of Muslims. The Church of England’s own multi-racial character is also threatened as international divisions will impact many parishes. This all places great pressure on the new Archbishop. Struggling to secure the confidence of some evangelicals and facing major challenges from North America, is this nomination at this time fair on him? The decision to appoint Jeffrey John was taken by the Bishop of Oxford alone. He assured people it was the will of the diocese despite being advised it would be divisive. Major questions remain about the selection process. Sadly, his response to those who expressed concerns to him privately means many who have long respected and worked with Bishop Richard now find their relationship with him seriously damaged. Can one man’s individual sense of integrity really be allowed to destroy so much that we cherish?
The future Yet God works all things for good. At present it is hard to see what good can come, but perhaps this crisis offers new opportunities:
Many orthodox believers see a clear line in the sand here and are determined to speak and, if necessary, act together against this nomination. What is vital is that in doing so we also admit our failings and recommit ourselves to a process of learning and godly pastoral care in relation to those whose stories and lives are like that of Jeffrey John.
|
|
|
