Iconoblog

Anglican Angst

In the light of recent news items regarding the controversy in the Anglican Communion regarding the potential ordination of a bishop who is part of a same sex relationship, this comment from The Latimer Fellowship during the Jeffrey John affair is helpful, I think.

THE CONCERNS OF OXFORD CLERGY

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

For many the objections are principled. A bishop is called to teach the truth and be a pattern of godly living to the flock.

In relation to the Church's teaching, Jeffrey John has consistently opposed biblical and church teaching on human sexuality. Yes, he seeks to do this through respectful engagement with Scripture and Tradition. Unlike many, he propounds a strong ethic for gay relationships. He represents the 'best case' among revisionists. Nevertheless, he remains fundamentally opposed to the Christian Church's historic teaching and insists it must change.

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.