When Jeffrey John was appointed to be Bishop of Reading, my understanding was that he complied with the rules of the Church of England outlined in the document “Issues in Human Sexuality”, which states that it is acceptable to be homosexual and a priest, so long as the priest remains celibate.
Personally, I think this stance is a disgrace, but Jeffrey John complied with it. (Not entirely sure what celibate means. I suspect the definition in the Church of England is to do with penetrative sex, but perhaps this is too much information).
Hence, when Rowan Williams asked him to resign it was utterly inappropriate, and this turn of events was partly due to some large Oxford evangelical churches threatening to leave the Church of England if he was appointed, and partly due to some hard line American Evangelicals stirring up some of the African Churches to apply pressure to Rowan.
And so we started a phase of bullying and intimidation that determined who would be bishop, rather than prayer, careful consideration and interviews.
Jeffrey John’s name has since been put forward for Southwark, Salisbury and Lincoln. In addition, it is now illegal to discriminate against homosexual people in this country, since the Equality Act 2010. So Rowan has sought legal advice on how to stop gay men becoming bishops, and the answer is based around the phrase that the Bishop should be the ‘Focus for Unity‘:
So, to answer the question ‘How do I stop the best man getting the job and evade the laws of the land’, the answer seems to be a cunning checklist of things to be considered by the Crown Nominations Committee (CNC – people who choose bishops):
- whether the candidate had always complied with the Church’s teachings on same-sex sexual activity;
- whether he was in a civil partnership;
- whether he was in a continuing civil partnership with a person with whom he had had an earlier same-sex relationship;
- whether he had expressed repentance for any previous same-sex sexual activity; and
- whether (and to what extent) the appointment of the candidate would cause division and disunity within the diocese in question, the Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion.
So by my reckoning, Jeffrey John fails on five out of five.
I wonder, though, whether this is remotely just. If this is the requirement for homosexual people, then I would hope that heterosexual bishops were asked these questions:
- whether the candidate had always complied with the Church’s teachings on sexual activity being solely within matrimony;
- whether he was in a continuing marriage with a person with whom he had had an earlier sexual relationship;
- whether he had expressed repentance for any previous premarital sexual activity; and
- whether (and to what extent) the appointment of the candidate would cause division and disunity within the diocese in question, the Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion.
Is it just me – or do these questions seem utterly inappropriate and irrelevant? Any bishop who will change anything or have any sort of prophetic ministry will upset people. And frankly I have no interest in what my bishop has done with his willy in the past. I just want to know he is a man of integrity and compassion and a man who loves and follows Jesus. I don’t need him to be a saint, but some humility would be nice. I must say that most of the bishops I have known do have these things in spades, so there must be something good about the appointments process.. let’s aim to make it better, not worse.
Agree entirely, Lesley.
This sort of thing makes me ashamed to be part of the Church of England.
What on earth happened to ‘listening to the experience of our gay brothers and sisters’ which was supposed to be part of the Windsor Process. Listening properly means not having made your mind up first.
I think that the Colin Slee episode and evidence might just be a moment of change for the Church. People now know what goes on behind the scenes of confidentiality and privilege in the Crown Nominations Commision.
The reality of Arch Bishops losing their temper and getting their way through intimidation and moral blackmail is disturbing and unchristian. Whether this will effect people’s view of the church or not is one that only time will tell.
We don’t pick our leaders, they are imposed upon us by the ‘closed shop’ of privilege represented in the Crown Appointments Commission, perhaps it’s time for both dis-establishment and elected bishops.
Dear God and Lesley,
How I wish I wasn´t distrustful of Archbishop Rowan– sadly, he´s proven to use very poor judgment, spiritual and managerial, for years now as he has injured others with his incompetence.
I´m American. Being ¨Norte Americano¨ and living over two decades in Latin America, I´ve realizes and honored cultural differences…big differences in acceptable behavior and personal style– what I can´t, and won´t, adjust to is easy to note:
·I will not participate in codependent ¨look the other way¨ with anyone.
·I will not live in a world of ¨pretend¨ because I wish sooo badly ¨things¨ are ·different than they really are.
·I will look reality in the eye. I must, anything less is dishonest and destructive.
·I will call a spade a spade and struggle to keep my eye on reality (especially when I desperately want to see good where there is dangerous bad in myself or others).
I think I´ve done a fairly good job of sharpening my focus (especially when I sometimes have much to lose by not ¨playing along¨ with abusers because I wish/hope and often insist, to myself and others, that the/I have personal character that is ¨good at the core¨…character that THEY/I don´t have).
Rowan Williams has proven to be deceitful, snide and punishing to heterosexual women and to our LGBTI sisters and brothers throughout the Anglican Communion. His ¨nuanced¨ (sneaky and blatant) despotic leadership continues to demean, marginalize and discriminate against other Anglicans and minority ¨marginalized¨ human beings in general– his cowardly, and codependent ¨working relationship¨ with Anglicans at the Global South and his pandering amongst the Gafcon schismatics has harmed tens of thousands of LGBTI Anglicans on the ground in Jamaica, Uganda, Nigeria, Iraq and even in the UNITED KINGDOM (as Jeffrey John and many others can now openly witness). Anglican David Kato in Uganda has been murdered along with many Anglican/other lesbian ¨rape cure¨ victims…a honorable ¨standard¨ for enlightened ¨listening¨ suggested by Lambeth 1.10 has not been met (forget the faux monitoring committee). The Anglican Covenant is a punitive document penned and promoted with deceitful intent (just like Dr. Williams new moralike guidelines for homosexuals who are called to the Bishopric).
I´m truly sorry that Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, hasn´t risen to the positive standard that many at Lambeth Palace have earned through their spiritual leadership skills and basic common sense as ¨first among equals¨ at the Anglican Communion…Lord knows millions in the World pray for him every Sunday including thousands here in Central America where I live. I know most here have LISTENED, we have done our part, we have many times given Rowan Williams the benefit of our doubt.
I believe for his own good, and the good of all of us who are ANGLICANS throughout the Anglican Communion, Rowan Williams must resign as he has shown little to no signs of repentance for the harm he has done to other human beings at Church…it will be far healthier for everyone to ¨forgive¨ Rowan Williams after he steps down.
Lord hear my prayer
You have understood the dreadful reality of the process, its intention and indeed its outcome. They will get away with it unfortunately.
Grotesque injustice calmly defined.
I have added your piece to my round-up of the best of the web on the Brown/Slee leak here: http://www.godwithoutgod.com/b047.html
Heterosexual candidates should be chosen on exactly the same basis, well said Lesley. Colin Slee’s agony was/is still, very real and highlights the fact that this kind of intimidation is spiritually corrupt and no part of the Kingdom.
The temptation to power is strong for all archbishops: perhaps it is at its strongest when gay men and women threaten the uncertain secuality upon which their vaunted patriarchy is built. Macho Church. But does it impress anybody these days? Would it have cut much ice with Christ?
Completely crazy, unjust, smoke and mirrors, and so the list goes on. Good on you for making it clear.
I must say that most of the bishops I have known do have these things in spades
I fear the revelations of the last week mean that you really should add the two words “in public” after such a statement.
Thanks for this post Lesley – I’m actually really shocked by this and still trying to digest it.
I have seen one response elsewhere which points out we don’t know what provoked the anger at the meeting and that maybe it was the leaking – I suppose this makes me realise I still subconsciously set a high and possibly unachievable standard for my Archbishops!
However the setting up of a different and higher standard for homosexual candidates than for everyone else is just plain unacceptable.
Making snide comments to Jeffrey John in public about his appearance on a shortlist – and indicating that the decision was apparently a fait accompli – is equally unacceptable.
No wonder the C of E is struggling to fulfil its mission with such things going on under the surface. I
Well said. Keep bearing witness over there!
Lesley – in honour of your excellent title “How to stop a brilliant gay man from being a bishop”, I have written “How to purge your church of all its gay priests” … it sounds funny, until you realise it’s true … the church has not only lost the option of having Jeffrey John as a bishop, it has forced out thousands of gay priests, depriving them of both home and livelihood, by applying the same “standards” to all priests over the last ten years that are regarded as such a scandal when applied to a potential bishop.
http://godwithoutgod.com/b049.html
@Michael – thanks – it is a shocking mess and unjust
Leslie,
I really do find your blog inspiring, even though, as you may suspect, I don’t agree with everything. I’m afraid it is of importance to many of us whether our bishops and clergy have kept their ‘willy’ in their trousers in the past, particularly when they have been convicted of ‘exhibiting their nuts’ in locations where children often play. From what I have read, you have been a vicitm of such.
Nevertheless, it is not merely the likes of Dean Jeffery John who have been the vicitms of ‘bullying and intimidation’ from within the church. Do remember that Rowan, a pleasant man that he is, simply stood idely by in 1997, when bishop of Monmouth, in the face of injustice which was far worse. To make it worse, he knowingly, (although he tried to deny such) appointed a defrocked cleric from the Church of England at the same time. It remains a matter of ‘do as we say not as we do’. Something to do with being a bishop ‘By Divine Permission’. Amaizing how a liberal can believe let alone apply such claims.
You have my support up to a point.But one is not able to have one’s cake and eat it all the time. In this lies the problem, which is,that there is only a fine line between liberalism and fundamentalism. Good luck – keep bloging, you’re getting there!
@Carwyn. Yes, of course you are right. Although we are all sinners and I think the church is obsessed with sex, over and above all the other dreadful things we do to each other. I thought afterwards that I should have put something in about consenting adults.. but then I thought I covered it by saying something about integrity…
Interesting phrase “there is a fine line between liberalism and fundamentalism” – I feel so illiberal about things that I see as issues of justice.
I can only confirm from personal experience how true Michael’s would-be-amusing-if-it-weren’t-true article is.
Hi again,
What I mean by a ‘fine line’ I suppose is the old age subject of ‘original sin’. Oops there I go, slip of the keyboard. To put it in a nutshell , ‘It wasn’t the apple that tempted old Adam – twas the pair on the ground that did it’. Always somebody else’s fault. Or, whether liberal, evangelical or Anglo spikey, we seem to be so aggressive when our views or authority are being challenged.
However, being as you describe yourself as ‘illiberal’ in issues of justice, I take it that on this score we are both ‘conservative’ ? Ouch! There I go – how I hate labels.If I can just remind myself that its mainly about patterns of language.
Blog on Lesely, blog on.
Pingback: Gay Bishops, angry Archbishops and Deans speaking from beyond the grave | Church Ministry Center