Jonathan Wynne-Jones has ‘revealed’ in the Telegraph that Jeffrey John is not to be nominated as the next Bishop of Southwark. Neither, so I am told, will Nick Holtham, Vicar of St Martin-in-the-Fields, be nominated.
This is painfully disappointing news for Jeffrey, who has lived through a week in which his identity and reputation have been pored over, analysed and attacked once again by conservative forces in the church in a way which I can only describe as poisonous. Those who claim the moral and ethical high ground in the church behave in ways which are scandalous and unchristian.
....
Archbishop Rowan was apparently so furious about the first leak that he unilaterally vetoed Jeffrey’s name, betraying his friend for a second time and handing an apparent victory to the conservatives who seem to be successfully controlling him. Archbishop Rowan would have directed his anger in a more healthy direction if he had targetted the people inside and outside the Commission who have deliberately sabotaged its work.
Jonathan lists a number of reasons why this is bad news. I think he omits far more important reasons why it is bad news. It is a capitulation to forces within the Church of England and the Anglican Communion which represent a reactionary attitude to scripture and a negative attitude towards the glory, goodness and infinite variety and beauty of God’s creation.
It communicates an image of the church and Christianity to our nation in which we are perceived to be bigoted, prejudiced, narrow-minded and lacking in the primary Christian virtue of love.
My goodness! What a mess. Can the words about the Archbishop of Canterbury's unilateral veto be true? What a way to redress a breach of confidentiality!
H/T to Thinking Anglicans.
So, the ABC can be bullied once and for all.
ReplyDeleteI knew this was too good to be true.
Being "furious about the leak" sounds like it may have been a convenient excuse for backtracking to me.
ReplyDeleteCounterlight, I didn't really believe Jeffery John would be appointed, either, and it appears that he took another good man down with him. To quote Bishop Katharine, "It is bizarre. It is beyond bizarre." All too often, whatever the ABC touches seems to turn to shit.
ReplyDeleteCathy, I suppose we'll never know the whole story, but why allow JJ's name to be put forward in the first place?
why allow JJ's name to be put forward in the first place?
ReplyDeleteIt's a mystery. I got the impression RW thought it might be a good way to counterbalance recent moves on his part to show he hadn't completely lost touch with the liberal agenda. But if he backed down at once at the first signs of a media fuss about it, then it would seem that wasn't so.
About an hour ago Simon Sarmiento posted at TA "From Twitter: @RuthieGledhill: Rowan lost rag at meeting of CNC and Jeffrey John has not been chosen for Southwark. What a crazy, crazy Church."
ReplyDeleteWay beyond ironic that the man vetoed by George Carey for this same diocese when he refused to repudiate his writings on homosexuality has done this. Object lesson in the corruption of power.
As Göran wrote earlier today, "Judas only betrayed his chum once".
Also an object lesson in the level-headed, even-handed manner in which we can expect Rowan's covenant to be imposed. Hope Synod hands him his ass on a platter on the women bishops amendment.
ReplyDeleteObject lesson in the corruption of power.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to think otherwise, but....
I saw the Twitter comment from Ruth at TA.
ReplyDeleteAs to women bishops, I've heard that the amendments by Rowan and Sentamu may pass just to get the matter over and done with. However, this latest debacle may fire up those who favor equality for women and GLBT persons and cause them to hold the line against the amendments.
Rowan Iscariot? So quick to betray his beliefs and his friends, and for what? They will never be appeased.
ReplyDeleteI hope Cameron refuses to go along with the charade.
Wade, Cameron can only choose from the names he is given. I gather the PM has no say in the matter beforehand.
ReplyDeleteA commenter at the unnamed conservative website had the same thought that I did, only phrased more colorfully.
ReplyDeleteI wonder of this will harden opposition to RWs “compromise plan” regarding Women bishops in the upcomimg Synod? Certainly the timing is not good. RW seems to live with a shotgun perpetually pointed at his foot - a shotgun that randomly discharges at the most inopportune times.
My favorite comment over there for mixed metaphors and misuse of word:
The whole thing was a Paper Tiger.
Remember in magic - the point is to divert attention away from the actual slight of hand.
"Archbishop Rowan was apparently so furious about the first leak that he unilaterally vetoed Jeffrey’s name..."
ReplyDeleteIf I want a cock and bull story, I'll read Hemingway. I wonder who leaned on ++Rowan to scuttle the nomination.
It's so past time for this (pardon my French) @sshat Rowan to GET GONE, it's pathetic...
ReplyDeleteCounterlight, I expect that more than one person leaned on Rowan, including the person who leaked the information.
ReplyDeleteJCF, Rowan won't get gone. At least, not now.
No, Rowan won't get gone, and it is worth remembering that whoever replaces him when he does go is likely to be less, not more, sympathetic to the LGBT perspective. Sentamu for instance has his good points, but he's pretty anti-gay, I think.
ReplyDeleteYesterday, in a British Supreme Court ruling that Gay refugees must get asylum, Lord Hope referred specifically to "the rampant homophobic teaching that right-wing evangelical Christian churches indulge in throughout much of sub-Saharan Africa" - the very group that Rowan, time and again, has bent over backwards to appease. He, and those in the Church of England who support his stand on homosexuality, are increasingly and visibly out of step with British political, legal and social thinking on the issue.
ReplyDeleteThen of course there is this comment on TA by someone who suggests that it may simply have been a case of wanting an existing bishop for a high profile diocese and not a priest who has to be consecrated bishop.
ReplyDeleteAnd Nick Baines also has a nice article on his blog.
I'm not saying it isn't how it's been portrayed, but we actually don't know.
Damian Thompson, ultra-conservative RC blogger at the Telegraph, has this take on yesterday's news - "The second humiliation of Jeffrey John: Rowan's liberal credentials go up in smoke".
ReplyDeleteLapin, the English primate and the like-minded in the CofE are lagging far behind the the political and social thinking of the country. Color me confused about their positions and where they think they are headed.
ReplyDeleteErika, we don't know, but from over here, this particular process looks like a train wreck at the present time. I can't see that further information will improve the view all that much.
I believe I may be quoting Lord Hope quite a bit in the coming months. Be harder for Sugden & Co to hang the accusation of patronizing neo-colonialism around his neck when one is attacking the selectively Bronze Age beliefs of the likes of Orombi, Akinola and Sugden.
ReplyDeleteGrandmère Mimi, as a fan of "Yes Prime Minister" I was remembering the time Sir Humphrey got the PM to refuse BOTH of the Bishops put forth and send them back for two more names. I'm hoping Cameron is also a fan...
ReplyDelete