Dr Jeffrey John, the Dean of St Albans, claimed that the Church’s mishandling of the gay issue was at the root of an increasingly secular society.
The 59-year-old was pressured by the Archbishop of Canterbury to stand down as Bishop of Reading following revelations that he was in a gay, but celibate, relationship.
His remarks are likely to further provoke a damaging split within the Church as the Government seeks to launch its consultation on same-sex marriage later this week.
Dr John told The Times: “Exactly the same love and commitment are possible between two people of the same sex as between two people of different sexes, and it is not immediately clear why the Church should regard such a relationship as ethically or spiritually inferior to a heterosexual marriage.
The Church as the 'last refuge of prejudice' is so very sad to read...sad but all too true. Jeffrey John knows, since he's twice been on the receiving end of prejudice. I doubt that John's words will worsen the split within the Church of England, which is obviously gaping, but more people in England are likely to dismiss the Church as unworthy of their attention.“The fact that fifty years on [after the decriminalisation of homosexuality] the Church is seen as enemy No 1 of gay people is a disaster, both for our own morale and for our mission to the country. We have become the last refuge of prejudice.” (My emphasis)
UPDATE: Simon Sarmiento at Thinking Anglicans has more from an interview with Jeffery John by Ruth Gledhill in the Times, behind the paywall.
2. What are your views generally on gay marriage?
I have always believed that the only possible Christian model for a same-sex relationship is monogamy. I wrote a booklet about it in 1991 called ‘Permanent Faithful Stable’ which will be republished later this year. At that time I took the view that it didn’t matter whether we call it a marriage or not – what really matters is the nature of the relationship and the commitment on which it rests. In a sense that is still true. But of course the obvious, natural term for monogamy is marriage, and most people instinctively refer to civil partnerships as marriages anyway. So I think ‘marriage’ probably is the best term to use for same-sex as well as well as heterosexual monogamy, and it also has the great advantage of making clear that both should be given equal respect.....
5. What do you think of what George Carey has been saying and his new Coalition 4 Marriage?
They seem to ignore the fact that the ten other countries which have already legalised same sex marriage have not experienced any of the horrors that they keep predicting. Marriage and family life in those countries have not been harmed in any way. The ‘slippery slope’ argument that same-sex marriage will somehow lead to polygamy or incest or increased debauchery is particularly illogical and rather insulting. Nor am I impressed by the argument that we should not use the law to bring about social change. If we had not made changes in the law discrimination against women, ethnic minorities and the disabled would still be firmly in place.Read the rest at Thinking Anglicans.
We would be so blessed if HE were the ABC rather than his "good friend" Rowan
ReplyDeletesusankay, we can dream. Rowan never recovered his footing after that early misstep. My heart sank to my knees when I heard about the debacle.
ReplyDeleteWe really do need to "protect" the folks in the C of E who can't in good conscience go along with Rowan's nefarious schemes. I wonder if he'd let the individual Church Congregations vote on whether to leave the C of E, buildings and all, and become part of the "Episcopal Mission in England"... Then they could have female Bishops like they did before the Romans got there. And if God chose to call an LGBT person to the Episcopate nobody could over-rule him.
ReplyDeleteAnd it could be decided by a simple majority, like the daft Covenant.
Wade, what about an Episcopal ordinariate? Would that work in England?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that once Rowan (Who?)is finished, any alternative will work in England. He's certainly not giving his flock any reason to stay. He's betrayed all of his former liberal allies, along with any principles he ever had. Yet the fundagelicals still hate him. All he has left is the toadies that want something from him as near as I can see, and they'll turn and run whenever convenient. You almost have to feel sorry for the poor fool.
ReplyDeleteIn a way, I do feel sorry for Rowan, because he holds a position for which he is not at all suited. In hindsight, he'd have done better to remain in academia. He's been a disaster as ABC.
ReplyDeleteDo you suppose Phony Blair knew exactly what he was doing Grandmère Mimi? Given that he's now crossed the Tiber?
ReplyDeleteMaybe so. I would not be too surprised if Rowan followed Blair after his retirement.
ReplyDeleteWell, it would serve Benedict right!
ReplyDeleteNote also John's accurate statement that “In the Sixties [Michael Ramsay] the Church was in the forefront of the movement to decriminalise homosexuality". I'm sure there are more than enough Anglican congregations totally out of synch with Rowan & Co to render a TEC ordinariate quite unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteTragic what seems to have become of the diocese of Oxford (check those driving the "Yes to the Covenant" website) in the 11 years since Richard Harries nominated Jeffrey John to Reading. Always, of course, excepting the bishop of Buckingham, also a Harries nominee.
Wade--It helps me to think Lambeth Palace/ABC rather than Rowan/Flock. MHO is that this is a classic Peter Principle role. He's not actually supposed to be doing anything except stonewalling with diplomacy and tact. Skills he seems to be lacking. (I believe at the time he was the lesser of two evils since the only other name that went forward at the time was Nazar Ali who would have been a complete and total disaster.) Also just MHO is that the larger issue has something to do w/the political/financial interests of the crown and nothing at all whatsoever to do with issues of justice and the interests of that one Jesus Christ whom we all love.
ReplyDeleteGrandmere Mimi--This from Jeffrey John in response to question 4, very moving:
ReplyDelete"The truth is that the great majority of people, gay or straight, know that their best chance of happiness and fulfilment lies in finding a partner to love and grow together with, someone who will be there at the end of the day and at the end of their life. That is not a heterosexual hope or a homosexual hope, it is just a human hope."
Lapin, well then a mission it is.
ReplyDeleteI'll check out the 'Yes to the covenant' website.
Bonnie, we can't say they couldn't have done worse. Nazir-Ali!!! I suppose the nominating committee thought Rowan was a shoe-in, but why didn't they submit at least one more name? The committee played a dangerous game.
Bonnie, the entire transcript of the interview from Thinking Anglicans is excellent. From something that was said in the comments at TA, there could be more to the interview than we have seen. I'm so pleased that JJ's broken silence and is now speaking out.
ReplyDeleteGrandmere Mimi--
ReplyDeleteUncertain as to the entire process but I think more names went forward but the two that were sent on were ++Rowan Williams and +Nazir-Ali. (Sorry for the prior misspelling.)
I did go back and read all the comments. And among them I see at least two people known to most of us.
Lapin--Loved your comment but still LAUGHING at this part: "(No comment)"
And Leonardo, as always, very good.
Bonnie, can you give us a link? I'd like to read the comments, too.
ReplyDeleteGrandmere Mimi--I just hit your Thinking Anglicans link for the entire article and the comments appeared at the end of the article.
ReplyDeleteSigning off for the night. Just returned from a ten day road trip which was a lot of fun (just me and Johnny Cash)but I think the sleep deprivation has finally caught up with me.
Oh! Bonnie, I thought you were talking about a blog post from history, from the time when Rowan and Nazir-Ali were nominated.
ReplyDeleteSo sad. What are the leaders thinking?
ReplyDelete