MAY WE HOPE FOR GOOD NEWS FOR THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND?

The Diocese of Manchester has instructed the official panel appointing its new bishop to select someone who can establish “positive relationships” with gay Anglicans and non-worshippers.

The panel, which met on Friday, was told that the successor to the Rt Rev Nigel McCulloch, who retired earlier this year, should build on “significant engagement” with “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities” in Manchester.

The move comes amid growing tensions within the Church over its attitude to gay worshippers and clergy.

Such a public endorsement of working with gay Anglicans by a major diocese will cheer liberals but be seen by traditionalists as a further erosion of their views.
....

As a result of the change Dr Jeffrey John, the openly gay Dean of St Albans, has been widely tipped for consideration as Bishop of Durham, a move which would catapult him into the third most senior post in the Church of England, and one held until recently by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev Justin Welby.
....

 

Among those who could be considered for the role [in Manchester] is the Bishop of Buckingham, Dr Alan Wilson, one of the most prominent Church figures to speak publicly in favour of gay marriage.

A junior bishop in the Diocese of Oxford for 10 years, he would have the experience and profile to take over a diocese the size of Manchester.

I worry that "educated" guesses by the media, especially the Telegraph, are signals to those who oppose gay bishops and gay-friendly bishops to complain loudly and weaken the chances of the appointments.  I'd be pleased if Jeffrey John went to Durham and Alan Wilson to Manchester.  I know Jeffrey only by reputation, but I have met Alan, and I think both men would make fine diocesan bishops.  Two such appointments would be good news for the Church of England.  We'll see.

JEFFREY JOHN - C OF E LAST REFUGE OF PREJUDICE

From the Telegraph:

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 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)

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.
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.

STILL MORE ON JEFFREY JOHN

From Martin Reynolds in the comments to the post at Thinking Anglicans titled "Discrimination alleged in the Church of England". (What?! Can it be?! Say it isn't so!) The commentary was posted in several sequences because the number of words in a single comment is limited. I included a question by Colin Coward in the sequence, along with Martin Reynolds' answer.

There was once a Welshman and a Welshman and a Welshman ........

This increasingly acrimonious and hugely damaging story has emerged from where? And this very private letter was released by who and to what effect?

Nowhere can I find a reference to the supposed quote in the Mail on Sunday headline, and as the letter is from a lawyer, when is Jeffrey supposed to have said this? Isn't that rather key information to the story?

And who, on this Commission, would leak a legal letter - surely this is yet another breach aimed at damaging John? Did the last secret enquiry throw up a culprit who revealed the names on the shortlist for Southwark?

What seems to emerge from all this is that these letters changed hands some time ago, after the Southwark fiasco where Rowan was discovered browbeating the Commission members to reject Jeffrey. bullying some to tears.

The legal exchange must be seen in this context, the aftermath of the Southwark fiasco when it now seems clear a conservative evangelical member of the Commission revealed that John and Holtam were on the shortlist - probably the same person who has now revealed this letter. Jeffrey John would have discovered that although clearing with Rowan Williams that he was OK to allow his name to go forward for Southwark he was then stabbed firmly in the back and ruled out. This despite having be assured by Lambeth that a few years after Reading he would be acceptable as a bishop.

Cont.
Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 at 3:24pm GMT

So, contrary to George Pitcher's vicious little piece in the Mail, John was not saying "make me a bishop- or else!" ....He was saying: "start telling the truth, or else..." - rather a different way of looking at the facts.

Pitcher's unnecessarily nasty account does, I believe, reveal the Rowanesque spin that Lambeth has put on this whole tawdry affair. An affair that has nothing to do with "gay rights" - Jeffrey has assiduously avoided being "tainted" with any support for LGBT causes and has for ever been willing to tow the CofE party line on gay issues even to the point of giving up sex with his life-long partner! In fact Rowan has a much higher profile as a gay campaigner. But everything to do with - Misleading and duping a rather nice, devoted and faithful Churchman and Christian into believing that what bishops and archbishops say can be believed.

Jeffrey has not once given an interview or acted anyway disloyally to the Church of England - he was right to question what underpinned the appalling treatment his candidacy had in the secret dealing of the Commission - the mauling his supporters had was unsupportable, approaching abuse. That this close questioning of the actions of Rowan Williams - combined with the opprobrium rightly heaped on his shoulders when he forced John to resign from Reading and then failed to acknowledge messages from John rescinding his withdrawl - makes the Archbishop and his staff uncomfortable - indeed uncomfortable enough to attack Jeffrey - is perverse in the extreme.

What we now know is that as soon as Jeffrey (through his lawyers) started to question the actions of the appointment commission then the third Welshman in this miserable joke, the lawyer John Rees sought to justify what had already happened by writing that awful document misnamed a legal opinion claiming gay people had to repent if they wanted preferment.

It was another evil and malicious step from Rowan in his dealings with gay people since he took office.

George Pitcher says that Jeffrey's actions in questioning the duplicity of Lambeth Palace and its occupants would throw the rights of gay people back decades.

George completely fails to see that Jeffrey has never been interested in being a "gay bishop" any more than he has ever had an genuine interest in "gay rights" in the Church - Jeffrey is an advocate for honesty, faithfulness and trusting people at their word - he believes they are the mark of a true Church - that is what he is chasing.

Cont:
Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 at 3:52pm GMT

Jeffrey didn't get Southwark as there was a "better man" - because of Colin Slee we all now know the truth and George Pitcher can't spin that Lambeth Palace line and expect to be believed. That's not what happened.

Now we have ended up with the horrendous "legal opinion" from Welsh lawyer John Rees - I do wonder what the future holds for the Church of England after three three Welshmen have done their worst/best.

George Pitcher mistakes who has been responsible for throwing back the place of gay people in the Church - it is not careful, diligent, cautious, courteous almost obsequious Jeffrey John - it is ambitious and determined Rowan Williams who has savaged us and demeaned us in his failing attempt at keeping the communion united and keeping ecumenical dialogue open. It is cruel, but a common characteristic, that abusers blame their victims.
Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 at 4:10pm GMT
....

Martin, the quote in the headline that you open your comment with is 'I'll sue Church of England if it bars me from being bishop' - is that correct?

Your analysis and theory makes perfect sense and fits all the evidence. It explains why people were phoning me on Sunday and Monday in a fruitless chase for inside information, which I certainly don't have. But someone inside Church House or someone with an axe to grind and access to the correspondence certainly would have access.

This places responsibility yet again on the practice and culture inside Church House where devious tactics are being employed to block any progress towards a re-examination on church policy, let alone real change leading to the full inclusion of LGB&T people. It feels a bit like war!
Posted by: Colin Coward on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 at 6:19pm GMT

Yes Colin, that's the "quote" I can't find except in the headline. Perhaps I missed something?

One does wonder, Colin what the CofE is doing. Take the appointment of Robert Paterson as the chair of the group looking into Civil Partnerships, he was one of only two English bishops to vote AGAINST giving civil partners pension parity.
Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 at 6:59pm GMT

In his commentary, Reynolds brings together information which I knew from various sources and includes information of which I was not previously aware. He sheds far more light on the treatment of Jeffrey John by the leadership in the Church of England than any of the press accounts.

Martin Reynolds is a retired south Wales priest who is an adviser to the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement headquartered in the UK.

And I've already been called out for excessive use of exclamation points. So sue me!

UPDATE: The Church Times has further information and commentary on the question of the legality of the actions by the Church of England in barring Jefffrey John from being a bishop.

MORE ON DR JEFFREY JOHN AND HIS ALLEGED LITIGATION AGAINST THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

Thus far The Independent seems to have the most reliable coverage of the alleged litigation being prepared by Dr John and his legal advisers against the Church of England.

Under current equality laws religious organisations are are given dispensation to discriminate against those who do not comply with their teachings, allowing clerics like Dr John to be passed over, and mosques to only have male imams, for example. Were the Church's current stance on homosexuality to be tested in court the Church would almost certainly win, for if it didn't the very existence of many faiths would be under threat. But by forcing the issue those at the top would be forced to confront some embarrassing - and extremely divisive - issues.

Some of those who know him expressed surprise that he would take such a step. "Jeffrey's always wanted to do things within the church," said one. "He's not the litigious type."

Others questioned where the leak came from. "It's so obviously deeply counter-productive to Jeffrey," said another colleague. "It makes him look like he's saying promote or I'll sue. It's a rather good way of smearing him."

The newspaper report includes a photo of a nasty sign, which I don't see as necessary, but I admit the sign is the reality for some who oppose the appointment of gay bishops.

The Independent also understands Dr John was not even long-listed for the currently vacant post of Bishop of Edinburgh, meaning no church leader was willing to put him forward for another key diocese with liberal leanings.

More's the pity. I expect Jeffrey John will not be a bishop, which is very much the Church of England's loss.

Read the article which reminds us of what conservatives happily label "The Jeffrey John clause", in which gay persons are asked to repent of their "physically homosexual past", whereas such repentance is not asked of heterosexual candidates, a Catch-22, which is about as blatantly discriminatory as one can imagine.

UPDATE: Andrew Brown in the Guardian thinks it is unlikely that Jeffrey John will sue the Church of England because he keeps his personal life private, which he could not do in the midst of litigation, and because he will lose the case anyway.

Last year the Church of England published a legal opinion that makes it quite clear that it believes it is legal to discriminate against John, not because he is gay, since he is also celibate, but because he is not in the least bit ashamed of being gay. That is what sticks in the craw of the conservative evangelicals who oppose him. They have moved on from supposing that it is absolutely wrong to be gay. They now believe that it is OK to be gay providing that you are very unhappy about it.
....

Look at the small print of its legal opinion on civil partnerships, transparently designed to prevent John from being able to sue for discrimination. No selection committee would ask straight candidates for a job whether they had ever had pre-marital sex, and, if they had, whether they were jolly sorry for it. Yet the Church of England believes that it is legally and morally OK to ask the equivalent questions of gay men: "Whether the candidate had always complied with the church's teachings on sexual activity being solely within matrimony; whether he had expressed repentance for any previous pre-marital sexual activity."

As the late, great Molly Ivins said so often, you can't make this stuff up.

UPDATE 2 from Jim Naughton at The Lead:

Articles appeared in several British newspapers over the weekend suggesting that Dean Jeffrey John of St. Alban's Cathedral was going to sue the Church of England for discrimination unless he is made a bishop. We don't think these stories were quite right.

It is our understanding, after some extensive conversations, that what John has done is hire a lawyer to inform the Church of England that provisions which prohibit anyone in a civil partnership--be they gay or straight, celibate or sexually active--from becoming a bishop exceed even the generous exemptions provided for religious organizations in the Equality Act of 2010.

JEFFREY JOHN V. THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND?

From the Guardian:

The Church of England's most senior openly gay cleric is understood to be considering suing his employers for discrimination unless he is made a bishop.

I doubt that Jeffrey John will pursue litigation on the basis of what is stated above. The article includes words such as, "Reports on Sunday suggested..." and "It is thought..." Jeffrey John, along with his reported legal representative, have refused to comment. The Church of England also refuses comment. Much is yet to be known about what's really happening, thus the wording that indicates much less than certainty about the situation by the writer of the article.

A source close to John told the Sunday Times: "This is not a case of demanding something he is not entitled to but a way of resolving the flawed voting process that prevented him being made the bishop of Southwark."

If possible litigation is pending, then the above statement would more likely be the basis for John to pursue legal action against the Church of England, rather than his demanding that he be made a bishop. The Guardian usually does a better job of reporting.

BECAUSE I LOVE AN OXYMORON

A rough outline of sequence of events that led the late Colin Slee, former Dean of Southwark Cathedral, to write the Slee Memo, which was recently leaked to the Guardian:

The position of Bishop of the Diocese of Southwark in south London becomes vacant.

Dr Jeffery John, Dean of St Alban's Cathedral, who is gay and in a civil partnership, but celibate, is one of the nominees for the position.

Jeffrey John's name is leaked to the media, despite the vow of confidentiality taken by the members of the Crown Nominations Commission.

According to Dean Colin Slee's account in the Slee Memo, the Archbishop of Canterbury himself may have been the leaker when he inquired of church lawyers if there was any reason to decline the nomination of Jeffrey John as bishop of the Diocese of Southwark. In his memo, Slee alleges that the Archbishop had no right to break the vow of confidentiality taken by all members of the commission in order to consult the lawyers.

The news of Jeffrey John's nomination spreads through the media.

After vehement objections to Jeffrey John and another nominee by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Crown Nominations Commission submits the name of Christopher Chessun to the crown, and he is appointed to the position of Bishop of Southwark.

An inquiry into the leak (the Fitchie Enquiry) begins. The findings of the inquiry are to be secret, says the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Concerning a phrase included in Terms of Reference of (the Fritchie Enquiry) Colin Slee says in an email to Chris Smith of the Anglican Communion Office:

Finally, I hope you are aware of the marvellous oxymoron in the terms of reference, (your italics) '...and to make any recommendations necessary to improve the confidentiality in the work of the Commission as it seeks to open up its processes.' (My emphasis)

Colin Slee writes in the memo about the conduct of the Crown Nominations Commission meeting to choose the bishop of Southwark:

The oxymoron within the Terms of Reference will be a delight to me for years to come; it exhibits the chaotic unreality that prevailed from the very beginning.

The purpose of this post is to call attention to the "marvellous oxymoron" and to the "chaotic unreality" of the process of choosing bishops in the Church of England and also as a memory aid for me of the sequence of events if I choose to write about the Slee Memo yet again.

Thanks to Pluralist for the reminder of the oxymoron in his post titled "More on the Smell".

R. I. P. COLIN SLEE

Sermon by the Jeffrey John, Dean of St Albans, at the funeral of Colin Slee, Dean of Southwark Cathedral.

I didn't know Colin Slee. Until his recent death, I didn't know anything about Dean Slee, but after reading Jeffrey John's lovely sermon at his funeral service, I wish I'd known him or, at least, known a bit more about him.

One of the last things Colin said before he died was, ‘I am surprisingly un-scared’. It could have been the motto of his whole life. Colin was always surprisingly un-scared. Unlike the rest of us, he never did let fear or self-consciousness or embarrassment to stop him reaching out to the most unlikely and needy people, or doing and saying what he thought was right and true. All the frightened, careful people said Colin was risky, indiscreet, unreliable – ‘the most dangerous man in the Church of England’ said one, to Colin’s deep delight. But he was not dangerous or indiscreet or unreliable - certainly not in anything that mattered. He was just surprisingly un-scared.

If you ask why he was so un-scared, I think the answer is as straightforward as he was. He really did believe. He really trusted in a good and loving God as Jesus came to make Him known to us; and that confidence set him free to be the astonishingly life-giving, brave, generous and joyous person that he was.
....

The papers and his detractors always portrayed Colin as an arch-Liberal, as if he were the leader of a faction obsessed with a secular agenda. It was never true, and it misses the whole point. For Colin it began and ended with God. The truth is that he was a traditional Catholic Anglican, thoroughly disciplined and orthodox in his faith, a man of profound prayer and penitence. His idea of inclusiveness was not that ‘anything goes’, but that we are all equally in need of healing, and therefore the Church must equally be a home for all. Colin welcomed people because Jesus did. (My emphasis)

Amen, and amen, and amen!

I'm baffled that, all too often, it seems difficult for certain of my brother and sister Christians to understand that one can be "thoroughly disciplined and orthodox" in one's faith and still welcome everyone because Jesus did. How is it arch-liberal or secular to look to Jesus in the Gospels as the model for how we are to "do unto others"?

From the website of Southwark Cathedral.

Photo from the Guardian.