Andrew Goddard–A Critical Appraisal of the Bishop of Liverpool’s Presidential Address

Given its focus and central argument, it is particularly alarming that the address offers no engagement with Scripture or Christian tradition or Anglican teaching either in relation to sexuality or in its attempt to argue that ethical diversity in this area is legitimate. Although many of the practical implications of his argument for diversity remain rather vague it is clear that he is seeking to move the Church of England and the Communion away from its current position. In so doing he also makes a number of claims in passing that raise deeper theological questions about the nature of sin and grace and the relation of church and society.

In summary, the general position advocated is one which would move the Church of England away not only from its current teaching but also from its methodology of careful, rigorous engagement with the complexities of this subject rooted in Scripture, tradition and wider ecumenical reflections. What is being advocated instead is the sort of approach taken by the North American provinces which has moved from the seemingly uncritical (and theologically undefended) acceptance of a diversity of views on sexuality within a small part of Christ’s church to the inevitable abandonment of traditional teaching and discipline within the Anglican province and then to the marginalisation and exclusion of those who seek to uphold the biblical and traditional Christian sexual ethic. It is, sadly, for that reason, that the address is of such significance and concern and merits careful analysis, critique and engagement from the wider church, including others in episcopal leadership.

Read it all.

print

Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, * Religion News & Commentary, Anglican Provinces, Anthropology, Church of England (CoE), CoE Bishops, Ecumenical Relations, Ethics / Moral Theology, Same-sex blessings, Sexuality Debate (in Anglican Communion), Theology, Theology: Scripture

2 comments on “Andrew Goddard–A Critical Appraisal of the Bishop of Liverpool’s Presidential Address

  1. New Reformation Advocate says:

    A cogent, clear analysis of what’s wrong with a very muddled, weak address by Bishop James Jones. Who used to be an evangelical too.

    So back in 2003, +Jones portested the selection of gay advocate Jeffrey John as a bishop. In 2007, he apologizes for that “mistake.” And now he turns into an open advocate of tolerating a completely unbiblical ethical stance, on the basis of a flimsy appeal to the just war/pacifist issue as a parallel case where toleration is properly justified.

    Bravo, Andrew Goddard! Shame on +James Jones.

    David Handy+

  2. azusa says:

    Time for Jones to stand down.
    And time for bishops to serve fixed terms of 5 years or so, then return to parish work.