Dr John is a hugely divisive figure in the church after he was forced to stand down from becoming the Bishop of Reading in 2003 after it emerged he was in a homosexual, but celibate, relationship.
Promoting him to one of the most senior offices in the Church would trigger a civil war between liberals and conservatives and exacerbate existing divisions within the Anglican Communion.
Members of the Crown Nominations Commission, the body responsible for selecting bishops, will vote this week on whether Dr John’s name should now be put forward to the Prime Minister for final approval.
David Cameron has been made aware that Dr John is on the shortlist for the post and is understood to be supportive of such an appointment.
I am waiting for the Oxford movement myself. Women Bishops and this character spells doom for the COE.
Intercessor
Lovely idea. Just what the Church of England needs, as you pointed out Intercessor. Why don’t they just ring a veterinarian and put it down humanely? As it is, this inexorably slow voluntary ecclesiastical suicide is much too slow and messy. It’s cruel and inhuman to do this to the Faithful of England.
The wheels of the EcUSA/TEc bus go round and round, round and round, round and round. The intend the same for the AC bus, all around the common.
[blockquote]A confidential meeting, chaired by Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has approved Dr Jeffrey John, the Dean of St Albans, to be on the shortlist to be the next Bishop of Southwark.[/blockquote] So, here is the big question for me. “Is the ABC in on this?” If he is then I hope the Global South will part ways and form their own communion. And if he is, what was the point of his Pentecost Letter after all? [blockquote]This could shatter Dr Williams’ hopes of maintaining the fragile unity which currently exists in the Church.[/blockquote] “Fragile” yes “Unity” no. Am I missing something or is this just flat out crazy!
Prayers can be found [url=http://anglicanprayer.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/southwark/]here[/url], [url=http://anglicanprayer.wordpress.com/2010/06/25/southwark-2/]here[/url], and [url=http://anglicanprayer.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/evangelism-2/]here[/url].
“after a successful period in charge of St Albans cathedral.” and that “nasty party” image seem to indicate that there is politics involved. He built the church, and the Conservative party in England has gay members.
Tough decisions.
If he’s celibate, what’s the problem exactly?
One of the safest of safe Commons seats in England is Arundel and South Downs. Their MP is gay, in a domestic partnership, Minister of Justice for Police Reform, former Master of the Trinity Foot Beagles. He said, “I appreciate that some people of faith take a different view, but I’m a great believer in respecting conscience and where church groups, for instance, want to allow civil partnerships on their premises, well I think that should be their decision to do so. I think we need to be respectful of religious freedom of conscience, just as I think we must ensure we protect equality.” So, John, which side does he come down on?
If he is celibate the problem is clearly not his sexual expression. However he refuses to repent of previous active moments in life, upholds very unbiblical views regarding human sexuality and campaigns for and end to celibacy for homosexuals in the priesthood….that said he is hardly novel for that!! More honest to consecrate him and let all those desirous of orthodoxy find new homes- it is over and deep down I think mos of us realized that some time ago. With hindsight women’s ordination where it is embraced only ever moves churches into liberal downward slides
maybe we need to insist on rugbyplayingbishops? that would sort out all these awkwardnesses, no?
#7 & #9.
[blockquote]The appointment of Dr John, who entered a civil partnership with his long term partner the Rev Grant Holmes in 2006, would mark a major victory for the pro-gay lobby in the Church of England,[/blockquote] You folks may consider this celibate but this is not the traditional understanding of celibate. It would not fly in the Roman Catholic church. How is this any different than Mary Glasspool?
Why do the other broadsheets not have this story?
#12. cseitz,
[blockquote]Why do the other broadsheets not have this story?[/blockquote] Because?
With a Gay friendly culture and David Cameron enthusiastic (the new face of the Tory party) it seems odd that only the Tory-graph is running this story. I wonder if its as much of a done deal as Wynne-Jones concludes (see the Sunday morning story now)?
You are assuming, Hoskyns, that all rugby players are heterosexual?
The non-appearance of the story in other newspapers may well be a consequence of their unwillingness to lift another paper’s scoop – without inside contacts they have nothing to add to his story. Unfortunately Ruth Gledhill is now completely behind a pay wall. A follow-up story by Wynne-Jones was posted this morning. He still appears confident of his sources. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7870316/Meeting-on-appointment-of-gay-bishop-will-determine-future-of-the-Church.html
[blockquote]The outcome rests in the hands of 14 people.[/blockquote] I think not.
Just how short is the short list? Is this English English for “there is only one candidate, vote yea or nay” or is it English English for “which of these 5 would be the best choice?”
I am half surprised +RW did not post up one of his troubleshooters. I mean, this looks like a job for Gregory Cameron, now that he has his feet wet in a Welsh Bishopric.
I shouldn’t have thought this was some big scoop. It is not that hard to get this kind of news. But the blogs are doubtless having a field day.
How short peoples’ memories are.
The problem over Jeffrey John in 2003 came to a head with allegations that he had been untruthful in a statement he had given about his domestic arrangements. This allegation was made in an article in the Daily Telegraph in June 2003:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1433712/Gay-bishop-and-curate-boyfriend-bought-flat-together-last-year.html
[blockquote]In a statement issued last week, Dr John insisted that he and his boyfriend, whom he did not identify, had not been sexually active for a decade. He added: “My partner and I have never lived together (apart from one brief period while he was moving house) because our separate ministries have never made it possible to do so. However, we rely on each other for support and spend as much free time together as possible.”
Last night, however, the Diocese of Oxford confirmed that the men jointly own a £235,000 flat in Roehampton, south-west London, near the church where Mr Holmes works. They hold regular dinner parties there.
Friends have told The Telegraph that before buying the flat last year Mr Holmes may have used Dr John’s Southwark house as a correspondence address. The disclosures have further angered the critics, who say the statements given by Dr John last week were misleading. [/blockquote]
With the emerging details of Dr John’s private life, it was no longer possible for the Bishop of Oxford and the ABC to push this through under the radar. Faced with a revolt by evangelical and high church Anglicans, as well as from the Communion, the Queen expressed her concern [twice apparently] and a meeting was held between Dr John, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the then Bishop of Oxford. Dr John agreed to withdraw.
He was appointed to what was then the evangelical St Albans Abbey as Dean and in 2006 entered into a civil partnership.
The issue of truthfulness is as pertinent now as it was in 2003.
#13 and #15 — My response in part has to do with the role of newspapers in the UK. It is not hard to imagine that the Telegraph has published this and predicted a JJ outcome, not because it is likely or not, but because it stirs things up. If he is not appointed, people will be outraged and claim another ‘injustice’ etc. But as Pageantmaster says, there is nothing new here in respect of JJ somehow now being suitable — except a much more pro-Gay Tory Party climate in which to drop this story.
Will Rowan remove CoE representatives on the obscure committees that the Americans were removed from? Will CoE become second tier in the two tier Anglican Communion?
Bring on schism. The liberals can go their own way and die. There is no life in them. They exist only as parasites.
If John and his partner indeed refrain from all sexual contact, as they say they do, then this appointment is no worse than that of the numbers of other bishops who teach that sexual sins are not sins. Bishops in this group include Rowan Williams himself. The remedy is for the Church to ordain and consecrate only those who teach what the Church teaches.
#22. Katherine,
[blockquote]If John and his partner indeed refrain from all sexual contact, as they say they do, then this appointment is no worse than that of the numbers of other bishops who teach that sexual sins are not sins.[/blockquote] But still a fatal flaw?
Remember the Clinton sex scandals. I did not have sex with that woman. All this hinges on Mr John’s personal definition of sex, chastity, and celibacy as well as whether he is telling the truth.
You surely cannot believe that they REALLY have no sexual contact. Owning a big expensive house together and throwing parties and they are celibate? Please. He can lie about the house et al but he CANNOT lie about his celibacy? Larry
From the Daily Mail: [url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1291923/David-Cameron-pledges-support-openly-gay-clerics-bid-Bishop-Southwark-split-Church-England.htm ]New row set to split Church of England as Cameron pledges support for openly gay cleric[/url]
With plummeting numbers in the CoE, I am sure that this will bring in “countless”…just like Gene Robinson did in New Hampshire.
Fr. Dale, #23, the flaw was already there. The CofE has been ordaining actively homosexual men (and women) for years, as have TEC and the Church of Canada. If they weren’t priests already, they wouldn’t be in line to be bishops.
Larry Morse, #25, personally, I doubt it. But this is the ridiculous position in which the CofE sits. They are required to accept civil unions, and if the parties certify to their bishops that they are celibate the Church must take their word for it. A man and a woman who call each other committed life partners and live in the same house would not be taken too seriously if they claimed they did not engage in sexual activity. The CofE is legally required to run this charade.
Please remind me why we contort ourselves into all sorts of knots for a group of persons, no matter how vocal, who comprise, at most, 3% of the population, and cannot scientifically show that their sexual preferences are inbred? Why do we elevate how and with whom we have sex above all else in our deluded quest for self-actualization or whatever it is that these folks tell us they absolutely have to do?
Here is some more background on events regarding Jeffrey John, his views and the persistent attempts to make him a bishop.
1. Claims made in 2003 not to live with his partner
The Statement issued by him trying to allay concerns over his appointment as Bishop of Reading in 2003 is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/jun/20/gayrights.religion1
Containing this statement:
As mentioned in my comment above Dr John’s assurance was inconsistent with the information which emerged of his joint ownership of a flat with his partner.
2. On the teaching of Lambeth 1:10
Also in the above Statement is this:
3. Views on the Atonement
In April 2007 Dr John again hit the headlines here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1547262/Easter-message-Christ-did-not-die-for-sin.html
The Bishop of Durham reviewed and criticised the views of Dr John here:
‘The Cross and the Caricatures: a response to Robert Jenson, Jeffrey John, and a new volume entitled Pierced for Our Transgressions’
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2007/20070423wright.cfm?doc=205
His key criticisms lead in:
Dr Albert Mohler also wrote an article in response:
http://www.albertmohler.com/2007/04/12/the-atonement-understanding-the-meaning-of-the-cross/
Peter Ould also was critical:
http://www.peter-ould.net/2007/04/04/jeffrey-john-only-does-half-the-story
4. Dr John’s attempts to become a bishop and the withdrawal from Reading.
Ruth Gledhill gives the story of what happened when Dr John was asked to resign his appointment as bishop of Reading and gives the background to a prior attempt to make him Bishop of Monmouth, which was stopped by the Church in Wales:
‘The rise and fall of Dr Jeffrey John’ – Times – 7th July 2003
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1148858.ece
What is apparent according to Ruth Gledhill is that Dr John was suggested by the Archbishops’ Appointments Advisor. Notwithstanding this it was the Archbishop of Canterbury who stepped in to ask for his resignation.
Subsequently in August 2008 he was nominated as Bishop of Bangor – for a second time the Church in Wales got cold feet and he was not appointed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_John
The latest attempt appears to be going on now in Southwark. Dr John is one of two controversial candidates mentioned, the other being the Rev Nick Holtam of St Martins-in-the-Fields – a vocal advocate for “inclusion†who his chums in Southwark Cathedral seem to like. He would normally be debarred from serving as a breach of the restrictions on divorce and bishops, but our House of Bishops have taken it on themselves to attempt to change this without going through Synod. It looks increasingly like this was intended to open the way for those such as Nick Holtam to become bishops.
The Ugley Vicar has an analysis of some of the recent apparently deliberately divisive appointments of CofE bishops including the Bishop of Chelmsford and the suffragan Bishop of Stafford:
http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2010/06/issues-in-human-sexuality-bishops-begin.html
Bearing in mind what Dr Williams and others keep telling us, that bishops are consecrated for the whole Communion, one does have to wonder at the appointments to the House of Bishops here being made at the moment: divorced bishops, gay bishops as well as women bishops. Is the plan to isolate the Church of England from the rest of the Communion? I am amazed at the fecklessness.
Is there a deathwish?
29. Pageantmaster,
Thanks for the background. Thorough as usual. It seems from over here that the culture and politics is overwhelming the CofE. I think this is partly because it is coupled to the government. I feel betrayed by our ABC once again.
cseitz
, there is nothing new here in respect of JJ somehow now being suitable
In your opinion, why would ++Canterbury and ++York object at this stage? Is it only appropriate to object after appointment?
#29,
Although I didn’t have time to read all the links you cited, I did
read the link to the “Ugley Vicar’s” blog. The phrase he used, namely
“optional orthodoxy” made me uncomfortable when I read it.
I soon recalled that there is a historical, but disastrous precedent,
for optional orthodoxy. The Romans, nice guys that they were, tried
to induce their conquered subjects to make at least perfunctory
obeisance to Roman gods, while the Romans themselves would
give a politically-motivated smiling nod to the local deities of their
conquered peoples. This “optional orthodoxy” seemed to work until
fierce resistance was offered by those true believers, the Jews.
There is a blood-drenched history which attends Roman attempts
to foist an optional orthodoxy on the Jews. It is obvious also that
Christianity, as a direct outgrowth of Judaism, inherited a view,
indeed a spiritual DNA, which resolutely rejects optional orthodoxy.
Obviously, I don’t promote bloodshed over the issue of optional
orthodoxy within the CofE, but merely wish to point out that it
is a fraudulent notion which will not work.
Oh, thou unbeliever, just give inadaba and receptivity a chance! You know, like Saint Sir John Lennon suggested. And as the ABC approved. And Lambeth 2008 demonstrated to SOOOOOOOO effective.
After all, if it’s good enough for the ABC to espouse then, it is so now.
Sionara or such.
#30 Fr Dale
[blockquote]It seems from over here that the culture and politics is overwhelming the CofE.[/blockquote]
Yes, to some extent, but more particularly we have extremes who wish to pull us apart. Both ends exist in the diocese of Southwark. One group lurks in the Cathedral surrounding dodgy Dean Slee, mischief-making and undermining and generally being a real and disloyal pain. The other group are found further West and see the future in FCA if the former group get in. At the moment we see a lot of pandering to the Cathedral bunch.
The truth is that the ideal bishop for Southwark will not be a Holtam or a John, but a steady pair of hands who will respect both ends, but genuinely believe the doctrine of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion as set out in their formularies and resolutions. He will also be in favour of a Covenant.
We do not want some self-serving opinionated troublemaker such as that parachuted into that other divided diocese, Chelmsford.
You can’t have it both ways: put in someone divisive and expect things to hold together.
[blockquote]I think this is partly because it is coupled to the government.[/blockquote]
The government has become increasingly secularised, but no, we are making a mess of things all by ourselves.
[blockquote]I feel betrayed by our ABC once again.[/blockquote]
You and others feel, with good reason, that you have been and continue to be betrayed by the ABC, particularly as conservatives in North America. However I think one has to distinguish two distinct time periods: before Glasspool [“BG”] and post Glasspool [“PG”]. We are now in PG, when there is no fig leaf for American willingness to participate in the Communion, nothing to provide any hope to the Archbishop and those liberals who believe in collective decision making as a Communion and due process. In PG we have also seen a concerted attack directed at the ABC from the Presiding Bishop and Mr Beers – they have decided to give Lambeth Palace and St Andrews House ‘the treatment’.
So far the Presiding Bishop’s world recruitment tour has fallen spectacularly on its face. She has not got either the uncritical reception she hoped for much less much of a platform in any of the countries she has visited, much less anybody signing up to her Communion rebellion. As one of our people asked her “why are you so divisive?” – this sums up the general response she has got.
It is quite clear that TEC is fomenting trouble in the CofE deliberately using its little helpers in St Albans and Southwark who have clustered around Deans John and Slee. They seek to destabilise the CofE most disloyally. Had they any regard for the church they serve they would be helping the rest of us keep on a steady keel, but they are not interested in that.
Now it looks like the Standing Committee is also under attack. More fool those who empowered it and subverted the other instruments, but it remains to be seen how this will work out. What has not happened is for any notice to be taken of the suggested way forward from the Global South Singapore meeting, that the emasculation of the Primates’ Meeting and the competance delegated to it to deal with both the crisis and the Covenant process be reversed. The Communion bureacracy have decided to bluff it out as far as I can see with regard to their “Standing Committee” which is I expect why the Global South primates have deserted it.
So in PG we are in a different ball game I think Fr. Dale, and the ABC needs all the friends he can get, and prayers, as were he so minded, instead of promoting useless Aff Caths of plastic morality, he might still be able to serve all of us.
#31 Brian from T19
Again we will have to see. You might think that the ABC and ABY are involved in a decision on the bishop of Southwark. I suspect they are also involved in the Communion’s decisions on their suitability and that of the Church of England to continue to hold the place they have in the past in the Communion. There is a peculiar parochialism here which thinks it can make domestic church decisions which are not being closely watched and will impact both the stability of the church and Communion leadership. Lots of people are watching.
After some very peculiar news last week, I hope people will join me in praying for the Church of England in the coming week of critical decisions in the flashpoint diocese of Southwark on a new bishop and in General Synod in relation to provision for those who disagree with women bishops. Please pray for wisdom for us, and for the traditional CofE approach of moderation and reason to win, over the divisive siren calls of the extremes.
#32 Ichabod Kunkleberry
[blockquote]I don’t promote bloodshed over the issue of optional
orthodoxy within the CofE, but merely wish to point out that it
is a fraudulent notion which will not work.[/blockquote]
Yes, I rather think that is the Ugley Vicar’s point when he cites Neuhaus. Orthodoxy and optional do not go together, for orthodoxy will be driven out, as we have seen in TEC.
#31–I don’t understand the question (‘at this stage’). If you are asking do I think the ABs of Canterbury and York will vote in favour of JJ when the CNC members vote, the answer is ‘No.’ JJ needs 10 out of 14 votes.
Unfortunately the other main candidate being talked about is also a campaigner for full gay inclusion [and we know what that means – SSU’s and bishops]. The Rev Nick Holtam is the vicar of St Martins-in-the-Fields and one of the founding steering committee of Inclusive Church:
An interview in the Guardian in 2005 gives a clue to just how much of an activist he is:
Now he is being pushed for a bishropic, by Rowan Williams according to this article by Jonathan Petre in the Guardian a few months ago:
So just looking at recent candidates for vacancies here, the pattern is pretty depressing. The Diocese of Chelmsford has had Stephen Cottrell lined up as its next bishop in November. He was put into Reading when Jeffrey John stepped down, and is of similar inclusive activist views. Now in Southwark the proposed two leading candidates are both pro-gay activists, and in Holtam’s case, a co-founder of Inclusive Church in response to the Jeffrey John affair, and the man who was the first to bring Gene Robinson to speak at his church in England.
As disturbing is the linking going on to the support apparently given to some of these candidates by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Then there are the peculiar moves made recently in the House of Bishops removing the divorce bar apparently to clear the way for Holtam to be a bishop.
So is it the case that the ABC and others are pushing for stuffing the House of Bishops with Affirming Catholics of his own stripe and inclusive beliefs?
Is it not reasonable to expect that our bishops are at least capable of conforming to the beliefs of our church and of the Communion’s teaching? Moreover is it not reasonable to have bishops who are acceptable to the other provinces of our Communion. Why should the ABC and his Aff Cath friends stuff this small clique of Inclusive Church types into vacant dioceses?
I think the strong probability is that this is a feint. Use Jeffrey John to call attention and distract, and then appoint Holtam.
All the hoopla is over a news article … which may or may not be correct. All it takes is seeing one article about oneself to realize that much of what is printed isn’t even close to fact.
Of course, there is also the possibility that the ABC has grown weary of the all too many conservative Anglican leaders who cry foul each time they don’t get their way (take Archbishop Orombi as an example) and threaten time after time to take their toys and go home. Maybe the ABC is finally doing what he knows to be Godly … rather than acting in hopes of keeping the conservatives. Surely he has at long last realized that in two weeks time another “liberal” action will have the conservatives Crying Wolf again.
Untimately one can put no degree of faith in those whose commitment to the Anglican Communion is tenuous at best. Sooner or later the kid who cries wolf too many times must leave … if only to save face.
When you speak of tenuous commitment, I gather you mean, the sort of commitment that the PB and much of TEC have? Obviously the PB has her own version of a ‘US-based TEC church’ and it appears to be styled by her as an alternative to genuine communion life. That is fine, but it would signal that her commitment to the communion is not tenuous, but absent.
The PB’s commitment to the Anglican Communion is absent only if one understands participation in the Communion as requiring a conservative lockstep.
With respect, that is simply false. I believe most ‘progressives’ admit that the idea of a communion is either not desirable or not workable. They want ad hoc relationships and shared mission commitments, or faux international structures like a ‘US-based TEC’ church. You may want these too, but to call that a Communion is untrue. On these grounds, the conservatives are not threatening to leave the Communion (this appears to be the way you conceive of it). Rather, they are trying to preserve it by preventing an autonomy locally that will wreck it. If 80-85% of anglicans worldwide agree they want a communion and agree on the terms of its life, how can conservatives be the ones wanting to leave a communion when Southwark is seeking to go its own way over against that? I don’t understand your point.
Cseitz, I’m not suprised you don’t understand my point of view. What you have defined above is a Church and not a communion. That said … I don’t accept your point of view as an accurate representation of how things should be.
Conservatives are not really interested in the idea of a communion … primarily because they want a world-wide Church vested with a heavy-handed central power structure that isn’t simply beyond being questioned … but literally can’t be questioned. They want permanent power in the hands of a few very authoritarian, very conservative archbishops … with everyone else falling in lockstep … forever and ever.
Ultimately the conservative leaders in the Anglican Communion seek the the ability to control an existing power structure that will help them redefine Christianity and Jesus from their ultra-conservative political point of view. That’s it … plain and simple.
I realize this might be Heaven on earth for some … it would be Hell on earth for others. Let us pray that it does not come to be.
I’m sorry. I am just a professional academic. I missed whatever briefing paper was sent out from 815, laying out the difference between a ‘church’ and a ‘communion.’ I know of no other source for such a distinction. The Anglican ‘Communion’ speaks of autonomy and interdependence, both inextricably linked. What you seem to be describing is a national denomination and a ‘US-based TEC’ — novelties over against which the history of anglicanism in this country can be measured.
43-
A Communion of Churches is made up of churches that are in communion with one another. In fact, it is normally used to refer to churches in full communion with one another, although I will grant that the Anglican Communion accepted a degree of impaired communion 40 years ago over the ordination of women, and has lived with it since.
However, even under that criteria, TEC is part of a communion of churches which is only a subset of the Anglican Communion. Depending on who does the counting, they are clearly not in communion at all with 7 or 8 churches, and only about 10 (if that) actually recognize the legitimacy of all TEC bishops. TEC broke full communion with the Church of England by deposing (errrr….”accepting the renunciation of”) Bishop Scriven, removing him from orders conferred upon him by the previous Archbishop of Canterbury.
So, it is difficult for TEC to claim “communion” with the Anglican Communion. We will find out in the coming months if TEC is in communion- at all- with 50% of the churches. They are, at this point, in communion with less than 1/2 the membership.
43. First Family Virginian,
[blockquote]Ultimately the conservative leaders in the Anglican Communion seek the the ability to control an existing power structure that will help them redefine Christianity and Jesus from their ultra-conservative political point of view.[/blockquote]
While I had seen this the other way around, maybe you could tell me what kind of Jesus and Christianity we conservatives were attempting to promote from your perspective.
#46 — I fear this is just sloganeering (‘…from their ultra-conservative political point of view…’). Most conservative leaders in the anglican communion are in the GS and probably, if they lived in the US, would struggle mightily to know what political party to back. I think of +John Chew, +Mouneer Anis, +Bernhard Ntahatouri, +Ian Ernest, the new Primate of Kenya, and so on. +Tom Wright regularly inflames political conservatives in the US with his Labour Party instincts. +Rowan Williams, who latterly has sought to warn TEC against its autonomous instincts, is, I suspect, someone who votes for the Liberal party in the UK. +Sentamu was a Judge before he was AB of York, and he was a major opponent of Idi Amin. What ‘FirstFamilyVirginia’ (now there’s a socialist moniker) wants us to believe is that the conservative leadership which is seeking to hold a communion together is politically ‘ultra-conservative’ a la US politics. But it is factually wrong.
Cseitz, no need to apologize for being a professional academic. I know who you are … and besides … being a professional academic is something to applaud (remember, I’m a liberal). BTW, my liberal parish is partly responsible for one of your fellows (there at the ACI) being in the priesthood. I suppose we’re open minded.
As for your comment … “What ‘FirstFamilyVirginia’ (now there’s a socialist moniker)” … are you practicing a “lets insult ’em personally while we at it” brand of opinion? I was lead to believe this particular form of insult is beneath a professional academic. You are the cseitz who is a professional academic, no? I can assure you that Eprham would refrain from such remarks.
As for the “briefing paper” sent out by 815 … apparently I missed that too. I’m not on the 815 mailing list since Howard Galley died.
As for the 80% to 85% of Anglicans worldwide wanting what you describe as the “Anglican Communion” … that’s a bit of a misrepresentation of numbers. What you really mean is a select few archbishops who have jurisdiction over what they claim to be 80%-85% of the world’s Anglicans? As to what their flocks believe … we aren’t furnished much information … because the way most of these particular archbishops see it … what the common man thinks doesn’t matter much. What the common woman thinks matters even less. In fact, were 80% of the member churches of the AC to want what you describe … the TEC would be long gone from the ACC … and the AC as well. But, alas, it’s still very much there.
Oh … btw I said nothing about US political conservatism. You have elected to jump to conclusion (not very academic of you) and infer something other than what was implied. The great majority of church leaders known as the Global South are indeed ultra-conservative in their political views of power and authority and who has it. To say otherwise is absurd and less than honest.
Sorry, Ephraim … forgot the i.
First Family Virginia — I don’t think this is as remotely offending or complicated as you make it out to be. You made charges and people took you seriously. I have no idea what your connection to ACI or Dr Radner is: that is part of the problem with using names that are not public and then wanting to claim public connections. The point was very simple. You referred to *political* conservatism and when it is clarified that the leadership of the communion at present is hardly that, you then bring up the question as to whether the ‘flocks’ in a place like Burundi, Kenya, SE Asia, etc are in step with their leadership. I’d wager, more, not less conservative theologically.
My connection to ACI and others on staff — whatever it might be — is of no importance as it changes not the gist of my comment. Quite simply put, I see Dr. Radner as more of a gentleman in light of your snide personal comment … one that I can’t see him making. It’s not that I was offended by it — in all sincerity … don’t worry about that — I simply found your remark about my T19 member name to be … well … a tad tacky.
As to the political conservatism of the Global South … it may well be “clarified†in your mind that the leaders of the Global South are a anything but conservative … but from the point of view of most liberals … the ultra conservative politics played out in their approach to authority and control is more than a little apparent.
As for the flocks … I note that you are willing to wager what they might think. Wagering is not knowing.
I apologise to the thread for my contribution in watching this all slide away from the topic itself.
Dr Seitz … you and I both did more than watch when it comes to that slide. That said, I too apologize.
Good Night.
FFV–I fear that the entire logic of why the Communion is a Communion; why the bulk of the Communion genuinely wants to be ‘mutually submitted in Christ’; why the Southwark developments are opposed to these goals, and are unrelated to ‘conservative politics’ invading theological convictions shared very widely — these points have been lost. It is for that reason that I apologise. I have no knowledge of your ACI links, your relationship to Dr Radner, etc, and feel that such discussions move away from the seriousness of the topic and the value of sticking with it. We are in arguably the most intense weeks in which the future of Anglicanism is, without dramatising it, in the balance (the SC of the AC; Bishops in the UK; the Glasspool and Pentecost Letter aftermath; and this Southwark affair). The Communion has never before faced such a season, and about that there should be no disagreement. I commend to you Dr Radner’s essay for reading and reflection (see above). I find no fault in it.