A vicar described as a “rising star” in the Church of England is to become the first clergyman married to a divorcee to be made a bishop, it was announced today.
The Rev Nicholas Holtam, vicar of St Martin-in-the-Fields in Trafalgar Square, central London, has been approved by the Queen to take up the post of Bishop of Salisbury.
The clergyman was strongly tipped for promotion after the General Synod of the Church of England paved the way earlier this year for the first divorced and remarried clergy to be consecrated as bishops.
More trickle-down effects from the events of the 1530’s.
A bit like suggesting that the scandals of sexual abuse and protection of sexual offenders in the Roman Catholic Church are trickle down effects of the Council of Trent.
I wonder now within the COE if there is any shape of married life that makes one unfit to be called to serve as a bishop. The present case doesn’t concern this but does make me wonder whether multiple divorces and remarriages may now, in principle, appropriate for those called to episcopacy?
How weird to remember that historically the COE taught that marriage is indissoluble.
historically the COE came about precisely because those in high places wanted a softening on the laws regarding remarriage…..
I wrote an article on [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/26356]StandFirm[/url] objecting to one of Holtam’s sermons. He did establish a wonderful ministry to the poor in London. May God bless him and his family.
Thank you Jill #5.
“The State has a duty to hold the Church to account for the bottom line standards of law which can be expected of every member of the State”.
Is that an erudite way of saying that the State should have the right to force the Church to bless certain things it considers unBiblical, because civil law says so?
I think I like +NT Wright better, from “Shipwreck and Kingdom”:
“This is the framework within which Luke has told his tale: that Jesus is Israel’s Messiah and the world’s true Lord, and that in and through him the one true and living God has become king of the world, king in a way which ought to make Caesar shiver in his shoes, king in a way which sends his heralds scurrying out into the world, or for that matter languishing in prison as a direct result of their work, but still announcing his kingship with full, complete boldness and with unstoppable, Spirit-given power.
We know all this, and it’s good to be reminded that Luke says it so firmly, and yet if we’re honest it sounds . . . well, somehow rather unAnglican. It’s a bit too enthusiastic, too definite, too many hard edges. What has happened, of course, is that our Anglicanism has often become just a bit too much inculturated into the world of western Deism, where all beliefs are simply opinions, where all statements of theological truth are reduced to statements of personal likes and dislikes (remember Ronald Knox’s splendid line about ‘suave politeness tempering bigot zeal’ and correcting ‘I believe’ to ‘one does feel’?). But the cooling of ardour which some have embraced as a virtue, leaving room for tolerance, for generosity of heart and mind, for openness to fresh truth – that is all very well when you apply it, as we have often done, in the world precisely of private opinion. But when you are in Caesar’s world, where truth comes out of the barrel of a gun, or in his day the sheath of a sword, tolerance can simply be a fancy name for cowardice. The claim that ‘Jesus is Lord’ was never, in the first century, what we would call a religious claim pure and simple. There was no such thing as religion pure and simple. It was a claim about an ultimate reality which included politics, culture, commerce, family life and everything else you could think of. And if you stop saying ‘Jesus is Lord’ out of deference to the private opinions of your friends and neighbours, Caesar smiles his grim smile and extends his empire by one more street. After all, the great eighteenth-century virtue of tolerance was developed not least by those who were keen on extending their geographical or industrial empires, and who didn’t want God breathing down their necks to stop them. Keep religion in the private sphere and we’ll run the public square. And to that idea Luke says a clear No; and so must we.
The joke at the moment, of course, is that in America the people who want to keep religion out of the public square are on the left, frightened of the New Right that sustains the present White House. Here in Britain it’s the other way around; those of us who go around saying that Jesus is Lord and Caesar isn’t, so it’s time to remit global debts and look after our planet before it becomes uninhabitable, are accused by a sneering right-wing press of shoving our religion where it’s not wanted. That just shows how shallow much contemporary analysis actually is. But my point is this. It is becoming increasingly clear in our society – you only have to look at France to see the point – that under the superficial smile of tolerance is the hard fist of secular power. And the task of the church in this day, as in Luke’s day, is to find the appropriate ways of declaring that Jesus is Lord, openly and unhindered, recognizing that this is a statement about the real, public world as well as the world of private religious experience, indeed that it is only truly the latter, about me and my religion, because it is truly the former, about God and his created world. And this is part of the point of Acts as a whole: that whatever troubles the church may get itself into, whatever divisions and persecutions and disputes there may be, we must end up, whether in Rome in the first century or in Edinburgh this next weekend, saying to the powers of the world that Jesus is Lord and that they are not. That is our primary calling; it is for this task, not in order to wallow in our own spiritual experiences, that the church must pray for the fresh wind of the Holy Spirit”.
The whole sermon is a worthwhile reminder.
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Shipwreck_Kingdom.htm
Church Society have a statement on this appointment with which I completely agree:
http://www.evangelicals.org/news.asp?id=1281
[blockquote]Statement from Church Society regarding Bishop of Salisbury
Statement from Church Society regarding the appointment of Nicholas Holtham as Bishop of Salisbury
The appointment of the Revd Nicholas Holtam as the next Bishop of Salisbury is a regrettable and retrograde step. In his public ministry Mr Holtam has actively promoted erroneous teaching on the issue of human sexuality, which puts him at odds with the declared mind of the House of Bishops, the General Synod of the Church of England and the 1998 Lambeth Conference, makes him unfit for ministry in the Church of England let alone as a Bishop. In particular, like many in the Church, he has been unwilling to accept the clear teaching of Scripture on the proper place of sexual union.
He has likewise supported those in this country and elsewhere seeking to undermine what is collectively recognized as Biblical teaching on sexual morality. Thus in his own words, reported in The Guardian (24 December 2005), in giving Bishop Gene Robinson the opportunity to speak at St Martin-in-the-Fields, his intention was “to provide a platform†whilst being careful “to keep within the letter of the law.†Mr Holtam also criticised the Primates of the Global South Anglican Churches following the issuing of the Kigali Communiqué in 2006 and their rejection of the position of The Episcopal Church, USA, on human sexuality.
Such previous attitudes and actions by Mr Holtam will undoubtedly create great difficulty for those clergy in the Diocese of Salisbury who expect their bishop to uphold the faith and to assist them in their joint calling “to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God’s Wordâ€. We therefore assure them of our full support at the present time.
The nomination must also call into question the operation of the Crown Nominations Commission, which either has no knowledge of Mr Holtam’s record or has chosen to overlook it regarding this appointment.
Denominations and national churches, such as the US Episcopal Church, which have followed the views of the world rather than the revealed will of God in Scripture have caused deep division and seen rapid decline. This is the course the Church of England appears to be intent on following and we call on the Church to repent of its folly, to uphold Biblical teaching and to cry out to the Lord for mercy.
Council of Church Society[/blockquote]
It is of course only partly the fault of the Crown Nominations Commission; they would not have reached this decision without the active encouragement of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Appointments Secretary and the Archbishop himself, who is a ####!
Rugby Playing Priest wrote,
[blockquote] “historically the COE came about precisely because those in high places wanted a softening on the laws regarding remarriage…..” [/blockquote]
No, it didn’t, and anyone familiar with the history of the CofE would know that.
The CofE came about because the Papacy had been wantonly peddling annulments to the aristocracy of Europe for centuries (in exchange for influence and/or money). Its refusal to permit an annulment to Henry (essentially at the behest of the King of Spain and the Holy Roman Emperor) when it had been doing so for other monarchs for so long, lost the papacy much of the limited support which it still had in England.
Pageantmaster,
Thank you for posting that article. There are many who have the ability and the moral courage to continue the fight to save the Church of England from liberalism, and it is important that they get as much information as possible on what ABC and his cronies are doing.
The Reformation in the 16th century was only possible because of the wide availability and dispersed ownership of printing presses. There was nothing new in the Reformation – it taught essentially the same truths that had been taught 100 years previously by Wyclif, Hus and others. The Eureopean establishment was able to supress the 15th century reformation using tactics of utmost savagery, but it could not do the same in the 16th century because information spread too widely and too fast – Luther’s theses were spread right across Europe in less than a fortnight.
So it is today with the internet. Information about what Rowan Williams and Katherine Schori are plotting and doing can be spread very quickly. And information is what they are most afraid of – they prefer to work in the dark wherever possibly. So please, keep up the good work – keep the information flowing!
Here is what Rowan’s new Bishop of Salisbury had to say to the Global South after the Kigale Communique:
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/001966.html
[blockquote]Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus. [Fancies himself as an Apostle, not only a bishop?]
…
I wonder if you realise that the tone and style of your statement is as offensive as the worst aspects of colonialism and neo-colonialism that you oppose? It is bullying to assert the will of the majority of the Communion in ways that permit no disagreement. The majority is not always right. It is also theologically deeply flawed. Jesus taught the significance of the Kingdom of heaven being known in the outcast and in the child. The Global South knows this from its own experience. Might it also be the experience of Christians in the Anglo-American bloc in relation to gender, race and sexual orientation? Perhaps this is why the recent processes of the Anglican Communion have emphasised the need to listen carefully to our differing experiences?
Each Primate represents an autonomous Province within the Communion. In the actions you are proposing the Primates of the Global South have given in to the pressure to interfere in the legitimate business of autonomous Anglican Provinces, thereby offending fundamental principles of Church order. It is a gross breach of Christian discipline for any Primate to organise parallel structures within another Province in the pretence that this furthers “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Churchâ€.[/blockquote]
Just one example of the impertinence and the arrogance of the over-mighty vicar and screaming revisionist being put up as Bishop of Salisbury.
Pageantmaster at 10. Indeed. I find it ironic that he can pontificate about “principles of Church order.”
#11 Such is the way of revisionist activists, among whom Nick Holtam is pretty near the top of the list.
#5 Jill – St Martins-in-the-Fields has always had an outstanding ministry to the poor which has been central to that church long before Nick Holtam’s incumbency. What he has brought to St Martins is full blown inclusive theology. He has overseen a successful redevelopment and restoration for which he deserves credit, but he has also used his pulpit for political activism against the teaching of the church and for shameless self-promotion even at the expense of the Church of England in which he purports to serve.
There is an excellent article by the Rev. John Richardson [Ugley Vicar] writing in the Daily Telegraph today:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8446405/Bishops-married-to-divorcees-pose-serious-challenge-to-traditionalist-Anglicans.html
[blockquote]…However, there is another, and just as pressing, reason why the nomination of Mr Holtam causes difficulty for traditionalists.
In 2005, at the height of the controversy over his consecration, Mr Holtam invited Bishop Gene Robinson to St Martin-in-the-Fields. The rationale for this he explained in an interview with The Guardian:
“We were very keen to keep within the letter of the law … Nevertheless, we wanted to provide a platform. The way we did it was to hold a service at which he was present, and took no active part, but afterwards he spoke to a full church.â€
The Guardian article described Mr Holtam as operating a “careful campaign for the ordination of gay clergyâ€, and his being a founder member of the campaigning group Inclusive Church would suggest that this means practising gay, rather than the gay-but-celibate position officially acknowledged by the Church of England’s bishops.
Again, in 2006 Mr Holtam published a 1500-word open letter deeply critical of the Kigali Communiqué, issued by the Anglican ‘Global South’ Primates who had rejected the earlier decisions of The Episcopal Church, USA. Describing this as “offensive … bullying … [and] deeply theologically flawedâ€, he suggested that the biblical strictures against homosexual practice simply do not apply to “baptised people in loving and faithful same sex relationshipsâ€.
In this, of course, he was saying nothing more than was previously said by Dr Jeffrey John, whose proposed appointment as Bishop of Reading caused so much earlier controversy. Yet it was Dr John’s teaching, not his lifestyle (which actually falls within the House of Bishops’ guidelines), which would have caused further problems had he been appointed to Southwark.
If I were a minister in the Diocese of Salisbury today, therefore, I would be faced with a real crisis of conscience. Not only might there be questions over the nomination of my new bishop, but I would be fearful that he would oppose what I would teach, and vice versa. How, then, could we both be engaged in the joint enterprise of a bishop and his clergy “to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrineâ€? It is a bit difficult if the exponent of that doctrine is the bishop himself! Certainly such doctrine can be found at St Martin-in-the-Fields. Will it now find expression at Salisbury Cathedral?…[/blockquote]
Quite right, Ugley Vicar, as it the rest of your thoughtful article including this:
[blockquote]Bloggers like myself are often criticized for operating a kind of ‘megaphone diplomacy’ — and without much diplomacy, at that. But the present appointment process hardly allows anything else. One moment there are rumours, the next there is a name on the Downing Street website and the Congé d’Elire on its way to the relevant Dean and Chapter telling them which way to vote.
Since the nominations process is shrouded in secrecy, one simply cannot raise in advance the difficult questions one subsequently wants to ask. And equally one cannot ask those questions with the hope that the forthcoming answers might make any difference. An unwelcome fait accompli can hardly expect to be greeted with equanimity.
True, the electoral processes that operate in much of the Anglican Communion, where candidates openly stand for the office of bishop, is not always edifying. Nor do they always produce an orthodox traditionalist candidate (look at Gene Robinson!). But they must be preferable to the secrecy of our own system and its putting so much power into the hands of so few. (After all, if the Spirit can guide the Nominations Commission, can he not guide the wider Church?)
Some may feel it unfortunate or unworthy that someone like myself should be so critical of a man who has yet to take up his post on the very day his nomination is made public. My reply is simply that if we’d been told earlier we could have had the proper discussions in a very different forum.
Many today in Salisbury will be thrilled by what has happened. Others may be far less sanguine. What is beyond doubt, it seems to me, is that whilst the present system persists, the opportunities for the Church of England to shoot itself in the foot will continue to plague the appointment of its bishops.
Meanwhile, given the questions that must be asked, there is a great burden of responsibility on the bishops who will consecrate Mr Holtam, for they, too, are the guardians of the faith upheld by the Church of England. It is not a comfortable prospect.[/blockquote]
Some more news reports coming out:
Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1376095/Church-Englands-rising-star-bishop-married-divorcee.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
and the Daily Telegraph article has made it to the Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/12/anglican-bishop-married-to-divorcee_n_848411.html
The suggestion is that it is Rowan Williams who pushed through the relaxation of the divorce rules against the opposition of the ABY through a divided House of Bishops, according to the Daily Mail. So determined was Rowan Williams to make Nick Holtam a bishop – all this effort to make one man a bishop, and a completely unsuitable one as well. But that is the Druid for you.
I am not prepared to accept the ministry of Nicholas Holtam as a bishop of the Church of England, nor the ministry of any bishop who consecrates as a bishop this man whose manner of life and beliefs are so contrary to the teaching of the Church of England and of the Anglican Communion.
I would encourage everyone to pass these links and posts on to their friends. The more scrutiny of the actions of ABC the better.
#10 is extraordinary. ABC has pushed someone forward for bishop who has used gross and insulting language to the Global South Primates. That in turn means that ABC himself is adopting that attitude towards them.
#4 That’s not quite true. As I understand it, in modern terms Henry VIII was never divorced. That is, his marriages were never simply dissolved with the right to remarry since in his time there existed no such legal entitlement. He desired – and procured – ecclesiastical annulments (that is, declarations that his various marriages were invalid). Whatever judgment one makes of this desire – and its hard not to see it making a mockery of indissolubility – Henry VIII didn’t break communion with the See of Peter in order to establish a legal regime in which marriages might be dissolved with right to remarry.
Driver8,
I concur with your post, however I do have one quibble. You wrote:
[blockquote] “and its hard not to see it making a mockery of indissolubility” [/blockquote]
One can only make a mockery of something if it is not already a mockery.
I believe the figure for royal and noble marriages annulled in the high Middle Ages is [i]over 20%[/i] but I don’t have the sources in front of me.
Be that as it may, a few examples will illustrate that the Papacy and royalty in general had made a complete mockery of marriage and annulment, long before the time of Henry VIII:
• In 1152, Pope Eugenius annulled the [i]15-year old marriage[/i] of Louis VII of France to Eleanor of Acquitaine, a marriage which had produced [i]two children[/i] (which was the problem – they were both girls!)
• In 1344, at the instigation of the King of England, Richard Fitzalan 10th Earl of Arundel was granted a papal annulment of his first marriage. This marriage had lasted almost [i]20 years[/i] and had produced [i]a son[/i], now aged 17. Fitzalan was a financier to the King and the purpose of the annulment was to clear the way for him to marry into the royal Lancaster family.
• In 1460, the Canterbury Convocation called annulments “the scandal of the whole church”.
• In 1499 Pope Alexander VI annulled the [i]23-year old marriage[/i] of Louis XII of France so that he could marry the heiress of Britanny. In return, the Pope received military aid for the Papal States and a princely marriage for his son, Cesare Borgia.
• Pope Alexander VI also annulled the four-year old marriage of [i]his own daughter[/i] on the grounds that it had never been consummated. This decision was a matter of public derision in the day. Apart from anything else, the suggestion that Lucrezia Borgia had been chaste for four weeks (let alone four years) was not credible.
Henry VIII did not cheapen the medieval view of royal marriage, simply because that wasn’t possible. You can’t descend any lower than rock-bottom.
Henry in fact had more grounds for seeking annulment of his marriage to Catherine than most aristocrats, although those grounds hardly reflected credit on Henry, Catherine, either of their royal fathers, or the papacy: Catherine’s first marriage had been to Henry’s brother. By medieval mores, Catherine should never have married Henry in the first place, but at the urgent request of their respective fathers (Kings of Spain and England), Pope Julius II granted a special dispensation for them to marry. The whole situation was complete farce.
Rugbyplayingpriest (#4) – shame on you! You have always had thoughtful input here. You were, until recently, a CofE priest. If you believe what you say to be the reason the CofE was created, shame on you for having become a CofE priest. If you don’t believe it, shame on you for saying it. You are better than this.
No – let me re-phrase – you are FAR better than this. In most instances you have had my admiration.
I think it’s considerably more complicated than that. To get a more nuanced picture, one would need to look, for example, at the decisions of late medieval ecclesiastical courts including those that were passed to Rome, late medieval sermons on marriage etc. It’s certainly the case that powerful people were often able to achieve the decision they desired in ecclesiastical courts. Of course, this is true both before and after the Reformation.
However if everyone knew annulments were always cheaply achieved by royals – it makes the theological reactions to the first dissolution within England rather surprising as well as Henry’s clack of confidence concerning whether his annulment would be granted by an ecclesiastical judgment coming from Rome.
FWLIW I believe Henry actually shared the traditional view of the western church that Our Lord had taught that marriage was indissoluble. Hence the efforts he expended to obtain an annulment. This view, in continuity with the earlier western church, remained the view of the COE until the 1850s.
Cranmer eventually came to hold another view on divorce reflected in his proposed revisions to ecclesiastical law in the reign of Edward VI – though it was never enacted. I’m not sure if there’s evidence when he came to his view on divorce.
Driver8,
[blockquote] “I think it’s considerably more complicated than that.” [/blockquote]
I have never suggested otherwise! But to suggest that Henry VIII’s ‘great matter’ was anything out of the ordinary compared to what had regularly occurred over preceding centuries would be very naive.
[blockquote] “It’s certainly the case that powerful people were often able to achieve the decision they desired in ecclesiastical courts.” [/blockquote]
Yes, “often” in the sense of “routinely”. But I agree this does not by any means that they succeeded 100% of the time. At the level we are discussing (royalty and the highest nobility) whether or not an annulment was granted, and how quickly, would often depend on the political influence of other parties. Richard Fitzalan’s annulment in 1344 is a case in point, since he was effectively divorcing himself from the Despenser family to join the Lancaster family. The Despenser family fought long and hard to prevent the annulment going through, and the feelings of the soon-to-be-ex-wife just didn’t enter into it. Neither did theological considerations, except as window-dressing for the gullible public. Everyone from the Pope down understood that, 200 years before Henry and Catherine.
Let’s not pretend there was anything Christian about it. The harsh truth was that Richard was dissolving (in truth, if not in name) a marriage of 18 years to a faithful wife who had given him a son.
[blockquote] “However if everyone knew annulments were always cheaply achieved by royals – it makes the theological reactions to the first dissolution within England rather surprising as well as Henry’s clack [lack?] of confidence concerning whether his annulment would be granted by an ecclesiastical judgment coming from Rome.” [/blockquote]
Firstly, I never said anything about “cheaply”; that was the whole point – such annulments came at a high cost, and not always in money. Of course, in a case such as Louis VII the Pope himself had a vested interest in the French King getting a male heir, hence little obstacle was placed in the way of the annulment (unfortunately for Louis, Eleanor promptly began churning out healthy children to her new husband, including five boys, which left no doubt as to who the real culprit was for Louis’ lack of a male heir!).
Secondly, what is surprising about the theological reactions to Henry’s annulment? It was a given that many who supported the King of Spain or the Emperor in one way or another would come up with theological reasons to oppose the annulment, just as many who wanted to see England with a male heir would come up with theological reasons to support it. And “male heir” was always the real issue. If it hadn’t been Anne Boleyn, it would have been someone else, but by any means Henry was going to find a wife who would give birth to a healthy boy. In that, he was no different to any of his contemporaries.
Of course that does not mean that there weren’t actually some who had GENUINE theological reasons for or against. One of the most prominent to oppose the granting of the annulment was the protestant reformer William Tyndale. That opposition earned him Henry’s undying enmity and helped to seal his fate later.
But such genuine theological reasoning was never going to have a great influence on the decision, except insofar as the Papacy would take some note of public opinion in England. But political opinion at the courts of England, Spain, France, Germany and Rome counted for much, much more.
Thirdly, Henry’s lack of confidence that his annulment would be approved was perfectly understandable – he knew that whether or not he got the annulment would depend substantially on the extent to which France, Spain and the Empire opposed it for their own political purposes. After all, they were much closer to the Pope than he was, and indeed at the start of the process the Pope was a prisoner of the Emperor!
That is why Henry lacked confidence – because he knew that in the final analysis, obtaining an annulment from the Papacy had nothing to do with theological reasons (except in a superficial sense), but on the exercise of political muscle and influence among the crowned heads of Europe.
As for continuity of views on marriage in the western church, I am not sure whether I agree with you, but in any case I am also not sure how it is relevant to Henry VIII. The same goes for the views of Cranmer – the only relevant point I can think of is that Cranmer early came to the conclusion (as did many other clergy) that Henry should never have married his sister-in-law in the first place.
I was being a little tongue in cheek but pointing out that marital fidelity and the COE do have some links…
RRP, that’s okay – Rome has the same links, since it facilitated the infidelity of so many others during the Middle Ages! (also written a little tongue in cheek)
Salisbury has long been led by liberal bishops but they’ve usually had good manners. The Dicoese is linked with Sudan, and offending Africans isn’t a good idea. Liberal evangelicals like suffragan Graham Kings has acclaimed Holtam’s appointment.
The best source on Henry’s three marital annulments remains *The Matrimonial Trials of Henry VIII* by H. A. Kelly (1976, 2004) ISBN: 0-8047-0895-9. With respect to the annulment of his first marriage, the author is very clear that even if the political configuration had made it unlikely that Henry could easily obtain it, his own line of argumentation, one which he insisted that his advocates follow — that no pope had the authority to grant a dispensation for a man to marry his brother’s widow (regardless of whether that earlier marriage had been consummated or not) — was so canonically absurd that he stood little or no chance of obtaining it. His argument seems to be convincing; and he also refutes the notion (found in the best modern biography of the king, J. J. Scarisbrick’s *Henry VIII* [1968]) that if only Henry had followed Wolsey’s suggestion to argue against the validity of the 1503 papal dispensation on narrow technical grounds (that the “wrong kind of dispensation” had been procured in 1503) rather than on contesting the papal authority to grant such dispensations (an argument that was never going to fly), he might have obtained his suit.
Of course, at the same time that he was seeking his own annulment, he was also criticizing the (ultimately successful) suit of his sister, the widowed Queen Margaret of Scotland, to have her marriage to the Earl of Angus annulled, as well as (successfully) seeking a papal dispensation to allow him to marry, if he ever became free to marry again, any woman with whose sister he had had carnal relations (i.e., Anne Boleyn, whose sister Mary Boleyn had been Henry’s mistress in the early/mid 1520s).
kmh1 — could you point us to where Graham Kings has acclaimed Holtam’s appointment? I’m curious as to where and what he said . . .
Sarah – butting in here – this was from the Salisbury Diocesan website:
[blockquote] The Bishop of Sherborne, Dr Graham Kings, added: “Nick’s ministry is deeply rooted in prayer. Out of this flow concern for the poor, desire for Church growth, perceptive writing, visionary leadership and long term friendships, so he will be an excellent colleague to work with. We have known each other since 1978, and I greatly look forward to welcoming Nick and Helen to the Diocese and to sharing with them in God’s mission.â€
[/blockquote]
I am just surprised that anyone is surprised at this appointment. Once scripture has been overturned by introducing the ordination of women, it is a bit difficult to turn it back again.
Oops – link for Salisbury Diocese website:
http://www.salisbury.anglican.org/news/new-bishop-of-salisbury-announced
RE: “I am just surprised that anyone is surprised at this appointment. Once scripture has been overturned by introducing the ordination of women, it is a bit difficult to turn it back again.”
Lol. Why start there? “Once scripture has been overturned by introducing [chemical contraception], it is a bit difficult to turn it back again.” ; > )
I’m opposed to WO, and even I can see the difference between appointing a flaming left-wing radical revisionist who heartily supports blessing sex between two men, and women bishops. Looks as if John Richardson can see the difference too.
Moving on past the obvious red herring and topic shift and to the on-topic bit — thanks for the quote from Kings.
Good to see reality, huh? The “evangelical” Kings supports Holtam’s appointment. Nice.
I meant to add to my previous post: Graham Kings now has to reap what he has helped to sow.
Well, Sarah, you can start where you like, and some of us are working our way backwards to see how it ever came to this … and beginning to wonder if the Catholic Church wasn’t right all along about contraception.
The Church of England has been severely weakened by the ordination of women. If you plough your way through this 2002 survey, The Mind of Anglicans, you will see how women clergy belief is considerably less orthodox than their male counterparts on both moral and doctrinal issues.
http://trushare.com/SURVEY/New Survey Page 241003.htm
(sorry, can’t get this link right – it will have to be copied and pasted onto browser)
This can only get worse, as more and more male clergy depart for other pastures when we do get women bishops.
Still, as you say, off topic.
#30: “Graham Kings now has to reap what he has helped to sow.”
Indeed. The liberal evangelical group Kings established, “Fulcrum”, has simply provided the fig leaf of respectability to liberals in their dominance of the English hierarchy, so that liberals can say: ‘Look, the evangelicals support us too!”
In fairness it must be pointed out that Tom Wright was one of the loudest voices in support of “Fulcrum”, and he used much of his oratory there, on the Fulcrum website, to attack conservative evangelicals – as well as a lot of Bush-bashing after Iraq, along the liens of “Bush’s America = Roman Empire redivivus”. There has been no let up in America’s foreign wars since Obama became Caesar (quite the reverse), but Wright has been strangely quiet on that theme now. I wonder why?
Now Wright has left the English bench of bishops and returned to academe, this time in Scotland. I imagine he discovered that the Church of England’s slide into irrelevance in the eyes of that post-Christian nation could not be reversed.
kmh1, I agree with you about Tom Wright. I have no evidence, but I strongly suspect that he regrets his enthusiastic support of WO. It is one thing to put forward a brave new theory, but I think he was shocked to see it so enthusiastically embraced and put into action, trampling doubters and dissenters in its path. I have a vague memory of his trying to put the brakes on, to the ire of the revisionists (although sorry, I can’t find a link for this, but there were some very angry comments from the thinklies on Thinking Anglicans) and, as you say, he has gone strangely quiet on the issue.
As I said in an earlier post, sometimes you get a better picture (too late!) when you look back. I feel that future generations will be a lot more critical of WO, and wonder at the speed and ferocity of its proponents.
If +Wright has misgivings about any positions he has taken in the past, he has the power to correct them through public statement. I write that in all seriousness, not as a snipe. It would be very helpful if those who now have a somewhat different perspective could share it with us – I think it would make a difference to a lot of people.
And agreed about Fulcrum – they do appear to have been little more than a “fig-leaf” for liberals. No doubt that is not what they all intended, and I have recently seen a couple of articles there that indicate some sense may be emerging.
But I fear it may be too late for Fulcrum to be seen as relevant by orthodox Christians in future.
Ugley Vicar makes a good point:
[blockquote] Yet it was Dr John’s teaching, not his lifestyle (which actually falls within the House of Bishops’ guidelines), which would have caused further problems had he been appointed to Southwark. [/blockquote]
That seems to be the real issue with Rev. Holtam’s appointment.
Just as with Jeffrey John, the primary issue is Nick Holtam’s doctrine – not the liberal fluff he trots out which can readily be made to sound like Christian doctrine to a casual listener, but the doctrine he lives and preaches day by day.
So also with Katherine Schori, the person who currently occupies the position of Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the USA: it is not just her promotion of practicing homosexuals as bishops that revolts the orthodox, but even more her open endorsement of the heretical teachings of John Spong.