Despite the obvious difficulties this entailed, therefore, the Church of England sought until recently to adhere strictly to Jesus teaching, as regards both its members generally and its ministers in particular ”” a stance reflected precisely in the absence until now of specific guidance regarding the appointment of bishops.
For some people, therefore, the proposed consecration of Nicholas Holtam is a serious challenge to Church order. And indeed it may be ”” but the extent to which this is so clearly depends on the circumstances of his wife’s divorce….
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…
Np problem at all in the The Episcopal Church. What’s the big deal – in the States, we have priest married three times with their two previous spouses still alive.
We elected a divorced/remarried man as bishop here several years ago, which fact was kept very quiet in order to get him elected. It turned out to be a Pandora’s Box in that he then openly declared to some clergy that he would not welcome or ordain any clergy who were opposed to remarried clergy, women clergy or the Book of Alternative Services. He really did a lot to undo what was once a very solid diocese.
Of course, there’s no small amount of irony in that the Traditional Anglican Communion is headed by an archbishop that’s twice married. So, I guess a selective view of “serious challenges” is the order of the day.
Not to downplay this as a moral issue, but this is the least thing traditionalist Anglicans have to worry about.
Besides, if the TAC primate enters an ordinariate, he’ll be occupying a pew for the rest of his life, which he is freely accepting for the sake of unity.
Can’t blame the TEC/COE Revisionists for this one–the presence of divorced clergy in ACNA/AiMA/etc. suggests that this is not a deal-breaker for many Anglicans who are otherwise “orthodox.”
Alta Cailfornian,
What you write is correct, per se. But the Ugley Vicar’s very restrained British style (I don’t mean that as a criticism, just an observation) in this article may have unintentionally downplayed the real issue here: Nick Holtam is an out-and-out liberal who has actively promoted the preferment of practicing homosexuals in the church hierarchy, endorsed questionable doctrine on many issues, and criticised the orthodox leaders in the Anglican Communion for their orthodoxy.
His appointment is a disaster for orthodoxy in the Church of England.
As the (English) Church Society observed in an article this morning:
[blockquote] “[Nick Holtam] 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. [/blockquote]
Precisely my point, there are a whole host of other issues that are more troubling. And as you say, his divorcee wife is the least of the problems traditionalists will have with Holtam.
I note that the Church Society has done a very restrained but sound critique of this bizarre appointment.
Does anyone know who were the members of the Crown Appointments Commission who somehow decided that Nick Holtam might be credible as a bishop?