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….
A sensible, measured, but nevertheless godly article from the Church Society. This appointment appears to be bear all the hallmarks of another Jeffrey John debacle.
The Church Society also asks a very pertinent question:
[blockquote] “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” [/blockquote]
Surely this has to be correct. Does anyone know who was on the Commission that made this bizarre decision?
It would be better if a case was made about his views/actions concerning same sex blessings, rather than guessing about the circumstances surrounding his wife’s youthful first marriage.
#2 The case about his views/actions has been made and why he is unfit to be a bishop. The point is that notwithstanding that the established practice and law of the Church of England has been changed by Rowan Williams to enable this man with whom he agrees to become a bishop.
Moreover the point is that a bishop in all that he does and his private life, including marrying a divorcee, with all that that says about his view of marriage fidelity, should be above reproach as St Paul says.
Would you not agree wvparson?
wvparson is correct that Holtam’s wife’s marital history should never have even become an issue because Holtam should never have been considered a bishop due to his heretical views.
Good points
“law of the Church of England has been changed by Rowan Williams”
Umm … just how?
#7 You followed the statement of the House of Bishops subscribed by Rowan Williams, and the way his suffragan stooge +Dover pushed it through the Business Committee agenda into a Synod debate to take note of it. If it had not been a change [or they would say clarification] it would not have been put to Synod.
While the Archbishop will say “look – no hands!”, you know perfectly well how.
number 8 and who shot Jack Kennedy?
#5 jamesw
[blockquote]wvparson is correct that Holtam’s wife’s marital history should never have even become an issue because Holtam should never have been considered a bishop due to his heretical views.[/blockquote]
wvparson did not say that he accepted that Holtam should never have been considered a bishop due to his heretical views. What he said was that this statement should have concentrated on whether his views were heretical rather than on the divorce position.
Of course wvparson has been both a bishop and is now a priest in a church which sees no inconsistency with having a bishop such as +Beisner who has been divorced twice and married thrice, and presumably sees no reason why the English should have a problem with it either.
#9 Moreover wvparson appears to be determined to see the actions of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the machinations to appoint Holtam through the same rosy colored lenses he wears day to day in TEC.
wvparson has on another thread described the sorts of issues raised [and continued further] by the Holtam appointment as “the hot house of factional controversy . . . ” . . . which is certainly a [i]fascinating[/i] way of describing the presenting theological issue that has triggered an unprecedented division in the Anglican Communion.
I found the Society’s statement to be quite moderate and on point, while perhaps a bit understated.
The most recent schismatic (divisive) act is
Of course, the appointee’s contribution to controversy and false teaching is simply a matter of record.
Unfortunately, some at the highest levels of the CoE find worldly approbration rather more appealing than faithfulness.
🙄
“Unfortunately, some at the highest levels of the CoE find worldly approbration rather more appealing than faithfulness.”
Sadly typical of a Church going nowhere but down. Similarly, the founder of “Inclusive Church”, Canon Giles Frazer of St Paul’s Cathedral went on BBC Radio 4, the natioanl “flagship station”, on Ash Wednesday to profess his unbelief in life after death.
Just what is the point of these people? Who wants to be part of such a “church”?
In due course, it would be interesting to know who were the members of the Crown Appointments Commission who sat on this one.
I am really intrigued as to the mentality of the people who made this decision!