Some good news from the C of E, finally!

[tree_and_leaf]

Wow. Miracles do happen. An evangelical bishop has said that he's changed his mind about homosexuality based on close reading of David and Jonathon and the description of Christ's relationship to the Beloved Disciple†, and has compared the exclusion of homosexuals to the controversy in the early church about whether circumcision was necessary - which, of course, was won by the inclusive faction.

What's more, this isn't any old evangelical bishop, but James Jones (Liverpool), who is one of the group who behaved so disgracefully when Jeffrey John was appointed in Reading - despite the fact that John, though gay and unaplogetically liberal, is celibate (so much for the 'it's not the urge, it's the action' argument). Jones has also apologised for the way he behaved over that.

I'm extremely surprised and extremely pleased.

† Who would have thought that the Bishop of Liverpool was a slasher?

Comments

[sangerin.livejournal.com]

That is really good news.

(On the other hand you have the Idiots Jensen refusing to attend Lambeth, but then, Lambeth is better off without them, and given that the Three Philips will be there as far as I know (Aspinall, Friere and Huggins) there will be some sane Australians in attendance.)

I will never doubt the possibility of this sort of miracle. I've seen it in the Uniting Church - two times that really stand out. One in 1996 and once in 2006. In 2006 it was a major thing. In 1996 it was just a regular lay member of the church, whom my mother knew from when I was a little kid, who stood up and said that in the course of the meeting his mind had been changed.

[tree_and_leaf]

Yes - I'm so happy that there's finally something good and positive visible, rather than all the doom and gloom about Lambeth.

There's a comparable high profile example in the women's ordination question, where one of the high profile antis -a woman - ended up either abstaining or voting for the ordination of women during the final debate (I forget which) and is now an Anglican priest.

[grondfic.livejournal.com]

This is surprising in a good way. I'd thought that dyed-in-the-wool meant forever-fixed, so to speak; and it's good the guy apologised.

Not QUITE sure what the Archbishop of Centerbury's up to right now, however. I think he meant well, but it came over messily.

[tree_and_leaf]

It's brilliant - and I'm really surprised that he has had the courage to reassess his ideas on homosexuality and then talk about it.

Not QUITE sure what the Archbishop of Centerbury's up to right now, however. I think he meant well, but it came over messily.

Yeah. My initial impression was that he was advocating something stupid and dangerous, but having looked more closely at what he said, and the context he said it in, I agree with you. It reminds me very strongly of the row about the Pope and Islam last year, where the whole thing was blown up and misrepresented by the press applying soundbite reporting to an academic paper (I disagree with Benedict on a lot of things, but I also think that the press is often unfair in their reporting of him). Actually the Bishops of Canterbury and Rome are very similar in a lot of ways (other than their scary eyebrows) - despite the fact that one of them is broadly liberal, at least socially, and the other conservative right down the line, they're both very intelligent academics who have difficulty reducuing their often complex ideas to a form the press will cope with. They also seem to be somewhat lacking in common sense/ self-preservation as far as reporters are concerned.

The Bishop of Buck's blog has an interesting though defensive take on the matter:
http://bishopalan.blogspot.com/2008/02/abdul-bogeyman.html

[tree_and_leaf]

On that topic, while my jaw dropped - in a good way - to read Jones' description of John “leaning against the bosom, breast, chest of Jesus. . . Here is energising love, spiritual, emotional, and physical.”, I'm now wondering if we can expect - despite the fact that Jones seems to be distinguishing between 'physical' and 'sexual' - headlines along the lines of 'Bishop: Jesus in gay love affair !!!111!!!11!"

[grondfic.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it reminded me of the Popish brouhaha too. It's this thing about ex-academics feeling safe within an academic environment .. and forgetting that the press is ubiquitous.

[nineveh-uk.livejournal.com]

I like your theory of the academics who havne't quite grasped this common sense/different fora issues. I am put in mind of scientists who come out with brilliant ideas to (e.g.) put carrot genes in cows so that they will produce mild to enable children to see in the dark, and then get really suprised by headlines calling them Dr Frankenmoo.

[tree_and_leaf]

Oh, absolutely. Or like the sort of chemists who end up losing fingers because they had a terribly intereting idea they wanted to try out....

I must say, I'm glad I'm not their press secretary!

[lizw.livejournal.com]

I think part of the problem is that what Archbishops say tends to seep from one forum into another. The original lecture was to a bunch of lawyers at the Royal Courts of Justice, who could probably be expected to have sufficient general education to cope with the philosophical concepts in the lecture, and no particular motivation for distorting the message. But, of course, the media got wind of it and asked for interviews. Now, journalists are also generally well-educated, but they are often writing for people who haven't, and they have more motivation for sensationalism and often very short deadlines that don't allow for much investigation of sources. So then the Chinese whispers get started, and you end up with stories that bear very little resemblance to anything the Archbishop actually said. Mind you, he could have helped himself tremendously by finding out more about existing legal mechanisms for recognising Sharia and Jewish law before he spoke; then he could have made it clearer that he wasn't proposing anything revolutionary, because actually all the things that he called for are already perfectly possible.

[tree_and_leaf]

Yeah. Although apparently a lot of the media reports are based on an interview with the World at One (I think), which I didn't hear, so I can't judge how accurately that was reported. But the address is to my mind a better guide to what he thinks on the matter.

[parrot-knight.livejournal.com]

I've only glanced at the text of the speech by the archbishop, but it seems to me that this was an attempt to engage in a debate within and around Islam about the role of sharia in civil society. I have been lucky enough to hear Rowan Williams speak once; he was witty and warm but used to addressing an audience who recognised certain cues associated with intellectual life.

[tree_and_leaf]

Yes, exactly. I heard him once in Oxford too, and it's clear that academia is his background. I have a lot of respect for him, but it's unfortunate that the press seems to be unable to cope with the fact that he is also an academic and still engages in that sort of forum. And I don't see why it should be made impossible for someone in his position to do so without being accused of saying something they didn't actually say (and I'm rather cross with myself for initially believing the media's account of it, which was a charicature).

[rivrea.livejournal.com]

Despite my being not affiliated with the CoE in any way, I agree with you that this is good news indeed.

[tree_and_leaf]

Indeed. One to cheer all right-thinking people!

[sacred-sarcasm.livejournal.com]

It's always heartening when someone not only changes their mind, but admits that in public and apologises for past mistakes.

(I was in Reading at the time of the Jeffrey John fiasco - at an evo anglican church, one of the ones threatening to withhold parish share - and I remember having a large row with my parents about the rights and wrongs of the case. Quite apart from anything else, he was celibate, for goodness sake!)

[tree_and_leaf]

Quite apart from anything else, he was celibate, for goodness sake!)

In many ways, that was the most disgusting part of the whole business - the conservatives weren't even playing by their own rules.

Jeffrey John preached in our chapel either last year or the year before. He was excellent.

[sacred-sarcasm.livejournal.com]

Yep. As I argued at the time, they/we (I was sort of in transition at the time) were making their own side look bad, and playing right into the hands of those who claimed is the evangelical oppostion to
homosexuality is based far more in homophobia that scripture.

Jeffrey John came to our chapel too (with his ?partner, I believe - though maybe I'm mixing him up with someone else). I can't remember much of his preaching well now, but I do remember thinking he was excellent.

[ellid.livejournal.com]

Good heavens. I wonder if he's read the so-called Secret Gospel of Mark that Morton Smith allegedly unearthed? That's great, though!

[tree_and_leaf]

I doubt it :)

But yes, it's really good news.

[rustica.livejournal.com]

It is good news (although I think it will take more than this to convince the African bishops...).

More than the specifics of this case, I find it very reassuring that the CoE bishops are able to a/ reconsider their positions on issues and b/ publically change their minds. Even if this instance concerned a bishop changing his mind to disagree with my position, I think I would still consider this a very good sign.

I also think that it is good of Jones to apologise for his behaviour towards Jeffrey John, as theological differences can never justify personal attacks and rudeness.

(Wow - bad behaviour relating to this issue is clearly endemic! The cross little Editor's note at the bottom of this page (http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=20629) made me raise an eyebrow. And, oh! I do love the English tone of the Church Times! What a lovely way to tell people to behave!)