Is Wales ready for a gay bishop?

The possibility of Dr Jeffrey John becoming Britain's first openly-gay bishop is back on the agenda after word leaked that there are plans afoot to nominate him as the next Bishop of Bangor. We have a report and commentary in the paper today. The story first emerged on the Religious Intelligence website in an article by George Conger. Bishop David Anderson, President of the American Anglican Council, had sent a letter out about the possibility, posted by David Virtue. Wales Online had just before Lambeth reported Welsh Archbishop Barry Morgan's liberal views on the issue of consecrating an openly-gay bishop. Those following the story today, Tuesday, include Richard Evans on Radio Wales, Anglican Mainstream, BabyBlue, Episcopal Cafe's Andrew Gerns, Pluralist and Tom Jackson. Many more links at Thinking Anglicans. Worth reading this also from Anglicans Down Under, supporting my own view that Wales could in fact get away with this, if it had the courage to do it.

Back in 2003, during the Reading dispute, I did an exclusive interview with Jeffrey John that was the cover of our feature section, T2. As that article does not seem to be easily available online, I've reproduced it below for the interest of readers with a few minutes to spare to read on.

Dr Jeffrey John speaks movingly about the dilemmas of love, or loves: the love of God, the love of mankind. That is not unusual for a clergyman. It is when he talks about, in his case, the love of one man in particular that you realise why his proposed elevation to the diocese of Reading is threatening to tear the Church of England apart.

At Southwark Cathedral, where Dr John, 50, has been working as canon theologian for six years, he has built up a reputation as a man of phenomenal energy, spirituality and inspiration. Above all, he has become a focus of unity in the diocese and has earned the respect of Catholics and evangelicals in his commitment to mission and biblical truth. During his time here, and in his 25 years in the ordained ministry, the three-letter word that the Church can barely bring itself to speak of publicly has indeed barely been mentioned.

But now, thanks to the furore surrounding his appointment, it is all anyone wants to talk to him about. Naturally diffident about his personal life, he nevertheless shows extraodinary courage in talking about the pain of the past few weeks. "I am a reluctant pioneer," he says. "I would not have wanted this to happen. It would have been wonderful if I could simply have proceeded to become a suffragan and get on with the job."

This was not an unreasonable hope. There have certainly been gay suffragans appointed before, which might have been noted with a paragraph or two. But the role of homosexual pioneer has been thrust upon Dr John. "It is not a role I have set out for myself. I do not like it. I have a thin skin. I find all this extremely difficult."

Every day, he is tempted to withdraw. "I am considering it all the time. I did not apply for the job, one does not apply to become a bishop." But he feels that standing down is not his decision. "There are two conflicting things here. It is terrible to feel that I am a cause of division and fragmentation. My instincts are very much those of a Catholic, looking to the whole Church and the unity of the Church. But at the same time I have received huge numbers of messages of support, people saying, 'You have to go ahead with this for us.' I have become a symbol of hope for an awful lot of people. It feels like a terrible burden to have, as much of a burden as the opposition. Because either way, whatever happens, whether I go forward or withdraw, people will be hurt."

He is emphatic that issues of sexuality should not become a main plank of his ministry. He is far more interested in mission and church growth. "I have never campaigned about homosexuality. But I have never lied about it or tried to hide it. I have never gone out of my way to talk about it. It is simply there. People gradually catch on. Often people sort of know about it, but they do not want to name it." Dr John and his partner have never lived together, apart from a brief period when he was moving house, because their separate lives have made that impossible. His confessors and canonical superiors have always known about him, and he has always obeyed their direction. He has also said he will abide by the bishops' teaching, set out in the controversial 1991 document Issues in Human Sexuality, that gay clergy must be celibate but lay people can have gay relationships.

So, naturally, I ask him when the relationship ended and why, curious to know whether the lover was sacrificed for the mitre. "It has not ended," he protests.

This is an astonishing revelation. Dr John goes on to explain: "It is perfectly clear that the relationship is going to last. It is a permanent thing. That must not be denied.

"The relationship is the kind of relationship I have talked about and written about. Therefore it is for life. We have been together for 27 years and we will remain together. But the relationship has not been sexually expressed for years.

This is not unusual, even in heterosexual relationships. The love and commitment are if anything greater."

There is no authorised same-sex blessing for gay couples in the Church of England but several unauthorised versions have appeared over the years. However, Dr John and his partner have never had their relationship formally blessed, and Dr John has never performed such a service for anyone else. Nor will he.

"I would like the Church to bless relationships based on that kind of covenant.

But I stand in a tradition which does respect the discipline and authority of the Church. I would argue for it within the counsels of the Church but the point of consensus has not been reached. We go on to talk about love, and God's covenanted love for humankind. "The theology of covenant is really crucial to all this. We are made in God's image. God is a covenanting, faithful God and he loves us in this covenanting way. We are made like that too. There is something deep in us that wants to enter into a covenant of love with another human being. This is something of the pure and best in us, something that reflects God's image in us.

"The classic way of putting that is that marriage is a reflection of Christ's marriage to his people or God's love for Israel. The marriage covenant between two people reflects something of the heart of God and the way God relates to us. And I believe that the mystery of covenant love actually can work for two people of the same sex just as much as it can work for a married couple."

He admits that St Paul does not appear that friendly towards homosexual practice, but says this should be seen in the context of the era he was writing in. "It seems to me that St Paul never addresses the issue of two adult men or women who fall in love, in Christian love, in the way I am talking about. When he talks about homosexuals he is referring to the models of homosexual practice that were most visible in his own society -prostitution and pederasty."

He continues: "I have enormous respect for clergy and Christians who believe they are called to celibacy. Often it is a very positive vocation for them. I certainly do not want to undermine their sense of that vocation. The whole question at the moment is whether for gay people, gay clergy, the Church can come to see that the kind of relationship I am talking about is an equally legitimate framework for love in their personal lives."

By covenanted love, he means the love that God showed the world by giving his son, Jesus Christ, to be crucified and to save.

He explains: "That mystery of love is in the end the mystery of giving youself away. This week we are celebrating the Feast of the Trinity, which is all about God himself existing as a relationship of love in his own nature. God is love.

Love between persons who are individual and yet given completely to the other, is a mystery that reflects God's own nature.

"People think the mystery of the Trinity is strange but it is not. You do find out in a good relationship, a good marriage, what it really means to lose yourself in the other and somehow find your true self in the process of giving yourself away to the other. That is what the Church should be getting across to people. Finding out that fact of experience is actually finding out something about the mystery of God."

The trouble is that the Church is constantly laying down the rules or quarrelling with itself about this.

Dr John says: "It is never getting across the fundamental joy that we are made in the image of a God who is in our deepest loves, sharing that love. It is costly because it is about giving yourself away, and in this world giving yourself away is painful. But at the end of it all our destiny is to be included in the love of God in the Trinity. That is what we are made for. The Church ought to be a training school, a kindergarten for learning that kind of love."

Dr John was brought up as a nonconformist in the Rhondda Valley and became aware of a calling to the priesthood in his late teens. "I rebelled against my religious background fairly strongly as an early teenager but never really managed to get rid of my belief in God. He seemed not to let me alone. My religious instinct has always been very strong." His sister converted to Roman Catholicism, which inspired him to consider doing the same, although eventually he settled for Anglicanism "as an alternative brand of Catholicism".

He was confirmed at 18 and soon afterwards realised he was being called to the priesthood. "It seemed to be that if I really believed it, I really needed to give my life to it completely." From his comprehensive he had gone to Hertford College, Oxford, to study classics and modern languages, and in his first year became an ordinand.

Through all this, he was battling with the emerging awareness of his sexuality. "I was conscious of it from quite an early age, and that it was probably going to bring problems. I certainly resisted and fought it. I wrestled hugely with it and prayed about it, as I think so many gay people do.

"The issue of celibacy never really arose. I was aware that there was a great deal of homosexuality in the Church, which confused me. I was aware that quite a lot of clergy got into trouble about it and that quite a lot of people led disordered lives. I was determined that I was going to try to work out a viable way of life which would not get me into that kind of mess, a way of life which was honest and which was compatible with faith."

Publicly, however, the Church remained in denial. "There is a great deal of wisdom in the Church about it but it is all in private, mainly through the confessional and through spiritual direction. People would offer celibacy as the safest, most positive, way of living if that was possible. But if it was not, and if it was felt that people were at risk of falling into promiscuity, the next best thing was to find a partner and be faithful and find some security that way.

"But that was the sort of advice that could only be given privately, it could never be stated openly. It seemed there was a private morality, a Christian one, but one that could never be talked about openly. Probably that is the way it has always been dealt with, certainly in the middle Church and with the Anglo-Catholics. But that way of dealing with it has led to the mess we are in now. There have been centuries of double thinking."

He does not want to be distracted from his priorities, which are mission and renewal. Before becoming a canon theologian at Southwark he was vicar of Eltham, where he nearly doubled the congregation. He is from the Catholic tradition currently associated more with decline than growth. In terms of his theology, however, he is relatively conservative. He has more in common with the evangelicals than might first appear the case.

"According to the census, over 72 per cent of people believe in God. People also want to go to church. But they don't come because they can't relate to it or feel bored to death." He has been surveying clergy to find out if they would go to their own church, given a choice. Most would rather not.

And to his regret, he will not himself be ordaining gay clergy. "The current discipline of the Church is set out in Issues in Human Sexuality, and that states that a sexually active gay relationship is not compatible with ordination. That is where the Church is. Obviously I regret that personally. As a bishop I will have to abide by that. It is a matter of corporate discipline."

But he admits: "I think the current discipline cannot hold for long because it penalises honesty and openness. It has also affected the number of candidates for the stipendiary ministry. Gay people are now frightened to come forward for ministry." And as anyone who has ever been a regular churchgoer in or around London will known, the Church of England simply could not survive without its gay clergy.

This interview was the T2 cover story on Thursday 19 June 2003.

Comments

[j]

Fr Mark,

hang on in there and remember that practically everybody out here thinks this debate is nuts. I spent a day on a coach yesterday with a highly distinguished theologian who agreed with me that there was considerably more scriptural authority for slavery than for homophobia. He thought that it would be slow progress, because of the anglican communion being so bound up in the commonwealth politics, but that over time the British church would quietly declare UDI on this one...

[Fr Mark]

J and Andrew H: thanks for your supportive comments: it means a lot in the current climate to know there are sane churchpeople about - it sometimes seems as if these threads are taken over entirely by total nutters, for whom it's all been downhill since the the good ol' days of the 17th century before witch-burning went out of fashion.

[Fr Mark]

Dewi: I think you must have misread Recusant's post above.

[Rick Beekman]

Too All;
I have no problem if two Gay People want to live together in a committed relationship.

This is their personal buisness. Nor am I appalled by two committed hetrosexuals living together. After All Sin Is sin. If Someone wants to sin They usually will come up with one excuse or other to justify their actions. Other Sinners understand them very well. When it comes to someone being a so-called "Reverend" "Father" "Bishop" or whoever as in representing the Teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles..Then It Becomes Blasphemous.

You can accuse me of being a "Homophobe" a Fundamentalist" or any other Label you feel good using; The fact is SIN Is SIN and no amount of human compassion toward sinners is going to change their status. Only The Blood of Jesus being applied and True Repentance from All form of Sin will change a Person into a True God-fearing Christian. God is in the forgiving buisness everyone. He hates Sin but loves the sinner. He Did'nt Shed his blood at Calvary so we all could keep on sinning and be heaven bound when we die. If you believe you can abuse God's word do whatever your flesh wants you to do that is sinful and still be saved..You are deceiving yourself.
God Is Holy he will not allow any Un-Repentant Sinner to ever go to heaven. Read Your Bible don't take my word for it. Start with this verse; "Having therefore these promises dearly beloved let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and Spirit perfecting holiness in the fear of God." (II corinthians 7 v 1)

[andrew holden]

Well said Fr Mark!

I nominate your most recent post for the accolade of best post of the month, nay the year!

While you are doing that, Ruth I'd like to mention the video interview with Desmond Tutu on the BBC website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7602535.stm

Incidentally, Ruth, there no longer seems to be an address for us to sned comments/suggestions directly to you (or to Libby). I guess there may be a reason for this but it is a shame.

(rg writes: I didn't know there was ever such an address but my email ruth.gledhill@thetimes.co.uk can be used by all, regards)

[Malcolm+]

Dewi, the name of the poster follows the post on this blog. It was Recusant who indicated that his(?) name would indicate that he(?) is not a member of the CofE.

Recusant was a label appled to English folk who adhered to the Rome obedience during the Elizabethan period.

[j]

well said Fr Mark. This is why I disagree with those who are complaining about JJ taking office and then not complying with the rules. Someone has to be brave enough to become widely known and senior, and then stand up on behalf of all the little people in this situation. Sacrificing, lets point out, both privacy and a quiet life.

I know three gay couples where one or both is an ordained minister of the C of E. We all know. We all agree not to say so. Over time it is corrosive and miserable. Why should such good and devout people have to be ashamed of their home lives?

Frankly the C of E is lucky to have them in the age of declining ordinations.

[Dewi]

Fr Mark,

How are we supposed to guess from your name that you are not CofE? Surely there are people called Mark in the CofE?

[Fr Mark]

Recusant: "I am not particularly bothered if clergy are gay or not: I do care that they are celibate and chaste." So you think the straight ones have to be unmarried too, then?

This illustrates the whole problem, which is that Con Evos demand a different standard for gay people, viz, basically, that we cease to exist. The say, on the one hand, we cannot marry, that Civil Partnership is nothing like a marriage; then they say, if you are in a Civil Partnership, we must treat you, for all negative purposes only, as if you are married. They say we must agree to be celibate, though I certainly never took any oaths of celibacy at ordination, unlike RC priests, and I think General Synod would never vote for us to have to take such oaths. Then, if we say we are celibate, which is what the stupid guidelines state we are supposed to do, we are still ineligible for equal treatment.

So, you can see, the whole thing stinks, and I want no part in propping up such an immoral system: it's time it changed. I am becoming increasingly aware that it will only change when gay people in the Church become more radical and boldly stick two fingers up to injustice: those lily-livered bishops are not going to do anything at all for us which invloves taking a stand for our human rights, that much is clear.

It is deeply depressing: if you preach to people about concern for justice and human rights, you have to practise this in the Church first. Everyone else can see that, which is why the rest of society is just laughing at how stupid we are. It's not a good witness to anything, except the power of hypocrisy and lingering taboo among religious people.

[Will T]

Come on, lets all have a little faith. After all, The Lord, through the Holy Ghost, will elect the next Bishop. What, you don't believe in the power of the Holy Ghost??
Let us pray.

[j]

Recusant's position is at least consistent. No sex or loving relationships for any priest is one thing. Catholics do in theory hold to that, whatever the personal lapses of some priests.

But sex/loving relationships only for some of them (that subset of gay priests who are truthful)- very difficult to justify.

Recusant, given your pure stance on this, do you refuse to take communion with fellow Catholics who are clearly using birth control?

[Recusant]

Fr Mark

Don't put arguments into my mouth that I didn't make. I said that I thought that he would see it as a form of marriage as, to be honest here, do the gay couples who undertake one. I don't.

From my name you might also have guessed that I am not CofE. I am not particularly bothered if clergy are gay or not: I do care that they are celibate and chaste.

[Stu Oxon]

I think I am what is now becoming known as a 'liberal evangelical', 'open evangelical' or 'left leaning evangelical'. That is to say, I affirm the necessity of liberalism, pluralism and ecumenism as essential for honest open exchange as well as genuine mission in the world. Of course I could delineate further what it might mean to be 'one of those' evangelicals but that must suffice for now...

In regards to JJ I have little problem with him becoming a bishop. I pray that other evangelicals will take a firm stand on this - he has submitted himself to a lifestyle consonant with an Anglican (and biblical) position on the issue. He may wish to see the church move from its current position - but who doesn't want to see that (whatever direction that'd like to see it move). He cannot be judged for his thoughts nor for his views if argued for in theologically cogent terms. The issue will be if he preempts the mind of the church in liturgical practice as ECUSA has done.

[J Pearce]

"Thus he admits to sex before marriage which is clearly at odds with church teaching and also refuses to admit it as sin."

Ah, this will be the form of marriage that certain trenchant conservative voices within the Church refuse to recognise, then?

I'm also interested to note the meaning of the term "guidelines", has been metamorphosed by conservative Anglicans to mean something akin to "absolutely and irrevocably immutable".

Fr Mark appears to be correct, then.

Macolm + even more so.

This isn't goalpost shifting, so much as an exercise in digging up the entire playing field.

[j]

Yes indeed Andrew H I agree that such a blanket ban (which appears to exist de facto) would be a very bad thing.

Given that many of the women clergy I know are also gay (and some are partners) I cant wait for this to hot up yet further- Biblical strictures on gay sex, where they exist at all, being entirely anatomically specific and therefore not covering women anyway...

How about the Senate have a more general witchhunt and go after any bishop not lving in perfect Biblical purity? could I suggest personal poverty as a good starting point, perhaps, and we will move on to adultery later?

[andrew holden]

A strict application of the teaching of Jesus means that 'remarried' clergy, including some Bishops, and their partners are engaging in adultery. We don't hear many calls for them to put away their spouses and publically repent. There is more than just the whif of hypocrisy and injustice here!

JJ is entitled to continue to argue for a change in the church's position on gay unions - I certainly don't expect him to be forced to publically recant his views or to 'repent' of something that neither he, nor indeed many other Anglicans, consider to be sinful - merely to prove his fitness to be a Bishop. In fact if he did I'd change my high opinion of him!

I'd also like to see the AoC being true to his already expressed convictions here and giving some decent leadership on this issue instead of being intimidated by the conservatives.

[andrew holden]

The document issued by the Windsor Continuation Group used two phrases: asking for a moratorium on "the consecration to the episcopate of those living in partnered gay relationships" as well as "consecrations of those living in openly gay relationships".

In neither case did it make any reference to celibacy or to the issue of UK civil partnership and neither has anything coming out of Lambeth.

It would seem that some clarification is needed. Does this rule out any gay cleric in any sort of gay relationship even if the relationship is declared to be non-sexual? Up to now the CofE has allowed gay clergy such relationships, and CPs, so long as the couples were prepared to give assurances of abstainance. However, the JJ/+Reading case suggests that the CofE already had a defacto moratorium on the consecration of any gay cleric whether or not he was in a relationship and whether or not he was engaging in same-sex activities.

Personally I'd like the policy clarified in General Synod. A blanket moratorium on gays in the episcopate (whatever their sexual activity ratings) would, I think, be unacceptable to most English Churchpeople.

[Fr Mark]

Recusant: "Since Dean John is in a Civil Partnership with his partner one must assume that he views it as a form of marriage."

Wait a minute, the conservatives are continually telling us that no way does Civil Partnership equate to marriage. The C of E says that its clergy can enter into Civil Partnerships. So you cannot reasonably hold this view, Recusant. Do you see why it just looks as if, whatever we do, gay people simply cannot win with Con Evos? You'd just prefer us not to exist at all, that much is clear.

[Robert Ian Williams]

Bearing in mind that the so-called conservatives have divorced and re-married bishops..including some who signed the GAFCON Declaration.

[Ed Tomlinson]

Jeffrey's sexuality is neither here nor there. Where traditionalists take exception is that he admits to having previously engaged in sexual activity with his partner but refuses to repent of that. Thus he admits to sex before marriage which is clearly at odds with church teaching and also refuses to admit it as sin. Whilst I would be very generous as an individual and am unable to hurl any stones- he must surely tackle this prior to becoming a defender of faith? A simple admission of guilt and refusal to fight for active sexual unions outside of marriage (of any sort) in the future would put him on a standing recognised by Christians worldwide. A refusal would indicate that he does not believe in the understood position of the church in regard to sexual ethics and cast a shadow over the proceedings.

All of which is neithe here or there. He may or may not be wonderful- but the situation is so tense that anyone pushing for this at present CLEARLY does not have the concerns of the church at heart but the progression of a particular cause and that IS rather sad.

[Malcolm+]

Jeffrey John abides by the rules, so the "conservatives" (in their usual way) move the goal posts.

[andrew holden]

"I won't claim to speak for all conservatives, but the reason Jeffrey John 'is still regarded as ipso facto unfit for episcopal office' is that he wants to change those guidelines."

He's perfectly entitled to wish to do so - and he's not the only one. Plenty of the existing Bishops wish to change the rules as well. Even the AoC apparently wished to change the rules when he felt free to express his opinion - I imagine that he still does.

The problem for most conservatives is that JJ refuses to repent of what they see as past sin.

[Shaun]

I won't claim to speak for all conservatives, but the reason Jeffrey John 'is still regarded as ipso facto unfit for episcopal office' is that he wants to change those guidelines. Gay or straight a bishop has to be of 'sound doctrine', not just going along with sound behaviour for now purely because it's a church policy.

[Recusant]

Can we not confuse celibate with chaste? The first refers to the state of being unmarried, the second to refraining from sexual activity.

Since Dean Johns is in a Civil Partnership with his partner one must assume that he views it as a form of marriage. This is reinforced by the State's implication that a Civil Partnership involves a sexual relationship, otherwise why wouldn't cohabiting sisters, etc. be allowed them?

As to him being chaste, whether he is or isn't will only be known to the two of them and God. Celibacy, I think we can presume he has already decided against, as far as he can within the civil law.

[Fr Mark]

It is scandalous, though, that one of the few gay clergy in the Church who says he lives according to the current ridiculous guidelines is still regarded as ipso facto unfit for episcopal office by the conservatives. Surely the point of having the stupid guidelines is to say that you regard clergy as personae gratae if they follow them? If that is the case, then you cannot exclude Jeffrey John on conservative grounds, surely. If the man is able to be an excellent Dean, then why on earth not a bishop? Unless, of course, you do in fact believe in overt homophobic discrimination, pure and simple.

[Robert Ian Williams]

Dean John has no chance...given the conservative nature of those who elect the bishops. This is just mischief from the Americans.

Ruth could you find out , why nearly two month after GAFCON there is not a list of signatories!

[Fr. Van Windsor]

In the USA where we have the caricature of "the" Gay Bishop, Gene Robinson, Wales will have Dr. Jeffery John who seems a positive role model and apologetic for/of gay clergy. A sympathetic figure if you will. Thank you for this article.

[Malcolm+]

Thank you for providing that copy of your earlier profile of Dr. John.

I found David Anderson's piece utterly bizarre. He seems to be indicating that Rowan Williams is somehow to be held responsible for events which may - or may not - occur at a meeting in the Church of Wales. A meeting that has not occured, does not occur for more than a month, and in a Province where Rowan Williams exercises no authority.

There are two explanations that occur to me.

One is that David Anderson is completely clueless about the structures of the Anglican Communion. If so, I refer him to recent remarks by his fellow schismatic Henry Orombi, who observed that Williams has no jurisdiction over the Church in Kenya. The same applies to Wales.

The other possibility that occurs is that David Anderson is being wilfully dishonest.

Occam suggests the latter.