When my alarm goes off at 7 am, Radio 4 gives the news, and then a look at the Sunday newspapers. I was startled at hearing that the
Telegraph is reporting that The Very Rev'd Jeffrey John, Dean of St. Albans is on the shortlist to become the next Bishop of Southwark. Here is the article. My commentary is at the end.
An openly-homosexual cleric has been nominated to become a senior bishop, in a move that threatens to provoke a damaging split in the Church of England.
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent
Published: 9:00PM BST 03 Jul 2010
The nomination of Dr Jeffrey John, the Dean of St Albans, threatens to provoke a damaging split in the Church of England
A confidential meeting, chaired by Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has approved Dr Jeffrey John, the Dean of St Albans, to be on the shortlist to be the next Bishop of Southwark.
He is understood to be the favoured candidate.
Dr John is a hugely divisive figure in the church after he was forced to stand down from becoming the Bishop of Reading in 2003 after it emerged he was in a homosexual, but celibate, relationship.
Promoting him to one of the most senior offices in the Church would trigger a civil war between liberals and conservatives and exacerbate existing divisions within the Anglican Communion.
Members of the Crown Nominations Commission, the body responsible for selecting bishops, will vote this week on whether Dr John's name should now be put forward to the Prime Minister for final approval.
David Cameron has been made aware that Dr John is on the shortlist for the post and is understood to be supportive of such an appointment. Once the preferred candidate is rubber-stamped by Mr Cameron it is passed to the Queen for final approval.
In 2003, evangelical parishes warned they would withhold payments to central Church coffers if Dr John was consecrated as Bishop of Reading, before Dr Williams ultimately forced him to resign.
It is known that the Queen was "deeply concerned" by the rift.
Dr Williams and Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, who also sits on the commission, will face fierce criticism from the conservative wing of the Church if they allow Dr John to become a bishop.
Yet, at the commission's last meeting, where Dr John was put on the initial shortlist of candidates for the Southwark job, neither archbishop blocked his name.
Liberals make up a majority of the commission and he is considered by many to be the outstanding candidate after a successful period in charge of St Albans cathedral.
The appointment of Dr John, who entered a civil partnership with his long term partner the Rev Grant Holmes in 2006, would mark a major victory for the pro-gay lobby in the Church of England, which has been disappointed at the lack of progress under Dr Williams.
Conservatives, on the other hand, would be incensed at the promotion of a cleric who has strongly argued for a more liberal attitude towards sexuality and is in a long-standing, though celibate, homosexual relationship.
Senior bishops led the opposition to his appointment in 2003, while African archbishops claimed that it would tear apart the Anglican Communion if an openly gay cleric was made bishop in the Church of England, considered to be the mother church.
The Communion has already begun to unravel following the appointment of openly gay and openly lesbian bishops in the US Episcopal Church.
This could shatter Dr Williams' hopes of maintaining the fragile unity which currently exists in the Church.
While it would also upset evangelicals in the diocese of Southwark, the overwhelming majority of clergy in the diocese are believed to be very keen to have Dr John as their bishop.
He is well known in the diocese from his time serving as a canon at the cathedral before he moved to St Albans.
Regarded as an outstanding preacher and a champion of a more liberal reading of the Bible, he is considered to have enhanced his reputation at St Albans cathedral, which has seen its congregation grow under his leadership.
David Cameron is also expected to be favourable to the appointment as it would reflect the Conservative Party's drive to shake off its "nasty party" image.
In an interview last year with Attitude, a gay magazine, the prime minister criticised the Church of England over failing to be more accepting in its attitudes to homosexuality.
"But I think the Church has to do some of the things that the Conservative Party has been through – sorting this issue out and recognising that full equality is a bottom line full essential."
On Saturday it was revealed that the Coalition was considering allowing same-sex couples to include religious elements in civil partnership ceremonies, making them practically indistinguishable from traditional weddings.Now. I believe that there may be some truth in this article, but I confess that it's more hope than actually evidence-based.
I do not believe that either a member of the Crown Appointments Commission or someone on the Prime Minister's staff or the Archbishop's Appointments staff would leak this information. From the point of view of the Prime Minister, not only has he not officially gotten the name yet, he no longer gets two names to pass along to the Queen and he is obliged to approve the one name that the Crown Appointments Commission gives him. As a Roman Catholic, David Cameron also probably feels that he is not particularly qualified to reject candidates for a C fo E bishopric. (Later note: David Cameron is Church of England; I have been misinformed. It was his predecessor as Tory leader who is Roman Catholic. I apologise. ch)
Now, knowing as I do most of the Southwark members on the Commission, I think that while they might be tweaking the Archbishop's tail, so to speak, by putting Jeffrey's name forward, I would be amazed if the Archbishop of Canterbury did not strongly object to Jeffrey's nomination.
First, the ABC has made a huge fuss over the election, confirmation, and ordination to the episcopate of Bishop Glasspool in Los Angeles. This not years ago, but very recently. To have an openly-gay, partnered (yet celibate) man presented for a bishopric in the diocese in which Lambeth Palace is situated would present him with perhaps a resigning issue. How on earth could Rowan Williams consecrate Jeffrey John after nearly ostracising the Episcopal Church over Bishop Glasspool?
Second, the agony that Williams, John, and John's vicar-partner went through 7(?) years ago will be replayed again and again and again in the news media if Jeffrey were actually named the next Bishop of Southwark. I cannot believe that any of those three men would actually want to see this happen again. Jeffrey's husband actually found it the most troubling, and was ill for quite a while after the whole sordid affair of the See of Reading had been played out.
Third, it would present him with huge difficulties in the rump of the Anglican Communion that will remain after TEC, ACC, the Scottish Episcopal Church, and the Anglican Churches of Australia and New Zealand are discounted or rejected. I use the word "rump" deliberately.
Would Williams actually be recommending the C of E adopt the Anglican Covenant on the one hand and consecrating a gay man as Bishop of Southwark on the other? While I have no high opinion of Williams' stratgic or communications abilities, only someone who was seriously unbalanced would try to do both. And as much as Williams would push "celibate" as a reposte to those who would object to John's nomination, that would not (and of course, historically did not) assuage those who hysterically object to any gay man, lesbian, or transgender person in any ministry of the Church.
Now, on the other hand, Williams may feel that, of all the dioceses in the Church of England, the very last diocese to present a huge public outcry over the selection of a gay man (partnered, celibate) as its Bishop would be Southwark. The Evangelical presence in the Diocese, while vocal, is pretty much ostracised within the power system of the Diocese.
If Williams privately wanted to break the stranglehold of the Evangelicals on the Church of England's attitudes towards gay men in the Episcopate, he would have no better candidate than Jeffrey John. John has proven his administrative abilities as Dean of St. Albans and would be on top of almost anyone's list of candidates for the Episcopate. The Diocese of Southwark, while in a bit of a financial strait (for it) at the moment, is in much better financial shape than most of the Dioceses of England. The Diocesan Secretary is unusually able, and the Diocesan staff are dedicated and talented.
I have been told that August (traditionally the "silly season" of the news media, where everyone is on holiday and no one pays much attention to the newspapers) is the month when the appointment of the new Bishop of Southwark will be announced. I believe that Wynne-Jones is trying the idea on for size and beginning the silly season a little bit early.
My bet for the next Bishop of Southwark is still the Vicar of St. Martin's in the Fields, London (whose name temporarily escapes me). The reason I say this is that the message about consecrating divorced-and-remarried men as Bishops came out last month, and the Vicar is married to a woman previously-married and divorced. I believe this was rushed out to pave the way for the Vicar's appointment to Southwark.
Like the White Queen, I can believe several impossible things before breakfast. Therefore, I shall go and have my toast and coffee now.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
trawnapanda