On one hand there will be some who applaud such a move as enlightened and right, but for others I am sure that there will be confusion and hardening of the view that the CofE is becoming an apostate denomination. A quick 'for instance' can be found in that out of seven church 'brands' I can number five who would be strongly opposed, one which would generally be in favour and one that would be split over this area.
So whilst this might see more liberally minded types cheering, any appointment, even to the liberal state of Southwark, appears to make life difficult for many of us on the ground. Those residing in their ivory towers might be able to rise above things and ignore the response where they are, but we are not able to exercise the same privilege in the land of the mortals!
I was the butt of a good number of complaints during the 2003 debacle with the same chap and issue (then it was of course Reading). I was berated strongly by some when, having been appointed Dean at St Albans, the chap then moves Grant Holmes into his new home. So many people asked my what would have happened had his 'ex-lover' been a woman, would the church have been happy to see her move in on the same basis as Holmes? Most were concerned that this would not have been the case and therefore we were seeing dual-standards at play.
As I see it, the problem is, as four of the five church groups speak of 'appearance of evil', rather obvious and yet I have no confidence that those in authority have any concern for the relationships with other denominations and groupings or the problems they are creating by continually blurring lines and trying to appease a minority.
The tail wags the dog and another brick, finding the mortar loosened further, tumbles to the ground!
Never quite sure who is who, think Jeffrey is the one with the glasses!
Never quite sure who is who, think Jeffrey is the one with the glasses!
2 comments:
You are suggesting that if Dr John co-habited with a woman, he'd be "living in sin". But he is in a Civil Partnership which, if only for inheritance purposes, has been accepted by General Synod. Logically, you are suggesting Dr John should marry his partner to make their relationship licit. Or are you against that as well? You seem to believe in Catch 22. You damn Dr John for not being married. But then don't believe he CAN marry! What a "choice"!
If JJ goes to Southwark, you can kiss goodbye to the financial security (such as it is ) of the Diocese of Southwark.
It was rumoured that that it was tipped it last time re Jeffrey John going to Reading: if the evangelical churches pulled out of funding Oxford Diocese, the Diocese would have gone belly up within a year.
Southwark is even more vulnerable.
Post a Comment