Note: this article is reproduced here for reflection, not because I necessarily agree with it.

Shalom!

Rowland Croucher

This is a Gospel issue

By The Rt Rev Richard Harries

When Philip Giddings, whom I much respect, spoke to the press after my meeting with some leading evangelical clergy in the diocese, he told them he would much rather be talking about Jesus and his great love for the world. I have been talking, and now am writing, precisely about that love: a love which includes us all, whatever our sexual orientation. The appointment of Jeffrey John is a gospel issue. For if an openly gay person, publicly committed to a chaste, sexually abstinent lifestyle, cannot be appointed as a bishop in our Church, what hope is there for the many gay and lesbian people in our congregations of feeling fully accepted by God and their fellow Christians?

After a thorough appointment process including a round of interviews and a presentation to my whole advisory group, I believed that Jeffrey had the gifts for the job. Over the last decade I have given overriding priority in the nomination of area bishops in the diocese to people with a real heart for mission.

The warm tributes that have come in to Jeffrey's ministry and its influence on people's lives have consistently drawn attention to that. With assurances about his lifestyle and a commitment to uphold the discipline of Issues in Human Sexuality, which have been publicly stated (and can be seen on our diocesan website: http://www.oxford.anglican.org), it seemed to me then, as it seems to me now, that it would have been quite wrong to preclude him from the appointment simply because he represents minority views on the Church of England's approach to gay relationships.

Unintentionally, Jeffrey has become a symbol -- for some, a symbol of the direction they do not wish to Church of England to go in, and for others, a sign of the truly inclusive church which they pray will come about. It is all the more important therefore to look calmly at the arguments against his appointment.

First, I do not see how a Christian person could possibly object to the appointment of such a man on the grounds that he, being (openly) gay, is publicly committed to a chaste and sexually abstinent lifestyle.

He is also in a covenanted, putatively lifetime relationship of mutual love, support and companionship. I see nothing in the Bible against this. Indeed, we read that "Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul" (1 Samuel 18:3). The nine bishops who wrote an open letter criticising the appointment said, "We value, of course, the gift of same-sex friendship and if this relationship is one of companionship and sexual abstinence, then, we rejoice. We warmly commend such relationships to the Church as a whole." It is. I therefore look forward to those same bishops commending Jeffrey's relationship as a role model.

Jeffrey John, in his published writings, has argued for the Church accepting fully-committed, faithful, lifelong, same-sex relationships. One of the reasons for this is on scriptural grounds.

Those opposed to the appointment suggest that the Bible is unambiguously against such acceptance, but the fact is that there is currently no wide consensus on interpretation of the Bible on this issue, either in certain passages or when the Bible is taken as a whole -- see for example the most recent treatment of this issue in a book by the distinguished Roman Catholic theologian Gareth Moore.

Another reason which Jeffrey uses for his position is that he believes that it is crucial for the Church to be able to offer the gay community, prone to promiscuity, an alternative to a lifetime of celibacy. Celibacy is a wonderful vocation -- but it is a vocation. It has to be freely chosen. A good number of bishops, perhaps even the majority, have a great deal of sympathy with the arguments that Dr John has set out in his writings, but for the last decade we have presented a united front to the world in opposing them, at least as far as clergy are concerned. Jeffrey John has fiercely criticised those bishops for a lack of integrity. He is under fire for a similar lack of integrity in agreeing to uphold the policy of the House of Bishops in public while arguing against it in the privacy of the House of Bishops. He, however, in addition to apologising for the polemical nature of his previous statements, has drawn a clear distinction between the role of a theologian, which can include pushing the boundaries of established belief, and the role of a bishop, which is to teach the actual doctrine and discipline of the Church as it has been formulated at this particular time. He suggests that David Jenkins, when Bishop of Durham, failed to recognise this crucial distinction. He has publicly committed himself to observing it. He will not use his episcopal office publicly to promote his private views.

The relationship in which Jeffrey John remains had a sexual dimension at one time. Opponents of his appointment call on him publicly to repent of this. Jeffrey has consistently brought his relationship to his confessor and canonical superiors. If there has been anything wrong in it, the least a charitable mind can do is assume it is confessed and forgiven. And which Christian is going to stand up and say that Jeffrey John is a greater sinner than they are? According to Christian belief, we are all sinners and we live on the grace and forgiveness of God. There is, however, one particular warning that the Bible gives, and that is resisting new insights being given by the Spirit of God. The crucial decision made by the first Christians was that Gentiles could become Christians without first being circumcised or obeying other aspects of the Jewish law. Some, like Peter, found this very difficult to take at first. Then he had a dream in which he saw that Gentiles could be fully accepted without having to obey Jewish dietary laws. Perhaps, like Peter, those opposed to this appointment will have a dream in which they see people of the same sex loving and supporting one another through life, and Jesus saying, "This rejoices my heart; may it rejoice yours too."

Jesus said nothing against homosexuality. He did, however, say something very fierce against divorce. It is clear that he envisaged marriage as being for life. However, the Church of England has recently made provision for divorced people to be married in church even if their former spouse is still living. I fully support this. For I believe that Jesus takes us where we are and helps us to make the best of our lives from that point. One of the reasons that the Church changed its mind on this issue is the witness of so many happy second marriages. They have already been blessed by God whatever the church has said in the past.

Gay and lesbian people find themselves the way they are, with God-given affections for people of the same sex. Marriage to people of the opposite sex would be quite wrong, and when it has happened has usually proved disastrous. If celibacy is not the chosen path, then, Jeffrey John has urged, the right course is a relationship of committed, lifetime love. Divorced people who remarry and gay and lesbian people who enter into such relationships are in a similar position. They do not conform to certain biblical texts. But God takes them and their love, as it is, and blesses it.

The appointment of Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading has been divisive and I regret that. But looked at calmly and rationally, the arguments against his appointment simply do not stand up to scrutiny. It is worth bearing in mind that Jeffrey was appointed to his present position by an evangelical bishop: Roy Williamson wrote to me to say, "When I appointed him . it certainly increased the volume and the viciousness of my correspondence. However, even those who opposed him were gradually won over by his graciousness and the authenticity of his life and witness. His integrity, ability, humility and godliness will be a source of blessing to Oxford and to Reading -- and even his detractors (some of them, at least) will yet call him blessed."

When I showed that letter to one of the opponents of the appointment, he said, "That just shows you don't understand evangelicals". I believe I do understand them, their great strengths and all that the whole Church has to learn from them at the moment -- and also their weaknesses. One of these is the use of stipulative definitions. You are not allowed to call yourself an evangelical unless you are 'sound' on whatever is the current issue of controversy -- so Roy Williamson was ostracised in some circles and no longer regarded as an evangelical. Many evangelicals do of course strongly support Jeffrey John's appointment. I do not see why they should be regarded as being any less evangelical for doing so.

Jeffrey's appointment is a gospel issue. For it will help those many gay and lesbian people in our congregations know that they are not a freak or an accident; that they are deeply beloved by God and that their same-sex affections are a special gift from him. Not better or worse but different, and to be offered to Jesus in obedience to him.