Reform, as a grass roots movement, envisages action coming from members who have thought, studied, discussed and agreed. Discussion papers such as this one are written by individual members for the council of Reform and the wider church. The author alone is responsible for the paper. This paper may be copied freely.

This was written before Jeffrey John withdrew from his appointment as Bishop of Reading.

The Appointment of Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading

- By Mark Burkill

In this briefing paper I seek to examine critically the arguments and comments which are being used to justify the appointment of Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading.

(1) It is frequently stated that Canon Jeffrey John should not be excluded from this post because of his position on the subject of homosexuality since he has the gifts for the job. In another form of this argument people bemoan the obsession of his critics with the gay issue.
The response to this must be that a person’s suitability for Christian leadership must be assessed primarily on obedience to Christ and his Word and then on whether he has the gifts to exercise this obedience in a leadership role. Perhaps regrettably, the gay issue (in the Western world at least) is becoming a key indicator of whether someone is willing to obey Christ and his Word.

(2) Jeffrey John’s promise to abide by the Church of England Bishops’ statement ‘Issues in Human Sexuality’ is cited as removing all possible objections to his being a bishop.
However we must be clear as to what Jeffrey John’s views on the subject of homosexuality actually are. His professed support for ‘Issues in Human Sexuality’ cannot be seen in isolation.
This document produced by the bishops of the Church of England in 1991 has no official status. His position should also be compared with the Higton motion passed in the Church of England General Synod in 1987 and Resolution 1.10 of Lambeth 1998.
In fact Dr John’s recently expressed position is stated thus: My own view is that there is a sound argument from scripture and tradition in favour of Christians accepting same-sex relationships, provided they are based on a personal covenant of lifelong faithfulness.
He has argued this position at length in a booklet first issued in 1990. He has also made recent reference to a talk he gave at a conference after Lambeth 1998, expressing regret for the tone of what he said in that talk, but not the content.
Furthermore his position is also illustrated by his behaviour. He has admitted that in the past he lived by what he spoke and wrote about and would clearly be content with others doing so in the future. The quotation above makes it clear that John in no way regrets his past writing and behaviour.

(3) In view of the disjunction between Jeffrey John’s own position and that of ‘Issues in Human Sexuality’ it has been argued that it is legitimate for a bishop to have a personal view which differs from church teaching.
To deal with this argument one must begin by asking what a bishop’s job actually is. The basic biblical instructions for ministry to ‘preach the Word’ (2 Tim 4:2) and to ‘watch your life and doctrine closely’ (1 Tim 4:16) are reflected in the canons of the Church of England and the service for the ordination or consecration of a bishop. Canon C18:1 states that a bishop should teach and uphold sound and wholesome doctrine, and banish and drive away all erroneous and strange opinions. In the above mentioned service the Archbishop asks whether the bishop elect will be diligent in prayer and study to fit himself to uphold the truth of the Gospel against error.
The notion that a bishop can have a private view which is at variance from the public position of the Church on key doctrinal issues is absurd, particularly when the Church’s position is specifically claimed to reflect the teaching of Scripture. It will be impossible for Jeffrey John to teach and uphold ‘sound and wholesome doctrine’ on the issue of homosexuality given his well known position on the matter. It will also be impossible for him to exercise the practical discipline which is necessary to back up commitment to Scriptural truth, given his past writing and behaviour.
Canon John has made an analogy between his position and that of bishops who argued for the ordination of women before the 1992 vote in General Synod allowed women actually to be ordained. Yet his track record is precisely not that of waiting for legislation to be passed before taking the practical steps to which his convictions led him. Furthermore, given the apostle Paul’s statements in 1 Cor 6:9-10 that some forms of behaviour (including homosexual practice) actually exclude a person from the kingdom of God, it must be said that this issue is of a far more serious nature than taking the step of ordaining women. Would we really be happy to appoint a known advocate of theft, drunkenness and swindling to the episcopate who promised to abide by a church report that said these things were wrong while he waited for the church to change its mind? The unity of a Christian body can only be maintained by upholding the truth, and the truth is certainly not determined by majority votes at synods.

(4) Finally of course it is pointed out that the Archbishop of Canterbury has not done anything to indicate his own disapproval of this appointment.
The Archbishop’s unwillingness to hinder this appointment should not be a surprise to those who are aware of his own statements on this issue of homosexuality. The Archbishop has himself accepted the premises of each of the above three points.
On point (1) we must note that in his recent letter to bishops the Archbishop has stated that it would be a tragedy if these issues diverted us from the priorities of mission. Yet if the Christian gospel is good news about rescue from judgment through Christ then we all need to know what our sinful behaviour is so that we my recognise our need of Christ.
On point (2) the Archbishop’s teaching (though not his lifestyle) has been similar to that of Jeffrey John.
Again, the Archbishop has also justified his own position by making a distinction between his private views and those that he will affirm publicly - the very distinction that is being argued in point (3) to justify Jeffrey John’s appointment.

Mark Burkill July 2003

 

NOTES

(1) See Dr John’s statement (20/6/2003): Contrary to the impression given, these writings on the subject of homosexuality are a very small proportion of my published work.
See the Bishop of Oxford’s statement (9/6/2003): Jeffrey, I judged, has
the gifts for the job. Should he be precluded on the basis of the previous
stance he has taken?
See the Bishop of Oxford’s statement (9/6/2003): The main theme of the 1998 Lambeth conference was, in fact, third world debt. Why have not candidates for the episcopate been pursued about their views on this crucial biblical subject? Why is it always the gay issue?

(2) See both Dr John’s statement (20/6/2003) and that of the Bishop of Oxford (9/6/2003) for more detailed information on this.

(3) See Dr John’s statement (20/6/2003): It is not unusual for a bishop to be in personal conflict with a public position which his office obliges him to uphold.
See the Bishop of Oxford’s statement (9/6/2003): But Jeffrey draws a clear and legitimate distinction between his previous role as a theologian, whose job it is to explore new ways of thinking, and his future role as a bishop, whose job it is to teach the doctrine of the Church and maintain its unity. And also he will not be significantly different from a number of other bishops in the house who share Jeffrey’s views privately but who do not air them in public.

(4) See the Archbishop of Canterbury's letter to the Bishops of the Church of England (23/6/2003): you should know it is an appointment I have neither sought to promote nor to obstruct.
See the Bishop of Oxford’s statement (9/6/2003): Because of his well-known views, Jeffrey was not on my original shortlist, but on looking further at his references and after additional consultation with other people, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, it seemed clearly right to bring him into the picture.
See the Archbishop of Canterbury's letter to the Bishops of the Church of England (23/6/2003): it would be a tragedy if these issues, in the Church of England and in the Communion, occupied so much energy that we lost our focus on the priorities of our mission, the priorities given us by Our Lord.
For the Archbishop of Canterbury’s theology and views on the issue of homosexuality see The Theology of Rowan Williams by Garry Williams Latimer Study 55 (2002). His views on homosexuality are particularly plain in The Body’s Grace published by the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (1989 and 2002)
See the Archbishop of Canterbury's letter to the Primates of 23/7/2002 on accepting his appointment: I have to distinguish plainly between personal theories and interpretations and the majority conviction of my Church, and have always tried to make such a distinction when I have been questioned on this subject.