In a fascinating piece the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne has reported on Bishop John McIntyre’s recent synodical address.

Bishop John McIntyre of Gippsland has reiterated that he will welcome gay and lesbian people and include them in all aspects of the life of the Church.

In his Presidential Address to his Diocesan Synod in Sale on 18 May, Bishop McIntyre questioned whether Christians could read Biblical references to sexuality in the same way “now we know that it is simply a reality of some people’s lives to be same-sex attracted, and not a perverse choice made by them”, adding that it had taken the Church, “and me”, a long time to acknowledge this.

Mark Brolly, the editor a journalist at The Melbourne Anglican, has written a very fair report of what McIntyre said. But it’s still a fascinating report. Why? Well because there is absolutely no mention of the House of Bishops’ Protocol which McIntyre has so clearly repudiated – that is, of course, a large part of the real story. I wonder why The Melbourne Anglican chose not to mention it?

update

I contacted Melbourne Anglican Media to ask about the omission. I’m told that the Protocol will appear alongside a reworking on this article in the print edition of Melbourne Anglican. Nevertheless, there is still no mention of the Protocol on the Melbourne Anglican website news archive for 2012 and so I maintain any web reader of the above article simply won’t understand the gravity of what McIntyre has done.


update

A story on the protocols is now available on the Melbourne website. As commenter Andrew Reid puts it,

The money quote from Archbishop Freier is:
“While these protocols have no legislative force, it is expected that our Bishops will abide by them, as an expression of the bonds of affection and unity that we share in the gospel and our collegiality in episcopal ministry.”

Leave a Reply

One comment on “Melbourne Anglican News avoids the conflict over Bishop McIntyre (updated)

  1. Hi David,
    The Melbourne Anglican does tend to bland reporting of the facts, due to the partisan nature of the diocese (significant groupings of evangelicals, anglo-catholics and liberals). However, you’re right that this article misses a significant fact in its reporting that would put the address in its context. I’m guessing perhaps the reporter just picked up the synodical address and reported the interesting bits, rather than researching the background to it.
    Andrew

Leave a Comment - but please pay careful attention to the commenting rules