Anglican stuff

An excellent editorial in the Church of England Newspaper concerning the appointment of Jeffrey Johns as Dean of St Albans Cathedral. The paper makes the obvious point that this appointment, at this time, is “irresponsible”. They’re not wrong in saying that. But they understate the issue.

The appointment is deliberately divisive. The Eames Commission is still meeting and it has been understood that there would be a moratorium until the Commission had reported.

So what’s going on now?
2 important questions need to be asked?

1 Why are the liberals pushing their agenda again, so soon and before the Commission has reported back?
2 Why has Canterbury not done anything to stop it? It is inconceivable that he would have been unaware that the appointment had been considered.

Leave a Reply

6 comments on “Anglican stuff

  1. Um, the article says Dr. John is celibate. Therefore what is the problem? He is not defying Paul’s writings about homosexuality, which clearly refer specifically to sexual conduct.

    The author of the editorial seems to be implying, despite his statements to the contrary, that there is no real redemption for homosexuals, that in some way they remain tainted, even if they stop doing the sexual acts that conservatives object to.

    • If you ask me the Anglican church’s approach is riddled with inconsistencies.

      If homosexual activity is wrong, it’s wrong — whoever does it, and whatever their position in the church, be it parishioner, deacon, priest or archbishop — and it should not be tolerated. On the other hand, if it’s acceptable, then it’s acceptable whoever does it. The Anglican desire to find a compromise acceptable to just about everyone is, once again, showing itself and proving that when you do so, one of the first things to get thrown out of the door is what the Bible teaches.

      It’s just one of the reasons why I’m glad I’m not an Anglican…

      <M>

    • Dr John teaches consistently against the Church’s established position.

      The job of those ordained is to teach, if someone teaches what they’re not meant to teach then they can hardly take up the job, can they? In fact it smacks of a lack of integrity – promising to do something you have no intention to do.

      • I would guess that his or anyone’s teachings about homosexuality in the Anglican Church make up a very small portion of his overall message.

        Even so, one must teach what one believes is right. No church is made up of people who believe exactly the same — and it is impossible to imagine that his position is not countered by many other teachers within the church who disagree with him.

        Here’s a hypothetical. Suppose the position of the church were that Biblical statements about homosexuality should be viewed as an anachronism. How would you feel about an activist bishop or dean or priest who taught, in opposition to the church’s position, that homosexuality is still wrong?

        • I would say that they should consider their position in that organisation, just as people in exactly that position are doing now.

          It’s a matter of integrity.

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