UK: Bishop James Jones muddies the waters again
Issued on behalf of Anglican Mainstream
www.anglican-mainstream.net
March 8, 2010
Dr Philip Giddings - Convenor
Bishop Wallace Benn
Rev David Banting
Rev Paul Perkin Canon
Dr Chris Sugden - Secretary
Bishop James Jones muddies the waters again
In a controversial Address to the Liverpool Diocesan Synod, Bishop James Jones has argued that the Church of England and the Anglican Communion should embrace 'diversity' and accept that those who believe homosexual relationships are morally wrong and those who believe that, within a 'stable and faithful relationship', they are right can enjoy a peaceful co-existence. [The full text of Bishop Jones' address can be found at http://www.liverpool.anglican.org/index.php?p=1126 ]
Bishop Jones is widely regarded as a prominent evangelical. His CV includes being a former chair of Wycliffe Hall Council and a senior figure in the Church Pastoral Aid Society and Scripture Union.
In 2003, he was one of those who successfully protested against the attempt to appoint Canon Jeffrey John, a high profile advocate of the gay lesbian movement in the Church of England, as Bishop of Reading. But since 2003 Bishop Jones has changed his views. In February 2008, he apologised, saying: 'I deeply regret this episode in our common life' and expressed his sorrow 'for adding to the pain and distress of Dr John and his partner.' His address to his diocesan synod confirms the significance of that change, which is not merely personal but has consequences for his diocese, the Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion, as the published comments on his Synod address attached to this statement have already shown.
Orthodox Anglicans throughout the Communion will be particularly concerned by the scope of Bishop Jones' address which has implications which extend beyond the boundaries of the Liverpool diocese. He argues that ' the Church of England and the Anglican Communion must allow a variety of ethical views on the subject as in this Diocese we do' and adds 'This is I believe the next chapter to be written in the Church of England and the Anglican Communion. It is the chapter that is already being written in our Partnership in Mission with the Diocese of Virginia and with the Diocese of Akure in Nigeria'. Bishop Jones is therefore setting out a challenge to the wider Anglican Communion, especially those parts where there is growing impatience with 'high profile' English Bishops muddying the waters over the issue of homosexuality.
Anglican Mainstream, whilst acknowledging that Bishop Jones reflects a way of thinking which is gaining ground amongst some English evangelicals, considers it deeply flawed in terms of both teaching and practice. In terms of practice, such teaching fails to recognise that the deep logic of the gay/lesbian movement is the abolition of the Judaeo-Christian understanding of human identity, towards which acceptance of gay 'marriage' is a key step. Faced with the uncomfortable prospect of having constantly to challenge quietly established 'facts on the ground' which gay activists have been openly following for years, the temptation to re-frame the question as a pastoral problem - one of 'go along and get along' -becomes almost overwhelming. That is a fundamental error, the second deep flaw in this way of thinking. As the GAFCON Jerusalem Statement has said, and the comments attached to this Statement indicate, the issue here is one of false teaching. False teaching is not to be colluded with, but to be challenged - and overcome by patient and thorough exposition of biblical truth. The unity to which the Church is called is oneness in Christ, faithful to the Scriptures which authoritatively reveal Him. That is the unity which must underpin our calling to share the Good News of Jesus Christ with a needy and broken world.
ENDS
Some Comments on Bishop Jones' Address
0. Rev Stephen Trott [1] points out that 'Diversity' is not a biblical principle. In Joshua 5.9 the Israelites finally cross the river Jordan into the land which has been promised to them, and are separated at last from the shame and uncleanness of Egypt. They are called to be a holy nation, in a holy land, in obedience to the word of God. Is the Church not called to be holy, and to be under the authority of Scripture?' [For Mr Trott's comment and all those referenced below go to www.anglican-mainstream.net]
1. Rev Charles Raven [2] picking up Bishop Jones' affirmation of a 'culture of diversity . . One of the positive aspects of a rich ecumenical landscape is that we have a variety of doors through which different people might enter into the Christian faith', comments: 'No doubt, but the deification of diversity by the English political establishment has enfeebled moral discourse by the suppression of both logic and evidence, and the Bishop's argument suffers from the same malaise'. Raven argues that Bishop Jones is 'as much a symptom as a cause of the Church of England's confusion' and points to the extent to which the Bishop has been influenced by popular thinking, revealed by the way that he repeats, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that 'our sexuality like ethnicity is not a matter of choice'. [For Mr Raven's full comment go to http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2010/03/07/bishop-james-jones-liverpool%E2%80%99s-muddy-waters-flow-towards-africa/#more-24748]
2. Rev Peter Ould [3] also argues that Bishop Jones's insistence that sexuality is biological in origin and therefore cannot be changed is a scientific naivety and flies in the face of good evidence that for some sexual identity and ever orientation is fluid and malleable. We would not, Ould says, treat paedophilia, or alcoholism, or kleptomania or polygamy or any other number of sinful desires in that manner and therefore neither should we homosexuality. Whilst he has commended Bishop Jones for wanting to have a graceful and compassionate conversation in this area, Ould points out that the evidence is that those who are revisionist are not in this just for the mutual exploration of ethical dilemmas, they are in it to change the very face of the Church'. [For Mr Ould's comments in full go to http://www.peter-ould.net/2010/03/06/why-james-jones-is-wrong]
3. Rev John Richardson [4] notes that Jones' position is not one that protagonists in the gay cause wish to espouse. After a detailed analysis of Bishop Jones' address, Richardson raises some key questions that must now be asked: "Will Bishop Jones ordain a person presented to him who is in an open same-sex relationship? " for such a person will undoubtedly be put before him in a future round of ordinations. And given his own assertion that 'should you be pressed to do something which in good conscience you deem not to be honest then conscience would demand that you dissent', what will Bishop Jones do when, as he has in conscience moved beyond the House of Bishops policy statement "Issues in Human Sexuality", and when he acts in accordance with his convictions to express diversity, some of his own clergy and people reject his own approach 'out of conscience' and express their dissent by declining to invite him to confirm their candidates or withhold funds from the diocese?' Richardson concludes: 'Sadly, Bishop Jones has not merely strained his own credentials, he has challenged the unity of his diocese and his national church. The situation is tragic, not least because this has been done in the name of unity. The question now is what the other bishops, and his own priests, will do in response'. [For Mr Richardson's comments in full go to http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2010/03/bishop-james-jones-and-challenge-to.html]
4. Rev Dr Andrew Goddard 5 writing on the Fulcrum website, has said that the general position advocated by Bishop Jones 'is one which would move the Church of England away not only from its current teaching but also from its methodology of careful, rigorous engagement with the complexities of this subject rooted in Scripture, tradition and wider ecumenical reflections. What is being advocated instead is the sort of approach taken by the North American provinces which has moved from the seemingly uncritical (and theologically undefended) acceptance of a diversity of views on sexuality within a small part of Christ's church to the inevitable abandonment of traditional teaching and discipline within the Anglican province and then to the marginalisation and exclusion of those who seek to uphold the biblical and traditional Christian sexual ethic. It is, sadly, for that reason, that the address is of such significance and concern and merits careful analysis, critique and engagement from the wider church, including others in episcopal leadership'. [For Dr Goddard's full comment go to http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=518]
5. Professor John Nolland 6 of Bristol University writes on the Anglican Mainstream website "So when in the Gospel Jesus expanded the adultery commandment to cover fornication he made it clear that the problem with adultery was not simply that of infidelity to a spouse. For in the Gospel of Jesus sexual purity was itself of vital concern. And there can be no doubt about the scope of the sexual purity concern expressed by Jesus. In the context of our present discussion the point is that this scope includes same-sex sexual relations. Towards the end of his address the bishop asks this rhetorical question, 'If on this subject of sexuality the traditionalists are ultimately right and those who advocate the acceptance of stable and faithful gay relationships are wrong what will their sin be?' At least part of the answer is clear from the material reviewed above. They will have been found to be promoting a kind of sexual impurity that in the Gospel Jesus places on the same level as adultery." [Read the full article here http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2010/03/08/john-nolland-on-the-presidential-address-of-the-bishop-of-liverpool/#more-24874 ]
6. Canon Dr Chris Sugden 7, is executive secretary of Anglican Mainstream, has commented: "Partnership with this vision will constitute a serious challenge to the Church of Nigeria in particular and the GAFCON Primates as a whole who have as a matter of principle withdrawn from sharing 'the same cup of salvation' at Primates' Meetings with those Primates who are sponsoring sexual immorality. It illustrates the subtle reality of the way that false teaching spreads; an evangelical bishop who has learned to accommodate himself to the secular pressures of England nonetheless retains a certain credibility with fellow evangelicals in Africa and then seeks to present partnership as collusion with his compromise."
Clause 13 of the GAFCON Jerusalem Declaration affirmed the need to break communion with those who deny the orthodox faith in word or deed. The commentary on this clause (Being Faithful, p. 64) http://www.gafcon.org/news/being_faithful_now_available_for_download/ calls for action which is precisely the opposite of Bishop Jones' strategy for the Communion when it states 'there is a moral obligation to reject any teaching that denies or undermines the authority of God as revealed in the Scriptures, to expose its falsity and to break fellowship with those who promote it (Ephesians 5:11, Titus 3:10).'
[1] Stephen Trott is member of the Church of England's General Synod and a Church Commissioner, and a regular contributor to the Church of England Newspaper. He is Rector of two parishes in the Diocese of Peterborough.
[2] Charles Raven is a regular commentator on Anglican Communion affairs on www.anglicanspread.org and author of a forthcoming book, The Shadow Gospel: Rowan Williams and the Anglican Communion Crisis. He leads an independent Anglican church in Kidderminster.
[3] Peter Ould is Curate of Christ Church, Ware and author of the blog 'An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy'.
[4] John Richardson is vicar of Henham, Elsenham and Ugley and author of the Blog 'The Ugley Vicar'.
[5] Dr Andrew Goddard is lecturer in Ethics at Trinity College Bristol and on the leadership team of Fulcrum www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk
[6] Professor John Nolland is academic dean of Trinity College, Bristol
[7] Dr Chris Sugden is executive secretary of Anglican Mainstream and a member of the General Synod of the Church of Engjand.
END
