Andrew,

Wondering what basis you have for the following claim:

"it rejected a highly qualified person for a crown appointed office solely on the basis of his sexuality"

Dave

@Dave - Point taken, but not so much. We don't know who the other candidates are. But we do know that the ABC would not punishes churches that consecrate openly gay bishops. Dr. John was struck out because he was gay. If we allowed secular companies to claim that there were better candidates every time they made a hire laws against discrimination would be meaningless. By definition the CoE is out of line with the ethical standards of the day.

'Dr. John was struck out because he was gay'

John - this is quite a claim. I think you either need to come up with some kind of basis for it.

John - does that mean we have to assume that any gay candidate is always better and that any rejection of any gay candidate is always a sign of discrimination? Surely, that could only be the case if positive discrimmination was enshrined in employment law.

If there were six candidates, shouldn't we assume that Jeffrey John had a one in six chance of getting the job and a 5 in six chance of not getting it, just like all the others?

Nick Baines writes about the process in today's The Guardian under the heading of "Jeffery John was not the favourite".

Episcopal Café, with its constant focus on various goings-on in England, helps prevent the American Church from teaching people how to live the life of Jesus.

I know you don't intend that, but it's true. The Anglican Communion takes up way too much of our time and talent. The Presiding Bishop gallivants about on foreign trips to meet other primates - because they're Anglican. The United States (Haiti, the Dominican, et al.) is apparently not a big enough mission field for her, she's got to go to Southwark and Brisbane and Christchurch - to meet those all-important Anglicans.

Anglicans, Anglicans, we're always worried about Anglicans! Instead of about Jesus, and how a person learns to follow him.

Of course there is value to foreign travel; of course Anglicans matter in some cosmic sense. Of course we have ecumenical partners and those relationships must be nurtured.

But when it gets to be all about Anglicans, it stops being all about Jesus. His message was really simple: Follow me.

It wasn't: Follow this bunch of bigoted English twits.

The Presiding Bishop doesn't understand her job; the Episcopal Church doesn't understand her job. She's to be the chief evangelist; "Follow Jesus and here's how." We've never made that clear to her, so she keeps worrying about Anglicans.

Teach the faith, lady; is that so hard to figure out?

Yet she's only doing what we ask and expect of her; the fault isn't hers as much as it is ours. We're the ones who expect her to worry about those all-important Anglicans. It's what the Anglicans taught us.

Worrying about Anglicans is so much easier than following Jesus. But it's so unproductive, too. For heaven's sake, let GOD worry about the freaking Anglicans!

Let us find The Way and walk it.

Josh: teaching the way involves teaching justice as the prophet Amos reminds us. Following God involves the hard work of seeing and serving Christ in all persons. It is God who tells us to pursue justice and mercy.

We pay attention to the unChritian behavior of bigotry and exclusion because it stands in the way of the kingdom. We are an incarnational faith - which means that we serve God in this world, not in an abstracted world of gnostic ideas.

As long as the leaders of the Church of England (a community that we are bound to by many ties) continue to promote exclusion and rejection of women and gays they hurt the entire faith and make it harder for us to work to promote the gospel in our culture and age.

That is why we discuss this. We are Anglicans. We live in that tradition and we want that tradition to welcome all people, not just straight white males.

This is a kingdom of God issue and it means nothing less than the message of God's love in our world.

That is why we talk about it. Because it matters so much to the faith.

Dennis Roberts
Chicago, IL

Erika: the issue is the underlying one. As it now stands Dr Johns cannot become a bishop in the Church of England. Nor could you. That is the issue. That has to change. That is what is so shocking about all of this. Whether or not it was ever a chance, the real issue is the underlying case of bigotry and exclusion at the top of the C of E.

Dennis Roberts
Chicago

Andrew,

I almost always appreciate what you say but here you've dropped the ball.

I took the time to read the process for the appointment of a bishop in the C of E by following the links on "Thinking Anglicans" and it's pretty clear that - up until the final decision - their process is much like ours - it allows for anyone to nominate, it has an elected committee (we only have appointed ones) that develops a Bishop Search Profile and Diocesan Profile, it has a commission (Crown Nominations) made up of elected individuals from the diocesan Profile Committee and elected individuals from General Synod, and with only the Archbishops (it would appear) as non-elected voting members.

Yes, it's not as democratic in it's final step since it is the C.N.Commission that "elects" (pretty much - though the language is "nominate").

However - and as much as I have criticized the C of E - your comments here are all based on a false premise and say more about your agenda (which I happen to share) than the reality on the ground - their process could be better, but so could ours.

This all raises a very important question: how can we be taken seriously if we fail to be rigorous in our examinations of situations like these and, instead, simply spout ill-founded accusations about phantom processes that bear no resemblance to reality?

It just makes us look arrogant and ill-informed.

Nigel Taber-Hamilton GC'06

I trust that the disparaging comments in Josh's note about the current PB would also have been applied to her predecessors who did the same things.

A case in point, to say that the PB is not teaching the faith is an unjustified put-down. So much of what she preaches is rooted in the prophets, Jesus' ministry with the outsiders and the baptismal covenant.

As long as The Episcopal Church is part of the Anglican Communion, then we do to one extent or another have to worry about those Anglicans because we are Anglican.

There will always be those who work for change within the institution and those who work for change from without. We cannot fight with each other if we are to move things forward. Internecine fighting is exactly what those against progress wish to have happen.

So, consider that those involved in the Anglican Communion matters these days are working toward change, are following Jesus as they understand his call to them and their work is no less valuable than those agitating from outside of the institution.

Dennis, women can, as yet, not be bishops in the CoE. The fact that JJ's name was included for discussion shows at least that there is a possibility that he could have become a bishop.

Whether Jeffery John DID not become a bishop or COULD not become a bishop is pure speculation. The only people who know the answer are the members of the CNC.

@Erika - "The fact that JJ's name was included for discussion shows at least that there is a possibility that he could have become a bishop."

It shows such thing. It only shows that it is not impossible to get on the list. The ABC punishes provinces that promote gays from the list. The ABC is the head of the CoE and has influence on the CNC.

Well, broken record here. I think we should break our ties with the Anglican Communion and spend our time, energy and money on things we can change. But, the reality on the ground is that so many good, nice people I know wish to stay. And while I do not think that ++Rowan Williams cares a fig for what we think I do believe there are others in the AC who will appreciate our bridge building and our bishops are pretty well placed to do this. I do think in light of The Lead's post on July 8, "Religious investors urge action on oil spills" revealing that "The Church of England holding in Shell was valued at 82.1 million at the end of last year." that we should quit giving money to fund Lambeth. I don't think they really need it.

And just asking, how certain are we that the information we have about Jeffery John being a candidate at all is accurate? This started as a "leaked" news item and spun out from there. Considering Lambeth's current agenda of exclusion, I find it difficult to believe that Jeffrey John+ would have been on a short list if ++Williams had anything to say about it.

tweet by Bp Broadbent:

"pete173

Debate on the agenda - members brassed off with whoever (allegedly) leaked from the Crown Nominations Commission. #synod
12 minutes ago via TweetDeck"

John, influence is one thing, single handedly blocking him is quite another.
There really is not a shred of evidence for any of this.
I can see why people are so willing and ready to belive it, but that alone doesn't make it true.

I think we should concentrate more on Christ and less about appeasing liberal groups. I think some are worshiping social issues instead of the Savior.

Dennis, I agree for the most part, but when a bunch of bigoted English twits screw around year after year, at some point it's time to stop honoring them with attention. We need to be our own Church and not look to England as if it matters; it does not.

We need to assert the faith we've been given, in appropriate and sensitive ways. We need to focus on Jesus and not the institutional shinola.

Lee: the same criticism does in fact apply to previous and male PBs. But it's getting worse and worse, this obsession with Anglicans who threaten to throw us out. Let them try! We'll see who's the worse for wear. The Church of England is now humiliating itself on the front pages of the nation's newspapers, guaranteeing that all those cathedrals and village churches crumble into dust, for the sake of sacred privileges for Straight White Males. It's a sad sight, but as Americans we're powerless. We've already given them a better example but they won't take it.

So it's time to follow Jesus instead of England. Know who your God is; it isn't England.

Ultimately I agree with Bonnie, our ties with the Anglican Communion are not helpful in mission. We have 300 million Americans (and more in other countries) who couldn't find The Way if you handed them a map by Rand McNally - because The Way doesn't appear there. We have to draw the map.

I support Katharine Jefferts Schori but I'm getting really sick of funding Lambeth, when it's nothing but a bunch of bigoted English twits.

Dave & Nigel,

Perhaps I should have been clearer in the opening paragraph. My comment above did not originate with me, but with the Guardian:

This week a gay but celibate cleric, Jeffrey John, the dean of St Albans and a man of the highest intellectual and moral standing, was rejected as a candidate for the diocese of Southwark because of his sexuality.

So maybe, if this conclusion is a reach, you should ask them as well?

The point of the lead editorial was not that +Rowan did it nor that any one person was responsible, nor even that the finalist should have been Canon Jeffery John. Their point is that the Church of England is allowed to disallow from due consideration anyone from a crown-appointed position simply on the basis of his or her sexuality.

They point out that the Church of England wants to be treated as both a private religious institution (and therefore free to discriminate) and a protected, official body of the State, and that this poses an increasingly intolerable contradiction.

Whether or not Jeffrey John was the best candidate, or was the front-runner or not is beside the point. His openness about his sexuality apparently cost him due and proper consideration--pass or fail.

The question is this: all things being equal, could this have happened in any other crown appointment?

Andrew

Andrew,

I get what you're trying to claim - so, I'm thinking, does Dave.

The issue is this: how on earth can you claim (or, can the Guardian claim, if you prefer) that Jeffrey John was rejected, let alone that his rejection was "solely on the basis of his sexuality"? How does anyone know that he was one of the final two candidates except the Crown Nominations Commission? There are hints in the Telegraph pieces, but that's all. It's a huge reach.

But let's assume he was. The next reach is to claim that "the the Church of England..... disallow[ed] from due consideration.. from a crown-appointed position [Jeffrey John] simply on the basis of his...sexuality. "

Again, this is speculation. The AB of C's veto (mentioned by the Telegraph) could well have been because public disclosure of a candidate's name is automatic grounds from removal from consideration. Human sexuality under these conditions is quite beside the point. We both might think that human sexuality played a part in the decision, but we do not know.

I think a more careful examination of the readily available information, including the actual extensive, democratic selection process (at least as far as the Prime Minister's desk), would have produced a different Lead.

My point was and is, therefore, that you do the cause a disservice by engaging in this sort of misguided hyperbole.

Richard, this is the Episcopal Cafe.

Not the "Church of Glenn Beck" Cafe. FYI.

JC Fisher

[And as far as pitting "social issues" vs "the Savior", may I suggest you read, mark, learn and inwardly digest 1 John 4:20?]