Call me skeptical, too, however, it's lovely if the news is true. I don't see it happening, but I hope the skeptics amongst us are wrong.

June Butler

I think the facts of the story might be true, but I don't know whether Dean John has a realistic chance to become bishop or not.

Jonathan Wynne Jones has obviously received a leak, and when that happens, you have to ask yourself: who benefits from having this information public?

Could it be people who are so giddy they think the rest of the world will be too? People who think creating a public outcry is their only chance to stop the appointment? People who want to box in their Archbishops by saying they have already privately given an okay to the appointment--thus making it very hard for them to exercise a veto later on if things get hot? At this point, I don't think we know.

There is a logic to this appointment for the ABC should it take place. One of the criticisms against him for forcing John+ to stand down was that John+ was following all C of E rules and was still disqualified. Since +Rowan seems to be all about then letter of the law these days, this can be his way of showing that gays in the C of E do have a chance.

However, how ironic that England can have a gay bishop who follows all of it's provincial rules, but the Americans can't.

Wouldn't be the first gay bishop of Southwark in recent memory.

ps Simon Sarmiento points out that the Nominations Committee meets this coming Monday and Tuesday. So the opposition is going to have to make a great deal of noise in a very short period of time if it hopes to cut this one off at the pass, particularly if the new PM does indeed support it.

Perhaps the simple fact that this man's name has come forward once again will keep the issue forefront in the minds of those in power to make changes in the C of E. It's like drops of water wearing away at a rock. Let's hope that rock disolves quickly.

@Dirk, I see your point r.e. the letter of law. John is after all celibate.

I remain skeptical about this.

"Celibate" or not, I think the Ick Factor (in the CofE) over an Officially OUT gay bishop will prove too strong [And John's celibacy---whether you take him at his word (?) or feel that, since it was coerced, he shouldn't have to stand by it---seems an awfully thin reed to prevent charges of hypocrisy, vis-a-vis Rowan's condemnation of TEC re +Mary Glasspool]

JC Fisher

from Chris Hansen in England

When my alarm goes off at 7 am, Radio 4 gives the news, and then a look at the Sunday newspapers. I was startled at hearing that the Telegraph is reporting that The Very Rev'd Jeffrey John is on the
shortlist to become the next Bishop of Southwark.

Now. I believe that there may be some truth in this article, but I confess that it's more hope than actually evidence-based.

I do not believe that either a member of the Crown Appointments Commission or someone on the Prime Minister's staff or the Archbishop's Appointments staff would leak this information. From the point of view of the Prime Minister, not only has he not officially gotten the name yet, he no longer gets two names to pass along to the Queen and he is obliged to approve the one name that the Crown Appointments Commission gives him. As a Roman Catholic, David Cameron also probably feels that he is not particularly qualified to reject candidates for a C fo E bishopric.

Now, knowing as I do most of the Southwark members on the Commission, I think that while they might be tweaking the Archbishop's tail, so to speak, by putting Jeffrey's name forward, I would be amazed if the Archbishop of Canterbury did not strongly object to Jeffrey's nomination.

First, the ABC has made a huge fuss over the election, confirmation, and ordination to the episcopate of Bishop Glasspool in Los Angeles. This not years ago, but very recently. To have an openly-gay, partnered (yet celibate) man presented for a bishopric in the diocese in which Lambeth Palace is situated would present him with perhaps a resigning issue. How on earth could Rowan Williams consecrate Jeffrey John after nearly ostracising the Episcopal Church over Bishop Glasspool?

Second, the agony that Williams, John, and John's vicar-partner went through 7(?) years ago will be replayed again and again and again in the news media if Jeffrey were actually named the next Bishop of Southwark. I cannot believe that any of those three men would actually want to see this happen again. Jeffrey's husband actually found it the most troubling, and was ill for quite a while after the whole sordid affair of the See of Reading had been played out.

Third, it would present him with huge difficulties in the rump of the Anglican Communion that will remain after TEC, ACC, the Scottish Episcopal Church, and the Anglican Churches of Australia and New Zealand are discounted or rejected. I use the word "rump" deliberately.

Would Williams actually be recommending the C of E adopt the Anglican Covenant on the one hand and consecrating a gay man as Bishop of Southwark on the other? While I have no high opinion of Williams'
stratgic or communications abilities, only someone who was seriously unbalanced would try to do both. And as much as Williams would push "celibate" as a reposte to those who would object to John's nomination, that would not (and of course, historically did not) assuage those who hysterically object to any gay man, lesbian, or transgender person in any ministry of the Church.

Now, on the other hand, Williams may feel that, of all the dioceses in the Church of England, the very last diocese to present a huge public outcry over the selection of a gay man (partnered, celibate) as its
Bishop would be Southwark. The Evangelical presence in the Diocese, while vocal, is pretty much ostracised within the power system of the Diocese.

If Williams privately wanted to break the stranglehold of the Evangelicals on the Church of England's attitudes towards gay men in the Episcopate, he would have no better candidate than Jeffrey John.
John has proven his administrative abilities as Dean of St. Albans and would be on top of almost anyone's list of candidates for the Episcopate. The Diocese of Southwark, while in a bit of a financial strait (for it) at the moment, is in much better financial shape than
most of the Dioceses of England. The Diocesan Secretary is unusually able, and the Diocesan staff are dedicated and talented.

I have been told that August (traditionally the "silly season" of the news media, where everyone is on holiday and no one pays much attention to the newspapers) is the month when the appointment of the new Bishop of Southwark will be announced. I believe that Wynne-Jones is trying the idea on for size and beginning the silly season a little bit early.

My bet for the next Bishop of Southwark is still the Vicar of St. Martin's in the Fields, London (whose name temporarily escapes me). The reason I say this is that the message about consecrating divorced-and-remarried men as Bishops came out last month, and the Vicar is married to a woman previously-married and divorced. I believe this was rushed out to pave the way for the Vicar's appointment to Southwark.

Like the White Queen, I can believe several impossible things before breakfast. Therefore, I shall go and have my toast and coffee now.

It would be an incredible cruelty to put Dean Johns' name forward again if the intention is to then keel haul him another time.

The mess in the Anglican Communion would have taken an entirely different course had Dean Johns' simply been made Bishop of Reading in the first place. The ++ABC's cowardice and appeasement in scuttling that appointment has not served anyone well.

Chris Hansen says that David Cameron is a Roman Catholic. This is incorrect, DC is a practicing Anglican.

The second (comment) article by Jonathan Wynne-Jones is quite different in character from the first (front page news) article, and deserves careful reading and analysis.

Third time is the charm?