Contents:
Homosexuals in Church
Leadership
Contents:
| 1. Introduction |
| 2. Letter to Bishops |
| 3. Bishop of Oxford's Church of England Newspaper Article |
| 4. Letter to Bishop of Oxford |
| 5. Conclusion |
After the announcement by the Bishop of Oxford that the homosexual Dr Jeffrey John was to be appointed as the next Bishop of Reading, many evangelical Christians rightly objected to this flagrant ignoring of the Word of God. Fearing the immanent judgement of God upon the Church of England, the following letter was written to Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury; Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford; and our 'local' Bishop of Truro, Bill Ind, who supported the appointment:
24th June 2003
Dear Bishop Harries,
It is to my considerable dismay that as our Bishop you have chosen in an open letter to publicly support the appointment of the homosexual Dr John as the next Bishop of Reading.
There is much to be learned from the study of the book of Judges - the 300+ years of the history of Israel between Joshua and Saul. The main issue being who is to be 'king'. Would they acknowledge God as king? Or would they opt for so called freedom, when no one was 'king' or judge and "everyone did as they saw fit". From the successive periods of oppression and deliverance we must learn that man is naturally quick to compromise and to rebel; and that God is quick to forgive whenever men repent.
In Bishop Ryle's 'Warnings to the Churches' his common theme throughout is the accuracy and authority of scripture that is never to be compromised, diluted or added to, and certainly not to be subordinated to church tradition, popularity or the supposed wisdom of modern men. God's anger and disgust with the homosexual behaviour of Sodom and Gomorrah led to their inevitable judgement. How do we expect to escape the same judgement from the Lord Almighty, who does not change? In Romans 1 God reveals the truth about men who claimed to be wise but rejected God and his decrees. It says that being without excuse, God gave them over to shameful lusts. They exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. As in Isaiah's day, we surely need to beware of calling good evil and evil good. God's warnings are clear and the consequences of ignoring them are dire - whatever modern man may say and hope.
I pray that the Lord may enable you to reconsider your attitude to homosexuality in the church and especially in its leadership. May you have the courage to stand by what the Lord God has revealed in scripture, even if popular opinion is against it.
In hope and prayer,
Dick Worth
Bishop of Oxford's Church of England Newspaper
Article
Bishop Harries replied.
He included the following article he had written for the Church of England
Newspaper:
When Philip Giddings, whom I much respect, spoke to
the press after my meeting with some leading evangelical clergy in the diocese,
he told them he would much rather be talking about Jesus and his great love
for the world. I have been talking, and now am writing, precisely about that
love: a love which includes us all, whatever our sexual orientation. The
appointment of Jeffrey John is a gospel issue. For if an openly gay person,
publicly committed to a chaste, sexually abstinent lifestyle, cannot be appointed
as a bishop in our Church, what hope is there for the many gay and lesbian
people in our congregations of feeling fully accepted by God and their fellow
Christians?
After a thorough appointment process including a round of interviews and
a presentation to my whole advisory group, I believed that Jeffrey had the
gifts for the . job. Over the last decade I have given overriding priority
in the nomination of area bishops in the diocese to people with a real heart
for mission. The warm tributes that have come in to Jeffrey's ministry and
its influence on people's lives have consistently drawn attention to that.
With assurances about his lifestyle and a commitment to uphold the discipline
of Issues in Human Sexuality, which have been publicly stated (and can be
seen on our diocesan website: www.oxford.anglican.org), it seemed to me then,
as it seems to me now, that it would have been quite wrong to preclude him
from the appointment simply because he represents minority views on the Church
of England's approach to gay relationships.
Unintentionally, Jeffrey has become a symbol - for some, a symbol of the
direction they do not wish to Church of England to go in, and for others,
a sign of the truly inclusive church which they pray will come about. It
is all the more important therefore to look calmly at the arguments against
his appointment.
First, I do not see how a Christian person could possibly object to the
appointment of such a man on the grounds that he, being (openly) gay, is
publicly committed to a chaste and sexually abstinent lifestyle.
He is also in a covenanted, putatively lifetime relationship of mutual love,
support and companionship. I see nothing in the bible against this. Indeed,
we read that 'Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as
his own soul' (1 Samuel 18.3). The nine bishops who wrote an open letter
criticising the appointment said, , We value, of course, the gift of same-sex
friendship and if this relationship is one of companionship and sexual
abstinence, then, we rejoice. We warmly commend such relationships to the
Church as a whole.' It is. I therefore look forward to those same bishops
commending Jeffrey's relationship as a role model.
Jeffrey John, in his published writings, has argued for the Church accepting
fully- committed, faithful, lifelong, same-sex relationships. One of the
reasons for this is on scriptural grounds. Those opposed to the appointment
suggest that the bible is unambiguously against such acceptance, but the
fact is that there is currently no wide consensus on interpretation of the
bible on this issue, either in certain passages or when the bible is taken
as a whole - see for example the most recent treatment of this issue in a
book by the distinguished Roman Catholic theologian Gareth Moore.
Another reason which Jeffrey uses for his position is that he believes that
it is crucial for the Church to be able to offer the gay community, prone
to promiscuity, an alternative to a lifetime of celibacy. Celibacy is a wonderful
vocation - but it is a vocation. It has to be freely chosen. A good number
of bishops, perhaps even the majority, have a great deal of sympathy with
the arguments that Dr John has set out in his writings, but for the last
decade we have presented a united front to the world in opposing them, at
least as far as clergy are concerned. Jeffrey John has fiercely criticised
those bishops for a lack of integrity. He is under fire for a similar lack
of integrity in agreeing to uphold the policy of the House of Bishops in
public while arguing against it in the privacy of the House of Bishops. He,
however, in addition to apologising for the polemical nature of his previous
statements, has drawn a clear distinction between the role of a theologian,
which can include pushing the boundaries of established belief, and the role
of a bishop, which is to teach the actual doctrine and discipline of the
Church as it has been formulated at this particular time. He suggests that
David Jenkins, when Bishop of Durham, failed to recognise this crucial
distinction. He has publicly committed himself to observing it. He will not
use his episcopal office publicly to promote his private views.
The relationship in which Jeffrey John remains had a sexual dimension at
one time. Opponents of his appointment call on him publicly to repent of
this. Jeffrey has consistently brought his relationship to his confessor
and canonical superiors. If there has been anything wrong in it, the least
a charitable mind can do is assume it is confessed and forgiven. And which
Christian is going to stand up and say that Jeffrey John is a greater sinner
than they are? According to Christian belief, we are all sinners and we live
on the grace and forgiveness of God. There is, however, one particular warning
that the bible gives, and that is resisting new insights being given by the
Spirit of God. The crucial decision made by the first Christians was that
Gentiles could become Christians without first being circumcised or obeying
other aspects of the Jewish law. Some, like Peter, found this very difficult
to take at first. Then he had a dream in which he saw that Gentiles could
be fully accepted without having to obey Jewish dietary laws. Perhaps, like
Peter, those opposed to this appointment will have a dream in which they
see people of the same sex loving and supporting one another through life,
and Jesus saying, "This rejoices my heart; may it rejoice yours too."
Jesus said nothing against homosexuality. He did, however, say something
very fierce against divorce. It is clear that he envisaged marriage as being
for life. However, the Church of England has recently made provision for
divorced people to be married in church even if their former spouse is still
living. I fully support this. F or I believe that Jesus takes us where we
are and helps us to make the best of our lives from that point. One of the
reasons that the Church changed its mind on this issue is the witness of
so many happy second marriages. They have already been blessed by God whatever
the church has said in the past. Gay and lesbian people find themselves the
way they are, with God-given affections for people of the same sex. Marriage
to people of the opposite sex would be quite wrong, and when it has happened
has usually proved disastrous. If celibacy is not the chosen path, then,
Jeffrey John has urged, the right course is a relationship of committed,
lifetime love. Divorced people who remarry and gay and lesbian people who
enter into such relationships are in a similar position. They do not conform
to certain biblical texts. But God takes them and their love, as it is, and
blesses it.
The appointment of Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading has been divisive and
I regret that. But looked at calmly and rationally, the arguments against
his appointment simply do not stand up to scrutiny. It is worth bearing in
mind that Jeffrey was appointed to his present position by an evangelical
bishop: Roy Williamson wrote to me to say, 'When I appointed him.. .it certainly
increased the volume and the viciousness of my correspondence. However, even
those who opposed him were gradually won over by his graciousness and the
authenticity of his life and witness. His integrity, ability, humility and
godliness will be a source of blessing to Oxford and to Reading - and even
his detractors (some of them, at least) will yet call him blessed.'
When I showed that letter to one of the opponents of the appointment, he
said, "That just shows you don't understand evangelicals". I believe I do
understand them, their great strengths and all that the whole Church has
to learn from them at the moment - and also their weaknesses. One of these
is the use of stipulative definitions. You are not allowed to call yourself
an evangelical unless you are 'sound' on whatever is the current issue of
controversy - so Roy Williamson was ostracised in some circles and no longer
regarded as an evangelical. Many evangelicals do of course strongly support
Jeffrey John's appointment. I do not see why they should be regarded as being
any less evangelical for doing so.
Jeffrey's appointment is a gospel issue. For it will help those many gay
and lesbian people in our congregations know that they are not a freak or
an accident; that they are deeply beloved by God and that their same-sex
affections are a special gift from him. Not better or worse but different,
and to be offered to Jesus in obedience to him.
I replied:
24th June 2003
Dear Bishop Harries,
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my letter concerning the appointment
of Dr John and for including your article for the C of E Newspaper.
It seems that your defence is based more on a modern idea of inclusiveness
rather than the clear authority of Scripture.
It is true that Jesus was a friend to publicans and sinners; he gladly associated
with the 'Samaritans' of his day. But his purpose was to bring them (and
me) to repentance, not to condone their sin. Lu 529-32
Association, Almighty God approaching us, comes before repentance and rebirth.
Inclusion only comes afterwards. As Jesus said, but unless you repent,
you too will all perish. Lu 133,5 When king David sinned and
the prophet Nathan revealed the truth to him, he pleaded Have mercy on
me, O God, ... wash away all my iniquity, ... create in me a pure heart O
God and renew a steadfast spirit within me. Ps 51
So complete was God's forgiveness that he described David as a man after
my own heart. There is no forgiveness without repentance. As you say,
celibacy is a vocation, but it is not a sign of repentance. Dr John still
strongly encourages men to believe that gay relations can be God-approved.
One simple question. Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah if it was not
primarily on account of their homosexual behaviour? The two angels sent by
the Lord to Sodom found from their first-hand experience the extent of their
perverted lust! Gen 19. And God's judgement came in less than 24 hours for
all to world to see, and to learn from.
The NT underlines this. In Ro 1 God reveals that when men willfully and
repeatedly reject his creation of the world, and him, then God gave them
over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading
of their bodies with one another. Then he amplifies this so that we are
left in no doubt as what 'sexual impurity' is being referred to. Because
of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged
natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned
natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.
Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the
due penalty for their perversion. What could be clearer than that? 'Unnatural
relations', 'inflamed with lust', 'indecent acts', 'perversion'. Only men
who do not believe that all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful teaching,
rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness 2 Tim 316
and who 'cut and paste' the Bible, can interpret it differently.
The biblical reference to David and Jonathan was of a treasured and proper
friendship, not a homosexual relationship. David's amply recorded heterosexual
activities are vivid proof of this!
You claim that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. I am no Greek scholar
but in Math 1519 when Jesus speaks of sins that come from out
of the heart, he separates sexual sins into adultery and sexual
immorality. The latter being 'porneia' = the indulgence of unlawful lust
of either sex. Also I think you will find that the Gospels do not record
Jesus ever mentioning idol worship. Does your logic therefore say that the
worship of idols is also ok now?
You rightly mention the amazing transformation of the early Church when they
embraced the Gentiles. Jesus was the Jewish descendant of Abraham and Saviour
Redeemer of both Jew and Gentile - just as was prophesied in Gen
122,3 and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.
The disciples were slow to understand this, just as they were also slow to
understand that the Christ had to suffer and die for our sin. Jesus had to
explain it to the two going down to Emmaus and then to the Apostles after
the resurrection. Lu 2425-32, 44-47 But surely the inclusion of
repentant, believing Gentiles into the early Jewish Christian church is a
totally different matter for the presumed inclusion of unrepentant homosexuals
into the church of God. The event that makes the heart of Jesus rejoice and
indeed all heaven to rejoice is over one sinner who repents; not over a man
who says a sin is not really a sin at all.
In all the many discussions and divisions about this matter, surely it is
what God clearly declares that is the truth, not what men may think. As God
said, For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my
ways. Is 558
I am glad you say that 'this is a Gospel matter'. But the Gospel is good
news only because we who were once shut out and who now repent and believe
what only Jesus could do for us, are now by God's amazing grace and mercy
included. God's rescue plan is open to all, God pleads with all men, Christ
died for all men, no sin is too great; but sadly, as in the days of Noah,
many were shut out. And at the final judgement many will remain outside.
Gen 716 Math 2510 Rev 2215 Our mission task
is most urgent. God demonstrates his love for us in this: while
we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Ro 58
It is, I think, a false gospel that says the love of God automatically includes
the unrepentant. Please do not imply that I am judging Dr John. He may well
be penitent of his other sins, but he remains adamant that homosexuality
is good when God declares it sinful. In this he is unrepentant. Thus for
all his many talents he should be disqualified from all leadership in the
church.
In hope that the above shows that arguments against the appointment of Dr
John as Bishop of Reading DO stand up to scrutiny. He should be the husband
of one wife; not a homosexual. 1 Tim 32
May you excel in gifts that build up the church,
Dick Worth.
Conclusion
Following very strong objection from the Anglican bishops in Nigeria, Christians
in the Oxford diocese and many who wrote to Lambeth Palace, Rowan Williams
persuaded Dr John to stand down from the appointment. In his press statement,
the Archbishop described objectors as homophobic, ignorant and bigoted -
all because we believe that we are not free to 'cut and paste' the Word of
God. Sadly, I think this says more about the Archbishop than about those
he was addressing. We have not seen the end of this matter. If the pressure
to compromise is not withstood, the church is doomed and the world will rejoice
(temporally!) at the victory of the wicked.