Possible Elevation of Gay Bishop in Church of England Would Widen Anglican Split
- Status
C
Contarini
Guest
Jeffrey Johns has come up several times before. The thing is that he is (by his own account at least) celibate, so in my opinion there is no good reason to resist his consecration. Those who do so base it more on his expressed opinions than on his own sexual behavior. But the media keep reporting it as controversy over a “gay bishop.” It is a bit confusing because he still lives (or did some years ago when he was last considered) with a man with whom he admits having had a sexual relationship. So you could argue that it’s scandal at best. Still, I think it’s important to keep the issue on sexual behavior and to give the benefit of the doubt, so I think it’s a mistake for conservatives to oppose his consecration unless it’s purely because of his theological opinions.
Edwin
Z
zz912
Guest
There is giving the benefit of the doubt, and there is being willfully blind. If he is living with a man he has had an admitted sexual past with, it is not too far a stretch to conclude he may still be having a homosexual relationship with the man. The fact he chooses, of all people, his former homosexual lover as a roommate is quite enough to question his claim of celibacy and REALLY opens up questions of judgement for putting himself smack dab in the middle of a temptation to sin…
G
GKC
Guest
Johns was not nominated. As I strongly suspected he would not be.
GKC
GKC
M
MarkBrown
Guest
I also think his Easter 2007 sermon in which he denied the need of the death of Christ for Atonement of sins, saying it is replusive and makes God out to be a pyschopath could also have had something to do with it. Some in the CoE concluded Johns rejects the basic doctrines of the Christian faith. Also, it was discovered he has lied in the past about his relationship. He is not a good choice for a Bishop as he does not appear to have a basic understanding of the Christian Faith.
Reference the telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1547262/Easter-message-Christ-did-not-die-for-sin.html
Hope the link works.
For more information on this priest, T19 has a good article listing all the comments, opinions and beliefs of Fr. Johns.
Fr. Mark
Reference the telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1547262/Easter-message-Christ-did-not-die-for-sin.html
Hope the link works.
For more information on this priest, T19 has a good article listing all the comments, opinions and beliefs of Fr. Johns.
Fr. Mark
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Thanks for the link, Father Mark. I read the article and the references to his “sermon.” Another Anglican nut-job out there…sheesh. It’s starting to look like a three ring circus of religion, or at best the cast of an Ed Wood movie with mitres…
B
Biedrik
Guest
This reminds me a bit of how the local Episcopalian bishop around here is a practicing lesbian. I wonder, how does the Anglican community ever hope to survive such things? 
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
And it makes me cringe to think how she’s “practicing…” yeesh
This reminds me a bit of how the local Episcopalian bishop around here is a practicing lesbian. I wonder, how does the Anglican community ever hope to survive such things?
C
Contarini
Guest
I don’t trust the secular media, especially the British media, to report sermons accurately. The fact that Wright reacted as he did indicates that Fr. John may indeed have been expressing unorthodox views, but Wright does in the end come from the evangelical, Reformed wing of the C of E, and the very fact that many Reformed folks think he’s a traitor may make him all the more anxious to show that he really is an “orthodox” evangelical.
Penal substitution is not the historic Christian view, and denying it is not heretical. Many Western Christians have fallen into heresy in reaction to penal substitution, and Fr. John may well be one of those (again, Bishop Wright’s reaction would point in that direction, unless he too was overreacting to a report of what Fr. John was going to say). But I’m not going to judge him–or anyone or anything theological–based on a report in a newspaper.
I’m not a particular advocate of Fr. John. He may well be heretical and an improper person to be elected bishop–indeed, the balance of the evidence indicates to me that he probably is. But it’s very important right now that conservatives maintain the clear distinction between orientation and behavior, and it’s generally important that we not rush to judge people based on garbled accounts of what they believe.
Hope the link works.
Thanks for that. I’ll have a look! Although for now it appears that he won’t be a bishop.
Edwin
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
How can we ever, then, read any sermon anywhere and trust that it’s accurate? At some point we have to trust that a sermon could be put into an accurate transcript. Is Father John disputing what was said in the media report of his sermon? If not, then we have no reason to think it was distorted in any way?
Penal substitution, from my reading, except for some comments by Justin Martyr and Eusebius of Caesarea, wasn’t a topic in the early days of the Church because the Atonement itself wasn’t really discussed or elaborated or analyzed at that time. The crises that plagued the Church in the first few hundred years were Christological, trying to understand more of the WHO is Jesus questions rather than the HOW’s of the accomplished salvation. Nestorianism, Arianism, Monothelitism, all these Christological heresies dominated most discussions to the detriment of salvific ones it seems to me. Augustine seemed to be the first theologian and holy warrior to tackle the Atonement and he made some comments that seemed to favor the penal substitution model. Athanasius and so many others preached a much different view and Calvinists seem to have grabbed on to penal substitution moreso than Catholics and definitely Orthodox but I’m not sure I’d go as far to say that it’s not the historic view. There are so many differing views on the atonement even from the Fathers that I’m not sure there is one historic view? Like I said, the atonement wasn’t even an issue or dealt with for so many years.
Penal substitution, from my reading, except for some comments by Justin Martyr and Eusebius of Caesarea, wasn’t a topic in the early days of the Church because the Atonement itself wasn’t really discussed or elaborated or analyzed at that time. The crises that plagued the Church in the first few hundred years were Christological, trying to understand more of the WHO is Jesus questions rather than the HOW’s of the accomplished salvation. Nestorianism, Arianism, Monothelitism, all these Christological heresies dominated most discussions to the detriment of salvific ones it seems to me. Augustine seemed to be the first theologian and holy warrior to tackle the Atonement and he made some comments that seemed to favor the penal substitution model. Athanasius and so many others preached a much different view and Calvinists seem to have grabbed on to penal substitution moreso than Catholics and definitely Orthodox but I’m not sure I’d go as far to say that it’s not the historic view. There are so many differing views on the atonement even from the Fathers that I’m not sure there is one historic view? Like I said, the atonement wasn’t even an issue or dealt with for so many years.
M
MarkBrown
Guest
Edwin,
I listed Wright as most would know of him. The anglo-catholics have a problem with him and they threatened schism if he was made a Bishop. I do hope you made it to T19 and looked at the articles concerning Johns+. His theology should preclude him from being a priest, not just a Bishop.
He did not deny penal subsitution. He denied the need of the Cross for atonement period.
You and I both know there are many theories on the atonement, penal, ransom etc. Per Johns+ Christ coming to die for us is to be rejected. He rejects the need for an atonement, not a rejection of a theory as to how the atonement works.
This is the third time he has been placed on a list to be a Bishop. During his second nomination his claim to be a celibate homosexual was disproved by the CoE.
There was no rush to judgment on Johns+. He has a recorded history in the CoE and has now been rejected three times as a candidate for Bishop. Please do not discount opposition as a rush to judgment, one would think you are trying to poison the well (so to speak) so others would think the opposition is rash and without standing.
So, I agree. No one should make a rash judgment.
Mark+
T
The_Old_Medic
Guest
If they recommend appointment of this man, ti will virtually assure that the Anglican Community will be split permanently.
The Anglican Churches in most of the world simply will NOT accept this. It would be the height of hubris to chastise the American Episcopal Church for appointing gays as Bishops, and then do it at home.
The Anglican Community is dying out in Great Britain, as it is in the US. The more “liberal” these churches become, the less they appeal to Christians. They are rapidly becoming churches that advocate “Whatever feels good now”, instead of churches that embody the teaching of Christ.
At no point did Christ himself ever say that the law (meaning the Old Testament as we call it) was NOT to be obeyed. Quite the contrary, he taught that the law should be upheld and adhered to. Homosexual acts are contrary to both the teachings of the Old and the New Testament.
I get a real kick out of the mental gymnastics that these churches go through in their efforts to promote non-biblical religion. The more liberal they become, the lower their attendance, the fewer members they have, and the quicker they become irrelevant.
Polls show that only a tiny minority of the British now attend Church of England services. The Roman Catholic Church on the other hand is growing in Great Britain. So, as the Anglicans continue down their path to eventual destruction, the Roman Catholic Church will continue to grow with those that can no longer tolerate the non-christianity of the Anglicans.
The Anglican Churches in most of the world simply will NOT accept this. It would be the height of hubris to chastise the American Episcopal Church for appointing gays as Bishops, and then do it at home.
The Anglican Community is dying out in Great Britain, as it is in the US. The more “liberal” these churches become, the less they appeal to Christians. They are rapidly becoming churches that advocate “Whatever feels good now”, instead of churches that embody the teaching of Christ.
At no point did Christ himself ever say that the law (meaning the Old Testament as we call it) was NOT to be obeyed. Quite the contrary, he taught that the law should be upheld and adhered to. Homosexual acts are contrary to both the teachings of the Old and the New Testament.
I get a real kick out of the mental gymnastics that these churches go through in their efforts to promote non-biblical religion. The more liberal they become, the lower their attendance, the fewer members they have, and the quicker they become irrelevant.
Polls show that only a tiny minority of the British now attend Church of England services. The Roman Catholic Church on the other hand is growing in Great Britain. So, as the Anglicans continue down their path to eventual destruction, the Roman Catholic Church will continue to grow with those that can no longer tolerate the non-christianity of the Anglicans.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
S
Soldier_X
Guest
Is it possible that nothing will ever cause the AC to split? Nothing seems too egregious, nothing too extreme, all facts open to interpretation and dispute. If there’s one thing I’ve learned through many years as an Anglican, it’s that we (in the AC) pride ourselves on obfuscation.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
As one who is happy in my conservative Episcopal Parish, I don’t even know what to say anymore. Things just keep getting worse; and I wonder if conservatives will survive within TEC.
Earlier this year, I thought I could always go to the Anglican Church in my area–they broke from TEC. But, what would be the point? The CoE seems to be headed down the same liberal path.
The Catholic Church is looking better with each day that passes.
Anna
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Hi Anna,
But the only thing I’d say about your last statement, is that an individual should thoroughly and deeply buy into Catholic theology before stepping into RCIA and signing up. Just running from a liberal Lutheran group or a liberal Episcopalian group to Catholicism isn’t the best reason to join up. I know people at the Anglican church here who are just disaffected Catholics mad about something at our parish. I’m actually guilty of that as well. But the difference is, these people don’t really know Anglicanism well and they’re just running from something and not toward something (if that makes any sense). One should join Catholicism for the sake of being Catholic, not as a last resort or just for the fact there’s nothing out there much better. Your last statement resonates with me because I’m pretty fed up with Anglicanism as a worldwide phenomenon and also with the typical issues of Anglicanism—the theology built on a sandbag and the loosey-goosey up in the air views on things ranging from hardcore Calvinist Stott/Packer views to pseudo-Oxford movement chaps elevating Hosts and adoring the Eucharist. One needs dramamine in the Anglican world sometimes. But as much as I’m fed up with this craziness, there’s so much about Catholicism I’m still shakey on and not totally willing to buy into. There’s the credibility factor with them lacking as well at times I feel. Bad experiences. Complicated. Just make sure before you plunge into anything that you’re truly running TO Catholicism, not away from TEC. Just a piece of advice for what it’s worth…
But the only thing I’d say about your last statement, is that an individual should thoroughly and deeply buy into Catholic theology before stepping into RCIA and signing up. Just running from a liberal Lutheran group or a liberal Episcopalian group to Catholicism isn’t the best reason to join up. I know people at the Anglican church here who are just disaffected Catholics mad about something at our parish. I’m actually guilty of that as well. But the difference is, these people don’t really know Anglicanism well and they’re just running from something and not toward something (if that makes any sense). One should join Catholicism for the sake of being Catholic, not as a last resort or just for the fact there’s nothing out there much better. Your last statement resonates with me because I’m pretty fed up with Anglicanism as a worldwide phenomenon and also with the typical issues of Anglicanism—the theology built on a sandbag and the loosey-goosey up in the air views on things ranging from hardcore Calvinist Stott/Packer views to pseudo-Oxford movement chaps elevating Hosts and adoring the Eucharist. One needs dramamine in the Anglican world sometimes. But as much as I’m fed up with this craziness, there’s so much about Catholicism I’m still shakey on and not totally willing to buy into. There’s the credibility factor with them lacking as well at times I feel. Bad experiences. Complicated. Just make sure before you plunge into anything that you’re truly running TO Catholicism, not away from TEC. Just a piece of advice for what it’s worth…
C
Contarini
Guest
Gurney,
I haven’t seen a transcript. The link provided was not to a transcript but to a report summarizing the sermon before it had been delivered. Didn’t you notice this?
And to Fr. Mark, it is not “poisoning the wells” to suggest that there’s something deeply unfair about judging a priest’s sermon based on a secular newspaper report based on rumors about what the sermon was going to say!
I disagree completely with this. This is a standard Protestant claim, and it’s dead wrong. Athanasius, *On the Incarnation, *and Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism (sometimes called Address on Religious Instruction), both deal with atonement theology in some depth, and both are in my opinion considerably preferable to all the classic second-millennium Western atonement theologies.
I should note that Athanasius’s view is a lot closer to “penal substitution” than many people realize. He believes that death is not just the natural result of sin, not just an evil power under which humans passed because of sin (though it’s both of these things), but also a just judgment issued by God in response to human sin. So there is a penal element to Athanasius’s theology.
All of these controversies were soteriological in nature. The idea that the early Church didn’t address soteriology was invented by Protestants to disguise their rejection of orthodox Christian soteriology and pretend that they were just tackling something that hadn’t been fully articulated already.
I don’t think he talked about it that much, actually.
What I’ve seen from Augustine seems more in the direction of the ransom theory. But Augustine is vast and I’d be happy to look at the passages you have in mind.
I would say that Athanasius is probably closer to penal substitution than many, but there are still key differences. The idea of God “pouring out his wrath” on Jesus, or imputing our sin to Jesus, is absent from Athanasius as from all the Fathers (and indeed from Anselm). But Jesus’ death itself is seen by Athanasius as a sharing in the just punishment of our sin.
I think Athanasius gets misinterpreted as the proponent of a “Christus Victor” theory which is one among many theories and needs to be either complemented by or contrasted to the penal substitution theory. In fact, I don’t think there is anything true or valid in penal substitution that’s not in Athanasius. If there’s something he doesn’t cover, it’s actually the “ransom” theory, which is implicitly there but not emphasized. Athanasius needs Gregory of Nyssa, not Anselm or Calvin, to supplement him.
Insofar as Calvin differs from or goes beyond Athanasius, Calvin is unorthodox. (I don’t mean that you can’t go beyond Athanasius, but that Calvin does so in bad ways.) Anselm is tricky, because he doesn’t actually teach penal substitution (in his account no one needs to be punished at all–Jesus’ obedience satisfies God’s honor), but he distorted Atonement theology in a way that created penal substitution when traditional views about Jesus suffering the punishment of our sin were read back into Anselm’s theory.
I think there are a range of views. But Athanasius is as close to penal substitution as it is orthodox to go, in my opinion.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Anna,
This is the confused usage of “Anglican” against which I have protested elsewhere. Episcopalians are Anglicans too. The Anglicans you have in mind are not at this point in communion with the CoE, although they are eager to be accepted by the Anglican Communion (including the CoE).
Edwin
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
gurneyhalleck1,
This is good advice and worth a great deal. You are responding as a true friend. I guess I just needed to vent; and I appreciate friends like you who are kind enough to listen.
I think it’s just one of those days, when I’m so tired of all the controversy. If I look at only what I find and experience in my Episcopal Parish; I feel confident I am in the right place. Then when I read the news, I start to question things.
I really wouldn’t convert to Catholicism as a last resort and certainly not without truly embracing Catholic theology. I’ve shared with you some of the issues that keep me from concerting to Catholicism. I will not ignore those issues.
As I’ve said, I grew up in Southern Baptist Churches. After studying over the last 4 years or so; I realized so many of their doctrines are in error—though I do know some Baptists who are devoted to serving our Lord, and they just don’t buy into the all the Baptist doctrines. I couldn’t seem to do that. I kept getting into trouble for asking questions, especially questions that shed an unfavorable light on Baptist doctrine . Not only was I not getting answers to my questions; people were upset that I dared to ask the questions. This kind of environment doesn’t work for me.
However, I soon realized that if I left the Baptist Church, I had no idea where to go. There are so many different Protestant Churches with so many varying beliefs. For the first time, I experienced the confusion within Protestantism. So many ideas–so many voices. I began to describe this as the “sea of Protestant voices,” and I felt like I was drowning in this “sea.”
When I found the Episcopal Church, I finally felt at home. I embraced the “Real Presence” in the Eucharist, Infant Baptism, the Sacraments. TEC seemed to have the best of Catholicism and the best of Protestantism. I will say, that the year I spent on these forums prepared me to accept these things. I’ve had some great discussions with Catholics about the Eucharist, and the Sacraments.
Anyway, I think I’m running out of steam (low on sleep.)
Thanks for listening,
Anna
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
you dont buy into the CC, the 2000 yrs old Church foung by Christ, yet you buy into a religion found by a rebelious ex Catholic Henry the VIII who broke away from the Church to commit sin.
- Status