Comments: St Albans: dean interviewed

Cool, that interview makes enjoyable reading.

Funny, I was in a large evangelical church in central London at the time of the Jeffrey John debacle. That was where I learnt it's possible to get a bee in one's bonnet about a narrow interpretation of a particular passage of scripture, and yet act in a way contrary to the rest of it.

Quite glad that quietened down - even if only to pop up like a paint-bubble elsewhere.

Posted by Tim at Friday, 23 June 2006 at 4:53pm BST

"I can’t sum up the "Bishop of Reading débâcle". I still can’t make any sense of it. But I would say it was my biggest regret. [In 2003, Dr John was nominated as Bishop of Reading, but withdrew after a campaign against him because of a gay partnership, even though by then he was living in accordance with the Bishops’ 1991 statement.]"

Jeffrey John

I would like to nominate the Very Reverend Jeffrey John for Bishop of the Very next open Diocese in TEC (any of several)! Surely he meets the NEW standard of acceptance as he is a celibate who has already been selected for Bishop in the Church of England by the Government and the Queen.

Posted by Leonardo Ricardo at Friday, 23 June 2006 at 6:04pm BST

WOW thanks for that sermon link.

A fav part:
The temptation for us, and maybe for them, is to try to lighten their load by pretending they are above the ambiguities and difficulties of normal life. If we pretended that the Bishops lived in the comfort of doctrinal and moral certainties and episcopal unity, we would have neutralised them in such a way that they can bring no good news to us.

Much more useful would be an episcopate that reflected a real discipleship, a journey of faith. In this journey we might relearn from the passionate disputes of the New Testament Church. It might be a good thing for us to hear religious truth expressed multiply, with Rabbi X saying this, Rabbi Y that and Rabbi Z something else again, and for everyone to know that the truth lay between them. A House of Bishops confidently exercising that model of truth telling might offer both a more credible and interesting account of the Christian faith and demonstrate a communion that invoked peace within our own increasingly fractious Church of England.

A prophet voice from 2001 no less.

Posted by drdanfee at Saturday, 24 June 2006 at 4:53pm BST

It's not correct to say that the relatively literal interpretation of Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 is 'narrow'. It is common sense (as all trained NT scholars I have read will confirm - unless you know any different) because there is no reason to believe in these particular passages that Paul did not intend to be taken literally. In fact, the same goes for the rest of his writings. There is nothing strange, and everything natural, about what someone writes in a letter being intended to be taken literally. What are the arguments that he did not intend to be taken literally in these passages?
Or what in the text makes you think he intended to be interpreted 'broadly'; what would this broad interpretation consist of; and why is there no hint of it in the texts?
Would this broader interpretation which Paul intended (by any chance - and sorry to be naughty) have any relationship to 21st century western liberalism (of which we know him to have been such a fan)?
In the words of Radio 4: Any answers?

Posted by Christopher Shell at Tuesday, 27 June 2006 at 12:57pm BST
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.