I've never supported outing, and I don't support it now. It's intrusive and cruel. He's declared that he's celibate. He's not challenging church teaching. Conservatives can have no objection. Nothing will change as a result of this, beyond embarrassment to the bishop in question.
This ought to do it: Let's all kiss and make up..it's been a very tiresome road to basic honesty vs. dreaded hostility against LGBTI Anglicans. Plus the REAL emotional/spiritual PAIN (more) inflicted on "known" Gay people at the Global South, Anglican Communion, is sometimes deadly...the Puritans have had their day shouting UNITY down, let´s drop the whole matter and roll over and play dead regarding who we kiss each good-night before bed. DO NOT DISTURB!
Does this mean that at long last and long over due - the multi-talented and highly gifted Dean of St. Albans will be given his own diocese?
JEFFREY JOHN FOR LONDON!
Perhaps the newspaper should be named and shamed.. though outing belongs to the News of the World circa 1980! But presumably this was to stoke things up following the announcement of the Shadow Synod
I think that the appointment of the Bishop of Grantham was announced in September 2015 just before the invitations to the Canterbury meeting for the primates was sent out.
This would suggest that ++Welby is trying to be even handed?
So much for Leveson and the new approach to press regulation. The threat of outing in this case appears to be a straightforward intrusion of privacy with no offsetting public interest because Nicholas is entirely living in accordance with CofE doctrine.
In view of the bishop's statement that he is living within the bishops' guidelines and that both Archbishop Justin and the Bishop of Lincoln knew of the relationship at the time of Bishop Chamberlain's appointment last year, this is a 'non story.' The Sunday paper (we shall learn which tomorrow) should be ashamed of itself.
Emphatically agreed, David. All it's done is to hand caches of free ammo to traditionalists, who (despite this coming from a journalist), will use it to smear the affirming camp as a gang of bullies.
The last English "outing" campaign courtesy of Peter Tatchell was a disaster that alienated most all his natural allies. Hopefully, this'll have much less impact, and will be forgotten in due course. Although not, of course, by the man who's just been outed.
While I am not a fan of "outing" it is surely regrettable that Bishop Chamberlain did not "out" himself sooner, whether out of fear or cowardice or for whatever reason. Especially as it was not a secret within the church hierarchy.
Figures of authority should be willing to take a lead for the sake of people who are far more vulnerable than they are.
Cjcjc, I agree, but the descision was his to make, not that of whichever rag decided to force his hand.
Fr David, the difference between Bishop Nicholas and Dean Jeffrey is that the former's life was an open secret, while the latter was simply open. While I have sympathy with the bishop being 'outed' against his will the whole episode illustrates once again the double standards by which the church operates.
the bishops private life is private. what gives the gutter press the right to out. judging by the lack of interest by joe public in the cofe its a non story.
I think we're wanting to have our cake and eat it. On the one hand we deplore 90's-style outing campaigns, while at the same time welcome the opportunity for an openly gay and partnered member of the College of Bishops to put the case at this critical juncture in the Church's discernment following the shared conversations. There was no 'outing' in fact, only the bringing into the wider public domain a significant biographical detail, which is always announced for heterosexually-married appointees as a matter of course. This appointment was, in retrospect, a bold initiative, for which we must be grateful, and one which must have had the tacit support of traditionalists amongst the Bishop's episcopal colleagues, providing cover for further such appointments in the future, ideally to diocesan sees. Justin Welby has pulled off what his predecessor didn't manage to achieve, without any letters of protest from other bishops, showing how much further we've moved since 2003, hard though it sometimes seems.
Some of the more hard-line conservative blogs go to great lengths, almost to the point of obsession, to pathologise and deconstruct gay/LGBT identities, coupled with any scraps of pseudo-science however tenuous. They want clarity, not confusion about the Church's position. But today's story does rather highlight the somewhat topsy-turvy nature of the guidelines on equal marriage. If it came to light that a bachelor bishop had in fact a secret girlfriend out of wedlock, eyebrows would no doubt have been raised for different reasons. Couples will enter into a number of legal and financial arrangements (bank accounts, insurance policies and so on), none of which were available in first century Palestine. It just so happens that of all the documents a couple may keep in a box file at home, the one likely to cause a huge outcry (for gay partnered clergy) is the one issued by a registry office. It has been reported that there will be a voluntary outing of the contents of various box files next month, when we'll no doubt hear a lot more about Romans 1, if not John 13, v. 23.
Before we fall over ourselves giving credit to Cantuar for this appointment, I would like to know a bit more about how it happened.
For instance, was this a CNC appointment? If so then is there a chance that Cantuar was simply outvoted?
No, Jeremy, this was a suffragan appointment made by his diocesan. The letter from the Bishop of Lincoln copied above explains the procedure.
So there was an advisory panel--not the CNC, but presumably at the diocese level.
And reading between the lines, it looks as though the Archbishop of Canterbury was not on the advisory panel itself. If that is right, then he cannot have cowed the panel behind closed doors, as has been rumored has happened at the CNC.
Both the diocesan and the unanimous advisory panel supported this appointment.
Again I wonder whether the Archbishop of Canterbury's hand was forced here. If his approval was required and he had withheld it, then there would have been a strong argument that the celibacy "guidance" was being applied in bad faith, because even this guidance-complying candidate was being blocked.
Welby is enough of a politician to avoid a battle he cannot win, and to get out in front of the crowd and make it look like a parade.
Very rarely does positive social change come from the top down. Usually it bubbles up from below. I see no indication that this case was any different.
Henry Dee (above) says "the bishop's private life is private". If that is the case, why was Jeffrey John's sexuality not private when he was blocked? And why are gay partnered clergy quizzed with highly impertinent, private questions before appointment?
Just to be clear on process, although of course we cannot be privy to any conversations that formed part of the process, the position is that once the Bishop (in this case the Bishop of Lincoln) has identified the candidate names, he or she will seek concurrence from the Archbishop on the decision received. One of the factors the Archbishop will consider in providing his support for the appointment will be that the process as set out has been followed. There can be no doubt that the process was followed correctly, and on that basis the Archbishop will have known all the relevant facts. The statement by the Bishop of Grantham is highly significant (of course he deserves our prayers) and might well prove to be a game-changer in the current debate.
The form of the Bishop of Grantham's statement is temperate and keeps him in consideration for a diocesan bishopric, or at least offers no new material his opponents can use against him. He is upholding in public the adopted position of the House of Bishops. Indeed, if politics in the higher levels of the Church are what they would be in other organisations, he will have enhanced his reputation as a safe pair of hands and someone who won't rock the boat to score political points.
It is futile, I think, to read more into the wording than that.
Whether or not a bishop's private life is private, that of their family certainly is. A message that church central could take from this is to stop putting details of spouses and families in announcements of appointments, both to discourage prurient interest in private matters and coincidentally to reduce the slightly queasy feeling these announcements evoke.
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.