AncientBriton: Bishop of Llandaff: Stage 3

Thursday 16 March 2017

Bishop of Llandaff: Stage 3

Epstein's Majestas, Llandaff Cathedral Source: Cool Places

The tense wait for an announcement from the Bench of Bishops is over, for now. The Bishop-elect of Llandaff is to be appointed after meeting the short-listed candidates.

Following three days of deliberations by the Church in Wales (CinW) Electoral College from 21st to 23rd February, no nominated candidate received the necessary two-thirds of the votes cast to be declared Bishop-elect. Under the CinW Constitution the task falls to the Bench of Bishops. Their meeting this week is a step in that direction.

This is an anxious time. Many Anglicans will be hoping that their preferred choice will be successful to extend sectional interests. It is gratifying to note that, on the face of it, extensive lobbying has not pushed the Bench into a hasty decision.

After the tragic episode which saw Bishop Philip North withdraw from Sheffield, a period of prayerful reflection is needed.

Many people in Wales know the hurt being felt in England. After Bishop David Thomas was not replaced following his retirement in 2008 relations have continued to sour and Church attendance has declined.

Pray that the Bench will have the imagination to appoint a bishop who is conscious of the need for the two integrities to flourish if Anglicanism as we have known it is to survive.

Postscript [17.03.2017]

"Leading gay cleric Jeffrey John left off shortlist to be bishop"

It has been reported on the 'Christian Today' web site that the Dean of St Albans, the Very Rev Jeffrey John, is not on the new shortlist to be next Bishop of Llandaff. While it will disappoint some of his supporters the news comes as a welcome relief to many more.

Also, the sad news that "Former Queen's Chaplain Gavin Ashenden quits 'liberal' Church of England" here.

Postscript [19.03.2017]

'Christian Today' reports

Gay cleric Jeffrey John speaks out: My homosexuality was the only reason I was blocked as Bishop of Llandaff

Not only is it too convenient to blame his rejection on his homosexuality, it is absurd. The weight of homosexuals in the Church lobbying for Dr John's appointment is testament to that. He mentions another reason, "namely that my appointment would bring unwelcome and unsettling publicity to the diocese". I am sure he has heard that before. Self promotion is no recommendation for the Episcopacy.

Postscript [20.03.2017]

The latest headline from 'Christian today':

Jeffrey John: Pressure mounts on Church in Wales after allegations of homophobia

Allegations are not facts. It is noticeable that pressure groups such as One Body One Faith accuse the Church of 'unjust and discriminatory behaviour' but they completely overlook the criticism of Dr John's unorthodox interpretation of the Bible. Now why could that be?

Postscript [21.03.2017]

Today's headline from 'Christian Today'.

More calls for Welsh church to make Jeffrey John a bishop

After the Chapter of St Albans Cathedral branded the treatment of their Dean, Dr Jeffrey John, 'wholly wrong' the clergy of another Anglican cathedral have "thrown their weight behind calls for a senior gay cleric to be made a bishop in Wales". The Chapter of Ely Cathedral has now added its 'unanimous support' to the growing calls for the Welsh bishops to reconsider Dr John.

I can understand the media taking Dr John's charges of homophobia at face value but for Cathedral Chapters to do the same suggests a parallel with will no-one rid the Church of England of this troublesome priest?

Critics should pause for thought. If Dr John felt aggrieved he should first have written privately to express his concerns after confidential information was scandalously leaked to him. Instead he chose to go public setting the mob loose crying "Homophobia!" when it is nothing of the sort. The pit is getting deeper. These people need to stop digging before the Church falls in.

88 comments:

Thomas16 March 2017 at 20:43
Having flourished under the evil of Barry Morgan's regime and patronage I seriously doubt any of the current bench know what 'integrity' is much less two integrities!
ReplyDelete
Replies
Episkopos17 March 2017 at 11:28
Three days to produce a shortlist?
They wouldn't qualify for a productivity or performance related bonus if they were in real jobs in the real world.
How much is this farce costing I wonder?
One hears the members of the Electoral College were put accommodated in the 5* hotel in Cardiff bay.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous17 March 2017 at 12:38
Forgive me for not being 'moderate' AB. Is this another stitch up?

Clifford Williams
ReplyDelete
Replies
Alwyn from Abertawe17 March 2017 at 16:55
The longer they take, the better. Three weeks was obscenely rapid for an election after Morgan slung his hook, and it showed that this short time-frame was all about stitching up the result. Well, this time it failed. One to the Holy Spirit; zero to Morgan the Golfer. If London can wait 10 months for a bishop, I don't see why the Bench Sitters cannot draw up a list in their 4 or 5 star hotel in the Bay this week, and then do what the rest of the Church does: pray and wait upon the Holy Spirit. We do not want a re-run of Bangor 2008 and St David's 2016, after they were saddled with complete numpties because Morgan couldn't face having strong candidates appointed. Something tells me that, if they give themselves time, they could get this one right. Or I could be very wrong, of course.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Scapegoat18 March 2017 at 07:29
If it is true - as has been reported - that Jeffrey John has now been left off the shortlist of candidates for consideration to be the Bishop of Llandaff, then I am outraged. Every Llandaff member of the electoral college voted for him and let us been in no doubt, JJ would accept. Omitting JJ from the short list (if it is true) is a clear action of institutional homophobia and the bench would need to hang their mitres in shame if this proves to be the case.

If however the recent reporting is incorrect on this, then well done Bench for putting your money where episcopal mouths have been (i.e. your well drafted letters over the years denouncing homophobia when civil partnerships were discussed some years back or your appointments of LGBT chaplains up in the North). If however Jeffrey John is not on that short list then the letters you have carefully written as a bench (and which have been held by LGBT peoples to be a model of pastoral care and a sign of our inclusive place within the church) will need to be torn up as meaningless and you will have betrayed us wholesale.

Jeffrey John secured the backing of ALL the Llandaff electors at the electoral college (and I am pleased that this has been leaked and that our electors have refused to collude with any hint of homophobia and I don't give a jot if that leak angers anyone). There should therefore be no question of his inclusion on any short list.

So I am praying earnestly that what came out yesterday was fake news, but if it is not, I will be ashamed to learn that our bishops may have taken a decision, the gravity of which they can not possibly have considered in terms of undermining the good work the bench have done to include LGBT peoples over the last decade. I am not saying JJ should automatically be Bishop but if he is not on that short list, then shame on you.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Scapegoat18 March 2017 at 08:04
In their pastoral letter following the marriage debate around same sex marriage the Bishops wrote ... "Nevertheless, we acknowledge the gay and lesbian members of our Church as part of our family, and we wish to address them directly"

It was nice that they wanted to address us directly because what they want on to say was this:

“Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

We recognise that you have often been persecuted and ostracized by the Church for your sexuality, that you have been mistreated by the Church, and forced into secrecy and dissimulation by the attitudes of prejudice which you have faced. We deplore such hostility, and welcome and affirm the words of the Primates that condemn homophobic prejudice and violence. We too commit ourselves to offering you the same loving service and pastoral care to which all humanity is entitled, and we commit ourselves to acting to provide a safe space within the Church and within our communities in which you can be honest and open, respected and affirmed.

While as a Church we remain unable to bless the committed partnerships you form in marriage or in civil partnership, yet we commit ourselves as bishops to work for a Church in which you can be fully affirmed as equal disciples of Jesus Christ or seekers after truth. We will pray with you and for you, that together we may seek God’s blessing on our lives, and for faithful discipleship.”

Thank you for that Bishops.

I now wish to address you (via this website) directly, desperately ... I mean, desperately. I want yesterday's news to be fake, because if it isn't, those words you addressed to the LGBT members of the church above, are fake, and I don't want them to be. If Jeffrey John is not on your short list, then the words above are a lie - they can not be true. And so I want to address you directly and asks that you are true your commitment to "work for a Church in which you (i.e. my kind) can be fully affirmed as equal disciples of Jesus Christ or seekers after truth". The meeting you have just held was such an opportunity to show us how committed you are to that work - and Jeffrey John's mere name on that list will prove to us how committed you are.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Llandaff needs a woman18 March 2017 at 08:05
"Every member of the electoral college voted for him".
Clearly not.
Another Teddy bear flung out of the gay pram.
Because Barry Morgan told you how to vote and he didn't get his way then either would you like to re-run the Brexit referendum too?
Get over it.
Or move to St. Albans and take your childish squealing temper tantrum with you.
ReplyDelete
Replies
166218 March 2017 at 08:15
All leaks are gossip.
You have previously condemned the gossip on The Green but you praise this gossip.
Welcome to the Hypocrites Club.
Let me buy you a rum pansy.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Pacamac18 March 2017 at 08:33
Scapegoat. Why do you presume that JJ's name might not be on the shortlist because he is gay. There may be a number of other reasons for this decision if it is indeed true.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Scapegoat18 March 2017 at 08:39
I don't feel at all intemperate and, as I have written, I have no idea if the reporting of this is fake or correct. I also have not said that "every member of the electoral college" voted for JJ - I stated that every Llandaff member of the EC supported JJ as their candidate for Bishop.

What I sense within me is indignation and not temper, if it proves to be correct. Phrases like "another Teddy bear flung out of the gay pram" are childish and add nothing to this debate and if you have read my entry as a "squealing temper tantrum" then can I gently correct you and state clearly that I am not squealing nor am I intemperate about this - outraged, yes, but not childish I would hope.

I also don't have a clue what a rum pansy is and I am not part of any gay conspiracy to get JJ elected. Actually, I wish I were not gay because I would hope that I would still hold the views I have expressed above and that you might then accept them not as the words of someone who has something to gain here or an axe to grind, but as words of indignation and a call for there to be coherence between episcopal letters that say one thing and actions (if they are correct, and we don't know that they are) that say another.

I also appreciate AB posting what I have written - I know that AB and I disagree on many things - but I suspect that s/he too will see the same incoherence here: writing/saying one thing and (possibly) doing another.

Finally, I think there is possibly a difference between the 'gossip of the Green' and something printed in a national christian news website and as I say, I want this particular leak to be fake because the implications of it being the truth are devastating.

Thank you AB
ReplyDelete
Replies
Whamab18 March 2017 at 08:54
Re:Scapegoat

Dr John could not secure the two-third's majority of the electoral college whether or not all the Llandavians voted for him or not. The weakness of your argument is that what you are suggesting is that the non-Llandavians on the college should not have a voice if 100% of the home diocese agree. Is that really what you think, because that would be disastrous for the fragile unity that there is in CiW.

I think a candidate who, after three days of deliberation, could not carry the constituted will of the electoral college, should not then be appointed by the Bench (on the premise that previous candidates need not re-apply). Also the shameful intervention of politicians trying to interfere meant more pressure not to appoint Dr John by the Bench imho.

Dr John is a fine speaker and is super-bright, but he is a divisive figure and is not a good appointment for the whole of the CiW. Some of his rejection is rooted in prejudice clearly, but he would use his enthronement to pursue this unedifying campaign around gay marriage instead of mission and growth.

As the prime Minister said on another issue in the news, "This is not the time."

Finally, if this leak is true, the elector(s) who are breaking the sacred confidentiality of the Electoral-college need to be identified and politely asked to resign his/her/their position(s).
ReplyDelete
Replies
Scapegoat18 March 2017 at 09:38
@Whamab

Thank you for your considered response. It means much to me that your response is thoughtful and invites discussion and debate. Thank you.

I entirely see where you are coming from. I don't however think I am suggesting that non-Llandavians should not have a voice. What I am suggesting, however, is that the degree of support for Dr John at the electoral college (58%) is itself significant and deserves to be taken seriously as the considered will of a considerable number of people. I would therefore find it incredulous if Dr John were not shortlisted.

The current bench of bishops hardly know Dr John as a person and so surely they owe him the courtesy of meeting with him and interviewing him alongside other candidates. I believe that some of the bishops claim to know Jeffrey, but in reality they don't - they may have known him fleetingly during their undergraduate days, but that does not constitute knowing him at all, does it? I fear that if Dr John is not short-listed it will be on the grounds that those responsible for the short-list have discounted him because of a fear that he will be divisive when in reality those who know him and work with him find him an inspirational person to work with. Do Dr John the justice of allowing him to speak for himself rather than allowing the press or others (myself included!) presume to speak for him.

Jeffrey carried the constituted will of 6 out of 10 of the electors. I wonder, are there candidates on the short list who carried less than that when discussed at the EC meeting? I don't know, I simply raise the question, but if there are then following your logic, should they not be banished from the same list also? I realise that is conjecture on my part but perhaps it’s a useful question to consider.

You say that Dr John is a divisive figure and that he would use his enthronement to pursue an unedifying campaign about gay marriage. Don't you see that that is precisely what the Bishops call out as homophobic in their address to LGBT Christians when they bravely use the term "dissimulation" in recognition of the way that we can be treated in church debates. You misrepresent Dr John when you maintain that he will use his episcopacy in this way. But that is the kind of institutional homophobia the Bishops name - LGBT peoples are subject to misrepresentation, subterfuge, posturing, hypocrisy and double-dealing. I can assure you that Dr John would not use his enthronement for the purpose you suggest, but that you can presume this is evidence of the dissimulation the bishops so clearly denounce. We have enough evidence to conclude that Dr John behaves with dignity whenever his name is put forward within these appointment processes and that he only has one weakness that might mark him our as divisive - he has an inability to be dishonest. In my book, that makes him an excellent candidate for bishop and a person worth listening to in any enthronement sermon.

Finally, if this is not the time, then when? and as for breaking "sacred confidentiality" I think there comes a time when individuals find that they simple have to act with prophetic conscience; there is nothing scared about a confidentiality that means colluding with structures of profound injustice.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Scapegoat18 March 2017 at 14:36
I think we are both equally passionate and, in the last analysis, probably equally so about the same thing - that the world might know the extent of God's love towards us.

When you say that you "want an end to these endless campaigns on social justice issues and a refocusing on the Gospel and outreach", I know where you are coming from - me too. However, I am not sure the world will be able to hear the Gospel we wish to preach until issues of social justice have been resolved within the life of the church. The world sees our treatment of gay people (sadly focussed in how Dr John is discussed) and they want nothing to do with us (similarly the treatment of women).

I take great inspiration from the fact that when Jesus "preached" the Gospel in the temple, it was a passage of social justice he chose as the basis of his message of liberation theology: justice for the marginalised, good news for the dissimulated against and riches for the poor (Luke 4). I don't believe there is in fact a Gospel to be preached without reference to social justice.

Ruth will disagree - she sees argument like that as clever sophistry. I suspect Ruth might well have come out of the temple - had she been there in Jesus' day - and denounced his message as sophistry and protestation also.

We've a long way to go.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Scapegoat18 March 2017 at 15:47
JJ is, as I understand it, the unanimous candidate of all those representing Llandaff on the Electrical College. Archbishop Barry has nothing to do with the process and it is fanciful to think that he can (or even wishes to) pull strings. Give the electors of Llandaff due credit in being courageous enough to put Dr. John's name forward and in so doing not only thereby endorsing an excellent theologian and priest but also righting the wrongs of structural injustice towards him since Archbishop Rowan scapegoated him and asked him to step down from his appointment to Reading.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Whamab18 March 2017 at 21:52
On another completely unrelated matter, could the new Bishop please get rid of that hideous Epstein monstrosity in the Cathedral? Surely there is some warehouse somewhere that would accommodate it?
ReplyDelete
Replies
Scapegoat19 March 2017 at 08:42
The Letter from the Bench of Bishops to Dr. Jeffrey John explaining why they are Inviting him to be on the shortlist for Llandaff.

----------------------------------------------

Dear Dr John, our dear brother in Christ,

We recognise that you have often been persecuted and ostracised by the Church for your sexuality, that you have been mistreated by the Church, and forced into secrecy and dissimulation by the attitudes of prejudice which you have faced, ever since the Reading vacancy. We deplore such hostility, and welcome and affirm the words of the Primates that condemn homophobic prejudice and violence. We too commit ourselves to offering you the same loving service and pastoral care to which all humanity is entitled, and we commit ourselves to acting to provide a safe space within the Church and within our communities in which you can be honest and open, respected and affirmed (accepting that honesty is something you prize heavily). We repeat, we deplore the hostility and dissimulation you have faced in the past whenever the church has discussed God's apparent call upon your life to be a chief shepherd of his flock. We deplore that wholeheartedly.

While as a Church we are unable to bless the committed partnership you have formed in Civil partnership with Grant, we nevertheless commit ourselves as bishops to work for a Church in which you can be fully affirmed as equal disciples of Jesus Christ or seekers after truth.

In the light of this, we met as a bench of bishops last week and given that we deplore the hostility you have personally faced because of your sexuality, we wish to demonstrate that, we will do more than just pray with you and for you - that together we may seek God’s blessing on our lives, and for faithful discipleship - as bishops, we know that prayer is empty rhetoric unless it is matched with faithful action and therefore we are delighted to inform you that you have been selected to appear on our list of shortlisted candidates for the Llandaff episcopacy; it’s assimilation we stand for not the deplorable dissimulation we denounced as deplorable after the same-sex marriage debate.

Dr. John, as bishops we know you that you have been dissimulated from such consideration for far too long and purely on the grounds your sexuality. We deplore this and in working for a church in which you can be a faithful and equal disciple, we believe that now is the time for courageous assimilation and therefore wish to discern God’s call on your life in the context of the episcopal vacancy at Llandaff.

We look forward to meeting you properly as we’re aware that none of us know you personally. Therefore please come and talk with us and pray with us that together we may seek God’s blessing on your life and the life of the Church in Wales and move forward in faithful discipleship.

With warm regard as our dear brother in Christ and good wishes to Grant.

The Bishops
ReplyDelete
Replies
Scapegoat19 March 2017 at 09:34
Bishops Letter ... forgot the PS

------------------------

PS. We also need you on the Bench because we keep hearing mention of these 'rum pansies' and have no idea what they are. They sound rather good and we're hoping you will be able to enlighten us and perhaps brighten up our bench meeting with a rum pansy or two.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous19 March 2017 at 15:25
To be quite honest, it’s a good thing that the net for this vacancy has been cast wider. The limited choice that seems to have ultimately been presented to the E.C. was, let’s face it, absurd, in the extreme (if the reporting is to be believed). I must be one of many who can only wonder that the situation ever got to such a pretty pass in the first place. Breath-taking, when you consider the enormous talent that is out here among us.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Alan219 March 2017 at 16:30
Having followed the threads, I have been hesitant to comment. I met JJ over 20 years ago when he came to our parish to preach. He was (and I presume still is) charming, a delightful priest who went out of his way to help me when I was the subject to a fairly frontal attack for no obvious reason which occurred when he was visiting; and who then went more than an extra mile to come back to the parish and help me out again on another issue. I therefore have a residual and long-standing admiration for JJ, even if I do not agree with everything he has said and done since our encounters and I have not seen him since that time.

I am more than dismayed by his letter published in the most recent press link, as unfortunately it appears to display a 'reverse Sheffield' syndrome. +Philip North was duly selected but then forced out; JJ was rejected - and although I have no reason to doubt what he writes - he now appears to be calling into disrepute the bench of bishops he aspired to join in order to force his way in. The difference appears to me that +Philip North was and is more than happy to abide by the collegiality of the Bench which he already belongs to, and accept and work with his colleagues of all genders. However depending on what happened at the Electoral College in Llandaff - which only those present can know - JJ appears to be displaying a breach of point 5 on page 3 of the Provincial Perspective document published on the CiW site in relation to the appointment process for Llandaff:

"In a church that sets great store by collaborative ministry, collaboration as well as collegiality should be reflected in the way the Bench of Bishops works. The ‘lone ranger’ model is not a good pattern, and it risks fragmentation and inconsistency of approach."

That statement is not a source of joy for anybody outside of the current CiW Bench 'comfort zone'. But it does state fairly clearly what candidate profiles will not be acceptable to the rest of the Bench and the hierarchy.

Unfortunately it looks like JJ has written now in angry haste and will no doubt be left to repent in leisure for breaching this guideline. His real problem is that, rightly or wrongly, he has come to be seen as a single-issue priest. In seeking to promote his cause his supporters have failed, repeatedly, to bring to the fore his merits and have ended up adding to the weight of the rod for his back.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Stan Smith19 March 2017 at 18:03
To the tune of the Camptown Races
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H2W1lK7P-I#t=1m15s

Ol' Jeffrey's in a queeny huff
Doo-da, doo-da,
'Cos he's a dean but it ain't enough
Oh the doo-da day.

He didn't get a bishop's cope
Doo-da, doo-da
Because he didn't win the vote
Oh the doo-da day.

Down the County Club
He dined his chance away
He bet his money on the Llandaff job
But they didn't want a gay!
ReplyDelete
Replies
Episkopos19 March 2017 at 20:14
Now the ordure has really hit the fan and one suspects Welsh episcopal backsides will be twitching tonight over possible legal action.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-39321820
"A gay clergyman has accused the Anglican Church in Wales of homophobia after he was rejected for a job as a bishop."

ReplyDelete
Replies
Somewhat Perturbed19 March 2017 at 20:32
Dear Ancient Briton,
have you seen this letter from JJ to the Bishop of Swansea & Brecon?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzMyH8nMD_OdVTJWaEdRWktnSE0/view
ReplyDelete
Replies
Scapegoat19 March 2017 at 22:12
So the bishops were just 'too exhausted' to act on their promise to create a place of equal discipleship for lesbian and gay people in the church. They excluded Dr. John from their short-list purely on the basis of his sexuality. The letters they have written to their "Dear brothers and sisters" who are gay are clearly not worth the paper they were written on. They are indeed fake and the bishops ought to hang their mitres in absolute shame.

Too tired to seek justice - too tired. They promised they would be tireless in their prayer and action to ensure that LGBT were affirmed and given an "open, honest, respected and affirmed" place in the Church. They were too tired to do that - old, grey, scared and too tired. What utter abrogation of their calling to seek justice and pursue it.

Having read Dr. John's letter to S+B, I too admire those who were not willing to conspire with the kind of ecclesiastical secrecy that allows structural injustice and prejudice to flourish and if I hear of anybody hounded for sharing their concern, I will be incensed. I have said all along - there is nothing sacred about a silence that conceals wrongdoing and the dissimulation of those the Bench promised to protect.

Hang your mitres in shame and seek justice. Too tired, too exhausted to do that? Then you're too tired full stop. Hang up your mitres and give Dr. John the job.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Old Scratch19 March 2017 at 23:05
John's tireless self-promotion, wailing and victimhood prove that he should never have been considered in the first place. Clearly he places his own sexuality far above any other qualifications.

Stand firm, Welsh bishops, and shut the door on him.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Scapegoat19 March 2017 at 23:22
I think Jeffrey's letter shows that he is not intending to be a Bishop at any cost, unlike other bishops who have sat on that bench concealing the fact that they are gay.

It also shows that he has a spine, is true to his calling, is honest, has self-respect and speaks out for justice. His argument is about the homophobic way in which he has been treated and arbitrary and roughshod manner in which the Bench have trod over the wishes of the Diocese.

This is not the Bishops standing firm, it's them being too tired to have the courage to seek justice. Furthermore, it's not Jeffrey who will come across as the victim in all of this - you watch, some letter from the Bench will appear over the coming days, starting with "Dear brothers and sisters in Christ" in which they exonerate their unjust actions and look to blame those who had the courage to speak out.

Stand firm, Welsh Bishops, and show courage and faithful discipleship - do away with disingenuous oaths of confidentiality or your letters of episcopal privacy - open the door, and let justice in!
ReplyDelete
Replies
Matthew20 March 2017 at 08:50
Whatever one's views on Jeffrey John, homosexuality and the rest, this whole sorry business reveals the CinW bishops' hypocrisy and utter spinelessness. They undertook to accept homosexuals on equal terms with heterosexuals (how many weeks since the launch of that pathetic little video?), yet are refusing to have the courage of their declared convictions by accepting a known (NB) homosexual into their privileged number -- just as their many assurances about the honoured and valued place of those who hold traditionalist views on the ordained ministry have been proved completely worthless. What good, I wonder, can come from this debacle? Any ideas?
ReplyDelete
Replies
John C20 March 2017 at 10:37
@Matthew
What good can come? Mass resignations. The google drive letter from Jeffrey John is obviously the case for the prosecution at the upcoming employment tribunal. Open and shut claim of discrimination. What's their defence? "M'lud I was too tired"
The question for me is how long can +John stay in his job. End of today? End of week?
ReplyDelete
Replies
Subversive Canon20 March 2017 at 12:22
I can't help thinking that Jeffrey John has more interest in a ££££££s compensation payment from the Church in Wales (to top up his pension pot) than the see of Llandaff.

Even if John Davies and Gregory Cameron resign or retire with indecent haste they still might find themselves held personally liable for the remarks they are alleged to have made.

If indeed HHJ Philip Price was present at the Electoral College as a "moderator" it would appear he was remarkably ineffective.

If the Chairman of the Representative Body or the Provincial Secretary were also present and equally ineffective perhaps they too should be tendering resignations.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Parishioner from Llandaff20 March 2017 at 14:02
"Threats in your letter"
"Abuse"
"Untrue"
"Hypocritical"
"Not moral or legal"
"Injustice"
"Discrimination"
"Extraordinary, unprecedented and foolish"
"Ludicrous"
"Arbitrarily"

Dear ancient Briton
I'm struggling to publish this so sorry if you received twice

All of these are words from the letter. Jeffrey John "threatened" by bishop John of Swansea. No one who applied for a job as bishop of my diocese can be treated this way. Many of us didn't want Jeffrey John but this Is disgusting. Bishop John has no support or confidence from anyone I spoke to.

We are very grateful to Jeffrey John for publishing this letter for us all to see, I'dbe very grateful if he would publish the letter he received too so we can read it.

In the meantime, bishop John and whichever are the "two bishops" have no choice but to resign. None at all.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Alan220 March 2017 at 16:54
The letter from +Swansea to JJ was published on the Twitter account of the journalist who broke the story. It can be read on this link: https://twitter.com/HarryFarls/status/843523559934906369

The full letter from JJ to +Swansea can be read here http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/uploads/Letter%20to%20Presiding%20Bishop1.pdf

When you compare the two letters, the reply would be disproportionate if breaches of confidentiality had not been made, including the famous 'phone call.

JJ has called for "an open and honest examination of this [electoral] process in the light of day,". The first points that ought to be reiterated are a) the process is confidential, and breach of confidence is a very serious matter indeed, b)the process always clearly stated that a 2/3 majority of the College is required, not a simple majority, and c) the Provincial perspective document published at the outset of the process, and presumably approved by the whole Bench of Bishops, clearly states that "lone ranger" bishops are not welcome in Wales. That final point also should apply to whoever broke the confidence of the College.

The 2/3 majority is standard in British Anglican circles, notably for instance, for votes on major substantive issues in the CofE General Synod. Moving the goalposts to get the result one group requires is not permitted: 'end of'.

As to "unchallenged homophobic remarks": it is difficult to know from the outside what these may have been. However if the 2 bishops who spoke against JJ said something along the lines of, "we need to put our own house in order first [given the state of the CiW] and the last thing we need is a gay bishop furore", that is not necessarily "homophobic", just realistic and prioritizing where the CiW limited resources need to be directed. I am conscious that this is speculation on my part, but I would hope that perhaps the comments were no more than this in essence.
ReplyDelete
Replies
thrupence20 March 2017 at 17:30
A week is a long time in ecclesiastical politics!
ReplyDelete
Replies
AncientBriton22 March 2017 at 09:35
ALLEGATIONS OF HOMOPHOBIA – A RESPONSE
The meeting of the Electoral College for the next Bishop of Llandaff was confidential and the Church in Wales will not comment on speculation about the nomination and discussion of candidates. However, we strongly deny allegations of homophobia in the process. Neither homosexuality nor participation in a civil partnership are a bar to any candidate being either nominated or elected as a Bishop in the Church in Wales. Moreover, this was made clear to members of the Electoral College by its President, the Bishop of Swansea and Brecon.

http://www.churchinwales.org.uk/news/2017/03/bishop-of-llandaff-appointment-process-continues/
ReplyDelete
Replies
Somewhat Perturbed24 March 2017 at 21:12
Bishop David Wilbourne is stepping down on Easter Sunday:
http://www.churchinwales.org.uk/news/2017/03/assistant-bishop-steps-down/
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment

Introduction

An ancient Briton's thoughts on topical news/events, often with a hint of irony, with special reference to politics, society and religion, particularly if oddities or injustices are apparent.

If you wish to comment but have no comment profile you can click on 'Anonymous' in the 'Comment as:' drop down box to ADD a pen name which identifies you from others using this method. Anonymous comments without a pen name are not published.

The opinions expressed in this personal blog are my own and not those of any other person or organisation. Any comments submitted are the responsibility of the contributor(s) and will not necessarily reflect the views of the blog owner. Comments are accepted on trust as being factual and will be removed on receipt of evidence to the contrary or if considered gratuitously offensive.

Privacy. No personal information of any kind is collected. Names of Commentators and Followers are provided voluntarily without any personal data capable of being controlled or processed.

For Google Privacy policy go to https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en&gl=uk