2a The Cloisters, Gordon Square London WC1H 0AG

tel

020 7388 3588 fax 020 7387 3539

subscription email

nd.subs@forwardinfaith.com

all other enquiries

nd@forwardinfaith.com

Editorial Board

Editor:

Nicholas Turner

Deputy Editor: Kathleen McCully

Assistant Editors:

Geoffrey Kirk Jonathan Baker Owen Higgs David Waller

Contributing Editors:

Len Black William Davage Andy Hawes John Richardson

Subscriptions

New Directions is sent free of charge to all members of Forward in Faith. Individual copies are sold at £2∙50.

All subscription enquiries should be addressed to FiF UK Office at the address above. Subscription for one year: £25 (United Kingdom/EEC), £30 (Overseas).

Priests from Anglican Provinces in Third World countries and students in theological training in the Anglican Communion will receive a free subscription.

Advertising

Advertising Manager: Mike Silver

57 Century Road, Rainham, Kent ME8 0BQ

tel

fax

01634 401611 01634 306368

m.silver@breathe.com

Classified ads rates: £18 for one month (up to 50 words) £36 for two months £36 for three months Series of advertisements in excess of three months will also be charged at £18 per month with every third month free. Additional words will be charged at 50 pence for one month, £1 each for two or three months etc

The next issue of newdirections is published on 7 May

editor

nd.editor@forwardinfaith.com

DIRECTIONS editorial

N

Founded 1993

o one should have been surprised that Bishop James Jones has changed his mind about gay relationships. He

has been tobogganing down the slippery slope of moral relativism for some time. Te seeds of his recent address to the Liverpool Diocesan Synod are to be found

in an essay, Making Space for Truth and Grace, in a collection, A Falible Church,

edited – let the reader understand – by Kenneth Stephenson. Te logic of Jones’s position is hard to

grasp. In Making Space he talks of two ‘authoritative’ biblical ‘emphases’, one on

the uniqueness and privileged status of marriage; the other on examples of love between two people of the same gender (he cites Jesus and the beloved disciple; David and Jonathan). Tese ‘emphases’ he takes to have equal weight. Tis slovenly exegesis, which effectively

ignores the secific prohibitions of the Old Testament and the sweeping condemnations of Paul, is based upon slender and improbable conjecture. What evidence is there that either Jesus and the disciple, or David and Jonathan, ‘loved each other fully’, to adopt Jones’s coy expression? And why should anyone, heterosexual or homosexual, adopt Jones’s axiom that to love ‘fully’ is to enjoy penetrative sex? In his Synod address Bishop Jones

made much of the agreement to differ, between pacifists and upholders of the Just War, on the meaning of the sixth Commandment. It is certainly true that Christians have differed in their atitude to war. But the simple fact is that the majority has tolerated pacifism precisely because pacifists are commited to doing nothing. Homosexual campaigners are the opposite: they are acivists who are demanding supposed rights, many of which are deliberately intended to undermine the uniqueness and privileged status of marriage, which Jones claims to uphold. One wonders where this principle

of embracing differing opinions might lead, applied to other commandments. Anglicans seem to have made a good start with the seventh, and it could plausibly be argued that atempts in the United States to elect a Buddhist bishop have rendered the first and the second somewhat more

inclusive. But where does that leave the rest? We should be told.

‘I

get really excited at the possibility of offering my considerable experience, giſts and skills to the Diocese of

Los Angeles.’ Te lack of reticence may jar in an English ear, but there is litle doubt that Canon Mary Glasspool is not wrong in her self-appreciation. She has had a distinguished career as a cleric in the Episcopal Church of America, with proven parish experience, and currently a diocesan post of administrative and pastoral responsibility. In career terms, Canon Glasspool

is more than ready for advancement to the episcopate. As she herself says, ‘Functionally, I do many of the ministries our bishops do without having been elected… I bring organizational and administrative skills from my experience as ‘chief of staff’ of the Diocesan Staff of Maryland, and have at times been referred to as the ‘glue’ that holds our team together.’ If the episcopacy is to be understood

‘functionally’, there is litle doubt that Canon Glasspool is an excellent candidate. She is a woman of evident competence who would have risen to the top of her profession whatever it might have been. In so far as many episcopal duties are indeed functional, we wish her well. Tis, of course, is not how the One, Holy,

Catholic and Apostolic Church has ever understood the office of bishop. Most of the Anglican Communion

will not in conscience accept her as a bishop, let alone the rest of the Christian Church, because of both her gender and her partnered lesbian lifestyle. But she has received the necessary votes from the bishops of the Episcopal Church, and if they are determined to continue their errant path, there seems litle to be gained if they walk that path slowly. Two partnered gay bishops are not obviously worse than one. If the Americans are not going to

return to the status quo ante, there seems litle purpose in delaying the agony and

uncertainty. What is wrong will not be less so for being done slowly. ND

April 2010 ■ newdirections ■ 20

New Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40