MORE than half the clergy who will work under the care of the new Bishop of Reading support Dr Jeffrey John’s appointment, despite his admission that he is in a loving but platonic gay relationship.
But many still have serious objections to his taking up the post, believing that he would split the Church of England and become a focal point for detractors, according to a Times survey.
Opponents of Dr John’s appointment cite moral and practical reasons. Although some argue that the Bible condemns homosexual practice, others maintain that their opposition to Dr John’s appointment has nothing to do with his sexuality. For them his elevation to the post is a divisive move that would damage the Church of England.
Dr John is due to be consecrated suffragan bishop in the Oxford Diocese at Westminster Abbey on October 9. He is now canon theologian at Southwark Cathedral in South London.
Fifty-two clergy of 138 in the Reading area were asked by The Times whether Dr John, 50, should become bishop and whether he should continue his relationship. Twenty-nine said that they supported the appointment, 20 were against and three said that they had not yet made up their minds.
But the man who will become Dr John’s parish priest when he moves into the village of Tidmarsh, Berkshire, said that Dr John’s credibility was in doubt.
The Rev John Staples, Rector of Pangbourne, Tidmarsh and Sulham, said that the appointment was wrong because it went against the biblical expectations of the behaviour of bishops and threatened the unity of the Anglican Communion.
Asked if Dr John should continue his relationship with his male partner, Mr Staples quoted I Timothy iii: “A Bishop, therefore, must be above reproach, a husband of one wife . . . He must be one who manages his own household well and controls his children without losing his dignity, for if a man does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take charge of a congregation of God’s people?” He added: “I have already written to him welcoming him, because he will be a parishioner of mine and at that time I didn’t know anything about his sexuality.
“I have no doubt that he has a good reputation and standing with some members of the community, but I think there is a general concern of quite a lot of people, which I do not detect to be homophobic, but a general concern for his position and about his sexuality. There are certain expectations of leaders of the Church which are maybe greater than those expected of ordinary members of the public.”
Church leaders are worried that those parishes against Dr John will either withhold the money they pay to the diocese or ask to be put under the care of a different bishop. One long-serving vicar, who described himself as “not in the least bit homophobic”, felt it was inappropriate to appoint a bishop that “most normal men would not understand” whose lifestyle failed to conform with “the natural way of things”.
He added: “I’m concerned for the diocese if he brings in all his queer friends.”
One evangelical vicar said: “It boils down to whether we take what the Bible says as authoritative. Because the Bible is against homosexual practice, it would be impossible for Dr John to toe a line which he does not agree with.”
There was concern on both sides of the debate that the Bishop of Oxford had imposed a potentially divisive candidate on an unprepared local priesthood. The Rev Chris Clarke, Vicar of Sonning, who strongly supported Dr John’s appointment, said: “The Bishop of Oxford has been gloriously insensitive to the pastoral needs of the area. He has emphasised only the man’s academic skills, which are of course important, but he has said nothing about how bishops can be unifying forces and pastors for the priests of the area.”
Another vicar said: “I am anxious there will be fragmenting within the Church. These are very complex issues and I don’t want to cultivate a homophobic response. I think it is better if he were not Bishop of Reading.
“I do not believe it is appropriate for a Christian man to have a gay relationship, but at the same time I understand somebody who interprets it differently. It is a question for his conscience.”
The Rev Philip Dallaway, of St John’s, Caversham, said: “The parish are on the whole favourable, although some of the older ones are concerned. Mind you, we still have quite a few people in the parish who aren’t happy about the ordination of women.”
But many more vicars spoke up for Dr John, who said in an interview with The Times yesterday that he was still considering withdrawing.
The Rev Louise Brown, from All Saints Church, Dedworth, said: “I have never met him, but we need a man of vision who is caring and compassionate. I believe what I have read about him and I believe he is the right man.
“Just because it is a homosexual relationship does not matter, any loving relationship is in line with God’s will, any promiscuity is against His order.”
Many vicars said that they would be holding meetings with their parishioners to discuss the subject.
The Rev Michael Smith, priest in charge at Holy Trinity and St John the Baptist Church in Cookham, said: “Listening to the radio I think it’s really sad and scary to hear people threatening to withhold parish shares and seek alternative episcopal oversight.”
Father Michael Melrose, from St Giles Church, said: “I think it is an interesting appointment. According to the interview in The Times it is just a friendly relationship and everyone needs friends. We could have done a lot worse.”
Additional reporting by Gabriel Rozenberg and Tim Gatt
