In a Church of England beset by crippling financial difficulties, the real
threat by evangelical parishes to divert their substantial funds elsewhere
meant that there was little alternative but to sacrifice Jeffrey John.
The evangelical parishes that opposed his appointment, not just in Oxford
Diocese but throughout the Church, are among the wealthiest in the land.
Schismatic action by them to seek alternative oversight and to divert funds
into independent trusts and away from the diocese, in response to Dr John’s
ordination, would have brought the Established Church close to bankruptcy.
In the run-up to yesterday’s announcement, it became clear that such threats
were not in the least bit empty.
Canon John was at home in Southwark when he was notified on Friday evening
that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, wished to see him at
Lambeth Palace at 8am the next day. The meeting lasted six hours. Alongside
Dr Williams, for some or all of the meeting, were Jeremy Harris, the
Archbishop’s secretary for public affairs, and the Rev Jonathan Jennings,
his press secretary, both senior staff members who were appointed by the
former Archbishop, Dr George Carey, an evangelical. Beside Dr John was the
Bishop of Oxford, the Right Rev Richard Harries, who was responsible for the
choice of Dr John for Reading.
The Bishop of Southwark, the Right Rev Tom Butler, asked to be allowed into
the meeting but was refused permission. He spoke personally to Dr Williams
on the telephone as the meeting progressed, arguing the case for Dr John to
stay, to no avail.
During the meeting, Dr John was told that, for the good of the Church, he
should stand down. The consequences of the appointment going ahead were laid
out before him in full.
These included the threats by parishes in the Oxford Diocese that they would
refuse to recognise the ministry of Dr John, that they would withdraw
funding from the diocese and that they would seek alternative episcopal
oversight.
Dr Williams was concerned about the effects of the appointment on unity not
just in the Oxford Diocese but in the wider Church of England and the
worldwide Anglican Communion. Dr Williams is keen not to go down in history
as the man who presides over what could yet become the biggest schism in the
Church since the Reformation. In spite of yesterday’s announcement, he is
known now as a homophile and conservatives will be constantly watching him
to ensure that he remains in line with fundamental biblical principles on
the issue of sexuality.
Dr Williams was concerned about the effect of the appointment on the Oxford
Diocese, where he feared that parishes would seek “twinning” arrangements
with dioceses and parishes overseas. This could have led to conservative
bishops from abroad being invited to preside at confirmations and other
ceremonies. At the heart of the Archbishop’s concerns was the question of Dr
John’s acceptability to his future flock.
During the ordination, which had been scheduled at Westminster Abbey for
October 9 and was to be carried out by Dr Williams, the Archbishop would
have addressed the clergy with the words: “Those who have authority to do so
have chosen Jeffrey as a man of godly life and sound learning to be a bishop
in the Church of God. Is it therefore your will that he should be ordained?”
It was not so much the event itself, or the possibilities of cries of “It is
not” going up from the ranks of the clergy, that concerned Dr Williams, so
much as the principle encapsulated in the question.
The “acceptability” of the candidate was crucial in his deliberations.
Meetings and protests from the Oxford clergy and senior diocesans, as well as
advice from his own staff, had convinced Dr Williams that Dr John was not
acceptable as the next Bishop of Reading. At his meeting with Dr John, he
attempted to explain this but because the two are friends, and together
founded the liberal movement Affirming Catholicism, he did not find it easy.
During the meeting, Dr John was asked to sign a letter drafted for him. It was
this that took most of the six hours. Dr John refused to sign the early
version, unhappy with what he was being asked to say. Finally, a version was
agreed, just two paragraphs, to which he felt able to put his name.
A close friend of Dr John said: “Rowan was personally distressed during the
meeting. When I saw Jeffrey afterwards, he was composed but flat.
“Jeffrey is extremely loyal. Having seen the writing was on the wall, he would
have gone quietly. Jeffrey did not seek this office. He has had his personal
sexual life exposed to scrutiny. His partner has been named in the papers.
Articles have appeared about his father; his mother has been hounded by the
press.
“Why would a man, who has seen all this through, turn round now the storm is
abating and say he does not want the job after all? If he was going to
buckle and go of his own accord, he would have done so before this stage of
the proceedings.”
Some church insiders were speculating that the Bishop of Oxford will also face
pressure to resign. But a source close to Bishop Harries, 67, said that he
had no intention of stepping down. Clergy in the Church of England do not
have to retire until they are 70.
Apart from publishing his letter in response to Dr John, Bishop Harries was
unavailable for comment. However, a friend said that he was “incandescent”.
As Dr Williams was making his statement in the grounds of Lambeth Palace,
the Bishop of Oxford was being driven to hospital for a hip replacement
operation.
This is the second bishopric that Dr John has lost because he is a homosexual.
He was shortlisted for Monmouth, the South Wales diocese vacated by Dr
Williams when he was translated to Canterbury, but was ruled out because of
his sexuality. Eventually the Right Rev Dominic Walker, former Bishop of
Reading and also a single, celibate man, was appointed to Monmouth.
Dr John’s appointment was controversial from the very start. Early in June,
even overseas primates, including the Archbishop of Nigeria, the Most Rev
Peter Akinola, and the Archbishop of the West Indies, the Most Rev Drexel
Gomez, joined in the criticism and called for Dr John to stand down.
Immediately afterwards, on June 7, Bishop Harries defended his choice in a
speech to his diocesan synod. He said that he had received 90 names and that
Dr John was not on his original shortlist.
He said: “Jeffrey John was the starred name from Tony Sadler, the archbishops’
appointments secretary, whose job it is to provide a number of possible
names and associated paperwork. He looks at the job description and down his
list to see where there might be a possible fit.
“Because of his well-known views, Jeffrey was not on my original shortlist,
but on looking further at his references and after additional consultation
with other people, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, it seemed clearly
right to bring him into the picture. The references I read offered
assurances about his lifestyle and I was particularly impressed by the fact
that he had gained the confidence of conservative evangelicals in the
Diocese of Southwark.”
Far from calming things down, this marked the opening of a public debate
conducted in meetings with bishops and archbishops and through letters and
essays to the same bishops and the press. A website was set up to follow the
affair.
Clergy from the Oxford Diocese wrote to the bishop, the Church of England
Evangelical Council wrote an open letter to all the bishops while the
executive committee of Affirming Catholicism wrote a letter in support.
The biggest setback to Dr John came when nine senior diocesan bishops issued a
strongly worded open letter criticising the appointment.
Shortly after this, in an interview with The Times, Dr John disclosed
that he had been with his gay partner for 27 years and that they would
remain together for life, but that the relationship was a sexually abstinent
one.
Eight bishops then voiced support for Dr John. Dr Williams made a public
statement at Lambeth Palace, urging his bishops to stop bickering and said
that the credibility of the Church had been damaged by a debate regarded by
outsiders with “real incomprehension”. But it was too late to save Dr John.
His trial was almost over and his dismissal inevitable.
Throughout all the debates, evangelicals from the Oxford Diocese held meetings
with Dr John and with Bishop Harries. They sought meetings with Dr Williams
at Lambeth. At one significant meeting in Oxford, evangelicals and church
leaders from all over the world met to warn of schism if the appointment
went ahead.
Dr John was himself by this time experiencing stronger doubts. The feeling in
him was growing that his appointment would do more harm than good and that
it was simply “undoable” for him to be an effective Bishop of Reading.
The letter
Dr John’s resignation letter to the Bishop of Oxford said:
“It has become clear to me that in view of the damage my consecration might
cause to the unity of the Church, including the Anglican Communion, I must
seek the consent of the Crown to withdraw acceptance of my appointment to
the See of Reading.
“I am profoundly grateful to you for having placed such confidence in me, and
to all those in the area and diocese who have so warmly welcomed and
supported me in recent weeks.”
