The tiniest violin in the world plays just for Jeffrey John.
He collaborated and participated in institutional oppression – of LGBT people, of women – for years and NOW he wants people to cry for him and agree that he is hard done by?
You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
If John was sincere in his faith he could have walked away and found a denomination that would accept him. He didn’t, he thinks he has earned his place at the table and he does nothing to further the cause of any LGBT rights other than his own personal needs.
I’m sorry, but I wouldn’t waste one breath or one moment fighting in his corner. Not while there are REAL issues of civil rights abuses all around the world that still need our time and focus. Arguing over who their invisible friend likes the most is a spectacular waste of time.
Well said Valsky!
I personally think the tone of your comment is churlish and patronising.
You might choose not to support him, thats fine – I am sure Dr John is perfectly capable of fighting his battles without your support.
There is a great deal of integrity in trying to change an organisation from within. It is undeniable that Dr John has repeatedly and vociferously fought to promote the rights of LGBT people.
You may disagree with his faith, you may even disagree with his decision to remain celibate – but nonetheless he has been a strong advocate of LGBT rights.
He could have chosen to take the easy path and walk away from the Anglican church and leave other LGBT Anglicans to fester in a church which had no senior clergy who are LGBT – he didn’t. He could have understandably left the church given how he has been treated.
Whether I agree with his faith or not – I think his position has been strong and determined. I do not feel he is seeking sympathy, merely justice and honesty.
If your church hates you, find another church. There are plenty to choose from after all. Being a Quisling is not a good option.
And I’m not sure I can think of any “activism” on his behalf that did not involve either serving himself, or telling his church off for being mean to gay people. Neither of which actually count as bloody activism.
I’m not sure I agree completely with you on this one, Valksy – I know where you’re coming from, but institutions don’t change if all the progressives just leave. I mean, look at the way Anglican churches in the USA and New Zealand now have women bishops – that wouldn’t have happened if all the Anglican women deserted en masse, after all.
Churches would die, or be forced to reconsider, if the people would vote with their feet. The passivity of those who collaborate with their own oppression (and John did this for years while closeted, and again by capitulating to a demand for celibacy) changes nothing.
If I am a member of a club – by choice – and that club behaves in a way I don’t agree with I either work to change it or I leave. John put up with it for decades before he ever acted. He was willing to put up with the intolerance, aware of it, complicit in it, part of it.
And all of it is about metaphysical navel gazing any way. It wounds me to think that people – John included – think this is a relevant battle when our brothers and sisters around the world, those who battle with authenticity every day of their lives, are getting hurt. It is a battle, and faith as an issue, that assumes that the world is an otherwise just and peaceful place when it is nothing of the sort.
I do know what you mean Valksy, and I too frequently use the metaphor of a club. But I think if one has devoted one’s life to an institution, even a club, it’s very hard to consider just giving it up – specially if there might be some grounds for feeling a general shift in attitudes, among the practitioners if not the hierarchy.
By “Anglican church in the USA,” you mean the Episcopal Church USA (they ordain women and “teh gheys”).
Unfortunately, the anti-gay, anti-women elements in America have split (yet another political schism, in the original C of E tradition) and aligned themselves with a “Southern Cone” diocese; they are presently fighting legal battles over church lands and properties and call themselves “Anglican.”
Yes, sorry, I did mean the US Episcopalian church. I must admit I didn’t know the die-hards had renamed themselves Anglican.
If everyone had your ridiculous attitude then homophobia in the C of E would never be challenged or reduced. Those people like Jeffrey John who fight to subvert from the inside and change things for the better for the lives of LGBT people are heroes. They have a tough battle and just giving up and quitting as you suggest would be to admit defeat and let the homophobes win.
Why leave the church to the homophobes? You could say the same thing about schools, businesses etc – just leave them to the homophobes and stop fighting for what’s right.
Jeffrey John did not lie down with dogs as you so rudely suggest, he attempted to tame them and even though he got bitten he still made progress in winning over many hearts and minds.
He sat in the closet for years, and then he decided to pander with celibacy.
I see no heroism. Just a career cleric.
So what if he was in the closet before he came out, isn’t everyone? The fact is that he DID come out and for him to do so in his circumstances was very brave. He stood up for LGBT people and tried to change the church for the better and fight homophobia. Why criticise that? We need more people like him and he deserves encouragement and praise; he certainly doesn’t deserve to be undermined by snipers like you. It seems to me that you have a knee-jerk anti-Christian reaction, whereas many Christians are not homophobes. I’m an atheist but I fully recognise the very important role that Christians and other people of faith have in the pro-equality movement.
“You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.” Or in this case, you get up with no knickers.
I wonder if they have considered the Archbishop of York or Prof Harrison as suspects for the leak?
I wonder if Lord Carey had anything to do with it?
I think he had retired by then. Can’t be the See of York either because he is a candidate for Canterbury and not on the CNC. May be Outrage will out the culprit.
When they find the leak they can used one of the many pedophile Catholic priest to plug it up, that is if they are not too busy plugging up some children some where.
I would like to suggest that next archbishop of canterbury should be one of the partners in the firm of PriceWaterhouseCoopers, acting as Receiver of an organisation that is morally bankrupt & tasked with the disposal of the property and other assets, with the resulting cash being returned to the general population.
Or as alternative, that we re-”occupy” the Church. It is our common inheritance and why should we accept its appropriation by a gang of self-appointed bishops and their few faithful
More chance of the water companies in the South-East of England stopping their leaks than the CofE of stopping theirs!
Yawn. Jeffrey John is so bitter.
If he had been made Bishop of Reading, the Diocese of Oxford would have gone bankrupt in a year
- the orthodox would have withdrawn their monies.
Get over it, Jeffrey John!
Ah not one of the 100 in the Diocese of London, then Vicar?