You claim there are unanswered questions about the Bishop of London's decision to order Bishop Broadbent to withdraw from public ministry:
how have other bishops got away with making comments at least as offensive as Broadbent's without facing similar treatment? Comments made by bishops in recent years include the claim that married couples who choose not to have children are selfish (Michael Nazir-Ali, former Bishop of Rochester); that Muslims are creating “no-go” areas for non-Muslims in Britain (also Nazir-Ali).
Bishop Nazir-Ali was rightly commenting about the growing cult of selfishness in UK society and about issues of Christian evangelism in Muslim areas. Such prophetic comments, arising from the teaching of Holy Scripture, are in a completely different category from Bishop Broadbent's remarks about the royal marriage.
The real unanswered questions about clergy discipline are as follows:
1). What action should be taken against an ordained person who behaves drunkenly in public?
2). What action should be taken against an ordained person who uses authorised marriage liturgy for a same-sex blessing?
3). What action should be taken against an ordained person who denies the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ?
4). What action should be taken against an ordained person who is in a cohabiting sexual relationship whilst unmarried in their vicarage?
5). What action should be taken against an ordained person who allows an act of worship by a non-Christian religious group in the church building for which they are responsible?
Surely the Clergy Discipline Measure provides adequate means of dealing with the wayward? And, FWIW, I'm not sure that any of the five scenarios stated should be disciplinary matters (unless they are going against a specific episcopal directive or grossly infringe canon law).
ReplyDeleteIt's quite acceptable that people should be staunch "republicans" if they want to, and insult the royals ("Bishop Pete"'s words went much further than insulting just the future wedding couple), but they have no right wahtsoever holding a senior office in a body that has been directly linked to the ruling monarch for all of its existence, namely, several hundred years. No one forced him to be a clergyman in the C of E, no one forced him to be a bishop. Clearly, his consecration oath-taking was totally dishonest and duplicitous - how, therefore might we believe anything he takes an oath on, or otherwise claims? Immediate, permanent, sacking, and any others like him. The failure of the C of E in modern times has been largelty due to the miserable quality of its leadership.
ReplyDeleteHaving read the Ekklesia article, I am beginning to wonder if we should run a contest for 'Silliest blog post on the back of the Pete Broadent affair'.
ReplyDeleteBTW I don't think yours would win! ;-)
The problem with ekklesia is that I have to assume that they would have trouble discerning between vaseline and putty. Wonder if they have an windows in their offices?
ReplyDelete