A Church of England curate is refusing to be ordained by his diocesan bishop because he objects to the bishop's support for a group campaigning for equal rights for homosexuals within the church. A parish website quotes the church's 39 articles, written in the 16th century, to describe the bishop as "evil".
Richard Wood, a church worker in Dagenham, east London, should have been ordained as a curate by the Rt Rev John Gladwin, Bishop of Chelmsford, earlier this month, but said he would refuse to take communion from him because the bishop is patron of a group called Changing Attitude, which wants to reform church thinking on homosexuality. A statement written by the Rev Mike Reith, vicar of Dagenham, on the parish website described the bishop as "a lovely bloke" but then quoted the 26th article, approved in 1571, which states: "Sometimes the evil have chief authority in the ministration of the word and sacraments." Read more
The web article referred to in this story may be found here.
An 'Ugley Vicar' blog on this may be found here.
See here for a link to other blog reactions.
Wednesday, 18 July 2007
Ordination spurned in gay row
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This story contains several things which deserve comment in themselves.
First, the title, Ordination spurned. That is simply not true. Richard wanted to be ordained (why else would he be on an ordination retreat?), and still expects to be. He did not 'refuse' to be ordained, but rather refused to take communion with the bishop. Right or wrong, that is the point at issue, which the Guardian obscures.
Secondly, the link between Richard, Mike Reith and "the most hardline" Oak Hill college is tendentious, since Mike was there more than twenty years ago, under a very different regime.
Thirdly, the statement about Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi cancelling John Gladwin's schedule and leaving him stranded in Kenya during a "pastoral visit" is simply untrue. I have the Archbishop's own word on that!
Fourthly, and finally, to state Richard "left the [retreat] early" omits to mentions he was basically asked to leave.
The rest of it is pretty close.
And another thing I just checked with Richard. The statement that Richard "declined to attend a meal presided over by the bishop" is somewhat misleading given that it was apparently a buffet supper at which the bishop was present, from which Richard had excused himself on other (sound) grounds.
Post a Comment