Review of Biography of Richard Harries

[...] Those who opposed Bishop Richard over his appointment of Jeffrey John are accused of being “ecclesiastical barbarians”, of “uncharitable wickedness”, ( p.217) of “warped malignancy ( p 221), “biblical fundamentalists” (p 189) This is particularly unfair because such charges were never part of Richard Harries’ debate with those who strongly disagreed with him on this matter. Indeed a mark of his fairness is the revelation in the book that he initiated discussions as to how alternative episcopal oversight could be arranged for congregations and clergy who would be “unable and unwilling to accept (Jeffrey) John’s ministrations”.

This is also unfair to Bishop Harries because he never accused those who opposed him publicly on this matter of having less than an Anglican ecclesiology. So why has Mr Peart-Binns let these judgements intrude? Bishop Harries is never quoted as holding these views himself. If this is or was Bishop Harries’ view, then it would be important for Bishop Richard to say so clearly.

The book notes, but does not give adequate weight to, the failure to take into account the proper interest of the Anglican Communion in the consecration of one who would be part of its college of bishops. This is the concern not of ecclesiastical barbarians. Not only evangelicals, but also anglo-catholics were opposed to Jeffrey John’s nomination and they would hardly relish being called ecclesiastical barbarians. Read more