Sentamu to York
The new Archbishop of York is to be the Rt Revd Dr John Sentamu, currently Bishop of Birmingham.
Here is the Church of England press release
Here is the Downing Street announcement
Here is the Lambeth Palace statement
Here is the Diocese of York press release
Here is the Diocese of Birmingham announcement
Church Times ‘Surprised’ choice for York
BBC New Archbishop of York appointed and The Archbishop with ‘street cred’ and Profile
Doug LeBlanc has a roundup of comments about John Sentamu in “You have wasted your saliva”
An excellent and ingenious appointment: thoroughly appropriate.
I wrote in support of Bp Wright, but you can’t win ’em all.
I’m pleased with this appointment – even if I would have instinctively preferred a candidate on the other side of a certain controversial issue. 🙂
Dr Sentamu seems to be a good pastor, highly respected in his present diocese, and the northern province is fortunate to get him.
He’s a good man – and refreshingly un-interested in the gender and sexuality issues! Which i think will be of benefit to all…
Re the new Archbishop of York, the Church Times says:
At the press conference, he said that he stood “where the Church of England stands”, and in line with the rest of Christendom, on the question of homosexuality. But the position was clear that “everybody is welcome, irrespective of sexual orientation,” and that people should be judged on their being in Christ, not on their sexual orientation.
That seems very common sense!
From asylum seeker to archbishop via Cambridge. If only others seeking refuge and hope here were given the same welcome and opportunities!
Following on from an earlier posting, the Yorkshire post reports: ‘Bishop Sentamu, who was last week appointed by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to a panel to help resolve disputes over the Church’s attitude towards homosexuality, said: “What I hope is that when people violently disagree with one another in the same family, they will find a language for living together and ways of talking to one another.” But he made clear he stood by the Lambeth Resolution of 1998, which rejected homosexual practice as “incompatible with scripture” and ruled out gay marriage in Church.’ I think that this clarifies… Read more »
Re Janet’s comment: (1) Welcoming everyone as they are, in the first instance, is a widespread Christian principle, so it is not at all remarkable that Abp John espouses it. So do the vast majority of Christians. (2) Equally, expecting them to stay as they are, or not particularly giving much thought to whether or not they stay as they are, is an attitude that has no Christian or biblical backing. And I doubt that Abp John would hold such an attitude. We have moved long beyond the stage where (1) and (2), which are two very different issues, could… Read more »
Christopher: does that mean that you would prefer those of us who don’t share your conservative vieww on gay issues to be removed from the Church?
Robert ; I think that what he actually said was that he stood by the current position of the Church of England. As all Bishops have to say in any case.
However, that position is not the same as the lambeth Conference poosition, as there is no bar to laity being within gay relationships, and remaining communicant members of the Church of England. Only ordination is barred to them.
I am sure that they wouldn’t be welcome in your church, but then, they probably wouldn’t choose to go somewhere so hostile in any case.
“I am sure that they wouldn’t be welcome in your church, but then, they probably wouldn’t choose to go somewhere so hostile in any case.”
What an abrasive comment! You don’t know my church at all, but you come out with comments like this. We unconditionally welcome all people, on the grounds that we are all sinful beings.
I find some of your postings very strange.
I wonder how we can build the Kingdom on Earth if we can’t even talk together in a civilised discussion. I will not be a party to excluding anyone and I certainly will not give creedance to those who think they have know the mind of God. Simply put, I won’t let my fellow sisters and brothers be mistreated by “ghastly” remarks that dehumanise people. Seems to me that “being straight,” is the luck of the draw and a priviledged position. It’s almost like saying being white is better than being _________ (fill in the blank). It’s a very un… Read more »
Hi Mike-
For as long as a given person does not fit the description of a member of a given people-group, then why would anyone describe them as belonging to that people-group. And, more importantly, why would they want to?
Christopher ; I certainly don’t fit your description of a conservative Christian – and neither would I ever wish to. Thereare many others like me. Rather than answer opaquely, would you wish to expel all who disagree with you from the Church?
Robert ; unconditional acceptance to me would mean recognition and acceptance of the relationship between me and my partner. How many gay couples do you have in your congregation?
Hi Mike- I hope that no Christian is either ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’. Both of those sound like they want to impose their own preconceived ideologies (which are nothing but their wishful thinking) on the rest of the world. In other words, they are ideologues. Christians should, rather, be: (1) eclectic (sometimes conservative, sometimes not, depending on where the evidence leads) (2) honest (3) humble (4) led by Christ and by evidence (rather than by their own aesthetic preferences or wishful thinking). Mike, if you or anyone else decides they are ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ before they even start examining the evidence,… Read more »
Mike-
To answer your main point:
(1) How could I have any authority to do that?
(2) From your description, they were never in the church in the first place, nor apparently did they ever want to be, except under their own terms. So any talk of expelling them (the term is quite funny in its pomposity) would not arise.
Well, I’m in the Church, Christopher, a baptised, communicant member of the Church of England.
So, enough of the sophistry, please. We are in and part of the Church. Your solution?
Mike, you are imposing your own definition of unconditional acceptance, without considering the implications of joining a church. Anyone who joins a church must surely do so with the intention of learning to follow the Lord; we all, as sinful people, need to change. Somewhere in the archives of this web-site is a copy of a draft letter sent by a minister to someone who said he was gay, and would he be welcome. I copied it bnecause this expresses far more adequately anything than I am able to offer: ———————————————– Letter to a Gay Man My friend Andy McQuitty,… Read more »
Mike, I salute you! You are the living embodiment of the saying ‘He wants all the privileges with none of the responsibilities’.
Are you denying that you are identifying yourself as a Christian strictly on your own terms, rather than on any commonly-agreed existing terms?
This being so, are you saying it is ok for everyone to have their own definition of ‘Christian’? Or of any other word? Wouldnt that make conversation impossible?