The leader of the biggest church in the worldwide Anglican communion yesterday deepened the crisis over homosexuality when he threatened to split with the Church of England if it proceeds with the consecration of its first gay bishop.

Archbishop Peter Akinola, leader of the 17.5 million-strong church in Nigeria, who has declared homosexuality to be an abomination, warned he would precipitate a schism if Canon Jeffrey John becomes suffragan bishop of Reading.

There were fears last night that more than a dozen other churches in developing countries would follow Nigeria's lead if it divides the 70 million-strong worldwide communion between the developed and the developing world.

The Church Mission Society has warned that its missionary work could be threatened in such circumstances.

The prospect of a schism within months of taking office is a huge challenge for Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is also head of the worldwide communion.

Known to be personally sympathetic to gays, he is pledged to uphold church rules and has so far kept his head down, apart from issuing a statement three weeks ago regretting the division caused by a decision by the Canadian diocese of New Westminster to authorise a same sex blessing service.

Archbishop Akinola's outburst represents an extraordinary interference in the affairs of a national church by a primate of another country and came despite an assurance from Canon John that, although he remains in a 27-year partnership, he is now celibate.

Archbishop Akinola told BBC radio: "We claim we are Bible-loving Christians. We cannot be seen to be doing things clearly outside the boundaries allowable in the Bible. This is only the beginning. We would sever relationships with anybody, anywhere... anyone who strays over the boundaries we are out with them. It is as simple as that."

Nigeria and 12 other provinces from developing countries have already declared themselves to be in "impaired communion" with the Canadian diocese and they may take similar action against New Hampshire in the US, which elected the first bishop in an openly gay relationship.

The provinces include the West Indies, the Southern Cone (South America), Central Africa, Kenya, India, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Uganda, West Africa, the Indian Ocean, Congo and Sudan.

Canon John's declaration wrong-footed his English critics. Nine Church of England diocesan bishops said they would "rejoice" if the canon was merely in a same sex relationship of companionship and sexual abstinence - precisely how he has now described himself. He said of his relationship: "We have been together for 27 years and we will remain together. But the relationship has not been sexually expressed for years."

The vicar of the parish of Pangbourne, outside Reading, where the bishop will have his home, also expressed strong reservations about his arrival. The Rev John Staples told the BBC: "It raises the question of the authority of the church... I think there is a real danger of splitting the communion."

The threat of a split will alarm church leaders who have struggled to retain a facade of unity on the issue of homosexuality.

Archbishop Akinola himself came under fire from the pages of the Church Times newspaper last night when a correspondent with a shared parish in Nigeria pointed out local tribal practices of polygamy and human sacrifice. The Rev Mark Williams wrote: "The archbishop's faithfulness to scripture at home is far more a cause for question and concern than anything going on here or in Canada... We cannot be held hostage to such double standards."

Jewish Liberal Synagogues have agreed to sanction blessing services for gay Jewish couples. The Jewish Chronicle today says the liberal movement has agreed to sanction synagogue commitment services.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

Statement by
Canon Jeffrey John

I realise the dismay which my nomination as Bishop of Reading has caused some individuals and church communities in the Archdeaconry of Berkshire and beyond.

I understand and respect those concerns, which I know are based on a genuine desire to be faithful to Christ. In so far as I can, I would like to try to alleviate them.

I have already had a number of helpful meetings with some of the leading objectors to my nomination. These meetings have been frank, friendly, prayerful and constructive, and have encouraged me to believe that there is a way forward through continuing dialogue.

It is this kind of personal exchange that can best help us see past the labels we stick on each other, and realise that we are all genuinely trying to serve the God we love as members of his son's body. So I hope there will be many more such meetings.

Nevertheless, it has become clear that it would also help if I clear up a number of points in a written statement.

My personal view about homosexual relationships

My own view is that there is a sound argument from scripture and tradition in favour of Christians accepting same-sex relationships, provided they are based on a personal covenant of lifelong faithfulness.

I would not term such a relationship a marriage, but I believe that it could be understood as a legitimate covenanted relationship. My arguments for this view are set out most fully in a booklet entitled Permanent Faithful Stable, first published in 1990 and updated in 2000. Practically the same text also appears as a chapter of a book entitled The Way Forward?, published by the St Andrew's Day Group in 1999.

Following the Lambeth conference, I also gave a talk entitled Post-Lambeth Reflections to an Affirming Catholicism conference, which was informally photocopied and privately distributed. This talk reflects the anger that I and many others felt in the wake of Lambeth '98.

I regret its excessively personal and polemical tone, and the fact that, as a result of the controversy about my appointment, it has, ironically, been given far wider circulation than was ever intended. Even this talk, however, emphasised as its main point the need for continuing, careful, respectful dialogue on the basis of scripture and tradition, as opposed to those who simply 'rubbish' the conservative view and reject the witness of scripture and tradition out of hand.

I have made the point, repeatedly, that it is only such serious engagement with scripture that can lead all of us deeper into God's truth. I am sorry if the rhetoric of the talk detracted from that overriding aim.

I need to be clear, too, that I have every respect for those, of whichever gender or orientation, who out of personal conviction and in obedience to their understanding of scripture and tradition, have committed themselves to a life of celibacy, often at great personal cost.

Contrary to the impression given, these writings on the subject of homosexuality are a very small proportion of my published work. Most of my publications have been concerned with biblical and sacramental theology, Anglican Catholicism, catechetics, apologetics, evangelism and church growth.

The issue of homosexuality has hardly entered into my teaching and speaking in Southwark, or elsewhere, for the past six years, and it occupied little of my time before that. I do not accept the press's labelling of me as a gay rights campaigner, nor do I believe that those who know me and work with me would recognise this description of me.

How my personal view relates to the role of area bishop

I recognise that my personal view is not that of the majority of Christians, nor the official view of the Church of England. I also recognise that a bishop does not enjoy the same liberty of expression as an individual theologian.

I have therefore stated publicly that I will abide by the teaching and discipline of the church in this area, which is the House of Bishops' statement, Issues in Human Sexuality. However, since I have strongly criticised this document in print, and continue to be personally critical of it, I need to be clear what I believe abiding by this document means, and why I believe I can say this without hypocrisy.

It is not unusual for a bishop to be in personal conflict with a public position which his office obliges him to uphold. To be in a position of loyal dissent calls for patience and can be uncomfortable, but it is not dishonourable.

In fact, it is essential for the development of the church's teaching. A good analogy is the situation of the bishops who argued in favour of women's ordination for many years before 1992, but who waited for the church to officially change its view before acting to ordain them.

It would, in my view, have been wrong for those bishops to have forestalled the collective decision by acting unilaterally, because to do so undermines unity and order.

Similarly, I have argued in favour of the church blessing same-sex partnerships, and will continue to argue for it when invited to do so in the councils of the church. However, I have never felt able to perform such a blessing, because to do so is not yet a rite of the church.

I agree with the recent statement of the primates of the Anglican Communion that the lack, at this time, of a theological consensus for same-sex unions precludes the use of rites of blessing. Priests, and still more bishops, can only perform the functions which the church authorises them to perform.

It follows that, as Bishop of Reading, I would not perform or authorise same-sex blessings, unless and until the church authorises them. Furthermore, I agree with the Archbishop of Canterbury's letter to primates, issued on his appointment, in which he states that this matter cannot be settled by a single diocese or even province without some wider agreement in the communion as a whole.

Abiding by Issues in Human Sexuality means that I will not act as a maverick against the church's teaching and discipline as that document sets it out. Although area bishops in the Diocese of Oxford have traditionally exercised a high degree of autonomy, my theological understanding of the suffragan's role would not, in any case, allow me to deviate from the policies of the diocesan.

So, for example, in matters of selection for ordination, making clergy appointments, or in exercising clergy discipline, my policies, procedures and criteria will follow his.

If a doubtful case arises, or one in which my own conscience and convictions threaten to colour my judgment, I will refer the case to him. I admit to taking comfort in the fact that, as a suffragan, the ultimate hard decisions would not be mine.

Even so, I do not underestimate the painful tensions and dilemmas that could arise. I will continue to hope, pray and argue for a change in the current discipline which makes such hard decisions necessary, and which, in my view, penalises honesty and openness.

But I will not use the episcopal role as a platform for publicly promoting my views about homosexual relationships. I am not driven by a liberal agenda, and this subject will be far from my main concern as a bishop.

However, I will state my view in the councils of the church, or when invited to contribute to the continuing debate of this subject that is called for both by Issues in Human Sexuality and by the 1998 Lambeth Conference.

My personal life

I am a homosexual. As I stated in my Post-Lambeth Reflections, I have been in the kind of covenant relationship I have described above since 1976, and will remain so. I regard this life partnership as a gift and vocation from God.

The relationship does not, however, involve sexual expression. It falls within the 'gift of same-sex friendship ... of companionship and sexual abstinence' in which the nine diocesan bishops who have publicly spoken against my appointment have said that they rejoice.

Nor is it the case that sexual expression was recently abandoned for the sake of preferment. The relationship ceased to be sexual in the 90s, at the time when Issues in Human Sexuality was becoming the policy document by which clergy were being called to abide.

I have had, and I still have, an overriding regard for the mind of the church in its interpretation of scripture, whatever my personal interpretation. This means that I have always submitted the facts of this relationship, both to my confessors and to my canonical superiors, and I have obeyed their direction.

My partner and I have never lived together (apart from one brief period while he was moving house) because our separate ministries have never made it possible to do so.

However, we rely on each other for support and spend as much free time together as possible. I am therefore making this statement (despite my distaste for having to make such private matters public) for the avoidance of any doubt about what this closeness implies.

My hope

The main focus of my ministry to date has been on growing the church, and growth would be my aim for the Archdeaconry of Berkshire too: growth in depth of faith and knowledge, and growth in numbers.

As I said in my first press release, we know that over 70% of the population believe in God, and over 50% call themselves C of E, yet only a small proportion worship in our churches.

We need to challenge their latent faith to become a living, active faith. But we also need to challenge ourselves: to make sure that what we offer in our churches, our worship, welcome and teaching, attracts them, meets their needs, and draws them to Christ.

My churchmanship is strongly Catholic, but I have been helped and inspired throughout my ministry by close co-operation with evangelical Christians and communities.

I am very clear that in order to achieve growth, non-evangelical churches need to learn from evangelical experience and evangelical seriousness about scripture and doctrine, and to gain an evangelical heart for mission.

All of us have everything to gain from overcoming our fears and suspicions, looking past the labels, and being willing to learn from each other. It is exactly this kind of co-operation which is needed to allow the Spirit to bring the growth across the board for which we yearn and pray.

In the clamour of the current controversy this co-operation for growth might seem almost a vain hope. I am sure it is not. I am continuing to pray for it, and I believe we will achieve it, together, with the help of God.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

Clergy rebel over appointment of gay bishop

The Bishop of Oxford today faced a rebellion from his own clergy over his appointment of a gay man as the new Bishop of Reading.

A group of 80 clergy and 20 leading laity from the Diocese of Oxford said they were seeking a meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury to plead with him to intervene to stop the appointment taking place.

If it went ahead, they would regard the leadership of the Diocese as "separating themselves" from the Church of England, Dr Philip Giddings, a lay minister speaking on behalf of opponents of the appointment told reporters at a news conference at Church House in Oxford.

However, the Bishop of Oxford, the Rt Rev Richard Harries responded immediately by saying he stood by his choice of Cannon Jeffrey John for the Reading post.

Dr Giddings, a licensed lay minister at Greyfriars Church, Reading, said the Evangelical Clergy, including the leaders of most of the largest churches in the diocese, had written privately to the Bishop of Oxford to express their "dismay" over the appointment.

He said: "Our representatives have met twice with the Bishop of Oxford. "We have pleaded with him to do all in his power to intervene so that the appointment does not take place," he said. "We are now seeking a meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury to express the same plea." He said they oppose the nomination because it went against the "plain meaning of scripture", 2,000 years of Christian tradition and the "divinely created order and gift of marriage".

He added: "Perhaps, above all, we feel that disappointment will be catastrophic in terms of the unity of the church – not only the Church of England and the Anglican Communion, which it threatens to split asunder, but also between the Anglican Church and other churches worldwide."

Dr Giddings then warned: "For these reasons, we believe that if this appointment proceeds, the Bishop of Oxford and by implication the leadership of the Diocese of Oxford will be separating themselves from the Church of England and the Anglican Communion.

"This will have grave structural, pastoral and financial implications, as well as provoking discussions about appropriate oversight in the future if this plan proceeds.

"The gravest consequence will be to the Anglican Church's witness to the name of Christ in our land.

"May God have mercy on us all and give those in authority Godly wisdom at this time."

His words came after Dr John issued a lengthy, written statement in which he said he wanted to alleviate the "dismay" over his appointment.

He said his now–celibate relationship with another man was a "gift" from God and would continue but he pledged not to be a "maverick".