That may not be an uncommon occurrence these days, but the man they turned down this time has a well-known name in England.

Nick Howard, son of Michael Howard, former leader of the British Conservative Party, has been refused ordination by the Church of England, on the grounds that he did not display sufficient respect for homosexuals and non-Christian religions.

Nick Howard, who completed a theology degree this summer, was not ordained because of his "unwillingness to listen" to other viewpoints.

He told The Mail on Sunday that his strongly held evangelical beliefs on homosexuality and multifaith worship marked him out as a "troublemaker" even though they reflect official Anglican doctrine.

During his three-year training at Cranmer Hall, a theological college attached to the University of Durham, Nick discussed his concerns with tutors but found little comfort in their "blase attitudes". Fellow students, although often sympathetic to his orthodox views, did not want to incur the wrath of college authorities by speaking out.

There are many ironies in this situation.  Mr Howard's belief that homosexuals may participate fully in the life of the Church as long as they remain celibate is in fact the official view of the Church of England.  The Archbishop of Canterbury only five weeks ago affirmed that non-celibate homosexuals must change their behaviour if they wish to be fully included within the Church.  Moreover, the great majority of the world's 73 million Anglicans would agree with Mr Howard's stance and reject that of his tutors.

Also, Mr Howard's beliefs that Christianity is "the true faith" and that non-Christians should repent and believe the gospel if they are to be reconciled with God fully accords with traditional Christian understanding of biblical teaching, not to mention the Thirty-Nine Articles.  That, too, is the view of the great majority of the world's Anglicans.

In response to all this, Mr Howard went a step further—a step too far, IMHO.

Nick, however, quietly reinforced his views by refusing to take Communion at the college's weekly Tuesday evening service. Instead he stayed in his pew, his head bowed in reflection.
. . .
"As a Christian, I believe that Jesus died for Sikhs and Muslims, too," he says, "so I long to share the good news with them so that they can be saved. It felt a bit awkward sitting there when everyone else was going up [for Communion] but I couldn't physically have done anything else because I can't pretend someone shares the same religion as me if, in reality, they don't."

Yet, as a result of this silent declaration of belief, 30-year-old Nick now finds himself ostracised from the Anglican Church he so desperately wants to be a part of.

At the end of his final year, a panel of tutors explained that his "unwillingness to listen" would make him an unsuitable vicar.

Refusing to partake Holy Communion with one's teachers and tutors is an extreme decision, especially when they will have a huge influence on one's future ministry opportunities.  Here, unfortunately, Mr Howard crossed a line that could exclude him from ordained Anglican ministry.

The Church of England, along with most other historic Christian denominations, holds the view that the sacraments are proper and efficacious irrespective of the worthiness of the presiding minister.  As Article XXVI has it,

Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometime the evil have chief authority in the ministration of the word and sacraments; yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by His commission and authority, we may use their ministry both in hearing the word of God and in the receiving of the sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the sacraments ministered unto them, which be effectual because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.

Nevertheless it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church that inquiry be made of evil ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty by just judgement, be deposed.

That the Church of England has arguably failed to enforce the last clause does not obviate the rest of the article.  As long as the sacrament is administered in accordance with accepted liturgy and practice, Anglicans do not believe that the orthodoxy of the presiding minister has any effect—positive or negative—on the propriety of the rite.

As an evangelical in a liberal theological college, Mr Howard was certainly in a difficult position.  I have only the greatest sympathy for his predicament.  Perhaps he should have enrolled at one of the orthodox Anglican colleges in England.  But even there, he would have had to accept the teaching of Article XXVI in order to be ordained.  The validity of the sacraments derives from Christ, not from the virtue of the minister.  Refusing to receive the Eucharist from a minister whose theology one disagrees with is therefore inappropriate and misguided.

Read the whole thing for more on Nick Howard's background and current activities.  This young man is on fire to proclaim the gospel of Christ's salvation to all who need to hear it.  It is truly a shame that he will be unable to preach from an Anglican pulpit.

Previous related post: Rowan Williams says homosexuals must change; Anglican liberals aghast