Paula Vennells is an Anglican priest
Doublethink
Admin, 8th Day Host
What do we think this does for the reputation of the church ?
Doublethink
Admin, 8th Day Host
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67923190
Yes, it really does and if true it's a serious cause for concern and I'm thankful it never happened.
As far as I know, Paula Vennells was never anything more than a part time non-stipendiary, was never an incumbent and never held any ecclesiastical office. She lacked any background knowledge of how the church worked. One can imagine that before this scandal broke, somebody might have aired the idea, 'how about a Rev with experience of running a large organisation in stead of the usual career history'. Somebody might even have said, 'right, get her in and let's have a look at her'. If it got even that far, I doubt it went any further.
And @MaryLouise I think all that reveals is not something specific to churches but that neither churches nor those that lead them are any more immune to the evils of groupthink and the administrative mind than any other large organisations.
Aspiring to be holy doesn't inoculate anyone against that.
I was (am) a big Rowan Williams fan but it was inevitable that a greater degree of 'managerialism' would come in under ++Welby.
I hear all manner of disgruntlement from Anglican clergy but that's nothing new.
As far as how this will influence people's views of the Christian faith and Churches, I'm not sure it will do anything more than reinforce whatever views people already have. That it's hypocritical, too wedded to the establishment and so on.
I've looked quite closely at various background reports on Paula Vennells and her role as an Anglican priest: a number of sources confirm that she reached a shortlist of three for the position of Bishop of London in 2017, and in 2019, she was appointed as chair of Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust which is not simply a business-related position. Justin Welby has also commented that more questions should have been asked about Vennells' involvement with 'an ethical investment committee' in 2019 and 2020.
My concern though isn't primarily with Paula Vennells (I'm wary how often women in high positions do get scapegoated or made the primary focus of public blame) because behind her there were other collaborators, a lack of discernment and a corporate culture of evasive defensiveness.
It seems to go hand in hand with large organisations.
But then she does seem to have refused to entertain a charitable doubt about the large, significant, number of people the Post Office were accusing.
The person who got London, Sarah Mullaly, has similarly limited experience of parish work. Until appointed a residentiary Canon at Salisbury less than 10 years after being ordained she hadn't had a full-time stipendiary post that wasn't combined with something else. She was Chief Nursing Officer for NHS England during her diaconate and first curacy, and was no doubt rather busy completing a degree in her second.
If you use this to draw up a timeline of all her appointments you can see just how much time she had for "full-time" ministry.
@Enoch It is no rumour about Vennells and London - she reached the final shortlist of three and it was only then that someone with a bit more gumption (and I suspect a subscription to Private Eye) got to point out that she might be a (ahem) controversial choice.
Paula has taken biblical inspiration from the young King Solomon, who showed humility in asking God for a wise and understanding heart, so that he could rule his people with justice (1 Kings 3:6-12). Her leadership style has consisted in confronting the problems she faced, setting a powerful shared vision, engaging with all the stakeholders, and widening and delayering leadership. She has sought to improve standards of courtesy and respectful listening in what had often been fraught and ill-tempered encounters between different groups. She has sought to celebrate what is good and deal decisively with what is not. She says communication should be inspiring, but also well structured, and it should not duck complexity – over-simple messages can leave people dissatisfied. In all this she has found inspiration from the person of Jesus.
I doubt it.
Mind you, my particular neck of the woods could benefit from a wee bit of managerialism ... 😉
But overall, yes, a sorry state of affairs.
Either this is a parody, or it's vomited from the bowels of hell. Or possibly both.
The Ballad Of Paula Vennells would seem to be an anti-PV site, but the specific quote is from some bringing-faith-to-the-offixe sorta publication.
I don't think anyone's suggesting that she can't be forgiven, but there must surely be an acknowledgement of what she's done, and acceptance (by her) of the consequences.
What does being forgiven mean ?
It means your sins are not held against you by God and/or other people but firstly you can't mandate that all SPMs should forgive those responsible and secondly that still doesn't mean they are free of secular consequences.
verb
past participle: forgiven
stop feeling angry or resentful towards (someone) for an offence, flaw, or mistake.
"I'll never forgive David for the way he treated her"
no longer feel angry about or wish to punish (an offence, flaw, or mistake).
"I was willing to forgive all her faults for the sake of our friendship"
cancel (a debt).
"he proposed that their debts should be forgiven"
But Welby still has a lot to answer for over this - he was the one that pushed for her to be on the shortlist for London and she was his preferred choice, as crazy as this seems. It really isn't enough for him to now say "more questions should have been asked", as if somehow it was someone else's error of judgement. Why not simply say "I was wrong"?
But the Post Office scandal happened on her watch and she was accountable and responsible as CEO and has to face the music.
Being 'forgiven' doesn't mean we don't have to face the consequences of our actions.
I tend to keep an open mind on ++Welby. The poor guy has suffered personal tragedy and I'm sure there's more to him than his detractors allow.
But there does seem to have been an increase in managerialism in the wrong sense under his watch.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/may/27/post-office-scandal-police-to-deploy-80-detectives-for-criminal-inquiry
Clearly it suits their purpose to let us know that Justin Welby favoured Paula Vennels as a candidate, but not to let us know on what grounds, nor whether any other members of the CNC also favoured her.
It also suits their purpose not to let on whether they also favoured her, or, if they did not, whether it was because of some prescience on their part about her involvement in the Post Office, or perhaps an objection to her gender or her churchmanship.
Frankly, it is not clear to me whether they genuinely want to expose some deep-seated problem within the appointments process, or whether they merely wish to snipe at Justin Welby.
Best not to speculate, of course.
You are arguing with BBC sources:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67923190
I can understand you not liking the story but to be honest it would be fairer for you to question the integrity of the journalists that wrote it rather than accusing others here of spreading unfounded rumours.
If course the BBC is not infallible, however they have considerable journalistic credibility and a system for dealing with correcting factual errors.
For example within the university system I know best. There are several administrative positions between the Head of Departments and the Vice-Chancellor.
It's going to be almost impossible for someone who hasn't a supporter high in the chain to be offered a senior administrative job unless they've progressed along the traditional administrative route.
And this isn't even to suggest anything untoward. Because how does the administration and senior management to know that (for example) a middle ranking academic wants to move into administration unless they mention it to an appropriate person in the chain who then advocates for them?
She was well known to be a businessperson running quite a large corporate organisation.
It has taken a public inquiry to find out some things that she's admitted, in tears, she should have known and done something about.
Given that the Post Office and the rest of the Powers That Be have been unwilling to say boo to her until very recently, what is anyone expecting that a religious group, with far less resources, could have found out?
If they (the church) have done anything wrong, it is only in being slightly hypnotised by the idea of getting the skills of a top businessperson into the top of the structure. A mistake, if it turns out to be one, which is entirely understandable and regularly repeated by almost every large religious group everywhere.
That's literally how journalism works. No journalist will identify sources who do not want to be identified.
I imagine it is news because he's the top of the pyramid and because he seems to be saying that the church should have looked closer at Paula Vennells at the time of the nomination. Which seems to be contradictory if it was him who was a/the promoter of her as a candidate.
Or whatever it is called.
Well firstly, presumably the discernment process for ordination is to some extent attempting to assess character ?
Vennells was ordained in 2006, considered for bishop of London around 2017. The Justice for Subpostmasters group was operative from 2012, the Second Sight in report came out in 2013 and the final report came out in 2015. A mediation scheme was set up after the publication of the interim report in 2013.
Which is to say, despite that this has become very prominent in the news recently - the history of public discussion of these issues is not new.
Part of the problem with the C of E's procedures in appointing bishops is its excessive secrecy. So on the rare occasions when the secrecy breaks down, there is usually good reason. Going back some years, we had Jeffrey John being blocked from becoming Bishop of Southwark by Archbishop Sentamu; when it subsequently emerged that Sentamu had acted in a highly aggressive and bullying manner to get his way. It was right that the obsessive secrecy be broken. And I think that the same thing applies here. Welby was pushing for someone who was clearly ill-equipped to be a bishop, on the basis (now seemingly questionable) that she was a "successful business executive".
Both examples show to me that the secrecy should be abandoned.
(For what it's worth, I was vigorously opposed to Welby's appointment at the time and said as much on the old Ship. He has done nothing since then to make me question my opinion.)
Yes, but at the very least it was a failure of personal judgement, your criticism amounts to saying that there could also have been an institutional failure (which I think everyone here is willing to grant anyway).
I agree there are problems with the confidentiality of the process , but vanishingly few people in any role want the people they presently work with to know they are seeking a move. And nobody wants to have ‘Oh yes. Reverend X she was passed over for Bishop of Y. I wonder why that was?’ hanging round their necks.
Nor would diocesan members of the CNC, voting against a candidate or in favour of another candidate, relish their new bishop coming in knowing that they didn’t want the one they were getting, or at least preferred someone else.
Whether these, or confidentiality is the greater evil is, IMO, hard to judge.
That description pretty much applied to the current Bishop of London at the time of her appointment.
The Bishop of London’s former role as Chief Nursing Officer, and the fact that she was one of only 70+ suffragan bishops, and had London connections (albeit south of the river) all make it highly likely that her name would get onto the long list, and make her a serious candidate for shortlisting.