It is going to take at least 12 months for a successor to be found. As a temporary measure, I'd suggest that someone - a retired bishop ideally - be put into Lambeth not as "archbishop" but as a bishop for the diocese and to cover those national events that may occur and need a prelate of proven gravitas and stature.
The Bishop of Dover has for many years had the role of being effectively the Bishop for the Diocese, so that role will not need to be filled.
Successor? Rachel Treweek. An outsider would be Will Hazlewood.
I don’t think it will be a woman. next York maybe, but I’m not sure I see the powers that be pulling the pin on that particular Canterbury grenade at the moment.
If you read the archbishops' letter than +Newcastle responded to (link in post by @chrisstiles above) you'll see why ++York is not a good idea.
I think he meant that the next ++York may be a woman, rather than the current ++York would become the next ++Cantuar.
Well, the reputation of the Church of England beyond the UK is as tarnished.
I note how easily Smyth was able to slip out of public scrutiny in Britain and continue abusing youngsters in Zimbabwe and South Africa.
From the Makin report: "Smyth was encouraged to leave the UK and he moved to Zimbabwe without any referral being made to police.
In Zimbabwe he was charged with the manslaughter of a 16-year-old boy, who was attending one of his summer camps. Smyth was not convicted of the offence."
A major international cover-up and it is impossible to believe senior cleric and youth workers were not aware of what was going on.
Yes, that was appalling - (it’s a depressing 230 or so pages) you can see some very ineffectual efforts being made that got nowhere. It’s repeatedly the case in these kind of scandals that the people who think they can somehow contain the perpetrator without the criminal justice system just do not understand how manipulative these kind of abusers are. They also just didn’t understand how grooming and abuse work. Unfortunately, neither would police and juries at the time.
Even now, if a rape victim gives up their phone - and it’s discovered they’ve been in contact that is not explicitly hostile with the abuser - the chances of a conviction for the offence go out of the window.
Successor? Rachel Treweek. An outsider would be Will Hazlewood.
Given the weight now given to the wider communion it's hard to say - if the GAFCON types dominate those seats they will likely have to support a male candidate to maximise their influence (as some conservative provinces still have male-only priesthood) but the thumb will certainly be on the scales against the affirmation of LGBTQ+ Christians.
Give 'em a choice between a gay man and a woman and watch them play Top Trumps...
I get the impression that Welby had a lot of enemies on both the liberal and conservative sides. That doesn't let the Anglican hierarchy off the hook but neither does it lay the onus or 'blame' on any one faction as it were.
I can certainly see that many would take umbrage at the long leash he gave to the HTB crowd but equally that there were conservative voices who didn't think he was conservative enough.
Good gods. What weird alternative universe do the Heil's staff inhabit?
Mind you, whoever succeeds Welby will no doubt immediately be labelled as all-round useless by some faction or another, whether within the C of E or outside it. Not a job for the faint-hearted or thin-skinned...
That now gives +Newcastle two scalps she can chalk up, first a retired Archbishop and now an actual one.
No. It means there is finally at least one bishop prepared to abandon the steady-as-she goes, don't rock the boat mentality and - shock, horror - actually say when something is wrong. It also shows she's learned from the silence of others that sometimes people need to be called out publicly.
@Gamma Gamaliel This is nothing to do with "enemies", real or imaginary, from any particular faction. This is to do with inertia, lack of leadership, pastoral failure to the victims and, above all, a sense that the usual flannel is appropriate to all situations.
Anyone wondering what the reaction of his fellow bishops have to say about the departure of JW can read their statements here.
With a couple of exceptions - Gloucester for one - the institutional flannel supplies must be running preilously close to zero: the winner in a crowded field is +Chichester. The majority still don't get it: they're trying to spin that JW has resigned in response to the Makin Report - in other words we're meant to forget his previous statements especially the bit where he said he wouldn't resign.
How the Mail can link this story to the Sussexes or the royal family in general is beyond me. What the actual ...?!
You couldn't spoof that article. It's almost a caricature of itself.
@TheOrganist, I will bow to your inside knowledge. I am aware, of course that things haven't been that hunky-dory within the CofE for some considerable time, and not only over this particular issue. I'm not the only one to have suggested that Welby had enemies, though. Nevertheless, I'd be inclined to see this as more an issue of institutional inertia and failure rather than personal failings on Welby's part, although that would come into the equation too of course.
He has resigned, and AFAIK his resignation has been accepted by the King (he can't go until the King gives permission, which presumably he has done).
Clerical Shipmates will correct me if I'm wrong, but I would guess that he is therefore no longer Archbishop of Canterbury. It'll take a while for a successor to be appointed, so some sort of caretaker arrangement will be made in the interim.
That now gives +Newcastle two scalps she can chalk up, first a retired Archbishop and now an actual one.
No. It means there is finally at least one bishop prepared to abandon the steady-as-she goes, don't rock the boat mentality and - shock, horror - actually say when something is wrong. It also shows she's learned from the silence of others that sometimes people need to be called out publicly.
I tend to agree. It's rather characteristic of such things that the focus should be on the way in which someone expressed their frustrations rather than the fairly deplorable circumstances they were attempting to bring to light.
I get the impression that Welby had a lot of enemies on both the liberal and conservative sides. That doesn't let the Anglican hierarchy off the hook but neither does it lay the onus or 'blame' on any one faction as it were.
There's an element of that in the reaction to the events (the Mail piece being the most flagrant), but the events themselves were appalling enough and entirely caused by Welby's own faction and their overweening arrogance and hubris.
Sure. The Iwerne stuff would very much fall into that category even without Smyth exploiting it for his own twisted ends.
Sociologists might be able to explain this but close knit communities of one form or other do seem prone to religious 'awakenings' or movements of one form or other. It's been noted that the Alpha course has particular traction in prisons, for instance.
I have a friend who went to a leading English public school and came to faith at one of the 'Bash' Camps. He never experienced any abuse or anything untoward, but he did imbibe a form of 'muscular Christianity.' He always had difficulty forming relationships though and finally married at the age of 63. I'd be careful not to draw too many conclusions from that but am sure that particular milieu had something to do with the delay, as it were, but we all carry baggage from whatever background we have.
Ian Hislop has also written, I think about a religious 'revival' that broke out at his boarding school.
I don't doubt that some of these things are genuine and authentic which makes Smyth's exploitation of them all the worse.
There's also something chillingly Machiavellian about the Iwerne vision. Convert public school boys to evangelical Christianity then when they attain positions of power and influence they can 'bring the nation back to Christ'.
Welby can't help having the background he had any more than the rest of us can, and I do get the impression he did try to reach beyond the HTB stable and the particular tribe of public school Anglicanism in which he was formed. I have no idea how successful or otherwise he was in that. Not very, by the sounds of it.
There's also something chillingly Machiavellian about the Iwerne vision. Convert public school boys to evangelical Christianity then when they attain positions of power and influence they can 'bring the nation back to Christ'.
It's not a new vision, however. The original conversion of England was largely from the top down - Augustine of Canterbury first converted King Æthelberht.
Well yes, and despite all the romanticism, the same applied to the missions of St Aidan and St Cuthbert in Northumbria.
They got to the king first.
Same with the early Protestant missions to the Pacific Islands. Same with Kyrill and Methodius in Rus.
None of them were in a position to go 'door knocking' or hold a Billy Graham rally.
They could only do what they were doing with royal sanction and approval.
But there is a big difference between 7th century England or 19th century Polynesia or 10th century Rus and contemporary Britain.
In many ways though, through no fault of his own, Welby was the ideal Establishment candidate, in terms of his background, his managerialism and attempts at conciliation. One could argue that he was never going to succeed as he was expected to do an impossible job, to represent those Establishment values whilst at the same time giving a conciliatory nod to those dismissed as 'woke' by the Daily Mail or Angry of Tonbridge Wells.
It's hard to envisage who or what is going to 'work' in Canterbury now. Williams the poet and academic didn't 'fit', Welby the Establishment stooge didn't work out. Who on earth can possibly fulfil the remit? Being 'prophetic' or radical doesn't sit well with the more civic and Establishment side of it. People go on about William Temple but he was only in the job a couple of years and said a few things that could be construed as 'socialist' or progressive.
There are of course serious questions as to what role the Archbishop of Canterbury has in 'this Church of England by law established' and as head-honcho of 85 million Anglicans worldwide in 160 countries. Where do you start?
Whatever you do you are going to hack somebody off, whether it's the Gafcon types, various minority or special-interest groups, the various factions and shades of 'churchmanship' - and all against a background of increasing secularism and the vast majority of the population neither knowing or caring what church and the Christian faith is all about.
Whoever is appointed I don't see them being able to juggle all that or reverse those trends.
It'd be interesting to hear more about the preferences Anglican Shipmates might have, but they aren't necessarily going to be representative of the Communion as a whole.
It'd be interesting to hear more about the preferences Anglican Shipmates might have, but they aren't necessarily going to be representative of the Communion as a whole.
I’m expecting Leicester, Norwich or Southwell. I could work myself into mild enthusiasm for the first two, and the third would be a safe pair of hands. Probably.
I think, fwiw, as a non-CofE person, think that this would be a good time to disestablish the CofE - which would give the next incumbent more freedom for religious work. It would also time quite well with proposals for the reform of the House of Lords.
I think, fwiw, as a non-CofE person, think that this would be a good time to disestablish the CofE - which would give the next incumbent more freedom for religious work. It would also time quite well with proposals for the reform of the House of Lords.
There is no good time to disestablish the CofE from a parliamentary perspective. It would be an utter ball-ache for very little practical benefit.
Quite, but, you may not want people you consider abusive as part of your government - and you may not want your church so obviously constrained by political considerations.
(And if we are to have religious leaders in the Lords, we may not want only Christian leaders of one particular denomination.)
I think, fwiw, as a non-CofE person, think that this would be a good time to disestablish the CofE - which would give the next incumbent more freedom for religious work. It would also time quite well with proposals for the reform of the House of Lords.
There is no good time to disestablish the CofE from a parliamentary perspective. It would be an utter ball-ache for very little practical benefit.
Exactly - like Brexit on stilts. Disestablishment was once described to me (by a canon lawyer) as something that would keep him in champagne for the ten years it gummed up Parliament to the exclusion of all other legislation!
I should add he was very much looking forward to the prospect for that reason. I think he had visions of a decade of hard work, then buying a small estate in the Dordogne with his personal profits…
There are of course serious questions as to what role the Archbishop of Canterbury has in 'this Church of England by law established' and as head-honcho of 85 million Anglicans worldwide in 160 countries.
Yes, and it shows how the Anglican Church is basically a relic of Empire.
That something is complicated doesn’t mean one shouldn’t do it. I would argue a large commons majority and planned lords reform on the table is probably the best background to such an initiative you are going to get.
That something is complicated doesn’t mean one shouldn’t do it. I would argue a large commons majority and planned lords reform on the table is probably the best background to such an initiative you are going to get.
So what is being dropped from the legislative programme to make space for it?
That something is complicated doesn’t mean one shouldn’t do it. I would argue a large commons majority and planned lords reform on the table is probably the best background to such an initiative you are going to get.
I'm not convinced the benefits outweigh the time and money required. You may be right that now is the best time to do it if you're going to, but that still doesn't mean it's worth doing.
I agree with most, maybe all of the criticisms of establishment, but I'm not convinced either that disestablishment will fix those problems or that there aren't equivalent improvements to be made at less cost in both time and money.
I believe Rowan Williams supported disestablishment until he became Archbishop of Wales and found himself having to deal with the legal fallout of Welsh disestablishment which was then over eighty years old.
The CofE is only established in England. Rowan Williams came from the Church in Wales, disestablished 1920. Why would disestablishment be a problem?
BTW, Rowan Williams has already retired from sitting in the Lords. Perhaps he would be a sensible locum for Canterbury, but the head of the Anglican Communion is an impossible job best moved away from these shores.
The CofE is only established in England. Rowan Williams came from the Church in Wales, disestablished 1920. Why would disestablishment be a problem?
This is exactly the problem - because it is a problem in Wales. Still.
But 'logically' it doesn't feel like it should be, so 'why would disestablishment be a problem?'
Well... as a hangover from Establishment, everyone in Wales has the right to be buried in a CinW churchyard (if it's open) - consequently the Welsh government has to approve the burial fees.
Law and Religion blog below gives an interesting summary of the situation as it was in 2013. Basically disestablishment in some ways gave Wales *less* autonomy and more need for governments to be actively involved on the CinW's behalf than they had previously been!
Justin Welby had to go. The safeguarding issue must get top priority and condoning abuse or slow-playing the accusations must cease. The damage to the C of E reputation is real, but pales into insignificance compared with the damage to individuals. I hope that finding will be agreed across the various divided groups which make up the Anglican Communion. And I hope that Justin Welby’s resignation will send out a clear warning signal to others in office.
I’m inclined to agree with Doublethink about the disestablishment move, while appreciating the difficulties. Some healing and restoration of respect seem to lie in that direction.
But I hope the “broad church” aim can be retained. That continues to need compromises and goodwill. But not over safeguarding. That should be clear to all.
Is my memory going splat, or wasn't the call to remove bishops an old left wing call? Strange to see the right wing pushing for it, and a Labour govt defending them. I suppose it's the wokery wot done it?
There are of course serious questions as to what role the Archbishop of Canterbury has in 'this Church of England by law established' and as head-honcho of 85 million Anglicans worldwide in 160 countries.
Yes, and it shows how the Anglican Church is basically a relic of Empire.
Arguably, the whole of Christendom is a relic of Empire, the Roman / Byzantine empires.
It's interesting to speculate what would have happened if the centre of gravity had shifted eastwards to Baghdad rather than westwards to Rome. Not as unlikely as it sounds.
But then I suspect Baghdad or Alexandria or wherever else would have acted like Rome or Constantinople.
It's not as if Ethiopian Christianity, way over yonder, wasn't tied in with its emperors or didn't ally itself with the Byzantines if occasion demanded, for all its distinctives.
I agree with @Doublethink that because something is difficult it doesn't mean it's not do-able. But the energy involved in disestablishment would sap what little energy remains in a CofE exhausted by managerialism, reorganisations and factional infighting.
A century on from Welsh disestablishment I can't see what difference it's made there. On those few occasions I've attended services in Welsh Anglican churches over the last decade or so I've met non-conformists worshipping there because their own chapels have closed.
I can see that decoupling itself from the mechanisms of state would send a positive message to those of other Christian traditions and other faith communities more widely, and yes, very importantly to those subjected to abuse - Iwerne is not the only example - but I don't see it happening any time soon.
@betjemaniac - that is mischievous. I heard +Oswestry preach recently. I wondered why he was still in the CofE.
But I mischievously wonder the same about many Anglo-Catholics and also some of the more fervent conservative evangelical types at the other end of the Anglican spectrum. It's great they can all fit inside the same tent but the guy-ropes are straining and the canvas flapping in the wind.
1.3.0 Dr Elly Hanson: an independent Clinical Psychologist who has worked with the issues of abuse and trauma for over 18 years...
1.3.3 Theological advice: Reviewers have consulted with individual advisors, both within the Church and independently, on theological matters, where this has been directly relevant to the Review.
Approach
4.5 This Review does not attempt to comment on matters of theology, except where that is directly relevant to an understanding of a particular event and to the knowledge that the Church of England could have had at the time. Equally, the Review does not offer a whole critique of the bodies and organisations involved, or their theology, beyond matters directly relevant to this Review, for example in terms of John Smyth exploiting theological matters to enable his abuse. These matters are outside scope of the ToR.
Pre 1970 to 1981 - Analysis
11.3.14 John Smyth also referred to books which, he claimed, supported his theological justification for the physical abuse. In particular, he quoted from AW Tozer, The Pursuit of God (1948) and SD Gordon, Quiet Talks on Power (1859).
11.3.15 Dr Hanson comments in her analysis that:
"…the [religious] beliefs in which John Smyth operated are critical to understanding
how he manipulated his victims into it, how it went on for so long, and how he evaded
justice. Smyth drew on a set of beliefs that helped justify his abuse to his victims and
likely also to himself. In parallel with this, his abuse is not accounted for by these
beliefs (i.e. it simply being a misunderstanding or misapplication of theology)… he had
deeper motivations at work, and deployed numerous strategies in service of his abuse.
It should also be noted that a large variety of beliefs and values (whether they be
religious, political, economic or philosophical) can be conducive to abuse when they
are held ‘ideologically’ – followed at the expense of a core care and regard for every
human being."
There's more detail in section 11.3. Makin (I presume) seems to reach a subtly different conclusion about the theology:
21. RADICALISATION AND THE EXPLOITATION OF THEOLOGIES
21.1 John Smyth was able to radicalise his victims, by using his misinterpretation and misuse of the Scriptures. He taught, preached, and exploited children and young people by applying a false theology, based on selected Scriptures, taken out of context. He mis-used the writings and views of various conservative theologians, primarily from the United States, including AW Tozer, Billy Graham, SD Gordon and Jim Packer. He contended that the way to Christ was through suffering, and he offered a “programme” which included ensuring that suffering was a route to the atonement of sins. This false thinking and perverted approach was known to the people around him and could have been challenged for what it was. Similar approaches were taken by him in Zimbabwe. He has been viewed by some commentators as being a “good Christian” who went too far. This Review’s conclusion is that he was a skilled and determined narcissist, who derived pleasure from the sufferings of others, as we have detailed in the narrative and has been analysed by Dr Elly Hanson in her report. It is the responsibility of leaders in the Church, and wider bodies and organisations, to be able to identify such false and dangerous theologies and to make sure that they are not allowed to develop.
I'm wondering whether he thinks that theologies are inherently dangerous, in contrast to particular people's interpretation and application. But it does appear that at least some in the CofE consider the theology, and attitudes to theology, to be relevant.
“... resignation is not going to resolve the problem ... at the heart of this problem is the impoverished interpretation of scriptures that takes a kind of literalism when we look at biblical scriptures ... and unless we address that, we are likely in the future to still find that we have a problem with abuse by people who interpret the bible literally and say God has spoken to me and God wants me to do that; or indeed to say we hold the confessional seal as the highest order and so we will not tell if somebody confesses something to us, that's at the heart of the problem.”
Well... as a hangover from Establishment, everyone in Wales has the right to be buried in a CinW churchyard (if it's open) - consequently the Welsh government has to approve the burial fees.
Although these kinds of objections become huge barriers and time sinks because someone is invested in making them so.
In principle it's no different to any other privatisation - you either strip out that obligation, or put in place some form of regulatory mechanism that manages the obligation (see BT and RMs various universal service provisions).
It would be an interesting exercise; if only because a number of people would end up on a side that they are in principle supposed to oppose.
It seems from posts upthread that there is no operative management structure within the C of E for the Archbishop to manage. One wonders why, if this is so, ++ Justin was chosen for the post on the basis of his 'managerial background'.
There's also something chillingly Machiavellian about the Iwerne vision. Convert public school boys to evangelical Christianity then when they attain positions of power and influence they can 'bring the nation back to Christ'.
It's not a new vision, however. The original conversion of England was largely from the top down - Augustine of Canterbury first converted King Æthelberht.
There are some surface similarities but there are ways in both visions are significantly different. Augustine's ministry reflects the post-Constantine understanding that the unit of conversion was the society and the goal was therefore to convert the monarch - yet this would have had fairly limited direct impact on the functioning of the Church itself. Whereas Bash understood individual conversion, he just felt the Church should be led by a patrician elite for the good of society as a whole. It doesn't require much squinting to see the issues that poses for even conevo theology.
Comments
The Bishop of Dover has for many years had the role of being effectively the Bishop for the Diocese, so that role will not need to be filled.
I think that's unfair and mean spirited towards the one bishop who it seems is willing to take safeguarding seriously.
I think he meant that the next ++York may be a woman, rather than the current ++York would become the next ++Cantuar.
Yes, that was appalling - (it’s a depressing 230 or so pages) you can see some very ineffectual efforts being made that got nowhere. It’s repeatedly the case in these kind of scandals that the people who think they can somehow contain the perpetrator without the criminal justice system just do not understand how manipulative these kind of abusers are. They also just didn’t understand how grooming and abuse work. Unfortunately, neither would police and juries at the time.
Even now, if a rape victim gives up their phone - and it’s discovered they’ve been in contact that is not explicitly hostile with the abuser - the chances of a conviction for the offence go out of the window.
Give 'em a choice between a gay man and a woman and watch them play Top Trumps...
I can certainly see that many would take umbrage at the long leash he gave to the HTB crowd but equally that there were conservative voices who didn't think he was conservative enough.
Mind you, whoever succeeds Welby will no doubt immediately be labelled as all-round useless by some faction or another, whether within the C of E or outside it. Not a job for the faint-hearted or thin-skinned...
The quality of this piece of "journalism" is, perhaps, indicated by this: "When he was in the Church of England, the ex-archbishop ..."
When did ne leave the Church of England?
When did he become as ex-archbishop?
@Gamma Gamaliel This is nothing to do with "enemies", real or imaginary, from any particular faction. This is to do with inertia, lack of leadership, pastoral failure to the victims and, above all, a sense that the usual flannel is appropriate to all situations.
With a couple of exceptions - Gloucester for one - the institutional flannel supplies must be running preilously close to zero: the winner in a crowded field is +Chichester. The majority still don't get it: they're trying to spin that JW has resigned in response to the Makin Report - in other words we're meant to forget his previous statements especially the bit where he said he wouldn't resign.
You couldn't spoof that article. It's almost a caricature of itself.
@TheOrganist, I will bow to your inside knowledge. I am aware, of course that things haven't been that hunky-dory within the CofE for some considerable time, and not only over this particular issue. I'm not the only one to have suggested that Welby had enemies, though. Nevertheless, I'd be inclined to see this as more an issue of institutional inertia and failure rather than personal failings on Welby's part, although that would come into the equation too of course.
Clerical Shipmates will correct me if I'm wrong, but I would guess that he is therefore no longer Archbishop of Canterbury. It'll take a while for a successor to be appointed, so some sort of caretaker arrangement will be made in the interim.
I tend to agree. It's rather characteristic of such things that the focus should be on the way in which someone expressed their frustrations rather than the fairly deplorable circumstances they were attempting to bring to light.
There's an element of that in the reaction to the events (the Mail piece being the most flagrant), but the events themselves were appalling enough and entirely caused by Welby's own faction and their overweening arrogance and hubris.
Sociologists might be able to explain this but close knit communities of one form or other do seem prone to religious 'awakenings' or movements of one form or other. It's been noted that the Alpha course has particular traction in prisons, for instance.
I have a friend who went to a leading English public school and came to faith at one of the 'Bash' Camps. He never experienced any abuse or anything untoward, but he did imbibe a form of 'muscular Christianity.' He always had difficulty forming relationships though and finally married at the age of 63. I'd be careful not to draw too many conclusions from that but am sure that particular milieu had something to do with the delay, as it were, but we all carry baggage from whatever background we have.
Ian Hislop has also written, I think about a religious 'revival' that broke out at his boarding school.
I don't doubt that some of these things are genuine and authentic which makes Smyth's exploitation of them all the worse.
There's also something chillingly Machiavellian about the Iwerne vision. Convert public school boys to evangelical Christianity then when they attain positions of power and influence they can 'bring the nation back to Christ'.
Welby can't help having the background he had any more than the rest of us can, and I do get the impression he did try to reach beyond the HTB stable and the particular tribe of public school Anglicanism in which he was formed. I have no idea how successful or otherwise he was in that. Not very, by the sounds of it.
It's not a new vision, however. The original conversion of England was largely from the top down - Augustine of Canterbury first converted King Æthelberht.
They got to the king first.
Same with the early Protestant missions to the Pacific Islands. Same with Kyrill and Methodius in Rus.
None of them were in a position to go 'door knocking' or hold a Billy Graham rally.
They could only do what they were doing with royal sanction and approval.
But there is a big difference between 7th century England or 19th century Polynesia or 10th century Rus and contemporary Britain.
In many ways though, through no fault of his own, Welby was the ideal Establishment candidate, in terms of his background, his managerialism and attempts at conciliation. One could argue that he was never going to succeed as he was expected to do an impossible job, to represent those Establishment values whilst at the same time giving a conciliatory nod to those dismissed as 'woke' by the Daily Mail or Angry of Tonbridge Wells.
It's hard to envisage who or what is going to 'work' in Canterbury now. Williams the poet and academic didn't 'fit', Welby the Establishment stooge didn't work out. Who on earth can possibly fulfil the remit? Being 'prophetic' or radical doesn't sit well with the more civic and Establishment side of it. People go on about William Temple but he was only in the job a couple of years and said a few things that could be construed as 'socialist' or progressive.
There are of course serious questions as to what role the Archbishop of Canterbury has in 'this Church of England by law established' and as head-honcho of 85 million Anglicans worldwide in 160 countries. Where do you start?
Whatever you do you are going to hack somebody off, whether it's the Gafcon types, various minority or special-interest groups, the various factions and shades of 'churchmanship' - and all against a background of increasing secularism and the vast majority of the population neither knowing or caring what church and the Christian faith is all about.
Whoever is appointed I don't see them being able to juggle all that or reverse those trends.
It'd be interesting to hear more about the preferences Anglican Shipmates might have, but they aren't necessarily going to be representative of the Communion as a whole.
I’m expecting Leicester, Norwich or Southwell. I could work myself into mild enthusiasm for the first two, and the third would be a safe pair of hands. Probably.
Mischievously I’d like Oswestry or Fulham. 😉
There is no good time to disestablish the CofE from a parliamentary perspective. It would be an utter ball-ache for very little practical benefit.
Given the RCC's abuse issues it's not clear that establishment is particularly linked to the cultural malaise that afflicts the CofE.
(And if we are to have religious leaders in the Lords, we may not want only Christian leaders of one particular denomination.)
Exactly - like Brexit on stilts. Disestablishment was once described to me (by a canon lawyer) as something that would keep him in champagne for the ten years it gummed up Parliament to the exclusion of all other legislation!
So what is being dropped from the legislative programme to make space for it?
I'm not convinced the benefits outweigh the time and money required. You may be right that now is the best time to do it if you're going to, but that still doesn't mean it's worth doing.
I agree with most, maybe all of the criticisms of establishment, but I'm not convinced either that disestablishment will fix those problems or that there aren't equivalent improvements to be made at less cost in both time and money.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/gavin-williamson-justin-welby-house-of-lords-mps-church-of-england-b1193654.html
BTW, Rowan Williams has already retired from sitting in the Lords. Perhaps he would be a sensible locum for Canterbury, but the head of the Anglican Communion is an impossible job best moved away from these shores.
This is exactly the problem - because it is a problem in Wales. Still.
But 'logically' it doesn't feel like it should be, so 'why would disestablishment be a problem?'
Well... as a hangover from Establishment, everyone in Wales has the right to be buried in a CinW churchyard (if it's open) - consequently the Welsh government has to approve the burial fees.
Law and Religion blog below gives an interesting summary of the situation as it was in 2013. Basically disestablishment in some ways gave Wales *less* autonomy and more need for governments to be actively involved on the CinW's behalf than they had previously been!
https://lawandreligionuk.com/2013/06/15/disestablishing-the-church-in-wales-at-last/
I’m inclined to agree with Doublethink about the disestablishment move, while appreciating the difficulties. Some healing and restoration of respect seem to lie in that direction.
But I hope the “broad church” aim can be retained. That continues to need compromises and goodwill. But not over safeguarding. That should be clear to all.
Is my memory going splat, or wasn't the call to remove bishops an old left wing call? Strange to see the right wing pushing for it, and a Labour govt defending them. I suppose it's the wokery wot done it?
Arguably, the whole of Christendom is a relic of Empire, the Roman / Byzantine empires.
It's interesting to speculate what would have happened if the centre of gravity had shifted eastwards to Baghdad rather than westwards to Rome. Not as unlikely as it sounds.
But then I suspect Baghdad or Alexandria or wherever else would have acted like Rome or Constantinople.
It's not as if Ethiopian Christianity, way over yonder, wasn't tied in with its emperors or didn't ally itself with the Byzantines if occasion demanded, for all its distinctives.
I agree with @Doublethink that because something is difficult it doesn't mean it's not do-able. But the energy involved in disestablishment would sap what little energy remains in a CofE exhausted by managerialism, reorganisations and factional infighting.
A century on from Welsh disestablishment I can't see what difference it's made there. On those few occasions I've attended services in Welsh Anglican churches over the last decade or so I've met non-conformists worshipping there because their own chapels have closed.
I can see that decoupling itself from the mechanisms of state would send a positive message to those of other Christian traditions and other faith communities more widely, and yes, very importantly to those subjected to abuse - Iwerne is not the only example - but I don't see it happening any time soon.
@betjemaniac - that is mischievous. I heard +Oswestry preach recently. I wondered why he was still in the CofE.
But I mischievously wonder the same about many Anglo-Catholics and also some of the more fervent conservative evangelical types at the other end of the Anglican spectrum. It's great they can all fit inside the same tent but the guy-ropes are straining and the canvas flapping in the wind.
People providing support to the review Approach Pre 1970 to 1981 - Analysis There's more detail in section 11.3. Makin (I presume) seems to reach a subtly different conclusion about the theology: I'm wondering whether he thinks that theologies are inherently dangerous, in contrast to particular people's interpretation and application. But it does appear that at least some in the CofE consider the theology, and attitudes to theology, to be relevant.
Here's Bishop of Dover, Rose Hudson-Wilkin (being interviewed by Cathy Newman on Channel 4 News - embedded YouTube), saying what the root of the problem is:
Although these kinds of objections become huge barriers and time sinks because someone is invested in making them so.
In principle it's no different to any other privatisation - you either strip out that obligation, or put in place some form of regulatory mechanism that manages the obligation (see BT and RMs various universal service provisions).
It would be an interesting exercise; if only because a number of people would end up on a side that they are in principle supposed to oppose.
There are some surface similarities but there are ways in both visions are significantly different. Augustine's ministry reflects the post-Constantine understanding that the unit of conversion was the society and the goal was therefore to convert the monarch - yet this would have had fairly limited direct impact on the functioning of the Church itself. Whereas Bash understood individual conversion, he just felt the Church should be led by a patrician elite for the good of society as a whole. It doesn't require much squinting to see the issues that poses for even conevo theology.