@Bishops Finger You might want to re-think on the PTO given the re-surfacing of the Roberts case from JW's time as Dean of Liverpool. To refresh your memories click here. (I don't think there is a paywall but can't guarantee ...)
Ignoring a previous conviction was bad enough, but banning another complainant from the cathedral??? Matthew 7:16 given a new twist indeed.
Regarding his resignation and farewell speech, Justin appears to have been having trouble remembering who the victims are and who's personally responsible:
My Lords, it is often said and it is a cliché to say it–but hey, I am the Archbishop still–that if you want to make God laugh, make plans. On that basis, next year, I will be causing God more hilarity than anyone else for many years, because the plans for next year were very detailed and extensive. If you pity anyone, pity my poor diary secretary, who has seen weeks and months of work disappear in a puff of a resignation announcement.
The reality, which I wish to start with–then pay some thanks, and then talk about housing–is that there comes a time, if you are technically leading a particular institution or area of responsibility when the shame of what has gone wrong, whether one is personally responsible or not, must require a head to roll. There is only, in this case, one head that rolls well enough...
The reality is that the safeguarding and care of children and vulnerable adults in the Church of England today is, thanks to tens of thousands of people across the Church, particularly in parishes, by parish safeguarding officers, a completely different picture from the past. However, when I look back at the last 50 or 60 years, not only through the eyes of the Makin report, however one takes one’s view of personal responsibility, it is clear that I had to stand down, and it is for that reason that I do so.
We write after watching Archbishop Justin’s farewell speech in the House of Lords yesterday. We have heard from several of you about the distress and anger that this has caused you.
Both in content and delivery, the speech was utterly insensitive, lacked any focus on victims and survivors of abuse, especially those affected by John Smyth, and made light of the events surrounding the Archbishop’s resignation. It was mistaken and wrong. We acknowledge and deeply regret that this has caused further harm to you in an already distressing situation.
We know that the Church of England has seriously failed over many years at many levels in relation to safeguarding, and we are so sorry that yesterday’s speech was the antithesis of all that we are now trying to work towards in terms of culture change and redress with all of you.
As lead bishops for safeguarding in the Church of England, we apologize to you...
And an apology from Justin, remembering what he should have said:
Yesterday, I gave my farewell speech in the House of Lords, as part of a debate on housing and homelessness.
I would like to apologise wholeheartedly for the hurt that my speech has caused.
I understand that my words – the things that I said, and those I omitted to say – have caused further distress for those who were traumatised, and continue to be harmed, by John Smyth’s heinous abuse, and by the far reaching effects of other perpetrators of abuse.
I did not intend to overlook the experience of survivors, or to make light of the situation – and I am very sorry for having done so.
It remains the case that I take both personal and institutional responsibility for the long and retraumatising period after 2013, and the harm that this has caused survivors.
I continue to feel a profound sense of shame at the Church of England’s historic safeguarding failures.
Regarding his resignation and farewell speech, Justin appears to have been having trouble remembering who the victims are and who's personally responsible:
My Lords, it is often said and it is a cliché to say it–but hey, I am the Archbishop still–that if you want to make God laugh, make plans. On that basis, next year, I will be causing God more hilarity than anyone else for many years, because the plans for next year were very detailed and extensive. If you pity anyone, pity my poor diary secretary, who has seen weeks and months of work disappear in a puff of a resignation announcement.
The reality, which I wish to start with–then pay some thanks, and then talk about housing–is that there comes a time, if you are technically leading a particular institution or area of responsibility when the shame of what has gone wrong, whether one is personally responsible or not, must require a head to roll. There is only, in this case, one head that rolls well enough...
The reality is that the safeguarding and care of children and vulnerable adults in the Church of England today is, thanks to tens of thousands of people across the Church, particularly in parishes, by parish safeguarding officers, a completely different picture from the past. However, when I look back at the last 50 or 60 years, not only through the eyes of the Makin report, however one takes one’s view of personal responsibility, it is clear that I had to stand down, and it is for that reason that I do so.
We write after watching Archbishop Justin’s farewell speech in the House of Lords yesterday. We have heard from several of you about the distress and anger that this has caused you.
Both in content and delivery, the speech was utterly insensitive, lacked any focus on victims and survivors of abuse, especially those affected by John Smyth, and made light of the events surrounding the Archbishop’s resignation. It was mistaken and wrong. We acknowledge and deeply regret that this has caused further harm to you in an already distressing situation.
We know that the Church of England has seriously failed over many years at many levels in relation to safeguarding, and we are so sorry that yesterday’s speech was the antithesis of all that we are now trying to work towards in terms of culture change and redress with all of you.
As lead bishops for safeguarding in the Church of England, we apologize to you...
And an apology from Justin, remembering what he should have said:
Yesterday, I gave my farewell speech in the House of Lords, as part of a debate on housing and homelessness.
I would like to apologise wholeheartedly for the hurt that my speech has caused.
I understand that my words – the things that I said, and those I omitted to say – have caused further distress for those who were traumatised, and continue to be harmed, by John Smyth’s heinous abuse, and by the far reaching effects of other perpetrators of abuse.
I did not intend to overlook the experience of survivors, or to make light of the situation – and I am very sorry for having done so.
It remains the case that I take both personal and institutional responsibility for the long and retraumatising period after 2013, and the harm that this has caused survivors.
I continue to feel a profound sense of shame at the Church of England’s historic safeguarding failures.
Am absolute clusterfuck with the bishops behind him giggling, and the Bishop of London the only one looking truly horrified. He still seems to be in denial about the reality.
Surviving Church wonders what this would all look like if transposed to another industry sector...
CofE-Air Motto: We’re On Some Sort of Journey
A Statement from CofE-Air: Proud Sponsor of Lambeth Palace FC
In recent months, it has been suggested that Church of England Airways—better known as CofE-Air—has enjoyed a less-than-stellar safeguarding record. This is wholly unfounded. But it is apparently impacting Lambeth Palace FC, who recently parted company with their Head Coach, Justin Welby, after a very poor run (Ed: surely several seasons?) of results.
CofE-Air wishes to make the following points concerning all the intense, undeserved, ill-informed and very unfair media scrutiny endured, and a handful of baseless complaints from a few of our passengers who claim to have had a less than satisfactory experience of journeying with us. In our statement, which will not be subject to media questions or further comment from us, CofE-Air reminds the public, passengers and its Purple Clubcard members that:
1. We take our passengers’ and customers’ comfort and safety very seriously. Safeguarding everyone who journeys with us is, front and centre, our number one priority. Safeguarding is what CofE-Air is all about, and we aim to deliver a service like no other.
2. We offer an elite high-cost low-budget safeguarding service for everyone. We avoid additional costs being passed onto our customers by making sure that our pilots, ground crew, cabin crew and other staff are unregulated, unlicensed and unaccountable to any industry standard.
3. We keep our published budget lower still by using lots of unpaid volunteers to oversee safeguarding, check-ins, etc. This ensures that all passengers are responsible for each other at all times, as safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility, not just the pilot(s) and crew.
...
5. In the unlikely event of a serious accident, Purple Clubcard members must sit facing forward in business class and first class, and should not on any account look backwards or attempt to intervene on behalf of those seated in economy class, who will be supported by our volunteer crew.
...
21. We do run a bus service – but only for throwing people under who can be made to take the blame for our failures. Please note, this is not a Replacement Bus Service. Our buses do not connect destinations or have any other purpose other than to emphasise our zero-tolerance policy towards any failure to keep up appearances.
And an apology from Justin, remembering what he should have said:
I would like to apologise wholeheartedly for the hurt that my speech has caused.
It’s perhaps a minor thing, but when I taught trial advocacy, I would tell lawyers to drop the words “I would like to” from their vocabulary. If you’d like to do it, then just do it; don’t tell me you’d like to do it.
I understand it’s a phrasing of politeness, but it also has a whiff of conditionality about it. Add to that “for the hurt my speech has caused” rather than “the hurt I caused,” and it doesn’t come across as something is a pro forma apology, at least to me.
The other bishops got it right: “As lead bishops for safeguarding in the Church of England, we apologize to you . . . .”
@Bishops Finger You might want to re-think on the PTO given the re-surfacing of the Roberts case from JW's time as Dean of Liverpool. To refresh your memories click here. (I don't think there is a paywall but can't guarantee ...)
Ignoring a previous conviction was bad enough, but banning another complainant from the cathedral??? Matthew 7:16 given a new twist indeed.
Yes, good point. Let him be denied PTO - enough is enough, as the saying is.
Thinking about it, Aqualung was one of the first albums I bought when buying an LP was a significant investment.
I tend to think the CofE's malaise isn't so much the 'chains of history', although that comes into it of course, but more the old school tie thing (which is historic of course) allied to a kind of crass managerialism.
There's also a lot of careerism and jockeying for position. Perhaps 'twas ever thus?
Thinking about it, Aqualung was one of the first albums I bought when buying an LP was a significant investment.
I tend to think the CofE's malaise isn't so much the 'chains of history', although that comes into it of course, but more the old school tie thing (which is historic of course) allied to a kind of crass managerialism.
There's also a lot of careerism and jockeying for position. Perhaps 'twas ever thus?
All that has happened in its past is part of its history and their chains. Including Iwerne, and Smyth and all the rest.
All this while wearing a friendly church fête jumble sale flower festival Away in a Manger Round the Chrismas Tree Lunch Club face.
Sure. Although Iwerne and Smyth only represented a sub-section of what was under the CofE umbrella.
Other than the establishment ties (and old school ties) there wasn't much that was particularly 'Anglican' about them and they probably wouldn't have approved of jumble sales and church fetes.
But yes, I can see what Anderson was getting at but never thought Side 2 was as profound as some make it out to be. He wasn't saying anything new or original or which hadn't been said elsewhere.
Neither were the Sex Pistols with God Save The Queen but there we go.
New and original aren't the important thing. The point is that's my personal cultural point of contact with an expression of the ideas that had an impact on me.
Its already "out", just being studiously ignored by most of the media and everyone in the CofE. To refresh memories:
* Everyone who worked for or at the Iwerne camps was automatically regarded as a Trustee
* Mark Ruston, a Trustee, wrote a report detailing Smyth's vile activities/proclivities in 1983 and it was circulated to all Trustees.
* Ruston was not only a friend of Justin Welby, he was cited by him as being one of, if not the, most important people in JW deciding to put himself forward for ordination.
* Even if JW, as a very junior ranking person in the Iwerne world, did not get a copy of the report, it is inconceivable that Ruston didn't at least mention it to him - do keep in mind that at the camps where JW worked Smyth was accommodated in the same dormitory. Surely it is far more likely that MR would ask him about Smyth because of his close proximity to the man?
I think Welby might now be unemployable in any Anglican parish. Some mistakes you can’t get over. The blot on his copybook cannot be erased.
First, he's nearly 70 so why would he need employment?
Second, this isn't a "blot", anymore than his speech in the Lords' was ill-judged. It is very clear that he thinks his inaction, obfuscation and failures in truthfulness - that conclusion was made in the Makin Report -
not only defensible but understandable and right. That is way beyond "tin-eared" - he made it plain that he thinks he has been ill-used. He is not taking any responsibility, moral or otherwise, at all for his claims of ignorance and over a decade of inaction and silence.
Hitherto it has been the custom for retiring ABCs to be made life peers: people in the CofE need to petition Downing Street and the Palace to stop this happening.
New and original aren't the important thing. The point is that's my personal cultural point of contact with an expression of the ideas that had an impact on me.
Sure, which is fair enough. Forgive the gentle ribbing. I still think Aqualung is a very good album, even though I've not heard it for many, many years.
Apparently, Anderson said that John Lydon of Sex Pistols fame said the same when they met. Lydon was also a big Kate Bush fan. I've heard that Glen Matlock of the Pistols and some of the fellas from Stiff Little Fingers used to listen to a wider range of stuff off-stage.
What I'd be interested to hear, however, is how this 'impact' or 'influence' played itself out in terms of your own actions, attitudes and behaviour. That's something for the other thread on the influence of particular writers though.
Apparently Anderson's wife wrote most of the lyrics for the title-track itself.
Like many retired Anglican clergy, he may not actually need a job, but might have welcomed the opportunity to continue working at parish level, as a self-supporting minister.
Thanks for the further information. I’m not an Anglican and I’m sad and upset for my many Anglican friends.
I’ve seen some speculation that the Bishop of Norwich is one of those being considered as successor. In my book he is a good egg. However I’m not sure I’d wish the job on him or anybody.
Or we could put it more charitably by saying that he tried to keep things together and in so doing pleased nobody. He had the impossible job of trying to keep some of the 'Global South' Anglican churches and bishops on board as well as UK conservatives and liberals both here in the US.
He ended up falling foul of his erstwhile supporters whilst winning over some of his erstwhile enemies. When he first became Archbishop of Canterbury there were strident conservative evangelical voices proclaiming that he was preaching a 'false gospel' and so on ... yadda yadda yadda ...
He worked hard to try and keep them on board and to win them over and in so doing lost the support of the more liberal types. He was onto a loser from the outset.
Rowan made plenty of mistakes. I'm a big Rowan fan though. I can understand how Jeffrey John and other liberals must have felt, mind. It's a big dilemma for any Archbishop though. Do you end up being the Primate who splits the Anglican communion?
A lot of liberal Anglicans wish GAFCON and the like would leave and form their own separate and sectarian grouping. Conversely, I'm sure a lot of the more conservative types wish the liberal end would work itself loose and fall away.
Goodness only knows how you deal with a situation like that. I wouldn't want to have to deal with it.
I have no sympathy for either of them, because they accepted a fool's errand. The Church of England has no structural integrity as it is, and at some point, an ABC has to admit this. I thought it would be ++Rowan because he isn't English, but apparently too much of an insider. Welby has just lived down to every single one of my expectations.
I will not stand by and watch Williams's pusillanimous lily livered betrayal of everything he believes in be handwaved. It was what it was.
There's a difference between handwaving and seeking to understand. Rowan was always a better academic than Archbishop and it's his depth of thinking and very evident humility and deep spirituality I admire.
I was never confirmed as an Anglican but would have considered myself an Anglican when I attended my local parish church. I was probably more 'Anglican' than many there including the vicar at the time,who is no longer in holy orders and worships at a non-denominational church.
Whatever the case, what would an Archbishop of Canterbury acknowledging that the CofE has no 'structural integrity' achieve?
I'm not saying they shouldn't admit that. But if they did, what then?
Would that bring about 'structural integrity'?
The CofE doesn't have a Papal Magisterium. Time was when people of different 'churchmanships' all said that it was the Book of Common Prayer that provided a focus of unity. That boat sailed a good while ago.
If Rowan had stuck to his liberal guns and that had led to a split in the Anglican Communion would that have simply acknowledged an insurmountable divide that already existed and hastened the inevitable?
The only question I can answer is the last, with a heartfelt "yes". The Anglican Communion is an artefact of Britain's colonial past. I don't see how it has a future.
The only question I can answer is the last, with a heartfelt "yes". The Anglican Communion is an artefact of Britain's colonial past. I don't see how it has a future.
This may be a good moment for it to go - but how could that aim be achieved?
The only question I can answer is the last, with a heartfelt "yes". The Anglican Communion is an artefact of Britain's colonial past. I don't see how it has a future.
This may be a good moment for it to go - but how could that aim be achieved?
Simple. Acknowledge that it is a pale and flawed "churchy" version of the Commonwealth and that, as such, it should be made up of independent stand-alone churches in their various states. If some of those national churches wish to form closer links with others let them do it, but make the Anglican Communion simply an umbrella term for churches which have their roots in the Church in (not of) England.
That sounds pretty much like what we have already. Is the Anglican Communion actually more than an 'umbrella' at the moment?
If not, how does it differ from an 'umbrella'? To what extent is any Archbishop of Canterbury's influence felt in Sub-Saharan Africa or South-east Asia or among the small Anglican communities in Spain and Portugal which were never part of the Empire or Commonwealth?
I saw some Anglican churches in Madagascar this summer, another country that was never under British colonial rule (although we did have 'interests' there).
How do those churches relate to the wiser Anglican Communion?
Whatever form the CofE and wider Anglican Communion adopts in the future, and yes, the current situation is far from ideal, would it be any improvement?
A set of independent national churches with an apparently 'Anglican' flavour isn't going to improve safe-guarding in and of itself. It might reduce the stranglehold of the 'old school tie' network but it wouldn't necessarily reduce or prevent new jockeyings for position based on whatever the prevailing ethos or hegemony is wherever they are.
I look at the jurisdictional mess within my own affiliation and think, 'Be careful what you wish for.'
I don't think it's as 'simple' as @TheOrganist asserts. Things like this never are. If they were that simple someone would have done it by now.
Ha! A typo ... 'wiser Anglican Communion.' If only that were so!
I meant 'wider' Anglican Communion of course.
Anyhow, we've already got various 'continuing' or schismatic Anglican groups, most of whose names escape me. You know the sort of thing. 'The Real Church of England (Continuing)TM.'
ACNA in the US is one of the best known.
Would @TheOrganist's 'simple' solution not lead to a plethora of competing groups each claiming to be more genuinely 'Anglican' than the others?
Yes, quite possibly it would, but that is simply identifying more honestly a situation that already exists in all but name, where it isn't visible. Anglican unity is a sham for which the Church of England is paying with its integrity and its reputation as anything other than a shelter for abusive bigots.
If Rowan had stuck to his liberal guns and that had led to a split in the Anglican Communion would that have simply acknowledged an insurmountable divide that already existed and hastened the inevitable?
The split has happened anyway, it's only not official because conservatives still hold out the hope they can force the rest of the communion into complying with their views. Arguably ++Rowan fuelled this hope with the ridiculous "covenant" and his unwillingness to stand up for what he believes. Had he been willing to face them down they would have had to either back down or formally separate. Appeasement doesn't work.
If Rowan had stuck to his liberal guns and that had led to a split in the Anglican Communion would that have simply acknowledged an insurmountable divide that already existed and hastened the inevitable?
The split has happened anyway, it's only not official because conservatives still hold out the hope they can force the rest of the communion into complying with their views.
On a very abstract level I can understand staying within an institution that has changed and fighting your ground. Concretely evangelicals (of both the conservative and charismatic sort) constantly threaten to leave but are loathe to do so because they enjoy the prestige of being part of the established church.
I suppose that, at some point, honest attempts to produce the best available compromise lead to a betrayal of principle? It’s not easy to be sure what that point is.
It seems right to me to seek unity. As a lifelong nonconformist I’ve seen the damage which flows from a refusal to try. “Touch pitch and be defiled” is one of many possible journeys towards self righteousness.
It may be that the Church of England attempts maintain the big tent is at the point of institutional failure. But it was never wrong to try. The prayer that we might all be one remains a good prayer. Collectively we have a very long way to go in dealing peaceably with our differences.
I suppose that, at some point, honest attempts to produce the best available compromise lead to a betrayal of principle? It’s not easy to be sure what that point is.
It seems right to me to seek unity. As a lifelong nonconformist I’ve seen the damage which flows from a refusal to try. “Touch pitch and be defiled” is one of many possible journeys towards self righteousness.
It may be that the Church of England attempts maintain the big tent is at the point of institutional failure. But it was never wrong to try. The prayer that we might all be one remains a good prayer. Collectively we have a very long way to go in dealing peaceably with our differences.
And the title of the head of another church is "pontifex," bridge builder. And in episcopal polity the bishop is meant to be a centre of unity. Holding things together is at the core of a bishop's role. Maybe bishops at the edges feel that, and thats what stops them from breaking away.
I suppose that, at some point, honest attempts to produce the best available compromise lead to a betrayal of principle? It’s not easy to be sure what that point is.
The point is where you deny justice in the name of unity.
The only question I can answer is the last, with a heartfelt "yes". The Anglican Communion is an artefact of Britain's colonial past. I don't see how it has a future.
This may be a good moment for it to go - but how could that aim be achieved?
Simple. Acknowledge that it is a pale and flawed "churchy" version of the Commonwealth and that, as such, it should be made up of independent stand-alone churches in their various states. If some of those national churches wish to form closer links with others let them do it, but make the Anglican Communion simply an umbrella term for churches which have their roots in the Church in (not of) England.
I’m an outsider looking in, so maybe I’m totally off base, but my experience is that “an umbrella term,” or perhaps umbrella organization, “for churches which have their roots in the Church in (not of) England” is pretty much how the Anglican Communion is viewed by American Episcopalians. (There might be some quibbles about “Church in” vs “Church of” England, but given that the first American bishops were consecrated by Scottish Episcopal bishops rather than CofE bishops, and given the influence of the Scottish prayer book on the American prayer book, it’s a fair distinction, I think.)
I’d say my experience/observation is that most Episcopalians here view the Anglican Communion as more akin structure- and purpose-wise to the World Communion of Reformed Churches, the Lutheran World Federation or the World Methodist Council than to the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church. The difference, compared to the WCRC, LWF or MWC, is a specific bishop as a “focus of unity.”
But I’m happy to be corrected by American Episcopalians.
I agree with @Barnabas62. Whatever the issues - and there are plenty of Epiphanies ones here - the way things seem to be presented here is:
Liberals: We don't want those bigoted conservative/charismatic evangelicals, they can get lost and form their own outfits! Conservatives: We don't want those apostate and sinful liberals, they can get lost and form ...
Both sides want to have their cake and eat it.
What if a conservative Anglican wrote:
'The split has happened anyway, it's only not official because liberals still hold out the hope they can force the rest of the communion into complying with their views. Why don't they either back down or formally separate?Appeasement doesn't work.' (with apologies to @Arethosemyfeet
Or: 'On a very abstract level I can understand staying within an institution that has changed and fighting your ground. Concretely liberals have moved far from traditional Christian belief but are loathe to acknowledge this and leave because they enjoy the prestige of being part of the established church.' (with apologies to @chrisstiles)
I hasten to add that I'm not backing either of those bowldlerised statements but am engaging in a thought-experiment.
Why is it always the 'other side' that has to back down or leave?
Whether it be liberals, conservatives or all stations in between.
I do agree, with some sorrow, that what appears to be an unbridgeable gulf has opened up. One of the reasons why I don't envy anyone the role of Archbishop of Canterbury. Whatever you do you are going to hack someone off.
Welby was backed by certain evangelical groups who then turned on him because he didn't toe their line. Ok, there was more to it than that, there was his own failure to act decisively when confronted with mounting evidence of serious misconduct and abuse. He was also, I think, very much out of his depth even if that hadn't happened.
Williams was backed by certain liberal groups and they turned on him - rightly or wrongly - when he didn't do what they wanted.
The two instances aren't exact mirror images of course, but there are parallels.
I still don't think there are any easy answers or solutions. @TheOrganist seems to suggest that all would be well if everyone agreed with him. In a 'broad church' that isn't going to happen.
I'm still pretty 'non-conformist' even though I'm in a setting where episcopacy is taken very seriously. I don't know what the answer to any of this is. Even groups which are loosely affiliated such as the Baptist Union struggle to hold things together.
We keep hearing that unity is not uniformity, but where do we draw the line on any of this stuff?
You're presenting a false equivalence. If we were demanding that conservatives officiate the weddings of same sex couples, or even that other member churches in the Anglican Communion ordain women you might have a point. All that is being asked is that those who think those things are right should not be prevented from doing so.
It's a completely false equivalence, and it is in danger of making an idol out of ecclesiology. Bishops are blackmailed by their charge, and need to have the courage to say "yes, but not at any price". Unity created by the Holy Spirit is worth having. Unity created by the pension fund and the law of establishment are decidedly not worth having.
I don't see how I'm making an 'idol out of ecclesiology' at all. I'm simply thinking aloud - thinking allowed - and asking questions.
There are questions I'd ask within my own affiliation too, but this thread is about Welby and the CofE.
How do we recognise when unity comes about through the Holy Spirit? What are the signs which would indicate that? I'm not disagreeing. I'd far rather that pension pots and the establishment didn't come into the equation. Don't get me started on power-plays and jockeyings for position within my own Church.
But how do we recognise and foster unity in the Spirit? What are the hallmarks of that? 'It seemed good to us and to the Holy Spirit.'
Yes, but how does that look and work out in practice?
Comments
Ignoring a previous conviction was bad enough, but banning another complainant from the cathedral??? Matthew 7:16 given a new twist indeed.
From Justin's original resignation statement:
"The reality" - the start of his valedictory speech in the Lords:
An apology to victims from the lead bishops for safeguarding:
And an apology from Justin, remembering what he should have said:
Am absolute clusterfuck with the bishops behind him giggling, and the Bishop of London the only one looking truly horrified. He still seems to be in denial about the reality.
How on earth does someone so unsuited get promoted to such a role?
https://youtu.be/o7vMzMYf7rE?si=ZeNuP79dHsfh4DVa
I understand it’s a phrasing of politeness, but it also has a whiff of conditionality about it. Add to that “for the hurt my speech has caused” rather than “the hurt I caused,” and it doesn’t come across as something is a pro forma apology, at least to me.
The other bishops got it right: “As lead bishops for safeguarding in the Church of England, we apologize to you . . . .”
Yes, good point. Let him be denied PTO - enough is enough, as the saying is.
I think Welby might now be unemployable in any Anglican parish. Some mistakes you can’t get over. The blot on his copybook cannot be erased.
However, as you say, his notoriety would be against him now.
The bloody church of England
In chains of history
Requests your earthly presence
At the vicarage for tea
Didn't she resign her vicariness?
There's more to a job than the money.
But no, he should be put out to grass.
Not sure of the relevance of the Aqualung reference here.
But don't let me stop you. No need to slow down.
I tend to think the CofE's malaise isn't so much the 'chains of history', although that comes into it of course, but more the old school tie thing (which is historic of course) allied to a kind of crass managerialism.
There's also a lot of careerism and jockeying for position. Perhaps 'twas ever thus?
All that has happened in its past is part of its history and their chains. Including Iwerne, and Smyth and all the rest.
All this while wearing a friendly church fête jumble sale flower festival Away in a Manger Round the Chrismas Tree Lunch Club face.
That's the relevance.
Other than the establishment ties (and old school ties) there wasn't much that was particularly 'Anglican' about them and they probably wouldn't have approved of jumble sales and church fetes.
But yes, I can see what Anderson was getting at but never thought Side 2 was as profound as some make it out to be. He wasn't saying anything new or original or which hadn't been said elsewhere.
Neither were the Sex Pistols with God Save The Queen but there we go.
* Everyone who worked for or at the Iwerne camps was automatically regarded as a Trustee
* Mark Ruston, a Trustee, wrote a report detailing Smyth's vile activities/proclivities in 1983 and it was circulated to all Trustees.
* Ruston was not only a friend of Justin Welby, he was cited by him as being one of, if not the, most important people in JW deciding to put himself forward for ordination.
* Even if JW, as a very junior ranking person in the Iwerne world, did not get a copy of the report, it is inconceivable that Ruston didn't at least mention it to him - do keep in mind that at the camps where JW worked Smyth was accommodated in the same dormitory. Surely it is far more likely that MR would ask him about Smyth because of his close proximity to the man?
First, he's nearly 70 so why would he need employment?
Second, this isn't a "blot", anymore than his speech in the Lords' was ill-judged. It is very clear that he thinks his inaction, obfuscation and failures in truthfulness - that conclusion was made in the Makin Report -
not only defensible but understandable and right. That is way beyond "tin-eared" - he made it plain that he thinks he has been ill-used. He is not taking any responsibility, moral or otherwise, at all for his claims of ignorance and over a decade of inaction and silence.
Hitherto it has been the custom for retiring ABCs to be made life peers: people in the CofE need to petition Downing Street and the Palace to stop this happening.
Sure, which is fair enough. Forgive the gentle ribbing. I still think Aqualung is a very good album, even though I've not heard it for many, many years.
Apparently, Anderson said that John Lydon of Sex Pistols fame said the same when they met. Lydon was also a big Kate Bush fan. I've heard that Glen Matlock of the Pistols and some of the fellas from Stiff Little Fingers used to listen to a wider range of stuff off-stage.
What I'd be interested to hear, however, is how this 'impact' or 'influence' played itself out in terms of your own actions, attitudes and behaviour. That's something for the other thread on the influence of particular writers though.
Apparently Anderson's wife wrote most of the lyrics for the title-track itself.
But, who would want him, given what is now known?
Thanks for the further information. I’m not an Anglican and I’m sad and upset for my many Anglican friends.
I’ve seen some speculation that the Bishop of Norwich is one of those being considered as successor. In my book he is a good egg. However I’m not sure I’d wish the job on him or anybody.
It's a poison vat, not a poison chalice.
He was turned on by his own side.
As I recall ++Rowan abandoned things he believed in a failed attempt to appease bigots. Worse, he threw Jeffrey John to the wolves in the process.
He ended up falling foul of his erstwhile supporters whilst winning over some of his erstwhile enemies. When he first became Archbishop of Canterbury there were strident conservative evangelical voices proclaiming that he was preaching a 'false gospel' and so on ... yadda yadda yadda ...
He worked hard to try and keep them on board and to win them over and in so doing lost the support of the more liberal types. He was onto a loser from the outset.
Rowan made plenty of mistakes. I'm a big Rowan fan though. I can understand how Jeffrey John and other liberals must have felt, mind. It's a big dilemma for any Archbishop though. Do you end up being the Primate who splits the Anglican communion?
A lot of liberal Anglicans wish GAFCON and the like would leave and form their own separate and sectarian grouping. Conversely, I'm sure a lot of the more conservative types wish the liberal end would work itself loose and fall away.
Goodness only knows how you deal with a situation like that. I wouldn't want to have to deal with it.
I will not stand by and watch Williams's pusillanimous lily livered betrayal of everything he believes in be handwaved. It was what it was.
I was never confirmed as an Anglican but would have considered myself an Anglican when I attended my local parish church. I was probably more 'Anglican' than many there including the vicar at the time,who is no longer in holy orders and worships at a non-denominational church.
Whatever the case, what would an Archbishop of Canterbury acknowledging that the CofE has no 'structural integrity' achieve?
I'm not saying they shouldn't admit that. But if they did, what then?
Would that bring about 'structural integrity'?
The CofE doesn't have a Papal Magisterium. Time was when people of different 'churchmanships' all said that it was the Book of Common Prayer that provided a focus of unity. That boat sailed a good while ago.
If Rowan had stuck to his liberal guns and that had led to a split in the Anglican Communion would that have simply acknowledged an insurmountable divide that already existed and hastened the inevitable?
This may be a good moment for it to go - but how could that aim be achieved?
Simple. Acknowledge that it is a pale and flawed "churchy" version of the Commonwealth and that, as such, it should be made up of independent stand-alone churches in their various states. If some of those national churches wish to form closer links with others let them do it, but make the Anglican Communion simply an umbrella term for churches which have their roots in the Church in (not of) England.
If not, how does it differ from an 'umbrella'? To what extent is any Archbishop of Canterbury's influence felt in Sub-Saharan Africa or South-east Asia or among the small Anglican communities in Spain and Portugal which were never part of the Empire or Commonwealth?
I saw some Anglican churches in Madagascar this summer, another country that was never under British colonial rule (although we did have 'interests' there).
How do those churches relate to the wiser Anglican Communion?
Whatever form the CofE and wider Anglican Communion adopts in the future, and yes, the current situation is far from ideal, would it be any improvement?
A set of independent national churches with an apparently 'Anglican' flavour isn't going to improve safe-guarding in and of itself. It might reduce the stranglehold of the 'old school tie' network but it wouldn't necessarily reduce or prevent new jockeyings for position based on whatever the prevailing ethos or hegemony is wherever they are.
I look at the jurisdictional mess within my own affiliation and think, 'Be careful what you wish for.'
I don't think it's as 'simple' as @TheOrganist asserts. Things like this never are. If they were that simple someone would have done it by now.
I meant 'wider' Anglican Communion of course.
Anyhow, we've already got various 'continuing' or schismatic Anglican groups, most of whose names escape me. You know the sort of thing. 'The Real Church of England (Continuing)TM.'
ACNA in the US is one of the best known.
Would @TheOrganist's 'simple' solution not lead to a plethora of competing groups each claiming to be more genuinely 'Anglican' than the others?
Precisely.
The split has happened anyway, it's only not official because conservatives still hold out the hope they can force the rest of the communion into complying with their views. Arguably ++Rowan fuelled this hope with the ridiculous "covenant" and his unwillingness to stand up for what he believes. Had he been willing to face them down they would have had to either back down or formally separate. Appeasement doesn't work.
On a very abstract level I can understand staying within an institution that has changed and fighting your ground. Concretely evangelicals (of both the conservative and charismatic sort) constantly threaten to leave but are loathe to do so because they enjoy the prestige of being part of the established church.
I suppose that, at some point, honest attempts to produce the best available compromise lead to a betrayal of principle? It’s not easy to be sure what that point is.
It seems right to me to seek unity. As a lifelong nonconformist I’ve seen the damage which flows from a refusal to try. “Touch pitch and be defiled” is one of many possible journeys towards self righteousness.
It may be that the Church of England attempts maintain the big tent is at the point of institutional failure. But it was never wrong to try. The prayer that we might all be one remains a good prayer. Collectively we have a very long way to go in dealing peaceably with our differences.
And the title of the head of another church is "pontifex," bridge builder. And in episcopal polity the bishop is meant to be a centre of unity. Holding things together is at the core of a bishop's role. Maybe bishops at the edges feel that, and thats what stops them from breaking away.
The point is where you deny justice in the name of unity.
I’d say my experience/observation is that most Episcopalians here view the Anglican Communion as more akin structure- and purpose-wise to the World Communion of Reformed Churches, the Lutheran World Federation or the World Methodist Council than to the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church. The difference, compared to the WCRC, LWF or MWC, is a specific bishop as a “focus of unity.”
But I’m happy to be corrected by American Episcopalians.
There seems to me to be a great difference between maintaining and developing the appearance of unity and maintaining and developing unity.
Appearances can be deceptive. Also formal obedience. Scratch the surface and there are nonconformists everywhere!
Your first point is excellent. And of course Unity and Uniformity are not the same thing.
Liberals: We don't want those bigoted conservative/charismatic evangelicals, they can get lost and form their own outfits!
Conservatives: We don't want those apostate and sinful liberals, they can get lost and form ...
Both sides want to have their cake and eat it.
What if a conservative Anglican wrote:
'The split has happened anyway, it's only not official because liberals still hold out the hope they can force the rest of the communion into complying with their views. Why don't they either back down or formally separate?Appeasement doesn't work.' (with apologies to @Arethosemyfeet
Or: 'On a very abstract level I can understand staying within an institution that has changed and fighting your ground. Concretely liberals have moved far from traditional Christian belief but are loathe to acknowledge this and leave because they enjoy the prestige of being part of the established church.' (with apologies to @chrisstiles)
I hasten to add that I'm not backing either of those bowldlerised statements but am engaging in a thought-experiment.
Why is it always the 'other side' that has to back down or leave?
Whether it be liberals, conservatives or all stations in between.
I do agree, with some sorrow, that what appears to be an unbridgeable gulf has opened up. One of the reasons why I don't envy anyone the role of Archbishop of Canterbury. Whatever you do you are going to hack someone off.
Welby was backed by certain evangelical groups who then turned on him because he didn't toe their line. Ok, there was more to it than that, there was his own failure to act decisively when confronted with mounting evidence of serious misconduct and abuse. He was also, I think, very much out of his depth even if that hadn't happened.
Williams was backed by certain liberal groups and they turned on him - rightly or wrongly - when he didn't do what they wanted.
The two instances aren't exact mirror images of course, but there are parallels.
I still don't think there are any easy answers or solutions. @TheOrganist seems to suggest that all would be well if everyone agreed with him. In a 'broad church' that isn't going to happen.
I'm still pretty 'non-conformist' even though I'm in a setting where episcopacy is taken very seriously. I don't know what the answer to any of this is. Even groups which are loosely affiliated such as the Baptist Union struggle to hold things together.
We keep hearing that unity is not uniformity, but where do we draw the line on any of this stuff?
There are questions I'd ask within my own affiliation too, but this thread is about Welby and the CofE.
How do we recognise when unity comes about through the Holy Spirit? What are the signs which would indicate that? I'm not disagreeing. I'd far rather that pension pots and the establishment didn't come into the equation. Don't get me started on power-plays and jockeyings for position within my own Church.
But how do we recognise and foster unity in the Spirit? What are the hallmarks of that? 'It seemed good to us and to the Holy Spirit.'
Yes, but how does that look and work out in practice?