Andrew Goddard writes: This week the number of confirmed members of the Canterbury Crown Nominations Commission (CNC) rose from 3 to 14 with only 3 names left to be determined and announced (those from Canterbury diocese). A helpful website provides details of each of the people and the 3 non-voting members. What can we learn about the process so far and what still lies ahead?
I set out the basic process back in late February when the only known confirmed names were the independent lay Chair appointed by the Prime Minister (Lord Jonathan Evans), the Archbishop of York, and (to many people’s surprise given he was often listed as a leading candidate for the post himself) Graham Usher, the Bishop of Norwich who was elected by the House of Bishops as a representative of the episcopate from within Canterbury Province.
The eleven new names come from two groupings: the 6 central members drawn from General Synod; and 5 representatives of the wider Anglican Communion.
New Church of England names
The 6 central members are, with one exception, well-known as they have been elected by the General Synod and worked with one another (and the Archbishop of York) on multiple CNC nominations since 2022. Synod originally elected 6 “pairs”, 3 clergy and 3 lay, with 4 being broadly conservative (Anglo-Catholic or evangelical) and 2 broadly liberal or progressive. Since 2022, three of the pairs have been reduced to a single member through one of the pair leaving General Synod so those names, though unconfirmed, have been fairly clear for some time:
Ms Christina Baron, a retired academic based in Bath and Wells diocese (and former mayor of Wells) who has been involved in appointing bishops since 2017.
The Revd Lis Goddard, a London-based parish priest first elected to Synod in a by-election in 2020.
Mr Clive Scowen, a retired lawyer and licensed lay minister in a London parish who has been on General Synod since 2005.
One of the clergy pairs (Andrew Cornes and Paul Benfield) has neither member serving and so, under Standing Order 137(3B), they have nominated another member of the House of Clergy who has been agreed by the Prolocutor for York Province (Kate Wharton):
The Revd Canon Paul Cartwright is vicar of a parish under the Bishop of Beverly (so an Anglo-Catholic opposed to women priests and bishops) based in Wakefield in the Diocese of Leeds. His selection ensures one of the 6 central members is from the northern province. He is Vice-Chair of General Synod’s Business Committee (on which Clive Scowen also serves).
From the other two pairs, the members are
Ms Debbie Buggs, a London-based accountant in the charity sector who was elected to Synod in 2015.
The Revd Canon Claire Lording, vicar of a parish in Worcester diocese elected to Synod in 2021.
The six central members therefore comprise two women clergy and one priest opposed to the ordination of women alongside two lay women and one lay man. Five are from Canterbury province and only one from York.
New Communion names
In a major development, introduced by Justin Welby, the Communion’s representation has increased from 1 voting member to 5 voting members. In addition, the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion, Anthony Poggo, a bishop from South Sudan who was appointed in 2022 having been Archbishop Justin’s Adviser on Anglican Communion Affairs at Lambeth Palace, will serve as a non-voting member as in previous Canterbury CNCs. His name has, however, been mentioned in some circles as a possible candidate given his experience of both the Anglican Communion and the Church of England in which case he would presumably withdraw and be replaced by someone else, perhaps Bishop Jo Bailey Wells as the Deputy Secretary General.
As I noted in my earlier article, there was at the time little clarity and many unanswered questions as to the process for the selection of these 5 people but that is now much clearer. The General Synod, on introducing this new representation in July 2022 (debates reported here and here), laid down clear criteria that would have to be met which are found in the Standing Orders (SO 139 (2A)). These required that the 5 must be:
- one person from each of the five regions of the Anglican Communion;
- at least one primate, at least one priest or deacon and at least one actual communicant lay person;
- at least two men and at least two women;
- three or more GMH persons.
In November 2023 the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion addressed the task ahead:
The Standing Committee discussed how they would choose the panel of five and agreed that current and immediately past members of the Anglican Consultative Council should be the “pool” from which the five were selected and agreed that there should be a youth representative and an indigenous person. The Standing Committee agreed to request the primates from each region to nominate a slate of people. A group from the Standing Committee would then apply the criteria to select the five representatives.
Following this, in February 2024 all the Primates were invited by the Anglican Communion Office to compile a list of individuals who met the required criteria from the Standing Orders. This process left it up to each Primate how those names were to be chosen in their province, respecting the autonomous nature of each province. A regional discussion then took place among those Primates present (quite a number were absent) at the Primates’ meeting in Rome in April 2024. This resulted in a shortlist of 3 names from each region, so 15 names in total. These names were then considered by the Standing Committee in May 2024 who selected 5 people meeting the four criteria listed above. These names were kept confidential until last week.
The Revd Canon Isaac Tui Te Kanapu Broudigan Beach is a Māori priest from the province of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia (in the Oceania and East Asia region) who describes himself as a “governance leader, and social entrepreneur who has devoted his life to indigenous Anglican expression, climate resilience, and youth leadership”. He graduated from Otago University with a Master of Business Administration degree in 2015 and served on the ACC as a Youth Representative at ACC-17 in 2019 and at ACC-18 in 2023 where he performed an impromptu haka in honour of a Māori bishop on the platform. He is co-founder of Kanapu Hempery and Director of Operations at Te Rau College where he teaches Applied Ministry, Environmental Theology, and Social Entrepreneurship. He has spoken of being inspired by another of the 5 representatives (Archbishop Hosam Naoum) and being “passionate about climate change” so will also find much in common with the Bishop of Norwich who also served at ACC-18 (replacing Stephen Cottrell who served as the CofE bishop on ACC-15 to ACC-17, 2012-2019) and has been the Church of England’s Lead Bishop on the Environment since 2021.
The Most Revd Hosam Naoum, a Palestinian Christian born in Haifa (Israel’s third largest city) in 1974 and growing up in Galilee, is the Primate (since May 2023) of the Episcopal Church of Jerusalem and the Middle East. This is in the Middle East and South Asia region and includes his own diocese of Jerusalem and the dioceses of Cyprus & The Gulf and Iran (the birthplace of the Bishop of Chelmsford, one of the often cited front-runners for Canterbury whose father was a former bishop of Iran). It previously contained the diocese of Egypt but in 2020 this formed the new province of Alexandria. The province has had women priests since 2011 but does not permit women bishops.
Archbishop Hosam has been the Anglican Archbishop in Jerusalem (where he was previously Dean of Saint George’s Cathedral) since 2021. This is a diocese with about 7000 Anglicans in 28 parishes spread across Israel, Palestine (including Gaza), Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. In Lent 2023, following developments in the Church of England’s LLF process and with strong responses from elsewhere in the Communion, the diocese made clear in a statement that it was not affected by those decisions and that “the Episcopal Diocese of Jerusalem has neither changed, nor does it contemplate any future change, in its adherence to the Church’s traditional teaching and practice on Christian marriage as being a lifelong union between a man and a woman as detailed in the 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution I.10”.
The Archbishop trained for ordination in South Africa and also studied in the US at Virginia Theological Seminary earning an M.Div. in 2011, a Doctor of Ministry degree in 2020, and more recently was awarded an honorary doctorate in 2022 alongside Rowan Williams. The province has strong links to The Episcopal Church and the bishop of Southeast Florida was involved in his consecration as bishop.
At ACC-18 in 2023 where he was a representative for the second time he was elected as Vice-Chair of the Communion’s Standing Committee (though it is important to note he was absent when the Standing Committee selected the 5 people to serve). He was part of the Anglican Delegation at COP28 in November 2023 and is reportedly widely respected among the Primates. He worked closely with Archbishop Justin especially in relation to seeking peace in, and raising Christian awareness of, the Middle East where he has also worked with the Bishop of Norwich. His other connections with the Church of England include being an honorary canon of Rochester Cathedral, his involvement in the Coronation where he processed in holding the Bible and presented Archbishop Justin with the oil for anointing (afterwards enjoying fish and chips and prosecco with the Bishop of Norwich).
The Revd Professor Grace Nkansa Asante, born in 1965 in the Ashante Region of Ghana in the Province of West Africa, is Ghana’s first female professor of economics and Vice Dean at KNUST (Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology with CV). She also serves as a priest at KNUST in the Archbishop Thomas Cranmer Anglican Church after being ordained following what she has described as a strange Samuel-like call through a phone call from someone with the contact name “Jesus Christ” who was silent on the other end of the call. She was interviewed by Times Higher Education in August 2024 about her life and professional work. She has also worked with the African Development Bank and the Kumasi Metropolitan Authority. Unlike the other four people she has not served on the ACC (although the last ACC in 2023 was in Ghana) but appears to have been shortlisted and then chosen as the African representative despite not being in that original “ACC pool” which had been proposed by the Standing Committee but is not a condition for CNC membership required under the General Synod’s Standing Orders.
Mr Joaquín Philpotts is the only lay person among the 5 and comes from Buenos Aires within the Province of South America (formerly known as the Southern Cone). An industrial engineer he and his Primate were the two reps appointed from the province for the ACC in Ghana in 2023 and he will serve for the next two ACC meetings.
The Right Revd Mary Stallard became Bishop of Llandaff in the Province of Wales in 2023 and was one of the first women to be ordained in the province (in 1993 by Rowan Williams) although she was born (1967) and educated in England, studying Theology at Cambridge and training for ordination at The Queen’s Foundation in Birmingham. All her ordained ministry has been in Wales where she has served in all but one of the six dioceses, most recently as Archdeacon (from 2018) and then also Assistant Bishop (from 2022) of Bangor where she served alongside the Primate of Wales who is the diocesan bishop. Having been one of Wales’ representatives at both ACC-17 and ACC-18, her term on ACC will expire after it meets next year for ACC-19. She has been a strong supporter of full inclusion of LGBTQI+ people being part of a BBC Radio Wales discussion on Gender and Identity and last year opening a service in Llandaff Cathedral organised by OneBodyOneFaith, “the UK’s oldest Christian LGBT+ members’ network”.
Summary on Communion members
It is hard to assess exactly what difference the inclusion of these 5 people will make to the process and their integration and relative lack of knowledge about the Church of England could be a challenge for the work of CofE-dominated CNC. What is clear is that having such an impressive and diverse range of cultural perspectives from across the globe and looking in on the CofE will enrich the discernment and make this significantly different from any previous CNC.
There are still some questions and concerns about the process that has led to their selection and particularly the decision to use the 5 regions. This means they are clearly far from fully representative if only because the 3 other rather small UK provinces have a place (once again taken by Wales—its Archbishop was the sole Communion representative at the last Canterbury CNC) and are on an equal footing with, for example, the 14 much larger provinces from Africa with such a high proportion of the Communion’s regularly worshipping Anglicans.
In terms of the provinces represented, none of them are either GAFCON provinces or covenanted members of the GSFA although, in a development few would have predicted, the Americas is being represented by someone, reported to be an evangelical, who is from a conservative province which is part of the GSFA and in the past was much more prominent in both the Global South and GAFCON. Two of the provinces represented have affirmed same-sex blessings but not (yet) same-sex marriage, three are conservative on marriage and sexuality but have not joined those who have declared impaired or broken communion.
It is surprising, given how much emphasis is often given to the fact that the ACC is the only Instrument that involves lay people (and the rules were simply to include at least one Primate, one priest and one layperson), that the 5 comprise a Primate, a bishop, two priests and only one member of the laity. This means that the Communion 5 are 2 women clergy (one a bishop), 2 male clergy (one a Primate) and 1 lay man.
Missing Canterbury names
In January the Archbishops’ Appointment Secretary said that “it was expected that the full membership of the Commission will be known by mid-March”. The delay beyond March was in the hope that all names could be announced together but the 3 representatives from Canterbury are still missing due to what, as reported recently in The Times, some people are describing as an “omnishambles”.
In summary, the election of these last members of the CNC is by and from the diocesan Vacancy-in-See Committee (VisC) which is meant to be a standing body in the diocese. It began work in December but was then judged to have been improperly elected and so new elections had to be called in late February at the direction of the Archbishop of York. As I have set out previously (here and here) there were serious questions about that election result when announced on 18th March. This was due to a mix of, once again, a failure to follow the rules in the diocese but now combined with the changing of the rules mid-process by General Synod. On Wednesday last week (7th May), the diocese finally announced it was going to ask the Archbishop to order the re-running again of the ViSC election. This was despite the recently elected ViSC having by then hurriedly done its work including completing the Statement of Need and electing its 3 representatives (neither of which outcomes were publicly released).
The stated reason for the re-run was a failure to remove from the ballot (as required by what is known as Rule 75) those candidates who were elected unopposed. It would appear that this error was then perhaps compounded by further errors in the count (but the diocese never released the result sheet for the election so this detail remains unclear). This error was therefore obvious even before the result was declared but it sadly took nearly two months after the result was announced for it to be officially recognised by the diocese and the seriousness of it for the integrity of the election to be acknowledged.
The rerun itself could face further problems. Firstly, the timing is such that the voting does not close until 5pm on Friday 23rd May, just before the May Bank Holiday weekend. The diocese has informed voters that it is expected that the result should be announced the following Tuesday, 27th May. After the membership is known, a meeting of the Archbishop’s Council in the diocese needs to appoint a Chair and the members of the ViSC need to meet, agree how to elect 3 members for the CNC, nominate candidates, and vote. This makes for a very tight schedule to have the 3 members in place for the first CNC meeting which it has been said will be in May.
Secondly, in addition to removing from the ballot paper (unlike last time) the candidates judged elected unopposed, in the re-run the diocese has also removed from the ballot paper (unlike last time) three other candidates (the diocese did not re-open nominations as some believe it should have done for a new election). These three have been judged to have a “relevant connection” (ie to be part of the same worshipping community) as ex officio members or, in one case, a lay candidate declared elected unopposed. This application of a new rule passed by General Synod in February (Rule 6A) has removed both nominated ordained women from the ballot, one of them on the paradoxical grounds that someone else from her parish has already been elected “unopposed”. Their removal from the ballot would appear to have no legal basis as the rules for running the election by STV state (para 3(3)) that such decisions should be taken after the votes are cast and before the first count not in such a way as to prevent a candidate standing for election (especially as here it is someone who would be eligible should the candidate they are connected to die or withdraw before the count). The removal of a candidate because of the “relevant connection” rule is particularly problematic in the situation, as in one case here, where it involves depriving the voters of the opportunity to choose which of the two connected nominated candidates up for election they would prefer to represent them on the ViSC.
Thirdly, the lack of any ordained women on the ballot means there are only two ordained women serving on the ViSC, both ex officio. Another new rule (Rule 13(8A)) states that in the election of the CNC members “at least one of the lay persons, and at least one of the clerical persons, elected as members under this paragraph must be female (unless no female person of the relevant description is proposed and seconded for election)”. In the last election of 3 CNC members by the ViSC it was judged that this meant that when only one of the two eligible women clergy was nominated they were declared elected unopposed to the CNC, not placed on the ballot and the number of seats up for elections reduced to 2. This is despite the fact that there is no explicit legal requirement for a clergyperson to be elected to serve on CNC and in theory the voters could choose to select only lay people.
If this scenario happens again after the re-run election then, as before, only two lay people can be elected by the ViSC. In addition, to be elected requires several more votes when there are only 2 seats up for election than if there is an election for 3 seats. This distorts the outcome of the election as (a) voters who would support the woman deemed elected unopposed do not have to use their “single, transferable” vote for her but can vote instead for another candidate of similar views and (b) there is the risk that candidates from minority groupings on the ViSC (in this case evangelical and traditional Catholics) will not be able to get across the higher threshold or quota and so not be represented on the CNC.
A further possible difficulty is that all the dates for the 3 CNC meetings are fixed (the first, as noted, for some time later this month) and every member of the CNC has to be present throughout every meeting given the nature of the process of discernment. This may well severely constrain which members of the ViSC are able to stand simply on account of the need to be available for probably between 6 and 10 days across May, July and September.
Conclusion
The CNC for Canterbury is finally taking shape but the process has been—and remains—far from smooth. Part of the problem is the wider context in the Church of England where, as has been officially acknowledged, there has been a serious erosion of trust and also a deepening of divisions, particularly but not solely in relation to marriage and sexuality and the PLF process.
Such difficult situations can often be held and contained in a community because of long-established and widely accepted processes which are properly followed and continue to be trusted and have everyone’s respect and confidence for determining outcomes. A large part of the difficulties in relation to the CNC is that in relation to first the Communion 5 and then in relation to ViSC rules there have been significant changes introduced in recent years. These were led by Archbishop Justin with the support of most bishops and passed (though not without serious questions being raised, especially in relation to the recent ViSC rule changes) by a majority of General Synod.
The changes have related to:
- the composition of the CNC: increasing from 1 member to 5 members from the Anglican Communion (despite recent proposals, also supported by Archbishop Justin, to reduce the historic role of the Archbishop in the Communion) and reducing the diocesan members from 6 to 3 (making it harder for them to represent the breadth of the diocese, particularly with the further new rules for ViSCs);
- the selection of the Communion members (lacking any clear and accountable electoral process unlike for other CNC members); and
- the rules both for constituting a ViSC and for how the ViSC chooses members for the CNC. Here some of the new rules are strictly unworkable, others seriously undermine the fundamental principles of the STV electoral system by imposing constraints that over-ride the preferences of voters.
In addition to all this, Canterbury diocese has now on two (perhaps even three) occasions failed to follow due process and broken long-established rules as to how to elect a ViSC.
The recent election of Pope Leo shows that a church can, despite various crises and challenges, still be led by the Holy Spirit to reach (remarkably quickly) a consensus as to whom God is calling to lead it into the years ahead. We need to pray that over the coming months as the 17 members of the CNC get to know each other and consider what is needed in the Church of England and wider Anglican Communion they will similarly know the presence and guidance of the Spirit and find that 12 or more of them can agree on who should be the next Archbishop of Canterbury.
Revd Dr Andrew Goddard is Assistant Minister, St James the Less, Pimlico, (where his wife Lis Goddard is vicar) Tutor in Christian Ethics, Westminster Theological Centre (WTC) and Tutor in Ethics at Ridley Hall, Cambridge. He is a member of the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) and was a member of the Co-Ordinating Group of LLF and the 2023 subgroup looking at Pastoral Guidance.
Buy me a Coffee
Thank you for the summary Andrew.
Because General Synod and the HofB have delayed progressing the matters they should have already dealt with, the appointment is bound to be influenced by the view that the candidate takes to LLF, PLF etc. Achieving a 2/3 voting majority against that background will be challenging. I don’t think either of the liberal or conservative wings have the votes.
as I said on C4 news last night, in a situation where some believe the doctrine of the Church ‘according to the teaching of Jesus’ and some do not, there is only one way ahead which will not divide the Church, and that is *not* some kind of ‘let’s hold it all together chaps’ approach.
That doesn’t change my comment. The chances of achieving a 2/3 majority against the background GS and the HofB have given us is small.
What we also do not need is another Iwerne influenced public schoolboy.
I agree with you on the statistics. I therefore think that the only possibility for an agreed candidate is
a. someone who is faithful to the doctrine of the Church (it is astonishing that we need to say this); and
b. someone who will pull us back from all the divisive things that Justin imposed on us.
Your last comment is letting your prejudices show! I actually think Andrew Watson would be very good.
Ha! Everybody has prejudices! Some are just more open about them. And I think we know where your prejudices lie too, and that person would be a total mistake I think.
Of course it is, according to tradition, the turn for someone from the catholic tradition. But achieving that will be difficult as well.
‘Everyone has prejudices’ has been dealt with many times before, and how telling that none of the many points made against it has either been (a) digested or (b) mentioned as part of the discussion that needs to be acknowledged.
(1) First, ‘everyone has prejudices’ is a bald assertion, unsupported.
(2) Anyone who thinks that bald assertions are good evidence must believe in the argument from authority (or -worse- from the intrinsic authority of the present speaker). This ‘argument’, even in its former incarnation, is a well known philosophical fallacy.
(3) The said assertion cannot be made, because the only person the speaker can speak for on this matter is the speaker themselves. Leaving nigh on 100% of the world’s population not spoken for.
(4) Which is where the phrase ‘speak for yourself’ comes from.
(5) Suppose we grant for the sake of argument that everyone has prejudices and no-one out of the 8bn souls on earth is honest. Some would still have more than others. So we just listen to those who have fewer. Surely it is not also being argued that, of these 100% of people who have prejudices, all have exactly the same amount of prejudices held equally strongly, with no variation. So everyone can simply listen to those who deliberately compensate for their prejudices.
(6) People who deliberately compensate for their prejudices exist.
(7) People who love truth more, and far more, than self-serving also exist. This can be tested by whether anyone anywhere has ever come to a conclusion uncongenial to themselves. Which is something that many people do daily.
(8) Some are more trained to be prejudice-aware than others. So we listen more to the former than to the latter.
(9) Among possible prejudices, you disallow some and not others, which is inconsistent. Thus, you disallow the prejudice-in-favour-of-objective-truth-at-all-costs.
As for ‘according to tradition…[a catholic comes next], this does not seem to be a very long tradition by all accounts. There was 100 years ago a prevailing anglocatholicism which was not a faction equal to evangelicalism let alone anything called liberalism. William Temple was a mere Christian and a socialist in the best mould. Geoffrey Fisher was an establishment man (national church, Public school headmaster, university honours, freemason). So the said ‘tradition’ begins only with Ramsey, when it kicks in with a vengeance. And lasts for precisely 5 archbishops, now that Abp Welby has taken the diplomat approach.
Pre-judice.
It is not pre-judice to hold to the extant articles of faith. It is so very far from prejudice. Cultural Chronological Snobbery is.
What does false misleading vows signify? What judgment is apposite?
“Everyone has prejudices’ has been dealt with many times before”
Yes, I recall you trying to maintain that you didn’t have any because you were a ‘scholar’. As I recall, you simply demonstrated over and over again your lack of self awareness, and cast ever more doubts on your claim to be independent.
Everyone has prejudices and biases. It is important to be aware of them.
We are also aware of your role as chief apologist for Iwerne.
Alternating between Catholic and Reform Archbishops reflects the fact the C of E is a Catholic but Reformed church. As established church containing both Catholics and Evangelicals with a clear majority for neither
I suppose you think Jesus Christ has prejudices too, given some of his sayings!
Ian
I think probably the biggest problem with Justin Welby in leadership was his “ambiguity” – saying one thing to one group and another to another group.
Obviously I’d want an ABC who understood and supported SSM, but failing that I’d like one who could at least explain why he opposed them!
If they can manage to choose one that isn’t smarmy and pompus then that would be great too.
Andrew Watson certainly would be excellent, one of several who would be. The words ‘good soil’ and ‘good seed’ spring to mind. Parish ministry brought good fruit in church planting, building expansion, choirs and orchestras, very healthy numbers indeed – work then continued (but already planned) with dedicated children’s area built. But as for Iwerne, that warmly/mildly charismatic evangelical tradition is what they initially stood against. The truth is that they remained friendly with many in it.
We have had enough of ‘church planting.’ The Church of England has thousands of Parish churches and cathedrals already centuries old to fund. If you want to ‘church plant’ head off to a purely evangelical Pentecostal or Baptist church or join HTB who are at least self fund their church plants themselves
Your statement is self-defeating, because most church planting by HTB etc takes place into precisely those existing church buildings you are speaking of. Many of the anglican church buildings are for congregations that have run into the ground, so the thing to do is regenerates these communities.
Unbelievably you come across as being against this. So you are in favour of decline but not in favour of reversing it? Can you explain how that makes sense? Is decline the whole purpose?
Liberal churches which are shrinking and without power have no ability to get anywhere near multiplication – the opposite – so rather than trying to improve they blame those who are successful in this.
Ans who are the ‘we’ who in their inert way look down on the motivated and have ‘had enough’ of church planting – and also of souls?
As I said I am not opposed to HTB self funding church plants and church regeneration. I am opposed to central C of E funds going into church planting when it has lots of historic Parish churches to fund so we don’t get situations where 5 plus rural churches have to merge to save funds
Christopher
On the one hand HTB plants bring a good number of people into buildings previously occupied by dwindling congregations, but on the other hand they are only attracting a certain demographic (wealthier, whiter, younger) which is much narrower than standard congregations and can feel like a hostile takeover to the faithful few who felt ownership of the previous congregation.
Added to that there’s a worrying stench of corruption/dishonesty/manipulation around HTB, which many see as the antithesis of genuine Christianity and certainly has fed into the crisis of leadership that the CofE now faces.
Peter, I think you should have no fear, because (a) if HTB churches attract so many more people in general, they will be attracting more people from most of the demographics (such as they are) than the other churches are. Second, you didn’t provide evidence (anecdotal?) for your claim. Third, even if your claim were true, each individual matters equally, so who cares about their backgrounds? our assumption looked like being that certain backgrounds made the individuals more and less precious. I am sure that was not your intention? Fourth, this is a world where church scandals will be hastily taken up by such as Cathy Newman who gleefully announce on twitter that a ‘BIG’ story is in the offing (i.e. anything destroying a bishop’s life and that of his family because he did not get the latest nuances of a different culture to his own original one). So if there really are such dreatdul scandals re this network (and of course they are so very large that there will be many sinners among them, and the same sharks, jackals and vultures will (with no thought to looking in the mirror) claim that because one person once did X, ‘they’ are ‘all’ like that…it is likely that the sharks etc would have picked up on this supposed reality that you allege a while back if it were systemic to even the slightest degree.
I love PJ’s coinage ‘pompus’. It sounds like a cross between a grampus and a porpoise.
Yes by vote of majority of Synod, 2/3 of which has already been for women priests and bishops and a clear majority of which was for PLF
A tiresome and self-serving misrepresentation of the debate.
No reality, Synod determines C of E doctrine and where it is heading and if it is changed
T1, I was responding to Ian’s characterisation of the debate as one “where some believe the doctrine of the Church ‘according to the teaching of Jesus’ and some do not”
Which is certainly a much better arbiter than Jesus or international scholarship or attention to the integrity of the Christian heritage. Particularly as there is no guarantee that ‘Synod’ between them have read up on the salient material (at present, the worry is not that they in every case have not but that so many and such a proportion of them have not).
The Church of England is already seriously divided, Ian. The question is whether the next Cantuar will be another traitor to Christ or someone who explicitly draws a biblical line in the sand. If the former, we can expect Christ to continue removing lampstands (a process which liberals obviously do not understand). If the latter, will Cantuar threaten further traitors with expulsion or be content to appoint faithful persons to senior positions in the hope that liberalism will simply wither?
We don’t know.
The Church of England is established church and is never going to be hardline. If you are vehemently anti women priests and bishops then you will likely already have left for the Roman Catholic or Orthodox churches. If you are vehemently anti PLF (which isn’t even same sex marriage in C of E churches) then if you haven’t already left for your nearest evangelical Baptist, Pentecostal or Independent church then the door is there for you to go through
…leaving Jesus Christ to close the door behind Him.
Anton
Who would you pick and why (for practical purposes please limit yourself to people who are already English Diocesans)
I don’t know the field well enough, but you want a holy man who has strong faith in Jesus Christ crucified and risen, and in His scriptures (including the definition of sexual right and wrong), has the personality profile of a good leader (not least moral courage), and is a good administrator.
For what it’s worth I’ll be surprised if they appoint from the English diocesans. Christopher Cocksworth (Dean of Windsor, and formerly Bishop of Coventry and former contender for Canterbury) is probably a dark horse. And the addition of the Communion members of the CNC probably makes it a little easier to find someone from outside the CofE. It wouldn’t be unprecedented – Rowan Williams came from Church of Wales of course.
I also would not be surprised if they looked outside of the English bishops. I think there is only one English bishop up to the considerable task, and that is Bishop Guli of Chelmsford. She has the background, the academic ability, the breadth, and above all the grace to be an excellent Archbishop.
…and of course the same unscriptural views of LLF/PLF as you.
I really asked this question to see if it’s even possible to appoint someone half decent.
I cant see them appointing a woman because that would completely destroy their goal to respect people who dont like women and it would cause further difficulties in the wider communion.
‘People who don’t like women’? Are you determined to occupy a lower level of analysis? That would be an own-goal.
Given around half of the nominations committee are women I see no reason a woman Archbishop cannot be appointed. 2/3 of Synod voted for women Bishops over a decade ago of course and the C of E is not an Orthodox church or a Roman Catholic church where women are not allowed to be priests and Bishops, nor a Southern Baptist church where women are not allowed a leadership role and that would confirm that
So you are not in favour of the principle of the best candidate being appointed, but instead are in favour of the principle of the best candidate being able to be deprived of the post because their gender does not fit with the powers that be. So far behind the progress that has been made on egalitarianism.
Coggan’s precisely 6 years in post have been very much the exception rather than the rule in recent times, taking in many years. (Temple died in office after 2 years.) If Andrew Watson were appointed he too would have 6 years, whereas the eminently suitable COcksworth would have 3.5.
There are plenty of able female candidates for Archbishop and over a decade after 2/3 of Synod voted for women Bishops a female Archbishop of Canterbury is due
One is due in a scenario where the best candidate is male (as they sometimes will be)? Yes or no? My point was that you sound happy to deprive the best candidate in some circumstances because of some window dressing factor like m/f sex.
Precisely 5 (Jan’75-Jan’80) not precisely 6.
Christopher
Actually it’s the opposite of what you suggest – the Bishop of Chelmsford was mentioned as the only capable contender and I speculated that the current policy of the CofE was essentially that the ABC had to be male because of the assurance given to those who dont like women. You’ve taken this completely the other way and are suggesting that all men are being rejected – nobody has said that!
I dont know much about Cocksworth, but he seems to be from an upper middle class background, a moderate conservative who avoids taking a clear position on anything, vaguely apologetic for what he claims are his own beliefs – is this not just another Justin Welby?
Then once again you have misrepresented what I said. I said a man should certainly be appointed IF they were the most capable candidate. ‘Because they were not a woman’ would be a beyond shocking reason for rejecting the most able candidate (and ther pther way round also applies of course).
You have the impression that GFD is the chief candidate, but that impression may be media-led, and they are far from being the main or best informed analysts – as opposed to the most ideological. As I said, I can see her, among others, having a chance of being appointed, but not without a titanic voting struggle.
Describing a former archbishop who is a brother christian as a ‘traitor to Christ ‘ is unnecessarily harsh and judgemental. No more of this accusatory language please.
I consider it accurate and worthy of saying. Welby ought to heed James 3:1.
I’m impressed you know that the Holy Spirit was responsible for the election of Leo XIV, Rev Goddard!
Anton
Well the rumor here is that Trump had pressured several cardinals to try to get an American elected. Probably not the American Pope he was hoping for though…
I heard a different rumour that the College of Cardinals wanted an American anti-Trump Pope.
We’ll find out eventually. Cardinals leak…
The annual season when American donors invade the Vatican had just taken place. Also Vatican finances are dire at present.
Vatican finances have been dire because of the mess left by Pope Benedict. Pope Francis rightly said that unless there was transparency about Vatican finances the message of the gospel would be compromised.
Of course the RC church also shrank in numbers under Benedict. But grew under his more liberal successor. And grew in more conservative areas of the World. So the idea that more liberal churches don’t grow doesn’t quite stack up.
Rome is more a socio-political movement than a church, Andrew.
Anything that is (a) common sense and (b) shown in graphs over long periods of time, and (c) involving multiple graph entries, and (d) continues to be shown thus today – that is a firm finding.
Rome still does not allow women priests and bishops, still does not allow divorcees to get remarried in its churches without an annulment and still does not perform same sex marriages or even formal prayers in its services for same sex couples. On social issues most conservative evangelicals have more in common with Rome than most mainline Protestant churches, even if they are less supportive of immigration and climate change action than the Pope is
T1
I think the challenge for the Trump presidency is that the Vice President is play acting as a faithful Catholic, but doesn’t actually agree with Roman Catholic theology and, as such, had an antagonistic meeting with Pope Benedict a day before he died. It’s quite extraordinary for someone who has been a member of a religious denomination for only about as long as he’s been in politics to tell its leader on earth that he knows its theology better than him!
The Roman Catholics are a bit of headache for the Trump administration – it’s relatively easy to manipulate American denominations into supporting the end of international aid and refugee programs, irrational deportation of people who already obtained refugee status, open racism, and massive cuts to programs that alleviate poverty, but it’s far harder to do that to an international denomination that has its center in Western Europe. Hence when Vance tried to suggest that true Catholics opposed public money being spent on foreign aid, he got rebuked by many Catholics including the then pope and the cardinal who is now the pope.
Yes Roman Catholics tend to be swing voters in US elections, they voted for Biden in 2020 but Trump last year and are more socially conservative than Democrats but economically more leftist than Republicans. The Vatican will therefore openly disagree with Trump and Vance on immigration and asylum issues
The majority of central Synod chosen members being women, 2 out of 5 of the Anglican Communion members of the nomination commission being women (including the African representative) must surely increase the chances of the first female Archbishop of Canterbury.
With the Bishops of Chelmsford and Gloucester being strong contenders.
Taking time is sensible, the new Pope seems decent enough but has already had questions about his record dealing with sex abusers so background checks need time to do properly
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/09/clergy-molestation-survivors-pope-leo-xiv
I do not think there is the slightest chance that the idea of the Bishop of Gloucester’s appointment would commend itself to enough of the committee, but the Bishop of CHelmsfod is one of the candidates that has the strongest chance. The fact that her candidacy too could well cause deadlock should make us wonder why what has been obvious for so long about the cultural infiltration of this denomination has not been seen.
It would cause less deadlock than say Martyn Snow, the Bishop of Chelmsford is a middle of the road Anglican who leans to the Catholic wing and it is that wing of the C of E’s turn to have the Archbishop. It would not be acceptable to most of the Catholic, pro Parish wing though to have another evangelical as Archbishop after Welby
To say that two men or two women can sleep together sexually is extreme and has never even been thought to be within the bounds of Christianity at all, let alone at its extreme edges.
When it comes to leaders doing this, then the same applies in spades.
It is an old tactic to call oneself via media to persuade people you actually are. This then resets the parameters, which is exactly what the intention was. We really didn’t notice a thing.
Why is it extreme?
In various ways. First, because it is not only not found in Christian teaching in any other culture or time, but its reverse (its prohinition) is found there, and even as the first and most quintessential (basic) example of rebellion that springs to mind (Rom 1), given that male/female might be considered as basic a category as one can get, so that rebellion at THAT level is as basic as one can get.
Second, because it is hard to find examples of prohibited things that people suddenly commend. There are prohibited things they now allow, or accepted things they now frown on, but neither of these is an example of one extreme to the other. This one is one extreme to the other.
Third, because the thing being commended (if not necessarily commended in the same context) is the most reliable factor for disease-causation in numerous epidemics, and I cannot think of any other examples even close to that.
Fourth, the said epidemics have been caused at the sae period of history as the commendation happens. In other words, when they have not caused epidemics there has not been particular commendation, but as soon as epidemics are caused they are praised. Not surprisingly, this too is hard to find a parallel to.
Firstly, there is no scriptural condemnation of women having sex with women.
Secondly, such scriptural proscriptions that do exist are concerned with specific acts.
Thirdly, you have not explained what is extreme about same-sex sex. It appears to be a fairly mundane part of the natural world. 94% of male giraffes practise same-sex sex more than they mate with females.
Lastly, you are again peddling the lie that homosexual behaviour *causes* epidemics. Remember that you had to backpedal from that assertion the last time you made it.
To take your points one by one:
1. Firstly, something not being condemned is an argument from silence. So that makes it weak. It could simply not be mentioned. Most things are not mentioned, so it is likely that any given thing will not be mentioned.
Secondly, the thing you say is not mentioned is mentioned in 1.26.
Third, it is mentioned as (perceptually) worse or more striking because of the ‘even’.
Fourth, the ‘likewise’ for the men means a parallelism. There is nothinge else men can be mentioned in parallel to than woemen. But to see that in fact they are so mentioned, one has only to read the words on the page.
2. Specific acts are mentioned in Rom 1, you say? If they are, they are not any known to Alex Comfort. Quite the contrary, the presentation could not be more general. The scandal is that men should be with men rather than with women. As the text says. SO the topic is their sexual partners not their acts. I sometimes wonder which text people are reading.
3. If a giraffe does something, we had better do that too. They are known not to be animals of instinct, but to rule our planet and tame humankind.
For the other points here, see WATTTC.
4. You are playing the not-honest game of ‘this is what happened last time, at least I will say it was and hope that no-one bothers to check’. I distinguished – more than once and more than twice – betwee two different kinds of causation: the causation of the original AIDS virus and the causation of its spread. In the latter (which is the more important of the two, since it was the one that caused the pandemic) then the most reliable risk factor was being a MSM (man who has sex with men). THis is also predictable, since the same factor is the chief risk factor in the spread of several other epidemics, indeed in the spread of STIs in general, averaged across the board. Causation absolutely for the pandemic, though not for the virus involved. Since you say I said it did not cause the pandemic, that is the reverse of the truth. It (and to a lesser extent other types of irresponsible and not-as-the-maker-intended sexual behaviour) did cause it. This has been oft repeated.
I could scarcely ‘backtrack’ however furiously from something I have always asserted in the first place.
1) it isn’t. Much more likely that Paul is writing about women on top in female/male intercourse. Considered filthy and disordered.
2) Paul refers back to Leviticus cf. Corinthians. Acts not orientation.
3) same-sex sex as observed in the natural world is a morally neutral act. Intention and context affect the morality.
4) as everyone who read the previous thread will recall you claimed that gay men in San Francisco *caused* the gay epidemic. You then denied that you you had used the word *cause*, and when you were quoted as using that word, said you had used that word but didn’t mean it!
And again, you haven’t explained what is extreme about same-sex sex.
(1) If it is indeed much more likely, then how strange that you do not say reasons *why* it is much more likely.
Of course, that is because it is not mch more likelt that some non translator knows best – to the extent of overturning the existing understanding of a literal and clear passage, coincidentally in a case where society disagrees, and against a background of intolerance of social deviance. Not at all likely that Bible translators, including in commentaries, know better.
(2) If it is acts not orientation, then you agree that scripturally the acts are wrong. Which is the entire point: yes, they are wrong.
(3) Morally neutral? Morals free more like. Unless we see giraffes and many other species blushing, consulting their consciences or perhaps their copies of Aquinas.
But whatever is morals free must cerainly be humans’ first port of call in their deliberations. Particularly if the standards are, as is right, ebing set by subhuman animals.
(4) Yes, I denied using the word cause because homosexuality did not cause the emergence of the AIDS virus. This has, as you know, been said about 4 times already, but hey. At this stage your grasp on what I said is still so hazy that just a few minutes ago you were still (and perhaps are still) of the understanding that I denied what is obviously true – that homosexual sexual acts were and are the most reliable way for this dreadful virus to be transmitted, much like most other STIS taht have reached epidemic level (because the more unhealthy something is, the more it is disease-associated intrinsically – and this is extremely disease associated, being top-end unhealthy). You were still saying I denied that homosexual sexual acts caused the pandemic (together with, to a lesser extent, other *related* things). Saying that I said the obvious cause was *not* the cause?
This may be the 5th time I have said this, so level 5 incomprehension either awaits or hopefully does not. For that is a high level. The virus was not caused thus but (far more significantly) that pandemic and otehr epidemics were. And the only reason I said I had not said ’cause’ was because I was thinking only of the virus’s causation when I said that. Had I been thinking of the pandemic’s causation, I might have recalled that of course I naturally used the word ’cause’ there in that second context,, as who could not?
So far your understanding level has not demonstrated you understand the different between these two separate causations. But is that something you understand?
As for thinking I said I had used ’cause’ but did not mean it, not quite. What I said was that I meant it in the context I did use it in (and then forgot I had used it) – namely causation or pandemic; but would not have said or meant it in the context I did not use it in -namely causation of virus. Which is quite distant from what you said.
Once again, it comes down to the obvious fact taht more than one thing can be caused. I thought everyone already knew that.
Penelope,
Which extant ancient writings consider woman-atop-man copulation to be filthy, please?
“likewise”, i.e. a similar act is much more likely to refer to an act of penetrative sex (the woman on top) than to lesbian sex, which is rarely penetrative. This question of exegesis has nothing to do with translation and everything to do with culture and context.
Anyone who reads your original comments on the cause of the AIDs epidemic can see what you wrote. Clearly. Blustering and obfuscating now is pretty pointless. And makes you look even more mendacious.
You make two points here. The two you dropped were, respectively: (2) your assertion that Paul is talking about acts not orientation (correct), from which it naturally follows that he is saying that the acts are bad (which indeed they are, and which is the main point); and (3) your idea that it is right and morally a forward step for humans to copy animals who follow their instincts.
(1) You say that there can be only one likely poinr of comparison when it comes to the word ‘likewise’. That error rules out your position from the start, since there is certainly more than one point at which the female behaviour and the male behaviour can be compared.
Secondly, you cannot say ‘likewise the men’ when the couple you have only just been referring to is itself just as much male as it is female.
Thirdly if you are using a duplex structure – first women and then men – it is good and natural style to have some parallelism here, even if the word ‘likewise’ were absent (that it is present just strengthens the case further). Parallelism is most simply attained in the shape of dramatis personae (all women cast in parallel with all men cast).
Fourthly, a duplex structure where sex balance was unequal and where sorts of activity were also unequal would doubly fail the neatness test (-2) which the other option passed (+1). The difference between +1 and -2 is 3.
Sixthly, there are no major objections to this simple picture.
Seventhly, we prefer professional translators to anyone else here.
Eighthly, we especially prefer them to the presentation of any interpreter otherwise known to be attached to particular social patterns.
(4) Since the entire scandal is about my denying that homosexual behaviour caused the AIDS epidemic and I strongly affirm that it did cause it (as most neatly exemplified by the place of greatest homosexual density -out of all the places on earth – coincidentally being the first place to hit the news for startling symptoms)) then your claims defeat the object. They would only be relevant if I denied that homosexual behaviour caused the AIDS epidemic. I have never denied it and always affirmed it. So what then is the point of your claims? ANd do you deny that there is more than one thing in the world (pandemic on the one hand; virus on the other) that can be ’caused’?
I have often taken the approach of listing your misunderstandings. This has certainly shown that because I always avoid cliches and share only thoughts that may be thought to progress the discussion (and are therefore new) my words, albeit in simple vocabulary) are often misunderstood, since they represent unfamiliar thoughts, which take time to digest. Given a track record of misunderstanding, which is not your fault, why is not your default option to assume that there has been misunderstanding? The misunderstanding in this instance is laid out above – but alas for the 4th or 5th time.
Penelope,
I think you are replying to Christopher and supposing that your reply covers my question – that “unnatural relations” involving women in Romans 1 refers to a woman being atop the man.
So, unless you have another reference from the ancient world to woman-atop-man being filthy, all you have is Romans 1. Now, Paul is a Jewish believer in Jesus writing to a mixed congregation of Jews and gentiles, and he would if necessary make clear what is acceptable and what is not by reference to the Pentateuch. Nothing there legislates against woman on top. (Nor, as you point out, is there anything about/against lesbianism in ancient Israel – evidently because it was unknown there and God does not want to go putting ideas into people’s heads, for the law provokes lawbreaking as Paul explains elsewhere.) The outstandingly obvious meaning of the passage is that Paul is telling women not to misbehave like men, and telling men not to have sex with each other.
I’d add that there is writing from the ancient world licensing woman-on-top, the Kama Sutra. The Greek world had been in good touch with the Indian world since Alexander’s time. Then there is the obvious question of what to do when the woman has back trouble.
The highest incidence of HIV infections is among very conservative Christian countries in Africa. By miles. And neither caused nor spread by gay sex.
Lorenzo falls hook, line and sinker into the usual trap – that most AIDS is not spread by homosexual behaviour. How can it be when small single figures are homosexual in the first place? How does that get the homosexual-identifying population off the hook of having by far the worst per capita / proportional record of any group? (And not just for AIDS, for other similar diseases too. Disease causation and unhealthiness are one and the same thing.) On the Christianity of the countries, he is correct. The main thing is to avoid HIV/AIDS and HIV-AIDS causation.
Penelope does not address (2) and (3). On (2), the point that she made about Paul talking about acts not orientations is correct, and means that the acts are harmful and to be prohibited, which, so far as her interpretation here goes, she seems to be agreeing with. Or is it that she correctly interprets Paul and thinks Paul is wrong?
On (3), the thrust of what she said earlier was that we should look to the instinctive animals for how to live, taking them as role models. A role model with much less brainpower and much less spirituality.
On (1), to be reduced to saying translation is of no import is the height of desperation. I have never seen so extreme a comment.
For something to be ‘likewise’ it needs to be ‘by the same token’ or ‘in the same way’ logically – i.e. the same reasoning follows in both of the two cases. In the two cases you give the same reasoning does not follow. Second, you remove the neat balance between men on the one hand and women on the other in a duplex construction, because your first pairing is both male and female – no more female than male. Third, ‘likewise the men” has to come after something that has been said about women. Fourth, the verse 1.26 that I and translators sat is about women (not about both genders) begins and proceeds as though it is about women alone. So since this means we already have a neat female-male duplex, it is both over complicated and a backward step to try to remove this. Fifth, that overcomplication is then exacerbated if you want 1/2 to be about positioning and 2/2 simultaneously to be about gender. And of course all this point makes ‘homoios’ [with long o at end] ever more of a strange choice of word, as is indeed the whole train of thought now strange (6thly). Then, we look in vain for any reference to specific practices (as your theory requires) rather than something more general (7thly). And of course, 8thly, we go with accredited translators; and 9thly the least persuasive would be to go with interpreters who do not take each text as a separate case but have a blanket tendency to be in conformity to (exegetically irrelevant) 21st century fashions.
On (4), your entire point was that I was trying to deny or avoid that HIV/AIDS pandemic was caused primarily (primarily in the sense that that was the surest way of spreading it the quickest, as is the case with so many other STIs, disease and unhealthiness being the same thing) by homosexual practice, but since that is something I strongly affirm, as does the evidence (and I cited the fact that the new phenomenon in the early 1980s first became apparent in precisely the most male-homosexual corner of this large globe – coincidentally?). If the whole intent was to expose me for denying something when that thing is something I strongly affirm and always have, then your point is hard to grasp. But (on the other 4-5 occasions I have made this point) I put it down to not grasping that there were two contexts for causation in view which had probably been confused by readers – causation of the virus and causation of the pandemic. Because many things in life are caused, not just 1. In general, my former practice of responding to comments by listing quantities of misunderstandings should have given pause to any preemptive interpretation on your part. If the default response is to misunderstand at first (since I try to advance discussion by making points capable of progressing it, which points are therefore going to be new and unfamiliar), then if I seem to be saying something impossible it is likely that this is because you have misunderstood.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
A phrase that was created with Christopher Shell especially in mind judging by his many contributions here. Expect another 500 word essay in return….
AJB, to what does your comment refer?
[7 words]
A commitment to lawfulness is at least as important as the identity of candidate for Archbishop. The Church in is crisis because of endemic unlawfulness – complete failure to observe the rules, and then denial, postponement, and cover up. And not just on one issue. The dishonesty, deception and cheating is appalling – indeed it seems endemic in the Church. If clergy whistle-blow they get treated as pariahs – so pretend they haven’t seen.
No Archbishop can resolve the present crisis of confidence in the leadership without public repentance from the bishops – the whole House of Bishops – for their gross abuse of power and the bullying of the Synod and the Church into submission. No sign of any change of heart.
The Synod cannot lawfully bring in the change so many want (and so many don’t) without two-thirds majority vote. Welby finally acknowledged this in his interview with Laura Kuennsberg. But everyone knows a two-thirds majority is required – advocating otherwise is simply an abuse of the rules and is rending the Church from top to bottom. It is almost bound to hamper the appointment of an Archbishop.
What’s needed isn’t just a new Archbishop, but first evaluation of the changes brought in under Welby – things done and things left undone and what’s to be done about them – to focus minds on the task of the leadership ahead.
I would agree wholeheartedly.
Endemic may be right, but the idea that the only people who might need to pull back and repent are the House of Bishops is absurd.
Or in alternative translation, conservative hardline evangelicals will not accept any recognition of same sex couples at all despite the Church of England being established church of a nation where same sex marriage is legal. Despite their churches being given an opt out from PLF and despite a clear majority of Synod voting for PLF in all 3 houses!
2/3 majority is only required for same sex marriages in C of E churches, which prayers for same sex couples within services clearly aren’t!
Only? You mean that that is the only issue in the world that 2/3 is required for?
No, it was also required for women priests and bishops, remarriage of divorcees in C of E churches etc
Exactly. SO when you said ‘only’ before, you were inaccurate.
What was Jesus’s interest in legal niceties?
Regarding the election of the previous Vacancy in See Committee, it is true that there were technical errors in issuing the ballot papers with names that should not have appeared there. I expect it would have little material effect on the outcome as the vote was by STV, so anyone voting for an excluded candidate as their first preference would have their vote transferred to a second preference candidate. But if it contravened the Vacancy in See Regulations then the diocese could claim grounds to re-run it, even though there are no means for appeal against the outcome of a Vacancy in See Committee election.
However, the Vacancy in See Committee Regulations 2024 also stipulate under section 17 that:
“The proceedings of the Vacancy in See Committee of a diocese are not invalidated by
a vacancy in the membership of the Committee or a defect in the qualification, election or
appointment of any of its members.”
So the work already done by the Vacancy in See Committee, including any consultations, writing and approving the diocesan statement of needs, and critically the election of three of its members to the CNC, remain valid. This is in spite of, as section 17 says, “a defect in the election of any of its members”. While the diocese may be within its rights to re-run the election, the next Committee does not have authority to re-run the election of CNC members as a valid election has already happened.
Should the Committee elected under the re-run timetable above seek to elect new CNC members, with a result different to that already happened, it would open up a legal question under section 17 to assess which of the two sets of elected CNC members were the legitimate ones, further delaying the process. If the diocese were to set aside section 17 and invalidate the first set of elected CNC members it would further open itself up to allegations of improper conduct and failing to discharge its duties in impartially following the regulations in full.
How about an Archbishop of Canterbury who can explain to people in a clear manner that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God – the wages of sin is death – the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus? Who goes on to explain a bit more of this gift ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life’? I know it’s a stupid question and that such an Archbishop of Canterbury is most definitely out of the question (at least none of the possibilities have been expressing their credentials on this matter) – just thought I’d ask.
Quite a few do that, but ar never permitted to in/by the mainstream media.
That, Jock, exposes the Emperor’s/King’s new suit of clothes.
It is a far too revealing, perspicacious.
It is also to be wondered how many in the appointment process can articulate it from a position of convicted belief.
Maybe we might get the ABC that we deserve
or perhaps the ABC that we don’t deserve.
The Wind blows where it will…
There are historical precedents.
Alan – yes, there are historical precedents – and I’m thinking of the one suggested by the Blackadder episode – why don’t they give the job to Prince Harry? He seems like the perfect candidate. He doesn’t have a Christian hair in his head and – here’s the bit that should please T1 – he’s the son of the King.
True, Meghan is Episcopalian though and they are now based in California so they might be a bit too liberal for some on here
If Prince Harry was Archbishop, a 21st century Prince Bishop if you like, you know like the Bishop of Barchester his wife would really be the power behind the Bishop’s throne
In medieval times it might have been considered as a way of sobering up a rebellious younger son of the King certainly
Ah, Trivial Peruits again today I see, Ho,Ho,Ho,Oh.
Alan – trivial pursuits maybe – but the current discussion is at a very low level. On the one hand, we have the ‘exchange the truth for a lie’ brigade – who want us to believe that everything that we thought that the bible seemed to be telling us is sin isn’t really sin at all – or at least not at all serious in the eyes of God. If you do some very clever and intellectual study of grammar, you can get the bible to mean precisely the opposite of what it would appear to mean to the ‘plain man’. On the other hand, the ‘evangelical’ side will be quite relieved if some very basic criteria are met – namely, that the new Archbishop can tell the difference between a man and a woman and upholds basic criteria for marriage (e.g. that it is supposed to be between one man and one woman in life-long union) that have been well understood for centuries. There really seems to be nothing – absolutely nothing – about God’s redemptive plan, why it is needed – bringing people under the conviction of sin – and, based on this, leading them to faith in Christ. From the discussion we see here that doesn’t seem to be part of the job.
What did you think of Archbishop Welby’s sermons at Queen Elizabeth’s funeral and King Charles’s coronation?
AJ Bell – they were both very good for the occasion (although perhaps somewhat short). So – in some sense – a good Archbishop of Canterbury – he understood his role in occasions of State and performed it well.
I didn’t see anything there to convince me that I’m a sinner, though (the offence of the cross – Blessed is He who is not offended in Me) – that Jesus loved me so much that he died for me while I was dead in my trespass and sin – and the exhortation to trust in Him for eternal life on this basis.
Probably not the occasion for this sort of thing ……
Since the Abp of Canterbury has to swear allegiance to the Monarch and has a particular place within the British Constitution the field is inevitably limited.
A point well made, thanks.
Perry
And why does the CofE have to have “a particular place within the British Constitution”?
Because it is an Established Church and the Abp has a particular place…House of Lords etc. Assuming you are British I imagined you knew this.We know you think this is wrong, unbiblical etc. You have ventilated this many times. But right or wrong this is the situation now. And this is the arrangement under which the next archbishop will be appointed.
Perry
rather circular arguing there I think??
Yes, I’m British….
And until the CofE ‘bites the bullet’ of being an ‘Established Church’ they will continue to have a lot of unnecessary problems……
There is no circular argument from Perry at all. Simply a statement of the situation that we are in and have been in for a few hundreds of years.
We get that you don’t approve of it Stephen. I don’t suppose you are alone, both within and without the CofE. I don’t suppose this government has any will to change the situation, and has far more pressing problems. So the best choice is to not be part of such a church if you feel so strongly about it, surely?
The British Constitution is complex and won’t be changed before this appointment. You could, of course, write to the members of the appointment commission and stress how important it is to appoint a candidate whose absolute priority is the disestablishment of the CofE. And in your position, that is what I would do.
Andrew
Obviously I’m not part of the CofE – I’m basically Anabaptist/Mennonite but in the UK the Mennonites deliberately don’t have a network of churches and Anabaptists will belong to a local evangelical church, in my case Baptist. Unfortunately I can’t avoid being English which means as a Christian I’m affected by the CofE whether I like it or not. You might bear in mind that the CofE is a considerable problem to the rest of us…..
As regards the government I think ultimately if the CofE get sufficiently ‘out of tune’ with the nation they will have to do something about it. If the CofE positively rejects same-sex marriage it will be hard to justify it remaining the formally national church. But the church itself needs to consider the issue not least because a lot of the church’s “pressing problems” are considerably affected by the establishment status, including for example the pressure to conform to the world over SSM.
A voluntary disestablishment would be best; and that would require the CofE to simply be true to its own basic position of scriptural authority, since the scripture definitely teaches a very positive alternative….
Stephen you ignore the points which have been made, which is not unusual.
Yes, I am fully aware that the CofE impacts on those outside of it, and that’s why I suggested you write to the commission to put forward your very fair point of view. Everybody was invited to do so, whether part of the CofE or not.
A voluntary disestablishment doesn’t make any difference to the constitutional issues that would be raised about monarchy, government etc etc. Even if the CofE asked the government to put the thing in motion, there would considerable hurdles to negotiate – not least that those outside of the CofE would need to be consulted about such a major constitutional change. As I have said, I doubt the present government, or any other possible government, sees it as a priority. And I should think it’s the very last thing that a Reform led government would want to encourage or engage in.
1) Not so much ignoring the points as accepting but trying to go beyond….
2) Preferring so far to continue trying to persuade the evangelicals to realise that this is the deep problem that they need to resolve in order to ultimately resolve the various others.
3) Sorry, I may not have been quite clear. I know of course that the church cannot unilaterally disestablish itself. My point is rather that it will be best if the initiative for the disestablishment comes from a church which has finally realised that the entanglement with the state is unbiblical and unChristian. A forced disestablishment ‘from outside’ of a church still basically believing in being established could have all kinds of bad ramifications….
If the church wants to be disestablished surely the various outside parties would realise that the church can’t be forced into such a relationship with the government.
4) Right wing groups like Reform tend to be led astray by the plausible idea that “God must want…” the state church situation as in other religions like Islam and current nationalistic Hinduism in India. Trouble is in Christian terms it is not scriptural and the NT in fact teaches a different way to do Church/State or Church/World relations, with an independent and supranational Church
Stephen thanks but…
1. You didn’t seem to respond at all to the idea that you were totally welcome to make your representation to the commission. Have you actually made your point there, where it matters?
2. I’m not aware of many prominent evangelicals wanting it. I suspect most of them rather like the establishment as so many of them went to the top 5 public schools Iwerne were so keen on.
3. Then General Synod have to deal with the matter first and you need to persuade your evangelical mates on GS to lobby for that. Ian?
4. Reform are led astray by all kinds of ideas. But as they look more likely to take up government roles in the future you need to take it up with them pretty soon too.
‘Top’ 30. Organisationally more like ‘top’ 60, plus ‘top’ slice (as perceived) of girls’ boarding.
Andrew
1) I think I’m just realistic in reckoning that the commission won’t be able to find a pro-disestablishment candidate right now. I very likely will write to the new archbishop…..
2) Most evangelicals (and not just in the CofE) tend to rather assume the ‘Christian country’ idea of which CofE establishment is part. So strong is the assumption that it (ironically) gets in the way of reading what the NT actually says. Have you come across my blog, stevesfreechurchblog, in which I explore these issues? (In one of my posts, I compared establishment to Gollum’s “Precious”, a seductive evil which is hard to give up….)
3) I have little faith in General Synod….
4) That the ‘right’ and ‘far right’ are keen on state religion ought to be a big red flag to Christians to warn us off the idea. The likes of Farage and Trump want God for the benefit of the country that is their real object of worship, rather than the other way round.
Stephen
1. Then I think you can’t really complain if you haven’t taken the obvious opportunity identified to you. There is a touch of the angry young man…if you know that song by Billy Joel.
2. Yes I’ve looked at your blog. A bit angry young man again, I’m afraid.
3. I don’t think anybody trusts General Synod much at the moment. But once again, it’s the only way things get done. You can’t bypass process – though many of us would like to.
4. Yes I agree. But evangelicals by and large don’t. They tend to be more right wing.
“ ‘Top’ 30. Organisationally more like ‘top’ 60, plus ‘top’ slice (as perceived) of girls’ boarding. “
Yes Christopher, I was being facetious. But your chief apologist role never fails…
Andrew
1) Writing to a commission to ask for a result which is currently impossible isn’t much of an opportunity. I’m more just hoping to keep the issue alive.
2) Not so young these days – my interest was as I’ve said initially spurred by the ‘Ulster Troubles’ – somewhat wider church-and-state issues than just Anglican establishment, but again the Anglican position is one of the worst biblically speaking. I do apologise for getting just a bit angry at spending over 20 years of my early adulthood watching some 3500 people killed (and other bad consequences) in connection with Ulster while Anglicans remained smug and self-satisfied in unbiblical privilege …..
3) And the trouble with General Synod is that it is the governing body of a world-entangled church trying to serve two masters – I believe Jesus himself pointed out that doesn’t work….
4) The ‘right-wing-ness’ of too many evangelicals is precisely because they accept the ‘Christian country’ notion; and ironically are being unbiblical and therefore unevangelical in doing so…..
Anglicans like myself of course would fight forever against disestablishment and never accept it, as it would defeat the purpose of the Church of England which was set up precisely to be our national church. Plenty of non established churches from the Methodists to Episcopalians to Church of Scotland and Quakers perform same sex marriages anyway, indeed a disestablished C of E would be even more likely to back it and go beyond PLF as only the liberal Catholics would bother to stay in it. Conservative evangelicals would become Baptists or Pentecostals and conservative Catholics still in the C of E would become Roman Catholic or Orthodox
In that, it resembles your facetiousness.
T1/Simon
“disestablishment …. would defeat the purpose of the Church of England which was set up precisely to be our national church.”
As usual you totally fail to show that this “purpose of the Church of England” is actually God’s purpose and not just the questionable selfish purpose of English kings. NOTHING in the NT teaches a national church of any kind, and there is lots of stuff in the NT teaching a totally different way to do relations of state and Church.
That would mean that as a national church the CofE would be disobeying God big-time – and a supposed Christian church disobeying God is pretty much the ultimate in stupid situations…..
Stephen
1. The place to keep it alive is with the commission. That’s the body that counts. Not a blog, of which many are auspicious.
2. The young in angry young man isn’t a literal thing. Read the song i referred to.
3. GS doesn’t serve two masters. But the CofE is tied up with the British Constitution. We get that you really don’t like that, and you think God really doesn’t like it. I don’t think you are alone, and I am encouraging you to use your voice where it counts.
4. The problem with so many evangelicals is partly as you describe but partly that they are obsessed with sex and what other people are allowed to think about it.
Andrew
I hope my blog is “auspicious”. (though I’m ‘suspicious’ that that was a typo or bad autocorrect….
1) Can you actually point me to one plausible candidate as ABC who also wants disestablishment? If not, the commission won’t have that option anyway. My best judgement for now is let them get on with it and respond to whatever their decision is….
2) “GS doesn’t serve two masters. But the CofE is tied up with the British Constitution. ”
So long as the CofE is tied up with the British Constitution, GS and everyone else involved will be in the ‘serving two masters’ business – and serving God and the World is impossible, as Jesus said.
3) I personally would rather be discussing sex a lot less. The concern with sex and “what people are allowed to do” is at least partly about the being a state church and the expectation that a ‘Christian’ state will enforce Christian standards. But no two ways, sadly, that right now sexuality has become the battlefield and can’t be ignored.
Yes we know you want to turn the C of E into a Baptist church in all but name but there is then no point in an independent C of E anyway
T1/Simon
What I ‘want’ is for all churches to at least try to obey the Word of God in scripture. None will be perfect, all will have their own interesting individualities which will be perfectly acceptable.
But some ideas are clearly disobeying the Word and really really need to be got rid of, and establishment in the state is one of those ideas. For all kinds of reasons not least the death toll and other mayhem of past wars and persecutions in the name of Jesus, and the provocation (plus bad example) towards other faiths. And in the modern world the turnabout that now a totalitarian church is (mostly) unacceptable, the vulnerability of any state-entangled church to pressures to conform to the world.
And therefore the CofE needs to pick up again from where the state rather forced it to ‘freeze out’ during the Reformation, and complete its Reformation by finally following the Bible on Church/State relations….
Vested interests in the CoE are playing a deconstructionists game of Jenga.