‘Sioux Grey Wolf’ writes: The UK Government is conducting a review of how it handled the Covid-19 pandemic. We already know some of the successes (chiefly the roll-out of the vaccine) and some of the scandals (PPE deals, parties). More will be revealed. But how did the Church of England respond the biggest crisis since the Second World War? Bishops, especially those who sit in the House of Lords, are rightly keen to hold the Government to account and speak truth to power—but who does that to them?
So let’s have a look at how the hierarchy of the Church handled the pandemic.
The flurry of communiqués from the Bishops began on 24th March 2020 with this stern injunction:
Our church buildings must now be closed not only for public worship, but for private prayer as well and this includes the priest or lay person offering prayer in church on their own. A notice explaining this should be put on the church door (please find template attached). We must take a lead in showing our communities how we must behave in order to slow down the spread of the Coronavirus. […]
Our Church buildings are closed but the Church must continue to support and encourage our communities making use of telephones and other forms of technology to keep in touch with people and ensure pastoral care is maintained, and as shepherds of Christ’s flock we are committed to making this happen. […] Our church buildings are closed for public worship and for private prayer.
Without rehashing the whole appalling episode there are a few key details in that letter which stand out as emblematic the entire debacle.
We could start at the very beginning, with the address line: “From the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England, to be shared with all clergy.” Except the first part of that was wrong. It was from the House of Bishops (or possibly a meeting of the Archbishops and Diocesan Bishops—with their usual opacity it’s hard to tell). At any rate it most certainly was not from the entire episcopacy. Assistant, Area and Suffragan Bishops were understandably angry about having a letter sent in their name without their knowledge or consent. And this wasn’t just any letter. More on that later.
So how did this happen? The false attribution came from The Rt Revd Tim Thornton, the then Bishop of Lambeth. It was, it seems, an honest mistake—and one that was corrected in subsequent letters. Although by “corrected” I mean “not repeated”; it was never acknowledged, much less apologised for. So to all intents and purposes the error in first letter still stands. This—I think New Testament scholars would call it epistolary pseudepigrapha—might seem like a minor quibble, and compared to what came next it is.
First, at least one Bishop (The Rt Revd James Langstaff, the then Bishop of Rochester) reinforced what was already a pretty unequivocal letter with the threat of disciplinary action. He ordered clergy in the diocese to pray “at home, on the phone, or online”. But the very next day (Tuesday March 25th) that very same Bishop led prayers in the House of Lords, in person (and presumably collected his £323 daily allowance. Nice work if you can get it.)
Second, some clergy realised that the Great Lock Out looked…well, unlawful. Incumbents own their churches; the Bishops’ command exceeded their authority: it was ultra vires. Panic and overreach are not the marks of good leadership but they were the defining features of the Bishops’ attitudes and actions. And it seemed the Bishops, in their haste, reached for and pulled levers of power that were not, and have never been, theirs to pull. The Ven Dr Edward Dowler went on the record as saying:
The Archbishops’ and bishops’ ruling also has doubtful legal basis. In law, church buildings are vested in their incumbents, who, at their induction, take possession of the temporalities of the benefice. It is not clear that the bishops have any legal ability to issue apparent management instructions that incumbents should not pray in their churches. Legally speaking, this is a matter of conscience for individual clergy, in particular those who are incumbents.
Someone must have checked this with a lawyer and realised it was true. So three days later on 27th March, a new missive from the bishops descended from the ether. Suddenly it was all only “advice”. Thus:
The decision to close the church buildings and to prevent them being used for streaming has been a very difficult one. Some government advice suggests that we should be able to allow streaming from church buildings. Our advice, however, is that we should go the extra mile in following the clear public health advice and guidance which is to stay at home and to stay safe.
Then the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, seemed to backtrack even further on The Andrew Marr show on Easter Sunday (BBC1, 12 April). Visibly discomfited, he tried to talk his way out of the mess by saying it was about sharing in, and solidarity with, the privations of others. But that’s just pious nonsense: the bishops have never asked their clergy to be, say, celibate or starving just so we can share in what others involuntarily suffer. And there’s no virtue in imposing unnecessary self-denial on others anyway; quite the opposite. When challenged by Rev Marcus Walker over the legality of banning clergy from their churches Justin Welby said: “we have given guidance, not instruction. [….] we haven’t given an instruction; so we haven’t broken canon law.”
So the entire nation was treated to the unedifying sight of the Archbishop of Canterbury awkwardly ad-libbing and gaslighting his clergy live on television. Gaslighting? Yes: remember the repeated use of the word “must” in the original letter? There is simply no way in the world that anyone could read the ad clerum of 24th March as “guidance, not instruction”. When mere parish priests get a letter from the two Archbishops that uses the word “must” seven times (almost Johannine, no?) then, believe me, they do not take it as mere guidance. (Although maybe from now on they should? That’s another problem: this sets a precedent that undermines actual instructions in the future.)
The subsequent claims that it had only ever been “advice” or “guidance” were risible and disingenuous. But if it was always intended to only ever be “guidance, not instruction” then why did the Bishop of Rochester back it up with the threat of disciplinary action? Did he misunderstand it, too, despite, signing off on it and, presumably, having had a hand in drafting it? No, claiming it was anything other than a three-line whip was an insult to the intelligence of the clergy and a self-inflicted injury to the integrity of the bishops.
The Archbishop also said it was:
a decision taken by all the bishops and it was taken with much pain and much thought and much prayer and after much discussion; so it’s not just a single person making up their mind on the spur of the moment.
Which makes the content of that initial letter all more baffling and inexcusable. Better, surely, to retract and apologise. Why pre-emptively rule out the very plausible defence that this was an understandably hasty or ill-advised statement in a fast-changing crisis? Many people would have had some sympathy if he’d said opposite that, something along the lines of “it was decided without much thought and on the spur of the moment.”
Incredibly, in that interview (and desperately trying to wriggle out of the fact that he’d forbidden clergy from praying in their own churches) the Archbishop said also:
In the Church of England the one way to get anyone to do the opposite of what you want is to give them an order. It works with all of us.
At first that sounds a lot like carte blanche for clergy (although, sadly, it probably wouldn’t stand up as a defence in the event of a CDM). But on reflection it shows how badly out of touch this powerful and privileged man is. “It works with all of us?” With respect, Your Grace, it bloody doesn’t. It might work for the Generals, but not for the troops in the trenches. You also don’t need a doctorate in textual criticism to realise it implies he did “give them an order”, thus contradicting his claim that he hadn’t. But it was live and he was squirming, or squirming as much as an Old Etonian ever does. All told it was an exquisitely excruciating interview. I was embarrassed by and for him.
The sadness, anger, bemusement and bewilderment felt by many Church of England clergy at being unnecessarily (and probably illegally) locked out of their churches by the bishops for more than six weeks spread from the pages of the Church Times to those of The Times itself. Hardly a good witness to the world and hardly a good look for the hapless bishops. To be fair to them those were unprecedented times; the occasional misstep or misunderstanding was to be expected. But it’s how these things are handled that counts and unconvincing “clarifications” are perhaps not the best way. When you mess up, fess up; don’t resort to mendaciousness and gaslighting.
But there’s more. There was also a ban on church funerals and an instruction to do them at crematoria. Why?
In practical terms, it’s very straightforward: that people when they go into a church leave traces on the pews, on the places they’ve been. If someone goes to the same place, within a matter of days, and the virus has been left there, they can pick it up. That’s the practical answer, and it’s a very straightforward one.
Except from an infection control point of view crematoria were much less safe. Which is better: a small, poorly ventilated municipal chapel conducting a conveyor belt of multiple funerals one after the other, or a large, spacious church with maximal social distancing taking one or two services a day at most? But what really galled was that the fact that for weeks clergy were travelling back and forth to crematoria (and touching door handles etc while there) while at the same time they were told to go into their church do do routine maintenance checks—and only for that.
So clergy could pray at the crem with half a dozen strangers, but not their alone in their own churches. (What if they happened to pray while carrying out inspections to make sure the churches were safe and secure? Presumably they had to stop themselves from so much as thinking anything directed towards the Almighty whilst in church.) You can see how crazy it all was. And it was crazy because the bishops, despite all their collective wisdom, education (and teams of advisors) made it so, and then doubled-down when questioned.
But here’s the kicker: the ban on church funerals did not come from the government, nor was it a legal requirement. Other denominations were doing funerals, safely and sensibly, in their churches and chapels while Anglican clergy (owners, remember of their buildings) were schlepping to and from small and busy crematoria.
Let’s recap with an overview.
1. You “must” (x 7) not enter church for prayer or to record/stream services (Ad Clerum, March 24th) to …
2. that was only “guidance, not instruction” (Justin Welby in the BBC interview on April 12th and the gist of the ad clerum of March 27th) to …
3. “an initial immediate phase allowing very limited access to church buildings for activities such as streaming of services or private prayer by clergy in their own parishes, so long as the necessary hygiene and social distancing precautions are taken” (House of Bishops statement on May 5th) but that is …
4. “guidance—not an instruction or law” however …
5. “The decision on the timing of when to implement the revised advice on ministers or worship leaders praying and streaming from their church buildings should be made by individual diocesan bishops.”
That’s the timeline. Eagle-eyed readers will note that the odd numbers (1, 3 and 5) are instructions, commands, orders; while the even numbers (2 and 4) are no more than advice, guidance, requests. This stodgy mixture of alternately hot and cold fare was then followed up with a large helping of Anglican fudge for dessert. But throughout it all, and to their credit, most clergy complied. They complained, but they complied.
Common sense (and possibly the rule of law) prevailed on May 7th with diocesan bishops across the land granting “permission” for clergy to enter their own churches once again. (The patronising advice to vicars going back into their buildings included this gem: “Ensure you close any windows and lock the church when you leave.” I suppose they also needed reminding to eat, breathe and get dressed?) But this gave the lie to the claim that the original ban was only advice and guidance, otherwise why the need to wait for the Diocesan Bishop’s permission before being allowed back in?
It’s easy to criticise and the bishops had to respond quickly. And I suppose it was better to overreact. But the decision to ban clergy from praying alone in their own churches wasn’t in line with government recommendations or science—and probably wasn’t legal, either. The question is not: “How could the Bishops have handled this any better?” But: “How could they have possibly handled it any worse?”
What is now needed to restore trust and goodwill is a simple apology from the House of Bishops for getting it so very wrong, both in tone and content. But any apology should be given in the same way as the offence: 1. unequivocal 2. from all of them 3. to all clergy and 4. in writing. Not piecemeal, private and padded with “buts” and “ifs” (“I’m sorry if” or “I’m sorry, but” being hateful phrases). We’ll see. I wouldn’t bet on it. Either way, apology or no, it behoves clergy to forgive the bishops. That, after all, is the Christian thing to do.
‘Sioux Grey Wolf’ is a parish priest somewhere in England.
“Pandemic Pandemonium And The Purple Powers” were an also-ran psychedelic band from the West Coast. Their 1968 single “Padlocked Chapel” failed to chart and is now considered a lost cult classic. It was also the working title of a short story in the Harry Potter franchise. Neither of those “facts” are true but both are more plausible than the unlikely tale told above. Sometimes truth is indeed stranger than fiction.
Bishops, eh! Who needs them?
…. or Priests?
“throughout it all, and to their credit, most clergy complied”
Perhaps the only judgement in the entire article with which I disagree!
Very early on, a large number of elderly and (at that time of year) vitamin-D depleted Catholic priests in the alpine regions of Italy died becaue they courageously chose to continue ministering to their flocks by taking funerals etc.
So, you are saying that it is a good thing that they ministered in a way which meant that they died of COVID-19, thus leaving their congregation with no minister at all…
What if Jesus had taken that view of the Crucifixion?
I had no idea that Italian clergy followed the leadership of the ABofC…
After all this is about the CofE… So the comment is correct in its context
I wonder when the Archbishops will come to their senses regarding the Valuing all God’s Children document and what is being taught in Church of England Primary schools about Gender recognition. When will they see that they’re bending the knee to the trans-activist agenda?
They follow the world downhill when they should be leading it uphill.
Irrelevant to the article?
I rather think I disagree with the overall tone and conclusion of this piece. The really crucial question which it raises, to my mind, is: how should the churches respond when (sadly, I suspect, not: if) the next pandemic strikes?
They will live in fear. Fear of death.
They will not prepare anyone, at anytime, for death.
Cue, Easter anyone?
So, why did Jesus heal people and even raise them from the dead if dying is something to be embraced rather than feared?
I do not think that the message of Easter means we can act in a way that is careless of our own life and, more importantly, the lives of others. A duty of care is a loving response, not a fearful one.
It is far, so very far from, either or.
And a duty of care includes, salvation, gospel message, a question of eternity.
And even if you are restricting this to a legal duty of care, what is its scope?
Is death something to be embraced by everyone, believers in Christ and non-believers? Universalism? Judgement? Euthanasia embraced?
Geoff, death is never something to be ’embraced’. That is quite different from saying we should not fear it based on the assumption we’ll be fine in the next life.
Peter
To David W and PC1.
I’ve not said death is to be *embraced* but to be prepared for.
There is a fear of death which functions as a slavery:
Hebrews 2: 14-15
Christ frees us from that slavery of fear of death.
Death is indeed a curse, God’s curse. The curse Jesus took on the cross and defeated death in his bodily resurrection.
Therefore,
To live is Christ, to die is gain. Philippians 1:21
And, what is “better by far”?
Philippians 1:23
So what is the discharge of greatest duty of care of Reverends with eternal consequences and accountability?
when (sadly, I suspect, not: if) the next pandemic strikes
Definitely when; there were three pandemics in the twentieth century (1918, 1957 and 1968). They’re rare but not that rare. It’s important not to over-react as if we collectively have never trod this path before.
They may be more frequent and more severe as we encroach further into new territory. Whether Covid-19 was zoonotic or a lab leak, both are increasingly more likely. Combine that with fast, mass international travel and all the ingredients are there. Imagine a pathogen that was, say, 50% deadly but had an asymptomatic incubation period of 72 hrs., during which time the infected person was also highly infectious.
They may be more frequent and more severe as we encroach further into new territory.
They may. On the other hand they may not.
Imagine a pathogen that was, say, 50% deadly but had an asymptomatic incubation period of 72 hrs., during which time the infected person was also highly infectious
Imagine a pathogen that had an asymptomatic incubation period of 24 hours, after which the infected person became an unkillable zombie with an insatiable hunger for human flesh. We can all imagine various world-ending scenarios.
You havent watched World War Z – it takes just 10 seconds to become a raving zombie…But if you dont make any sounds or already have cancer etc youll be fine. Sadly theyre not making a sequel.
it takes just 10 seconds to become a raving zombie
And that’s the problem. Too easy to deal with instant zombies. Imagine if someone could be infected without realising it, get inside the fortified encampment, and only then start rampaging, while Christopher Eccleston goes full Colonel Kurtz?
On a more serious note, if you’re a Christian and not a Deist like, say, Andrew Godsall, then you realise that God is in total sovereign control of the world and all things, including pandemics, can only happen if He allows them. So either God will not allow a civilisation-ending catastophe like the highly deadly virus with the long asymptomatic infectious period to arise; or, if He does allow it, we must trust that He has a good reason for doing so.
These pandemics were all cause by ‘flu viruses: 1918 – H1N1, 1957 – H2N2, 1968 – H3N2, and not forgetting 2009 – H1N1. An interesting fact about the last, which is estimated to have caused 150,000 – 500,000 deaths worldwide, is that the majority of those who died were under 65.
The surprising thing about the 1918-1920 pandemic is how many fit young adults died. I recall reading evidence how those places which reacted more strongly suffered fewer deaths.
Influenza is more of a known quantity. Importantly, the viruses which cause it are variations of versions previously in circulation. It is probably that the lower than usual mortality in older people in 1918 and 2009 is a result of residual acquired immunity.
The SARS (=Serious Acute Respiratory Syndrome) which arrived on our shores in 2020 (or perhaps even 2019) is cause by a novel virus which is unlike anything our bodies have encountered before. It is not similar to the 4 corona viruses which are among those causing the common cold.
It was apparent quite quickly that:
– it spreads more easily than ‘flu (an R number of 3 compared with that for ‘flu of 1.2-1.5)
– it is more serious than ‘flu (the case-fatality ratio (prior to vaccination) seems to be about 1% compare with typical ‘flu of 0.1)
– it needed different treatment from the familar respiratory diseases.
Someone known to me was caught up in the chaos covid cause in hospitals at that time – left in a cupboard, then the alarms on his monitors going off.
A friend maintained graphs of the cases in the UK (separating London) plotted on linear (time) and logarithmic (case) axes. This showed clearly the exponential growth of cases in March 2020. In one week in London the cases grew by a factor of 10.
In the light of this, it is better to over-react than under-react. If we had all carried on as normal, by the middle of April, the NHS would have been swamped. We had at the time 5000 ICT beds in the country, and the staff to care for the patients. Beds could be added, but trained staff cannot be easily manufactured. Then, the staff get ill themselves – which was the limiting factor for hospitals in the peak at the end of 2020.
It is interesting to note that countries in the Far East were better prepared. I suspect that this was because they were closer to the SARS outbreak in 2002 in China. Some countries had track and trace systems in place prior to 2020.
The reaction to the earler ‘flu pandemics has been to try to anticipate which viruses will be prevelant in the coming winter, and make vaccines to reduce the impact. That is hard to do for something novel. Therefore I would suggest that it is better to err on the side of over-reaction than under-reaction until more is known.
These pandemics were all cause by ‘flu viruses:
Yes, because influenza viruses mutate fast. But that’s just a property of the way they are structured (no proofreading).
The surprising thing about the 1918-1920 pandemic is how many fit young adults died.
Which research suggests was due to that virus’s particular knack for eliciting cytokine storms from strong immune systems; which is not irrelevant to the more recent kerfuffle, as we shall see.
The SARS (=Serious Acute Respiratory Syndrome) which arrived on our shores in 2020 (or perhaps even 2019) is cause by a novel virus which is unlike anything our bodies have encountered before. It is not similar to the 4 corona viruses which are among those causing the common cold.
That’s just not true. It is similar to those coronavirus. It is also different enough to require a different response from the immune system, but it’s not like something that arrived from another planet or was cooked up from scratch in a lab (if it was the product of gain-of-function research, something I’d put at around 30% probable versus 60% it was an unmodified virus collected in the wild that escaped as a result of a lab accident and 10% it got into humans with no human intervention whatsoever, then it was based on something natural force-evolved through human cell cultures rather than spliced together from genetic fragments).
More to the point, its initial high rate of spread and high fatality rate in certain groups were and are not intrinsic to the virus but simply a result of it encountering a population that was almost entirely immunologically naïve (there’s some debate over whether there was some cross-immunity in some countries that had encountered SARS-family viruses before, but nothing significant on a global scale).
To someone with a young, healthy, adaptable immune system, the Wuhan coronavirus and its variants are just another bog-standard coronavirus that it adapts to and deals with without a problem.
The danger only comes when an older or weaker immune system is infected with something it has never seen before, and isn’t able to respond quickly enough. As the infection progresses more and more of the immune system goes into overdrive, until eventually the patient dies from blood clots and inflammations that are less to do with the virus that the immune system’s increasingly frantic efforts to clear it. Remember the cytokine storms in 1918? Something similar, but instead of provoking a strong immune system into over-reacting, this is a weak and ossified immune system giving everything it’s got against something it’s never seen before.
If it had seen it before — if the patient had been infected in childhood — then the immune system would have been able to react more quickly, so no cytokine storm, no inflammation, no clots, no death. This is what made the Wuhan coronavirus different from the four circulating ones: not that it’s inherently more deadly, but simply that everyone has already been exposed to the other four in childhood and throughout their lives.
This is why, for example, the first effective treatments were anti-inflammatories which damped down the immune system over-response to keep the patient alive while the immune system figured out what to do.
And is why to children the Wuhan virus is no more than a bad cold, if that (plenty never even notice they’ve had it).
And it’s why vaccination was so successful in cutting the fatality rate, because the point of a vaccine is to expose the immune system to parts of a pathogen and allow a response to be formulated, without putting it under the pressure of an ever-increasing infection. So the vaccinated patient is effectively no longer immunologically naïve. At which point the ‘novel’ coronavirus is no longer novel.
There are good reasons to think this has happened before; for example, that the pandemic of 1889 was caused by the emergence into human hosts of one of the four coronaviruses circulating pre-2019. It caused a lot of commotion during its emergence, but as a generation grew up who had been exposed to it as children it faded into the background (exactly as is happening with the Wuhan coronavirus).
In the light of this, it is better to over-react than under-react. If we had all carried on as normal, by the middle of April, the NHS would have been swamped.
No one suggested carrying on as normal, but it is absolutely not ‘better to over-react than under-react’. It is better to react correctly, because while the harms from under-reaction are obvious and dramatic, they are short-term; while the harms from over-reaction are subtle, insidious, but much longer-lasting.
Therefore I would suggest that it is better to err on the side of over-reaction than under-reaction until more is known.
And I would suggest you are dead wrong about that.
Do you therefore think once vaccines were developed, mask wearing etc should have been done away with because once vaccinated one’s body should have been able to cope with an infection from the actual virus? That is, it would have been better to allow people to become infected so that their bodies could provide the appropriate immunological response which would not result in severe reactions or death?
Do you therefore think once vaccines were developed, mask wearing etc should have been done away with because once vaccinated one’s body should have been able to cope with an infection from the actual virus?
What do you mean ‘should have been’? Mask wearing has been done away with.
This article came at me from left field! I’ll reflect on it over the next few days. I didn’t have any objections to being in solidarity with the population. We are sure, are we, that the timing of this article is nothing to do with the “We’re very cross with the Bishops over LLF?”
PS Loved the explanation of the Purple Pandemonium etc! And the Sioux Grey pseudonym xxx
I don’t think it has anything to do with LLF.
What the Bishops and Archbishops learnt from all this was that they could safely arrogate to themselves a new way of decision-making that could bypass Synod – and they have now deployed it to devastating effect with gay blessings.
“I got quite a few things wrong at the beginning and I learnt quite quickly. I didn’t push hard enough [against whom? Boris? The other bishops?] to keep churches available for at least individual prayer in the first lockdown. We also said clergy couldn’t go in, and personally I feel I made a mistake with that . . . I can make all kinds of excuses. I still think I was too risk-averse.” When did he realise? “May. June. May.”
Hmm, he told angry General Synod members in July that he stood by the decision.
https://www.ft.com/content/8e831398-8a44-4d8c-b1bc-1642278e5ebb
As the Sioux Grey Wolf anonymously says, “To be fair to them those were unprecedented times; the occasional misstep or misunderstanding was to be expected.”
I’m sure he (or she) is making some good points. But I agree with David Cavanagh above in not liking the tone of the piece, other than the above sentence.
One can agree with Ian, but he is normally a little more gentle.
SGW here. Argue all you want with the tone, that’s subjective, but the content is factual, that’s objective. I’m angry because I was lied to and bullied. But I did end on a note of forgiveness, which is the most important thing. Pax
Didn’t Welby also ban clergy from visiting parishioners in hospital, one of the normal duties of parish clergy?
But then it turned out that Welby himself was moonlighting as a chaplain at St Thomas’s Hospital in London!
He really doesn’t know how to connect the dots. “Yes, voting for these prayers means that Christians in the Muslim world will die! But we HAVE to do it!” – what Welby said at General Synod.
Incoherent, inconsistent, confused – but yes, an Old Etonian first and last.
I recall walking past our local Baptist church on a high street and seeing the minister working at a desk, in full view of the passing world while the Anglican church around the corner was locked and barred.
“Incoherent, inconsistent, confused – but yes, an Old Etonian first and last.” … and appointed by another old Etonian.
In 1939, the Church of England passed the Clergy (Emergency National Precautions) Measure which quickly received Royal Assent.
The purpose of measure was: “To enable the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to make regulations for the more effective exercise of the cure of souls in the event of war, and to enable the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Ann’s Bounty to make financial provision in respect thereof.”
Quick question: Since when did the Church either lose or decline to exercise its right to pass measures (subject to parliamentary approval and Royal Asset) in order to make its own regulations in concert with Parliament and in times of national emergency?
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1939/jul/27/clergy-national-emergency-precautions?fbclid=IwAR3AlMLFzqP8YgD4JnYHatb-zWoM2tm1JHCV2Mc-cOrUZBIfW0gkpsAUsTk
The UK government may be conducting a review, but the WhatsApp messages confirm what I and many others suspected all along, that this was an illegitimate power-grab on the pretext of health. I found it very disappointing indeed that the church hierarchy did the Erastian thing and went along with the government’s fear agenda, even at the expense of creating the impression that “it doesn’t really matter whether you go to church” and approving of economic measures calculated to reduce living standards and therefore giving to parishes. I should have appreciated even one voice of authority protesting against this, as happened in churches elsewhere in the world.
And by the way, we cannot say whether the vaccine roll-out was a success. Vaccines take ten or twenty years to qualify (and I am very happy to wait that long before going for my own covid vaccine), and that is, indeed, on the unlikely assumption that it is technically possible to vaccinate against a coronavirus.
My credentials: Diploma in Occupational Safety & Health.
The UK government may be conducting a review, but the WhatsApp messages confirm what I and many others suspected all along, that this was an illegitimate power-grab on the pretext of health.
Have to disagree there; ‘illegitimate power-grab on the pretext of health’ gives entirely too much credit to the coherence and competence of the response. What I see in the messages is an absolute s***storm of flailing incompetence, measures enacted just to be seen to be doing something, and, yes, several people who got drunk on the power that abrogated to themselves, but nothing so organised as a ‘power-grab’.
And thank goodness — if they’d been competent enough to actually execute a power-grab, with the media and the public egging them on, I fear for what kind of bio-security based state we might now be living in.
I found it very disappointing indeed that the church hierarchy did the Erastian thing and went along with the government’s fear agenda, even at the expense of creating the impression that “it doesn’t really matter whether you go to church”
This, though, spot on, I couldn’t have put it better myself.
And by the way, we cannot say whether the vaccine roll-out was a success.
I think we can say it was a success at least in the narrow (but the most important) sense based on the differential fatality rated between comparable vaccinated versus immunologically naïve populations.
on the unlikely assumption that it is technically possible to vaccinate against a coronavirus.
There’s no reason it might be technically impossible. The question is how long vaccine-induced immunity might last. But actually that’s not really an issue, because everyone who’s been vaccinated (as well s everyone who hasn’t — off you haven’t had a vaccination by now I don’t there’s much point in you ever getting one) has almost certainly also been infected by now, so their immune systems have not only had the vaccine but also sight of a full working copy of the virus to work from. This plus periodic reinfections is likely to give immunity at least as good as against any of the other circulating human respiratory viruses.
The rollout was certainly a logistical success of sorts, the development and lack of testing less so (and much more scandalous). A complete ethical failure.
By December 2021 there was plenty of trending data showing that vaccinated individuals were much more likely to be testing positive (as omicron became the dominate variant and this evaded the narrow vector mechanism from the vaccines). This should have raised questions immediately with, like, everyone. But it didn’t, folks doubled-down on false claims. At the same time we had Welby telling people to get vaccinated ‘cos WWJD. Such statements were based entirely on assumptions and wilful ignorance, not truth. Meanwhile, it was also safely assumed by that point that many of those not yet vaccinated had already had Covid and thus natural immunity, which was also being shown as more durable.
Christians didn’t think to look to history for precedent.
https://christoverall.com/article/concise/thou-shalt-be-vaccinated-when-love-thy-neighbor-does-not-fulfill-the-law/
The rollout was certainly a logistical success of sorts, the development and lack of testing less so (and much more scandalous).
Sorry, what on Earth was scandalous about the development? As for testing, all primary testing was done; only long-term safety testing wasn’t, for the rather obvious reason that it would have taken months or years to do.
By December 2021 there was plenty of trending data showing that vaccinated individuals were much more likely to be testing positive (as omicron became the dominate variant and this evaded the narrow vector mechanism from the vaccines). This should have raised questions immediately with, like, everyone. But it didn’t, folks doubled-down on false claims.
Don’t understand this. ‘ vaccinated individuals were much more likely to be testing positive ’ — than unvaccinated individuals? Than vaccinated individuals at a different time? What’s the comparator here?
‘ this evaded the narrow vector mechanism from the vaccines’ — no variant yet has evaded the vaccine mechanism protecting against serious illness, which is the point of the vaccines (anyone claiming vaccines could stop transmission is an idiot, that was never the aim)
‘ This should have raised questions immediately with, like, everyone’ — what questions?
‘ But it didn’t, folks doubled-down on false claims’ — which false claims?
At the same time we had Welby telling people to get vaccinated ‘cos WWJD.
I wouldn’t listen to anything Justin Welby says; had it not been clear for years before 2020 that he’s out of his depth and just blathering meaninglessly most of the time?
Vaccination was — correctly — never compulsory in the UK, nor was there ever a realistic chance of it being made so. Vaccine passports were more likely and it’s disturbing how close they came to being implemented, but thankfully they never were; unlike in, say, Italy, which I visited, where papers had to be presented in cafés and bars. It was horrendous.
That isnt the impression Im getting from those messages. The politicians were generally following the advice given by the medical and scientific advisers, the supposed experts. And that advice was based on other experts in the field of virology.
As for your credentials, with respect I doubt having such a qualification makes you a reliable source on virology or vaccines.
Everyone went along with it – not just the church hierarchy.
Just as the crowd shouted “Barabbas”
Everyone went along with it
Define ‘went along with’
Some enthusiastically called for hasher and harsher measures.
Some dobbed in their neighbours.
Some obeyed the authorities, as Christians are supposed to do, but wrote letters to their MPs asking for places of worship to be exempted from lockdowns (which actually happened in the second and subsequent lockdowns, not that you’d know it if you went yo the Church of England, but other churches did open).
Are these all the same as calling for Barabbas?
Do we have to do the Havel/Kundera debate on dissent?
Define ‘went along with’
The crowd wanted to believe that the ‘threat’ demanded the kinds of responses that were implemented. Only with the second lockdown did a substantial number of people flout the rules.
And the church did not celebrate eternal truths. The church accepted it’s irrelevance in terms of cultural meta-narratives (yes it carries on as minority lifestyle option).
The crowd wanted to believe that the ‘threat’ demanded the kinds of responses that were implemented.
Define ‘the crowd’ and ‘wanted to believe’. Substantial numbers of people either did not believe the responses were warranted, or weren’t sure whether they were or not because in the early (pre-May 2020) days there was substantial uncertainty about, for example, the fatality rate. But they obeyed the law because as Christians we are commanded to obey the authorities (who after all are only there because God allows them to be).
Also, it’s wrong to suggest that people’s views remained the same. Many accepted the initial lockdown as a response to the pictures of overrun hospitals coming from northern Italy in February/March 2020, in a period when reliable data was scarce; but by June/July of that year were against the continuation of what seemed to be a ‘Micawber strategy’ by the government of continuing the lockdown indefinitely in the hope that ‘something would turn up’, and were trying to demand the government provide an exit plan. But of course the lack of ability of such to get their voices heard in the media, which took a resolutely pro-lockdown line throughout, meant that the government was never under any pressure to provide such a plan. That doesn’t mean a lot of people without access to the media weren’t highly desirous of seeing one, though.
And the church did not celebrate eternal truths. The church accepted it’s irrelevance in terms of cultural meta-narratives
Define ‘the church’. Many churches opened as soon as and to the fullest extent allowed by the law (again, though, you wouldn’t have known that if you only looked at the Church of England).
Define ‘the crowd’ and ‘wanted to believe’.
The majority of people – believers and unbelievers.
The so-called Christian response to the pandemic threat was pitiful. It was craven. It signified the death of faith in this country. The current versions of ‘faith’ and ‘church’ are merely lifestyle options.
Churches closed. Cinemas closed. There was and still is no difference.
Churches closed. Cinemas closed. There was and still is no difference.
In the first lockdown, yes. But in the second and subsequent lockdowns, cinemas closed, but churches remained open. There was a difference.
Not, as I say, that you would have noticed if you only looked at the Church of England.
What is the ‘magic’ of clergy praying alone in their ‘own’ church building? Are you suggesting that their prayers at home or elsewhere were less effective? If not, then what would have been the advantage of running the risk (remember in the early days we had virtually no data on how this virus spread). Your argument seems to be an ‘angels on the head of a pin’ one on matters of authority, not substantive about what individual or corporate benefit there would be of allowing clergy to pray alone in their own churches.
Well, the author can reply on his or her own behalf. But it is an expectation that daily prayer will be said in the church building, and for some clergy this is a central part of their responsibilities.
This isn’t about where clergy can pray, it’s about authoritarian overreach and an attempt to subsequently cover that up with gaslighting and “clarifications”. It’s about leadership and governance and the long, steady managerialisation of the c-of-e, the centralisation of power and the treatment of clergy who have rights and well as responsibilities (the former declining while the latter increase).
Sioux Grey Wolf : To a lay person this sounds like jobsworths citing ‘rules is rules’ to me – didn’t Jesus rail against the Pharisees for being focused on the law and not the kingdom?
How do you think this debate would look to your average man on woman in the pews?
didn’t Jesus rail against the Pharisees for being focused on the law and not the kingdom?
No, He didn’t. He was all for their focus on the Law, and shared it himself.
He railed against the Pharisees for not following the Law that they were teaching.
The Pharisees were saying all the right things. The problem with them was that their actions didn’t match their words.
Signs of the Times ?
The Covid-19 spectacle reminds me of Luke 21:11 :
“There will be severe … epidemic diseases in many countries..” ;
and the impact of global warming reminds me of Luke 21:25 :
“On earth nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea.”
Signs of the Times ?
Signs of All Times. Name me a century which hasn’t had severe epidemic diseases, or where nations haven’t been in anguish at the roaring of the seas.
Yes – but it’s the intensification of the signs of the times, ‘S’, which may well be a significant factor.
Furthermore, I think you’ll find that if you take a look at many Bible commentaries of the ‘pre-global warming’ era, the interpretation of the ‘roaring and tossing of the sea’ (in Luke 21:25) is commonly given a figurative meaning, and supposedly alludes to something like ‘political agitations amongst the peoples of the world’.
Yes – but it’s the intensification of the signs of the times,
Name me a century where the people living in it didn’t feel like they were experiencing things particularly intensely.
Furthermore, I think you’ll find that if you take a look at many Bible commentaries of the ‘pre-global warming’ era, the interpretation of the ‘roaring and tossing of the sea’ (in Luke 21:25) is commonly given a figurative meaning, and supposedly alludes to something like ‘political agitations amongst the peoples of the world’.
Just like you’re giving it a figurative meaning — the climate catastrophists predict that sea levels will rise, not that the sea will ‘roar and toss’.
You remind me of a nutjob I once spoke to who tried to convince me that orbital microwave weapons satellites were what was literally meant by ‘fire coming down from heaven’ in Revelation 13:13. I told him that he couldn’t complain that other people were reading figuratively when he was doing the exact same thing, because such a directed energy weapon wouldn’t actually involve any fire coming down from the sky (electromagnetic radiation is not ‘fire’).
The Bible is not a spotter’s guide to the future with a hidden checklist for us to tick off.
And worth noting that every generation of Christians have, for one reason or another, believed they were living in the ‘end times’.
According to the UK Met Office, Global warming will cause:
(1) Extreme weather conditions.
(2) Changes in the strength and pattern of ocean currents.
(3) Rising sea levels.
How, suggests, Mr. ‘S’, could global warming ever possibly cause unusually turbulent sea conditions? (cf. Luke 21:25).
cf. Luke 21:25).
Well you’ve just contradicted yourself again, because Luke 21:25 says ‘ distress of nations in perplexity because of the roaring of the sea and the waves’ but according to you there will be no perplexity because the Met Office knows exactly what is causing the roaring of the seas.
Honestly how can you expect to be taken seriously if you can’t even keep your own story straight?
The translation ‘perplexity’, Mr. ‘S’, in Luke 21:25 (KJV) is from the Greek word ‘aporia’, which can also mean ‘anxiety’. Hence the NET Bible renders Luke 21:25b as :
” and on earth nations will be in distress, anxious [Gk. ‘aporia’] over the roaring of the sea and surging of the waves.”
There has been no deviation in the basic idea that I’ve been trying to convey to you, Mr. ‘S’,
The translation ‘perplexity’, Mr. ‘S’, in Luke 21:25 (KJV) is from the Greek word ‘aporia’, which can also mean ‘anxiety’.
So your prediction here relies on a minority translation of an ambiguous word. You’re not exactly building confidence here, you know.
But okay. For the sake of argument let’s go with:
” and on earth nations will be in distress, anxious [Gk. ‘aporia’] over the roaring of the sea and surging of the waves.”
So you’re claiming here that there’s a prediction that the nations will be ‘ anxious over the roaring of the sea and surging of the waves’. And your thesis is that this refers to climate change, because the Met Office predictions of the results of climate change include things like an increase in frequency of extreme weather events and changes in the strength and pattern of ocean currents that might (might) lead to more turbulent seas.
Well again let’s for the sake of argument assume that maybe climate change will lead to more turbulent seas. Will that lead to the nations being anxious, which is what you’re claiming is the prediction?
Well, if you were to lis the things that climate catastrophists are anxious about I think you’d get an order something like:
1. Rising sea levels
2. Effects of shifting climate zones on crops
3. Mass starvation arising from 2
4. Mass migrations arising from 1 and 3
5. Mass extinctions of wildlife from habitat loss as a result of 1 and 2
6. The effect of extreme weather events on land (not sea)
… so on and so forth.
Seriously, I don’t think ‘more turbulent seas’ would be in the top ten of things causing nations anxiety if the climate catastrophists are right. Maybe it might sneak in the top twenty?
So if that’s really a prediction of climate change then it’s a rubbish one. But of course it isn’t because, and I can’t stress this enough, the Bible is not a spotter’s guide to the future. It is God’s Word to all peoples at all times containing universal truths about Himself and about us.
I mean you could claim that ‘ the roaring of the sea and surging of the waves’ is a metonymy for climate change as a whole. Which would be fine, except! That that would be a figurative reading, wouldn’t it? A metonymy being a figure of speech. And you’ve already disparaged figurative readings.
So either you admit your ‘prediction’ is rubbish, or you say it’s okay because it’s a figurative not a literal reading, but then you’ve no basis on which to criticise other figurative readings, do you?
Dear Mr. ‘S’;
(1). Just for your information, you will find that the ‘New English Translation’ [NET Bible] is a highly rated scholastic work – and here, indeed, is another one : ‘The Translator’s New Testament’.
Luke 21:25b in the latter reads :
” and on earth anguish of nations at their wits’ end on account of the roar of the sea and the waves; ”
(2). My contention is that, due to a variety of global warming effects Luke 21:25b may have a literal fulfilment (but this wouldn’t necessarily, also preclude any symbolical interpretation of Luke 21:25b).
(3). You pour scorn on the idea of any literal fulfilment of Luke 21:25b (for illegitimately dogmatic, and inadequate reasons), but it all depends on how turbulent oceanic and sea conditions will become, won’t it Mr. ‘S’? As I understand it, quite a few Island states are under possible future threat of being submerged, as are whole cities and coastlines.
(4). All I ask, Mr. ‘S’, is that you keep an open mind regarding Luke 21:25b – and let events unfold as they will.
Good evening, Mr. ‘S’, and God bless you.
Nah, it’s been like that for thousands of years. I suspect the only reason why it may ‘appear’ to be more intense is due to world-wide communication and 24 hour rolling news.
Peter
Peter – are you having a laugh?
Do acknowledge that there may be a vital connection between ‘those who are destroying the earth’ (of Rev. 11:18), and current ‘global warming’ effects, plus our oceans relatively recently filling up with plastic and nuclear waste?
Do acknowledge that there may be a vital connection between ‘those who are destroying the earth’ (of Rev. 11:18), and current ‘global warming’ effects,
I can’t see a connection. If ‘destroying the Earth’ means climate change (which incidentally isn’t ‘destroying the Earth’, it’s just changing the climate — the Earth itself is unaffected, though some species of flora and fauna may have to migrate or go extinct) then who would you say are ‘those who are destroying the Earth’? Or perhaps I should say who isn’t ‘destroying the Earth’, given pretty much every human being alive today is contributing to climate change to some extent?
plus our oceans relatively recently filling up with plastic and nuclear waste?
What do you mean ‘our oceans […] filling up with […] nuclear waste’? There was some limited dumping of nuclear by-products at sea, but not much, and it’s been banned by international treaty since 1993, so where does this ‘filling up’ come from?
I’m a bit confused. Why does it matter if a priest prayed at home instead of in the church? Presumably God can hear them in either place. Given that as a nation we were trying to get people to stay at home, anything that strengthened that message – and acting in solidarity with everyone else – was surely a positive.
As a nurse who came back from retirement to work with Covid patients in 2020, I was honestly not overly fussed about priests being told to pray at home. The critical problems in that early period were failures to take the terrible pandemic seriously enough early enough. We were facing a tidal wave. Much as some people see lockdowns as an assault on their libertarian freedoms etc, from the point of view of the clinically vulnerable, lock down was a protective measure to save people’s lives.
I felt the public instruction to priests (who after all are expected to obey their bishops) was a timely act of solidarity – signalling a kind of leadership by example to the general public. The absolute priority was how the minimum numbers of infections could be spread. Not praying in church might not have saved any lives itself, but it was still a symbolic message, that even priests were following what was being imposed on everyone else.
The UK government dragged its feet again and again over lockdowns, so I’m not disappointed if Justin Welby was rigorous in his messaging. Even now, we are told we are ‘post-pandemic’. We are not. There are still high levels of infection and about 400 Covid-related deaths in England each week. Yet the Government has phased out testing, and lets people travel on public transport without masks – which takes away the liberties of those with vulnerabilities. That’s a lack of common decency.
There are all sorts of right-wing conspiracy theories and attitudes… that vaccines harm more people than they protect… that lockdown is evil and totalitarian… we could add ‘priests weren’t allowed to pray’ to the list… when clearly they could, in their sitting rooms.
Too many lives were lost. Fact. Lockdown did not happen soon enough. Fact. Vaccines save lives. Fact.
There are various important things that I think Justin Welby might be criticised for. But to me, this article is a bit melodramatic. Like David Cavanagh above, I don’t like the tone. The real drama was happening in critical care, and front-line staff were trying their best to respond to a pandemic wave unprecedented in our lifetimes. I’m glad that the Church tried to set an example, even if the messaging was a little mangled. I’m glad of any people who tried to show a little solidarity, to take the crisis seriously with as little delay as possible. We now know, from Government down, that in those early days we failed so many people who very sadly will never come back.
Justin Welby was trying to do his best. The country needed to be locked down back then. It really did. I think it was right that that should extend to churches as well. But others may have different opinions of course.
Not praying in church might not have saved any lives itself, but it was still a symbolic message, that even priests were following what was being imposed on everyone else.
The symbolic message it was sending is exactly the problem: the message of fear of death, the message that it doesn’t really matter if you come to church or not.
At all times the legal position, and the guidance, was that you could go to work if it was essential to do so in order to do your job. So if you worked in a supermarket, or a logistics warehouse, or a factory, you could go to work. Because it was essential that you do.
Well, isn’t going to church even more essential that any of that?
By their instructions, your friends the bishops sent a clear signal: no, they don’t think going to church is essential. They think you can do just as well sitting at home in your dressing gown thinking vaguely holy thoughts.
But what was really bad was that the Church of England didn’t just go along with the government instead of pushing back; it went farther than required, for longer. I know of other churches, for example, that re-opened as soon as it was legal to do so in September 2020 and have remained open since, always going to great lengths to stay within the law (which might have involved, for example, clearing away weeds so they had somewhere outdoors to gather, or carefully distancing the congregation.
Think of the symbolic message those churches were sending: that we must obey the authorities, but that nevertheless the single most essential thing in life is to meet to worship God.
That’s the symbolic message the Church of England should have been sending. Not the one they did send, which can basically be summed up as: ‘Be afraid. Be very afraid.’
With respect, ‘S’, your position does have a certain ‘Captain Hindsight-ness’ about it.
One of the good things to come out of the Covid-19 crisis is that probably more Anglican churches are now conducting internet, ‘Live Streaming’ of services.
your position does have a certain ‘Captain Hindsight-ness’ about it.
What do you mean? There’s no hindsight at all. This is what I have been saying since at least April 2020 and, as I point out, is what churches were doing in September 2020.
Hindsight would be saying, ‘This is what they should have done in September 2020’. But no: they actually did it, at the right time.
In which case – I tender my apologies, ‘S’.
This isn’t about where clergy can pray, it’s about authoritarian overreach and an attempt to subsequently cover that up with gaslighting and “clarifications”. It’s about leadership and governance and the long, steady managerialisation of the c-of-e, the centralisation of power and the treatment of clergy who have rights and well as responsibilities (the former declining while the latter increase).
Dear Susannah;
Thank you for your invaluable work in the NHS;
And Congratulations – you’ve just won, by far, the “Best Comment Award” (in my opinion).
Dear Susannah;
Thank you for your invaluable work in the NHS;
and Congratulations – you’ve just won, by a large margin, the “Best Comment Award” (in my opinion).
Numerous valid questions are now being raised over the actions taken during the pandemic. As far as I know the vast, vast majority of those who died or continue to die had co-morbidities which covid exacerbated. It’s highly debateable whether they died of covid or in fact largely by already present disease or the general state of health. But of course that doesnt mean Covid was not a factor.
Regarding masks, the Cochrane Library has recently published research analysis that indicates mask-wearing did little or nothing to prevent spread, though its conclusion is not definite. They concluded that hand washing helped a little. There are also a number of voices raising concerns about not only the efficacy of the vaccines (youll notice the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine is rarely mentioned now, yet that was the leading one used as the first vaccine in the UK) but also about their safety and the appropriate risk/benefit.
It’s easy to say this is all ‘conspiracy theory’ but in reality these questions are being raised my medical professionals with many years’ experience from different parts of the world. Time will hopefully tell what was actually effective and what wasnt, what was safe and what wasnt. But it is right that legitimate questions are asked.
Peter
As far as I know the vast, vast majority of those who died or continue to die had co-morbidities which covid exacerbated.
I don’t think that’s true? Unless you consider advanced age a co-morbidity. The majority of those who died were simply old. An old immune system facing a pathogen it has never seen before is basically a recipe for serious trouble.
It’s highly debateable whether they died of covid or in fact largely by already present disease or the general state of health.
I guess it depends on what you mean by ‘died of’ but if the question is, say, ‘had they not been infected with the coronavirus from Wuhan, would they not have died at that time?’ then for most of the the answer is that they wouldn’t have died then had they not been infected. So whatever the underlying conditions they weren’t imminently fatal; but an infection with a novel pathogen was too much for their system to cope with and it finished them off.
Regarding masks, the Cochrane Library has recently published research analysis that indicates mask-wearing did little or nothing to prevent spread, though its conclusion is not definite.
Masks were always more about being seen to be doing something, both for governments and individuals, than any actual effectiveness.
(youll notice the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine is rarely mentioned now, yet that was the leading one used as the first vaccine in the UK)
Not in the UK, but it’s still in use around the world. It’s cheaper and easier to transport and store, whereas the mRNA technology is quicker to update for new variants. But basically they all do the same job of priming the immune system.
but also about their safety and the appropriate risk/benefit.
Risk/benefit, obviously, varies massively with age (as does the seriousness of infection, obviously the two are reverse-correlated). I would advise anyone over sixty who hasn’t been infected to take a vaccine as soon as they can; anyone under twenty to never take one; in the middle, you takes your choice.
But it is right that legitimate questions are asked.
Absolutely. Including questions about the early days of the kerfuffle. There’s been a focus, and rightly so, on finding out whether the spillover into the human population was a result of a lab accident; but what has got lost in the fuss over that is the even more important point of finding out whether the Chinese Communist Party’s cover-ups and obfuscations of the early cases, whatever their origin, meant that any chances that could have stopped the spread were missed.
You ask, ‘S’, if I believe that :
‘All vaccines are a good thing?’
My answer would have to ‘no’, because some people have extremely adverse effects.
My answer would have to ‘no’, because some people have extremely adverse effects.
So you are an ‘anti-vaxxer’ then?
The presumption that this was a serious enough illness to warrant such a panic-stricken and heavy handed evidence-bare approach should absolutely be challenged, first and foremost. Christians should contrast the churches behaviour with that from history, where there were *real* deadly plagues (e.g. Plague of Cyprian). The comparison is lamentable.
But they didn’t have vaccines in the third century CE, Axel.
Are you an Anti-vaxxer ?
What’s an ‘Anti-vaxxer’?
Someone who is part of the anti-vaccination movement, which doesn’t believe that some or all vaccines are a good thing.
Someone who is part of the anti-vaccination movement, which doesn’t believe that some or all vaccines are a good thing.
Do you believe that ‘all vaccines are a good thing’?
The behaviour of bishops in the diocese in which I served, was extremely poor during the so-called pandemic: one phone call from the archdeacon in first week, and then the only support from diocese was weekly emails from a no-reply email address, with so many references to clergy mental health that I wanted to scream “shut up – it’s doing my mental health in reading these stupid emails.”
Not once was I rung up by a bishop or archdeacon for the next seven months; not once did anyone ring me to pray for me – apart from a member of the laity in the local area, and she a relatively new Christian.
I spent hours ringing round parishioners, praying with each of them, the highest being 154 phone calls in a month, in our rural benefice.
The bishops were completely absent from our ministries – they weren’t interested, didn’t care, and frankly showed how utterly irrelevant they are to the local church.
It appears that bishops think they run their dioceses; no. WE are the diocese in our parishes. They don’t know us; they forget they are here to serve us, not dictate to us. I have said to bishops in the past to remember their place; their job is to support us who are doing the real work at the coalface of ministry; they should be coming to visit us, to ask “What is God doing in this part of the vineyard? What resources can I provide to assist in mission? May I pray for you?”
The current way in which power has been grabbed by the bishops via the misuse of the Common Tenure Measure 2003 and the Pastoral Measure 2011 (or was it 2010?), and the most recent measure seizing control of land owned by parishes, where land now can be sold without reference to local incumbents, shows how bishops have gained temporal power but have lost all moral authority.
WHEN they finally realise they are accountable, they are servants, and should be listening to the real workers in the parishes, they might begin to rebuild trust and confidence – which is hugely lacking, at possibly an all-time low. Admitting they were wrong would be a big step forward – they shouldn’t be acting like government ministers who deny everything, blame others and don’t tell the truth much of the time – let’s have some humble honesty, owning up to the abysmal mess they have created, and some repentance.
Vic: “I spent hours ringing round parishioners, praying with each of them, the highest being 154 phone calls in a month, in our rural benefice.”
I feel really grateful there were Christians like you. A lot of the elderly and vulnerable felt very isolated and cut off and a friendly phone call must have meant a lot.
It’s a shame you didn’t receive some caring phone calls yourself.
Thanks Susannah: I was described as a “proper traditional vicar” – but the people need local church leaders on the ground who go out and meet the people, not people sitting behind laptops far away: we believe in real Christian relationships face to face, as God appeared face to face with us in Jesus. Bishops should be face to face with their clergy regularly, to support us and not recruit more for “the diocese” centrally, who are never seen nor heard except by email. What are they modelling otherwise?
The rest of the story above was my sending a very, very, “candid” email to the area bishop, who rang up 2 days later and apologised, came to see me a few days later, and I prayed for him, and he listened to advice and visited, with his wife, about 70 clergy over next few weeks, dropping off gifts, and meeting us in our homes. He, at least, “took it on the chin.”
We know we are doing this ministry for an audience of One – for Him: we don’t look for praise, but we seek to live what we proclaim.
pastoral vic: “The behaviour of bishops in the diocese in which I served, was extremely poor during the so-called pandemic: one phone call from the archdeacon in first week”
Well that’s one more phone call than I got. I was looking for the three P’s: 1.) proactive (ie not a reply to me but something they initiated) 2.) personal (ie addressed just to me) and 3.) pastoral (not “business” but a “how are you coping?” / “are you OK?” kind of message). Just one — one — email or text message from a bishop (Area or Diocesan) or the Archdeacon during 2020 would have been nice. But no. Yet I managed to do that for my congregation.
Instead, what we got was worse than absence and silence: they sent endless impersonal and at times unhelpful directives down from On High. It was like the like the Bishops and Archdeacon knew how to use a megaphone but not a telephone.
Precisely Oliver: the bishops and archdeacons were indeed “AWOL” – they might have been having their Zoom meetings, but completely out of touch with the clergy. One almost wonders whether the bishops trust their clergy at all, or whether we are treated with contempt.
Maybe the lockdowns finally exposed the lie that they “care for the clergy” – in almost 40 years, the support from hierarchy I’ve experienced has been very patchy – some good moments, but in the main, absent. In one diocese I said my bishop fulfilled my expectations – I expected nothing. But on the other hand one has to ask what do we and they expect? What is actually deliverable, given the form filling, safeguarding, dealing with the messes, having national roles imposed on them, and those in HoL having to travel up to London for their duties?
Maybe time for a written statement by every bishop, agreed with their dioceses (openly with synod and clergy) of what they can deliver, so there is accountability. ..
I think that a lot of the problem is that so many bishops have never been parish priests for any length of time.
If you want to be a bishop then you need to become an academic, or a cathedral canon, or a bishop’s chaplain, or an archbishop’s chaplain. Don’t whatever you do, actually engage in parish ministry, care for your parishioners, actually spend time praying for those in your parish and see how numbers grow when you do.
There are some notable exceptions to my generalisation such as Andrew Watson at Guildford but there are still far too many bishops who really don’t ‘get’ parish ministry.
Absolutely: this would be at least ameliorated if England followed the example of other provinces and elected her bishops, allowing anyone to put their names forward and have their suitability decided in a democratic public process.
If a system so opaque it’d embarass the Byzantine Empire wasn’t in fact designed to appoint company bishops, it’s certainly a most happy accident for those who desire that outcome!
The question of ‘Pandemic Pandemonium and The Purple Powers’ is a very particular issue for us Christians in the C of E but it does need to be set against a background where the UK’s national reaction to the growing Covid epidemic was to tear up our well prepared pandemic plan and take a wrecking ball to every one of the following:
Science (free and open dissemination of information, challenge, and debate);
Medical ethics (the requirement on medical staff (and their bosses) to do no harm, either by commission or omission);
The individual’s bodily sovereignty (his or her incontestable authority to determine what is done to his or her own body – not least in regard to medical intervention).
The individual’s right to free movement (to leave one’s home and travel unhindered and unchallenged to work or for recreation in the sunlight);
Democracy (the diligent holding of the executive to account by the people’s representatives in parliament);
The journalistic integrity of the mainstream media (to investigate and seek out the truth, to challenge the powers that be, and to inform the people of what they have discovered);
The economy (making sound judgements about the costs and benefits of actions which may affect the national activity necessary for sustaining and enhancing everyone’s life);
The common thread running through all the above was the effort to hide the truth from the people – truth as to the certain facts of the situation, the many uncertainties, and the people’s enduring rights of self determination come what may. Whatever one’s judgement on the motivations for the grim festival of national self harm forced upon us, it’s plain that it involved the deliberate infantilising of the population. In observing how many people were (and still are) happy to act as ignorant and unquestioning children regarding Covid we must surely have learnt something pretty startling about how much UK society has changed over the last few decades.
As a result it seems, and there’s plenty of evidence, that Western populations in general are in no condition to resist the radical reordering of lifestyles and social structures which will render genuine democracy and personal freedom a distant memory within a short few years. No longer is it possible to level the charge of ‘conspiracy theory’ at what is now happening in plain sight. The power grab which piggybacked on Covid has not been reversed: it’s steadily advancing. And it’s striking how antithetical the ideologically-led programs involved are to the Christian gospel.
And that’s why our own UK desperately needs a faithful, visible and confident Christian church, telling a different story, relentlessly positive, the antidote to fear, enlightening the mind and strengthening the will. Once we realise the world around us in its immensity and within us in its intricacy is held together and sustained by a sovereign Lord God who actually loves us and can see us through and beyond death into eternity with him (if only we’ll let him), then we are no longer bound by fear and paralysed by uncertainty. Suffering and pain may well be ours but our hope is certain, our joy constant.
If our bishops had carried that vision with them to the vicarages and pulpits of their dioceses during the uncertain early weeks of the Covid challenge, what an effect it could have had on the clergy and congregations of the Church of England – and possibly on the whole nation. Time may have been lost, big mistakes made, but the opportunity’s still there right now. The past is gone, it can’t be undone; but they have the future before them. I wonder what they’ll do with it.
So, however dangerous any future epidemic may be, you would advocate that the public should essentially ignore it, and :
“Carry on, regardless” ?
I’ve suggested no such thing, John! As with all challenges that life throws at us we need to react with due proportion based on the best judgement we have and the data which is available.
Regarding the Covid challenge, we knew very early on (March 2020) that it was a respiratory pathogen which would therefore (as a novel pathogen) be impossible to prevent from spreading through the population. We knew the average age of those who died with it was around 82 years, and very soon observed that obese people were also much more vulnerable along with a few other co morbidities. Medical experts would (should) also know that natural immunity would play an important part in resistance and survival, and that vitamin D is essential to natural immunity – people needed to get out in the sunlight and/or take vit D supplements. We had a national pandemic plan which emphasised keeping life going as normal while paying special attention to protection of the vulnerable. We junked that plan – and the rest is history.
Compared with what a serious pandemic that might have taken tens of million lives (perhaps of young people) Covid-19 was a stroke of good luck. The evolution down to Omicron piled even more good fortune on us. The experimental mRNA and adenovirus virus vector therapies (they’re not ‘vaccines’ in the Edward Jenner sense) will have undoubtedly saved some lives, but have cost far too many others for comfort and leave us with big questions about the long term effects. They are fantastic medical techniques, but achieving acceptable methods of controlling of how they act within the body appears to be a work in progress.
We have much to learn with all of this, and that may require painful admissions of where we got things wrong. I think a lot of us fear there are still far too few signs of an appetite for taking that pain. I’d add that gleeful claims by anyone (on either side) that they were right along are not going to help that process!
Don,
That is a brilliant summary of the seven areas of public life and discourse that have severly corrupted by the pandemic and how a manipulating political-cultural elite will use such future occasions to extend control over the speech, movement and other behaviour of its humiliated citizenry
Because Church of England bishops are all cut from the same Common Purpose cloth, their response is entirely predictable As you say, it amounts to the infantilisation of the populace.
But I will stick my neck out and sai it also reflects the femininisation of society. When society becomes feminised it becomes risk averse, afraid of imprecise threats and strongly desires consensus and group think and loudly denounces dissenters.
All of these were seen in the pandemic.
This piece has to be the worst thing I have ever read on this site. The language is ugly, the spirit equally so. Tellingly, the author feels the need to hide behind a pseudonym (like many of those who comment). The choice of pseudonym is bizarre.
Except for one comment (and now Don’s), I have not seen anyone question the premise that March 2020 et seq was ‘the biggest crisis since the Second World War’. In my view the crisis was manufactured – in the fullest sense. Manufactured in the lab (as authorities are now beginning to recognise, but it was plain from the start). Manufactured by Big Pharma and other interested parties who had been simulating ever more totalitarian responses to virus attacks since 2000 (see Robert Kennedy’s The Real Anthony Fauci ch 12 ‘Germ Games’ – who among the commenters have read the book?). Manufactured by the Government, who deliberately ramped up the fear to increase compliance. Manufactured by the alarmist media, addicted as they are to the pseudo-apocalyptic. Even manufactured by the way covid was diagnosed and covid deaths counted (with the distinction between dying ‘with’ and dying ‘of’ covid deliberately blurred).
As was apparent from the beginning, mortality from the disease was skewed towards the very old. Typically the average age of death from covid was around the same as life expectancy. Nearly all deaths were associated with co-morbidities – especially obesity, which in the USA was killing 300,000 a year before covid. In the USA only 5-6% of death certificates had covid as the sole cause. In the UK the number of death registrations from covid alone were 9400 in 2020, 9507 in 2021. Overall age-adjusted mortality was higher in the UK in every year up to 2008. Most of the deaths in the western world – hundreds of thousands in the USA and proportionately as many in the UK – were homicides, i.e. the direct result of health authorities forbidding the use of existing medicines and procedures to treat the condition, though proven to be life-saving. Even Vitamin D was rubbished. Doctors and hospitals were to wait until the vaccines came on stream.
The order to close down public worship was lamentable, but as Sioux Grey Wolf notes, clergy complied. The autocratic approach to leadership taken by the archbishops, and consented to by the clergy and laity, was the same as taken by the government and assented to by the people as a whole. The clergy knew – presumably from their ordinand training, or research on the internet – that they, the incumbents, were the owners of the churches and could not be so ordered, but they complied. They were as scared out of their wits as their congregations and the general public were. Never in the 1700-year history of state-sanctioned Christianity had churches voluntarily closed down en masse all over the world. While in Acts we find the apostles obeying God rather than man and in Revelation that Satan, ‘the deceiver of the whole world,’ was overcome by those who did not love their lives unto death, the clergy – the whole church – succumbed to fear. Hardly a single church in the UK, Protestant, Catholic or free, kept open. Everyone bowed the knee. My guess is that Sioux Grey Wolf, despite shifting all the blame on the bishops, also did.
The coronavirus is named after the spiky appearance of the Sun in its active phases. Revelation 8:5-7 describes a coronal mass ejection that will bring chaos on the earth, and that will indeed be the biggest crisis not only since the Second World War but since the Black Death. Covid-19 was a portent. The CME will be an expression of God’s anger, with the Church as well as the world. There will be worse to come.
Revelation 8:5-7 describes a coronal mass ejection that will bring chaos on the earth, and that will indeed be the biggest crisis not only since the Second World War but since the Black Death.
Please give the latest date by which you expect this to happen so we know when to put in our diaries to point at you and have a good laugh about you being wrong.
II Pet 3:3-7.
So you know you’re talking rubbish and you don’t want to commit to a date and thereby have it proved.
Dear Stephen, I think Ian Paul should review your book some time, give you a platform to say what you have to say; so you can plug your book. Then we can comment on your ideas, put them in context, juxtapose them with other contemporary reflections on Revelation. So far, I’m still not interested in reading your book; your ideas, from what you keep repeating, seem to be a rehash of some well worn old tropes. But I might be wrong.
An excellent idea, Steve.
Furthermore, is it right to condemn a man without first hearing him out? (cf. John 7:51).
“This piece has to be the worst thing I have ever read on this site. The language is ugly, the spirit equally so. Tellingly, the author feels the need to hide behind a pseudonym (like many of those who comment). The choice of pseudonym is bizarre.”
Well I don’t want to get in trouble for telling the truth. The pseudonym is a pun on Sue Gray.
“The coronavirus is named after the spiky appearance of the Sun in its active phases.” Rubbish. “Corona” means “crown”; both the virus and the Stellar corona are crown-like (round and spiked) in appearance. It is also the name of a now-defunct fizzy pop in the UK, a brand of beer and the east end of Canterbury Cathedral, among scores of other things. Oh, and a forthcoming coronation, of course (God save the King!)
Coronaviruses have been around and known for a long time. They usually cause cold-like symptoms.
Well I don’t want to get in trouble for telling the truth.
Exactly, and the bishops did not wish to get into trouble either. Few knew what the truth was, and of them hardly any had the courage to say it. Political, academic, journalist and ecclesiatical careers and funding from their paymasters (pharmaceutical companies, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the like) were more important. But you are making yourself out to be morally superior to the bishops on whom you place all the responsibility.
The ‘rubbish’ reply says a lot. The question is not what the Latin word means or what other things incorporate the word, but why the virus was so named.
‘In 1968 the term “coronavirus” was coined, based on how, under an electron microscope, its crown-like surface resembled the Sun’s outer layer, called the corona.’
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2020/04/11/the-secret-history-of-the-first-coronavirus-229e/
Rev 8.5–7 does not describe a coronal mass ejection. It describes an angel taking the censer and filling it with fire from the altar and throwing it on the earth.
There’s a similar picture in Ezek 9:2-8, 10:2. The vision was given six years before the calamity itself. You might have said at the time, “The passage does not describe the destruction of Jerusalem by fire. It simply describes an angel filling his hands with burning coals from between the cherubim and scattering them over the city.” In Ezekiel the fire from the cherubim below the throne represented the firebrands of the Babylonians who in 586 BC set fire to the city. In Revelation the fire from the altar likewise has a this-world correlative.
But Jerusalem wasn’t destroyed by fire from the sun. Why do you insist on fire from the altar being from the sun? Anyhoo, if you get a platform , that’s the place to discuss this.
Anyhoo, if you get a platform , that’s the place to discuss this.
I suggest putting it all on a website where we can easily ignore it.
To be fair to church leaders, they were trying to protect people, often older people, from serious illness or death. There’s nothing wrong in that (Jesus never welcomed serious illness or death, he healed instead). I assume if youre not feeling well you go see your doctor? Time will tell whether the restrictions really were necessary, and while many now think they were probably OTT, people were doing their best to follow the medical advice at the time. Hardly being deceived by satan.
To be fair to church leaders, they were trying to protect people, often older people, from serious illness or death.
They didn’t ask the older people their opinion, though. Plenty of older people were not in favour of the restrictions.
There’s actually an extra twist in the flip-flopping timeline that SGW missed. It should go:
1. You “must” (x 7) not enter church for prayer or to record/stream services (Ad Clerum, March 24th) to …
2. Hmm. OK, that’s actually only “advice” (Ad Clerum, March 27th)
3.) Or is it? “The bishops and archbishops felt it was necessary to close the buildings” (++Justin Youtube video April 8th here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY44A6FlhkI&t=145s )
4. Actually, “we have given guidance, not instruction. [….] we haven’t given an instruction” (Justin Welby in the BBC interview on April 12th)
It was nuts.
I had high hopes for Welby when he became Archbishop. My brother was quite close to him when he was in Liverpool and was very excited about his appointment. I met him in the summer of 2013 when he addressed the Methodist Conference shortly after becoming Archbishop. He came over very well, although he didn’t really say much of substance. It looked like there would be an unashamedly orthodox Christian voice in the highest profile Christian office in the land that the secular world might actually listen to.
However, I have become increasingly disillusioned with his leadership. And this isn’t just about the Church of England, because what the Church of England does and doesn’t do affects all churches in this country, and the wider Anglican Communion. His handling of the sexuality issue has been catastrophic, both for church unity nationally and globally (which seems to be his overriding priority, even above the gospel); and for the mission of the church in the proclamation of the orthodox Christian gospel. And this article leaves me in no doubt that the shambles of the Church of England’s response to the pandemic has also damaged the mission of the church catholic, and that Welby must take full responsibility as Archbishop of Canterbury.
Reading this post reminds me of a comment made by the historian Tom Holland in 2019, talking about his book “Dominion” on Glen Scrivener’s Speak Life podcast (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gG_adjdx9w – Holland has also spoken out directly against the church’s response to the pandemic, but this comment still resonates):
‘I see no point in bishops or preachers or Christian evangelists just recycling the kind of stuff you can get from any kind of soft‑left liberal, because everyone is giving that. If I want that, I’ll get it from a Liberal Democrat councillor. If you’re a Christian, you think that the entire fabric of the cosmos was ruptured by this strange singularity when someone who is a god and a man sets everything on its head… and if you don’t believe that, it seems to me that you’re not really a confessional Christian… If it’s to be preached as something true, the strangeness of it… has to be fundamental to it. I don’t want to hear what bishops think about Brexit. I know what they think about Brexit and it’s not particularly interesting. But if they’ve got views on original sin, I’d be very interested to hear that.’
Good post, Richard.
That is very interesting indeed Richard. I don’t think your brother is alone in either his hopes or his disappointment.
The quotation from Tom Holland is gold. ‘ I don’t want to hear what bishops think about Brexit. I know what they think about Brexit and it’s not particularly interesting.’ Quite!
“But if they’ve got views on original sin, I’d be very interested to hear that.’ “
Of course they do have views on original sin. The complication is that those views are not monochrome, never have been, and never will be. And it’s only a complication because some people expect them to be.
The 39 Articles express an opinion about original sin but it is simply a headline and much else needs spelling out about that opinion. ‘Conservatives’ do not even agree amongst themselves about that opinion.
Amongst the House of Bishops some will lean more towards the Catholic doctrine of original sin and some will lean more towards the Protestant doctrine. And of course there is breadth in both of those and much breadth between. We might say the same of Eucharistic theology or Baptism or of what hell might or might not be like. Bishops don’t often speak with a single voice, despite what Tom Holland might be interested to hear.
As a postscript may I alert readers that Ron Smith, who often commented here, died on Friday. He was posting even in the last week of his life. May he rest in peace.
https://kiwianglo.wordpress.com/
Bishops don’t often speak with a single voice, despite what Tom Holland might be interested to hear.
But that’s exactly Holland’s point, isn’t it? He doesn’t want to hear what bishops think on Brexit, because it’s boring: they all the same thing and it isn’t very interesting because it’s exactly the same as every other middle-class left-winger.
Whereas he’d like to see the bishops debate original sin because that would be interesting: they’d have different views, they’d have to make real arguments, and it would be a discussion you couldn’t find anywhere else.
But the problem is that there is an attitude in the Church of England that finds public disagreement frightening, so bishops are discouraged from speaking on issues where they disagree and instead prefer to speak only on issue where they all have the same view, even if those views are trivial.
This is why they find the whole sexuality issue so painful and wish it would go away: because it forces disagreement into the open.
Andrew – you basically make Richard’s point. I also have a wide spectrum of views on ‘original sin’ and I’d be happy to hear those of people who have studied a bit of theology and can give an informed spectrum of views at a higher level.
If bishops are mouthing off about Brexit then they clearly haven’t understood their role – which is to prepare Christians to think through life’s issues in step with the Paraclete that is living within them. As I remember, there were good reason and bad reasons for leaving the EU; good reasons and bad reasons for remaining within the EU, but ultimately much of it was connected with the politics of this world and with the empires of this world and didn’t have much to do with the teachings of Jesus, along the lines of ‘my kingdom is not of this world.’
By the way, I’m genuinely sorry to hear about the passing of Ron, who came across as a ‘good guy’ (with a social conscience) even though he was (in my opinion) fundamentally wrong on some issues – unlike some people who come across as fundamentally right about everything, but go out of their way to make the heavenly kingdom come across as rather unattractive.
Hi, Jock;
Talking about views on ‘Original sin’, What do you think of the translation of Romans 5:12 in ‘The Eastern Orthodox Bible’ (which takes the Greek ‘eph ho’ to mean : ‘on the basis of which’) :
“Therefore, as sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin; and so death passed to everyone, because {of which} all sinned.”
‘Death’ here would include spiritual death (not just mortality), and consequently –
All Mankind (in Adam) ‘sinned’ (Gk. hemarton), or ‘missed the mark’ (Gk. hemarton) of God’s original intention for them. This post-Edenic human condition is restorable only through Christ Jesus.
Talking about views on ‘Original sin’
WHICH WE WEREN’T
John – As S points out, this is off-topic, but what you present raises alarm bells and it seems wrong to me. So I’ll just make one comment for now (taken from some notes I made for myself a few years ago – with a lot of help from ‘The Power of God’ by James Philip) – and we should probably prolong the discussion on a different thread where it is more on-topic.
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world
through one man and death through sin and in this way death came to
all men, BECAUSE ALL SINNED
That is now I read it.
The contrast presented between man’s situation in his sin
and the miraculous transformation that takes place through the gospel
provides the link with what now follows. Paul proceeds to explain how
the work which Christ has done in his death and resurrection has such
a profound, transforming effect on the lives of people. In doing so,
he unfolds the basic presuppositions on which he has built his
argument so far in the letter and indicates that what follows up to
Romans 8:39 is an explanation, on a deeper level, of what he has already said. This is indicated by the connecting particle ‘therefore’.
The argument runs as follows: all that has been said previously about
the human situation must now be understood in terms of the solidarity
of mankind in sin. Paul has already said that all mankind stands under
the judgement of God. He now speaks of sinnerhood in terms of
belonging to an order of existence of which Adam is the
representative. Every person is individually responsible for belonging
to the order of Adam. We enter the order of Adam by sinning and we
express our solidarity with the order of Adam by sinning. There is
nowhere in the Scripture that we are held to account for the sins of
others and, indeed, the Scripture emphasises that the opposite is the
case. This is explicitly stated in the book of Deuteronomy: Deuteronomy 24:16 makes this clear.
(With apologies to Ian Paul – this is my last off-topic contribution on this thread)
The only reason they suffered death was because they were chucked out of the garden and therefore had no access to the tree of life. They were never intrinsically immortal.
PC1 – John – OK the thread on the C. of E. response to Covid no longer seems very active, so I’ll try to respond about Romans 5:12. As far as Corona goes – I do feel that much of what they did looked like a violation of basic civil liberties, but it didn’t inconvenience me – since I tend to like my own company – although I do understand that normal people tend to be reasonably sociable and found the restrictions very difficult.
Response to PC1 – I think you’re basically pointing that explicitly eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good an evil was not the only sin they committed; there was also the sin of omission. Adam had been instructed to look after the whole garden – and by the time Adam and Eve got chucked out, they still hadn’t got round to eating the fruit of the tree of life, so they weren’t exactly putting their back into tending the garden in the way that God wanted. Is that what you are pointing to?
How do you understand the body that we will be raised with of 1 Corinthians 15:42? Is it the same as the body that Adam had before the fall? Or is it different?
Thanks for your interesting comments, Jock.
The ‘Eastern Orthodox Bible’ (New Testament) is available online at archive[dot]org
As I understand it, and generally speaking, I don’t think the Eastern Orthodox Church has seen the ramifications of the Fall of Adam in quite the same way as the post-Augustinian, Western Church.
God bless you, Jock.
To ‘PC1’ (Peter);
I think you’re right, Peter. Presumably, Adam and Eve were created essentially ‘mortal’, but could have been kept in existence indefinitely, contingent upon their obedience.
Hi, Jock;
Welcome back!
Here’s my ‘four pennies worth’ of comment, to you last post :
(1). You have some interesting ideas about Adam and Eve in Eden, some of which I had not thought about before. I think this whole doctrine of ‘Original/ Ancestral, Sin’ is huge, and it analysed/’explained’ in several different ways – but I think the ‘bottom line’, practical consequences of Rom. 5:12-19 are illustrated in Romans 7:14-24 (with 7:25b as a scribal gloss); i.e., ‘Sin’, as a kind of power, has entered the world of Mankind, through Adam – and his direct progeny cannot fully resist it – even with the provision of the Jewish Law. Only Jesus (as a direct Son of God) fully resisted the power of Sin (Rom. 8:3). I see Rom. 7:14-24 as essentially pre-Christian experience. Two articles that have really helped me are :
(a). Dr. Robert H. Gundry’s paper “The Moral Frustration of Paul Before His Conversion : Sexual Lust in Romans 7:7-25.” (available on the website : academia[dot]edu
; and, (b). Dr. Gary S. Shogren’s paper “The ‘Wretched Man’ of Romans 7:14-25 as Reductio ad absurdem.”
(2). I think that the New Testament points to Christians eventually sharing the same sort of resurrection body as Christ has (cf. 1 John 3:2). I think the Greek ‘soma pneumatikon’ in 1 Cor. 15:44, is better translated ‘supernatural body’, not ‘spiritual body’ ( which suggests that our final future is to be one of disembodied ‘spirits’, floating around in heaven). Exactly how different the bodies of Adam and Eve may have been to ours, I don’t think either had a ‘soma pneumatikon’, as Paul would have understood the term. I think Adam and Eve were essentially ‘mortal’, but could have been kept in existence indefinitely (and/or, until they were eventually glorified – having passed their ‘probationary period’ for eternal life?).
Hello John,
…… well, my understanding of Romans 7:14-25 is fundamentally different from yours – Paul writes in the present tense and I take it as such. I know that Greek scholars will say that it doesn’t have to be taken in the present tense (and hence technically it could be some sort of pre-Christian experience), but taking this passage in the present tense, as the current experience of a mature Christian – the Apostle Paul is writing and he’s describing his own inner conflict present tense at the time of writing the epistle to the Romans – makes an awful lot of sense to me and chimes in with my own Christian experience.
I haven’t read the paper by Robert H. Gundry, but the title you gave doesn’t look convincing – it makes Gundry look like a sex maniac if he really imagines that this is what the ‘wretched man’ passage might be all about.
Although I’d agree that there is a progression from Romans 5 to Romans 7 and it is all part of the same connected argument that the apostle is developing.
Hi, Jock;
Never pre-judge an article by its title.
Despite the ellipses, Phil. 3:3-6 is in the present tense, but it describes Paul’s Judaistic past (the ‘historical present tense’ is quite common in Greek – especially in the Gospels.) :
” For we are the circumcision, who worship by God’s Spirit and boast in Christ Jesus and do not put confidence in the flesh, even though I myself [am] having confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else thinks it good to put confidence in the flesh, I more [think it good to put confidence in the flesh]; with respect to circumcision [I am] an eight-dayer; [I am] from the stock of Israel; [I am] of the tribe of Benjamin; [I am] a Hebrew of Hebrews; as the Law, [I am] a Pharisee; as to zeal, [I am] one who is persecuting the Church; as to righteousness in the Law, [I am] one who has become blameless.”
I don’t think that Paul would claim that Christians don’t have struggles with Sin, but I think that C.H. Dodd was right to say that if Romans 7:14-24 applies to (normative) Christian experience, then it would be a complete contradiction and stultification of Romans 6.
John – well, I’m not looking for clever arguments to get Romans 7:14-25, written in the present tense, as something describing pre-Christian experience (so that we can argue that this is not our experience now that we’re in Him), because, taken in the present tense, it fits absolutely my own current Christian experience and makes perfect sense. What is written chimes in with the way I find it.
I disagree with C.H. Dodd whom you refer to – Romans 5 – 8 coheres perfectly well and there are no inherent contradictions if Romans 7:14-25 is taken in the present tense. Romans 5 – 8 (following the way James Philip expounded it) present the four basic Christian freedoms; chapter 5 freedom from God’s wrath, chapter 6 freedom from sin, chapter 7 freedom from the law and chapter 8 freedom from death.
We have died to sin and we are free from sin in the sense that the victory has been won. But sin, although defeated is still very much active. The inner being delighting in God’s law of Romans 7:22 shows that he is talking about someone who is saved, who has been redeemed, who delights in God and in the paths of righteousness. There is nothing pre-Christian about this. At the same time, in this life, we live out our new Christian existence in the body of death; we are subject to the down-drag of the flesh.
If you think that Romans 7 is somehow a pre-Christian existence, unlike Romans 8 which describes the Christian existence, then I’d point to Romans 8:23 ‘we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies.’
There is quite a lot of groaning in Romans 8 and the groaning of Romans 8 (particularly 8:23) is expressing exactly the same thing as the wretched man of Romans 7:14-25; we have the firstfruits of the Spirit, the deposit *guaranteeing* what is to come, but we still have the down-drag of the flesh to contend with.
I’m not that interested in C.H. Dodd – since what you quoted makes his understanding look, on a Spiritual level very superficial (although no doubt he is a clever and learned academic) – but I do wonder whether he also thinks that if we take Romans 8:23 in the present tense that would contradict Romans 6.
Hi, Jock;
Thanks for your comments.
I’ve just been blessed by seeing an excellent video discussion between Dr. Thomas Schreiner (who now takes a Christian application for Romans 7:14-25), and Dr. Douglas J. Moo (who now takes the pre-Christian view of Romans 7:14-25). Both have written commentaries on Romans.
If you get time, Google in :
Hawaii Reformation Fellowship -Exploring the Book of Romans -Session 5 (Debate) .
Your point regarding Romans 8:23 is also very movingly made by Tom Schreiner. I agree (with Moo) that Christians experience a constant battle against Sin, and human weakness – but I think this is described in Gal. 5:13-26, but not in Romans 7:14-25. The latter passage deals with the Jewish Law, but this cannot to apply to Christians, because Christians have died to the Law in Christ (Romans 7: 4,6). I personally think that Romans 7:14-25 is a graphic expansion of Paul’s ‘outrageous’ claim (i.e. outrageous to non-Christian, Jewish ears) in Romans 7:5. Paul demonstrates in Rom. 7:14-25 that the Jewish Law cannot save, and it cannot sanctify.
God bless you, Jock.
The discussion is highly informative, and is conducted in a most cordial, Christ-like spirit
John – thanks – I’ll look it up if I have time, but as I pointed out, for me current experience present tense of a mature Christian for Romans 7:14-25 chimes in very strongly with my own faith.
Also, I don’t have to take Romans 7:25(b) as some gloss added by some scribe – Romans 7:25 fits in fully with the argument that Paul has been developing and comes across as a punch-line written (or dictated) by the apostle himself (so, in addition to chiming in with my own personal faith, it also means that I don’t have to take the view that Scripture was mucked about with by some scribe).
Thanks for pointing to the discussion – if I feel I have time, then I’ll look it up.
Thanks, Jock.
Actually, Douglas Moo (in the video) thinks that Romans 7:25 is fully Scriptural – with Romans 7:25a being merely a brief interjection of praise to God for future deliverance – before Paul resumes his previous train of thought (regarding Romans 7:14-24), in Romans 7:25b.
The video is 58 minutes long, and the amiable Tom Schreiner starts off. Tom has a great sense of humour. I love him. If you get time, watch the first 10 minutes of the video, and see if you warm to it.
God bless you, Jock.
Rest in peace, Father Ron
I am sorry to hear about Father Ron. He was not someone whose views l generally agreed with but may he rest in peace and rise in glory.
Amongst the House of Bishops some will lean more towards the Catholic doctrine of original sin and some will lean more towards the Protestant doctrine.
…and some will be universalists who deny the whole concept of ‘sin’, original or otherwise, but would rather people didn’t find out that they don’t actually believe in a rather fundamental part of Christianity? Isn’t that the real issue?
(Sometimes one does get the distinct impression that there are people who think that the Church of England should be like a middle-class dinner party; everyone is free to think whatever they like as long as they keep it to themselves, controversial topics are to be avoided lest they spoil the generally genial atmosphere, and the one thing you must never ever do, the one absolutely unforgivable faux pas, is to put someone in the spot about what they really think.)
But if people in the pews and pulpits of ‘The Church of England’ were put ‘on the spot’ about they really think, then the ‘Church of England’ may have to introduce an effective disfellowship mechanism, ‘S’ . Can you imagine what the English secular world would think about that?
Can you imagine what the English secular world would think about that?
Who cares what the secular world would think?
Indeed – but the ‘Church of England’ might care if it’s Bishops get dismissed from the House of Lords (for the ‘Church of England’ not being “inclusive” – if it had an effective ‘dis-fellowship mechanism’).
the ‘Church of England’ might care if it’s Bishops get dismissed from the House of Lords
Would they not be among the first to be ejected for heresy?
Good point!
In times of trouble people turn to the churches. When there were epidemics in 1st century Rome, those that could leave, left. But the Christians went to help the sick. During this pandemic what did the Church do, basically ran for the hills and made excuses for their actions. The Apostles and many devote Christians down through the centuries put their trust in God and helped those in need regardless of the dangers. The church for the most part has put their trust in man.
Yes and no.
In the 21st Century we know that visiting others might help them or might infect them.
Thank you for your clarifications, Don.
God bless you.
I think that a lot of the problems in 20020 were caused because so many bishops have never been parish priests for any length of time.
If you want to be a bishop then you need to become an academic, or a cathedral canon, or a bishop’s chaplain, or an archbishop’s chaplain. Don’t, whatever you do, actually engage in parish ministry, care for your parishioners, spend time praying for those in your parish, share with them that you don’t have all the answers but Jesus does etc etc and then see how numbers grow when you do. However your paish will then be described as ‘successful’ which will make your chances of becoming a bishop even more remote.
There are some notable exceptions to my generalisation such as Andrew Watson at Guildford but there are still far too many bishops who really don’t ‘get’ parish ministry.
Good post, Andy.
I would be quite content if bishops were merely useless.
In principle, Anton, would you like to see Bishops, and Archbishops removed from the House of Lords, so that they can concentrate on what is, supposedly, their proper job?
In principle […] would you like to see Bishops, and Archbishops removed from the House of Lords, so that they can concentrate on what is, supposedly, their proper job?
In principle, the Church shouldn’t have bishops. Leadership should be exercised collectively, not hierarchically.
Have you ever had any association with the Congregationalists, ‘S’ ?
I’ve always thought, ‘S’, that the office of an ‘elder’ was probably the same as the office of ‘bishop’ – and both were congregationally specific (cf. Titus 1:5-7).
But who (in post-New Testament times) chooses the elders/bishops ? The whole congregation?; or, does the congregation’s ‘body of elders’ (once chosen) decide who are worthy to fill any future ‘elder’ vacancies? What do you think, ‘S’ ?
But who (in post-New Testament times) chooses the elders/bishops ? The whole congregation?; or, does the congregation’s ‘body of elders’ (once chosen) decide who are worthy to fill any future ‘elder’ vacancies?
The congregation. Obviously. Who else? Either directly, or through elected elders.
You may make a good ‘Congregationalist’, ‘S’.
God bless, and have a good day.
When church leaders make racially insensitive “jokes” it doesn’t make ordinary people think “wow hes got a point there”. Instead it confirms that the church and its leaders are immoral and cruel and should not be treated as moral authorities
it confirms that the church and its leaders are immoral and cruel and should not be treated as moral authorities
Did the Church kill your puppy or something?
But surely there’s some “good ‘uns”, aren’t there, Peter?
We are due a ‘lessons learned’ review, as promised in the July 2020 session of General Synod:
Mrs Rhian Parsons (Leicester) asked the Chair of the House of Bishops: Given that the closure of church buildings to their clergy was not required by the Government, but was the outcome of a policy decision by the archbishops and bishops, will the House agree to reflect on whether the decision in that respect, which effectively equated church buildings with leisure facilities, was the correct one?
The Archbishop of Canterbury (Most Revd & Rt Hon Justin Welby) replied as Chair of the House of Bishops: The House will reflect on all aspects of its response to the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic in the UK, particularly through the work of its Recovery Group. This will include the closure of church buildings which remained unique sacred spaces throughout that period.
Mrs Rhian Parsons: Will the House’s process in which it will reflect on all aspects of a response to which you referred, Archbishop, be conducted in the near future and then the findings be reported to Synod?
The Archbishop of Canterbury: I hope very much it will be in the near future but it will have to be when the pandemic is over and, therefore, we can look at the thing as a whole. God willing, that may be in the near future but it may not be – it is beyond my control – and we have to wait and see life returning to normal to see the whole range of lessons that we need to learn.
Mr Sam Margrave (Coventry): Will the House of Bishops publish contact details for the Recovery Group to facilitate parishes, readers, laity or priests to make representation to ensure any reflection and learnings are well-informed?
The Archbishop of Canterbury: I have no doubt that we will consult very widely. I cannot give that undertaking without having to consult data protection law.
[….]
The Archbishop of Canterbury: The House of Bishops reviews all its responses to the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic in the UK, particularly through its Recovery Group, in order to learn from its experience. All issues will be thoroughly discussed.
[….]
The Archbishop of Canterbury: We probably made mistakes. One does when we are in an unprecedented crisis and we will seek to learn from those when he when come to our review.
[….]
The Archbishop of Canterbury: The House of Bishops reviews all its responses to the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic in the UK, particularly through its Recovery Group and seeks to learn from its experience.
[….]
The Archbishop of Canterbury: The House of Bishops has established a Recovery Group which reviews and seeks to learn from the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic in the UK. All issues will be explored thoroughly.
[….]
The Archbishop of Canterbury: The lessons to be learned from the way the Church of England responded to the Covid-19 pandemic will, I have no doubt, be the subject of a review when the pandemic comes to an end.
—-
P.S.
On +Rochester (and possibly other bishops) threatening disciplinary action against clergy not complying with the, er, “advice and guidance”:
Miss Prudence Dailey (Oxford): Is the House of Bishops aware that some of its members indicated to their diocesan clergy that they may be subject of proceedings under the Clergy Discipline Measure should they choose not to follow the advice? And, if so, does it recognise this represents apparent confusion as to the status of the policy as advice rather than instruction? And has it reflected on how this misunderstanding might have arisen and could be avoided in the future?
The Archbishop of Canterbury: Thank you, Prudence, for three questions in one, much appreciated. Yes, yes and no, but it will.
[….]
Mr Bradley Smith (Chichester) asked the Chair of the House of Bishops: If, as The Archbishop of Canterbury stated on the Andrew Marr Show on Easter Day, the policy on the closure of churches set out in the archbishops’ letters of 24th and 27th March represented “guidance, not instruction”, why did the House not dissociate itself from statements made in at least one diocese that disciplinary proceedings would be taken against clergy who failed to follow that guidance?
The Archbishop of Canterbury (Most Revd & Rt Hon Justin Welby) replied as Chair of the House of Bishops: The House of Bishops was not made aware of such statements at any of its meetings and consequently did not discuss them.
Mr Bradley Smith: Given that it is now aware of them through the original question, not to mention considerable media coverage over many weeks, will the House now publicly disassociate itself from threats of disciplinary action made against clergy for failure to comply with guidance that very clearly did not engage the duty of canonical obedience and, if not, why not?
The Archbishop of Canterbury: The House gave advice. There is no possibility of disciplinary proceedings of which I am aware.
On the use of the word “must:
Revd Charles Read (Norwich): Thank you for dealing with all these questions on this matter and for being so candid. I think my question is this. I think what is confusing some of us – certainly confusing me – is how the word “must” used in the first letter, certainly, could be interpreted as being advice rather than instruction.
The Archbishop of Canterbury: Thank you Charles. The first letter was issued on 24 March, which was the day after the Prime Minister’s statement in which he says: “To ensure [compliance] … we will immediately close all shops selling non-essential goods including clothing and electronic stores and other premises, including libraries, playgrounds and outdoor gyms and places of worship”. That was on the 23rd. The Archbishops and Bishops’ letter of the 24th reflected that statement, “must”, because that was the law. Subsequently, it changed and the Archbishops and Bishops clearly stated in their letter of 27 March, “We want to reiterate the advice we have sent”. In other words, we changed “must”, we removed “must” at that point. We were in a rapidly changing situation.
—–
From whom did the infamous letters come? The House of Bishops? All bishops? Some bishops?
Mr Clive Scowen (London) asked the Chair of the House of Bishops: Was the guidance set out in the archbishops’ letters of 24th and 27th March approved by the House of Bishops and, if not, what authority did it have?
The Archbishop of Canterbury (Most Revd & Rt Hon Justin Welby) replied as Chair of the House of Bishops: The guidance was issued by the Archbishops and Diocesan Bishops jointly, as the bishops of their respective dioceses.
[….]
Mr Clive Scowen (London): Thank you for being willing to go back to this. Why was the approval of the House not sought for the guidance, especially that of 27 March, and will the House’s approval be sought for any future guidance of this nature?
The Archbishop of Canterbury: Thank you, Clive, a very good question and it picks out the fact that I made an error of judgment in doing things through the diocesan bishops not through the synodical House at that point. I apologise for that and, yes, that will be the way in which it is done in future.
Mr Clive Scowen (London): Thank you.
Actually, re-reading this it was never said that the findings of the Recovery Group would be communicated to anyone except the House of Bishops:
“Mrs Rhian Parsons: Will the House’s process in which it will reflect on all aspects of a response to which you referred, Archbishop, be conducted in the near future and then the findings be reported to Synod?
The Archbishop of Canterbury: I hope very much it will be in the near future but it will have to be when the pandemic is over and, therefore, we can look at the thing as a whole. God willing, that may be in the near future but it may not be – it is beyond my control – and we have to wait and see life returning to normal to see the whole range of lessons that we need to learn.”
A two-part question. Will the review 1.) “be conducted in the near future?” And 2.) will “the findings be reported to Synod?” Only the first part was answered.
Also this:
“Miss Prudence Dailey (Oxford): Is the House of Bishops aware that some of its members indicated to their diocesan clergy that they may be subject of proceedings under the Clergy Discipline Measure should they choose not to follow the advice?
The Archbishop of Canterbury: […] Yes”
vs this:
“The House of Bishops was not made aware [that some of its members had threatened their clergy with disciplinary action]”
So the House of Bishops is aware [sic] “that some of its members indicated to their diocesan clergy that they may be subject of proceedings under the Clergy Discipline Measure should they choose not to follow the advice” but “The House of Bishops was not made aware [sic] of such statements at any of its meetings and consequently did not discuss them.”
The only way that makes sense is that it knows now, but didn’t know then. Umm, ok.
But the most important thing is to close ranks,
“Mr Bradley Smith: Given that it is now aware of them through the original question, not to mention considerable media coverage over many weeks, will the House now publicly disassociate itself from threats of disciplinary action made against clergy for failure to comply with guidance that very clearly did not engage the duty of canonical obedience and, if not, why not?
The Archbishop of Canterbury: The House gave advice. There is no possibility of disciplinary proceedings of which I am aware.”
Ah, that word again: “aware”. So disciplinary action *was* threatened, but it was an empty threat (there was no “possibility of disciplinary proceedings” and never could be because we had no power to actually ban clergy from their churches in the first place) so we won’t be saying or doing anything about this.
Right.
And that’s what good leadership looks like?
And why does “sorry” really seem to be hardest word?
The only way that makes sense is that it knows now, but didn’t know then.
‘It depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.’
Is there really an Anglican clergy person somewhere in England referring to themselves online as ‘Sioux Grey Wolf’? I realize that English Anglicans are somewhat less attuned to these issues (witness the recent ‘rain dance’ cartoon in the Church Times), but unless he or she actually has Dakota or Lakota ancestry, it’s highly inappropriate.
unless he or she actually has Dakota or Lakota ancestry, it’s highly inappropriate.
Or, and I’m just guessing here, maybe a punk fan and you should chill out a bit?
S, I live in a Canadian city with a large indigenous population, I worked in indigenous communities in western and northern Canada for twelve years, and I am a member of a denomination that perpetrated the Residential Schools (see https://www.anglican.ca/tr/schools/). So I definitely will not chill out. ‘Sioux’ is both cultural appropriation and the perpetration of a foreign name given to an indigenous nation by a colonial power. And ‘Grey Wolf’ was not even Lakota or Dakota, but Ho-Chunk (Winnebago).
So I definitely will not chill out.
Whatever floats your boat, I guess, dear Prudence. Keep ragin’ old man!
Here’s good verse, Mr. ‘S’ – for our general Christian application :
“With all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love.”
Eph. 4:2.
With all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love.
Not sure how that fits in with Mr Chesterton’s apparent hobby of vicarious offence-taking at harmless humorous pseudonyms, but whatevs.
Hi, ‘S’;
I’ve recently been looking at the series ‘Exploring Romans’, organised by the ‘Hawaii Restoration Fellowship’, who invited two top Pauline, New Testament scholars (Tom Schreiner and Douglas Moo) to come along, and gives some talks.
Is it something that might interest you ?
Hi, Tim;
I understand your sentiments.
God bless you.
Re the pen-name: as I said earlier “The pseudonym is a pun on Sue Gray”, who led the review into the UK government’s handling of the pandemic. No offence intended and apologies for any caused. Maybe I should have gone with Sue Slate Grey or Sue Battleship Grey or Sue Gunmetal etc etc.
‘S’ — I am a punk fan although I never really liked Siouxsie and the Banshees. Steven Severin’s guitar work is excellent though. He, of course, took his pen-name from a Velvet Underground song and anyone who doesn’t rate them is just plain wrong. (Maybe I could have done that, too: “Loo Read” is what I call the copy of Private Eye that’s always on hand in the downstairs toilet.)
Pax.
Sioux me; Sioux me; what can ya dioux me?