Andrew Goddard writes: On Tuesday 27th May, in the week when the first Crown Nominations Commission (CNC) meeting takes place to begin discerning who should be nominated as Archbishop of Canterbury, the Canterbury Diocese Vacancy-in-See Committee (ViSC) elected its three representatives. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this final stage in the process once again highlights problems with the new rules introduced by General Synod that have beset the process from the start and were previously combined with problems in how the diocese ran elections.
The Story So Far….
In summary (much fuller details are here with the earlier accounts here and here and the wider picture on how the CNC has been put together here), the ViSC in place that began work in December was abandoned due to an irregularity in its election back in 2022. A new election began in February during which Synod rewrote the rules which were then applied mid-election but the election as well as struggling due to the new rules also failed to apply properly a longstanding election rule (Rule 75 of the Church Representation Rules). It took nearly two months for the diocese to acknowledge this (after refusing to release the result sheet within 10 days as required by law) by which time the ViSC had done its work only for a new election to be called on 7th May which was concluded last Friday (23rd May 2025). This led to hurried meetings of the new ViSC on Saturday and again on Tuesday, the latter electing the same 3 representatives for the CNC as the previous ViSC had done.
The latest ViSC Election
The main difference between this ViSC election and the last one was that, although it was decided that “the previous list of nominations will stand for the re run election”, 8 names that had appeared on the previous ballot were now removed from this one and the number of seats up for election was reduced from 18 to 12 (although it would appear that this was either an error or due to an unpublished diocesan rule about the Archdeaconry constraints as Rule 75(2)(b) of the Church Representation Rules would suggest there should have been 13 people elected as only 5 of the 18 ViSC seats were declared elected unopposed).
Three of the names were removed because of the new “relevant connection” rule. Two were because this prevents the election of someone from the same worshipping community as an ex officio member of the ViSC (ruling out the youngest candidate and an ordained woman). More controversially, the only other ordained woman nominated was also excluded because of the new rule that prevents two people being elected from the same worshipping community. Because 1 of the 5 declared elected unopposed was a lay person from the same large parish, she was then judged to be ineligible for election (despite her vote at the previous election showing she had a very high level of support, much higher than the lay candidate). My enquiries about whether this to my mind questionable interpretation and application of the rule could be challenged led me to discover that there is in fact no system of appeal in place within the Church of England for ViSC elections unlike most other significant elections.
One might have expected yet another ViSC election (the third in less than six months—they are meant to happen once every three years) would reveal significant voter fatigue but in fact turnout increased with 94 rather than 88 voters. The last minute withdrawal of the clergyman who had won most votes last time led to his supporters’ second preferences being counted as first and the other two Ashford clergy being assured election. This, combined with the changing number of candidates and seats up for election, led to changes in the outcome. Despite there being 4 fewer lay seats for election (due to 4 being elected unopposed) the first preferences were now mainly for lay people (56 to 38, compared to only 24 laity to 64 clergy last time). Compared to the previous ViSC elected in March,
- the Ashford clergyman who withdrew was replaced by the other clergyman standing from that Archdeaconry, of a similar outlook. Although the withdrawal meant that this was in effect now an uncontested election with two clergy for two seats, both were only elected by reaching the quota rather than being declared elected and their ballots reassigned in full (as happened with the candidate who withdrew).
- one of the two Canterbury clergymen elected last time, who chaired the group that drew up the Statement of Need, was defeated by the third candidate who was a more conservative evangelical.
- a more conservative evangelical laywoman was replaced by another laywoman, a change with very significant consequences as noted below.
In terms of first preference votes, the candidates most clearly conservative in relation to marriage and sexuality received 39.4% of the votes of Diocesan Synod members (compared to 40.9% last time).
The 3 CNC members
The main tasks of the new ViSC were to sign off the previously prepared Statement of Need (which should shortly become public) and to elect 3 members to represent the diocese on the CNC. It is this latter election where again the recent changes and how they were interpreted and applied proved decisive.
Normally a diocese would elect 6 representatives by the use of the Single Transferable Vote (STV) used in all CofE elections. This enables those elected to as fairly as possible reflect the preferences of the electorate between the candidates and hopefully enables them to be reasonably diverse in age and ministry context and to reflect quite accurately the range of parishes and theological outlooks found in the diocese. The reduction of Canterbury’s representation to 3 already made this more challenging and here the new rules introduced in February inflicted a new “double whammy” as they included a requirement that “At least one of the lay persons, and at least one of the clerical persons, elected as members under this paragraph must be female (unless no female person of the relevant description is proposed and seconded for election)”.
The exclusion of the two nominated ordained women from standing for the ViSC (because of the other main new “relevant connection” rule) means there were only 2 clergywomen (both ex officio and both broadly liberal/progressive theologically) eligible for CNC among the 27 of the 31 ViSC members allowed to stand. Last time only one stood and despite the nomination of a clergyman she was declared elected unopposed. This reduced the number of seats up for election to 2 and raised the number of votes needed (the quota) in order to be elected. Aware of this and believing it to be wrong I submitted arguments privately that this process was flawed (available here) and that (1) the wording of the rule did not obviously require the election of a clergywoman (because the CNC reps can all be lay) and (2) that a clergyman should not be excluded from the ballot due to the possibility of the need to recount the votes for the election should any clergywoman elected be unable to serve. These arguments were clearly considered unconvincing as the same process was followed with The Revd Canon Estella Last, Chair of the House of Clergy again being declared elected unopposed despite the nomination of a clergyman. All her ordained ministry (since 2014) is in the diocese and she has been vicar since 2021 of The Bridge Group Parish in the Canterbury Archdeaconry which comprises five rural congregations, having also served as Bishop’s Adviser for Women’s Minstry from 2019 to 2025.
The laywoman was also elected unopposed because the evangelical laywoman on the ViSC who also stood for CNC last time was not re-elected to the ViSC and so could not stand and no other laywomen were nominated. Ms Sally-Ann Marks is also from a rural context, serving on the PCC of St George’s, Benenden. She has in the past served for many years as a local councillor in Surrey (becoming Chair of Surrey County Council after previous involvement in social care and safeguarding) with extensive experience in business and the charity sector. In 2022 she was Chair of the Maidstone and the Weald Conservative Association.
As a result of these two candidates being elected unopposed there was only one seat—for a layman—needing to be elected by a vote of ViSC members. With only two candidates for one seat it was effectively a “first-past-the-post” election. It would have been possible for the ViSC members to consider which candidate would add greater diversity and better representation given the known two members elected unopposed. In fact, it appears that the vote was on the basis of the preferences of the members themselves and so, unsurprisingly (given the composition of the diocese and ViSC), it ended in a clear victory for the more progressive over the evangelical candidate. Mr David Berry, who got the most first preference votes in the new ViSC election, has four decades experience as a commercial lawyer, is a Trustee of the Worshipful Company of Information Technologists, and serves as church warden of his parish, St Michael and All Angels Hartlip which is one of a group of six village parishes in (like Ms Marks’ parish) the Maidstone Archdeaconry.
These 3 individuals will now join later this week with the other 14 already named (I discussed this here and there are profiles of all 17 voting members and the 3 non-voting members on the official webpage) to begin the CNC’s work.
One of the consequences, in large part probably because of the nature of the process of their selection, all 3 representatives are from the context of parishes which are
- rather small (the usual Sunday attendance in 2023 across all 3 parishes totalled 118),
- rural,
- broad/middle-of-the-road in churchmanship (interestingly all 3 have clergy who trained at SEITE starting there between 2007 and 2011)
- with an elderly worshipping community (all 3 of them have almost exactly 50% of their worshipping community in 2023 aged over 70)
- and few children and young people (usual child Sunday attendance of 8 across all 3 although with 42 aged 17 and under in the 3 worshipping communities).
Wider information on Canterbury attendance is likely to appear in the Statement of Need but can also be found here for 2024 and here for October 2023.
It is also noteworthy that, despite having (as noted above) about 40% of the electorate supporting ViSC candidates who identified as evangelical and conservative on marriage and sexuality (the 3 clergy and lay General Synod reps similarly split 2:1 on this), this perspective is not obviously represented among the CNC reps (although it will be if one of the 3 cease to be able to serve as under Rule 14 they are “to be replaced using the voting records of the previous election”). If there had been an election for all 3 seats by STV without constraints it is highly likely this perspective would have got (as any neutral observer would acknowledge would have been fair) one of the seats as the quota for election would have been 7.25 (29/4) and the defeated evangelical layman received 9 votes.
What now?
The CNC for Canterbury now begins its challenging work as May draws to a close and will continue through until at least September drawing up a role profile, long-listing then short-listing, then interviewing, then, God willing, securing the agreement of at least 12 members to achieve a nomination.
The way in which the 17 voting members have been chosen has been far from perfect and raised a host of questions (particularly but not only in relation to Canterbury diocese). There is now the strange situation where only 5 of the 17 people with a vote for the Archbishop (all of them central members elected by General Synod) were chosen by means of STV as properly understood (ie multiple candidates competing before an electorate for multiple seats with the outcome determined by voter preferences). This contrasts starkly with the goal and norm for CNCs where 12 of the 14 voting members have been chosen in this way to work alongside the Archbishops (or their chosen replacement from among the bishops). Instead, there are now over twice as many members chosen by other means:
- 5 who emerged somehow out of a Communion consultation subject to multiple constraints,
- 2 out of 3 Canterbury members elected unopposed due to constraints introduced by new rules for ViSCs and not originally intended to be used for Canterbury
- 2 chosen in simple “first-past-the-post” votes for single seats,
- 2 nominated (one by the Prime Minister and the other by the central pair not involved) and
- the Archbishop of York.
There is now a real need for a fundamental review by those who understand electoral systems of the ViSC regulations introduced without due care and attention earlier this year, their implementation and impact in Canterbury, and their likely continuing detrimental and largely unforeseen and unintended consequences in the future. Although dioceses will not be electing new ViSCs for a number of years, damage and uncertainty about processes could still be caused when filling vacancies on the ViSCs and when ViSCs come, as in Canterbury this week, to elect their representatives for CNC.
In the meantime, we simply now need to pray for all those involved in the discernment, both CNC members and potential candidates, and to trust that God’s providence works in and through and is not ultimately defeated by our human and institutional frailties and failings.
Revd Dr Andrew Goddard is Assistant Minister, St James the Less, Pimlico, (where his wife Lis Goddard is vicar) Tutor in Christian Ethics, Westminster Theological Centre (WTC) and Tutor in Ethics at Ridley Hall, Cambridge. He is a member of the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) and was a member of the Co-Ordinating Group of LLF and the 2023 subgroup looking at Pastoral Guidance.
Buy me a Coffee
For me, the big cultural issue here is that the labyrinthine processes of the C of E are ripe for abuse of power by those behind the scenes, one way or another.
. . and worthy of comparison with the machinations of Sir Humphrey Appleby! It would be laughable if it was not representative of deeper ills within the system.
There was an episode of Yes Prime Minister about the appointment of a particular bishop. Hilarious!
Being able to use a knife and fork properly being key but not too religious or too much of a social activist either
The adjective for an extremely complex church constitution that is exploitable by plotters, together with its entanglement with the State, is ‘Byzantine’.
As far as I can tell, the central problem is that we want to ensure a particular demographic balance (good optics) but are unwilling to expand the CNC or ViSC by creating reserved seats for particular constituencies (which would be bad optics). So we end with a process of electoral tripwires which makes everything extremely opaque. It’s an optical disaster, or very shortsighted if you will…
No, the central problem is that Justin hated evangelicals having influence and blocking his chosen liberal appointments, so he suggested this convoluted way of blocking them since evangelicals tend to come from larger churches.
That explains the no connection rule, not sure about the rest.
The Communion one is the same. 85% or so of the Communion disagreed with Justin’s statements on sexuality and marriage. And yet look at the shape of the representation from the Communion. One person representing Wales and Scotland, two of the most liberal and fasting dying churches in the Communion!
Are you counting people who broke communion with Canterbury in that 85%? Surely it would be absurd if they were to participate in the process.
I’m not a fan of having representation from the wider communion in the CNC (Canterbury is not an Anglican Pope), but if we are going to do that I don’t have a problem with organising on a regional basis.
Eh? No-one should ever ‘break communion with Canterbury’ (gasp gasp, faint faint), no matter what Canterbury does?
Comprehension still a struggle?
I don’t see why those who are not in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury should have any role in choosing the Archbishop of Canterbury. It would absurd to suggest they should.
Just the reverse. They are ‘in communion with’ (as the saying goes) 104 Archbishops and not with the 105th. That makes them in communion with the Archbishopric.
If the 105th is a bridge too far, that is his fault. For which you are seeking to penalise them not him. And then claiming that that makes sense.
By that logic we’re all Roman Catholics in communion with the Papacy. After all, it’s only been the last 48 Popes (out of a total 267) we’ve been out of communion with…
We neither are nor aren’t, because you are privileging contingent historically-based categories in the first place, and that initial misstep needs to be overcome rather than proceeded from.
It is bad enough to try and understand Jesus’s programme in a different way from the way he understood it. But to compound this by using words he did not use at all makes things worse. And to compound THAT by using words he would not even have understood shows an attitude that cannot conceive why anyone would not be a 21st century westerner.
You appear to have descended into complete incoherence.
It was your argument that people were still in communion with Archbishopric of Canterbury because they had been in communion with previous Archbishops, and merely being not in communion with the most recent should be no barrier to being considered Anglicans who can participate in the selection of the next Archbishop.
I am merely pointing out that the logic of such an absurd proposition is that we are in communion with the See of Rome because we were in communion with previous Popes.
As ever, when you write ‘You seem to have descended into complete incoherence.’ you mean ‘You, as someone who always involves cliches and the repetition of what has already been said, have written something that I have not yet understood, but on a couple more readings might understand.’
You notice I put ‘in communion with’ in inverted commas, as being a phrase big among Anglicans and small when it comes to biblical thinkers and Jesus.
That is precisely why I referred to mere-Christians who were accepted across the board. Take Chesterton, Lewis, Wright, Kreeft, and you will see how bogus this latter-day small-town denominationalism is in the face of a far larger 2000-year movement. My point was, in other words, if your lens is denominations, you will never see things as they really are. Because it would be to put the cart before the horse. Some talk of denominations more than they talk of Christ, and that shows the reductio of this doomed practice. And some who speak against fundamentalism are themselves denominational/constitutional fundamentalists, believing that each denomination is infallible according to its own lights. No matter how absurd its claims.
For ‘involves cliches’ read ‘avoids cliches’.
I’m not sure where you get the idea that Jesus thinks being in communion is a small thing, given that the Eucharist is the sacrament he instituted, and Church unity is something he explicitly prayed for.
To get back to the topic at hand, if we are to take your anti-denominationalism seriously, that would imply that whether the Church of Nigeria is participating in the selection of CNC members is a pretty minor concern when you consider that the Roman Catholic Church in England has no role in the selection and English Roman Catholics will see and hear from the new Archbishop of Canterbury much more frequently and be impacted much more by their words and actions. Then there’s the Methodists to consider, and the Baptists, Quakers, and independent Churches, etc. etc..
In which case the one voting against ‘communion’ is you, by excluding the other groups named.
The words ‘the Eucharist’, ‘sacrament’, and ‘instituted’ are bones of contention among NT scholars, assumption-heavy. However, this is in any case a different matter from the concept of ‘being in communion’ which, to repeat, is not a NT concept and in fact is one of many examples of anglican tropes being nowhere in the NT.
To say ‘anti-denominationalism’ proves understanding has not taken place. One is not against the Coldstream Guards. One is against those who obsess about them and have not the faintest idea they are fighting in the army.
Ian
I cant agree that Welby was somehow anti evangelical. Many non evangelicals are extremely upset at the use of resources under his tenure to advance new evangelical plants at the cost of traditional parish ministry. He also was very much in bed with the HTB/New Wine/Spring Harvest set.
Id argue 100% of people disagreed with Welby’s position on LGBT people and SSM since it seemed to change with the tide (or actually more frequently!)
Welby managed to upset everyone. See my article on his legacy.
But if even an avowed diplomat can alienate all parties, that should forever be cited as a reductio ad absurdum for the already wrong practice of people pleasing and for the failure to pursue the truth.
Yep.
One thing is for sure (and note my comment on the Nov 15 discussion), if the C of E had just appointed Abp Thorpe before he was pinched by those who could not believe their luck, (a) the outcome would have been better than or as good as it is anyway going to be, (b) there would have been a blessed relief from all the anglican fussing and chattering we are now going to get. The fact that scenario (b) is a disadvantage for many is close to being the root of the unnecessary problem.
I doubt he were ever a candidate but like a number of the others talked about who think we can turn the CofE round with just another push and a smiley evangelical approach, it would have led to an even faster demise of the organisation than is already inevitable.
So the truth is that every precious individual who has lived on this earth 60 years can be summarised in 2 words.
They certainly can. And when they are, we dismiss the summariser.
Not merely summarised but stereotyped. And not merely stereotyped, but stereotyped as though that were somehow insightful.
If people have despair and lack of faith as is exhibited in your answer, then that total lack of power and of hope not only (a) is a negative force where one could and should be applying a positive force, but also (b) claims wrongly to know the future.
Every non-optimistic organisation is bound to diminish. However – it is the non-optimism that helps to cause that. So what is commented on is also what is actively contributed to. (Not that destruction, as opposed to creation, counts as being an active contribution.)
So one candidate can fulifl all kinds of needs? Truly a saviour.
Exactly what so many object to is that people ask us to be led by lives less transformed than those of those they lead.
If someone has a contagious, irresistible smile that bespeaks a deeper transformation. And is normally combined with deeper than usual frowns and sternness deeper than usual tenderness and so on.. The package is being more alive in general.
Those who laugh at beautiful smiles that speak of transformed lives are not only cynical (since who would mock a child’s smile?) but also have no power or transformation of their own. So who is in a position to mock, on what basis?
I think people beyond the charismatic enclave can distinguish a genuine smile from what Adrian Plass (I think) termed the 100 watt evangelical smile – turned on and off with a switch.
My point entirely. ‘The charismatic enclave’ is another stereotype and cliche and therefore can be dismissed immediately from debate where thought has to reach a certain level.
Secondly, a central question will always be whether or not the smiles in question are of that nature or not. Some will be, some will not. Therefore any mere assumption that they always are of that nature will be a failed assumption and hence a failed argument.
Thirdly, I already addressed your central point. As I already said – The type of smile I am referring to is the one that manifests being strongly alive inside. And as I also already said – if one is indeed strongly alive inside (and why on earth would anyone appoint a Christian leader unless from the body of those who are? As opposed to anything less, descending down to the level of veritable Grokes) then that will manifest not just in your smiles being more smiley but also in your sternness being more stern and your compassion being more compassionate etc..
Oh yes Christopher – you did already say this stuff. Saying it again doesn’t make it any more true, and in fact rather is rather self defeating. What you say isn’t obviously true and, as I mentioned before, is just more evidence of you seeing things through your own narrow bias, which means we must dismiss it.
And we must accept your word on that as gospel? On the basis of what academic accreditation?
You write as though it is obvious that your take (ever negative) is accurate, yet you rarely even understand what is said first-up or second-up.
And you claim to be some sort of scholar Christopher but can’t even read the basic reply with any degree of objectivity first time around.
Your supposed scholarship is called into question with every post you make, mostly because you don’t even have the basic awareness of your own bias.
(1) Scholars are not ‘supposed’ but accredited.
(2) No-one has more authority to judge this than the accrediting bodies.
(3) But what is for sure is that those not themselves accredited cannot begin to be the best people to judge it.
And the accrediting bodies have seen the incoherent nonsense posted here? Then they aren’t doing a very good job….
Less accredited will, by definition, be less able to judge what is and is not coherent.
But also, that is true in spades if they have a track record of misunderstanding already.
If they adjudge ‘incoheren’t when they know they generally do not understand first-up, then that means only that they have not yet got to the stage of understanding.
But if they have not yet got to the stage of understanding, they do not yet know whether what is written is coherent or incoherent.
At any rate, presenting oneself as arbiter when one is in reality, repeatedly, someone who takes a while to understand at all is wishful thinking, and additionally borne of animosity. If one gets the impression that *whatever one says, well-analysed or not, it will receive a negative review from some quarters, then that shows bias on the reviewer’s part, and makes anyone less likely to trust the reviewer.
This is further demonstrated by the very low level of specificity in summarising many thousands of words as ‘incoherent nonsense’. The reader sees someone who makes immediate airy judgments, and without analysis.
We should engage only if there is actual analysis. In literature, if someone in a play just says ‘incoherent nonsense’ to everything, it is because the playwright has written them to be pompous and light on actual analysis. The last sort of people to be listened to, in other words.
More generalised rambling Christopher attempting to show your supposed superiority in thousands of words with very little substance.
A is how good one’s understanding is, based on (a) accuracy of analysis and (b) attempt to analyse at all.
B is how qualified one is.
C is how much one considers oneself as being in a position to pass judgment.
Your comments in general are ranking low on both A (a), A (b) and B yet (illogically) high on C.
Even if one were high on one of A and B, it would be better to be high on both if one were to be in a position to attempt C.
It would be nice to have a world where one could do C without putting in the necessary for A and B. But in reality one will be justified in listening to the C only of those with a track record in A and B.
If you read the first 7 lines of this a couple of times you will get the meaning. Debate should be restricted to analysis, and I would not wish on anyone to be bogged down in debate that was not.
Christopher:
A. Your response to my comment showed a very low understanding of what was said and your analysis was therefore quite wrong.
B. I’m not aware that you are at all qualified in this area. The NT is your field of expertise.
C. You consider yourself in a position to comment, even when you don’t have any obvious experience in this area.
In what world does everyone have precisely one area of expertise? I am not even an expert in Paul anyway.
Some have fewer than one, some have one, some have more than one.
Some are more trained in analysis and/or logic than others.
“In what world does everyone have precisely one area of expertise?”
Once again you totally fail to read or analyse correctly what was actually written. Where I did I say or even imply that you or anyone had only one area of expertise, let alone everyone?
As others have discovered, it becomes impossible to debate with you because you can’t follow the argument and only read what you think is said, not what actually is said.
Quite the reverse.
Firstly it is true that you said ‘The NT is your field of expertise’ – underlying assumption being that a person has their own field (singular) of expertise.
And second, you know too little about me to know whether or not I have others; nor what they are; nor how many of them there are.
I am aware that NT is your field of expertise. And so I was quite correct.
Where do I assume that is your only one?
I do know, from evidence here that others have noted as well as me, that analysis and logic is not one of them. You misread and apply your own bias too often.
And I know that selecting bishops or being involved in vocational selection is not one of your areas either. That is quite plain.
Why should we listen to your assessment of that?
To know what biases I have, you would need to have my brain. But I have it and you don’t, giving me the advantage.
As for you (in a lordly manner) judging my inadequacies on analysis, logic and vocational selection, you could only do so from a position of superiority. Do you actually hold that superiority and what is the evidence that we should see to make us believe that you do?
You provide me with your evidence for having some experience in the matter and I will provide you with mine.
I entirely agree he was not a candidate. Second question, should he have been, is a quite different one. This kind of effortless cherry picking will increase if the C of E continues to squander the gifts of God.
And as I said before, not everyone in Australia considers themselves lucky, which was your claim. Many could not believe it, let alone believe their luck.
For thought to get to a certain level, one has to actually read what was written. You hardly ever seem to do so. You simply read through your own narrow lens.
‘Which was your claim’?
I said that 26 million people all without exception considered themselves lucky?
Obviously I didn’t – but I don’t think I touched on the public reaction at all. I said that in fact they were lucky/blessed, and also said that in fact the selecting committee probably could not believe their luck.
Ahh I see, so you were just speculating without any evidence. Very scholarly approach.
And your original claim was that ‘One thing is for sure’. Meaning presumably it is certain? How do you know?
You read things for a second or two, decide what the writer means (accurately or not) and they worry away at them incessantly like a dog with a bone.
Most of them are not of the slightest importance, which means that it must be of the highest importance to you to ”catch” me in inconsistent thought. Why is that so important to you, and is it healthy or is it an obsession and/or hair-splitting?
Words are never exact representations of reality. They try their best.
When people say ‘One thing is for sure’, it is a saying. You are already familiar with this saying, yet are pretending you are not. It is another way of saying ‘I am speaking emphatically, according to my lights and my overall analysis hitherto.’.
“Words are never exact representations of reality. They try their best.”
Goodness. For once we are in total agreement. I have been saying exactly this in this website for several years.
Right. From which it follows that when you think you understand someone aright (‘You said this…’) you need to check first, e.g. so that they can unpack more fully their meaning, just in case you do not in fact understand.
So why do you consistently fail to check things yourself to see if you have misunderstood? which you often do. Why must your rule apply to others but not yourself?
Because nothing would ever get done.
The practice should certainly be followed by any who have a track record of misunderstanding a writer. Otherwise any misunderstandings can be corrected by the original writer as conversation progresses.
“The practice should certainly be followed by any who have a track record of misunderstanding a writer”
Which you demonstrate again and again
And therefore (supposing that to be true which it may or may not be)two wrongs make a right. Phew! Result!
Treating that as a result is equally nihilistic to treating the decline of your own denomination as inevitable when you are doing nothing to reverse it.
Once again you fail to follow the argument.
You call it luck!
No, but you seem to Christopher. ‘One thing is for sure’ is what you said.
Meaning, that so far as I can see, that thing is for sure. I am only one person, and not Australian. And people’s opinions are weighed by conformity to evidence not by headcount.
And what is your evidence that makes you think this one thing is for sure?
For example, the C of E ten years ago adjudged that this bishop was more likely than anyone else to be someone that people would want to follow – hence heading up church planting, expansion, growth.
For a second example, it is indeed obviously the case that someone full of the joy of the Lord will be someone that others wish to follow, because they want what they have.
“more likely than anyone else “
Again, this is an assertion without evidence. It’s not true. They gave him a shot at some new experiment. Church decline has continued.
“someone full of the joy of the Lord”
You know this person very well do you?
First, if you want pastoral care you appoint your best pastoral person. If you want to reach the most people, you appoint your best reaching-people person. You present that as though it were a piece of eccentric logic of my own. Far from that, it is practically a tautology.
Second, ‘church decline has continued’: and what did you do to reverse it? Giving a speech about it not only does nothing to help, it actually cements in people’s minds the untruth that this is in the unchangeable way things are, when in fact the church grows all over the rest of the world and had its best growth period in the 20th century.
Third, ‘church decline has continued’ is irrelevant. The relevant measure is the comparison between what would have been if not appointed and what was in fact. A comparison we cannot make.
Your final idea is a non sequitur. Certain character traits are unmistakeable and are signs of character, therefore taking a long time to build up. I have a track record of being a good judge of character, as well as a bad judge of who-likes-whom.
“I have a track record of being a good judge of character”
Oh really? Where can I read the stats and evidence for this please?
You can’t. It is just life experience over decades, but mine not yours. And why, in your endemic negativity, do you seek the evidence for the thing that I am good at but not the evidence for the thing I am bad at?
Sounds like I am not allowed to be good at things, whereas it is fine if I should be bad at things? Says who, and why is that not an example of personal bias?
I see. So it is just your own claim that you are a good judge of character. We have to take your word for it.
I await another essay by way of reply……
But I didn’t claim that. I claimed a bifurcated thing: both good udgment of character and bad judgment of who likes whom. As I already said once, it is telling that you reacted immediately tho the idea that I might be good at one thing. This will not do at all! Whereas to the idea that I might be bad at something – not a flicker of a reaction. Why? Because there things are as they should be. So long as I am bad at something, then God’s in his heaven and all’s right with the world.
So you see the inbuilt flaw in your perspective. You are taking the cliched perspective that anyone who claims a skill is booastful. This is immediately pricked by the fact that if they were indeed boastful they would not claim to be bad at something. So your first theory fails. Your second theory is….
(How exhausting it is to have to leaven self-praise with self-deprecation and vice-versa. Some people are speaking the truth in the first place, and it will often be the case that they are talking on a topic where indeed self-praise is appropriate. The alternative is to lie. SO the interlocutor is guilty of making/wanting people to lie.
I see a good theory and I praise the theoriser. Another time the theoriser might happen to be me and I praise my pwn theory no more nor less than I praise that of another. That is where truth liesd, not in false modesty or self consciousness which skews accuracy.)
As I predicted….
Superb analysis. Your broader point that the more words, the less worthy they are of analysis and the less commendable the actual words are – that was spot-on too.
And once again, if you had some self awareness and could do the analysis you would realise that wasn’t my broader point.
Christopher is such a good judge of character that he has started reposting pornographic videos on his social media.
Penelope’s determined manufacturing of scandal-mongering escalates again. Could you send the link or a brief description, to test what you mean by that description.
Christopher
I’m certainly not providing a link to pornography. But you might like to check on accounts you repost on X before you accuse me of manufacturing scandal.
Your failure to give chapter and verse, whether by specifying account / date & time or otherwise, says it al. You still have the chance to do so. Meanwhile I have issued an official complaint.
And I thought that Russian novels were hard to follow (names / patronymics / odd pronouns) – the ViSC occupies a special place in fog-land. Would it be uncharitable to think that the obfuscation is intentional?
That, Derek, is the right question.
After reading this article I am left with the following thought about about the process of selecting the next Archbishop of Canterbury. They, the church leaders, are not looking for anyone to uphold apostolic teaching, but someone who will tick the most boxes that will satistfy the most people. People both inside and outside the church, the secular and the religious, the Christian and non-Christian. This is building a church with its foundation in sand, but more likely quicksand. One can only pray and hope that God will thwart the designs on those leading the CofE.
That is certainly not true of *some* members of CNC…
Well, I look forward to seeing the statement of need.
Exactly, JP. It is incestuous in the same way as newspaper leader columns feed their readers’ existing prejudices without any reference to external objective truth.
Anything incurvatus in se or navel-gazing in this manner is not long for this world.
The politicians are the same. They mostly go for votes not truth.
The C of E has started aping politics, with the apprehension that everything is all about conservative vs liberal (truth and evidence nowhere), about votes, about pleasing different constituencies, never matter whether those constituencies have or have not read up on a topic or have the slightest familiarity with cultures, times and lands other than their own.
I am actually pleased those from rural, middle of the road churches are more likely to be found amongst the CNC nominators. After a decade of Welby the focus was on evangelicals, church planting, big city evengalical churches like HTB and grand national schemes like reparations for slavery and net zero etc.
Rural, middle of the road churches ie the traditional heart of the C of E, tended to get rather sidelined, starved of funds and merged, sometimes to such an extent as to be very difficult to manager for often part time clergy with a few retired priests to help. If that makes it more likely we get an Archbishop sympathetic to Save the Parish, perhaps Bishop Guli, maybe another who is more likely to put funds into Parish churches and provide much needed funds to support rural ministry all to the good.
Of course rural areas tend to be more elderly than average anyway, typically when young you live in inner cities, when middle aged in suburbs or towns and when retired you often retire to a village or hamlet (or coastal town) so inevitably the congregation there will always be older. Rural churches though remain a key part of community life, carol services and nativity plays are often full and include children from the local C of E primary school. They play a key part at Remembrance Sunday, Easter, weddings and funerals too. While big cities and large towns also have churches of every denomination to choose from, in rural areas normally the Church of England village or hamlet church will be the only church of any Christian denomination in the area. Hence you get Catholics and evangelicals worshipping in the same building as we do in our rural church. So in fact rural churches are often the most representative cross section of Christianity and the C of E within the Church of England
You are mistaken for thinking that Welby was interested in those things when it came to appointments. Look at the people he appointed!
You think it is a good idea to have people involved who have no vision for or experience of seeing young people come to church? If so, you have a death wish for the C of E.
The people Welby appointed were largely evangelicals, HTB linked church planters or managerial centralists and not much interested in rural Parish ministry.
Of course we want some young people in our church, even in our rural churches we have a few children believe it or not. Though unsurprisingly the vast majority of young people have moved to the big city or even the nearest town by the time they are in their twenties for work or study, unless they are going to be working on a farm or a country pub or in a village primary school.
It certainly isn’t a death wish, part of the Church of England’s role is to preserve its historic centuries old rural churches and its cathedrals. Otherwise it may as well just be a Baptist or Pentecostal church in all but name or hand them back to the Roman Catholic church who they were largely originally built for before the Reformation
Thanks for these helpful comments. Rural churches often have a great deal to teach urban ones, about how to engage with the parish, how to live graciously with theological diversity, how to listen to those we disagree with and learn from them, how to avoid being a gathered congregation. Having attended and served in gathered urban congregations and in rural parishes neither can claim to be more faithful or effective in mission.
Re the former Archbishop’s influence, it is noticeable how many current diocesan bishops are evangelicals, including those who support the ‘conservative’ view of LLF. Nothing wrong with that but I don’t think it squares with him being anti-evangelical.
Except that the rural areas are the ones where attendance is dropping off fastest.
Yes I know, evangelicals don’t care about our rural churches, the ancient buildings which are supposed to be the heart of the Church of England. For those on the Catholic and middle of the road wing though like me rural churches are the Church of England and we will fight, fight and fight again for funds to be shifted to support them rather than ever more church plants which all too frequently fail. If you want to fund a church plant, grow its congregation and get them to fund it, you could hold a church plant on a sofa or hall or restaurant backroom, they are not held in grade listed buildings of historic significance.
You are also wrong anyway, percentage wise rural churches still get a higher percentage of the rural population attending them than town or city C of E churches get as a percentage of the town or city population they are in. Indeed it is woke uber left liberal churches in inner London or Manchester or Liverpool or Birmingham which often have had bigger declines in congregations than middle of the road rural churches
Exactly. Rural churches don’t cut themselves off from the wider community like some conservative evangelical churches do, they hold concerts, run carols on the village green, work with farmers markets, hold stands at the May Fair or summer fete, provide weddings or funerals for all members of the local community who want them (indeed we had over 400 at one funeral earlier this year of a well known member of the local community).
They also encompass all wings of the church, which woke left liberal or conservative evangelical urban churches largely don’t. Evangelical or Catholic, liberal or conservative you can find all wings of the church represented in our rural churches and as you say that means they learn to work well together. As you also say Welby appointed evangelicals as bishops, where open or conservative far more than he appointed the types of Catholic bishops Rowan Williams or Runcie would have appointed
‘Rural churches don’t cut themselves off from the wider community like some conservative evangelical churches do’
That is just a parody. In many places, such as where I live, it is evangelical churches which are leading in social engagement. An evangelical church runs the biggest homeless project in the city here.
Yes you might do the odd homeless project but how many concerts do you hold, community events do you attend, schools do you visit, weddings and funerals hold for non regular church attenders etc?
Anton
LGBT refers to lesbians, gays, bisexuals and trans *people*, not “urges”
Simon, I don’t think Ian was doubting that rural parishes get a higher percentage of their population attending than the average. His point was on a different matter: rate of decline.
It is perfectly possible for rural parishes in general *both to have a higher decline rate than the average *and to have a higher percentage-of-parish attendance than the average.
Peter,
As I said, if someone is determined to misunderstand someone else then there is nothing that can be done about it. Neither the Bible nor blog comments are written in the way that two shark businessmen grinding out a legal contract between them would write.
Anton
I was not writing my comment in the spirit of nit picking, but in the hopes you’d start seeing gay and trans people as fellow human beings, perhaps even equal sinners to yourself
Peter,
I have written on this thread that I admire men such as Vaughan Roberts and Sam Allberry, Christians who are sexually attracted to other men but who believe they must not act on their urges because the Bible states that to do so would be sinful. Why are you ignoring my comment?
I also agree – and have stated on previous threads here which have included comments by you – that everybody needs Jesus Christ in order to cover a multitude of sins. The question is whether acts of gay sex require this umbrella and require repentance, or not. What does the Bible say – pleasure include a Yes or No – and do you agree that it is authoritative on the subject?
‘The people Welby appointed were largely evangelicals’ Sorry that is simply not true of bishops.
‘part of the Church of England’s role is to preserve its historic centuries old rural churches’. If you mean ’empty church buildings’, then no, it isn’t. The task of the Church is to ‘pass on entire the gospel entrusted to you to the next generation’, according to the doctrine of the C of E.
Yes it most absolutely is. This is where evangelicals like you and those on the middle of the road Catholic wing like me disagree. You basically want to turn the C of E into a Baptist or Pentecostal church in all but name, the ancient churches, cathedrals, the very heart of C of E tradition is of little interest to you. ‘Passing on the gospel’ is something any evangelical denomination could do, it is not just something the C of E does.
That is exactly why Marcus Walker, leading a Catholic, high church but otherwise middle of the road church in London with a large congregation founded Save the Parish. For the last 10 years under the Welby regime we on the Catholic wing of the C of E who care about our ancient rural Parishes and churches have been treated with near contempt by some evangelicals. We have had enough. We are not taking it any more. We now have representatives on Synod, including Walker himself, over the last few years via Save the Parish funds have been built, powder has been prepared, we are ready to take on the evangelicals who want to mass merge or close most of the rural churches of our nation and starve them of funds. We are ready for battle and be assured, we will never surrender!!
‘‘Passing on the gospel’ is something any evangelical denomination could do, it is not just something the C of E does.’
Simon, you don’t appear to realise that I was citing the Ordinal, which according to Canon Law defines the doctrine of the Church of England.
The Ordination and Consecration of a Bishop
Do you accept the Holy Scriptures as revealing all things necessary for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ?
Ordinand I do so accept them.
Will you be diligent in prayer, in reading Holy Scripture, and in all studies that will deepen your faith and fit you to bear witness to the truth of the gospel?
Ordinand By the help of God, I will.
Will you lead your people in proclaiming the glorious gospel of Christ,16 so that the good news of salvation may be heard in every place?
Ordinand By the help of God, I will.
Will you teach the doctrine of Christ as the Church of England has received it, will you refute error, and will you hand on entire the faith that is entrusted to you?
Ordinand By the help of God, I will.
It is very odd that, on the one hand, you claim to argue for the historic values of the Church, but on the other, you do so from what appears to be ignorance of what the Church of England actually believes.
It is bizarre that you dismiss anyone who *does* note what the Church believes as ‘Baptist or Pentecostal in all but name’.
T1,
At the turn of the century there were three main groups in the CoE: evangelicals, liberals, and high. You are somewhere between the latter two. Despite your rhetoric, though, the high party has dwindled in numbers in a couple of decades, leaving a straight shoot-out between evangelicals and liberals. I grant that ‘evangelical’ can be subdivided into charismatics and anticharismatics and even some liberals who use the Orwellian playbook so as to muddy the meaning of the term, but they have not succeeded.
HTB has come out against unrepentant LGBT in the church, yet you say Welby, who is pro-LGBT, is of the HTB persuasion. You are confused. And your rhetoric reminds me of King Lear:
I will do such things,—
What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be
The terrors of the earth.
I am more on the high wing but you are mistaken in thinking all rural church congregations are high. There are plenty of low church evangelicals too in our village churches. You are right though that the main 2 factions in the C of E now are the conservative evangelicals, charismatic mainly and the liberals, mainly liberal Catholics but with a few ‘open’ liberal evangelicals too. That leaves the middle of the road high church wing of the C of E as the key swing vote (the most conservative high Catholic wing of the C of E largely crossed the Tiber and became Roman Catholic after female ordination).
Welby is of course largely middle of the road on LGBT, he rejected liberals pushing for full same sex marriage in the C of E even while still stopping evangelicals stopping PLF. In terms of theology and vision for the church Welby is very much in the HTB evangelical mould which was where he found faith after a private sector career in the oil industry. He never really understood the high wing of the C of E and the key role rural Parish churches play in their communities even though he did do a few years as a vicar at a rural church near Coventry his vision was shaped by HTB
T1,
It is obvious to anybody with eyes to see that Welby was, from quite early on at Canterbury at least, strongly pro-unrepentant LGBT in the church, but was somwhat restrained by the desire not to create schism. You misinterpret this desire.
I made no mention of the rural/urban split, only the liberal/evangelical/high split and its evolution.
Anton, I don’t think that was his motive. His motive was to effect change by his own power and hoping that those who opposed him would not notice until it was too late. He did the same with the Communion.
Funny isn’t it, how we so easily focus on the things we like to hear and blind ourselves to the less convenient. I suppose T1 and the Save The Parish advocates would draw attention to the previous promise would-be Bishops make to ensure “good news of salvation may be heard in every place?”
Do we all? I am not sure I am ‘blinding myself’ to that phrase—nor are other evangelicals.
That is why, at the moment, it is evangelicals who are mostly leading the way in church planting and grafting—to take the gospel to every place. You don’t achieve that by maintaining an empty building and running jumble sales.
And in the past it is why evangelicals were pioneers in the missionary movements around the world, which led to the Anglican Communion.
No, I did not say the Church of England priests should not proclaim the gospel but there is nothing distinctively Anglican about that, indeed the aspects of the Ordinal you have quoted could apply to any Baptist or Pentecostal priest too with he exception of ordination and consecration of a Bishop. Albeit even Pentecostals have a few bishops, though not of apostolic succession
Simon, if so, why do you claim that my advocating something core to the C of E means I am trying to turn the Church into something else?
And where in the ordinal does it say that bishops or other clergy are compelled to keep open (nearly) empty buildings? That is not the same as ‘making the gospel known in every place’.
Rubbish, if Welby was ‘unrepentently LGBT’ he would have proposed full same sex marriages in C of E churches to Synod, not PLF.
It is not claimed he is ‘unrepentently LGBT’ but that he is in favour of welcoming ‘unrepentently LGBT’ in the Church. No, he would not—because he knew he would be defeated. As with many other things, Justin exercise his power behind the scenes to avoid head on debate.
Yes, if “good news of salvation may be heard in every place?” is a vow of the Bishops, that surely also includes supporting C of E parish churches in rural villages and hamlets across England, not just in urban areas?
You don’t make the gospel heard by keeping open (nearly) empty buildings. There are around twice as many clergy per capita of rural population as urban, so currently it is the other way around.
No, it is evangelicals planting churches which are clones of themselves, mainly in urban areas and rural churches be damned! If you want to church plant use your own funds not central church funds.
The Anglican Communion is just a loose organisation, the C of E is its own standalone church within it
Where in the ordinal does it say bishops and clergy must close buildings which have been there since the C of E was founded in the 16th century?
The best way to ‘proclaim the gospel’ in England is to maintain a C of E Parish church with a stipendiary priest in every city and suburb, town, village and hamlet in England
‘The best way to ‘proclaim the gospel’ in England is to maintain a C of E Parish church with a stipendiary priest in every city and suburb, town, village and hamlet in England’
If that were true, how come attendance is collapsing?
The C of E is established church of a nation where same sex marriage is legal. Hence Synod voted by majority to approve PLF and reject those hardline evangelicals who refused any recognition for same sex couples married in English law
Simon, what defines the doctrine of the C of E on marriage? Contemporary culture? Or Scripture and the Formularies?
Yes you do proclaim the gospel by keeping open C of E buildings. And of course most rural clergy already have to minister to 4 or more churches in their rural area, while in many cities it is only 1. While rural villages and hamlets are more spread out than urban areas
Can you point me to anywhere in C of E doctrine which says ’empty buildings are the way to preach the gospel’? I think you will find the opposite in the Articles, specifically Article XIX:
THE visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.
If attendance is falling it is because priests are being spread too thinly, too much central C of E money being spent on woke schemes like reparations and net zero and church plants with little record of success while not enough is being spent in Parish churches. Hence Save the Parish wants to scrap all central funds for church plants and grand schemes and put the funds instead into Parish ministry, especially in rural areas where it is most needed.
Though of course as established church the C of E should not be too focused on whether attendance goes up or down each year as long as each city, town and village in England has a local C of E church to worship, get baptised, get married, and buried in
Synod defines the doctrine of the C of E as with the powers devolved to it by Parliament, the doctrine of marriage of course unchanged by PLF anyway
‘Synod defines the doctrine of the C of E.’ I don’t know why you keep repeating this false claim. Canon Law says otherwise; have you not read it? See Canon A5.
Can you point me to anywhere in C of E doctrine where it says the Church must close all its rural churches for church plants and mass attendance in a handful of evangelical churches at all times and damn the rest?
‘THE visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men’, could include just 2 men in weekly services in a hamlet church. ‘In the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.’ Just requires those 2 men to receive Holy Communion in said church each week with a reading from the Bible too
‘Can you point me to anywhere in C of E doctrine where it says the Church must close all its rural churches for church plants and mass attendance in a handful of evangelical churches at all times and damn the rest?’
It is interesting when you have to resort to unfounded caricature! AWSL!
“It is not claimed he is ‘unrepentently LGBT’ but that he is in favour of welcoming ‘unrepentently LGBT’ in the Church.”
Is this the point of controversy now? I had thought that we were previously all clear that gay people absolutely were to be welcomed into the Church, and that sexual orientation was not itself sinful and therefore isn’t something to repent of. Even the Bishops writing Issues in Human Sexuality in the early 90s didn’t think there was a promise of new life free of homosexuality (or exclusive same-sex attraction if you prefer that formulation). What changed?
I was just quoting Anton correctly, where Simon?T1 had quoted him incorrectly. It is not my language and it is not language that I would use.
Canon A6 ‘The government of the Church of England under the King’s Majesty, by archbishops, bishops, deans, archdeacons, and the rest of the clergy and of the laity that bear office in the same, is not repugnant to the Word of God.’ Parliament has also affirmed the established church should be governed by Synod by statute and Parliament is the supreme legal power in England
Canon law permits the legal arrangement. Canon law also says these people do not determine the doctrine of the Church. It is not that complicated.
AJ Bell Yes, looks like it. Even celibate yet LGBT confirmed by orientation must be rejected it seems on that line. No problem for divorcees though, even the odd evangelical who has had pre marital sex as long as they are now married in a heterosexual relationship with lots of children and show sufficient muscular Christianity!
Simon/T1 it is quite telling that you need to rely on ad hominems and caricatures of those you disagree with. It does suggest that your argument is not very strong.
Ian
I thought it was CofE teaching and your own personal belief that it is not a sin to be LGBT? Now you seem to be suggesting that being LGBT is something that should be repented of?
Not my language. I was quoting Anton.
I had supposed that, in a thread about the occupancy of the See of Canterbury, the brief description of Welby, “pro-unrepentant LGBT in the church”, might safely be taken to refer to LGBT sexual acts, not urges. That is what I would have stated if the subject had been sexuality, and all regulars here will be aware that I admire men such as Vaughan Roberts and Sam Allberry.
People who are determined to misunderstand will always find a way to do so – witness their efforts with Leviticus, which secular LGBT persons understand better.
But I am right in thinking there’s a broad consensus in the CofE that your sexual orientation is not itself a sinful thing to be repented of, and therefore gay people should be welcomed into the Church without being asked to repent of that, aren’t I?
I can speak only for myelf and for what the Bible says (which was taken to be what God said for centuries until the church opened the door to disbelief masquerading as scholarship). There is nothing to repent of in whom you are sexually attracted to. BUT the type of person you are attracted to may change, since sexual practice can – like many pleasures – be addictive, and Christians might consider it ill-advised to reinforce sexual practices that the Bible condemns. Also, just as sexual fantasies about married women are condemned by Jesus, so would be sexual fantasies of other acts that scripture condemns.
AJB – you know very well that nothing has changed, nor will, within the Christian attitude here. Point out even one thing below that has changed:
-Every person can come as they are.
-Not all actions are welcome, obviously – how could they be?
-Sexual-orientation is not endemic.
-Sexual-orientation is not a scientifically testable nor biologically observable.
-Sexual-orientation is not intrinsically immutable.
T1, what do you mean ‘no problem for divorcees’? D*****e is the dolorous blow at the root of the present malaise, and a significantly greater issue even than the present one. It is the unhealthy root on which this denomination is founded, much as the massacre of the natives is the guilty reality on which the USA was founded. In each case it eats into the collective psyche.
Ian
I’ve said this before, but two of the best priests I’ve encountered in my lifetime came to faith by feeling the Holy Spirit call them in to pray in their local church.
I agree that it’s not always financially viable, but I think, no I know, that gems are being thrown away by a sort of snobbish decision making tree
Ian
It’s not the language that’s the issue. It’s you apparently rejecting the position that it isn’t a sin to be gay or trans.
The issue is you failing to read carefully, and projecting your assumptions on others!
Ian
Why can’t you just answer the question? Do you now think it is a sin to be LGBT or that people need to repent of being LGBT?
Peter, I don’t understand why I have to keep answering the same question, when you have asked it repeatedly in the past, and I have given a very consistent answer.
Peter, the point has been made repeatedly that the idea of a fixed-from-birth sexual orientation is something that the facts largely do not support.
You have gone to the other end of the spectrum and simply assumed that something called ”LGBT+” is not just a meaningful phrase but one that must be unquestioned by everybody.
Further, you have done so repeatedly and ignored challenges. Thereby you have broken the rules of debate, making your future contributions on that point null pending your taking objections on board.
Why would you hold such a position in the first place, anyway? Because non-expert and biased media says so?
Because you appear to have changed your answer.
It’s the biggest issue for gay people in the church- are they to be accepted or treated as sinful just for existing
I find it difficult to believe that every CNC just rubber stamped whoever +Justin felt should be appointed. After all, in regard to the wider pool of names there is a Prime Ministers Appointment Secretary and an Archbishops one. And any CNC member can suggest names
No, CNC does not rubber stamp. But
a. There is a deep culture of deference in the C of E. People find it very, very hard to challenge things that bishops and archbishops say in meetings. It is only in the last couple of years that people have had the courage to challenge.
b. The main pool of candidates for diocesan roles is suffragans, and there is no consistent policy on appointing these.
c. It is the consistent testimony from members of CNC that Justin exerted pressure in particular directions. The confidentiality of the process and the lack of whistle-blowing policy prevents any of that being addressed
d. You only have to look at the appointments to see Justin’s influence.
e. The two policies of ‘relevant connection’ and Communion members were specifically introduced by Justin because he was frustrated at having his own preferred candidates blocked.
Ian
Sorry, not to defend Welby, but isn’t it circular logic to say that he influenced appointments as anti evangelical and you can tell this by looking at the appointments that were made?!
Also the diocesan list I looked at, maybe not so influenced by Welby(?), was almost all evangelical. I had to not include “open” evangelicals as n
evangelicals to even get my shortlist to 4.
From my perspective there’s been a huge shift in power, money and resources towards evangelicals to the exclusion of others under Welby and it’s actually been so great that it has been to the detriment of the cofe because the parish system has been deliberately degraded. I think you think Welby isn’t an evangelical just because you don’t like him (well almost nobody does!)
What diocesan list were you looking at?
There has been a shift, from simply subsidising decline, to putting at least part of the money towards well-thought through mission initiatives to reverse decline. There is no theological criterion attached to that—but it is no surprise that evangelicals have been more interested in this and more committed to these kinds of projects.
What is the alternative?
It’s not circular logic, PJ, because:
(a) often only soft-evangelicals were generally appointed – at least to diocesan posts;
(b) you are assuming a church that is (why?) 33% of each supposed constituency when in fact the vast mass of believing not cultural Christians in this denomination are somehow evangelical;
(c) just because JW rejigged the election process does not mean that even then he attained his ends in terms of who was, in the event, appointed;
(d) when evangelicals attain worldly recognition, that can be a main factor in making them go soft;
(e) you are assuming that people fit in boxes. It is clear that honest people do not; intelligent people do not; and those campaigning for office will not either, since they will want to appear to belong to all constituencies. And a lot of bishops will be honest and/or intelligent. So the whole model from which you are starting is wrong.
I looked at the list given on this blog of bishops young enough to be ABC. Nearly all of the male bishops are evangelicals
If you put people in simplistic boxes then of course your analysis will be skewiff. Anyone of any intelligence works their beliefs out for themselves, and this will mean that they are never stereotyped but always eclectic (unless of course our bishops include the unintelligent in their number). And secondly, like presidential candidates, they seek to be acceptable to *all the perceived constituencies. Would that they did not.
This denominational fundamentalism, that there are ‘parties’ that fell from the sky, like ‘evangelical’ and ‘catholic’, skews a nalysis, like starting ffrom a false premise always does.
Christopher
For sure, but then if you’re not going to label anyone then it’s impossible to say what proportion of bishops are evangelical
A definitive verifiable answer is absolutely impossible, yes. And that’s a good thing. It could force people to stop being tribal and instead (more maturely) tease out individual issues based on evidence.
I’m finding it slightly inappropriate that Andrew continues to comment in such detail now that the process is formally underway. I should have thought it time to take a very quiet back seat.
Andrew, I too am hoping that now the Canterbury diocesan election processes have reached their conclusion and all 17 members are known that I will indeed find myself able to take “a very quiet back seat”. I thought it helpful however to offer this brief immediate update on those processes and the people elected for the sake of completion given my earlier posts and to do so before those now chosen start their work on CNC this month.
However, I am surprised you appear to think that people continuing to discuss the matter at all over the next four or five months in which the CNC meets is somehow “inappropriate” and I fear that even if I now pipe down you will be disappointed if you are hoping that everyone is going to say nothing about it all until the new Archbishop is announced towards the end of the year.
A degree of self-restraint by all of us over the coming months would be a good idea. Let’s use the time and energy for prayer instead and avoid further complaints about the process and the composition of the CNC. What more is there to say about a strictly confidential process which none of those involved can speak about to anyone else either now or in the future?
Tim thank you and I agree. It’s probably even more important for those, like Andrew, who are intimately connected with someone who is actually a member of the CNC.
Tim asks: What more is there to say about the process?
That it is corrupt and anti-democratic and cooked that way by Welby.
I think you’ve missed my point but perhaps I didn’t make it clear: I was referring to the process from now on as the CNC seeks to discern the right person to be our next Archbishop. That process is confidential and we need to restrain ourselves from pointless speculative comment about it. I see no reason to suggest in advance that it will be corrupt. And I’m not sure that ‘anti-democratic’ really means much in this context as there is no clear constituency or electorate or any requirement that it should be democratic in the first place.
What will we achieve by public complaints, suggestions of malpractice, impugning the motives of those on the CNC, etc?
‘It’s a shambles, and ripe for corrupt influence, but it a corrupt shambles that I like, so you lot can shut up now.’
Hmmm!
A degree of self-restraint by all of us over the coming months would be a good idea. Let’s use the time and energy for prayer instead and avoid further complaints about the process and the composition of the CNC. What more is there to say about a strictly confidential process which none of those involved can speak about to anyone else either now or in the future?
we will certainly pray that God’s will is done despite a convoluted and potentially corrupt process.
You don’t have to read him!
One problem is that if the CoE’s own protocol has not been followed, unsuccessful candidates for Canterbury might yet cry foul, raising the risk of schism.
Leaders are great foci for visions and sources of inspiration. They are in a position to teach in the public forum and to set an example by leading from the front. That said, I do not like the focus on one leader and their choice and their induction. Teamwork is the thing and the more spectators spectating this spectator sport the less healthy the church is, and the less healthy their lives, formation and development are.
I think whoever they pick is going to have to fit 4 criteria
1. Be a man who accepts women in leadership (to both represent the majority view in the CofE, but also not undermine the majority view in the Anglican communion)
2. Be from a different tradition than Justin Welby
3. Not have baggage related to the CofE’s mishandling of sexual abuse claims
4. Be able to be reasonably credible in supporting LLF, but opposing SSM
Starting from the list of those young enough, there are 14 men who accept women in leadership, but 8 of these are evangelicals.
Of the 6 remaining, Mike Harrison is too pro LGBT and Robert Innes opposes LLF.
That leaves just 4 possible contenders as far as I can tell
Mark Tanner
Michael Beasley
Jonathan Frost
Stephen Lake
If they are seriously considering women then I would have thought Sarah Mullaly was the obvious choice (if she wants it!)
Sarah Mullaly would be a bold choice as the civil servants say. The Bishop who became the face of LLF (deservedly or not) is unlikely to be unifying. I can’t shake the suspicion that picking a woman risks being a bear trap that sets off the schism of a third province. London’s formalisation of delegated episcopal oversight will perhaps be the start of the model (although the third province advocates don’t think it’d be enough).
I still think they’ll go outside the current House of Bishops, and on that basis Christopher Cocksworth still looks like a dark horse. The increased representation for the wider Communion maybe opens up more possibilities for going outside of England. In my more fanciful moments I wonder about Philip North, but I can’t see them appointing an Archbishop who disagrees with women’s ordination, and in any case he’s only been a diocesan bishop for about 5 minutes (which was in retrospect a weakness of Welby).
But what do I know? Those who we might previously have thought of as the ‘traditional’ choices – Stephen Cottrell and Graham Ussher – are ruled out, so whoever it is will qualify as a ‘surprise’. CNC will be in need of some prayer.
The Church of England has had women bishops for over a decade, approved by the requisite 2/3 majority of Synod and women priests since the 1990s, also approved by 2/3. If some hardliners so reject the decisions of Synod they refuse to even accept a woman Archbishop in our established church (a decision which the vast majority of this nation would approve of given the recent sex abuse scandals in the church all involving men) then they are welcome to a third province. There is the door, go.
Most of the representatives of the wider communion on the CNC are also pro female ordination anyway, including some who are women. Though other provinces have their own Archbishops anyway, the Archbishop of Canterbury is only leader of the Church of England just a symbolic first amongst equals of other provinces
AJ
I’m assuming that they have to pick someone willing to promote LLF, but maybe that’s toomuch of an assumption!!
Someone who accepts the will of the majority of Synod for PLF maybe but otherwise move on, there have already been too many divisions on it
I think that would be an erroneous assumption.
AJ
The alternative is to de facto have the CNC decide a totally new direction on LGB people in the church – either one where the church now thinks that there should be no inclusion or recognition of same sex couples or one where same sex marriage is acceptable.
I can’t see either going down very well because it would make the now more than a decade long debate entirely pointless
The CNC doesn’t decide anything about the Church. That is not their role. They need to discern whom God is calling to be the next ABC—presumably including who can, with integrity, say their ordination vows.
Yes, Adam, you are right.
The one thing that *will* split the C of E is appointing someone who does not believe the doctrine of the Church, including Canon B30. How could that be done with any credibility?
That in effect rules out any of the 44 who signed the letter…
This particular denomination of an already split church is itself already split, and for much the same reason. 75% do not acknowledge the Archbishop, all because it was considered more important to bow down to Eros and Aphrodite.
Meanwhile we could all just listen to those mere-Christian leaders who are already acknowledged across the denominations. None of whom has truck with the sexual revolution or with sins of other kinds either.
I don’t think the CNC can decide a new direction if only because a new Archbishop cannot unilaterally decide a new direction. It would be a mistake (and one I hope the CNC does not make) to believe that PLF ought to be the dominant issue, or worse the only issue, in the discernment and recommendation of a candidate. That will lead us into making a wrong choice. Alas, the indulgence of factionalism is probably making it harder and harder to resist that.
It is not really about factionalism. It is about whether bishops and other clergy ought to believe the doctrine of the Church…and it is bizarre that this question even needs asking.
‘Meanwhile we could all just listen to those mere-Christian leaders who are already acknowledged across the denominations. None of whom has truck with the sexual revolution or with sins of other kinds either’ Lutherans and Methodists already perform same sex marriages in their churches as do the Church of Scotland and the Quakers, so they have already gone beyond the C of E.
Even Pope Francis advocated priests blessing same sex couples in certain circumstances, so the Roman Catholic church has already started moving closer to the Church of England’s PLF position
Now the Canons are unamendable?
Yes, which is why the said Methodists, Quakers and Lutherans are neither (a) mere-Christians nor (b) accepted across the board by other Christians. So what is the relevance of your comment?
Furthermore, you also (c) seem to think that every new development must be a good development. If anyone met ignorance like that in a primary school child, I would be surprised.
Ian
You say potahto…
Picking Bp Mullally would further split, and irrevocably, what remains.
‘Some of them will be sexual’ is calculated to be an episcopal epitaph (an epitaph for any kind of Christian leadership), together with being both ”pro-choice” and ”pro-live [sic]” in different senses.
I doubt it, Mullally is pretty middle of the road in today’s C of E. If she got the job of Archbishop it would be because the majority of the CNC were willing to accept here, including representatives of the Anglican communion
The majority of a relatively random group of 17 people?
Never mind the 100million people then?
Which of these 2 groups is more important, and by what factor?
In what way are the 17 representative?
Being middle of the road in a given organisation is irrelevant, only being in line with truth and evidence is relevant. Middle of the road refers only to current narrow culture-specific fashions and trivial things like that. And in the country of the blind the one-eyed person is king.
The bishop speaks common sense on euthanasia / assisted suicide. But why be so much happier to steal an entire lifetime (100 years) from a human than to steal one year?
Things said in the past would be mercilessly raised. Even a high majority of this denomination do not accept women’s leadership itself, but the sexual/marital opinions are extraordinary from any Christian, and the fact that leaders are now voicing such is an emblem of the extent of the mess.
Almost all western Anglican denominations now have women priests. Yes the African denominations don’t but they have their own Archbishops, the British Empire is over, we should be selected an Archbishop to lead the C of E in England and not overly worry about what Africa thinks. Women bishops were approved by 2/3 of Synod and it is about time the C of E had a woman leading it after the recent sex abuse scandals involving men. The Archbishop of Canterbury is not Pope, they have no actual power over the African provinces anyway, they are only a symbolic first amongst equals
Of course some African Anglican provinces have ordained women bishops too including South Africa, Kenya and South Sudan
Yes. And the fact that they have them makes it a good thing.
Christopher
I’d say Mullaly is the obvious female candidate primarily because she specifically demonstrated unhappiness with Welbys tone deaf approach to John Smyth, but without a great deal of fireworks. When any organization is looking for someone to replace a leader who was fired criteria 1 has surely got to be to get someone who isn’t likely to be fired for the same reason.
She also has long advocated for a better approach to addressing sexual abuse more generally in the church.
She is also an advocate for LLF, but opposes same sex marriage. She has also led a politically important diocese and one that has grown under her tenure. She seems to be reasonably well liked by her flock.
She would not be my personal choice, but I think, if they do seriously consider women, then she would be the top contender.
The main issues in the church are the spread of the gospel and justice. The foregrounding of sexual matters is to titillate the secularists and to emasculate the church for the secularists’ benefit, so that they can take territory from it in the public space. .For this they have to major on events of 40+ years ago since nothing more recent is in the same league, nor could be with the present structures. The narrative that the church is awash with sexual scandals is always going to be true for 3 reasons: it is a very large institution, so the question should be how widespread they are in proportion (a question which does not get asked); if you can draw on the more distant past for your evidence that this is the case, then the proposition will be true in perpetuo; and sexual scandals can get redefined to include hugging someone warmly in the presence of many others who noticed nothing untoward at the time (and also, obviously, slight massaging of the facts and reinterpretation of them at the time) – see some aspects of recent cases and particularly the Bishop of Liverpool. That way there will always be enought juice to satisfy the secularists’ need, and with them enticing many christians onto their side, since liberal Christians are almost indistinguishable from secularists in their values and outlook, to satisfy their need too.
Robert Runcie was known for a paucity of theology, but it would be a new low in that regard to appoint Bp Mullally. And you would then have a leader who cannot see anything wrong in health services allowing parents to kill off their own daughters and sons, when birth services should obviously be staffed by life-loves and baby-lovers to whom the very idea (intensely sinister)0 is an abomination. And who sees the breaking of the utterly beautiful and sacred creation marital design (which is the peak of a universally incredible universe) as nothing to write home about. On assisted suicide, we will all continue to campaign on the same side, apart from Abp Carey.
“Robert Runcie was known for a paucity of theology”
Bob Runcie was a positive heavy weight compared to his predecessor and successor. And under his successor, a clear evangelical, the CofE began its serious decline. The Decade of Evangelism was quite the reverse.
Speculation about the next Archbishop is pointless and I still doubt that the CNC can find a majority. But the only candidate who has the right approach is +Guli of Chelmsford. Let’s hope and pray.
I should imagine that if anyone who thinks that men can get married to men, or women to women, takes the post, that would be pretty much that for the denomination.
However, the present prospect is 10 times worse, because the idea is that someone would be the chief bishop who thought an actual anointed leader (not just ‘any old person’) could and should have the chance to do that.
Andrew, once again you argue that two wrongs make a right, or else that paucity is not paucity if even greater paucity can be found elsewhere. Which of course is a non sequitur.
Your argument is equally convincing to Fawlty TOwers where Mr Hamilton says that this is the worst hotel the length and breadth of… whereupon the Major vociferously challenges it ‘NO! There’s a place in Eastbourne.’ How on earth is something bad helped by the fact that something worse exists somewhere? The entire liberal narrative is to bring those who previously were at least on a more adequate level down to a lower level so that those on the low level can feel less bad about things. This does not improve anything – quite the reverse. But it is symptomatic of the destructive spirit at the heart of the tendency. It cannot create, build or achieve anything good, but it can rank better by means of levelling others downwards in the name of equality.
Christopher I do have to admit that if anyone would know about paucity of theology it would be you.
…which remark demonstrates that I certainly cannot compete with you on paucity of analysis.
But provided that the insults are at full tilt and the analysis is nowhere, thee debate is going well.
Meanwhile, come back when you have half your target’s accreditation.
?
Christopher
If the church continues to facilitate the sexual abuse of minors (and adults) and continue not to have any clear response to same sex couples then it’s entirely pointless as an institution. You may cast these things as irrelevant, but the gospel is worthless if it doesn’t change people and how can a church preach the gospel if it doesn’t know the gospel.
The previous ABC when asked these things in TV interviews, with many people interested in Christianity watching, misled and had no clear answer and then made jokes about it. That’s not moral leadership
Christopher I understand that you wish to insult Bob Runcie. He was a fellow and Dean of a Cambridge College, and then a brilliant Principal of a first rate Theological College. Those things are not awarded to those who have a paucity of skill in their subject. You might not like the man, or like his theological work, but his accreditation, as I have outlined it, is more considerable than you and I combined. So please drop your superiority complex.
I have no doubt that you are well accredited in your NT studies. I don’t know what your other accreditations are. But it is pretty obvious they aren’t in the area of modern theological thinking.
I believe that in those days it would have been unusual if Cuddesdon students took theology degrees. Martyn Percy was another dynamic principal who changed the ethos once more. Michael Hampson’s book I find depressing, and a good insight to how the numinous faded; to a catholic priesthood is an eternal covenant but in MH’s generation people were becoming ordained for a while then giving it up. One parallel with the Justin Welby years was that just as his regime appointed milder evangelicals so the 1980s promoted Cuddesdon alumni.
PJ, you spoke about ‘the church’ (but you mean, instead, one denomination) facilitating the sexual abuse of minors and adults.
But that is not happening, by and large, and I do not see how it can. Long–past events spawned by the horrible sexual revolution are being presented as though they were present and current, when everyone knows they are not. Secondly, the reason why they are being so presented is that nothing so shocking is present and current now, and they don’t want the false narrative to be spoilt (just when so many are being duped by it) because that narrative is how Christians are forced to cede ground to secularists (whose track record on sexual abuse is far worse…) in the public space.
There are safeguarding officers and schemes everywhere, just at the time when they are least needed. But they are still needed. You present that actual picture as ‘the church’ ‘facilitating the sexual abuse of minors and adults’.
Christopher
Sorry by “the church” I meant the Church of England. In the context I thought that was clear. However FWIW sexual abuse of minors is a problem in pretty well every denomination and none have handled it particularly well.
I don’t understand how you can claim this isn’t happening when it is the presenting reason there is a vacancy as ABC!
Christopher,
For the record, may I ask what your theological accreditations and specialisations are please, and where you obtained them?
degree 1st class Oxford, PhD NT Cambridge, PGDip All Nations, main Oxbridge prizes in OT (LXX), Intertestamental Lit, NT, Patristics, [shared] Ancient History. Not theology, more biblical classics.
Christopher Shell blames clerical (and lay) sexual abuse on the ‘horrible sexual revolution’, but doesn’t offer one jot of evidence that the perpetrators – Smyth, Fletcher, Bell.et al – were at all influenced by the permissive ‘sixties (which I suppose is his ‘horrible sexual revolution’). Indeed, Smyth along with Mary Whitehouse was involved in combatting the ‘horrible sexual revolution’.
Once more, Christopher presents a completely unevidenced generalisation as ‘fact’. And one which is, indeed, the opposite of reality. Those men were much more the receding roar of a rather Swinburnean 19thC.
People are almost always influenced by the norms of the age they inhabit (whether influenced to emulate, to counteract, to respond creatively to…). The more so when present norms are assumed to be on a trajectory of progress towards the triumph of the right side of history.
Christopher you keep making these vast generalised statements that really don’t have much meaning beyond sounding rather grand.
You continually say that evidence is the only thing that we should base decisions on, but when asked to present evidence yourself you tend to wriggle. And several times you have said that people don’t understand the point you are making and need to ask for clarification to help their understanding rather than criticise you for not being clear. But then when I asked you why you don’t ask for clarification when you don’t understand something you responded that nothing would get done.
You seem to like one set of rules for others but don’t wish to follow them yourself and it seems rather difficult to engage you in any clarifications.
You made a statement about the cause of sexual abuse in the Church and Penny quite rightly asked you for evidence. Instead of providing any you simply resort to general waffle. Clearly you are a person of some intelligence. But on the repeated evidence of your posts here there is a lack of credibility. And it’s troubling.
Andrew
It’s very troubling because of Christopher’s constant claims to be objective and ‘evidence’ based. As i observed, men like Smyth were (like Christopher is) strongly opposed to the ‘horrible sexual revolution’, which didn’t prevent them from beating the sh*t out of boys and young men. And Christopher might notice, if he paid any attention to other comments, that I cited Swinburne deliberately.
Folks, these one to one attacks between a very small number of people is not what this blog is for, and I do not welcome it. Please take it elsewhere.
Discussion here needs both to be respectful, and engage with the issues on the basis of evidence. I have already deleted a couple of threads, and I will do so again.
Penelope
In fact it wouldn’t be hard to argue that all the well known abusers were also all known for very conservative attitudes to sexuality in public. It doesn’t take a psychologist to see that someone using sex to control people in private would also use their public office to try to control the sex lives of others
I already said that: ‘influenced…to counteract’.
And that constitutes the evidence for your claim? Please could you explain how?
Because his greatest life motivation was to counteract it. If you theorise that it was not, then there is no explanation for his:
-setting such store by Gay News trial
-setting such store by Romans in Britain trial
-setting such store by Scum trial
-setting such store by taking seriously the propensity of a sexually loose society to corrupt the young, and trying to counteract that
-setting such store by JASA [Justice Alliance], which he did not have to join or head up in SA.
However, in his case psychologically there are other things going on in parallel, to do with his own formative years. (Which is why we try to protect the young and make sure their psychosexual development is smooth and untroubled – something the SR makes nigh impossible.) Both are the case.
I am afraid that list is evidence that the man had a very unhealthy obsession to do with unreconciled emotions within himself. Not evidence that was trying to protect anybody or anything. Very troubling.
My theory (see above) is that both were true. You assert that only one was, but of what worth is an assertion? It is true (in terms of family destruction) that the SR is very harmful so it was a nobrainer to try and stem the tide.
In any case, the idea that there was no harm needing counteracting within the media/performances listed invalidates your theory from the start. The psychological dimension is always one among many, so any theory that treats it as everything is doomed.
But I didn’t ask for a theory. I asked for evidence. And as is so often the case, you don’t have any. See my comment today at 0659
You said Gay News, concern for youth morals JASSA, Scum and Romans in Britain were zero pieces of evidence. The correct count is very different.
Looking at his life, what evidence would you cite? Not his tabloid life (the selected bits that interest the papers) but his life. THe former is known to nonexperts as well, the latter to those who have studied it. Which should we prefer? And how is any of this relevant?
JASA not JASSA
I don’t think Penny should have mentioned ‘Bell’ – disd she mean Ball. The idea is that none of those named was influenced by the permissive sixties. But their main offences were directly after that, and as so often the 70s are the main culprit decade. The high water mark of the sexual revolution, appalling fallout. Those opposed to it still had to find specific ways of countering it.
But, you see, as is almost invariably the case, if we pause the clock here, we see that the amount of first hand evidence provided from your side was zero, but the proportion of times you criticised those who did provide evidence (in this case, for example, 5 pieces of it) was 100%. Which cannot remotely add up, and looks deliberate. Proper debate is: put all first hand evidence on the table and assess it without personal parti pris.
Christopher. You advanced a theory. A theory needs evidence. The fact that the man was obsessed with sex isn’t evidence, apart from that of his unhealthy mind.
I wasn’t making any claims so of course I don’t need to provide evidence.
One can, and indeed should, be obsessed with protecting the young from premature or unhealthy sexualisation, just as one protects them from anything else that is harmful.
And one can and should be obsessed with guarding their healthy and smooth development and character formation.
Most parents and teachers understand that obvious point immediately. it is not only obvious but of the highest importance. What could be more important?
Christopher
Obsessively trying to control children, especially other people’s children, is not healthy and is not going to help them grow into functional adults. Kids need a healthy balance of protection and freedom, which is the impossible task of their parents to determine, not some old creep who lives near their school
Which part of that did I and everyone else not already agree with? (And did you actually think that anyone thinks the opposite?) We were just analysing motivations and values.
I did, of course, mean Ball. Mea culpa.
But, Christopher, your rhetoric continues to be incoherent, as does what purports to be your evidence.
But, as Ian comments, this is all a long way from the CNC and he clearly doesn’t like references to the material on your TL, so I’ll leave it there.
Almost every exchange with PCD ends by asserting (in an unfootnoted manner, no less) that:
-there was no understanding (correct, but is that the fault of the writer not the reader?)
-that no evidence was cited (certainly on her side that is true; on mine there were this time 5 pieces, as twice mentioned).
Observe this pattern, as I predict it will be repeated. It is a tactic, and because it is unvarying it is a matter of malice and little else. If someone criticises 100% of the time, as opposed to from time to time, that proves it is deliberate and therefore need not detain us. The substance (evidence presented) is up for debate.
I bear you no malice. And I tried to warn you about the material you posted on X.
I am simply pointing out that you have offered no evidence of your claim that the ‘horrible sexual revolution’ was responsible for sexual and physical abuse. When that was in turn pointed out to you, you became incoherent.
A formal complaint has immediately again been made, because of vagueness, baselessness, and your misuse of the word ‘post’, presumably for ‘repost’. As before, you changed the subject with complete irrelevance in order to be scurrilous.
Begging Ian’s patience, I have no idea what you mean.