Justin Welby’s resignation as Archbishop of Canterbury is truly unprecedented. No archbishop has ever, in the history of the Church of England, resigned—not even in 1621 when the primate of all England shot and killed a gamekeeper with a crossbow while hunting. It has felt like a very strange week; when I think back to last Sunday, and preaching in a local church as a visiting speaker, it seems to be about three months ago, almost a distant memory. Such was the interest, and the number of phone calls and messages, that I ended up clearing my diary; I think I must have done about 30 interviews, but to be honest I have lost count. Perhaps the most significant were with Channel 4 News on Monday, saying why I thought Justin ought to resign; Newsnight that evening on the same question.
Reactions to this turbulent week have been equally strange in some corners. Some are still defending him, either praising the good aspects of his ministry, or even (like Charles Moore in the Spectator and Anne Atkins on Newsnight and in the Independent) saying that he should not have resigned or they did not want him to resign. [Editorial Note: Anne says in a comment below that she was careful not to say whether or not she thought Justin should resign. Her exact words on Newsnight were: ‘I would be very sad if Justin steps down…because I think it would be scapegoating…and that is inappropriate.’ I think any ordinary listener would interpret that as her not wanting Justin to resign, as I did. In the Independent the headline is ‘I wish he had not resigned’.]
I think it is a remarkable lack of judgement to praise him now, when people react so strongly not only to abuse but to those who failed to prevent abuse happening. On Radio 5 Live on Wednesday morning, Nicky Campbell was adamant that, because of abuse in the Church, he would never, ever consider engaging with the Christian faith. And the record is clear: as Aleem Maqbool, head of religion at the BBC, said on the Sunday programme last week, Justin ‘lied’ about his knowledge of Smyth in 2017, so that, even as recently as last week, Cathy Newman on Channel 4 news had to say to him ‘Archbishop, what you have said is not true.’ How can we have a church leader who is not telling the truth on such a sensitive and important issue?
The necessity of Justin’s resignation can be gauged by public reaction. I set up a petition with two other members of Synod—one a high church conservative, the other a radical liberal Labour counsellor—and it took off on Saturday afternoon, reaching 15,000 signatures by the time Justin resigned on Tuesday at 2 pm. A survey by the Telegraph had readers vote 93% in favour of his resignation. And a YouGov poll showed that, of those who had heard of him, there was a clear negative assessment of his leadership. The one thing that Justin managed to unite almost everyone on—inside and outside the Church—is that he needed to go.
The other strange reaction is the idea that this is a conspiracy by ‘conservative evangelicals’ who wanted to get rid of Justin for other reasons. That is very odd given who the sponsors of the petition actually were. Marcus Walker is a high church Conservative (politically and, in many ways, ecclesially), though during the last year he has made it public that he would like to see the blessing of same-sex relationships. Robert Thompson is an outspoken radical liberal, who has made no secret of his desire that the doctrine of marriage must change. He is also a Labour Councillor. I doubt you could find three more different people in the Church of England! In fact, a number of evangelical friends criticised me for the petition, since ‘we might end up with someone even worse next time.’ I think Glen Scrivener is spot on in his video analysis here: if we make this issue about anything other than the abuse of John Smyth, and the egregious failure to respond to knowledge of it—especially if we reach for tribalism—then we dishonour all, especially the victims, Justin resigned because of a safeguarding failure. End of.
And the variety of communication from bishops and others in response to this has been frustrating. On Wednesday morning just before 8 am on Radio 4, Stephen Cottrell was adamant that Justin’s was the only resignation that was needed; a short time later, Julie Conalty, the deputy lead for safeguarding, said that others might need to resign. I think many of Julie’s points in public comment have been helpful, but her claim that ‘The Church of England is still not a safe institution’ is both incorrect and (it seems to me) immensely damaging. The most important points about this whole episode seem to me to be:
a. This abuse was appalling—but it was not abuse in the Church of England. Smyth was not ministering in Church of England contexts, or under Church authority. To be clear about these facts does not involve minimising the seriousness of the abuse.
b. Justin was not responsible for anything around the time of the abuse. His responsibilities were from 2013 onwards, and in particular from 2017, for failing to act, failing to prevent further abuse, and failing to meet the survivors as promised.
c. There is so much good work being done on the ground, in local churches, where so much care is being taken. There is a massive disconnect between what Makin observes about failures in senior leadership, and the excellent work being done locally.
I am unclear why these messages were not front and centre of all comments from bishops.
Abuse is such an emotive and important subject that the facts of what is actually happening soon get lost. In his column this week in the Church Times, Andrew Brown does a good job of pointing out the inaccuracies and false elisions present in even some of the most prominent and (you would have thought) best informed stories during the week.
The facts were just bundled away when they held up the narrative.
And of course the other question people are already speculating about is who will succeed Justin Welby as archbishop. I have no comment to make about the possibilities—in part because it is far too early to start thinking about this, and in part because it looks increasingly like an impossible job. As someone said to me ‘I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy!’ As with the role of diocesan bishops, it feels as though the role has too many expectations of it from too many directions. (Having said that, it has been estimated that Justin has spent 30% to 40% of his time abroad, mostly on business in the Anglican Communion, and it is not clear how necessary or helpful that has been.) But the real problem going forward is that one of Justin’s main legacies has been to create a Church which is more deeply divided than ever on almost every issue.
For me, the events of the last week have made three things crystal clear.
Firstly, we need an archbishop who simply believes the doctrine of the Church of England. I am not particularly asking for another evangelical; we tried that last time and it didn’t work. All I am interested in is having someone in post who believes the doctrine of the Church, and can uphold his or her ordination vows with integrity. Early on in his tenure, Justin appeared to be someone who was orthodox in his personal convictions, but was struggling with the tensions of that pastorally and within the Church. As I look back on my conversations with him, I now realise that this was not the case. He changed his mind on the doctrine of marriage at least ten years ago, around the time of his appointment, and has since then been managing the way that has been communicated. What he said two weeks ago in his interview on The Rest is Politics is something he believed a long time ago, and this was just the first time that he has admitted it.
But this has created a kind of game of doctrinal hide and seek, and has contributed to the lack of trust, as Justin has said contradictory things at different times and in different contexts. In our next archbishop we need someone who will not and does not need to play these kinds of games. But if this person is someone who has already made clear that they don’t believe the doctrine of the Church on marriage ‘according to the teaching of our Lord’ (Canon B30) then the splits that have begun to open in the last two years will become a chasm.
Secondly, we need an archbishop who leads by consensus, rather than someone who wants to hit the headlines, make pronouncements, and divide and conquer. On every subject—race and ethnicity, sexuality, the family, guidance for schools, safeguarding—Justin has made grand pronouncements that have caused division and offence. We need instead someone who will lead by consensus—yes, with challenge and insight, but who works with, not works against, the rest of the Church. Marcus Walker puts very well in his article in The Critic that we need someone who will rebuild trust in every direction.
How do we start the long and slow process of rebuilding trust across so many divides? The first thing we need is a pastor. Somebody to love the church back to health. With love comes trust, and we need in our Archbishop a person who will be trusted to love—and that this will come across in sermons, synods, public meetings, private meetings, and how they make decisions that will affect parishioners, parishes, and priests.
Thirdly, we need someone who is true to our theology of episcopacy. Bishops are not supposed to be CEO of their diocese, the line manager of clergy, and archbishops are not supposed to be CEO of the House of Bishops or the Church. They are to be first amongst equals—but first in serving those who serve others. Jesus’ teaching on servant leadership is incompatible with people who preach from thrones and wear crowns on their heads. St Augustine, that great African theologian, once said:
For you I am a bishop—but with you I am a brother.
We need to rediscover this truth. I struggle to reconcile how our accumulated traditions of deference—having special forms of address, wearing special clothes, appear to sit at an unquestionable distance—accord with Jesus’ teaching on leadership.
But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted (Matt 23.8–12).
At a local level, we need to continue in faithful gospel ministry. Across the Church of England—and across the church in England—it is compassionate, faithful, caring, and missional evangelical congregations that are growing and drawing people to hear and receive the good news of Jesus. This work rarely hits the headlines—but it is the thing that really counts.
I was due to speak on Radio 5 Live on Wednesday, when I heard Nicky Campbell make his vow. Yet we both then spent the next 20 minutes listening to the extraordinary testimony of Su, who had been abused by an Anglican clergyman 35 years ago. And her testimony was that it was the love, grace, and mercy of God that had sustained her and enabled her to live her life, despite the trauma of the abuse. At the end of 20 minutes, Nicky even said ‘Hearing your story restores my faith in your faith.’ You can listen to the interview here starting 13.00 minutes in. Nicky makes his comment at 29.29 in. It is wonderful to listen to.
There is so much good work going on on the ground in safeguarding in local churches. We need to continue to make this a priority, so that all our churches are safe and welcoming places where all can hear the good news of Jesus. And we need to not lose heart because of these terrible headlines. ‘In this world you will have tribulation—but take heart, for I have overcome the world’ (John 16.33).
(A much shorter version of this comment was published in Evangelicals Now.)
Buy me a Coffee
I think many of Julie’s points in public comment have been helpful, but her claim that ‘The Church of England is still not a safe institution’ is both incorrect and (it seems to me) immensely damaging.
That may be your experience/perspective but in the 3 or 4 (claiming to be evangelical) churches I have belonged to, I have met various individuals who I would label abusive – even if their ‘abuse’ fell short of physical/sexual abuse. Such bullying & lacking-empathy personality types do rather well in church and in leadership. I would also go as far as to say I no longer feel safe in church but there are very opportunities on the ground to explain why that is so. The safest/easiest option at the moment is to simply give up on attending church.
I am very sorry to read that that is your experience. I too have experienced bullying and power plays in a church context, but have also found that there are many, many positive and safe communities. I do hope you are able to listen to the experience of Su, linked in the piece.
Well done Ian. Another very good piece. I took found the comments by the bishop for safeguarding very unhelpful (and untrue). In my experience, safeguarding has gone up several notches in the past 5 years alone. What I do think the church needs to beware is the weaponisation of safeguarding against its clergy. In trying to prevent more victims, the church creates more (different) victims
REPOSTING
‘I think it is a remarkable lack of judgement to praise him now, when people react so strongly not only to abuse but to those who failed to prevent abuse happening.’
I’m not sure about that. It would seem to encourage the pile-on that we have in fact seen. Or perhaps you mean ‘lack of political judgement’, whereas I am thinking about ‘moral judgement’.
He can be praised in due course, if necessary. Just not now.
Andrew Brown is quoted. I strongly suggest that the whole of his piece in this week’s Church Times is read.
Yes, it is very good on facing facts.
It makes again the point that the attitude is common ‘Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good narrative’. In Feb ’22 for some reason twitter was all over me for sending a purely factual letter, and the message seems strong: ‘Firstly, we [some in-group?] are right and you are wrong; and secondly your perspective is not even allowed to be voiced. But as for analysis, we unlike you have not done much.’
Consensus?
1 Around what?
The Arts etc…
That immediaately hits the buffers when a vow is not a vow, is whatever you make it to be.
2 Consensus management was a flavour of the month idea that was largely ineffective in industry or public service.
3 Appointment of Bishops from cohorts of industry or public service is unlikely, to result in the application of consensus management, (as at present?) which would be dependent on openess, transparency, and truth.
Well, that is a good question. I don’t see any alternative other than consensus around the doctrine of the Church.
Is there any consensus in the CoE?
I don’t see any evidence of it. Some believe the Bible, some don’t, some are Christians, many are clearly not.
I would identify two areas of consensus for the C of E (and possibly all Christians). The importance of prayer (I have never known any Christian refuse a request for prayer) and loving service (e.g very diverse churches come together for example on opening churches for homeless in winter).
On sexuality I see two options for consensus
1 conservatives accept some degree of individual belief
2 removal of all the priests and parishioners who don’t agree with conservative teaching
How can you ”believe” things when you have not studied them?
Christopher
I agree. The whole church should do serious study of homosexuality. Unfortunately they’ve already wasted a decade not doing that and if the church pauses to study again then that’s another decade of people facing abuse, discrimination and exclusion
The Nicky Campbell interview with ‘Sue’ is astounding. (Please post a link to it.) Well done for you both letting her speak at length… She’s obviously a powerful woman of God, and her testimony needed to be heard.
Linked added. It is amazing.
A Cannon in the CofE told me that in the trenches of WWI he was a captain; with one foot on the ladder, his watch on his left hand, a revolver in his right and a whistle between his teeth. He said he was always first over the top – leading by example.
St. Paul did the same. “Imitate me” said he.
Wouldn’t it be great if we were castigated by the media for doing something Christian? The problem is all of us. We don’t make waves. Let’s hope that in future the media will have so much to complain about with all of us that it won’t have time to focus on welbys any more. Welby’s Just complaint should be, “I got shot for moving about in the admin tent. You squaddies were invisible in your trenches.
But who are the squaddies – faithful and energetic laypersons, or vicars?
“Wouldn’t it be great if we were castigated by the media for doing something Christian? The problem is all of us. We don’t make waves”.
The Bible is clear that:
“The paramount need of all people everywhere is to hear, believe and obey two vital messages:
The terrible warnings to flee from God’s eternal retribution that we all face from birth onwards; and the wonderful and sincere invitations and promises to all to repent and submit to Christ in his atoning death and life-giving resurrection, and to obey him for the rest of their lives.”
If those who agree that this is the paramount need would publically proclaim that agreement the media might catigate us.
Phil Almond
The only PhD I think I have ever figured in was Damian Thompson’s, who concluded quite accurately that when it comes to the substantial leisure time that people allocate to church they would rather choose an entertaining rather than a non entertaining option. Presumably this is exacerbated in an age when even sermons are more or less expected to entertain and when politicians’ communication is comparatively dumbed down with less gravitas. For an Anglican the ‘compensation’ is that there is always something to gossip about when there are different factions within the same denomination. For some prayer-meeting goers (I do not know how many) there is always the ‘compensation’ that you will be talking about intimate matters and about people who are not present.
And then you reach the end of your life and think, how could it have been better spent?
Or just think that before you ever start.
Likewise one suspects many in the Conservative party are keen when the whole delicious leader-election thing starts again, and the subsequent allocation of jobs. It is so much more entertaining than getting down to work. Maybe that is why they make it happen every two years now. Selection is fun, whether of fantasy football teams or whatever.
The present case is different from those before because never before have prospective leaders been so unsure (a) what exactly it is that they would be leading (the unity of vision being so unclear); (b) because of the low level of corporate confidence in the movement.
Delegate the leadership of this denomination to a leader of those most representative, e.g. Nigeria or Uganda or Singapore. If you are not doing that, the combination of goodness and scholarship will always get you far. Bp Graham Tomlin already on site would be an excellent caretaker for 4.5 years till 71, not much different from Coggan’s term. Bp Paul Williams has exactly the right character. I would certainly go for the inspiring figure, just as I would have gone for Stott and Green, so Bp Ric Thorpe would be my choice longer term. Bps Bushyager and Duff are thoroughly admirable. I imagine the selection panel will be thinking along the uniting-all-factions line as usual, and may therefore consider those who have both catholic and evangelical (and, alas, LLF) form, such as Bp Perumbalath.
There is a cautionary tale that one can alywas look back and see the ones you missed who exceeded those actually picked. Both Chadwicks towered over the actual choices for the 80s and 90s.
It was said that both the Chadwicks kept a supply of stamped and pre-printed postcards for declining bishoprics! Seriously, though, they were great men but I’m not sure what sort of bishops they would have been. A retired priest friend who spent his entire active ministry in one diocese (not mine) said of one bishop under whom he served that he was the only one he’d had who’d never been a vicar, “and it showed.”
Re these great figures: bishops no, but archbishops yes. Because it is good that the real chief (in intellect, in Christianity, in influence) be the nominal chief too. And it confuses others when they are not, because they see the institution as encapsulated in the nominal head. Compare the way it would have been pointless to make Tom Wright any old bishop (nor did Williams stay long at Monmouth), but worthwhile to make him Bishop of Durham.
I particularly like Owen Chadwick’s first book ‘Victorian Miniature’ about a falling-out between a vicar and the local squire in a village just outside Norwich in the later 19th century. Both were copious diarists, hence the book.
Entirely off topic, but you’re in mine.
As well as someone who believes the doctrine of the Church of England, a few things the next ABC needs to address is to steer the CoE away from managerialism, cut the bloated bureaucracy at the top, and prioritise resources to clergy at the coalface who work faithfully at their jobs every week making sure they are decently paid, have pensions they can live on, and are properly supported by their Bishops both pastorally and in other ways.
They also need to dismantle the culture of deference.
Also, he/she needs to learn lessons from parishes and churches that are growing in numbers and are reaching their communities effectively so what is found to work can be disseminated across the nation.
These might be some first steps in arresting the decline..
Are you suggesting a strategic review? The CofE could invite a board of R.C., Pent., Bapt., to implement change …all positions up for review..including the King.
Something like that Steve, but only the CoE can change its own structures. Yet the unprecedented resignation of an ABC suggests to me that that there is never a better time than now to do it.
More funds to Parishes rather than the centre and fad schemes would certainly help
Good summary. Thanks. /Pedant on “Councillor” not “Counsellor” /Pedant off
Oh thanks. Will correct.
I agree with the qualities and giftings that you highlight as so important for the next Archbishop of Canterbury. However, I think there needs to be a recognition that the institution as it stands will never allow such a model of leadership to occur. Just as new well-meaning MPs end up being thwarted by the Westminster Bubble once they are elected, so there is an equally stifling and restrictive Lambeth Bubble. The Archbishop of Canterbury is no longer his own man. He is trapped within a bureaucratic institution that demands and requires that he operates like a CEO of a global corporation. Like Jim Hacker, he is ‘controlled’ by the Sir Humphrey Applebys of Church House and the Church Commissioners, by regulations, conventions, officialdom, administration, status and protocol. Until all of that is dismantled, demolished and removed – even, controversially, if it means no longer being in the House of Lords – then the model you and I espouse will be a pipe dream that will sadly never come to fruition. As Jesus cleared out the Temple, there needs to be a wholesale clearout of the current ecclesiastical and episcopal structures.
I agree. But as far as I can see, the current Lambeth Bubble was created by Justin himself.
Such a lot to reflect/comment on, and as ever lots that’s helpful. But here’s just a couple of thoughts on where I find myself reflecting differently:
You call Julie Conalty’s claim that ‘The Church of England is still not a safe institution’ “both incorrect and (it seems to me) immensely damaging”. But it is surely correct. I conjecture that what she is doing is avoiding the hostage to fortune that claims – ‘You said it’s OK now’, when the another abuse comes to light. As it doubtless will. Because no institution is ‘a safe institution’ if by that we mean a 100% guarantee abuse will never happen. It is surely naive to try and claim otherwise – because every human institution is made up of human beings.
You report the widely made claim that in 2017 Justin lied about what he knew of Smyth’s abuse prior to 2013. The Makin report is lengthy and maybe necessarily jumps around quite a bit at times, but I can’t anywhere find that as part of its conclusions (sections 16 seem most relevant). It clearly is a claim that’s meat and drink to journalists, and that others most affected are making – but to accuse someone of lying (ie very deliberately concealing or denying a truth they know to be the case) is a serious matter. Are you personally persuaded (on the evidence of Makin) that this is the case here? I’m not.
But yes, unprecedented as it may be, Justin surely had to resign – we live in very different times to 1621, or even 1981, when the first reports of all this began to come out. What is absolutely more clear that ever is that no-one who ‘wants’ to be Archbishop should be.
It would be good if the next Archbishop could do some theology. Is that too much to ask for from a bishop?
Martyn Percy’s analysis of what went wrong with/for Justin is an excellent read and I am certain there needs to be all kinds of trust being rebuilt before anyone is appointed.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/religion/church-of-england/68523/welby-is-gonebut-trust-in-the-church-is-broken-beyond-repair
My fear is that there are enough people around in the CofE and the Communion who think that with one last push we can turn things around.
I wonder if you have read Halik “The Afternoon of Christianity”? Great analysis of the decline of Christianity in the West. It should be required reading for anyone who thinks that the one last push scenario will work. It won’t. Either in England or the Communion.
Andrew, you know that I will always support the call for someone with theological thinking and theological integrity.
I’m all for more full-on theologians, but it’s no panacea. I would observe that in the 2000s we had Rowan Williams at Canterbury and N T Wright at Durham, and I’m not sure it was a happy time.
Martyn Percy’s piece is a fascinating read for all of us who are employed in other large organisations, because the sins of Welby are ones we will all recognise very quickly. His most important point is that we’re talking about a symptom rather than a cause of the crisis. For a long time, we seem to have thought (at least institutionally) that what we wanted from bishops was executive managers. And that is what we’ve furnished ourselves with. So Synod is a thing to get through, disagreements are managed by finding the correct lines to take, leaders are found through talent pipelines, resources are focussed on projects, straplines and mission statements are meant to inspire etc. etc..
Changing this will require all of us to re-think how this is supposed to work, and ask ourselves what we’re doing to rebuild trust. I fear that too often most of us think that trust is something broken only by other people, and therefore it’s the responsibility of other people only to do things to allow us to trust them. We don’t consider what we might do to let them trust us.
I too wanted the Archbishop to go, but not on these grounds or in these circumstances. In another of society’s periodic witch-hunts. In another media feeding-frenzy. It’s very significant that it was not Justin Welby’s abandonment of Christian teaching on marriage and holiness that brought about his resignation, but someone else’s sins from which he and the institution, it was felt, did not dissociate themselves with sufficient openness and rigour – and that, several years ago.
I have seen little of Christianity in all this talk about ‘abuse’, about ‘victims’ and ‘survivors’, as if all this were on a par with the horrors of Japan’s concentration camps. This pointing the finger at the guilty while sat in our living rooms, this indignant baying for justice, as when the righteous followers of the Law wanted a woman stoned because of her adultery.
“At the local level churches are working their socks off to make sure that safe-guarding is their priority, that the church is a safe place. If you come to my church you can find out immediately on the board who the safeguarding officer is. There’s [even] a phone number in the toilets. We’re working really hard.” Go to any church’s website and the chances are that its safeguarding procedures are prominently outlined on the home page, offering reassurance as a major selling point.
That’s not good; it’s catastrophic. The impression is now being given, across the denominations, that the Church would not be a safe place but for these measures, that predators and perverts are lurking everywhere, that the Church attracts them more than other institutions, that they are especially to be encountered at leadership level, and that these measures are the way to deal with the perceived problem.
If I were not a Christian, would I be moved to find out what Jesus Christ stood for by going to a church that gives the appearance of thinking that way?
Where is teaching on the Holy Spirit? Where is the Holy Spirit himself? The answer to sin is recognising the holiness of God our Creator and his demand that we be holy, understanding that holiness and righteousness ultimately come as a gift from him. It is only his Spirit that can make us holy.
Where is the teaching that, if one has suffered abuse, it is the Holy Spirit that most effectively heals and makes whole again? That the challenge for the victim – hard though it is – is to forgive, remembering the example of Christ when he was ‘abused’, and believing that he offers water which both cleanses and refreshes? Instead we get the message that if you have been abused, you are a victim and you will never recover. Even Mark Stibbe – former vicar of a church that claimed to have rediscovered a Spirit-empowered, New Testament model of church – says, “The trauma stays with you. My fellow survivors have had years and years of counselling, yet we’re still suffering.” The whole Church has been implicitly assenting to this message the past few weeks.
The greatest danger of all – both for Christians and society at large – is self-righteousness, thinking that our ability to see other people’s faults, and readiness to denounce them, is itself a mark of the righteous life. With or without safeguarding procedures, the danger of being seriously abused as a consequence of joining a church, least of all a fellowship whose average age is 70, is by contrast minimal. There are many threats to Christian spiritual well-being and maturity and the cause of the gospel in the modern world, but ‘abuse’ is not one of them; the overblown concern over ‘safety’ and ‘safeguarding’, learned from a world that does not know Christ, is.
Couldn’t agree more. Very well said.
That the challenge for the victim – hard though it is – is to forgive, remembering the example of Christ when he was ‘abused’, and believing that he offers water which both cleanses and refreshes? Instead we get the message that if you have been abused, you are a victim and you will never recover.
There isn’t enough emphasis of the manipulative nature of abusers. Smyth and others like him would be the first people to press for forgiveness as they perform holiness. They are shameless in their exploitation of the faith (see 1 Corinthians 13:1). They would love to see those they exploit to remain in a state of self-criticism.
SR
It’s not a witch hunt when there’s a genuine witch.
Welby was wrong to all but ignore Smyths abuse. He was wrong to ignore the victims and he was wrong to lie to the media about it.
He’s not the only witch. But you can’t have a national church lead by an unrepentant liar – it’s just farce.
I too couldn’t agree more. Very well said.
Beating people so hard they bleed and have to be given adult nappies to hide the injuries, to pick one example, is horrendous abuse. The inference that anything short of an actual war crime isn’t a big deal is nauseating.
To see the spiritual challenge when a case of abuse is revealed as being entirely about getting a victim to forgive their abuser reveals a callous disregard for the safety of others.
You haven’t been listening at all. James 1 has rarely seemed more relevant.
Andrew,
Could you briefly summarise Halik’s analysis please ? What does he think will happen in the end?
Great question Chris.
He thinks that the institutional Church will collapse and that religion will become a thing of small groups. Base communities perhaps, though he doesn’t use that term.
Here are a couple of quotations that might help
“I am convinced that the future of Christianity will depend primarily on the extent to which Christians relate to the spiritual seekers among the Nones. What should that relationship consist in? I would strongly caution against proselytism, against a simple apologetic and missionary approach – against trying to squeeze these people into the existing institutional and mental boundaries of the church. Rather, these boundaries need to be crossed and opened up.”
“ It is not very realistic to expect most Nones to find a permanent home within the current mental and institutional borders of the church. However, centres of open Christianity, especially those devoted to courses in meditation, can expand the borders. The most valuable service to the credibility and vitality of the faith will probably be rendered by those Christians who have the courage to go beyond the present mental and institutional boundaries of the traditional churches, and following the example of St Paul, succeed in being all things to all people and out as seekers with seekers onto new paths.”
Andrew,
Many thanks for your reply. I think certainly some kind of fragmentation and restructuring of Christianity in Britain will occur, but as Ian points out below, Christianity is very much alive and well in other churches and christian networks both Anglican and non-Anglican.
While not being a great fan of BBC ‘Songs of Praise’ I note that the programme used to be exclusively Anglican in nature, but now regularly broadcasts from other, non-Anglican churches which seem very vibrant and alive and reaching their communities with some very impressive testimonies to the power of God in individual lives. So there is good evidence that the church is definitely growing in some areas.
I think what I was interested to know is what specifically the future of the CoE is likely to be. With the unprecedented resignation of the ABC, I think that a new ABC and the CoE in general, now has a unique opportunity to reform itself if it takes the right decisions by focusing it resources firmly at parish level, getting rid of managerialism and unnecessary administrative roles at the top, and learning from churches that have been successful in their local communities and are growing.
I still think there is hope for the CoE in terms of growth and although I am a Baptist and we are slowly declining as well (although our church has grown), I would not wish to see its demise.
Yet I sense from other comments you have made elsewhere, that you feel more or less done with the CoE having being part of it for a considerable period of your life and rather despondent about its future. Am I correct?
I have found this book
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Church-after-Christendom-Stuart-Murray/dp/1842272926
helpful in seeing what the future might look like. Stuart Murray is a Baptist but he is not speaking exclusively from a Baptist perspective but from a global one as Christendom pertains to the UK and how it all may pan out.
Chris thanks for your reply. Yes. I read Stuart’s book not long after it came out.
I think we are in a dreadful mess and I have no confidence that things will turn around unless there is a root and branch reform. That’s why I think Martyn Percy’s analysis is spot on. And see AJ Bell’s excellent comment in response to that just up the page.
I do commend the Halik book because you need to read all of it to get at what he is saying and why the ‘one last push’ approach just isn’t going to work in the West. He is writing from a RC perspective but also as a theologian, and we simply haven’t had enough theology in the CofE over the last 12 years.
Of course I don’t share Ian’s fear about human sexuality and think that’s entirely a red herring. The CofE is in very serious demise and has been for the last several decades. This has nothing to do with liberalism. And whilst some conservative and hard line churches are growing that is by no means true of all. And if all it took was that to grow the church then there is enough of that kind of Christian religion around in this country to ensure that the church should be growing exponentially and it just is not doing so. That is not the answer.
Three things attract new believers to churches. One is holiness. One is sufficient humanity to be grounded. And one is humility. All that adds up to enough integrity and a lack of hypocrisy. It’s simply being Christlike. Those things are necessary in leaders and people alike. And there is not enough of that to grow the church. And there is enough of the opposite of all of that to cause its demise. Nothing to do with attitudes to same sex relationships or women in ministry or any other cause over which we have become so fixated over the last decades.
And of course the safeguarding scandal is because of a lack of holiness, a lack of true humanity and a lack of humility. And they add up to a complete lack of integrity and a very hypocritical organisation. And that empties churches.
I want to offer one more quote from Halik.
“Christ came not to offer a doctrine, but a journey on which we continually learn to transform our humanity, a way of being human, including all our relationships, to ourselves, and others, to society, to nature, and to God. This is his teaching – not a doctrine or theory, or teaching about something, but a process of learning, of learning something. This is Jesus’ educational and therapeutic practice. His new teaching is teaching with authority, and this authority lies in the ability to transform a person, to change their motives and goals, their fundamental orientation in life. Jesus is a teacher of life rather than a rabbi or a philosopher or simply a moral teacher. The faith he teaches, this existential response to the call to conversion, is participation in the ever ongoing event of the resurrection.”
Thanks for your gracious reply though Chris. You are the very model of a modern ..commenter!
Why not follow the example of Christ? humble, loving servanthood, self-giving and loving of one’s neighbour? Where Christ leads…to the Cross where God is glorified and through to new resurrection life.
Here s what ne evangelical thinks the church should be, although he supports evangelical Anglicans.
https://church14-26.org/
Chris, I think that the problem with this analysis is that it leans too much on the decline of the historic denominations, and pays no attention to what is actually happening in England.
The church overall is not in decline. Smaller and newer networks and denominations are growing. Come and visit some around me.
Average adult Sunday attendance:
2013: 720,900
2014: 711,200
2015: 698,000
2016: 671,500
2017: 652,700
2018: 634,900
2019: 613,100
2020: churches mostly closed for safeguarding reasons
2021: 447,000
2022: 477,000
2023: 501,000 (estimated)
Have you read the book Ian?
This may be case in the micro. But it is simply wrong overall, and it does us all no favours to pretend otherwise. Clive Field’s statistical case is unanswerable. The efforts up to the present have failed in two ways; they have not stemmed the haemorrhage in national terms, and secondly, by focusing on special projects they have allowed a neglect of the superstructure of parochial Anglicanism. It is time for a rethink.
Jeremy may I thank you for, and draw attention here, to your expert analysis of what Iwerne was and how it has influenced leadership in the CofE. It can be read here:
https://jeremypemberton.uk/2024/11/15/iwerne-the-anglican-trojan-horse/
It should be required reading for any who have an interest in appointing the next Archbishop. Especially important is your final sentence.
“It will be our folly if we don’t see what has been done, and fight to recover the breadth of the Church of England, and its traditions, and its social and cultural engagement, so that, even if much diminished, we can again be a church for the nation, and not an incomprehensible and morally suspect oddity.”
Thank you once again.
This is the best reflection on Smyth and Iwerne.
It hits the nail on its theological and ecclesial head.
Until this toxicity is addressed, there is no hope for independent safeguarding and no healthy future for the CoE.
Chris,
As summarised doesvthis thesis not open the way to
1 false teaching
2 sects
3 the ’emerging church’ may be an example,
as discussed by DA Carson, here:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/whats-emerging-in-the-church-postmodernity-the-emergent-church-and-the-reformation/
4 there is no common agreed overaching doctrines of belief for accountability and unity in worship and purpose.
Correction.
The article is by Jeffrey K Jue, not D. A. Carson.
Although I was in favour of Justin Welby leaving his post, and was not especially a Boris Johnson supporter, I note once again the pattern of media-controlled build up of steam that inexorably leads to resignation on the basis of momentum alone.
What it reminded me of was the killing of Simon in Lord of the Flies.
The mob first does the deed, and only later pauses to ask – I wonder whether or not we did the right thing. For sure, plenty of key dimensions were left unconsidered, and narratives were more important than detailed knowledge of facts. In cases where there are only 2 possible outcomes, they may well indeed have done the right thing 50% of the time. But it was not the mob mentality that made this so.
Further, the media is very keen to establish that they are above the church in the pecking order. Or in Cathy Newman’s case, that feminism is above the church, and that all things being equal the church is usually wrong. (A hidden LGBT-advancement agenda is sometimes the real and deeper reason for all this.) Justin Welby’s reign has been sometimes characterised by ceding of authority to secular bodies. But if there are no wise people within the church, why has anyone joined it? And what on earth is wise about the secular world whose record on marriage and family life is so appalling, and so much worse than the Christian record? If there are moves to appoint compliant and mea-culpa individuals (though proper Chirstian humility is essential) they should be resisted. They are serving a secular-dominance agenda.
Depends, some parts of the media were loyal to Boris, especially in the Sun and Mail and even Welby had some journalists behind him to the end like Charles Moore and Anne Atkins
I suppose Atkins had to be as she admitted herself she knew what Smyth was doing and also failed to report it.
Christopher
The ABC *ought* to be more moral than a secular journalist.
If ch4 had looked the other way too then none of this terrible abuse would have become public knowledge.
Honestly the current CofE is less moral than secular society and that’s why it needs repentance, not arrogance
I know we are not Anglican here at Vintage, but David Mitchell and I were wondering what it would take for you to receive appointment to the Archbishop-ship …
More than a miracle!
Ian, thank you for an excellent blog and always seeking in public to speak the truth and refute error. I thank God for you. Always informative, helpful and gracious. Perhaps you should be a bishop or …???
I was once asked to give a talk to fellow clergy about what we should expect in a Bishop and Archbishop. I dont know what they were expecting but it really was a straightforward talk. See below. So find anyone, please anyone … who can answer these questions (the meaning as originally intended) and who, with the support and prayers of all faithful Anglicans, will speak the truth of God’s Word incarnate and written and refute error and live faithfully … as an Archbishop should! We have a wonderful scriptural liturgy. Our forebears really knew what they were doing, perhaps because they knew their Bibles better and believed them more than us?? So we read and reflect on Acts 20, John 21, 1 Timothy 3, John 21, Matthew 28 …
Archbishop, Are you persuaded that you are truly called to this ministry, according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the order of the Church of England?
Answer I am.
Are you persuaded that the holy Scriptures contain all doctrine that is necessary for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ? And are you determined to teach the people committed to your charge from those Scriptures, and to teach nothing as required or necessary for eternal salvation except that which you are persuaded can be proved by the Scripture?
I am persuaded and determined, by God’s grace.
Will you faithfully study the holy Scriptures and call on God in prayer for the true understanding of them, so that you will be able to teach and encourage with wholesome doctrine and withstand and correct those who contradict it?
I will, with the Lord’s help.
Are you ready to banish and drive away all wrong and strange doctrine that is contrary to God’s Word and will you both in public and private urge and encourage others to do the same?
I will, with the Lord’s help.
Will you turn away from all ungodly and selfish desires and live a righteous and godly life so that by your example the adversary may be put to shame and have nothing to say against you?
I will, with the Lord’s help.
Will you maintain and promote to the best of your ability quietness, peace, and love among all people and will you correct and discipline, according to the authority of God’s Word, the disorderly and disobedient within your charge?
I will, with the Lord’s help.
Will you be faithful in ordaining, commissioning and laying hands on others?
I will, with the Lord’s help.
Will you be gentle and merciful for Christ’s sake to the poor, needy, and all strangers in need of help?
I will, with the Lord’s help.
There … it really is that straightforward and that difficult but the Lord will help. The Lord reigns and He will build His Church. Grace and peace to everyone.
Bob Marsden
(Recently retired from stipendiary ministry after 25 years helping to lead a C of E church and waiting to take a PTO from any bishop who is not an unrepentant false teacher).
The recent failures of two dioceses to appoint a new bishop do not bode well for what may happen with Canterbury.
Richard, it really doesn’t! Unless the majority take my comments above seriously, there is a real danger that the CNC could have no common ground at all.
Ironically, Ian, the three of you who organized the petition epitomize that lack of common ground when it comes to what sort of person should replace Justin. Maybe you should reflect on that together.
Clearly any new Archbishop will have to help sort out the mess that is LLF, and there is a danger that ‘conservatives’ will try to block the appointment of anyone who they don’t consider ‘orthodox’ on matters of human sexuality as seems to have in the two cases you identify Richard. And the majority of the HofB is in favour of a more progressive approach. It will make much more sense for GS to find a way forward before any new appointment is made so that a new Archbishop isn’t bogged down immediately by a single issue.
But I’m not hopeful.
It’s an intrinsic mess, as we have always said. It is squaring the circle. It is trying to marry incommensurable systems. 2 Cor 6.15. As such it is a stupendous waste of time and money, diverting both from crucial causes. Screwtape would have been proud of such handiwork, and probably actually is. So I issue a bet. If LLF is actually sorted at some point by 2050, I will send you £200 – provided you send me the same if it is not.
Any new Archbishop will find himself on the horns of a multi-lemma, and it won’t be comfortable. But one of those horns he should not be on – the horn of the CofE being a national/established church. He should not be on that horn because it is not how the NT teaches that the Church should be related to the surrounding world. And a lot of the other horns of the multi-lemma will be far easier to deal with if that one is removed and with it the pressures of feeling a need to conform to the world.
Stephen, are you assuming the next Archbishop must be male, or are you using “he” in the old-fashioned sense to include male and female?
Richard
Being a bit old-fashioned I guess; but perhaps at the back of my mind something I’ve said in the past about th RC priesthood, that you should get your concept of priesthood right before making lots of women ‘priests’ in an unbiblical sense. As I’ve pointed out a few times in the past, the NT doesn’t know of ‘bishops’ in the RC/Orthodox/Anglican sense, only of episkopoi synonymous with presbyteroi , a somewhat different thing…. The title ‘Archbishop’ is I believe 5th Century though the imperial church did have ‘metropolitans’ who were similar….
James the Lord’s brother was a bit like an archbishop. In the NT he never actually has a title of office (later he was considered first bishop of Jerusalem). In Acts 15 it is taken for granted that he should preside over the “apostolic council”, and his guidance brings about the consensus he expresses in the apostolic decree.
Richard –
James was it appears an ‘Apostle’ in that the risen Jesus appeared to him and presumably effectively commissioned him to be a leader in the early church.
Richard
It will have to be a “he” because those who don’t agree with women’s ministry have been promised protection from it and because the majority of the communion won’t accept a female ABC
Of course he should be otherwise there is no real point to the C of E existing. The Anglo Catholics may as well go back to being Roman Catholic and the evangelicals become Baptist or Pentecostal. Being established church also ensures all Parishioners who want one can have a wedding or funeral in their local Parish church.
Beware too, the few who remain in non established Anglican churches do so mainly because it allows same sex marriages as in Scotland and the US or at least blessings and has women priests and bishops. Otherwise non established Anglican churches are largely high church Catholic even with incense
T1 – as the NT does not teach ‘establishment’ or earthly kings as ‘supreme governors’ of GOD’s Church, there was never any real point in the CofE as we know it existing. Such national churches did howver – unintentionally – create a space in which it was harder to persecute the really biblical Christians such as the Mennonites, so that such views could flourish more freely than when there was an undivided RC church in the west. As ever, God makes even human folly work for good….
That is an uber evangelical interpretation of the Bible, if you really believed that you should never have been in the C of E in the first place and thankfully you aren’t now but a Baptist. Most Anglicans however believe they are in a church of apostolic succession with its Bishops directly descended from St Peter as first Pope but also a Catholic and Reformed church hence headed by the King not the Pope now.
As you also correctly point out being the established church allows space for Catholics, Evangelicals, Anabaptists etc to share the same denomination who otherwise would not
t1, you just spoke about interpretation of the Bible. Which ‘interpretation of the Bible’ is able to claim
(1) that the Bible mentions popes?
(2) that it calls Peter a pope?
(3) that it mentions catholics?
(4) that it mentions evangelicals?
(5) that it mentions baptists or anabaptists?
(6) that it mentions anglicans?
Do you understand what the word ‘interpretation’ means? One thing it does not mean is pretending concepts that appear nowhere in a 1200 page text are not only in that text but are primary. You know perfectly well that is not true. You elevate tradition above everything, and well above Jesus. That is not a serious view.
I think given the reason for Welby’s resignation the best choice for his successor would be a woman. Maybe the Bishop of Chelmsford or Newcastle. I cannot think of any female priest or Bishop who has been involved in any C of E sexual abuse case over the last few decades
Chelmsford, yes, but Newcastle? When she was so prominent in calling for Justin’s resignation? That doesn’t look right to me.
How is child abuse to be defined? Does it include support, past or present or future, for Tavistock methods? And/or a renunciation of the Cass Report?
Are there any Bishops so minded?
Well, those things are certainly one kind of abuse, and a serious one at that.
I can’t see it being a woman because that would be abandoning those who oppose women in ministry
We have expressed our opinions; however, it is the opinion of God that counts for He is “The Faithful God”
The Lord Will Be Israel’s Shepherd.
EZEK.Ch 34
1The word of the Lord came to me: 2“Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Woe to you shepherds of Israel who only take care of yourselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock? 3You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock.[feed My sheep] 4You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally. 5
So they were scattered because there was no shepherd, and when they were scattered they became food for all the wild animals. 6My sheep wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. They were scattered over the whole earth, and no one searched or looked for them.
7“ ‘Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: 8 As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, because my flock lacks a shepherd and so has been plundered and has become food for all the wild animals, and because my shepherds did not search for my flock but cared for themselves rather than for my flock, 9 therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: 10 This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against the shepherds and will hold them accountable for my flock. I will remove them from tending the flock so that the shepherds can no longer feed themselves. I will rescue my flock from their mouths, and it will no longer be food for them.
11“ ‘For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. 12As a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so will I look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness. 13
I will bring them out from the nations and gather them from the countries, and I will bring them into their own land. I will pasture them on the mountains of Israel, in the ravines and in all the settlements in the land. 14 I will tend them in a good pasture, and the mountain heights of Israel will be their grazing land. There they will lie down in good grazing land, and there they will feed in a rich pasture on the mountains of Israel. 15
I myself will tend my sheep and have them lie down, declares the Sovereign Lord. 16 I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice.
17“ ‘As for you, my flock, this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I will judge between one sheep and another, and between rams and goats. 18Is it not enough for you to feed on the good pasture? Must you also trample the rest of your pasture with your feet? Is it not enough for you to drink clear water? Must you also muddy the rest with your feet? 19Must my flock feed on what you have trampled and drink what you have muddied with your feet?
20“ ‘Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says to them: See, I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. 21Because you shove with flank and shoulder, butting all the weak sheep with your horns until you have driven them away, 22
I will save my flock, and they will no longer be plundered. I will judge between one sheep and another. 23
I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd. 24
I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David will be prince among them. I the Lord have spoken.
if we make this issue about anything other than the abuse of John Smyth, and the egregious failure to respond to knowledge of it—especially if we reach for tribalism—then we dishonour all, especially the victims, Justin resigned because of a safeguarding failure.
Quite true, but it is not improper to be relieved for other reasons – some of which you mention, Ian.
This essay has been referred to on Twitter by the author of the late Archbishop Cranmer blog:
https://x.com/Adrian_Hilton/status/1857485837228765476
Justin Welby resigned because he had lost the support of the people that count: true to the manner of his period in office, it was a political rather than a moral decision to step down. Justin always was tough as old boots, but he knew that support or the lack of it would decide his future. Once he’d lost it, the game was over.
As I have noticed it, even the most basic details about John Smyth and the Iwerne/Titus cover up were not conveyed accurately in the public square. And I have heard not the slightest questioning about why it was that privileged, intelligent schoolboys would freely walk, time and again, to someone’s garden shed in order to receive the thrashing of their lives in the most degrading of circumstances for no reason save a wicked perversion of biblical teaching. And what strange inhibitions would prevent an unrevealed majority of the parents who came to know about what was happening to their sons from heading down to their local police stations in fury? You would think the apparent class-based or Christianity based oddness of all this would prompt the media at least to dig into the facts a bit further if only for the sake of a good, salacious story. Perhaps someone will investigate it more seriously in the coming weeks or months.
Both as an individual and in regard to the office he held, Justin exemplified membership of the English establishment. The loyalties required of those who wish to remain within that particular group today broadly mean espousing whatever the metropolitan liberal position is on any issue – politically and socially. Justin fulfilled that role almost perfectly except for the one issue where the rock of his instinct for reputation preservation came up against the hard place of safeguarding. He made the wrong call – or perhaps either call was always going to require his resignation. From time to time an establishment’s survival requires that one man lay down his membership for the sake of the establishment as a whole; accepting that is part of the membership deal – it’s just bad luck for Justin that his name came up on this occasion!
I’m sorry that these thoughts will look pretty cynical but there’s no avoiding them if we want to face the hard reality involved with finding Justin’s replacement. England today is a nation in deep moral crisis and (not least if we pursue ‘Net Zero’ to its ultimate conclusion) facing serious economic decline. There’s the clearest example in the way we are bringing up our children to become soulless supplicants to an atheistic state machine, taught to fear everything in the world around them, confused about the most basic facts of biological life, unable to look to the future with hope and excitement, rarely if ever hearing of a God who loves them and will see them through life’s ups and downs. Frankly, they face a miserable, tightly controlled future, hedged about with dystopian rules and relentless intrusion into their lives: health and medical mandates, control of their money, synthetic food, travel restrictions, dense housing arrangements, restrictions on free speech and access to information. What spiritually alive and morally upright nation would be drifting along this desperate path with the complacency and even active support that now prevails here in England?
In all honesty, how can any Christian church sit happily within a national establishment that is orchestrating these things because it has become fiercely antagonistic to everything that pertains to Christianity? And how can the rest of the Anglican Communion accept the leadership of anyone appointed to the see of Canterbury in such a nation as England 2024/25? I think Justin’s resignation signifies much more than the book end to his own career. I cannot see any good coming from acting out a ‘business as usual’ charade of picking a name from the hat for whoever will presumably head up a continuation of this farce: a Christian church tightly bound within an atheist establishment. To say that the problem was all Justin and his management style, and that now he’s gone normal service can resume if only we pick the right name, is delusional.
My only caveat would be that our great God can see off the English establishment without blinking an eye – if he were to choose to do it. Of course it’s a cliché but I think many of us sense we’re at a pivotal moment here. Genuinely faithful people, whatever our theological differences, need to come together and pray for repentance and renewal across the whole church – and also across our nation’s leadership – before any appointment is even discussed. We need people (quite possibly from the clergy and laity rather than the bishops) to lead such a movement and they need to act very fast. Things cannot continue as Justin has left them. It’s time for radical action – the kind that is special to God’s people alone.
Fantastic summary. Thanks.
And I have heard not the slightest questioning about why it was that privileged, intelligent schoolboys would freely walk, time and again, to someone’s garden shed in order to receive the thrashing of their lives in the most degrading of circumstances for no reason save a wicked perversion of biblical teaching.
A predator will test the boundaries of a 1000 potential victims before focusing on the few who will not put up any defences. There will have been some boys who communicated “Hell no!” at the slightest infraction and Smyth would have left those ones well alone.
Indeed.
That is the England of the Starmer establishement. Yet that is nowhere near a majority of the population overall, indeed Labour only got 33% of the vote in July. The Badenoch Tories were even ahead on the last poll with Reform on 19%.
Now England isn’t ever going to be massively Christian (the most Christian places in the world are now southern Africa, the Bible belt US and Latin America, the Phillippines and a few nations in Southern and Eastern Europe like Poland and Greece). Even 100 years ago most of the English population did not go to church every Sunday even if they went at Christmas and Easter and for weddings and funerals (and most don’t even do that now). However they would broadly accept a form of liberal Christianity that doesn’t hate gays and lesbians, doesn’t try and ban abortion but still supports the family, has a presence in its Parishes and supports food banks and community events and maintains its historic churches and cathedrals. They certainly don’t want Sharia law either. That can be a counterpart to the atheist net zero worshipping big state woke urban focused Starmer and his vision for Britain
No evangelical Christian hates gays and lesbians. Loving them does not necessarily mean treating them exactly as they demand.
“No evangelical Christian hates gays and lesbians.”
Really? None? My experience has proved the contrary. You can always, of course, employ the “No true Scotsman” argument and say “Well, such people aren’t genuine evangelical Christians.”
Of course you are right.
But the point that Anton is making is that following the teaching of Jesus, that marriage is between one man and one woman, is not of itself an expression of hatred.
We are called to love one another, and sometime part of that is saying true things that people find difficult.
Suggesting that is the answer however, although not an expression of hatred, is an expression of indifference and disinterest.
William Fisher – Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. Ian Paul indicated that he would like me to desist from commenting here (my view on ‘speaking in tongues’ and the way I express it – which I absolutely point blank refuse to back down on – I believe that it is from the devil) and therefore I will – but I’ll try to bear on his good will for one last comment before I go.
Some of the comments from the ‘conservative evangelical’ side on sexuality leave me feeling somewhat unwell – basically because their tone does not seem to take into account John 3:16. Someone who believes ‘in Him’ and has put their trust in Christ is in the number of the Saviour’s family – and this has to be taken very seriously, no matter what their besetting sins may be. If God has welcomed someone who has ‘asked’ ‘sought’ and ‘knocked’, this has to be taken very seriously.
I do agree with the ‘conservative evangelicals’ on what is sin, that sin is exceedingly sinful, that sin should be forsaken because it is displeasing to God. I’m not remotely interested in those who try telling us that things that Holy Scripture tells us are sinful are somehow no longer ‘exceedingly sinful’ or that somehow God has changed his mind. I see lots of meticulous bible studies on this site, indicating the teachings of Jesus on the right way to live – and in this they are right! But they do not then go on to point out the completely obvious fact that, even when we come to Jesus, the standard presented is far too high and far too hard for anyone to achieve; we are still steeped in sin and we still fall well short of the glory of God (c/f ‘love your neighbour’, where it really is impossible to reach the Divine standard).
There are people (like me) who have absolutely no inclination towards sexual sin – we simply don’t understand the attraction of it or why anyone would want to do it – but we sin in other ways that may well be much worse. We have gay people posting here who inform us that it is absolutely impossible for them to avoid sexual sin. I’m inclined to believe them and I don’t really feel inclined to criticise anybody if I haven’t walked a mile in their shoes.
Jesus had to die precisely because the ‘teaching of Jesus’ is too high and too hard for us; ultimately we are all sinners – Jesus had to die precisely because we cannot overcome the sinful nature in this life. And if somebody professes faith in Him, that His death was for that person’s sin; that His resurrection was for that person’s forgiveness, that has to be taken very seriously.
On the subject of archbishop – I really have no idea what archbishops, bishops are supposed to be for – the ‘non conformist’ groups that I belonged to in times past (when I lived in countries that had them) didn’t have such things – so I can’t contribute to that discussion.
Ian
So where is this love?
Very few gay people are even tolerated in the evangelical church and most of them are in the old boys club.
Anton
In the campbell/Stewart interview Welby said that there must always be a place in the church for Christians who want gay people put to death. I’d argue its hard to say you don’t hate someone if you want them dead.
I’ve experienced a lot of hatred from British evangelical Christians. Go to any Pride event and they are there protesting. Here in the States it is even worse – we are all “groomers”!
Now sure you can say that they are not following Christs teaching – I totally agree! – but its not really honest to say these are not evangelical Christians, even if they are badly advised!
Did God hate the people for whom he ordained capital punishment in Mosaic law?
Peter I think you will find that Anton is one of those who thinks that capital punishment is the right approach for homosexual activity.
To be clear, I have never stated anything like that here, and I would not enact capital punishment for homosexual acts if I were dictator. (I’d do it for murder only, and because of Genesis 9 not Moses.) God himself asked the Israelites if they wanted Mosaic Law or not, and there is no appetite for this punishment in today’s West.
Was God wrong to propose this particular law of Moses?
Anton
No, God was not “wrong” to give the Israelites the Mosaic law. I just think you are interpretating it wrongly!
You cat live your neighbor and wish them dead. Many evangelicals (and not just evangelicals), I’d say the vast majority of evangelicals here in the States, show no love at all to gay people
You also confuse the political and the personal. It is not a contradiction to be deeply against a particular group defined by its beliefs, yet still love its members whom you know personally. Ask anybody who has ever fought in a civil war.
Do you think Putin is showing love to Ukraine? Love is more than a secret feeling. It has to be shown in actions or it isn’t love. If you don’t want gay people to exist/be alive then you cannot claim to love gay people
Yes, deeply wise. Regarding para 2, you articulate thoughts that have occurred to me, without my properly focusing on them. My answer would be that the power of taboo is not to be underestimated. We see that power in the way society unquestioningly accepted the wisdom of locking down the whole of society for extended, multiple periods. Her Majesty’s Opposition, the BBC, the newspapers and the Church were all complicit, and even now there is strong reluctance to face up to the folly and the relentless suppression of dissenting voices. It is likewise taboo to question the covid vaccines. The number of people aged 16-24 who are longterm sick has rocketed since 2021, yet the one possibility journalists and politicians will not allow themselves to consider is that the mRNA-manipulating ‘vaccines’ are the cause, despite overwhelming scientific evidence of their particular harms. Only yesterday I was reading an article (by Steve Kirsch) pointing out data in a Nature paper from 2022 that showed IgA antibodies plunging to almost zero by 3 months after the first dose and to immeasurable 2-4 weeks after the second. In the paper itself the finding was ignored – by the authors, by the reviewers, by the editors. Scientists don’t see what they don’t want to see. Human beings are like sheep, the Bible says – they are timid, ruled by fear, and instinctively take their cue from the shepherds and sheepdogs above them.
I have just finished listening to Gavin Ashenden and co giving their Catholic take on the crisis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN1bplXraQI
Quite interesting. You say ‘From time to time an establishment’s survival requires that one man lay down his membership for the sake of the establishment as a whole’, and GA makes a similar point, only more positively, seeing it as a matter of honour and self-sacrifice.
Yes, as you observe, society is collapsing, and the Church is part of the problem rather than standing against the collapse.
I see no prospect of God sovereignly saving the Church of England from itself. Like Jeremiah’s loincloth, the institution is rotten beyond the point of recovery. GA puts it this way:
“The problem is, the moment you give in to feminism, everything else follows. … They [the Anglicans] haven’t realised yet that we’re in a spiritual struggle that is being expressed in a particular way and feminism is the root source poison. … [According to St Paul] any movement towards idolatry produces sexual dysfunctionality, and homosexuality is the prime response to idolatry in Church and culture. In other words, homosexuality is a symptom of the disorder, it is not the disorder itself.”
The disorder has infected every organ of the institution and also a majority of the laity, and there’s no going back. There is a spiritual war going on, and we, floundering in our folly, are ill equipped to fight it. The possibility of a female archbishop has been mooted on these pages. That might accelerate the decline, but otherwise it would now make little difference; we’re already there. I don’t think the other denominations are in a better place. We have come to the end of the road, and only fire from heaven will purify the body. The Lord says,
“I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I am going to spew you out of my mouth. For you say, I am rich, I have become rich and need nothing, and do not realise that you are wretched, and pitiable, and poor, and blind, and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may become rich, and white garments, so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness not be apparent, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see. Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline. Be zealous therefore, and repent.”
Homosexuality as symptom rather than cause is argued by Rosaria Butterfield in her autobiography, and she knows a thing or two about it.
The church in Britain is going to be refined by persecution. How badly she needs it! Weep for the nation, not the church. Why did feminism rise? Availability of the pill to single women is the greatest factor. It enabled them to behave as badly as single men, and as it takes two to tango, trouble lay ahead.
One thing that Pilavachi, Bell and Smyth all had in common was they were all male, as are the recently resigned Archbishop of Canterbury and the current Archbishop of York. A female Archbishop would be a very good thing and show the C of E is moving on and really will take safeguarding seriously
One thing that Pilavachi, Ball and Smyth all had in common was they were all male, as are the recently resigned Archbishop of Canterbury and the current Archbishop of York. A female Archbishop would be a very good thing and show the C of E is moving on and really will take safeguarding seriously
Apart from Paul’s verse (in 1 Tim 3) stating that the espiskopos should be a man of one woman.
In fact, anyone male should be viewed with suspicion from now on.
Which is not relevant to the C of E given Synod voted by 2/3 majority for female Bishops over a decade ago. If you feel that strongly about what Paul said you would have crossed the Tiber or gone Orthodox long ago. Jesus of course never opposed female Bishops and indeed used Mary Magdalene
Synod clearly outranks St Paul
Interesting. Do the majority of Anglicans support the notion of women Bishops and Priests ? If they do, then there is no reason why the next Archbishop of Canterbury shouldn’t be a woman.
Welcome Cressida, how’s your cat? (Mine is fine!)
Indeed they do, given Synod has already voted by 2/3 majority for women priests and women Bishops
Christopher
No, but when multiple people come forward with allegations against a “sound” ministry leader the church must not hide it all under the carpet or give said leader an award.
“There is a spiritual war going on, and we, floundering in our folly, are ill equipped to fight it. “
So Steven please tell us what happened to your prediction that the end of everything was coming on the ‘day of trumpets’ in Sept 2023? Why should we believe other things you posit here?
The Lord spoke to me on that point on 1 January – something that has happened only once before. As I don’t think you have a serious interest in the question, I’ll leave it at that.
I have a very serious interest in your answer Steven. Please continue and explain what happened? Many thanks
Since you wrote a whole book about the end times Steven, it would be good to know what God did say to you and how you know it was him saying it. By what means did he communicate?
Spot on, Don.
Don
Predators use shame to make their victims feel that they cannot tell anyone. Remember also that Smyth was selling his abuse as holiness, which presumably the victims believed at least slightly
One practical question about the appointment of the next ABC is who might sit on the nominations panel. At present, one central member of the CNC and possible contender to sit on the panel is Andrew Cornes, who is himself named in the Makin Report. I haven’t heard Ian calling for him to step down. I hope that is not because those he deems “sound” on the gay question are thought to be above the need for accountability.
Dexter, the reason is that I have not called for anyone specific to resign. I think we need to follow due process and receive the Makin Report properly. I don’t believe that could have happened properly with Justin in post.
Ian
“The reason is that I have not called for anyone specific to resign. I think we need to follow due process and receive the Makin Report properly. I don’t believe that could have happened properly with Justin in post.”
Yes. This is the point of the titular head of an organisation falling on his sword for the ‘institution’ —which Justin Welby mentioned in his resignation statement . This should allow breathing space for the organisation to sort out what went wrong.
The mistake Justin Welby made was delaying that resignation.
Yes he did—but he was also resigning because of his ‘personal and moral responsibility’ to act.
Yes! Which clearly indicates that the subsequent investigation will find that he was indeed at fault. If there was any doubt he could have left that out of his resignation statement.
Ian,
And as you suggest such an investigation should be allowed to run its course.
I think many find it difficult to grasp how complex some large modern organisations are. Even though when I was appointed chairman of a health authority, I was also managing a geographically spread company of 1,000 employees – the health authority in comparison was mindbogglingly complex. One fellow health authority chairman described it as riding an elephant and simply to stay on it until the end of your contract could be considered an achievement.
Dear Colin
You are so right. First people say the ridiculous thing that if one person does anything wrong in your organisation the leader must be scapegoated. Then they apply this to a huge organisation where many will certainly do things wrong purely because of the size. And then no-one calls them out on this.
Colin
This is a classic cofe delaying tactic – the need for no action until after repeated investigations (there have already been several!) and then by the time they actually admit the truth all the people involved have moved on. Its disgraceful to the victims to be deliberately slow walking these things!
I’m all for due process – after all, the lack of such a thing is at the heart of the mess that is safeguarding in the C of E. But, all too often, ‘process’ is the C of E’s way of ensuring delay. That must not be allowed to happen here. As I wrote to my acting diocesan bishop, patience and trust are in short supply.
“it has been estimated that Justin has spent 30% to 40% of his time abroad”
I read somewhere that he only seemed genuinely happy when abroad, and I can see why. He lived and worked overseas before ordination and like travelling; it also got him out of England and away from the c-of-e.
What we need (imho) is
1. an ABC who is the overseer of the whole communion — and probably come from it
2. Make +Dover the Diocesan Bishop (“Ordinary”) for Canterbury
3. Make ++York the Primate of both English provinces (in fact abolish them and create one new all-England see)
4. Appoint a Diocesan Bishop (“Ordinary”) for York
Four jobs done by four different people.
The whole communion isn’t going to accept an Anglican Pope. I’m not sure any province would (including England).
That said, there is a tension between needing to have Bishops as local leaders and support to parishes, and the desire for national leadership. The current set-up encourages the idea that diocesan bishops are both, and possibly with an emphasis on the national role. At the same time the Archbishops who clearly have a considerable national profile, are also given their own dioceses.
I’ve thought for a while now that we are due a restructure. Like you, I’d take the bulk of the diocesan responsibilities away from the Archbishops. However, I’d have three: Canterbury for the nation as a whole, York looking after the north, and a new Archbishop of Winchester looking after the south. I’d then slim down the number of dioceses to 23:
Under Winchester: London, Southwark, Chelmsford, Oxford, St Albans, Norwich & St Edmunds, Rochester, Chichester, Salisbury, Exeter, Bristol & Wells, and Ely & Peterborough.
Under York: Durham, Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Hereford & Worcester, Derby & Leicester, Lincoln & Nottingham, Lichfield, and Chester
Exactly, the Archbishop of Canterbury is only a symbolic first amongst equals, he has no powers over the Anglican Communion otherwise like the Pope has over Roman Catholics worldwide
“Firstly, we need an archbishop who simply believes the doctrine of the Church of England.
Secondly, we need an archbishop who leads by consensus …. “
Let’s be clear, there is no “consensus” over the Church of England’s doctrine on marriage. This means Archbishop Welby’s replacement will be a political balancing act between the different sides in this disagreement.
With that in mind, can I ask who chooses the members of the Crown Nominations Commission?
As I understand it, this will consist of 17 members who are expected to arrive at a majority decision on who to recommend to the prime minister. There’s the Archbishop of York with one other senior bishop; 6 members of the General Synod; 3 representatives of the Canterbury Diocese; and 5 overseas members chosen from the regions of the worldwide communion. In addition, there will be a voting chair appointed by Sir Keir Starmer. In the end, the CNC will make its recommendation to the prime minister, who will convey it to the King, who then makes the appointment.
Is anyone opening a book yet? For what its worth, my money’s on a woman being nominated as Welby’s successor – a woman who doesn’t see the issue of same sex marriage as doctrinally important.
Ah, found the answer on the the Gov UK website!
The “consultation process” will be interesting.
The anomaly here is that, in view of the actual nature of the job, three representatives from Canterbury diocese is surely too many. It gives them a disproportionate influence.
The anomaly here is that, in view of the actual nature of the job, three representatives from Canterbury diocese is surely too many. It gives them a disproportionate influence.
Sorry for that repetition!!
My prediction is that there is going to be turmoil. We should not underestimate what a perilous time for the unity of the C of E we are now heading into. We could end up with a commission unable to achieve a two-thirds majority for any candidate, as has happened in the case of two recent attempts to appoint diocesan bishops. Most of us, whatever else we think about gay marriage, do not think it is an issue that should divide the church. We must hope the commission will recognise that and make an appointment accordingly. But Ian has opined that the commission will not agree on a candidate unless a majority take his view of the doctrine of marriage. Many will soon be doing all they can to get such a commission. Hardliners on the other side will do the same. That way lies turmoil and schism.
Thank you for this very wise comment Richard.
As I said earlier in this thread in response to your earlier comment, I hope GS can find some way to break the power that LLF has over the CofE so that it is not the one issue that defines the work of the CNC. There is much more important work for us to be getting on with.
Yes, and I thought the same about the ordination of women and women bishops. In all these cases all the arguments on all sides are already well made quite early in the discussion, but because people can’t agree the discussions go on absorbing so many people’s energies until at last there is some kind of recognition that we can find a way of agreeing to differ. Why not hope that the Spirit will lead us to consensus in the long run, while in the meantime we get on with all the important things, like mission? That’s what evangelicals do, cross-denominationally, about baptism.
Sounds like you don’t believe the doctrine on marriage and the expression of sexual desire is all that important and can be fudged or avoided.
I think there is a quite narrow area of disagreement about monogamous and faithful gay partnerships. Because this particular issue has preoccupied the church transgender ideology and practice has, as far as I can see, not got onto the church’s agenda at all. Did any bishop or any prominent member of GS call out the appalling abuse of young children practised by the Tavistock Clinic, which is now widely recognised? We live in a hyper-sexualised society and the church’s witness in that area of life is confined to debating gay marriage.
Richard
I’m currently somewhat involved with a young person going through ‘gender reassignment’ and have also been appalled by much of what’s going on in that area. The CofE needs inter alia to consult a serious endocrinologist to really sort out what is often mysticism in this area rather than science.
Richard, we generally have to rely on Andrea Williams and Christian Concern to fight those front line battles from which the establishment is so wrongly absent. I am very saddened indeed by what impoverished, misleading and harmful ideologies our children are being fed, and published a couple of chapters in a book co-published by Christian Concern, called What Are They Teaching The Children?
“I think there is a quite narrow area of disagreement about monogamous and faithful gay partnerships.” Could Richard elaborate? I see very little in common between those who insist that such partnerships must never happen, let alone be blessed and that LGB teens should remain virgins and in perpetual continence till the end of their days, and those who will allow for monogamous, faithful gay partnerships. The former asks gay youth to see their romantic desires as an inclination towards a grave sin that will cost them eternal life if indulged in and unrepented of, something wicked, and the latter requires them to see their desire as potentially sanctifying. I fail to see the narrowness of the disagreement.
And as for transgender ideology and practice not getting onto the church’s agenda at all, I strongly suspect it’s because the notion of ‘gender identities’ is widespread among evangelical complementarians.
Lorenzo, you are failing to understand what is meant here by narrowness. It does not mean here a thin difference between people’s positions but a concentration on one narrow area of LGBT only, meaning that other LGBT topics get less or inadequate discussion within the institution.
I think it is important, but for the time being we have to agree to differ. Looking back on church history, can we not see that Christians divided over many issues that most of us would not regard as warranting division. Dare I say that the Scottish Episcopal Church provides a model for good disagreement on this issue?
Lorenzo
The different opinions used to be described by Side A (gay people can marry and have full sexual relationships) Side B (gay people can have relationships, but only if they abstain from sex) and Side X (Gay people must become straight).
In practice there are very few genuine Side B straight people, in my experience. Because the assumption is always that gay people are having sex and even if they aren’t they might be kissing or thinking about it…
There are three sides in the cofe – those who want a local arrangement, those who want no change and those who want gay people and the heretics who support them thrown out of the church
Agreeing to differ’s all very well, Mr Bauckham, when the status quo costs you nothing.
I agree that SSM should not divide the church. This lack of division must be achieved by the evangelicals organising themselves to throw out the SSM advocates. The latter are heretics and God will foreclose SSM-performing churches, as we are already seeing. It is vital for the health of the CofE that Welby’s successor repudiate LLF and all that goes with it.
Christians should not seek conflict for its own sake but must never shy away from it. Paul opposed Peter to his face.
Zero chance of Welby’s successor revoking PLF given Synod voted by majority for it
Welby didn’t give a hoot for Synod when it contradicted his will. Will his successor? Equally to the point, you appear to believe that Synod is above God.
No Archbishop can override Synod on matters of doctrine and services and Welby couldn’t either. In the C of E it is Synod nobody else who interprets the Bible for the C of E and either approves or rejects how Bishops interpret the Bible
In reply to Christopher, thank you. Yes, that’s exactly what I meant by “narrow.” And I’m not only thinking of other LGBT+ issues. Heterosexual promiscuity is pretty much regarded as normal for young people in our society, and online pornography is a hugely dangerous evil.
Thanks, Richard, for your wisdom. ‘Most of us, whatever else we think about gay marriage, do not think it is an issue that should divide the church.’ ‘Looking back on church history, can we not see that Christians divided over many issues that most of us would not regard as warranting division.’ Amen to those sentiments. Issues that at one point look absolutely fundamental and non-negotiable have a strange way of looking rather minor 50 or 100 years later – e.g. the Downgrade Controversy in the Baptist Church at the time of Spurgeon. We live with massive differences on a range of more significant theological topics without dechurching each other or accusing our brothers and sisters of heresy and claiming that we have ‘no alternative’ and have to demand new structures. But the small differences you refer to re gay partnerships have become appallingly toxic and provoke massive anger. Those who defend the current understanding as a first order issue need to recognise that it isn’t so for everyone (including many evangelicals) and that they happily live with differences on other first order issues within the evangelical constituency and don’t use them as reasons to divide the church. This isn’t an argument for SSM but rather a reality check using the experience of the church so that we don’t make another appalling mistake and think this is a first order issue for everyone when it isn’t.
T1: Welby was claiming to have done just that in his interview with Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart, as documented and analysed by Andrew Goddard on this blog.
Regarding whether this is a first order issue, see
http://www.john-stevens.com/2022/12/homosexuality-bible-demands-that-we.html
I’d add that the church can be divided only if it is hierarchical. It might then divide into two rival hierarchies. But no hierarchy, no division…
Many thanks, Richard. Myself I see it as relatively obvious that it is a first order issue, and find myself thinking that if Paul had never written Rom 1 its grounding in natural law, the first commandment, and the cosmological and design arguments are exactly what my position logically would be and is. It is one of those things that affects almost everything else. I agree totally on the other scourges you mentioned.
Due process?
What will that be? And how?
Oliver Harrisson has suggested a structure. But how would any of it happen with stubborn self interests to preserve.
After reading other reports on the report, a sense that I get is that there is a class based heirarchal demographical nexus at the structural core of the CoE and as I read the many articles on the workings of Synod, its politicalisation, its lack of transparency, from the bishops, a mangement culture of ‘don’t exlain, don’t apologise’ there is an overriding sense of a nexus of the secular political methodologies.
O LORD in your judgment, have mercy. Bring it to an end, for your Name’s sake and the remnant of your disciples, as we weep with those who weep over sin.
You have humbled us all in our arrogance, our boundary-crossing sin, in all our self justification, bring to our knees in repentance. Restore O LORD the Honour of your Name. We need You and your Righteousness for our filthy rags.
As for Gospel hope ?
This Sunday we have 6 baptism/ confirmations.
Amen to your prayer Geoff.
“Oh Lord hear our cry,
make haste O Lord.”
Hi Paul,
Please kindly correct what you write about me: I have been very careful over the last week NOT to give any opinion as to whether or not ++Justin should resign.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Anne Atkins
Thanks Anne. On the programme you say ‘I would be very sad if Justin steps down…because I think it would be scapegoating…and that is inappropriate.’
I think any ordinary listener would interpret that as you not wanting Justin to resign, as I did.
I will add that qualification above in the text.
Hello Anne, I remember well your biblical stance on Thought for the Day on Radio 4 on October 10th 1996 re LGB matters, which propelled you to prominence. And the response by some Church House apparatchik called Eric Shegog who called your talk “factually inaccurate and containing basic errors.” Thankfully General Synod the month after included a question from lay member Philip Gore who found out Shegog’s salary – nearly double that of a diocesan bishop – and asked “whether there are other large amounts of money being spent to undermine specific decisions of this synod and the future stability of the church.”
Telling words. Things were better then. I wish you well.
Although the study in question (Cameron?) confused average MSM obituary death dates with average MSM life expectancy, the basic point that MSM life expectancy is far lower on average than normal is correct. So what was Shegog on about? Wishful thinking without having studied it, probably – which is a good way of summarising the ruling classes who lord it over those who have actually researched. A total disgrace on his and their part, that should always be called out every time those who can quote not a single study pontificate over those who can.
Dear Anne, you won’t remember me (you did an event for us at Balliol 1988 and met at intelligence squared at the RGS) but thank you for your refreshing contributions. You always stand out as someone who can really think for themselves to a high degree. What you say is always thought out and I quite often agree with it.
Myself I agree on the scapegoating point – it is a case of scapegoating and is therefore wrong. I believe JW should not be archbishop, but for other reasons.
Christopher Shell.
I watched your Newsnight interview when it aired. You used phrases such as ‘scapegoating’ and ‘easy target’ in relation to Welby. The whole discussion was about whether or not Welby should resign. It was obvious what you thought, in contrast to Ian Paul. There was no other reason for you to be on the discussion panel. You defended Welby and his actions.
I would suggest you rewatch the interview on BBCiplayer. Any objective viewer would conclude you did not agree that Welby should resign. If you actually thought there was in fact justification for his resignation, why not just say so? But you didnt.
It is written in the stars (as they say) that should people force Revd Cornes to stand down from CNC, his putative replacement may conceivably loosen the stalemate and let in the Bp of Chelmsford. The permutations are endless, but prayer paramount to bring clarity and a good Christian figurehead.
Which would be great, the Bishop of Chelmsford is intelligent, compassionate, pro Parish, middle of the road and has an excellent back story having escaped the Iranian revolution with her family. She would also be first female Archbishop
I think the one word to describe Justin Welbys tenure is dishonest. This is why conservatives see him as a radical liberal, because they generally believe the fairly liberal things he’s said and miss his anti liberal words and actions.
It seems to me that almost everyone wo supports LGBT equality has been calling for him to resign for years.
It’s particularly frustrating to hear various bishops describe him as essentially “taking one for the team” without recognizing his personal sin in this.
How can the church truly repent of exposing children to abuse if the senior leaders refuse to admit anyone did anything wrong?
If you’ve traveled on a bus ever you are probably aware of the “bus drivers friend”. The passenger who knows the driver and stands next to them talking despite signs saying not to do so.
It seems to me that the CofE has taken great steps to monitoring all of the passengers *except* the bus drivers friend. We’ll connected semi-ministers have been protected because they are seen as “sound” or responsible for increasing attendance, above suspicion because the bishops like them.
And I this is probably why Welby has so many ties to predators. He attracts them as a (gullible?) influential Etonian and chief bus driver.
The title of this thread is not “Let’s carry on pointlessly raking over the Smyth/Welby scandal”. No, the title is “Who will be the next Archbishop of Canterbury?” and I for one am far more interested in that. Even though I’m not Anglican, what an Archbishop of the CofE does can reflect badly on Christians in general…..
And the process for choosing the next Archbishop contains a fundamental absurdity. The chairman of the choosing committee will apparently himself be chosen by the UK’s atheist Prime Minister, to whom the committee will return its recommendations to be passed to the King as earthly ‘Supreme Governor’ of the CofE ….
Back in the day the Donatists asked the pertinent question “Quid imperatori cum ecclesiae?” which roughly translates as “Since when is the Church the Emperor’s business?”, let alone the business of a mere king of England who by constitutional convention has this job done in his name by an atheist?
The CofE needs a leader chosen by God – and that ideal is compromised by giving even that little authority to an atheist and a secular ruler. While really the whole CofE enterprise is compromised by an entanglement with the state which effectively creates a pressure of ‘serving two masters’ – and we have rather high authority for the proposition that that doesn’t work…..
The C of E does not need to be told what to do by NonConformists like you
T1
Actually no, the rest of us do not need to be told what to do by unbiblically established Anglicans like you, especially with your church’s past history of persecuting us. And as Christians we have every right to question your church’s unbiblical conduct. I’m afraid the authority of the likes of Henry VIII counts for nothing against the authority of the Bible.
I don’t tell nonconformist Baptists like you how to run your church. We may no longer penalise you in law for your nonconformist worship as we did in much of the 16th and 17th centuries but that doesn’t give you any right to interfere in Church of England affairs either
Simon,
As you say, anyone, even Baptists, can demand to be married in the Church of England, so they do have a claim on the C of E. Why is this?
They only have a right to be married in the C of E precisely as it is established church. So of course do atheists with Christian partners and Catholics residing in the Parish
James
Not everyone. Gay people cannot ask to marry in the church of England. That’s the presenting problem for a much large debate that includes inclusion, treatment of minorities and safeguarding
Hold on, T1, you rate conformity to the establishment higher than conformity to the foundations of Christianity or to Jesus?
That is a bit of a gotcha, isn’t it?
BTW – I’m also connected to an Australian Anglican FB page which recently informed of a poll (English not Oz) which says 50% of the UK want the CofE disestablished with only just over 20% wanting the establishment to continue ….
The detail somewhat differs, 35% want to keep the King as head of the C of E, only 31% disagree.
49% also want C of E marriages to remain legally binding, just 20% opposed.
Those are the main impacts of it being established church. Apart from Bishops being in the Lords but then MPs rejected an elected upper house and to maintain Bishops in the Lords last week anyway
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50933-is-it-time-to-disestablish-the-church-of-england
T1
Will try to check but we may be referring to different polls here
No it was the same one
T1
Yes, have now checked, it is the YouGov poll. But the key figure of 50% wanting disestablishment is clear. Nor is it surprising after the recent census finding that less than 50% of the nation even identify as Christian (with very few actually attending church anyway, so that identification is tenuous). On a quick calculation church attendance for the CofE is currently only 1/120 of the population – less than 1%.
No it isn’t because as I said more voters want the King to remain head of the C of E than not and most voters also want C of E marriages to be automatically legal. Both key principles of establishment. Plus of course 50% aren’t supporting even a generic disestablishment proposal anyway.
Church attendance is irrelevant given anyone living in a C of E Parish can get legally married or buried in the C of E Parish church even if they never go to services at the church their entire lives as long as the C of E is established church
T1
More may want the King as head of the CofE than positively reject him – but that’s not a majority of the population, it’s only about a third. And where 50% positively want disestablishment, only 20% positively support establishment.
Actual church attendance is the best measure of serious faith; people wanting fancy weddings and funerals is verging on irrelevant.
So what, more still want the King as head of the C of E than don’t and that is the main point. Disestablishment polling itself is irrelevant unless you also ask voters what that actually means, ie removing the King as head of the C of E, requiring civil marriages after a religious C of E marriage to make them legal and removing Bishops from the Lords. On 2/3 of those issues voters back retaining establishment for the C of E and indeed on the last they want the whole upper house elected, never mind just removing the Bishops.
Church attendance may be relevant for non established churches which need big congregations to fund their ministers and buildings, especially newer evangelical churches without the billions of assets and investments the C of E and Roman Catholic church have built up over centuries. It is far less relevant for the C of E, weddings and funerals for local less religious people who don’t regularly attend church is part of the C of E’s role. Non established churches and the Roman Catholic church may require regular church attendance to wed in them, the C of E as established church doesn’t and still gets the wedding fees
34% don’t care….
Only 35 in 100 are positive about the King.
35% want the King to stay head of the C of E, just 31% don’t.
63% have a positive view of the King overall too
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1358914/king-charles-favorability-rating/#:~:text=Favorability%20rating%20of%20King%20Charles%20III%20in%20Britain%202019%2D2024&text=In%20September%202024%2C%20approximately%2063,who%20had%20a%20negative%20opinion.
Trust [rely on and have confidence] in the LORD and do good;
Dwell in the land and feed [securely] on His faithfulness Psalm 37:3 [AMP]
Trust in the Lord – Confide in him; rest on him. Instead of allowing the mind to be disturbed and sad, because there are wicked men upon the earth; because they are prosperous and apparently happy; because they may injure you in your person or reputation Psalm 37:6, calmly confide in God. Leave all this in his hands. Feel that he rules, and that what he permits is wisely permitted; and that whatever may occur, it will all be overruled for his own glory and the good of the universe. {Barnes}
He is the “Faithful and True”,
faithful to His promises, and Word,
faithful to his justice and judgements and
faithful to His Church.Ezek.34 vs 11 – 17
Rev 19:11 G228
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and true, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
“All I am interested in is having someone in post who believes the doctrine of the Church, and can uphold his or her ordination vows with integrity. Early on in his tenure, Justin appeared to be someone who was orthodox in his personal convictions”… I am not sure what else could have been done at the time, therefore, and we could go the same way again. As he was shifting his view on marriage around the time of his appointment, He can’t be viewed as an evangelical per se but as a former evangelical or one who appeared to be evangelical.
On a different point, he had hardly become a bishop before he became an archbishop, but his background would have pleased the then government, as could be said of the two previous Archbishops of Canterbury. What sort of Archbishop would this government want to see in office?
“What sort of Archbishop would this government want to see in office?”
Richard I don’t think the government really care. I hope they have the courage to reform the upper house and remove many, including the bishops.
The last time a government really cared was when Bob Runcie was Archbishop, and the CofE was the only effective opposition. Since then the CofE has been in such serious decline, both in terms of numbers and of influence that I doubt they have much interest beyond a passing one. They will certainly want the CofE to move in a direction that affirms inclusivity when it comes to same sex relationships and marriage.
There has been a longstanding tradition that the incumbents take turns between a more evangelical and more catholic candidate, but as Froghole, who sometimes comments here has pointed out elsewhere, the choice of anybody capable is very limited and it won’t make much difference anyway.
Labour whipped its MPs last week to keep the Bishops in the Lords even as they voted to remove the remaining hereditary peers and did not support the LD amendment for a fully elected upper house.
From a rightwing perspective the current Archbishop may have been called ‘woke Welby’ from the perspective of the liberal left however Welby was still not socially liberal enough, hence Starmer did not give him his support when he was facing calls to step down over Smyth
Starmer didn’t give him support because he covered up abuse against children.
As I have said elsewhere I don’t think Welby is liberal at all, just willing to lie
Welby is in C of terms a mildly conservative evangelical by background who became more liberal establishment in office
Don’t you think that people don’t fall into such neat categories? The categories you use are, after all, package deals in a world with many separate discrete issues.
Starmer would want a liberal Catholic who is pro PLF at minimum and ideally not unsympathetic to same sex marriage too and also left leaning on support for more state spending and pro immigration and asylum seekers
Knowing the mind of Starmer .
Maybe he is not in the mould of Jim Callaghan who was aware of the roots of labour party in that it owed to methodism, than to Marx to the Tolpuddle martyrs, than Trotsky.
Geoff, I’m just back from a walk. Was thinking about this topic. A verse I quoted before : “ believe God raised Jesus from the dead and confess the same to others” is relevant. It is the job of every Christian and key. If we all asked those we work with in a Church context to come out on the street and expound to strangers the aforementioned text we would start to make a difference to society, ourselves and “the Church”. Anyone who is in church is employed somehow or other from arch bishop down. If it was policy to encourage what I suggest things would happen. One would find out what others are really like. Instead of feeling deferential to one’s betters, in awe of their status, one would either find a brother in Christ or something else. church, any church does not need another committee. Just the belief and the will.
I find this extremely difficult to do but the little I have done has made me feel alive, but having done so I feel a sense of loss that I didn’t /don’t do more. Unworthy servant syndrome!
Anyone reading this: If someone asks you to volunteer for their latest Christian charity, ask them to first show leadership by taking you out on the street to talk to a few strangers about Jesus. If they don’t like the idea then you will have pricked the bubble of social strata. You’ll see yourself as their equal whoever they claim to be.
The CofE doesn’t need a strategic review. Everything can remain in place. It just needs everyone to team up , believe, confess. Then you are saved. Then the CofE is saved. Then England, the world.
Stepping out and confessing is hard to do but, it is an easy yoke compared to endless committee meetings, strategy meetings, minute taking, endless rhetorical prayer meetings, car journeys, hotels. It takes up a lot less time too.
John 14:15: “If you love me, keep my commandments.”
John 14:21: “Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”
I’d say the teachings of the Gospel on marriage and sexual relations are “first order” issues!
Believing in Jesus means authentically loving him, which means keeping His commandments and becoming more like Him: holy. If we love Jesus and our neighbour well, resist sin and repent we fall short, we won’t have attachments to sin that keep us from perfect communion with God.
So if you harass a gay university professor, perhaps even beat him up a bit, because gays are groomers. Is that love because you can vaguely make a Biblical justification for it?
That is a fantastic straw man.
As Ian says, the next Archbishop will need to adhere to the church’s teaching. Clearly the debate over how we understand sexuality and same sex relationships isn’t going away; it will continue to exercise us for years to come. So two things the next Archbishop will also need to do are 1. engage with the debate but not allow it to dominate the life of the church by making it clear that it isn’t a first order issue for everyone. Let’s lower the temperature a bit. And 2. should the church at some point in the future decide to develop/change its understanding so as to allow the blessing of same sex relationships or even SSM s/he needs to be equally able to support the then current teaching of the church. Change happens; none of us can be 100% certain our views will remain as they are now so we do well to recognise that. Those who oppose that development then will need to accept it has happened with good grace but of course would not be forced to adopt it in their own parishes. This is what happens currently with the remarriage of divorcees and the full acceptance of women and men equally as bishops, priests and deacons. We accommodate other views all the time in pretty much every area of life, especially in a church which has a unique range of theological views and is a kind of national ecumenical project. And embracing that approach in this area is clearly less difficult than doing so in others areas we currently disagree over (on biblical grounds) such as soteriology, election, the Trinity, final judgement, limited/universal atonement, etc. One small request: before angry or acerbic responses come in, please note that this is absolutely not an argument in favour of same sex marriage but one in favour of remaining in communion with those with whom we disagree and continuing to see them as brothers and sisters not heretics.
Tim
Honestly I think the debate is essentially about if this is a first order issue or not. An incoming ABC coming in with the attitude that it’s not would be an instant solution to the problem. All the Conservatives who have any intention of ever leaving will leave, the rest will grumble.
Isn’t keeping the commands of Jesus on marriage and sexual relations a “first order issue”?
Gay Christians won’t hold their breath for straight Christians to obey Jesus *actual* teaching on marriage.
Well. I follow the teaching of the Catholic Church on this as presented in the Catechism:
Interesting choice Jack – why leave out the rest?
They don’t disagree ,because they will not be able to quote the relevant evidence if you ask them. In most cases, not even one piece of it. What you call their disagreement is something quite different – their social conformity, which 90% of people cannot escape from anyway. It is a novel idea that correct theories are built on sand like that at the best of times. When it goes so squarely against the founder, the history and the internal logic, then it looks hopeful in the extreme. And hopeful of grinding the opposition down little by little is exactly what it (immorally) is.
About the big issue here
The Bible gives absolutely ZERO support to gay sex; and by necessary implication even less support to same-sex marriage. What IS said clearly rejects gay sex as legitimate, and I’d suggest that there are only relatively few texts precisely because it is considered a bad thing which needs and deserves only minimal attention.
In effect therefore any attempt to impose gay sex and same-sex marriage on any church, of whatever ‘denomination’ basically amounts to turning on God and saying rather explicitly “We don’t believe You about this, we don’t trust You about this, we aren’t willing to stand up for You or stand with You about this, and – well really, God, You can go jump because we know better!”
Such an attitude is pretty much the definition of sinfulness and faithlessness, and those taking such an attitude have stepped outside Christianity and should have the honesty to leave God’s Church, especially to give up any pretence of leadership in God’s Church, and go and do their own thing elsewhere.
It is absurd and bizarre that people who so thoroughly reject and disrespect the God of the Bible even want to call themselves Christian – to do so one would have to be very seriously disconnected from reality.
It is absurd and bizarre to persist, in light of all the evidence to the contrary, in maintaining that there is such a thing as ‘gay sex’.
It is absurd and bizarre to persist, in light of all the evidence to the contrary, in maintaining that there is such a thing as ‘gay sex’.
You’re going to have to clarify that, I think. There are certainly things gay people do which they call ‘sex’. And as they are of the same sex, they certainly can’t do heterosexual sex which depends on differing but complementary anatomy….
Sexual acts are sexual acts. They are not straight because they are performed by heterosexual couples.
The odea that they are is very far from ‘biblical’ thinking.
Penelope
…. and a lot of your ideas also seem “very far from ‘biblical’ thinking”.
Penelope is right, Scripture / Torah condemns one particular act: penetrative sex between males, whether they be straight or gay. It never envisages anything like sexual orientation.
Lorenzo, it does not merely not envisage something like sexual orientation; it rejects that construal of what it means to be human.
Scripture consistently views humanity as bodily created male and female, and this psycho-somatic sexed bodily reality is what shapes its sexual ethic.
To say ‘it only prohibits one thing, penetrative sex’ is logically equivalent to seeing a sign saying ‘Please don’t park your car on the grass’ and responding ‘Well, I am driving a truck, and it doesn’t mention trucks, so I can park my truck on the grass’.
Gay sex is sexual activity between two people of the same sex.
Not sure why you are struggling to understand that Penny?!
The Bible gives no support to sex outside heterosexual marriage but I don’t see evangelicals picketing nightclubs telling young lads and lasses to go straight home after for a cup of warm cocoa and then straight to separate beds
By contrast you might have a pair of elderly lesbian spinsters who have no interest in having sex with each other but get married out of love and spend most of their evenings knitting and watching Midsummer Murders
No – because you have not given one reason why two and not other numbers can gat what you call) married.
Apart from aping and parodying, tearing down what is already there without the ability to create. And which biblical character is it that does that?
T1
If said lesbians aren’t having sex, no problem. This does perhaps point up that the state should be religiously neutral and should not be concerned with the sexual relations but rather with providing a practical ‘civil partnership’ which could be the legal underpinning of various forms of both marriage and some non-sexual partnerships.
Simon,
Why can’t an elderly brother and sister also marry each other so that they have pension and inheritance rights? Or two elderly sisters?
James
Put that as “Why can’t they have a civil partnership for mutual pension/inheritance rights?” The legal provisions we use have been formed in religious states rather than free plural states. And indeed currently civil partnerships are still carrying a ‘baggage’ from being a ‘marriage substitute’ rather than simply flexible widely useful arrangements.
As they can already write wills to do so and if no other next of kin the other inherits automatically. 2 elderly lesbians however have no blood ties other than their committed love for each other
Because marriage creates kinship where previously there was none.
That is the argument from convention. I mean the nonargument from convention.
Everything that is customary is right, you are saying. But cannot justify that in argument.
If you think evangelicals don’t talk about this, and make it part of their teaching to young people, then you don’t know anything about evangelicals.
Stephen Langston
The Bible doesn’t mention gay people, austism, wheelchairs, hospitals, cars, space shuttles. So what?!
This is the thing. We have this obsessive hatred of gay people because of myths and misinformation in the 20th century that then got back formatted onto Bible translations, which even most evangelicals will now admit were wrong(!), and also into traditions of interpretation, that dont make much sense. It was a useful rallying cry for politicians needing the vote of Christians or Christians trying to get more people through the door.
‘We have this obsessive hatred of gay people’.
Who is we? Not me, and not the churches that I am involved in.
‘We have to agree to differ. Looking back on church history, can we not see that Christians divided over many issues that most of us would not regard as warranting division.’ (RB) ‘This is absolutely not an argument in favour of same sex marriage but one in favour of remaining in communion with those with whom we disagree and continuing to see them as brothers and sisters not heretics.’ (Tim)
So the nub is whether SSM, transgenderism, sex outside marriage and female spiritual leadership – one package with different facets – are issues that warrant division, and what it is we are trying to unite. Suppose that the Church consisted of everyone, except perhaps the very wicked. Would we wish to unite that body of differing opinions? Presumably not, for the Church is a people distinct from the world at large. But what makes them distinct? What makes them ‘brothers and sisters’?
It is (the) Holy Spirit. Jesus, the founder of the Church, says that we must be born anew from above, of water and the Spirit. The Church is a people set apart by their holiness (I Pet 2:9), because, as the whole of Scripture testifies, God is holy. And what is holiness? So far as concerns us human beings, it is twofold: sexual purity (I Cor 6:9-11) and devotion to God to the exclusion of all other gods (Deut 5:7, 6:5). Marital faithfulness and faithfulness to God are allied; syncretism with other religions and belief systems is out. When Jesus finds fault with the churches in Revelation, it is primarily on these two grounds (e.g. Rev 2:14).
Heb 12:14, ‘Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.’ Peace with everyone, whether Christians or non-Christians, is not to be at the cost of compromising on holiness.
An essential mark of having been given the Holy Spirit is that one recognises the Scriptures as being God-breathed, true and authoritative. Many commenters on this website avowedly do not have the Spirit’s witness to that effect. Another and evidently related mark is that one sees the vital importance of holiness. Again, many contributors do not. Moreover, this is true throughout those who make up the Anglican Church in England. Because there is so much dispute over these matters, the impression is given that these issues are not of prime importance and we must somehow learn to get along. But the fact is, the dispute arises because many in the Church, including commenters on this site who constantly weigh in against these issues, are not born from above, they do not have the Holy Spirit. It is indicative of the centrality of these issues that articles regarding SSM etc invariably attract more comments and controversy than any other topic.
That is why there is no longer any hope for the Church of England in England. ‘Certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this judgement, irreverent people, who turn the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ’ (Jude 4). Too many church leaders have not taught their congregations about the Holy Spirit and ensured that their congregants are born again. Too many leaders are themselves not born again. The house (the visible institution) is divided and cannot stand – divided by the prince of demons, no less (Mk 3:22).
Says the Baptist who isn’t in the Church of England anyway
Ah, so being a brother in Christ counts for nothing?
I have closed comments on this post because, yet again, a small group of five or six have hijacked this discussion to be an internal dispute between them about sexuality and marriage.
If you would like to make a helpful comment about the actual content of this post, please get in touch.