You are here . on the pale blue dot


Blog notes

'Anonymous' comments for publication must include a pseudonym.

They should be on topic and not involve third parties.
If pseudonyms are linked to commercial sites comments will be removed as spam.


Monday 26 October 2020

Archiepiscopal duplicity is no recommendation

Archbishop Justin Welby, C of E (right), with Archbishop John Davies, Church in Wales, Primus Mark Strange,
Scottish Episcopal Church and Archbishop Richard Clarke, Church of Ireland, outside St Patrick’s Cathedral 
in Armagh at the close of the 2019 European Regional Primates’ Meeting. Photo Credit: Church of Ireland.


Archbishops Welby and Davies with Primus Mark Strange, plus the Archbishop of Armagh and the new Archbishop of York wrote to the Financial Times recently warning the government that its new Brexit bill could set a "disastrous precedent". 

Anglican archbishops are well placed to speak about disasters given their performance, bringing the Anglican Church in these Isles to the brink of collapse.

Promises made to secure the ordination of women and their subsequent admission to the episcopate quickly evaporated after their goal had been reached. 

Not only have the unchurched lost their spiritual base but those going along with the notion that faith follows secular fads will also find themselves unchurched when Anglicanism collapses, probably within a generation.

Archbishop of Wales, Barry Morgan refused to appoint another Provincial Assistant Bishop after the retirement of bishop David Thomas so orthodox Anglicans have been left without spiritual oversight, contrary to promises implied in the Code of Practice, cunningly crafted by Barry Morgan's misandrist placement, Archdeacon Peggy Jackson.

Principle 4 states: 
  • The Church in Wales therefore remains committed to enabling all its members to flourish within its life and structures as accepted and valued. 
  • Appropriate provision for them will be made in a way intended to maintain the highest possible degree of communion and contributes to mutual flourishing across the whole Church in Wales.
'Traditionalist' Anglicans were betrayed. 

There is no mutual flourishing. All Anglican churches in the South Wales dioceses of St Davids, Llandaff and Monmouth are now headed by women bishops. Society bishops are barred from entering Welsh dioceses so traditionalists seeking sacramental assurance are forced to travel to England for the Chrism Mass.

Many of the disowned faithful Anglicans are committed Christians who gave gladly of their time and money, helping to maintain parish communities. As extinction looms, their loss to the Church in Wales is not mourned by the bishops. Instead, extra senior staff are employed to enforce unwelcome change while clergy going along to get on take to social media to maintain a presence with Twitter trivia.

In the Church of England the House of Bishops made a similar declaration:
  • Since those within the Church of England who, on grounds of theological conviction, are unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests continue to be within the spectrum of teaching and tradition of the Anglican Communion, the Church of England remains committed to enabling them to flourish within its life and structures; and
  •  Pastoral and sacramental provision for the minority within the Church of England will be made without specifying a limit of time and in a way that maintains the highest possible degree of communion and contributes to mutual flourishing across the whole Church of England. 
Unlike the Church in Wales, the Church of England has maintained episcopal provision for traditionalists through The Society but it stretches the imagination to regard such provision as 'mutual flourishing'. 

Women and the Church (WATCH) and their supporters constantly undermine attempts at mutual flourishing, as illustrated by the treatment of Bishop Philip North who was pressed to withdraw after being appointed Bishop of Sheffield. It was said his opposition to female priests would “cause significant pastoral and public damage to the church”. 

Such hypocrisy. Promises made at Synod and by the Church in Wales as a means of securing the necessary votes were false yet the Archbishop of Canterbury has the nerve to lecture others on justice and honesty. 

To a thinly populated House of Lords Justin Welby said: 

"What above all we are called to do in this country deeply embedded in our Christian culture and history is to act justly and honestly. We cannot do so if we openly speak of breaking a treaty under international law reached properly, on which peace in part of the UK relies....Politics, if it is to draw out the best of us, must be more than just the exercise of binaries, of raw majority power unleashed. It exists to seek truth, to bring diverse peoples together in healthy relationships.....In the Church of England, my Lords, we are all too clearly aware of the shame that comes with failing morally. Let us not make the same mistake at National level."  

Given their duplicity the archbishops are the last people who should be offering advice to others while making such a mess of the Anglican Church.

Northern Ireland politician, David Burnside wrote to the News Letter: The archbishop does not speak for Church of Ireland members like me when he attacks the UK internal market bill.

Eurosceptic MP Steve Baker said that Boris Johnson should consider cutting ties with the Church of England after the Brexit bill was criticised by senior figures of the church.

Sir John Redwood MP claimed that the five Anglican leaders were "misusing their position" in going against the wishes of the nation for the UK to be independent.

There will be many Anglican who share such sentiments.

31 comments:

  1. Duplicitous Archbishops?
    Who would have guessed?
    The swamp grows and the foetid stink of decay worsens.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Where's the bruiser of York, primate of England,or was he taking the little snap?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I check into this blog occasionally – well, most days! When I read some of the contributions I am sometimes amused, frequently annoyed and rarely impressed. It seems that many of the contributors indulge in puerile banter – childish name calling (calling Archbishop John “Shirley” for example, and referring to former Archbishop Barry as “The Dark Lord”) which would perhaps be more suited to a primary school playground than in a blog such as this, which focuses on matters of great concern to the Church in Wales and the wider Christian world. That said, I enjoy the erudite contributions by John Ellis and Baptist Trainfan, to name but two.
    Please don’t misunderstand me – I am a member of the Church in Wales, and I realise that it is currently in a difficult place. I live in the north of the Province, although I was brought up in south Wales. I believe that one of the main problems the Church here has relates to the lack of pastoral care by its clergy. I know this from personal experience – I had major surgery about 10 years ago. I was in hospital for 2 weeks, and despite clergy knowing that I was there, no-one called to see me. I thought I would see the chaplain, but that didn’t happen either. I was home and off work for 3 months, unable to travel for 2 of those. I phoned my parish priest, and requested communion at home: he didn’t come. I went to church when I was able to drive and made my communion. All he could say to me afterwards was “Hi. You OK?”. That is my personal example – there are many others that I could cite, and not just the parish clergy. The way my diocesan bishop has treated some of his retired clergy is disgraceful. I really think that the Church in Wales seems more concerned with creating mission areas and job descriptions than concentrating on its actual purpose: of ministering to the people of God. I am reminded of the high school student who spent more time writing revision timetables than actually revising – I am sure you can work out how that ended.
    But I digress! The real reason for my contributing follows...

    ReplyDelete
  4. I refer to the comment made about the Provincial Assistant Bishop, and how Archbishop Barry Morgan apparently “refused” to appoint a successor to Bishop David Thomas when he retired in 2008. As I am sure readers will be aware, Bishop David was appointed in 1996, following the Governing Body’s decision to ordain women to the priesthood. The point made at the time was that it was important that he be ordained bishop BEFORE women were ordained priest, in order that he would be consecrated with “clean hands” – that is, ordained to the episcopate by bishops who had NOT ordained any women to the priesthood – otherwise, it was said, his ordination would be “tainted”. Because of this, it was obvious that the PAB had a “sell by date”, and this was acknowledged by many at the time. In fact, it was one of the reasons why those who were in favour of the ordination of women supported the appointment of the PAB, even though many felt it was divisive. Having said that, I appreciate that those against the ordination of women will always maintain that ordaining women to the priesthood was the divisive act. From my perspective, if Bishop David had to be consecrated with “clean hands”, then following his retirement in 2008 it would not have been possible to appoint a new PAB who could be ordained by other bishops with “clean hands”. Some will argue that the Church could have “imported” an English bishop, but again, to find such “clean” bishops is extremely difficult. In fact, some of the Provincial Episcopal Visitors in England (PEVs) have been consecrated to the episcopate by bishops who do not have “clean hands”: the Bishop of Richborough was consecrated by Archbishop Rowan Williams; the Bishop of Ebbsfleet and the Bishop of Maidstone were consecrated by Archbishop Justin Welby; the Bishop of Beverley was consecrated by Archbishop John Sentamu. One of the exceptions is probably Bishop Philip North, and I am not sure about the episcopal ordination of Bishop Tony Robinson. Whatever, my point is: if Bishop David had to be ordained with “clean hands”, then it is plainly obvious that such an episcopal ordination would not have been possible in Wales in 2008.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well blow me down and bless my socks, now you have explained it so succinctly Belmont it is all straightforward and simple such that I am astounded the rest of us didn't see it sooner.
      How dull we must be.
      But one has to ask why Darth --Insidious and Peggy the Pilate didn't come up with your explanation ten years ago.
      It could have saved us all so much trouble and heartache.

      Delete
    2. I am surprised too, Mary.
      However, what doesn't surprise me is your sarcasm, and your continued playground banter.

      Delete
    3. From dust to dust27 October 2020 at 16:31

      If you like the sarcasm and banter here Belmont you would have loved the Llandaffchester Chronicles, from which I hasten to add, most of the titles for bully boy Bazza originate.
      My favourite is Grand Mufti of all the Faiths but rest assured, byzantine Barry is entirely worthy of them all.
      For many of us who have stayed local and are much nearer to the swamp than you, the banter to which you refer has been a much needed source of amusement and boost of morale.
      Long may it continue and b*ll*cks to Bazza, Peggy and Capon.

      Delete
    4. Not really worthy of a response.

      Delete
    5. From dust to dust27 October 2020 at 18:25

      Excellent.
      Objective met.

      Delete
    6. @ Belmont:

      I can speak only for myself, but I generally take the position of not commenting on the current travails of, and controversies within, Welsh Anglicanism on the reasonable - I think! - grounds that, having left that communion, I'm not really entitled to comment, let alone carp. It's no longer my business.

      I only vary from that on the occasions when I comment about something - or, more rarely, someone - contemporary which/who strikes some chord from my former days as an Anglican.

      I've no regrets; I utilize the forlorn ex-lover's rationale that when all's said and done 'it's better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all'! Anglicanism turned out in the end not to be what I thought it was - possibly also not even what it thought it was, given what it taught me back at the start of my journey. In this, as in much else in life, you live and learn!

      Delete
  5. Your main point, Belmont, has been aired in a number of previous entries and was covered by Bishop David Thomas in his paper A Noble Task referred to in this entry -
    https://ancientbritonpetros.blogspot.com/2013/10/above-reproach.html

    Regardless of the nature of episcopal oversight Barry Morgan made it clear after he achieved his goal that there would be alternative episcopal oversight 'over his dead body'.
    https://ancientbritonpetros.blogspot.com/2014/09/true-to-his-word-over-my-dead-body.html

    In his campaign to allow the ordination of women the archbishop previously said: The Bishops are unanimously committed to securing a continuing place in the life of the Church for those who cannot in conscience accept the new situation created by the ordination of women to the priesthood. They wish to preserve the highest degree of unity possible in the Church in Wales for the foreseeable future.

    It is the duplicity that sticks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your response. Firstly, I was not aware of any paper written by Bishop David. I will certainly have a look at it. Secondly, you say that the Archbishop (I assume you mean Archbishop Barry) had a "campaign to allow the ordination of women". I can assure you that none of the members of the bench in 1996 (including the then Bishop Barry) were not involved in any "campaign to allow the ordination of women" to the priesthood.

      Delete
  6. Oh dear, AB, it seems you want to have your cake and eat it.

    Ok. I take for granted the fact that you don't like the EU and all its stands for, even if it has promoted an unprecedented degree of political, educational and artistic co-operation for over half a Century. That's fine. Live and let live. You're entitled to hold your view. But you can't then use that as a pretext for lamenting the erosion of Catholic faith and order in the CinW or what you consider to be a more authentic expression of the Christian faith.

    I offer a couple of reasons for saying this.

    First, any reliable history of the Reformation (whether you go for the revisionist approach of Eamon Duffy or one more sympathetic to the Protestant narrative, such as Diarmaid McCullogh) leaves you in no doubt that what was achieved in the 16th Century would have been impossible without cross-European co-operation. The language of the Reformation was Latin - not English or German. The Book of Common Prayer, so beloved of many contributors to this blog, would not be what it is if Thomas Cranmer had not drawn on the work of Zwingli in Zurich among others, for example, or even the Spanish Cardinal Quinones' Counter-Reformation revision of the Roman Breviary. The ideas and consequences of the Reformation took hold because European reformers in Britain, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, even France and Poland, were committed to a high degree of co-operation.

    Second, catholicism is what it says on the tin. It is universal - and for Roman Catholics is led by a universal pontificate in the person and office of the Pope. It is not a nationalist or unionist ecclesiology (such as the CofE, CinW, or the Methodist Church of Great Britain and Ireland). the fact that the Roman Catholic bishops of England and Wales remain part of the European Bishops' Conference is just one indication of this as a central part of expressing their communion with the See of Rome.

    As I understand it, the objection to the ordination of women in the CinW (and presumably the CofE) is that, as national churches, we cannot do our own thing in isolation from the majority of the world's Christians. If we take this step, we have to do it in step with the rest of the Oecumne. That's a perfectly fair and sound theological position to hold, it is right that those who maintain that such ordinations undermine the Catholic claims of the CinW, and should be afforded an equal place at the table (hence the need for a bishop who can minister sacramentally and pastorally to such people). But the argument is predicated on belonging to something, and being in solidarity with, an entity that is far bigger than the nation or the Union.

    By all means express your sincere beliefs and opinions (we are meant to be a broad church; but it would help some us to take them more seriously if there was evidence of a little more historical and ecclesiological groundwork.

    Otherwise, please keep up the good work of holding the Welsh bishops to account when no-one else will do so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I won't - as such! - intrude on a debate which isn't really my business, but the fundamental position which you set out, Athelstan, so exactly accords with my own view of things that I couldn't resist the temptation to say so. ;-)

      Delete
  7. You take a lot for granted Athelstan.

    ReplyDelete
  8. May I add to the playground banter by quoting the late Dom Gregory Dix as pointing out that the behaviour of prelates was signified for a bishop by a crook and that of an archbishop by a double cross?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Priceless.
      Here endeth the lesson.

      Delete
    2. I really like that. I've read Dom Gregory's superb 'Shape of the Liturgy, but I've never come across that remarkably apposite quote!

      Delete
  9. PP. The above comments are interesting. Adding a little, the former Church of At Stephen & Holy Trinity Newport. Of recent years a strong Anglo Catholic stronghold. But in the tenuous realm of current church now becomes At Paul's, At Stephen and Holy Trinity. Give St Paul's moves from the Newport city centre to Pillgwenlly. The former Anglo Catholic worship changed by the At Paul's Evangelical style. In this situation, At Stephen's Church is having a huge reordering, selling off much respected artifacts, roof screen, pews, credence tables, lectern etc etc. For more information see the sales details in the diocesan round-up:

    https://monmouth.churchinwales.org.uk/en/news-and-events/friday-round-30th-october/

    When you see that the original At Paul's Church in the town centre is still for sale after the church vacated for the Old post office in Bridge At, because they could not afford it's upkeep. Now 4 years on, they move and take over At Stephen's Church in the docks area. But, this same group also has St Thomas's Church Maesglas with Duffryn. A new modern community building. I was on the PCC some years ago, we built a new vicarage oops At Stephen's church and reordered the church, for Anglo Catholic litergy. Are we seeing the pockets left of a once beloved Anglo Catholic parish network, dropped to the happy clappy tenuous alpha model evangelism. But, one cannot blame the new Bishop, as she arrived after this parish plant had been agreed by her predecessor and legalities completed just after the last priest left. Many of St Stephen's congregation have left for other parishes, the sorrow born out on Facebook and local press.
    Begging the question does HTB have a foothold in CiW as its web appears to be spinning in the province.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My tentative 'take' on this, looking in from the outside, is that the hierarchy, with its contemporary managerial ethos, sees the HTB version of Christianity as a success story which offers the best current prospect of keeping the increasingly enfeebled Welsh provincial Anglican show alive. Hence they foster it.

      Delete
    2. Baptist Trainfan1 November 2020 at 11:32

      Yes, I think that's true, although I know nothing of the inner machinations and relationships in the CinW. I think it's true in the CofE as well. The HTB folk also seem to have money and personnel, though I often wonder where these resources come from!

      Delete
    3. Anglican conservative evangelical parishes - particularly the charismatic sort - are strong on Christian stewardship and not infrequently teach tithing. That in a large congregation drawing in, often from afar, numbers of wealthy congregants can give a parish a very significant income.

      And - unlike your average small and elderly Anglican parochial church council - they're positively keen to see money spent on evangelism and outreach, rather than squirrelled away in case the church roof or electrics need expensive repair. Or to preserve a reserve in case the time comes when they can't pay the quota!

      Delete
  10. PP. The odd typos in my last comments is due to predictive text so excuse the "At" and "oops" etc.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Baptist Trainfan and John Ellis give us a break, and return to your day jobs.
    Dominic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You prefer being 'exclusive brethren'?

      Delete
    2. Baptist Trainfan1 November 2020 at 15:05

      So much for ecumenical Christian fellowship on All Saints' Day, then!

      Delete
    3. Some of the comments on this blog are distinctly un-Christian!

      Delete
    4. Baptist Trainfan1 November 2020 at 16:56

      My sincere apologies if that is true of me.

      Delete
    5. In my Anglican days I well recall noticing the evolution of a tendency in 'doing controversy' by which the prevailing technique was to assemble in the company of your ideological mates at one end of a hypothetical room and bawl at your opponents, who were similarly gathered at the opposite end and responding in kind. There's a certain degree of satisfaction to be had from that - holding the corner and defending the cause; but the nagging thought that 'you did not so learn Christ' kept drifting into my mind. And it dawned on me that there was nothing really new about this; the ecumenical councils debating the nature of Christ in the 5th century, for instance, manifested pretty much the same tendency.

      So when an opportunity came to meet with ideological opponents - a meeting organized by the local diocesan branch of the Movement for the Ordination of Women - came along, I thought it was worth going. I wouldn't say there was any real meeting of minds as a consequence, but I found that people did speak what they saw as the truth in charity that afternoon, and even if we didn't and couldn't agree, we did seem to find it possible, as far as it lay with us, to live peaceably together. At least for that day!

      Sometimes these threads call to mind, from my sixth form days, a snatch of Alexander Pope's sharp satirical rhyming:

      'Hither the heroes and the nymphs resort,
      To taste awhile the pleasures of a court.
      In various talk th'instuctive hours they pass,
      Who gave the ball, or paid the visit last.
      One speaks the glory of the British Queen,
      And one describes a charming Indian screen.
      A third interprets motions, looks and eyes;
      At every word a reputation dies.'

      The key line being the last.

      Delete
  12. Just to say, Baptist Trainfan, I was not referring to you.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Baptist Trainfan3 November 2020 at 16:24

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete