For many of us who follow this blog, the pattern is depressingly familiar. Those in authority have perfected the art of dressing up questionable decisions in the language of consultation, accountability and that increasingly tiresome expression, “expert advice”. The question is not who appoints these experts, but whether their advice is genuinely sought, independently considered, or simply invoked to lend credibility to decisions already made. Some of the resulting nonsense would scarcely survive the scrutiny of an ordinary, reasonably informed person armed with common sense. Whether in government or the Church, the institutional arrogance is unmistakable. Too many in high office confuse appointment with ability, authority with wisdom, and criticism with disloyalty. Perhaps the greatest conceit of modern leadership is the assumption that occupying an exalted position somehow confers superior judgement. As Scripture reminds us, “By their fruits ye shall know them.” Some of the harvests have been distinctly rotten and the future governance doesn’t promise a more flavourful future..
You're omitted the other possibilities, whether or not the so-called "expert advice" is indeed expert and then whether or not the advice is any good in either case. As we all saw during the COVID-19 pandemic, the "experts" were often anything but, clueless and winging it with the much abused and misused mantra "follow the science".
@Menai Straight, Quite so. I had perhaps been unduly charitable in assuming that the advice was expert in anything other than its ability to provide institutional cover. The tragedy is that those least equipped to recognise poor advice are often those most eager to hide behind it.
Wasn’t the said appointee part of the leadership team criticised in the visitation report very recently? Promoting someone with that negative report hanging over the chapter of which he was a part is unwise but not surprising given the form the CiW has.
In other news one hears Gerwhine Capon is off on long term sick leave once again. Apparently managing a dozen or so priests in his Archdeaconry is also beyond his meagre abilities. No surprise to those in Llandaff who were forced to tolerate his inadequacies for so long. Should've stuck to caddying for bully boy --Bazza.
Oh just wait until the full impact of Manon James' appointment as Bishop of Bangor hits home ... this from hearing will put the icing on the cake so far as the demise of the C-in-W is concerned,
If "St Asaph regular" really is what it says on the tin, s/he will be aware of the many stresses and strains on ministry in that patch currently. Gerwyn Capon was for a long time covering for another archdeacon who had a long, unexplained leave of absence during a short tenure, before moving away and only recently being replaced. The bishop has been restricted to light duties only for medical reasons. Some ministerial vacancies have been hard to fill and there has been a range of HR issues. Low clergy morale was referenced in a recent ad clerum communication. If I were in ministry I would probably need to be on long term leave too. Some compassion is needed on this site. WWJD? Well, he'd probably rise above puerile nicknames. If I am wrong about that, I have joined the wrong religion. I have no idea who Mr Toad is and frankly don't care. Instead of sniping at the failings of individuals, who are always easy targets, how about thinking strategically and asking questions like: 10 years on, are so-called Mission Areas starting to work? If not, what's the answer? More money pushed towards partnership with the Paul Marshall-funded CRT, or less? Does that stuff really represent the future of Anglicanism? If so, where does that leave liturgy-loving fogies like me, and does it matter? We need more focus on these thorny, complex issues and less on personalities.
If St Asaph Regular is really what is says….. what on earth…. oh goodness me Egl; What a remarkably selective interpretation of Christian compassion. Strip away the pious language and your argument amounts to this: the hierarchy must be treated sympathetically, its failures excused, and those asking uncomfortable questions should kindly shut up and discuss Mission Areas instead.
You mention the prolonged absence of an archdeacon almost in passing, without apparently considering what might have contributed to her circumstances. Perhaps her real difficulty was that she was an honest, authentic individual in an ecclesiastical environment where being genuinely human can be rather less advantageous than knowing how to play the game. There is also the rather awkward matter of Gerwyn Capon’s apparent interest in the archdeaconry she occupied, an ambition that did not come to fruition. Surely the circumstances deserve examination rather than being airbrushed out of your convenient narrative.
Your catalogue of vacancies, HR problems, low morale and prolonged absences is especially revealing. You offer it as a plea for compassion when, frankly, it reads like a damning assessment of diocesan leadership. At what point does a succession of institutional difficulties cease to be unfortunate circumstance and become a legitimate question about the competence of those running the show?
And spare us the suggestion that criticism of individuals is somehow beneath serious Christian discourse. Institutions do not bully, marginalise or make disastrous decisions by themselves. People exercising authority do those things, and people exercising authority must be answerable for their conduct.
The bishop’s ill health is a separate matter and ought not to be confused with the question of accountability for decisions taken in office. Sympathy cannot be demanded as a substitute for scrutiny.
Your invocation of WWJD is perhaps the most breathtaking part of the contribution. Christ did not spend his ministry protecting the sensibilities of religious hierarchies. He challenged hypocrisy, exposed abuses of authority and had some particularly pointed observations about those who enjoyed the privileges of religious office while placing burdens upon others.
What you appear to be advocating is not compassion at all, but selective immunity from criticism for precisely those whose decisions warrant examination.
And the suggestion that we should concentrate on strategy rather than personalities is a splendid piece of ecclesiastical misdirection. Who devised the strategy? Who implemented it? Who presided over the difficulties you so helpfully catalogue?
The real question is why you seem so concerned about the discomfort of those in authority and so remarkably incurious about the experiences of those who may have suffered under it.
Compassion is not the problem. The use of compassion as a convenient means of silencing legitimate criticism is. And dressing that up as Christian virtue does not make it any less intellectually dishonest
Further…some ministerial positions hard to fill and a range of Hr problems, OMG are you that naive…. It is the corpulent onanists creation that is coming to fruition..
Dear Anonymous/bewildered, Your 2 invocations of our Lord in 3 lines of pithy but sour, grumpy comment are interesting, but they don't forward the ecclesiological debate a lot. I was tempted to ask what the recommended list of required back reading might be, but I think l may have gatecrashed the wrong party. Goodbye and - er - have fun, if possible.
For many of us who follow this blog, the pattern is depressingly familiar. Those in authority have perfected the art of dressing up questionable decisions in the language of consultation, accountability and that increasingly tiresome expression, “expert advice”.
ReplyDeleteThe question is not who appoints these experts, but whether their advice is genuinely sought, independently considered, or simply invoked to lend credibility to decisions already made. Some of the resulting nonsense would scarcely survive the scrutiny of an ordinary, reasonably informed person armed with common sense.
Whether in government or the Church, the institutional arrogance is unmistakable. Too many in high office confuse appointment with ability, authority with wisdom, and criticism with disloyalty.
Perhaps the greatest conceit of modern leadership is the assumption that occupying an exalted position somehow confers superior judgement.
As Scripture reminds us, “By their fruits ye shall know them.” Some of the harvests have been distinctly rotten and the future governance doesn’t promise a more flavourful future..
You're omitted the other possibilities, whether or not the so-called "expert advice" is indeed expert and then whether or not the advice is any good in either case.
DeleteAs we all saw during the COVID-19 pandemic, the "experts" were often anything but, clueless and winging it with the much abused and misused mantra "follow the science".
@Menai Straight, Quite so. I had perhaps been unduly charitable in assuming that the advice was expert in anything other than its ability to provide institutional cover. The tragedy is that those least equipped to recognise poor advice are often those most eager to hide behind it.
Delete100% agreed.
DeleteNew Archdeacon of St Davids announced this morning.
ReplyDeleteBystander
Wasn’t the said appointee part of the leadership team criticised in the visitation report very recently? Promoting someone with that negative report hanging over the chapter of which he was a part is unwise but not surprising given the form the CiW has.
ReplyDeleteWhamab
In other news one hears Gerwhine Capon is off on long term sick leave once again.
ReplyDeleteApparently managing a dozen or so priests in his Archdeaconry is also beyond his meagre abilities.
No surprise to those in Llandaff who were forced to tolerate his inadequacies for so long. Should've stuck to caddying for bully boy --Bazza.
It may have something to do with his apparent ‘difficulties’ with ex B Morris…..
DeleteWasn't his ex the slimy amphibian Mr Toad? 🐸🐸🐸
DeleteOh just wait until the full impact of Manon James' appointment as Bishop of Bangor hits home ... this from hearing will put the icing on the cake so far as the demise of the C-in-W is concerned,
ReplyDeleteIf "St Asaph regular" really is what it says on the tin, s/he will be aware of the many stresses and strains on ministry in that patch currently. Gerwyn Capon was for a long time covering for another archdeacon who had a long, unexplained leave of absence during a short tenure, before moving away and only recently being replaced. The bishop has been restricted to light duties only for medical reasons. Some ministerial vacancies have been hard to fill and there has been a range of HR issues. Low clergy morale was referenced in a recent ad clerum communication. If I were in ministry I would probably need to be on long term leave too.
ReplyDeleteSome compassion is needed on this site. WWJD? Well, he'd probably rise above puerile nicknames. If I am wrong about that, I have joined the wrong religion. I have no idea who Mr Toad is and frankly don't care. Instead of sniping at the failings of individuals, who are always easy targets, how about thinking strategically and asking questions like: 10 years on, are so-called Mission Areas starting to work? If not, what's the answer? More money pushed towards partnership with the Paul Marshall-funded CRT, or less? Does that stuff really represent the future of Anglicanism? If so, where does that leave liturgy-loving fogies like me, and does it matter? We need more focus on these thorny, complex issues and less on personalities.
Jesus, what a newbie you are.
DeleteFCS, do some back reading.
Bewildered
If St Asaph Regular is really what is says….. what on earth…. oh goodness me Egl; What a remarkably selective interpretation of Christian compassion. Strip away the pious language and your argument amounts to this: the hierarchy must be treated sympathetically, its failures excused, and those asking uncomfortable questions should kindly shut up and discuss Mission Areas instead.
DeleteYou mention the prolonged absence of an archdeacon almost in passing, without apparently considering what might have contributed to her circumstances. Perhaps her real difficulty was that she was an honest, authentic individual in an ecclesiastical environment where being genuinely human can be rather less advantageous than knowing how to play the game. There is also the rather awkward matter of Gerwyn Capon’s apparent interest in the archdeaconry she occupied, an ambition that did not come to fruition. Surely the circumstances deserve examination rather than being airbrushed out of your convenient narrative.
Your catalogue of vacancies, HR problems, low morale and prolonged absences is especially revealing. You offer it as a plea for compassion when, frankly, it reads like a damning assessment of diocesan leadership. At what point does a succession of institutional difficulties cease to be unfortunate circumstance and become a legitimate question about the competence of those running the show?
And spare us the suggestion that criticism of individuals is somehow beneath serious Christian discourse. Institutions do not bully, marginalise or make disastrous decisions by themselves. People exercising authority do those things, and people exercising authority must be answerable for their conduct.
The bishop’s ill health is a separate matter and ought not to be confused with the question of accountability for decisions taken in office. Sympathy cannot be demanded as a substitute for scrutiny.
Your invocation of WWJD is perhaps the most breathtaking part of the contribution. Christ did not spend his ministry protecting the sensibilities of religious hierarchies. He challenged hypocrisy, exposed abuses of authority and had some particularly pointed observations about those who enjoyed the privileges of religious office while placing burdens upon others.
What you appear to be advocating is not compassion at all, but selective immunity from criticism for precisely those whose decisions warrant examination.
And the suggestion that we should concentrate on strategy rather than personalities is a splendid piece of ecclesiastical misdirection. Who devised the strategy? Who implemented it? Who presided over the difficulties you so helpfully catalogue?
The real question is why you seem so concerned about the discomfort of those in authority and so remarkably incurious about the experiences of those who may have suffered under it.
Compassion is not the problem. The use of compassion as a convenient means of silencing legitimate criticism is. And dressing that up as Christian virtue does not make it any less intellectually dishonest
Further…some ministerial positions hard to fill and a range of Hr problems, OMG are you that naive…. It is the corpulent onanists creation that is coming to fruition..
DeleteDear Anonymous/bewildered,
ReplyDeleteYour 2 invocations of our Lord in 3 lines of pithy but sour, grumpy comment are interesting, but they don't forward the ecclesiological debate a lot. I was tempted to ask what the recommended list of required back reading might be, but I think l may have gatecrashed the wrong party. Goodbye and - er - have fun, if possible.
Try starting with the last 15 years of Ancient Briton.
DeleteTata sweetpea.
Bewildered