by Gilo
The bishops have not had to deal with anything like the current situation before. Tectonic plates have never shifted as dramatically and suddenly as in this past month. One Archbishop has resigned (historic event in itself) closely followed by calls for the second Archbishop to follow. And in the midst of these seismic events, a courageous diocesan Bishop is making any amount of serious waves. Bishops have not had to face this previously. Alan ‘Elbows’ Wilson could easily be dismissed by the hierarchy as a beardy weirdy – when he had more courage, integrity and a mind for justice than the rest of the bishops put together. A few retired bishops have spoken out (notably Pete Broadbent) but no diocesan has had the presence of mind to speak out against their own failed and dysfunctional culture. It’s clear her peers view the Bishop of Newcastle as someone they need to freeze out … in much the same way that many bishops have repeatedly blanked survivors and our complaints. It’s a pattern many of us have experienced. The blanking and suspension in a vacuum has sadly changed little in the response of some bishops across the past decade.
I suspect the women in the episcopacy are mostly grateful that they’ve managed to be accepted into the old boys club, and firmly hoovered up into the establishment (the Bishop of London is a case in point). They have spoken out hardly at all. I often wondered why Viv Faull didn’t speak out more. A bishop with more of a brain on her than many of her colleagues; and enough experience of the shadow side of the institution to have been a powerful voice for change. She has always stood some way apart from the rest of the bishops and been her own person. But she bottled out at a crucial stage… or more likely was silenced? She started speaking out in 2019 but was quickly put back in her box, presumably by the Nyebots or by whoever happened to be the ‘whip’ Bishop at the time.
The bishops have never known how to speak ‘corporate transparency’. They’ve always assumed the Centre or the Top would speak it for them. We’ve seen centralised contrition issued from both Archbishops in the past, which has been empty of real meaning while the structure continues to treat necessary questions and legitimate complaints in ways that demonstrate reputation management is still to the fore in the mindset of the hierarchy. Plenty of bishops, probably most if not all, have been aware of this institutional disparity but have preferred to remain mute. A big problem in my view, alongside the culture of fear which the Bishop of Newcastle rightly points to in the bishops – is the pattern of behaviours that arise from siloed thinking. As long as me and my diocese are OK. The bishops find it very difficult to take responsibility for their collective culture. Each individual Bishop has tended to only worry about their patch. Some are good and decent. Others are disaster areas. Some are kindly disposed and some are disposed to cruelty. And up until recently any Bishop wanting to make any kind of safeguarding statement or do any safeguarding-related interview had to go via the dreaded comms in Church Hse. Even national media had to go via Nye’s apparatchik. Everything has been centralized to enable the Nyebots to better control narrative and manage reputation.
Another major problem facing the Church: whose hands exactly are on the levers of change? Are there any levers? Certainly not been the lead bishops’ hands. When they’ve tried to effect change they’ve discovered they have nothing much more than rubber levers to play with which spring back into starting position. Some lead bishops have found themselves thwarted by Nye and/or Lambeth Palace in the past. Some of us remember the frustration and anger of Peter Hancock when he was Lead at finding that Lambeth Palace could organise an interview with Justin Welby without letting him know. An interview which then contained a range of significant untruths about the Smyth case.
Why have the bishops collectively not been able to shape effective levers and insist that Nye and any others blocking progress get out of the way. Nye and his court have been a significant hindrance to the Church responding well. Why have/are the bishops so slow in recognising this. Why are they so muzzled by fear? Is it because they have to go mitre in hand to the centre for funding and dare not speak out of turn lest the Welby/Nye axis cut off vital payment for diocesan projects?
Perhaps it suited the bishops to be lazy in their siloed mindset. It’s convenient to let the status quo remain unchallenged, because the hierarchy is protected by that status quo. Privilege and power are maintained. But that’s all changing rapidly now. Newcastle is identifying so many aspects of the low-grade culture of the bishops, which makes it much easier for the media to bring a necessary spotlight to that culture. There are likely to be several stories coming which provide further evidence of the dysfunctional culture. I don’t think the media will tire yet. They will eventually, but in the meantime it’s open season.
So with this as the current and inevitable backdrop post the crisis of Welby – it ought to be fairly easy for enlightened and savvy bishops (yes a few do exist) to get together and accelerate change. Really push together on the slow old lawnmower engine of this rickety structure to accelerate the pace of things. Perhaps to come up with a shared vision mapped out – of the Church they want to be, the response to survivors they want to be, and the kind of redemption and repentance they would wish to see embodied by themselves and the wider Church.
But then why aren’t we seeing any of them come alongside Newcastle’s statements in support? Why aren’t any of them even name-checking her? Praising some of her insights? Her colleagues are carefully stepping around her as if she’s not there. A deeply transgressive presence who they all avoid … rather in the way that the religious leaders avoided consorting with the ragged and disturbing prophet of Galilea.
What or who are they all frightened of? Are they frightened of each other? It seems a limp culture behind the purple enclosure. The sky’s not going to fall in any further… the sky has already fallen in! The wisest of them must surely recognise this, so why have they so little courage to match that of the Shepherdess of the North?
The other thing which needs constant repeating in the midst of all this episcopal fear is around mandatory reporting. The Church hasn’t much hope as an institution of stepping off the scandal merry-go-round until MR is in place in the statutory framework. For some reason bishops aren’t getting this, don’t want to get it. I notice some of them mouthed the words in their post-Makin statements. But it’s difficult to really know what they mean when the words ‘mandatory reporting’ are given little real context. The words have lost their meaning as Tom Perry recently said to me. The bishops have the perfect opportunity to support exactly the bill needed as it travels through parliament. Tanni Grey-Thompson’s bill is the Church’s hope for the future and will empower the institution to deliver one-Church safeguarding clearly and without any of the confusion we’re still seeing manifested. Why the bishops aren’t 100% behind this is a mystery to me. It’s really in their interest to bring the Church publicly and fully behind this bill with their support.
I have argued previously for the planning of a Truth and Reconciliation process. But am not particularly surprised the Church has put zero preparation into this as part of the Redress Scheme. Has this been a canny move by the Archbishops Council to delay the scheme? Or is this too much conspiracy theory? Sometimes supposed conspiracy is better viewed as incompetence and shallow thinking. But on bad days I fear that any means fair or foul will be employed to delay the actual start of the Redress Scheme. Why would it be otherwise? This is the Church of England which delays every promise. Like others, my trust in this institutional hierarchy is low. And my trust in anything from Archbishops Council is zero. In my view, they should be removed from the frame. I agree with Helen-Ann of Newcastle – the top tier including Church Hse, both Palaces, the offices of Archbishops, entire NCIs – should be placed into Special Measures. That’s how serious I think it is for the Church at this juncture. There will not be real willingness to change until the Church sets about finding and making leadership structures dedicated to transparency and integrity and accountability. At present the old dispensation will cleave to power. But it needs to go, so a higher grade culture might hopefully take their place. Under current leadership it is clear that the Church of England is not fit to be in any sense the national Church, and unfit to be part of the legislature in the House of Lords. The deep soul sickness manifested by the Church across the past decade and longer, cannot be redeemed until the quiet corruption of protectionism is a thing of the past. If you want to find the locus of that protectionist culture, look behind the walls of Church House, Westminster. And Bishops, wake up to the new reality and start showing considerably greater courage and visible determination to address your own collective cultures of fear, power politics and dysfunction.
Gilo
Co-editor, Letters to a Broken Church
Co-creator, House of Survivors website
The bishop of Newcastle is leading. She demonstrates the simple principle that you don’t need to be the head man to facilitate change in your organisation, nor even a man. Conversely the archbishops have been more or less hopeless.
It’s less about intelligence and qualifications, although Newcastle has an abundance obviously, but more about having a spine and great courage.
I’ve argued against her being forced to be the new Archbishop of Canterbury, not least because she doesn’t want it she tells us, but because a superimposition of a huge burden of administrative and ceremonial responsibility she doesn’t need, and would perhaps stifle her. Not that she couldn’t do it of course.
Moreover, I’m not sure we need it either. People aren’t going to like the following, so brace yourselves, here goes: Let’s abolish the majority of the bishop level, including at least one AB. Let’s also abolish central command and control (“Nye-dom”). We can’t afford Church House when clergy have been forced into massively coalesced mega parishes.
No organisation except the Church spares its central services from periodic cuts and restructuring. Businesses do it all the time. It’s not pleasant, but often necessary. The central funds of the Commissioners can be devolved and reallocated as follows: First dibs, an independently run restoration fund for survivors of clerical abuse.
Ceremonial flummery such as attendance at State functions can be divvied up among persons of standing within the church, if it is to remain a State Church. A state banquet at Buckingham Palace was recently attended by persons of standing David and Victoria Beckham, when we were hosting Qatar. I’m sure we’ll have no difficulty finding people. I nominate Rev Richard Coles and Rev Alex frost. These people represent us.
Since Welby resigned, it’s made no material difference. I don’t see the loss of his and other central functions as anything people fighting to survive on a parish level haven’t had to deal without every day for years.
Let’s do it.
As the law now stands, we do need two archbishops. Only an archbishop can appoint a diocesan bishop, and there is a doubt whether General Synod can legally meet unless an archbishop is in the chair. Therefore we always need an ‘spare’ archbishop to cover absences and vacancies. Equally importantly, in my view, an Archbishop of York does something to counter the over-weighting in influence of London and the southeast.
What we don’t need is an Archbishops’ Council, which was only instituted in the 1990s. Nor do we need large and expensive headquarters on London’s exclusive Millbank. Somewhere in the Midlands ought to do nicely. And if we merged some dioceses and scrapped a number of bishops we might simplify our structures a bit and save some money.
Technically, Welby hasn’t gone yet.
He’s in post until 6 Jan, but not taking any Christmas. Presumably he’s spending the remaining time on admin. And Christmas with his family.
‘Christmas services’
One of the things often forgotten by Anglicans, is there are loads of other church denominations to choose from. For example in Guildford we have a large and thriving Baptist church, a large Hillsong, a substantial HTB affiliated independent church, substantially bigger than the largest Anglican church in the diocese, but obviously not paying any parish share, a dedicated conservative evangelical congregation (again outside the Cof E), a New Frontiers and others. Mostly they meet in schools and theatres. At least one used to meet in a pub.
For those not put off church altogether, there is plenty of choice just within Christendom, near mind elsewhere.
Thanks, but I have not forgotten why I am an Anglican — I choose inclusivity over exclusivity. The CofE is obviously imperfect in that regard, and has been getting worse I’d say, but most of the churches you list seem intentionally so. So thanks but no thanks!
I still don’t fit in anywhere
Join the club 😀
But seriously, I hope that is why Jesus came and why he assured us that his Father’s house has many mansions. Happy Christmas to one and all
The Quakers are inclusive, and so (usually) are the Methodists.
… a substantial HTB affiliated independent church,
Aimed at importing the poison (of prayerless bloating and siphoning of poor people’s funds) among nonconformists like myriad other umbrella groups, and umbrella groups of umbrella groups
I’m not a fan of HTB, but it isn’t fair to call them ‘prayerless’. They pray as much, or more, as the rest of us.
I’m only going by the brand name where I’ve seen it. If there is an actual HTB that disapproves, they should ban their name being used. Also it’s been documented here how the actual one hogs funds that others not connected with it deserve. I’ve witnessed several disastrous cross affiliations for over 20 years. Places of that type exemplify the non-happening of “growth” as so many parishioners get fed up with their brains being fried. Incoming ministers in those locations are more puzzled and more depressed.
The churches that are run by men who have strong connections to Irwene Camp “thinking” – are preaching from that particular point of view. Those churches are HTB, All Souls, St Helen’s Bishopsgate – and there may be many other “church plants”
Gilo,
It’s really very simple for Bishops.
All they need to do is to demonstrate Servant Leadership (set out very clearly in the Gospels) and just ‘do the right thing’.
It’s not rocket science.
They don’t even have to read their bibles, there is a living demonstration in Newcastle.
But apparently that’s beyond 106 out of 107 Bishops (or whatever the exact numbers are), beyond the entire Archbishops’ Council, beyond the NST & Lead Safeguarding Bishops, & beyond >95% of General Synod.
They’ve had more than four decades to sort out historic safeguarding abuse within the Church, and every time they’ve bottled it through self-interest, deference & to protect the ‘good’ name of the C of E, of Iwerne Trust, of ECW, of Soul Survivor, of CEEC, of Peter Ball, of Blackburn Cathedral, of the ‘evangelical work’, of Chichester Diocese, of Titus Trust, of Chelmsford Diocese, of my mate from Theological college 40 years ago, of Archbishops Welby, Cottrell, Carey, Sentamu etc. etc.
Of course the real tragedy is that the greatest good news on Earth that has been handed down to us and which we have a duty and love to share with others is being completely drowned out by the repeated & ongoing very public failings of the C of E hierarchy in December 2024.
As all of us who’ve been round the Church for more than 5 mins well know, only the tiny tip of the C of E safeguarding iceberg is yet in the public domain. If anyone thinks it’s bad at the moment, there is a very great deal more coming.
When will the Hierarchy start looking down the right end of the telescope for a change?
Rather more pertinent, my friend, is when will the hierarchy actually open their eyes, get on board the 21st century and start living in the same, real world that the rest of us do?
I’m not entirely sure I believe in a literal entity named Satan – but whatever form evil takes must be rejoicing and laughing its socks off at the wonderful job the CofE brass hats have done in discrediting the gospel which we are trying to take to a needy world. Go look on youtube, at ‘another archbishop of Canterbury forced to resign’ to see how the enemy is exploiting the situation.
I may not be a total fan-girl of the Bishop of Newcastle, but the time had come for a voice that called out the crisis: and specifically, the fact that this is no longer a case for sticking plasters and polite niceties, but a compelling moment crashing down on the Church and demanding radical change. There needs to be a recognition that from the top down there’s a problem (however faithful many parish safeguard leads have been), and that a serious part of the problem is culture and frameworks of leadership, reluctance to act radically, or take personal responsibility for negligence, along with the continued attempts of some to ‘control narrative’ and ‘limit damage’, to rule ‘top down’, to slow and delay process where convenient, to pressure colleagues to conform.
So, like her or not, the Bishop of Newcastle becomes a lived enactment and example of how church cultures (and colleagues) resist the person who does not play by their own etiquettes… but calls for more radical action. More radical action was needed all down the line in too many safeguarding cases. Radical action out of safeguarding compassion. We all know our Lord Jesus was radical. The Church of England much less so.
We have an entrenched culture problem at the top of the Church, that merits clear out. The huge issue now is not only safeguarding failures, but the PERCEPTION that Church safeguarding is not safe. And perception really matters. The Church is seen as defending its own, and having inadequate processes and structures to bring about truly radical change. At the moment the media is having to take the lead because the Church can’t/won’t take/make radical actions themselves. Look how it just shrugged and moved on from the shocking ISB fiasco. We have an emergency… an almost existential crisis… and whether I agree with all Helen Ann says/does or not, at least she is not shoring up the status quo.
The Church’s culture and the self-endorsing complacency/ circle of self-entitlement at the top has led to the public perception that we cannot be trusted and that *perception* and collapse of trust in itself justifies resignations and radical demonstration of change and remorse. It’s not just individual cases, it’s an accumulative thing that has brought things to this point. It was time for Justin to leave, not because of specifics of one case, but because of an accumulation of safeguarding issues that had led to the haemorrhaging of trust.
People in the ‘inside’ of the culture just don’t seem to ‘get’ how it is failing, or how they themselves may be (collectively) the problem (not just as individuals but rather as an organisation that buys in to its own structures and ways of operating/perpetuating/knowing best at the top). The perception of Church failure, and huge loss of trust and confidence, whether fair or not, cries out for more radical voice and critique, not only to challenge individuals but to signal a need for clear out, for radical changes, and it’s sad if such voices are marginalised because things can’t go on as before. The country is disgusted.
The ‘in crowd’ goes on and on, with ‘lessons learned’, and resistance to radical change, avoidance of accountability… and maybe, like her or not, the Bishop of Newcastle dares to be ‘out crowd’ and ‘Jenny-no-friends among her peers’… or almost no friends because people like Julie Conalty (another awkward woman) have also shown the guts to veer off from the pack and speak with decency and challenge.
Things are being driven by media because the Church can’t drive itself out of its own morass of successive safeguarding failures, its resistance to Jay recommendations, its total car crash over the ISB and what that did to survivors in that fiasco, its sitting on the collapsing fence over human sexuality, its alienation of the public, and the way it is careering onwards demographically with a country that has largely shrugged and despised what it perceives as a self-absorbed, unsafe, still discriminatory Church… and someone should not dare to speak out and rock the boat? It needs rocking. It needs cultural, organisational change because at present it is crashing in so many ways.
And change can indeed come. Change feeds up from the roots. And Jesus is the root, the stump from which always new life and grace can spring. It’s important not to forget that. Right now we need grace and prayer for those under pressure in a time of crisis. And grace and prayer right down at the roots level of parish life, where many parishioners are dazed and saddened, perplexed and confused… or just carry on giving their kindness to the community, person by person… which is the very best part of the Church. In a way, those parishioners ARE the Church… more vital to its future than those who perpetuate some power structure up above them. Reformation can only really come when they are afforded more central say in how – in their communities – they open to the Love of God and devote their lives.
There is SO much goodness and compassion in the Church, and that is what makes what has gone on above them very sad. Jesus never gives up. Day by day, the light of Jesus is coming into our world, urging us to devote ourselves, to open our hearts to the flow of God’s Love. So we should never lose heart, but right now the Church of England is in crisis. Arranging deck chairs, speaking in niceties, shushing awkward voices… I think that’s symptomatic… but not what’s needed. ‘In quietness and trust’… but not in stifled silence… ‘for Zion’s sake…’
We owe a great debt to Bishop Helen- Anne Hartley showing enormous courage and leadership bringing out in the’ public domain’ issues within the ‘structures’ of Church of England around ‘safeguarding’ and how ‘power’ is exercised both in these Institutions and the Archbishops Council in a complete misunderstanding of the Nolan Principles that any public facing office holders are expected to uphold following the Makin Report.
These Institutions urgently need to be disbanded and reformed through appointing an independent person and others of high integrity to change the ‘culture’ and ‘structures’ – the terms of reference to be set by a ‘third party’ independent of the Institutions other than through consultation. An independent investigation to include all those named in the report, including Bishops, well send a message this behaviour is not acceptable.
URGENT work is also required to reform the roles and responsibilities of Bishops and their structures to create greater accountability and full transparency which avoids this type ‘of human behaviour’ which shames and us all and works in a better way. The work needs to be undertaken in parallel to the process to recruit a new Archbishop of Canterbury.
It resonates with what we have observed in the public enquiry – The Post Office IT Horizon chaired by Sir Wyn Williams, namely a lack to follow the Nolan Principles which applies not only to ‘bodies corporate’ and includes Charities like we see in these church Institutions. This is a ‘pivotal’ moment, particularly for the victims and society at large and demonstrate change is possible –we can and must do better. Our prayers should be at GS February 2025 session of meetings every opportunity should be taken by lay synod members and others calling for major ‘reform’ and be counted along with Bishop Anne.
The church’s pervading sin is the caste system. People understand how it works without having it explained. The lower castes don’t complain, and everyone is a bit shocked if they do. The upper castes don’t misbehave, “clergy don’t lie”, and everyone thinks that’s true for ages after it has been shown that it ain’t necessarily so”. The pyramid is far too high and pointed.
Yes and children are usually at the very bottom of the pyramid – ideally seen but not heard. The church wants them – code words ‘young families’ and sees the children as wonderful when they ‘perform’ such as at nativity plays, but in many churches if the children are real and lively – let alone if they’re making a noise or have specific needs and difficulties then they’re a nuisance and disapproved of.
I remember with huge delight the grins as my granddaughter was carried out of church shouting “I don’t want to be quiet”!
My kind of girl!
I was far too good as a child, but I’m making up for it now. 😉
“self-absorbed, unsafe, still discriminatory”
And they call other churches sectarian whereas the C of E is the one that is sectarian, since they stopped teaching us to pray.
There are a few hidden gems in the manure heap! The positive role of women in leadership is to be celebrated. The collapse of old boy networks is excellent. The shift to independent inquiry processes (into abuse or bullying and harassment) will now inevitably accelerate. A Harold Shipman type tipping point is already upon us. A ‘Boston tea party’ moment threatening diocesan finances may produce benefit over a longer period. I think there are arguments to remain as an Anglican, but perhaps with some interest in Anabaptist ideas. Apostle’s Creed Anglicanism, with a strong focus on NT teachings and doctrine has merit. The amateurism of diocesan safeguarding, by unqualified bishops and their inept teams, can no longer be defended or hidden. We need legal professionals overseeing independent processes. A church spending a billion on absurd slavery reparations (or other woke stunts) can surely afford this.
‘Churchabuse.uk’ has an interesting petition………………..
And the same link takes you to a blog which is keeping up to date with the issues. In the latest, correspondence between Chelmsford Diocese and the NST is revealed – proving that ++ Cottrell’s statements re the Tudor case have been dishonest. No further proof was needed, but the exchange is very telling.
That’s a very good resource! Thanks. It connects with the points below, too, possibly, about a need to protect one’s career………..
Interesting article. I am not a Christian but have had a lot of experience of clergy as an organist. One thing that has always puzzled me is the phenomenon Gilo has pinpointed : C of E leaders who are truly good people, working alongside others with a taste for cruelty. Most recently, Paula Vennells has illustrated the latter quality to an extent that might justly categorised as unadulterated evil. I have seen the lives of one good man, a vicar and one good woman, a Reader devastated by the actions of a bishop. (I worked with all three). In his former role as a parish priest, the bishop was regarded by the more perceptive of his church congregation as a manipulative liar. As an organist, the activities of the C of E’s ordained ministers strengthened my atheism on a weekly basis. I have the greatest respect for many of the clergy within the organisation, but have always been puzzled at how thoroughly bad people can thrive in the C of E and ascend to the highest positions in its hierarchy. Any explanations for an atheist?
Dear Richard, I appreciated your thoughtful comment. I don’t have the answer to your question of how evil can prosper in the church, because it is a subset of the question of how evil can prosper in the world (this is the theological conundrum termed theodicy). But I will note that, as atheists can clearly produce wonderful music in church, so can ‘ungodly’ clergy preside over wonderful worship. The Articles of Religion recognise this explicitly :
‘XXVI. Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments.
Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.’
I would add that Christ answered the Rich Young Man thus: ‘Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.’ (Matthew 19.17)
I have heard it suggested that the idea that Christians are supposed to be ‘good’, and clergy especially so, can lead to an extreme reaction when they fail to live up to this. Rather than seeing themselves as fallible children of God like the rest of humanity, they see themselves as especially evil, and secretly turn away from Christ.
PS I recognise that your question was also asking about those who ascend to the highest positions in the hierarchy. I have always found Luke’s account of the Temptation interesting in regard to questions of power:
‘Then the devil led him up and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And the devil said to him, ‘To you I will give their glory and all this authority; for it has been given over to me, and I give it to anyone I please.’
Of course the devil is a liar, but Jesus did not contradict the assertion!
Interesting point, thank you.
A further reflection on ‘the problem of evil’:
‘(Moral) outrage is a particularly unproductive affect, yet it is one that offers considerable libidinal satisfaction. By “unproductive” I mean this: it gives us the satisfaction of feeling morally superior, the feeling that we are in the right and others are in the wrong. Now for this to work, things must not really change. We are much less interested in changing things than in proving, again and again, that we are in the right, or on the right side, the side of the good. Hegel invented a great name for this position: the “beautiful soul.” A “beautiful soul” sees evil and baseness all around it but fails to see to what extent it participates in the perpetuation of that same order of things. The point of course is not that the world isn’t really evil, the point is that we are part of this evil world.
The beautiful soul attitude finds a particularly fertile ground in what many call the “infantilization” of our societies. We are encouraged to behave as children: to act primarily upon how we “feel,” to demand — and rely on — constant protection against the “outer world,” its dangers and fights, or simply against the world of others, other human beings.
Perhaps something will make us see how those who offer to protect us beyond a certain age, or some immediate emergencies, are our worst enemies — that they, and not some outside brutal villains, are the social agents of domination. We have to politely turn them down, and start making, and standing behind, our decisions. Not alone, but together with those who think in a similar way.’
Alenka Zupanic, ‘Too Much of Not Enough: An Interview with Alenka Zupanic’
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/too-much-of-not-enough-an-interview-with-alenka-zupancic
. All your points are though-provoking, and thank you for your kindness in offering them From the point of view of an outsider I have always thought that there are more than enough good clergy to fill the top positions. I remember a vicar friend telling me that a fellow cleric who eventually became an archbishop had once advised him that ‘you have to fight hard for the top jobs’.
Candid honesty is welcome. Many Church members also question a lot of what happens in the institutional Church.
Did G K Chesterton say the reality of evil was the only part of systematic theology which was utterly inescapable or absolutely provable?
‘The Magnificat’ reminds us how the biggest croziers or kalashnikovs do not win in the final analysis.
Christmas is very good news for ordinary people. Welby is not akin to Assad, but 2025 may be better with different leaders installed!!!!!
And the good clergy, by definition, will not fight for the top jobs. Which leaves the field to the over-ambitious, dishonest, and venal. But those who make the appointments ought to be looking for inner qualities, and overlooking the ambitious.
I have had much cause to meditate on Article 26!
A belated reply, Mark – although an active Anglican, I also have a fairly wide experience with evangelical groups and ‘free churches’, who are not particularly impressed with the 39 Articles, and particularly No 27.
The number of times I’ve been scathingly told ‘That outfit? They let unbelievers become priests – its in their articles of faith’ (or words to that effect) is beyond count. It all sounds a bit too much like magic to those who take the Bible in a more prescriptive way. And I must admit that I tend to sympathise with them.
And didn’t Chaucer say something about ‘clean sheep and dirty shepherds’?
Thanks John, that’s interesting— always good to have other perspectives. I would say that it’s not magic it’s sacramental— and to those who can’t tell the difference I’d suggest revisiting the Bible! I understand that those you refer to would consider me overly Catholic, but I would say they are not Protestant enough — by which I mean they seem to have forgotten the Reformers’ belief that the people should be free to make their own minds up about what the Bible says, and not simply be told by the priests (or pastors).
It is for the most part run like any other human organisation. There will be favouritism, prejudice, grooming, and its opposite: people who are in it as a career, people who don’t actually believe in God, people who shamelessly learn the formulae which impress the … gullible? naive? innocent? Some of the latter are bishops with the power to promote, in the original sense, and even groom people. I’ve seen all of these. If I had been treated with half the love and support that I have seen given to the favoured, you wouldn’t have any of these problems, because I would be the Archbishop of Canterbury by now! The Church is in no way fair or even handed. If it were just me, it wouldn’t matter a fig. It’s unpleasant.for me, and a waste, imo, but it really wouldn’t matter in the great scheme of things. What makes it an existential crisis is how common and widespread the corruption is.
I haven’t yet read all of the above comments, but Helen-Ann is.surely being viewed with suspicion because people think she is ambitious. And it doesn’t pay to be naive, many are. And highly placed church people have the same fears as I always did, whenever I tried to talk about the bullying and neglect I was subjected to: that of being sued. The Church is mean and nasty, and has plenty of funds to spend on lawyers, while I don’t. And am not! And another point, the Church simply never thinks of making it up to you, making it right. Restitution is not on the agenda.
Referring to the bishops Gilo asks: “What or who are they all frightened of? Are they frightened of each other?”
I have seen the consequences of this fear which obliterates truth and damages their victims.
In my support of a friend, known as Kenneth, in an unfounded allegation of sexual touching, there has been no investigation or scrutiny of evidence. I have found three bishops who are afraid of admitting the truth because it runs contrary to the decisions of the Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser (DSA). One bishop said, “You must understand I am not allowed to intervene in Safeguarding procedures”. However, any claim of this particular DSA that she was following the rules of the House of Bishops and that therefore the bishop should not intervene cannot be substantiated. I had already proved to her that she had not followed these rules no less than fifteen times,
The Diocesan Bishop had met with us for well over two hours and seen our evidences and the truth of the case. Nevertheless he implicitly accepted contrary information from the DSA knowing it to be untrue, yet saying, ‘“I am not in a position to override the advice I have been given”. In other words, he had no independent authority but must concede to the dictates of the DSA. Similarly through Subject Access Request information (SAR) we read that the Diocesan Bishop suggested that a major piece of evidence which might have exonerated Kenneth and which had been deliberately suppressed for four years by the DSA, should in fact be disclosed. The DSA refused and the bishop was powerless to insist.
So whilst all evidence, even from SAR, points to Kenneth’s innocence he must still be labelled ‘High Risk Sexual Predator’ – the same category as Smyth.
The sooner we have a radical reform of so-called ‘Anglican Safeguarding by Bishops’ the better. ‘Guarding the contents of Church safes’ from valid victim compensation claims might be a better name. The UK medical world was shaken up post-Shipman and this is what needs to immediately happen with our Church. There was a time it was joked how calls about UK death certification often received an answerphone message: “Bronchopneumonia never bounces”. That had to change, and it did. The ‘Sooty and Sweep’ show puppet performance-Bishop and diocesan team-does not need revision. It is an obsolete joke. We need an independent system and nothing else will suffice. The alternative is more kangaroo court justice, which has let innocent people be attacked and bullies protected.
May I wish everyone a joyful Christmas? It could be a difficult time for many. So I hope there’s some love and joy on offer.
A very happy Christmas and 2025 to you too Athena. Good to see your name on the comments again.
Oh, hi Frances! Nice to see you, too. Have a good Christmas!
This is the first Christmas since 1963 I haven’t been depressed. Which is wonderful, but I’m mindful of all those who find Christmas difficult as I have done.
That’s the best Christmas present I could hear Janet!
Christmas again! The Magnificat-the humble exalted and the largest crozier or Kalashnikov does not rule the universe…………………
No, but sadly they do give a very good impression that they do…. and yes, I do struggle quite frequently with all the problems of believing in an ‘upside down kingdom’ alongside a church and world which trample on the humble and meek, rather than exalt them!
But that would prompt a very deep and lengthy discussion. Happy new year to you, James, and God bless you and all those on here.
Making Cock-a-leekie soup this festive season? Why use a cockerel if there is a Cottrell available? Cottrells are a new user-friendly type of genetically modified chicken, which de-feather and de-skin themselves, followed by self-evisceration, before jumping into whatever soup pot the media have waiting for them……….
I am assuming most who read this blog also read thinkinganglicans ?
There is a lot of discussion there around the same issues.
Indeed – and you see quite a few of the names turning up to prove we do!