“Ideologically, Welby can be what you want him to be.” Says the author.
So by that description Welby is weak, insincere, and has no conviction. And from his insecure dictates and his wokery, it certainly seems so. So how can Giles possibly then say this?
“…the Church of England has never felt weaker. It’s not his fault…”
Oh really? Well, if not the archbishop of Canterbury then who might be regarded as responsible for the well-being of the church of England?
I am not one of your “flock” “Shepherd Giles”. But let me tell you this. You lot are going to need to get a pair of balls between your legs, some fire in your belly, and some conviction in your minds, if you want the Anglican church to even exist in 10 years time.
It is certainly true that the churches whose numbers are increasing are evangelical and hold to rather “old fashioned” doctrines whereas the traditional churches that seek to move with the times and take on board fashionable secular ideas are in continuous decline.
Well, Jeremy, if declining churches are so “traditional,” what are they doing with “fashionable secular ideas”?
Those two things don’t go together. Why would anyone bother going to church, after all, if fashionable ideas are promoted everywhere, by definition, and often far more effectively (whether for the good or not) than in church? Every religious tradition has a sine qua non, a distinctive way of thinking about and experiencing the world. If it fails to propagate that tradition from one generation to another, then it has lost its raison d’etre.
Like so many other officially religious institutions (including Jewish and other non-Christian ones), the Church of England has tried to translate religion into secular terms–or, to be more specific, reduce religion to some phenomenon that’s more acceptable to scientists or social scientists. Academic theologians notwithstanding, this cannot be done. Even the early Christian “apologists” recognized that there were limits to how far they could go in making Christianity compatible with the alien worldviews of Greeks and Romans. The conflict between particularism and universalism, resulting in some measure of adaptation, continued as Christianity spread from one cultural matrix to another. But the secular matrix is very different from that of any foreign religion.
In my opinion, the main problem is not that so many people now reject the “idea” of God but that so many people today lack the experience of holiness--in many cases, even when they do go to church. Secularized churches preserve a few remnants of tradition (such as its rituals, symbols, art, architecture, costumes, music, choreography, even some portions or versions of scripture), sure, but they replace what had once given meaning to them with more “rational” substitutes (such as moral instruction, group psychotherapy, emotional catharsis, political consciousness-raising or some other form of “community building”). It doesn’t work. It’s fraudulent. And no managerial skill can change that. After well over a century, this much should be clear to everyone. When it comes to religion, people want either the real thing or nothing.
You could argue that “charismatic” churches are not reductive and therefore “traditional.” I’m not so sure. Maybe they’re less reductive or less obviously reductive. But I’ve learned enough about them to suspect that they rely heavily (though not openly or even consciously) on the mechanisms of group psychology, some of which are very manipulative. Its high levels of emotionalism and anti-intellectualism, at any rate, link this movement with the emotionalism and anti-intellectualism that became fashionable in one form of another in the 1960s and 1970s but now pervade all levels of society.
Good post. I largely agree with you, but I remain optimistic about the church. When times are good, people ignore or go against it. When times are bad they flock back to the pews. Christianity is a desert flower that doesn’t do well in lush environments.
Your optimism, then, must surely flow from the belief that times are bad and will be getting much worse.
I think you may be right….
For that reason, I think the Church *must* hold itself pure from the pervasive cancer of Woke Utopianism – people will not flock to the churches to escape it if the churches are ideologically captured by the same garbage.
While I’m optimistic about Christianity, I am less so about the future. I predict a time when Christianity will be purposefully conflated with hatred and bigotry in order to push through a progressive agenda.
While I’m optimistic about Christianity, I am less so about the future. I predict a time when Christianity will be purposefully conflated with hatred and bigotry in order to push through a progressive agenda.
Your optimism, then, must surely flow from the belief that times are bad and will be getting much worse.
I think you may be right….
For that reason, I think the Church *must* hold itself pure from the pervasive cancer of Woke Utopianism – people will not flock to the churches to escape it if the churches are ideologically captured by the same garbage.
It would indeed be more impressive if Welby could say like Luther “ Here I stand I can do no other, so help me God”. Instead he slips and slides to be up to date – to be a good bureaucrat and seek compromise.
Good post. I largely agree with you, but I remain optimistic about the church. When times are good, people ignore or go against it. When times are bad they flock back to the pews. Christianity is a desert flower that doesn’t do well in lush environments.
It would indeed be more impressive if Welby could say like Luther “ Here I stand I can do no other, so help me God”. Instead he slips and slides to be up to date – to be a good bureaucrat and seek compromise.
That’s because Jesus is building His Church and the Church of England is not His Church – unlike the Church IN England. And if the Author doesn’t think homosexuality is a sin then he should be in the Wolf Pit.
The vast majority of people in England now back homosexual marriage, so there is no problem at all with the Church of England allowing blessings for homosexual couples married in civil ceremonies in its churches. What it does need to do however is respect its traditions, the sacred choral music, magnificent cathedrals, weddings in country parishes, Midnight Mass at Christmas, which large numbers in this country can relate too. Especially small c Christians. Full on hardline evangelical churches can attract new followers yes but they will also always be more disconnected from the mainstream in this country
Popular approval is irrelevant. Presuming the ideas taught by the church are taken from the bible, I am unsure how they make decisions when they play pick and mix.
Jesus Christ himself never said anything against blessing homosexual couples. The Church of England has correctly allowed that in its churches while reserving holy matrimony for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions
Jesus did not talk about homosexuality because it was not an issue in Israel. The Law of Moses condemned it absolutely and no one argued with that.
Paul had to talk about it because it was common in the pagan world.
Jesus did not talk about homosexuality because it was not an issue in Israel. The Law of Moses condemned it absolutely and no one argued with that.
Paul had to talk about it because it was common in the pagan world.
Jesus Christ himself never said anything against blessing homosexual couples. The Church of England has correctly allowed that in its churches while reserving holy matrimony for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions
Unions of consenting homosexual adults in love with each other are nothing comparable with slavery and torture, so don’t make such a repulsive comparison!
Popular approval is irrelevant. Presuming the ideas taught by the church are taken from the bible, I am unsure how they make decisions when they play pick and mix.
Unions of consenting homosexual adults in love with each other are nothing comparable with slavery and torture, so don’t make such a repulsive comparison!
The vast majority of people in England now back homosexual marriage, so there is no problem at all with the Church of England allowing blessings for homosexual couples married in civil ceremonies in its churches. What it does need to do however is respect its traditions, the sacred choral music, magnificent cathedrals, weddings in country parishes, Midnight Mass at Christmas, which large numbers in this country can relate too. Especially small c Christians. Full on hardline evangelical churches can attract new followers yes but they will also always be more disconnected from the mainstream in this country
I agree. I think part of the reason is that when people are looking for a new perspective and look to see if the church can provide it, the Anglican church is not sufficiently different from the life from which they want a change/something more.
Well, Jeremy, if declining churches are so “traditional,” what are they doing with “fashionable secular ideas”?
Those two things don’t go together. Why would anyone bother going to church, after all, if fashionable ideas are promoted everywhere, by definition, and often far more effectively (whether for the good or not) than in church? Every religious tradition has a sine qua non, a distinctive way of thinking about and experiencing the world. If it fails to propagate that tradition from one generation to another, then it has lost its raison d’etre.
Like so many other officially religious institutions (including Jewish and other non-Christian ones), the Church of England has tried to translate religion into secular terms–or, to be more specific, reduce religion to some phenomenon that’s more acceptable to scientists or social scientists. Academic theologians notwithstanding, this cannot be done. Even the early Christian “apologists” recognized that there were limits to how far they could go in making Christianity compatible with the alien worldviews of Greeks and Romans. The conflict between particularism and universalism, resulting in some measure of adaptation, continued as Christianity spread from one cultural matrix to another. But the secular matrix is very different from that of any foreign religion.
In my opinion, the main problem is not that so many people now reject the “idea” of God but that so many people today lack the experience of holiness--in many cases, even when they do go to church. Secularized churches preserve a few remnants of tradition (such as its rituals, symbols, art, architecture, costumes, music, choreography, even some portions or versions of scripture), sure, but they replace what had once given meaning to them with more “rational” substitutes (such as moral instruction, group psychotherapy, emotional catharsis, political consciousness-raising or some other form of “community building”). It doesn’t work. It’s fraudulent. And no managerial skill can change that. After well over a century, this much should be clear to everyone. When it comes to religion, people want either the real thing or nothing.
You could argue that “charismatic” churches are not reductive and therefore “traditional.” I’m not so sure. Maybe they’re less reductive or less obviously reductive. But I’ve learned enough about them to suspect that they rely heavily (though not openly or even consciously) on the mechanisms of group psychology, some of which are very manipulative. Its high levels of emotionalism and anti-intellectualism, at any rate, link this movement with the emotionalism and anti-intellectualism that became fashionable in one form of another in the 1960s and 1970s but now pervade all levels of society.
That’s because Jesus is building His Church and the Church of England is not His Church – unlike the Church IN England. And if the Author doesn’t think homosexuality is a sin then he should be in the Wolf Pit.
I agree. I think part of the reason is that when people are looking for a new perspective and look to see if the church can provide it, the Anglican church is not sufficiently different from the life from which they want a change/something more.
Welby is the epitome of whited sepulchres.
His utter abandonment of his flock when he could have made his Church a greater force for good than at practically any time since the Second World War was not the action of a priest but a Godless bureaucrat through and through.
Our cat is a better Christian than Marcus Welby.
Agreed but like a 30 year old horse the CofE should be allowed to die. Cromwell had it right and what’s Oil Wellby but a low rent politico: “You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go.”
Rubbish, the Church of England is still the Church most people in England feel closest to, not least as it offers weddings and funerals to all who live in its Parishes
The fact that most people who want to feel close to a church choose the CofE simply shows that it is the most popular; that has nothing to do with the extent to which it does or does not reflect Christianity. It could be that it simply projects what people want Christianity to be.
You already said that.
Jesus did not talk about homosexuality because it was not an issue in Israel. The Law of Moses condemned it absolutely and no one argued with that.
Paul had to talk about it because it was common in the pagan world
You already said that.
Jesus did not talk about homosexuality because it was not an issue in Israel. The Law of Moses condemned it absolutely and no one argued with that.
Paul had to talk about it because it was common in the pagan world
I am guessing the funeral/marriage thing is a legacy system as its not the same as worshipping.Round here ( Urban London suburb) the Church Of Christ is way the busiest and seems to mainly have African origin worshippers, then the two Mosques, the CofE and local RC are about tied for 4th place. I suppose its different in the countryside.
I live in a rural area that maybe why yes. The nearest Evangelical church is in a town 15 minutes away by car and that only gets a small congregation. Worship in villages and market towns is still dominated by the Church of England and the historic Church of England Parish church, it is different in big cities where there are more choices of church and indeed more mosques, temples etc too. Although Church of England cathedrals in cities still get good attendance for worship
I live in a rural area that maybe why yes. The nearest Evangelical church is in a town 15 minutes away by car and that only gets a small congregation. Worship in villages and market towns is still dominated by the Church of England and the historic Church of England Parish church, it is different in big cities where there are more choices of church and indeed more mosques, temples etc too. Although Church of England cathedrals in cities still get good attendance for worship
The fact that most people who want to feel close to a church choose the CofE simply shows that it is the most popular; that has nothing to do with the extent to which it does or does not reflect Christianity. It could be that it simply projects what people want Christianity to be.
I am guessing the funeral/marriage thing is a legacy system as its not the same as worshipping.Round here ( Urban London suburb) the Church Of Christ is way the busiest and seems to mainly have African origin worshippers, then the two Mosques, the CofE and local RC are about tied for 4th place. I suppose its different in the countryside.
Rubbish, the Church of England is still the Church most people in England feel closest to, not least as it offers weddings and funerals to all who live in its Parishes
Whilst agreeing with every word in the article, mine is a positive comment.
I was directed a few years back to St Paul’s Knightsbridge in London as a place where the clergy and liturgy was entirely inspirational and I have yet to be disappointed.
It is certainly true that the churches whose numbers are increasing are evangelical and hold to rather “old fashioned” doctrines whereas the traditional churches that seek to move with the times and take on board fashionable secular ideas are in continuous decline.
Welby is the epitome of whited sepulchres.
His utter abandonment of his flock when he could have made his Church a greater force for good than at practically any time since the Second World War was not the action of a priest but a Godless bureaucrat through and through.
Our cat is a better Christian than Marcus Welby.
Agreed but like a 30 year old horse the CofE should be allowed to die. Cromwell had it right and what’s Oil Wellby but a low rent politico: “You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go.”
Whilst agreeing with every word in the article, mine is a positive comment.
I was directed a few years back to St Paul’s Knightsbridge in London as a place where the clergy and liturgy was entirely inspirational and I have yet to be disappointed.
Albireo Double
1 year ago
“Ideologically, Welby can be what you want him to be.” Says the author.
So by that description Welby is weak, insincere, and has no conviction. And from his insecure dictates and his wokery, it certainly seems so. So how can Giles possibly then say this?
“…the Church of England has never felt weaker. It’s not his fault…”
Oh really? Well, if not the archbishop of Canterbury then who might be regarded as responsible for the well-being of the church of England?
I am not one of your “flock” “Shepherd Giles”. But let me tell you this. You lot are going to need to get a pair of balls between your legs, some fire in your belly, and some conviction in your minds, if you want the Anglican church to even exist in 10 years time.
Last edited 1 year ago by Albireo Double
AC Harper
1 year ago
“And 11 years in the oil industry clearly shaped his thinking about organisational structures. ”
From Wikipedia, Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy: In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals that the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely.
“On the front line, in the parishes, it feels like the Archbishop doesn’t much care about us.”
QED
Never heard this before but it explains a lot of what is happening right now and not just in the church.
AC Harper
1 year ago
“And 11 years in the oil industry clearly shaped his thinking about organisational structures. ”
From Wikipedia, Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy: In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals that the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely.
“On the front line, in the parishes, it feels like the Archbishop doesn’t much care about us.”
QED
Christopher Barclay
1 year ago
Closing the church doors when the congregation were in their hour of need so that the clergy could hide behind the Church’s wealth was disgraceful.
Closing the church doors when the congregation were in their hour of need so that the clergy could hide behind the Church’s wealth was disgraceful.
Chris Wheatley
1 year ago
So, “he’s not a people person”, “he’s too managerial”, he laughs but is only pretending. How did he get through the first interview, let alone get the job?
The Church is riddled with confusion. Our local Church has a Bishop who spits nasty words against the the Tories whenever she is speaking to groups – she has been sent home for a few months on sick leave. This Archbishop in the article seems to have gone astray.
This supports my view that the local churches have become completely separated from the idea of religion. In my experience, local churches have a group of mainly 60-80 years-old people who help in the community. These people do great things ranging from visiting the sick to distributing food parcels to making a cup of tea in the hall for lonely (and cold) people. You don’t have to think too hard to see why older people are more involved.
Meanwhile, instructions come from HQ to concentrate on young people. The vicars now play guitars and the churches have screens instead of hymn books. Of course, the regulars can’t see the screens properly so, having wasted the money, hymn books are still used. This concentration on young people is like the BBC. The customers are mainly old people but the management initiative concentrates on the young. Why would young people want to go to church or sit indoors watching television?
Yes, the congregation at my church (myself included ) is largely made up of people aged between 60 and 80 – and we try to do the great things you have indicated. But fortunately we have traditionalist clergy and a loyal choir – so no screens or guitars are inflicted on us. And in Chichester we have a sound Bishop.
Yes, the congregation at my church (myself included ) is largely made up of people aged between 60 and 80 – and we try to do the great things you have indicated. But fortunately we have traditionalist clergy and a loyal choir – so no screens or guitars are inflicted on us. And in Chichester we have a sound Bishop.
Chris Wheatley
1 year ago
So, “he’s not a people person”, “he’s too managerial”, he laughs but is only pretending. How did he get through the first interview, let alone get the job?
The Church is riddled with confusion. Our local Church has a Bishop who spits nasty words against the the Tories whenever she is speaking to groups – she has been sent home for a few months on sick leave. This Archbishop in the article seems to have gone astray.
This supports my view that the local churches have become completely separated from the idea of religion. In my experience, local churches have a group of mainly 60-80 years-old people who help in the community. These people do great things ranging from visiting the sick to distributing food parcels to making a cup of tea in the hall for lonely (and cold) people. You don’t have to think too hard to see why older people are more involved.
Meanwhile, instructions come from HQ to concentrate on young people. The vicars now play guitars and the churches have screens instead of hymn books. Of course, the regulars can’t see the screens properly so, having wasted the money, hymn books are still used. This concentration on young people is like the BBC. The customers are mainly old people but the management initiative concentrates on the young. Why would young people want to go to church or sit indoors watching television?
Malcolm Knott
1 year ago
What kind of archbishop forbade clergy to pray, alone, in their own churches? One whose brain has too many pointy bits.
Malcolm Knott
1 year ago
What kind of archbishop forbade clergy to pray, alone, in their own churches? One whose brain has too many pointy bits.
Hendrik Mentz
1 year ago
But what has God got to do with any of this? Sounds like a flippant question but early on in the Covid ‘pandemic’ it struck me – someone who hasn’t stepped inside a church for years – that the only thing standing between me, Hendrik Mentz, and a totalising dystopian future ruled by the algorithm, is community founded on the sacred, embodied in the mystery of Christ. I’m more convinced today than ever. But this essay and the earlier by Thompson (Ten terrible years of Pope Francis) have shattered that illusion. (The only gleanable hope was you kept your church open.) It’s now or never (returning to the original question) otherwise I fear it’s tickets for humanity.
I have to disagree with your conclusion. It’s my very considered view that only once humanity has weaned itself away from belief in a divinity will we ever start to get to grips with our true nature. Concepts of ‘sin’ and suchlike are beyond useless to deal with the reality, and only serve to hinder a proper and full exploration of what it truly means to be part of an animal species that developed consciousness.
This also requires the kind of examination of ourselves that today’s article on child abuse demands. Giles mentions that one of the mentors of the Archbishop (or was it his mentor?) was found to have abused young boys. You also refer to the recent article on the Pope, which primarily involved the amount of corruption and abuse within the Church of Rome. Clearly, ‘holiness’ is another hollow concept which needs to be shown for what it is.
Belief in a god has created the current condition, whereby loss of that belief isn’t the problem, but rather the realisation that we humans are very good at fooling ourselves, and that this gets developed into systems and hierarchies. Enough is enough.
Hi Steve. I do not speak of belief or anything ‘out there’ separate from me. I speak of totality, as in God. I speak of relationship, of community, the sacred and of mystery embodied in the Christ who for me symbolises the suffering of every man, woman and child – also sacrifice, the unfathomable, and whatever flows therefrom. Any epistemology that doesn’t account for and embrace the foregoing, falls short, for me. As for your reference to ‘sin’, that for me requires acknowledging, living, and integrating the darkness within me; and you doing very much the same yourself.
I think you make some very
good points about the need for community; however in the faux multi cultural paradise that is the UK there is no ‘community’, just disparate groups whose views are frequently opposed to one another.
I also do not think it is possible to ‘reverse engineer’ Christian community via a return to the fold, so to speak.
The brutal truth is that most of the nation couldn’t give a damn what the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks. I would be surprised if more than half the country even knows who he is.
Jeff, I also don’t believe reverse-engineering an existing Christian flock would work, as it seems (judging by the two essays in question) there’s little there apart from a significant number of shallow, frightened, petty or evil members of a clergy or priesthood pursuing their own ends. And because the church is not about God or Christ it has nothing to offer humanity at grave irreversible risk. So to repeat: it’s now or never. The church must get its act together and I believe community will be born.
Yes exactly this – community is something that emerges, that’s what I meant to say.
I often feel we are at the end of one thing and the beginning of another and can’t go back , but I don’t trust my instincts, largely because I’m older and grouchier than I once was but also because I think that people have always felt like this.
That said I mourn the emptiness and disuse of English country churches – many of them are precious beyond measure even if, like me, you find it hard to have faith.
They also remain one of the few places left in our noisy world you can find some peace.
Jeff, your lamentation goes to the heart of the issue as I understand it, namely, that Christian clergy and the priesthood failed to understand, cherish and preserve that which manifests as stone, carvings, glassware, art, silence and presence in churches bequeathed us. For me this speaks of betrayal. It speaks of sin. It’s tragedy. So instead of feeling grouchy we (the potential or, by now, lost laity) should feel and express our rage.
Jeff, your lamentation goes to the heart of the issue as I understand it, namely, that Christian clergy and the priesthood failed to understand, cherish and preserve that which manifests as stone, carvings, glassware, art, silence and presence in churches bequeathed us. For me this speaks of betrayal. It speaks of sin. It’s tragedy. So instead of feeling grouchy we (the potential or, by now, lost laity) should feel and express our rage.
Yes exactly this – community is something that emerges, that’s what I meant to say.
I often feel we are at the end of one thing and the beginning of another and can’t go back , but I don’t trust my instincts, largely because I’m older and grouchier than I once was but also because I think that people have always felt like this.
That said I mourn the emptiness and disuse of English country churches – many of them are precious beyond measure even if, like me, you find it hard to have faith.
They also remain one of the few places left in our noisy world you can find some peace.
Jeff, I also don’t believe reverse-engineering an existing Christian flock would work, as it seems (judging by the two essays in question) there’s little there apart from a significant number of shallow, frightened, petty or evil members of a clergy or priesthood pursuing their own ends. And because the church is not about God or Christ it has nothing to offer humanity at grave irreversible risk. So to repeat: it’s now or never. The church must get its act together and I believe community will be born.
I speak of epistemology too, and the human tendency to try to grab hold of something – anything – rather than face up to our natures. I’ve no issue with the historical teachings of Jesus, but that’s all they are. There’s no divinity, and if there were it wouldn’t make any difference.
If a god could be proven to exist, i’d not want to worship. Quite simply, any god that required worshipping wouldn’t be worthy of being a god.
Our humanity is all we have. We’re conscious animals. When words such as “unfathomable” are used, i say, try harder. That’s not to confuse with spirituality. I’m immersed in it, as a human being. That’s what we should be embracing, not some invented externality. The universe has more beauty than we can yet see, but we can only try, and take our place within it.
No god, just humanity. Let’s find out who we really are. There doesn’t have to be a “why”. It’s an unnecessary question which prevents understanding.
We all have something that is our highest good. It may be family, friends, nation, a philosophy, or the divine. If our highest good is of human origin, we are giving our ‘worship’ to a flawed thing; only if the divine is worshipped are we setting our highest good on something that is flawless.
“I speak of epistemology too, and the human tendency to try to grab hold of something – anything – rather than face up to our natures.”
That’s interesting, because in your former comment you described the notion of sin as being ‘worse than useless.’ Yet that notion is precisely an attempt to ‘face up to our natures.’ If you investiagted the meaning of it, you might understand it better.
“If a god could be proven to exist, i’d not want to worship. Quite simply, any god that required worshipping wouldn’t be worthy of being a god.”
Undoubtedly true, but no Christian would content that God ‘requires worshipping.’ There are a lot of different conceptions of ‘god.’ Generalisations don’t help much in this area.
“Our humanity is all we have.”
You seem very sure about that. I do often find that atheists are much less questioning, and much more certain, in a kind of aggressive, left-brainy way, than religious people.
“We’re conscious animals. When words such as “unfathomable” are used, i say, try harder.”
You don’t think anything is unfathomable? You think human reason can work everything out? That science is a method capable of dissecting all of reality? Good luck!
In all seriousness: given that 87% of the world’s people are religious, and virtually 100% of our ancestors have been forevere, do you not think there is a chance they’re seeing something you’re not? Or were/are they all just deluded fools?
“If a god could be proven to exist, I’d not want to worship. Quite simply, any god that required worshipping wouldn’t be worthy of being a god.”
I didn’t bite the first time, but I will now from a Jewish point of view. In that context, the problem is not an intellectual one of belief or disbelief in God. Rather, it’s a moral one of fidelity or infidelity to the covenant between God and Israel.
In The Trial of God, Elie Wiesel tells the story of Jewish inmates in a Nazi death camp. One night, they decide to set up a traditional rabbinical court (beth din) and put God on trial for abandoning the covenant–that is, for not rescuing the victims of evil. The deliberate through the night. After many hours of hearing arguments on both sides of the case, they reach a decision. They declare that God is guilty as charged. At dawn, nonetheless, someone rises and says, “And now, let us pray.”
This is a traditional rabbinical tale, a midrash, not a liberal or secular one. In fact, Wiesel drew on his own Hasidic roots in writing it. I’ll try to sum up the commentaries that I’ve read about it and centuries of similar tales.
For traditional Jews, God is not necessarily an almighty being who lives in some other world but occasionally breaks into our own world and intervenes in history to save the good and punish the evil. That’s one strand of the biblical tradition, to be sure, but not the only one and probably not the earliest.
As for the divine covenant, it binds both parties. Just as we can prove ourselves unworthy or unreliable, so can God. But the relationship itself is both intimate and reciprocal. We need God, but God needs us (to complete the work of creation). We can suffer, but so can God.
The story offers no cognitive answer to the problem of suffering. Why do the rabbis call for morning prayer after finding God guilty of abandoning the covenant? Because how else could they go on living in a world that includes death camps? At the heart of this tale is God’s presence in the midst of suffering just as it is in the midst of joy. God is with us and even suffers with us. That idea brought no consolation to most victims of the sho’ah, but it worked for the Hassidim, who by now have the only Jewish communities with no need to worry about “continuity.”
This kind of God is–or should be–familiar to Christians, of course, but it originated centuries earlier than Christianity. Consider the biblical Job. Like the rabbis, he discovers that there is no such thing as a rational or moral answer to the problem of undeserved suffering. His “friends,” who insist that Job must have done something very wrong to have been punished so severely are, as God says, a bunch of fools and pious hypocrites. But Job receives another kind of answer, a non-cognitive one, in the context of a theophany (that is, the direct experience of holiness).
“If a god could be proven to exist, I’d not want to worship. Quite simply, any god that required worshipping wouldn’t be worthy of being a god.”
I didn’t bite the first time, but I will now from a Jewish point of view. In that context, the problem is not an intellectual one of belief or disbelief in God. Rather, it’s a moral one of fidelity or infidelity to the covenant between God and Israel.
In The Trial of God, Elie Wiesel tells the story of Jewish inmates in a Nazi death camp. One night, they decide to set up a traditional rabbinical court (beth din) and put God on trial for abandoning the covenant–that is, for not rescuing the victims of evil. The deliberate through the night. After many hours of hearing arguments on both sides of the case, they reach a decision. They declare that God is guilty as charged. At dawn, nonetheless, someone rises and says, “And now, let us pray.”
This is a traditional rabbinical tale, a midrash, not a liberal or secular one. In fact, Wiesel drew on his own Hasidic roots in writing it. I’ll try to sum up the commentaries that I’ve read about it and centuries of similar tales.
For traditional Jews, God is not necessarily an almighty being who lives in some other world but occasionally breaks into our own world and intervenes in history to save the good and punish the evil. That’s one strand of the biblical tradition, to be sure, but not the only one and probably not the earliest.
As for the divine covenant, it binds both parties. Just as we can prove ourselves unworthy or unreliable, so can God. But the relationship itself is both intimate and reciprocal. We need God, but God needs us (to complete the work of creation). We can suffer, but so can God.
The story offers no cognitive answer to the problem of suffering. Why do the rabbis call for morning prayer after finding God guilty of abandoning the covenant? Because how else could they go on living in a world that includes death camps? At the heart of this tale is God’s presence in the midst of suffering just as it is in the midst of joy. God is with us and even suffers with us. That idea brought no consolation to most victims of the sho’ah, but it worked for the Hassidim, who by now have the only Jewish communities with no need to worry about “continuity.”
This kind of God is–or should be–familiar to Christians, of course, but it originated centuries earlier than Christianity. Consider the biblical Job. Like the rabbis, he discovers that there is no such thing as a rational or moral answer to the problem of undeserved suffering. His “friends,” who insist that Job must have done something very wrong to have been punished so severely are, as God says, a bunch of fools and pious hypocrites. But Job receives another kind of answer, a non-cognitive one, in the context of a theophany (that is, the direct experience of holiness).
Steve, you cover much ground, so out of deference, here goes: not sure where you get the idea I’m ‘grabbing on to anything’ or ‘not facing my nature’. You would need to explain to your readers what ‘spirituality’ stripped of the divine means to you. Nowhere do I speak of a ‘god’ or even God requiring worship. Instead, if you read for meaning you will understand my sense is of God (as earlier defined) manifesting. I embrace totally (my understanding of) your sense of ‘humanity’ and ‘consciousness’ but am puzzled how to ‘try harder’ when faced with the ‘unfathomable’. Why would anyone want to? For me far rather sense awe; as you most likely do experiencing in a ‘universe (which) has more beauty than we can yet see, but we can only try, and take our place within it’. Your closing statement (‘No god, just humanity’) is palpably false given the immensity of the universe. Finally, I’m not asking ‘why’; only pointing out my sense of ‘that’. Hope I covered all your points.
Post script:
Hamlet: There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Hendrik, i wasn’t referring specifically to yourself in my comment about “grabbing onto anything”, rather about a human tendency which is obvious in most organised religions. It’s that tendency that in my view also encourages some (specifically males) to take advantage of others by preaching to that tendency. It’s a power dynamic, and within such, abuse can not only take place but prosper. Or the apparent need to take the lives of others in ‘the cause’ of one’s god.
When will we stop doing this? All the quotes in the world are just that – thoughts of others on the matter. They’re interesting (i’ve read them all before, and more) and some are beautiful, but where have they taken us? It’s time to unblock the dam that religious belief imposes between us and our understanding of ourselves. I fully understand where the concept of ‘sin’ comes from, thanks, and i’m seeking to move the debate beyond its limitations. Nothing original there, by the way.
“It’s time to unblock the dam that religious belief imposes between us and our understanding of ourselves.”
What if, in your earnest investigations, you find that ourselves can only really be understood through the medium of faith in something divine that transcends our individual temporal selves?
Please come back and tell us what you find.
“It’s time to unblock the dam that religious belief imposes between us and our understanding of ourselves.”
What if, in your earnest investigations, you find that ourselves can only really be understood through the medium of faith in something divine that transcends our individual temporal selves?
Please come back and tell us what you find.
Exactly so, Horatio. Trouble is, you dream of nothing. I dream of the Kingdom of God, and try to work for it. It is good to know we do not know everything in heaven or on earth.
Hendrik, i wasn’t referring specifically to yourself in my comment about “grabbing onto anything”, rather about a human tendency which is obvious in most organised religions. It’s that tendency that in my view also encourages some (specifically males) to take advantage of others by preaching to that tendency. It’s a power dynamic, and within such, abuse can not only take place but prosper. Or the apparent need to take the lives of others in ‘the cause’ of one’s god.
When will we stop doing this? All the quotes in the world are just that – thoughts of others on the matter. They’re interesting (i’ve read them all before, and more) and some are beautiful, but where have they taken us? It’s time to unblock the dam that religious belief imposes between us and our understanding of ourselves. I fully understand where the concept of ‘sin’ comes from, thanks, and i’m seeking to move the debate beyond its limitations. Nothing original there, by the way.
Exactly so, Horatio. Trouble is, you dream of nothing. I dream of the Kingdom of God, and try to work for it. It is good to know we do not know everything in heaven or on earth.
We’re selfish mobile blobs of blood, and gore who are very prone to greed, fear, and sloth. We’ve had a world without G*d before. Back then people worshipped rocks and animals or practiced human sacrifice, the rich kept slaves, primitives mutilated themselves, and nations precipitated genocide against each other. That’s who we are, I’m afraid: selfish organisms who have enough intelligence to rationalize evil behaviors. No amount of education or technology will ever change that.
The ancient Jews knew this in their own fashion which is why much of the Old Testament is filled with stories of biblical Israel’s rise and fall. Out of all the ancient gods in existence the G*d of Adam and Eve was the only one who made Man in his image, instead of a mere slave or plaything. When living according to G*d’s laws the ancient Israelis became great. When they became too comfortable and enlightened to need G*d they fell back into ancient and primitive ways. Eventually their vices overcame then and they proved too weak and decadent to resist hostile takeover by neighboring nations.
Maybe this is the point we are at in the West today, especially where freedom is perceived as the ability to fulfill every sexual urge and whim.
I don’t think people worship god because he requires it; if there is any requirement it is that people require to worship which is why most people worship something whether it is a pop idol, their wealth, car, status, partner or things they envy.
We all have something that is our highest good. It may be family, friends, nation, a philosophy, or the divine. If our highest good is of human origin, we are giving our ‘worship’ to a flawed thing; only if the divine is worshipped are we setting our highest good on something that is flawless.
“I speak of epistemology too, and the human tendency to try to grab hold of something – anything – rather than face up to our natures.”
That’s interesting, because in your former comment you described the notion of sin as being ‘worse than useless.’ Yet that notion is precisely an attempt to ‘face up to our natures.’ If you investiagted the meaning of it, you might understand it better.
“If a god could be proven to exist, i’d not want to worship. Quite simply, any god that required worshipping wouldn’t be worthy of being a god.”
Undoubtedly true, but no Christian would content that God ‘requires worshipping.’ There are a lot of different conceptions of ‘god.’ Generalisations don’t help much in this area.
“Our humanity is all we have.”
You seem very sure about that. I do often find that atheists are much less questioning, and much more certain, in a kind of aggressive, left-brainy way, than religious people.
“We’re conscious animals. When words such as “unfathomable” are used, i say, try harder.”
You don’t think anything is unfathomable? You think human reason can work everything out? That science is a method capable of dissecting all of reality? Good luck!
In all seriousness: given that 87% of the world’s people are religious, and virtually 100% of our ancestors have been forevere, do you not think there is a chance they’re seeing something you’re not? Or were/are they all just deluded fools?
Steve, you cover much ground, so out of deference, here goes: not sure where you get the idea I’m ‘grabbing on to anything’ or ‘not facing my nature’. You would need to explain to your readers what ‘spirituality’ stripped of the divine means to you. Nowhere do I speak of a ‘god’ or even God requiring worship. Instead, if you read for meaning you will understand my sense is of God (as earlier defined) manifesting. I embrace totally (my understanding of) your sense of ‘humanity’ and ‘consciousness’ but am puzzled how to ‘try harder’ when faced with the ‘unfathomable’. Why would anyone want to? For me far rather sense awe; as you most likely do experiencing in a ‘universe (which) has more beauty than we can yet see, but we can only try, and take our place within it’. Your closing statement (‘No god, just humanity’) is palpably false given the immensity of the universe. Finally, I’m not asking ‘why’; only pointing out my sense of ‘that’. Hope I covered all your points.
Post script:
Hamlet: There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
We’re selfish mobile blobs of blood, and gore who are very prone to greed, fear, and sloth. We’ve had a world without G*d before. Back then people worshipped rocks and animals or practiced human sacrifice, the rich kept slaves, primitives mutilated themselves, and nations precipitated genocide against each other. That’s who we are, I’m afraid: selfish organisms who have enough intelligence to rationalize evil behaviors. No amount of education or technology will ever change that.
The ancient Jews knew this in their own fashion which is why much of the Old Testament is filled with stories of biblical Israel’s rise and fall. Out of all the ancient gods in existence the G*d of Adam and Eve was the only one who made Man in his image, instead of a mere slave or plaything. When living according to G*d’s laws the ancient Israelis became great. When they became too comfortable and enlightened to need G*d they fell back into ancient and primitive ways. Eventually their vices overcame then and they proved too weak and decadent to resist hostile takeover by neighboring nations.
Maybe this is the point we are at in the West today, especially where freedom is perceived as the ability to fulfill every sexual urge and whim.
I don’t think people worship god because he requires it; if there is any requirement it is that people require to worship which is why most people worship something whether it is a pop idol, their wealth, car, status, partner or things they envy.
I think you make some very
good points about the need for community; however in the faux multi cultural paradise that is the UK there is no ‘community’, just disparate groups whose views are frequently opposed to one another.
I also do not think it is possible to ‘reverse engineer’ Christian community via a return to the fold, so to speak.
The brutal truth is that most of the nation couldn’t give a damn what the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks. I would be surprised if more than half the country even knows who he is.
I speak of epistemology too, and the human tendency to try to grab hold of something – anything – rather than face up to our natures. I’ve no issue with the historical teachings of Jesus, but that’s all they are. There’s no divinity, and if there were it wouldn’t make any difference.
If a god could be proven to exist, i’d not want to worship. Quite simply, any god that required worshipping wouldn’t be worthy of being a god.
Our humanity is all we have. We’re conscious animals. When words such as “unfathomable” are used, i say, try harder. That’s not to confuse with spirituality. I’m immersed in it, as a human being. That’s what we should be embracing, not some invented externality. The universe has more beauty than we can yet see, but we can only try, and take our place within it.
No god, just humanity. Let’s find out who we really are. There doesn’t have to be a “why”. It’s an unnecessary question which prevents understanding.
I would like to stress that Thomson’s article on the Pope is from someone who has a rather large chip on his shoulder. He may be right, but it is difficult to find people as dismissing of Francis as he is.
We shouldn’t blame God for the sins of the world. They are (natural disasters apart) largely the fault of human beings. The point of a deity is to have an objective set of values against which one measures one’s own conduct. Mankind will always follow the path of least resistance and then attempt to justify it. We ignore God’s guiding star at our peril.
My point is precisely that ‘sins’ are part of the human condition, but that we shouldn’t ascribe that concept to them, since it’s primarily based upon a religious interpretation of the world which just isn’t helpful.
It’s time for humanity to move on beyond these old concepts, and only by doing so will we finally be able to recognise ourselves and stop using concepts such a god to hide behind, under the guise of “an objective set of values” which are anything but.
Just as all the bad things that happen are human, so are all the good things, and there’s plenty of those of course. So we should credit ourselves where due, look more closely and honestly about what we’re doing wrong, and continue to strive to improve our lot. No need for a concept of god in any of this.
My point is precisely that ‘sins’ are part of the human condition, but that we shouldn’t ascribe that concept to them, since it’s primarily based upon a religious interpretation of the world which just isn’t helpful.
It’s time for humanity to move on beyond these old concepts, and only by doing so will we finally be able to recognise ourselves and stop using concepts such a god to hide behind, under the guise of “an objective set of values” which are anything but.
Just as all the bad things that happen are human, so are all the good things, and there’s plenty of those of course. So we should credit ourselves where due, look more closely and honestly about what we’re doing wrong, and continue to strive to improve our lot. No need for a concept of god in any of this.
Hi Steve. I do not speak of belief or anything ‘out there’ separate from me. I speak of totality, as in God. I speak of relationship, of community, the sacred and of mystery embodied in the Christ who for me symbolises the suffering of every man, woman and child – also sacrifice, the unfathomable, and whatever flows therefrom. Any epistemology that doesn’t account for and embrace the foregoing, falls short, for me. As for your reference to ‘sin’, that for me requires acknowledging, living, and integrating the darkness within me; and you doing very much the same yourself.
I would like to stress that Thomson’s article on the Pope is from someone who has a rather large chip on his shoulder. He may be right, but it is difficult to find people as dismissing of Francis as he is.
We shouldn’t blame God for the sins of the world. They are (natural disasters apart) largely the fault of human beings. The point of a deity is to have an objective set of values against which one measures one’s own conduct. Mankind will always follow the path of least resistance and then attempt to justify it. We ignore God’s guiding star at our peril.
I have to disagree with your conclusion. It’s my very considered view that only once humanity has weaned itself away from belief in a divinity will we ever start to get to grips with our true nature. Concepts of ‘sin’ and suchlike are beyond useless to deal with the reality, and only serve to hinder a proper and full exploration of what it truly means to be part of an animal species that developed consciousness.
This also requires the kind of examination of ourselves that today’s article on child abuse demands. Giles mentions that one of the mentors of the Archbishop (or was it his mentor?) was found to have abused young boys. You also refer to the recent article on the Pope, which primarily involved the amount of corruption and abuse within the Church of Rome. Clearly, ‘holiness’ is another hollow concept which needs to be shown for what it is.
Belief in a god has created the current condition, whereby loss of that belief isn’t the problem, but rather the realisation that we humans are very good at fooling ourselves, and that this gets developed into systems and hierarchies. Enough is enough.
Hendrik Mentz
1 year ago
But what has God got to do with any of this? Sounds like a flippant question but early on in the Covid ‘pandemic’ it struck me – someone who hasn’t stepped inside a church for years – that the only thing standing between me, Hendrik Mentz, and a totalising dystopian future ruled by the algorithm, is community founded on the sacred, embodied in the mystery of Christ. I’m more convinced today than ever. But this essay and the earlier by Thompson (Ten terrible years of Pope Francis) have shattered that illusion. (The only gleanable hope was you kept your church open.) It’s now or never (returning to the original question) otherwise I fear it’s tickets for humanity.
Catherine Berman
1 year ago
If the Church of England has never felt weaker, perhaps it is because it is abandoning its fundamental teachings.
Catherine Berman
1 year ago
If the Church of England has never felt weaker, perhaps it is because it is abandoning its fundamental teachings.
Kirk Susong
1 year ago
There is a certain amount of ‘shop talk’ you expect among professional clergy, as their worldly calling and their spiritual calling intermingle in uncomfortable ways.
That said, it tells you all you really need to know about the current state of the Church of England that its participants think this kind of article is the right way to analyze it. This article has the same tone and approach as dozens of similar articles written every month about the leaders of major secular institutions, a university or charity or business or museum or govt dept. It is asking about personality, ‘management style,’ organizational questions, environmental headwinds, etc.
For any religious institution – from jihadists to the Holy See to shop-front churches in rural America or Africa – the first point of analysis must always be a religious one. What do these people believe and why? And how does their belief distinguish how they live from others in their societies? And do those distinctives enrich their lives or impoverish them?
What does the Church of England believe now? Anglicanism is dying precisely because religion is not and can never be a “big tent” affair. It is the essential relationship between man and eternity, between being and not-being, between shame and redemption, etc. etc. It can only transmute from a singular experience to “organized religion” under two conditions: political force, or collective agreement. Neither of those conditions obtain for the C of E today.
Of course – and once there was the politico-cultural will to sustain such a social presence without getting too bothered about who believed what. There were plenty of non-religious purposes served by this ubiquitous religious institution. But that hasn’t been the case for a long time, and without them, the big tent will inevitably fold.
Unless, of course, there’s a revival of belief. Who’s game?
Wrong, plenty still get married or buried in my local Parish Church, including those who aren’t regular church goers. At Mothers’ Day on Sunday it was packed as it is for Christmas and Easter
In rural areas and market towns like where I live yes, worship is still centred around the historic Church of England Parish Church, as are weddings, funerals etc. In big cities apart from cathedrals there is more competition as more Baptist, Pentecostal and Roman Catholic churches and mosques and temples too
He asked if you thought it was robust….and shrugged. The consensus of pretty well every single person here, even Giles Fraser, is that the CoE is buggered. This is a postmortem. God can raise the dead. But I wonder why he would bother…which is a shame because as a cradle Quaker turned atheist turned pagan turned Catholic….I still love Anglican hymns best. But unless people like Giles Fraser show a little courage and understand that the church is there to form people not the other way around….it is buggered
He asked if you thought it was robust….and shrugged. The consensus of pretty well every single person here, even Giles Fraser, is that the CoE is buggered. This is a postmortem. God can raise the dead. But I wonder why he would bother…which is a shame because as a cradle Quaker turned atheist turned pagan turned Catholic….I still love Anglican hymns best. But unless people like Giles Fraser show a little courage and understand that the church is there to form people not the other way around….it is buggered
In rural areas and market towns like where I live yes, worship is still centred around the historic Church of England Parish Church, as are weddings, funerals etc. In big cities apart from cathedrals there is more competition as more Baptist, Pentecostal and Roman Catholic churches and mosques and temples too
Wrong, plenty still get married or buried in my local Parish Church, including those who aren’t regular church goers. At Mothers’ Day on Sunday it was packed as it is for Christmas and Easter
Of course – and once there was the politico-cultural will to sustain such a social presence without getting too bothered about who believed what. There were plenty of non-religious purposes served by this ubiquitous religious institution. But that hasn’t been the case for a long time, and without them, the big tent will inevitably fold.
Unless, of course, there’s a revival of belief. Who’s game?
The Church of England has always been big tent, offering weddings, blessings, baptisms and funerals to all who live in its Parishes
Kirk Susong
1 year ago
There is a certain amount of ‘shop talk’ you expect among professional clergy, as their worldly calling and their spiritual calling intermingle in uncomfortable ways.
That said, it tells you all you really need to know about the current state of the Church of England that its participants think this kind of article is the right way to analyze it. This article has the same tone and approach as dozens of similar articles written every month about the leaders of major secular institutions, a university or charity or business or museum or govt dept. It is asking about personality, ‘management style,’ organizational questions, environmental headwinds, etc.
For any religious institution – from jihadists to the Holy See to shop-front churches in rural America or Africa – the first point of analysis must always be a religious one. What do these people believe and why? And how does their belief distinguish how they live from others in their societies? And do those distinctives enrich their lives or impoverish them?
What does the Church of England believe now? Anglicanism is dying precisely because religion is not and can never be a “big tent” affair. It is the essential relationship between man and eternity, between being and not-being, between shame and redemption, etc. etc. It can only transmute from a singular experience to “organized religion” under two conditions: political force, or collective agreement. Neither of those conditions obtain for the C of E today.
Last edited 1 year ago by Kirk Susong
james elliott
1 year ago
“Ideologically, Welby can be what you want him to be.”
It is a tremendous advantage when scaling the greasy pole of promotion, to have no principles whatsoever.
Which explains Welby’s rise.
Can we please get rid and get an actual sincere Christian in the role?
‘Woke’ is anti-Christian, since it is the ideological heir of Marxism – a 19th Century religion in which Man and the State *replace* God. One cannot be Woke and Christian, since that would be a contradiction in terms.
Woke is the successor ideology. We either want it to succeed, or we are Christians. There is no middle ground.
james elliott
1 year ago
“Ideologically, Welby can be what you want him to be.”
It is a tremendous advantage when scaling the greasy pole of promotion, to have no principles whatsoever.
Which explains Welby’s rise.
Can we please get rid and get an actual sincere Christian in the role?
‘Woke’ is anti-Christian, since it is the ideological heir of Marxism – a 19th Century religion in which Man and the State *replace* God. One cannot be Woke and Christian, since that would be a contradiction in terms.
Last edited 1 year ago by james elliott
Ben P
1 year ago
Floreat Britannia, floreat Etona. As late as 2016 the heir-but-one to the throne, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Mayor of London and the Prime Minister had all been educated at the same school.
We are led by hang-wringing liberals distraught by their privilege and unable to make tough and unpopular decisions. The country (including the Church of England) is now paying a terrible price. We lost our way in the 1950s for the same reason.
Energy, drive and a renewed focus are desperately needed to arrest this alarming decline.
Floreat Britannia, floreat Etona. As late as 2016 the heir-but-one to the throne, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Mayor of London and the Prime Minister had all been educated at the same school.
We are led by hang-wringing liberals distraught by their privilege and unable to make tough and unpopular decisions. The country (including the Church of England) is now paying a terrible price. We lost our way in the 1950s for the same reason.
Energy, drive and a renewed focus are desperately needed to arrest this alarming decline.
Last edited 1 year ago by Ben P
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago
My eldest son was confirmed by Welby, then Bishop of Durham,in a rather splendid ceremony in Durham Cathedral involving blazing bonfires and the first light filtering through the stained glass of the East window and the liberal application of holy oil. He was a very affable and approachable man but I can understand Giles’s assessment.
Managerialism has taken over not just Anglicanism but Methodism that I have been involved in through my wife. The Methodist church is desperate to close churches on economic grounds, although it inevitably sheds much of their congregations. During covid the ministers confined themselves to zooming like Welby. Absurdly they refused to furlough the ministers so a financial hole was blown in church funding and in the aftermath one minister was able to persuade the three churches she covered to close by consulting only those who could be persuaded. Many will say: “so what if they were struggling”. But the closure affected many of the non religious community organisations that used the church premises and weakened further community ties.
The value of the church is as a physical centre to foster the interconnectedness of communities that are not reliant on some specific mutual interest. The idea Methodism can return to its origin in biblical study groups and those eager to hear a sermon unconnected to a physical church simply will not fly.
The Church of England did furlough those staff whom it could. Most Clergy are not employees but are office holders. As such we could not be furloughed.
The Church of England did furlough those staff whom it could. Most Clergy are not employees but are office holders. As such we could not be furloughed.
My eldest son was confirmed by Welby, then Bishop of Durham,in a rather splendid ceremony in Durham Cathedral involving blazing bonfires and the first light filtering through the stained glass of the East window and the liberal application of holy oil. He was a very affable and approachable man but I can understand Giles’s assessment.
Managerialism has taken over not just Anglicanism but Methodism that I have been involved in through my wife. The Methodist church is desperate to close churches on economic grounds, although it inevitably sheds much of their congregations. During covid the ministers confined themselves to zooming like Welby. Absurdly they refused to furlough the ministers so a financial hole was blown in church funding and in the aftermath one minister was able to persuade the three churches she covered to close by consulting only those who could be persuaded. Many will say: “so what if they were struggling”. But the closure affected many of the non religious community organisations that used the church premises and weakened further community ties.
The value of the church is as a physical centre to foster the interconnectedness of communities that are not reliant on some specific mutual interest. The idea Methodism can return to its origin in biblical study groups and those eager to hear a sermon unconnected to a physical church simply will not fly.
ben arnulfssen
1 year ago
I didn’t actually realised that Welby was an OE but I’m hardly surprised; it answers a number of questions.
Facing the greatest challenge of recent times, this Blairite beaurocrat abandoned his flock and withdrew into empty posturing.
I’m not a devout man by any standards but I always derived a certain comfort from the forms of the religion of my upbringing. Deprived of that in a moment of general crisis left me wondering what, if anything the CofE was FOR. This isn’t new; two generations of war veterans made similar comments about the uselessness of CofE chaplains, compared to the RC sort. It’s instructive that the figures of moral authority who emerged from the hellish Japanese camps were as often as not, military rather than religious; Col Toohey and Major Fagan come to mind.
True. I had the honour of encountering (I can’t say “meeting” because it was a school occasion) “Padre Noel” and was much impressed. However I can’t help observing that he seems to have been a man of firm principles and highly competitive as well.
So I’ll see your Noel Duckworth and raise you the “Chaplain of Colditz” as unflattering portrayed by Pat Reid and others.
True. I had the honour of encountering (I can’t say “meeting” because it was a school occasion) “Padre Noel” and was much impressed. However I can’t help observing that he seems to have been a man of firm principles and highly competitive as well.
So I’ll see your Noel Duckworth and raise you the “Chaplain of Colditz” as unflattering portrayed by Pat Reid and others.
Noel Duckworth was an outstanding exception to your last observation.
ben arnulfssen
1 year ago
I didn’t actually realised that Welby was an OE but I’m hardly surprised; it answers a number of questions.
Facing the greatest challenge of recent times, this Blairite beaurocrat abandoned his flock and withdrew into empty posturing.
I’m not a devout man by any standards but I always derived a certain comfort from the forms of the religion of my upbringing. Deprived of that in a moment of general crisis left me wondering what, if anything the CofE was FOR. This isn’t new; two generations of war veterans made similar comments about the uselessness of CofE chaplains, compared to the RC sort. It’s instructive that the figures of moral authority who emerged from the hellish Japanese camps were as often as not, military rather than religious; Col Toohey and Major Fagan come to mind.
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
He certainly cannot read the African, Caribbean and Asian room…..
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
He certainly cannot read the African, Caribbean and Asian room…..
Andrew D
1 year ago
The picture is absurd. You should never smile broadly while wearing a mitre – it makes you look slightly mad, or like the cat who got the cream, or both. Prelates should cultivate an air of gravitas and solemnity. Take a lesson from the Orthodox clergy.
Hilarious. “while wearing a mitre and carrying an umbrella” no less.
Andrew D
1 year ago
The picture is absurd. You should never smile broadly while wearing a mitre – it makes you look slightly mad, or like the cat who got the cream, or both. Prelates should cultivate an air of gravitas and solemnity. Take a lesson from the Orthodox clergy.
Last edited 1 year ago by Andrew D
geoffrey cox
1 year ago
Welby made it clear from the beginning that he was attracted to Christianity and to ordained ministry because he saw it primarily as a means of ‘making the world a better place’. You don’t have to be Thomas Aquinas to see that this is the wrong end of the stick, you simply have to read the Gospels.But it does explain why he and many of his colleagues choose to talk and behave as though the first and great commandment is to love one’s neighbour. This, of course, allows them to represent their various ideologies, preoccupations and fashionable mantras as the fulfilment of this precept. But on the actual great commandment, when was the last time you heard any of them even attempt to give guidance to the general public on the perplexing concept of loving God? Productions of Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark have rarely been a success.
geoffrey cox
1 year ago
Welby made it clear from the beginning that he was attracted to Christianity and to ordained ministry because he saw it primarily as a means of ‘making the world a better place’. You don’t have to be Thomas Aquinas to see that this is the wrong end of the stick, you simply have to read the Gospels.But it does explain why he and many of his colleagues choose to talk and behave as though the first and great commandment is to love one’s neighbour. This, of course, allows them to represent their various ideologies, preoccupations and fashionable mantras as the fulfilment of this precept. But on the actual great commandment, when was the last time you heard any of them even attempt to give guidance to the general public on the perplexing concept of loving God? Productions of Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark have rarely been a success.
JR Stoker
1 year ago
Giles’s articles are the most fascinating and thoughtful pieces to be found on UnHerd. Well written, full of insight and usually provocative in a constructive way.
What always amazes me is the intolerance of those who want us to believe there is no God, or that He has moved on. You may want to believe that, I can certainly understand the argument, but why are you so furious with those harmless types who do have faith in something greater than themselves and try to live life guided by the highest standards? I struggle to be kind, tolerant, generous, caring, all those wonderful things, but the sense of there being some greater power, whatever it may be, helps a lot.
It does seem thought that a lot of Bishops and Archbishops do not have much time for that sort of faith, alas.
One can live humanitarian values without believing in the supernatural. One can raise a child to be kind and loving without ever mentioning god. Religion is divisive. If you know something for a fact you don’t need to believe.
You can live humanitarian values, but you have no foundation for them. You cannot derive ought from is. To any moral principle you may claim I should follow, I can reply, Why should I? and all you can offer in the end is force to compel me or ineffectual appeals.
Things are right when they conform to the character of God and wrong when they don’t.
You can live humanitarian values, but you have no foundation for them. You cannot derive ought from is. To any moral principle you may claim I should follow, I can reply, Why should I? and all you can offer in the end is force to compel me or ineffectual appeals.
Things are right when they conform to the character of God and wrong when they don’t.
One can live humanitarian values without believing in the supernatural. One can raise a child to be kind and loving without ever mentioning god. Religion is divisive. If you know something for a fact you don’t need to believe.
JR Stoker
1 year ago
Giles’s articles are the most fascinating and thoughtful pieces to be found on UnHerd. Well written, full of insight and usually provocative in a constructive way.
What always amazes me is the intolerance of those who want us to believe there is no God, or that He has moved on. You may want to believe that, I can certainly understand the argument, but why are you so furious with those harmless types who do have faith in something greater than themselves and try to live life guided by the highest standards? I struggle to be kind, tolerant, generous, caring, all those wonderful things, but the sense of there being some greater power, whatever it may be, helps a lot.
It does seem thought that a lot of Bishops and Archbishops do not have much time for that sort of faith, alas.
Margaret TC
1 year ago
Fussing as he has done before over the takeover of the CofE by mangement speak Giles completely fails to address the crisis that threatens actually to split it. This was triggered by the recent ‘agreement’ he mentions in passing (‘and the Church has now agreed on prayers for blessing same-sex marriages’). I foresaw this split in a piece I offered to Unherd a year ago, which they chose not to publish, though it has since been read with interest by theologians and bishops. Why will neither Unherd nor Giles bite this bullet?
Margaret TC
1 year ago
Fussing as he has done before over the takeover of the CofE by mangement speak Giles completely fails to address the crisis that threatens actually to split it. This was triggered by the recent ‘agreement’ he mentions in passing (‘and the Church has now agreed on prayers for blessing same-sex marriages’). I foresaw this split in a piece I offered to Unherd a year ago, which they chose not to publish, though it has since been read with interest by theologians and bishops. Why will neither Unherd nor Giles bite this bullet?
Peter Lee
1 year ago
The introduction of female clergy has significantly increased ‘wet liberalism’ into the Anglican Church.
Half the clergy are women, they are active, involved in their communities and have almost no cases of abuse. After all it took Thatcher to end wet liberal male leadership in the Conservative Party
Half the clergy are women, they are active, involved in their communities and have almost no cases of abuse. After all it took Thatcher to end wet liberal male leadership in the Conservative Party
Welby is soaking wet – dripping! He is at the apex of the Woking Class.
Peter Lee
1 year ago
The introduction of female clergy has significantly increased ‘wet liberalism’ into the Anglican Church.
Susan Grabston
1 year ago
Last September the Bishop of Europe opined that there was “no official definition of a woman”. I could clearly see where this was going and – sure enough – he turned up in Liverpool in January 23. Following Synod decision I listened to Steve Croft (my diocesan bishop) who spoke from the position of his “lived experience” seeing the distress of the trans community, I talked to my Church of Ireland minister uncle, I spoke with my tenor lay clerk husband, and I read scripture. With a sad heart I have left the cofe. Indeed, I have abandoned religion in favour of fatih. I read the bible, we sing the psalms and anthems we have been singing for over 50 years, and I pray. Is there a hole? Yes. Is it God-shaped? No. Going back to source with time to actually reflect at this point in my life is a privilege. Him indoors will hopefully point out my sins – he usually does.
An organisation having somebody called the Bishop of Europe and another bishop called Steve is not worthy of anyone’s membership.
Susan Grabston
1 year ago
Last September the Bishop of Europe opined that there was “no official definition of a woman”. I could clearly see where this was going and – sure enough – he turned up in Liverpool in January 23. Following Synod decision I listened to Steve Croft (my diocesan bishop) who spoke from the position of his “lived experience” seeing the distress of the trans community, I talked to my Church of Ireland minister uncle, I spoke with my tenor lay clerk husband, and I read scripture. With a sad heart I have left the cofe. Indeed, I have abandoned religion in favour of fatih. I read the bible, we sing the psalms and anthems we have been singing for over 50 years, and I pray. Is there a hole? Yes. Is it God-shaped? No. Going back to source with time to actually reflect at this point in my life is a privilege. Him indoors will hopefully point out my sins – he usually does.
Peter B
1 year ago
Whilst I have no time for the useless Welby, it isn’t only his fault. If the C of E chose this man and has permitted him to continue in office for 10 years (has it really been that long ?), they have no one to blame but themselves.
One must assume that they actually wanted a manager and not a leader.
Peter B
1 year ago
Whilst I have no time for the useless Welby, it isn’t only his fault. If the C of E chose this man and has permitted him to continue in office for 10 years (has it really been that long ?), they have no one to blame but themselves.
One must assume that they actually wanted a manager and not a leader.
Dougie Undersub
1 year ago
What would I want from the new man or woman? Someone who believes in God would be nice, though there seem precious few in the House of Bishops who fit that fairly basic requirement.
Dougie Undersub
1 year ago
What would I want from the new man or woman? Someone who believes in God would be nice, though there seem precious few in the House of Bishops who fit that fairly basic requirement.
Peter Kwasi-Modo
1 year ago
Giles says “Welby wanted to … have access to levers of real executive power. But the Church of England is not set up like this. It never has been.”
What about Archbishop Laud’s use of the Star Chamber? Chopping off William Prynne’s ears sounds like “real executive power” to me. But maybe I am a bit old-school.
Last edited 1 year ago by Peter Kwasi-Modo
Peter Kwasi-Modo
1 year ago
Giles says “Welby wanted to … have access to levers of real executive power. But the Church of England is not set up like this. It never has been.”
What about Archbishop Laud’s use of the Star Chamber? Chopping off William Prynne’s ears sounds like “real executive power” to me. But maybe I am a bit old-school.
Last edited 1 year ago by Peter Kwasi-Modo
ben arnulfssen
1 year ago
I’m not a devout man by any standards but I have always derived a certain comfort from the forms of the religion of my upbringing. To have this cast aside in the face of the greatest crisis of modern times made me question what the CofE is FOR, I haven’t asked this question in decades.
I didn’t realise that Welby was an OE but it hardly surprises me. It answers a lot of questions.
ben arnulfssen
1 year ago
I’m not a devout man by any standards but I have always derived a certain comfort from the forms of the religion of my upbringing. To have this cast aside in the face of the greatest crisis of modern times made me question what the CofE is FOR, I haven’t asked this question in decades.
I didn’t realise that Welby was an OE but it hardly surprises me. It answers a lot of questions.
James Kirk
1 year ago
I’m not a fan of religion. I see it in football, in the Left. A younger me would have seen it gone, all of it, because it is a major cause of division and hatred in the World. Older me acknowledges it is needed, the lame need a crutch after all and the 10 commandments seems to cover generally desirable codes to follow. As an onlooker, closing the churches during Covid I thought a poor show at a time when the lame most needed support. Science and religion are at odds and plagues were examples of the Church at its best historically. Welby seems prey to wet liberalism, a contradiction of his former capitalist life. He has a magisterial position and fails to be non partisan. He doesn’t like the black sheep and no fatted calves will fear any prodigal sons’ homecoming.
James Kirk
1 year ago
I’m not a fan of religion. I see it in football, in the Left. A younger me would have seen it gone, all of it, because it is a major cause of division and hatred in the World. Older me acknowledges it is needed, the lame need a crutch after all and the 10 commandments seems to cover generally desirable codes to follow. As an onlooker, closing the churches during Covid I thought a poor show at a time when the lame most needed support. Science and religion are at odds and plagues were examples of the Church at its best historically. Welby seems prey to wet liberalism, a contradiction of his former capitalist life. He has a magisterial position and fails to be non partisan. He doesn’t like the black sheep and no fatted calves will fear any prodigal sons’ homecoming.
Michael Whittock
1 year ago
It seems to me that Giles Fraser is the one who cannot “read the room”. Not even a passing word about the monumentally important situation for which Justin Welby is responsible, and that is the splitting of the Church of England down the middle because of the blessing of gay marriage. Already our Church is deemed apostate by three quarters of the world-wide Anglican Communion, and the Archbishop of Canterbury is no longer accepted as “primus inter pares” by the Archbishops of those provinces. Furthermore we face the very real prospect of the Church of England dividing into two jurisdictions – one which is orthodox, conservative, vibrant and growing; the other apostate, liberal and dying.
Michael Whittock
1 year ago
It seems to me that Giles Fraser is the one who cannot “read the room”. Not even a passing word about the monumentally important situation for which Justin Welby is responsible, and that is the splitting of the Church of England down the middle because of the blessing of gay marriage. Already our Church is deemed apostate by three quarters of the world-wide Anglican Communion, and the Archbishop of Canterbury is no longer accepted as “primus inter pares” by the Archbishops of those provinces. Furthermore we face the very real prospect of the Church of England dividing into two jurisdictions – one which is orthodox, conservative, vibrant and growing; the other apostate, liberal and dying.
William Edward Henry Appleby
1 year ago
The CofE has become an irrelevance in a country where Christianity (and belief in God) has been on the decline for decades. Welby projects an aura of mediocre paternalism that is all smiles but no convictions – it reminds me of the Liberal Democrats, and Keir Starmer
Last edited 1 year ago by William Edward Henry Appleby
William Edward Henry Appleby
1 year ago
The CofE has become an irrelevance in a country where Christianity (and belief in God) has been on the decline for decades. Welby projects an aura of mediocre paternalism that is all smiles but no convictions – it reminds me of the Liberal Democrats, and Keir Starmer
Last edited 1 year ago by William Edward Henry Appleby
Stephen Quilley
1 year ago
Reading the room? How about reading the Bible! “Women bishops were approved within a few years, and the Church has now agreed on prayers for blessing same-sex marriages”. How is this working out for the Church? Seriously? How is that working for you guys?
It’s working out very badly. I regard the leadership of the Church of England as apostate. I left it for 19 years and in the interim it has only got worse.
Yet, bizarrely, I find that God wants me to attend a local village church with a regular congregation of about 10, the majority of whom are liable to die off within a decade or so. There is not even a bible on view anywhere in the building. Since he wants me there, I can only conclude that there is still the possibility of revival, though I am sure that the leadership will for the most part try to suppress it when it comes — far too uncomfortable!
It’s working out very badly. I regard the leadership of the Church of England as apostate. I left it for 19 years and in the interim it has only got worse.
Yet, bizarrely, I find that God wants me to attend a local village church with a regular congregation of about 10, the majority of whom are liable to die off within a decade or so. There is not even a bible on view anywhere in the building. Since he wants me there, I can only conclude that there is still the possibility of revival, though I am sure that the leadership will for the most part try to suppress it when it comes — far too uncomfortable!
Stephen Quilley
1 year ago
Reading the room? How about reading the Bible! “Women bishops were approved within a few years, and the Church has now agreed on prayers for blessing same-sex marriages”. How is this working out for the Church? Seriously? How is that working for you guys?
Gerald Arcuri
1 year ago
You know, it’s pretty clear that as long as Welby and his ilk continue wearing silly hats and parading around with pomp and circumstance they will appear irrelevant. Because they are. The Church of England started downhill during the reign of Henry VIII. It continues to bounce off the bottom, which is only an appearance of life. As the old saying goes, the only solution to some problems ( moribund institutions ) is a good funeral. At the very least, sackcloth and ashes are called for. And ditching the silly hats.
Gerald Arcuri
1 year ago
You know, it’s pretty clear that as long as Welby and his ilk continue wearing silly hats and parading around with pomp and circumstance they will appear irrelevant. Because they are. The Church of England started downhill during the reign of Henry VIII. It continues to bounce off the bottom, which is only an appearance of life. As the old saying goes, the only solution to some problems ( moribund institutions ) is a good funeral. At the very least, sackcloth and ashes are called for. And ditching the silly hats.
Paul MacDonnell
1 year ago
“It’s not his fault” ? Huh? You’ve nailed it with “managerialism” but that kinda makes it his fault. The reason why the CofE is so woke and managerialist (these really are two sides of the same middle-class coin) is because it is run by well-meaning types who want to please and they are unable to stand up to the left.
I asked a Catholic friend of mine why the CofE was so pro-lockdown.
“You have to remember”, he replied, “the Church of England is an arm of the state”.
They are still the Conservative Party at Prayer: except the Conservative Party has got the new religion of managerial wokeness.
I’d be a member of the C of E, were it not for the C of E.
Welby stigmatizing those of us who – rightly we now know – refused the experimental gene therapy jabs – was the final straw for me.
That was NOT the action of a Christian. In which case, what IS he? Possessed, it seems to me. And anything BUY Christian.
Closing the Churches was the act of a complete coward, who refused to protect his flock.
I’d be a member of the C of E, were it not for the C of E.
Welby stigmatizing those of us who – rightly we now know – refused the experimental gene therapy jabs – was the final straw for me.
That was NOT the action of a Christian. In which case, what IS he? Possessed, it seems to me. And anything BUY Christian.
Closing the Churches was the act of a complete coward, who refused to protect his flock.
Go now, Welby.
Paul MacDonnell
1 year ago
“It’s not his fault” ? Huh? You’ve nailed it with “managerialism” but that kinda makes it his fault. The reason why the CofE is so woke and managerialist (these really are two sides of the same middle-class coin) is because it is run by well-meaning types who want to please and they are unable to stand up to the left.
I asked a Catholic friend of mine why the CofE was so pro-lockdown.
“You have to remember”, he replied, “the Church of England is an arm of the state”.
They are still the Conservative Party at Prayer: except the Conservative Party has got the new religion of managerial wokeness.
Last edited 1 year ago by Paul MacDonnell
Clare Knight
1 year ago
I really enjoy Giles Fraser’s writing style. I feel pulled in from the start and amused. As a born atheist I don’t have much to say about churchy stuff but I do find it entertaining, particularly as Fraser presents it.
I am a born atheist and my wife is a born church person. But she isn’t particularly religious – just a little. To her the main thing is the community. I can certainly see the side of helping people in the community.
I am a born atheist and my wife is a born church person. But she isn’t particularly religious – just a little. To her the main thing is the community. I can certainly see the side of helping people in the community.
Clare Knight
1 year ago
I really enjoy Giles Fraser’s writing style. I feel pulled in from the start and amused. As a born atheist I don’t have much to say about churchy stuff but I do find it entertaining, particularly as Fraser presents it.
Peter Lee
1 year ago
Perhaps the church needs to start thinking more about the revelations of the Gospel of Thomas etc with its ‘god-like qualities’ within us Elaine Pagles book Beyond Belief is an excellent read on the subject.
Peter Lee
1 year ago
Perhaps the church needs to start thinking more about the revelations of the Gospel of Thomas etc with its ‘god-like qualities’ within us Elaine Pagles book Beyond Belief is an excellent read on the subject.
Nicholas Taylor
1 year ago
On 6 May we’ll see. A patriotic pageant, a new age, or just an absurd piece of anachronistic show-biz? What exactly does the Carolingian Age have to look forward to other than its own dissolution? The King is fortunate to have been able to make his mark on the world before divinity descended upon him.
Nicholas Taylor
1 year ago
On 6 May we’ll see. A patriotic pageant, a new age, or just an absurd piece of anachronistic show-biz? What exactly does the Carolingian Age have to look forward to other than its own dissolution? The King is fortunate to have been able to make his mark on the world before divinity descended upon him.
Margaret TC
1 year ago
What needs calling out too is the ugly snobbery exhibited by Giles towards what used to be called the ‘happy clappy’ evangelical ‘low church’ wing of the church of England. He sneers at Welby’s Etonian links but is far more disdainful than Welby towards those whose practises and convictions he dislikes. The loathing of the ‘high’ ‘progressive liberal wing towards the evangelicals is on full display. It is unfortunate for the ‘progressives’ that it is the evangelical churches that are drawing in new members from across social classes and generations.
I don’t read it that way at all. Certainly not “ugly snobbery” which is in itself rather an ugly and snobbish one way of hauling views you don’t concur with over the rack.
It is certainly unfortunate that the evangelical churches are drawing in new members; I was rather hoping the whole ridiculous edifice, progressives and evangelicals, was in steep decline.
Plenty of high church conservative Anglicans and Anglo Catholics who are as far from progressive liberals as they are low church evangelicals too. Indeed the biggest congregations for churches are not just evangelical ones but high church churches like Marcus Walker’s St Bartholomew’s or our great cathedrals
I don’t read it that way at all. Certainly not “ugly snobbery” which is in itself rather an ugly and snobbish one way of hauling views you don’t concur with over the rack.
It is certainly unfortunate that the evangelical churches are drawing in new members; I was rather hoping the whole ridiculous edifice, progressives and evangelicals, was in steep decline.
Plenty of high church conservative Anglicans and Anglo Catholics who are as far from progressive liberals as they are low church evangelicals too. Indeed the biggest congregations for churches are not just evangelical ones but high church churches like Marcus Walker’s St Bartholomew’s or our great cathedrals
Margaret TC
1 year ago
What needs calling out too is the ugly snobbery exhibited by Giles towards what used to be called the ‘happy clappy’ evangelical ‘low church’ wing of the church of England. He sneers at Welby’s Etonian links but is far more disdainful than Welby towards those whose practises and convictions he dislikes. The loathing of the ‘high’ ‘progressive liberal wing towards the evangelicals is on full display. It is unfortunate for the ‘progressives’ that it is the evangelical churches that are drawing in new members from across social classes and generations.
mike otter
1 year ago
Interesting that Oil Wellby has had drug issues – IME that is a humbling thing when you recover. So when someone says “racism is worse than paedophilia” or spends £s and hours of work to protect sex offenders from due process you can infer two things at least: He is not humble, and therefore has not recovered. I say to him its not too late to start. Go to meetings, serve others and be careful who you hang around with. Paedos and druggies are not in a good place, if you can’t help them for god’s sake don’t join them.
ben arnulfssen
1 year ago
Actually, I never saw anything wrong in the notion of female clergy, or why there was such objection to them. I admit that some of those I’ve encountered haven’t been a great advertisement for the idea, including the one I met in Hants a few years ago who gave an uncomfortable impression of a Dawn French tribute act of some sort .. but that doesn’t disprove the general point.
Why there should be some inherent link between female clergy and homosexual marriage, I never understood.
Jesus set the example; there are no women in the 12. Women have important places and are indispensable to the church but not in this role. Besides that, all of society is becoming feminized and if you believe in difference of the sexes you understand that we need the return of a strong and steadfast patriarch who can deal with situations logically instead of emotionally.
Jesus set the example; there are no women in the 12. Women have important places and are indispensable to the church but not in this role. Besides that, all of society is becoming feminized and if you believe in difference of the sexes you understand that we need the return of a strong and steadfast patriarch who can deal with situations logically instead of emotionally.
ben arnulfssen
1 year ago
Actually, I never saw anything wrong in the notion of female clergy, or why there was such objection to them. I admit that some of those I’ve encountered haven’t been a great advertisement for the idea, including the one I met in Hants a few years ago who gave an uncomfortable impression of a Dawn French tribute act of some sort .. but that doesn’t disprove the general point.
Why there should be some inherent link between female clergy and homosexual marriage, I never understood.
John Solomon
1 year ago
“Welby talks in tongues.”
I did not know this, and I find it disturbing. It is my heartfelt belief that anyone who talks in tongues should not be wearing a mitre : they should be wearing a straightjacket.
He ‘admitted’ to taking antidepressants??? Admit definition; To disclose or confess (guilt or an error, for example). .What sort of language is that from any member, including the author here, of a supposedly supportive, loving, caring institution? No wonder congregation numbers are plummeting.
In modern mental health fields the term ‘admit’ is archaic, ill informed and it’s use frankly barbaric. One should say a person has suffered from a mental health condition. Admit implies guilt so should never under any circumstances be used in connection with a person’s mental health.
The point is this: if everybody is talking non-stop about mental health issues, then everybody will have mental health issues. If everybody is talking about the frequency of suicides, there will be more suicides.
This is not a belittling of people’s problems, nor is it pretending that mental health issues don’t exist. It is simply a truism.
The point is this: if everybody is talking non-stop about mental health issues, then everybody will have mental health issues. If everybody is talking about the frequency of suicides, there will be more suicides.
This is not a belittling of people’s problems, nor is it pretending that mental health issues don’t exist. It is simply a truism.
I think we need to get real here – he took the drugs – no one made him do it. Its not barbaric to narrate he admitted his drug use, but he is a very bad advert for narcotics because i can see absolutely zero evidence of recovery- or that he’s even attempted recovery.
I think we need to get real here – he took the drugs – no one made him do it. Its not barbaric to narrate he admitted his drug use, but he is a very bad advert for narcotics because i can see absolutely zero evidence of recovery- or that he’s even attempted recovery.
In modern mental health fields the term ‘admit’ is archaic, ill informed and it’s use frankly barbaric. One should say a person has suffered from a mental health condition. Admit implies guilt so should never under any circumstances be used in connection with a person’s mental health.
“No wonder congregation numbers are plummeting.” Have you any idea how stereotyped and predictable that statement is? One hears it every time – literally, without fail – that the Church or any of its ministers says or does anything which anyone anywhere takes exception to. (Which inevitably is all the time.) It means nothing more than “I disagree with this.”
Members of any church should be fully conversant with modern mental health language and attitudes. After all their remit is supposed to cover care and compassion during a person’s time of need.
Members of any church should be fully conversant with modern mental health language and attitudes. After all their remit is supposed to cover care and compassion during a person’s time of need.
“No wonder congregation numbers are plummeting.” Have you any idea how stereotyped and predictable that statement is? One hears it every time – literally, without fail – that the Church or any of its ministers says or does anything which anyone anywhere takes exception to. (Which inevitably is all the time.) It means nothing more than “I disagree with this.”
Good observation. The stigma of mental illness is alive and well.
Jane H
1 year ago
He ‘admitted’ to taking antidepressants??? Admit definition; To disclose or confess (guilt or an error, for example). .What sort of language is that from any member, including the author here, of a supposedly supportive, loving, caring institution? No wonder congregation numbers are plummeting.
“Ideologically, Welby can be what you want him to be.” Says the author.
So by that description Welby is weak, insincere, and has no conviction. And from his insecure dictates and his wokery, it certainly seems so. So how can Giles possibly then say this?
“…the Church of England has never felt weaker. It’s not his fault…”
Oh really? Well, if not the archbishop of Canterbury then who might be regarded as responsible for the well-being of the church of England?
I am not one of your “flock” “Shepherd Giles”. But let me tell you this. You lot are going to need to get a pair of balls between your legs, some fire in your belly, and some conviction in your minds, if you want the Anglican church to even exist in 10 years time.
It is certainly true that the churches whose numbers are increasing are evangelical and hold to rather “old fashioned” doctrines whereas the traditional churches that seek to move with the times and take on board fashionable secular ideas are in continuous decline.
Well, Jeremy, if declining churches are so “traditional,” what are they doing with “fashionable secular ideas”?
Those two things don’t go together. Why would anyone bother going to church, after all, if fashionable ideas are promoted everywhere, by definition, and often far more effectively (whether for the good or not) than in church? Every religious tradition has a sine qua non, a distinctive way of thinking about and experiencing the world. If it fails to propagate that tradition from one generation to another, then it has lost its raison d’etre.
Like so many other officially religious institutions (including Jewish and other non-Christian ones), the Church of England has tried to translate religion into secular terms–or, to be more specific, reduce religion to some phenomenon that’s more acceptable to scientists or social scientists. Academic theologians notwithstanding, this cannot be done. Even the early Christian “apologists” recognized that there were limits to how far they could go in making Christianity compatible with the alien worldviews of Greeks and Romans. The conflict between particularism and universalism, resulting in some measure of adaptation, continued as Christianity spread from one cultural matrix to another. But the secular matrix is very different from that of any foreign religion.
In my opinion, the main problem is not that so many people now reject the “idea” of God but that so many people today lack the experience of holiness--in many cases, even when they do go to church. Secularized churches preserve a few remnants of tradition (such as its rituals, symbols, art, architecture, costumes, music, choreography, even some portions or versions of scripture), sure, but they replace what had once given meaning to them with more “rational” substitutes (such as moral instruction, group psychotherapy, emotional catharsis, political consciousness-raising or some other form of “community building”). It doesn’t work. It’s fraudulent. And no managerial skill can change that. After well over a century, this much should be clear to everyone. When it comes to religion, people want either the real thing or nothing.
You could argue that “charismatic” churches are not reductive and therefore “traditional.” I’m not so sure. Maybe they’re less reductive or less obviously reductive. But I’ve learned enough about them to suspect that they rely heavily (though not openly or even consciously) on the mechanisms of group psychology, some of which are very manipulative. Its high levels of emotionalism and anti-intellectualism, at any rate, link this movement with the emotionalism and anti-intellectualism that became fashionable in one form of another in the 1960s and 1970s but now pervade all levels of society.
Good post. I largely agree with you, but I remain optimistic about the church. When times are good, people ignore or go against it. When times are bad they flock back to the pews. Christianity is a desert flower that doesn’t do well in lush environments.
Your optimism, then, must surely flow from the belief that times are bad and will be getting much worse.
I think you may be right….
For that reason, I think the Church *must* hold itself pure from the pervasive cancer of Woke Utopianism – people will not flock to the churches to escape it if the churches are ideologically captured by the same garbage.
While I’m optimistic about Christianity, I am less so about the future. I predict a time when Christianity will be purposefully conflated with hatred and bigotry in order to push through a progressive agenda.
already happening in Canada. 60 churches burned – not a murmur. Imagine if a single Mosque was burned down; or a queer resource centre
Mosques are not immune to firebomb attacks from the far right either unfortunately and Modi’s India and Xi’s China restricts Muslim free worship
But if that happened once in Canada, there would be a national day of mourning and repentance in perpetuity
But if that happened once in Canada, there would be a national day of mourning and repentance in perpetuity
Unfortunately some mosques are attacked by the far right and in India under Modi and Xi’s China Moslems are restricted from freely worshipping
Mosques are not immune to firebomb attacks from the far right either unfortunately and Modi’s India and Xi’s China restricts Muslim free worship
Unfortunately some mosques are attacked by the far right and in India under Modi and Xi’s China Moslems are restricted from freely worshipping
already happening in Canada. 60 churches burned – not a murmur. Imagine if a single Mosque was burned down; or a queer resource centre
While I’m optimistic about Christianity, I am less so about the future. I predict a time when Christianity will be purposefully conflated with hatred and bigotry in order to push through a progressive agenda.
What’s Christianity got to do with the Church of England? They abandoned that connection decades ago.
Your optimism, then, must surely flow from the belief that times are bad and will be getting much worse.
I think you may be right….
For that reason, I think the Church *must* hold itself pure from the pervasive cancer of Woke Utopianism – people will not flock to the churches to escape it if the churches are ideologically captured by the same garbage.
What’s Christianity got to do with the Church of England? They abandoned that connection decades ago.
It would indeed be more impressive if Welby could say like Luther “ Here I stand I can do no other, so help me God”. Instead he slips and slides to be up to date – to be a good bureaucrat and seek compromise.
Good post. I largely agree with you, but I remain optimistic about the church. When times are good, people ignore or go against it. When times are bad they flock back to the pews. Christianity is a desert flower that doesn’t do well in lush environments.
It would indeed be more impressive if Welby could say like Luther “ Here I stand I can do no other, so help me God”. Instead he slips and slides to be up to date – to be a good bureaucrat and seek compromise.
That’s because Jesus is building His Church and the Church of England is not His Church – unlike the Church IN England. And if the Author doesn’t think homosexuality is a sin then he should be in the Wolf Pit.
Good grief.
The vast majority of people in England now back homosexual marriage, so there is no problem at all with the Church of England allowing blessings for homosexual couples married in civil ceremonies in its churches. What it does need to do however is respect its traditions, the sacred choral music, magnificent cathedrals, weddings in country parishes, Midnight Mass at Christmas, which large numbers in this country can relate too. Especially small c Christians. Full on hardline evangelical churches can attract new followers yes but they will also always be more disconnected from the mainstream in this country
The vast majority of Romans backed slavery and torture. I’m not sure what popular approval has to do with anything
Popular approval is irrelevant. Presuming the ideas taught by the church are taken from the bible, I am unsure how they make decisions when they play pick and mix.
Jesus Christ himself never said anything against blessing homosexual couples. The Church of England has correctly allowed that in its churches while reserving holy matrimony for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions
Jesus never said anything against homosexual unions
Jesus did not talk about homosexuality because it was not an issue in Israel. The Law of Moses condemned it absolutely and no one argued with that.
Paul had to talk about it because it was common in the pagan world.
Jesus did not talk about homosexuality because it was not an issue in Israel. The Law of Moses condemned it absolutely and no one argued with that.
Paul had to talk about it because it was common in the pagan world.
Jesus Christ himself never said anything against blessing homosexual couples. The Church of England has correctly allowed that in its churches while reserving holy matrimony for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions
Jesus never said anything against homosexual unions
Unions of consenting homosexual adults in love with each other are nothing comparable with slavery and torture, so don’t make such a repulsive comparison!
Comparison of loving homosexual couples in lifelong unions being blessed to slavery and torture is ludicrous
That wasn’t the comparison. You were arguing that popular approval makes something right. It doesn’t Clearly
That wasn’t the comparison. You were arguing that popular approval makes something right. It doesn’t Clearly
Popular approval is irrelevant. Presuming the ideas taught by the church are taken from the bible, I am unsure how they make decisions when they play pick and mix.
Unions of consenting homosexual adults in love with each other are nothing comparable with slavery and torture, so don’t make such a repulsive comparison!
Comparison of loving homosexual couples in lifelong unions being blessed to slavery and torture is ludicrous
The reason for the church is not to provide a connection to mainstream society!
The Church of England as the established church IS obliged to have a connection to mainstream English society
The Church of England as the established church IS obliged to have a connection to mainstream English society
The vast majority of Romans backed slavery and torture. I’m not sure what popular approval has to do with anything
The reason for the church is not to provide a connection to mainstream society!
Good grief.
The vast majority of people in England now back homosexual marriage, so there is no problem at all with the Church of England allowing blessings for homosexual couples married in civil ceremonies in its churches. What it does need to do however is respect its traditions, the sacred choral music, magnificent cathedrals, weddings in country parishes, Midnight Mass at Christmas, which large numbers in this country can relate too. Especially small c Christians. Full on hardline evangelical churches can attract new followers yes but they will also always be more disconnected from the mainstream in this country
I agree. I think part of the reason is that when people are looking for a new perspective and look to see if the church can provide it, the Anglican church is not sufficiently different from the life from which they want a change/something more.
Well, Jeremy, if declining churches are so “traditional,” what are they doing with “fashionable secular ideas”?
Those two things don’t go together. Why would anyone bother going to church, after all, if fashionable ideas are promoted everywhere, by definition, and often far more effectively (whether for the good or not) than in church? Every religious tradition has a sine qua non, a distinctive way of thinking about and experiencing the world. If it fails to propagate that tradition from one generation to another, then it has lost its raison d’etre.
Like so many other officially religious institutions (including Jewish and other non-Christian ones), the Church of England has tried to translate religion into secular terms–or, to be more specific, reduce religion to some phenomenon that’s more acceptable to scientists or social scientists. Academic theologians notwithstanding, this cannot be done. Even the early Christian “apologists” recognized that there were limits to how far they could go in making Christianity compatible with the alien worldviews of Greeks and Romans. The conflict between particularism and universalism, resulting in some measure of adaptation, continued as Christianity spread from one cultural matrix to another. But the secular matrix is very different from that of any foreign religion.
In my opinion, the main problem is not that so many people now reject the “idea” of God but that so many people today lack the experience of holiness--in many cases, even when they do go to church. Secularized churches preserve a few remnants of tradition (such as its rituals, symbols, art, architecture, costumes, music, choreography, even some portions or versions of scripture), sure, but they replace what had once given meaning to them with more “rational” substitutes (such as moral instruction, group psychotherapy, emotional catharsis, political consciousness-raising or some other form of “community building”). It doesn’t work. It’s fraudulent. And no managerial skill can change that. After well over a century, this much should be clear to everyone. When it comes to religion, people want either the real thing or nothing.
You could argue that “charismatic” churches are not reductive and therefore “traditional.” I’m not so sure. Maybe they’re less reductive or less obviously reductive. But I’ve learned enough about them to suspect that they rely heavily (though not openly or even consciously) on the mechanisms of group psychology, some of which are very manipulative. Its high levels of emotionalism and anti-intellectualism, at any rate, link this movement with the emotionalism and anti-intellectualism that became fashionable in one form of another in the 1960s and 1970s but now pervade all levels of society.
That’s because Jesus is building His Church and the Church of England is not His Church – unlike the Church IN England. And if the Author doesn’t think homosexuality is a sin then he should be in the Wolf Pit.
I agree. I think part of the reason is that when people are looking for a new perspective and look to see if the church can provide it, the Anglican church is not sufficiently different from the life from which they want a change/something more.
Welby is the epitome of whited sepulchres.
His utter abandonment of his flock when he could have made his Church a greater force for good than at practically any time since the Second World War was not the action of a priest but a Godless bureaucrat through and through.
Our cat is a better Christian than Marcus Welby.
Agreed but like a 30 year old horse the CofE should be allowed to die. Cromwell had it right and what’s Oil Wellby but a low rent politico: “You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go.”
Rubbish, the Church of England is still the Church most people in England feel closest to, not least as it offers weddings and funerals to all who live in its Parishes
The fact that most people who want to feel close to a church choose the CofE simply shows that it is the most popular; that has nothing to do with the extent to which it does or does not reflect Christianity. It could be that it simply projects what people want Christianity to be.
Jesus Christ himself never opposed homosexual unions
You already said that.
Jesus did not talk about homosexuality because it was not an issue in Israel. The Law of Moses condemned it absolutely and no one argued with that.
Paul had to talk about it because it was common in the pagan world
You already said that.
Jesus did not talk about homosexuality because it was not an issue in Israel. The Law of Moses condemned it absolutely and no one argued with that.
Paul had to talk about it because it was common in the pagan world
Jesus Christ himself never opposed homosexual unions
I am guessing the funeral/marriage thing is a legacy system as its not the same as worshipping.Round here ( Urban London suburb) the Church Of Christ is way the busiest and seems to mainly have African origin worshippers, then the two Mosques, the CofE and local RC are about tied for 4th place. I suppose its different in the countryside.
I live in a rural area that maybe why yes. The nearest Evangelical church is in a town 15 minutes away by car and that only gets a small congregation. Worship in villages and market towns is still dominated by the Church of England and the historic Church of England Parish church, it is different in big cities where there are more choices of church and indeed more mosques, temples etc too. Although Church of England cathedrals in cities still get good attendance for worship
I live in a rural area that maybe why yes. The nearest Evangelical church is in a town 15 minutes away by car and that only gets a small congregation. Worship in villages and market towns is still dominated by the Church of England and the historic Church of England Parish church, it is different in big cities where there are more choices of church and indeed more mosques, temples etc too. Although Church of England cathedrals in cities still get good attendance for worship
The fact that most people who want to feel close to a church choose the CofE simply shows that it is the most popular; that has nothing to do with the extent to which it does or does not reflect Christianity. It could be that it simply projects what people want Christianity to be.
I am guessing the funeral/marriage thing is a legacy system as its not the same as worshipping.Round here ( Urban London suburb) the Church Of Christ is way the busiest and seems to mainly have African origin worshippers, then the two Mosques, the CofE and local RC are about tied for 4th place. I suppose its different in the countryside.
Rubbish, the Church of England is still the Church most people in England feel closest to, not least as it offers weddings and funerals to all who live in its Parishes
Whilst agreeing with every word in the article, mine is a positive comment.
I was directed a few years back to St Paul’s Knightsbridge in London as a place where the clergy and liturgy was entirely inspirational and I have yet to be disappointed.
It is certainly true that the churches whose numbers are increasing are evangelical and hold to rather “old fashioned” doctrines whereas the traditional churches that seek to move with the times and take on board fashionable secular ideas are in continuous decline.
Welby is the epitome of whited sepulchres.
His utter abandonment of his flock when he could have made his Church a greater force for good than at practically any time since the Second World War was not the action of a priest but a Godless bureaucrat through and through.
Our cat is a better Christian than Marcus Welby.
Agreed but like a 30 year old horse the CofE should be allowed to die. Cromwell had it right and what’s Oil Wellby but a low rent politico: “You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go.”
Whilst agreeing with every word in the article, mine is a positive comment.
I was directed a few years back to St Paul’s Knightsbridge in London as a place where the clergy and liturgy was entirely inspirational and I have yet to be disappointed.
“Ideologically, Welby can be what you want him to be.” Says the author.
So by that description Welby is weak, insincere, and has no conviction. And from his insecure dictates and his wokery, it certainly seems so. So how can Giles possibly then say this?
“…the Church of England has never felt weaker. It’s not his fault…”
Oh really? Well, if not the archbishop of Canterbury then who might be regarded as responsible for the well-being of the church of England?
I am not one of your “flock” “Shepherd Giles”. But let me tell you this. You lot are going to need to get a pair of balls between your legs, some fire in your belly, and some conviction in your minds, if you want the Anglican church to even exist in 10 years time.
“And 11 years in the oil industry clearly shaped his thinking about organisational structures. ”
From Wikipedia, Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy:
In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals that the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely.
“On the front line, in the parishes, it feels like the Archbishop doesn’t much care about us.”
QED
Heh
I have heard this very true observation before but did not realise it had acquired the status of Pournelle’s Law.
Never heard this before but it explains a lot of what is happening right now and not just in the church.
Heh
I have heard this very true observation before but did not realise it had acquired the status of Pournelle’s Law.
Never heard this before but it explains a lot of what is happening right now and not just in the church.
“And 11 years in the oil industry clearly shaped his thinking about organisational structures. ”
From Wikipedia, Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy:
In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals that the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely.
“On the front line, in the parishes, it feels like the Archbishop doesn’t much care about us.”
QED
Closing the church doors when the congregation were in their hour of need so that the clergy could hide behind the Church’s wealth was disgraceful.
COVID killed the Church?
The Covid Tyranny was satanic.
Funny.
The Covid Tyranny was satanic.
Funny.
COVID killed the Church?
Closing the church doors when the congregation were in their hour of need so that the clergy could hide behind the Church’s wealth was disgraceful.
So, “he’s not a people person”, “he’s too managerial”, he laughs but is only pretending. How did he get through the first interview, let alone get the job?
The Church is riddled with confusion. Our local Church has a Bishop who spits nasty words against the the Tories whenever she is speaking to groups – she has been sent home for a few months on sick leave. This Archbishop in the article seems to have gone astray.
This supports my view that the local churches have become completely separated from the idea of religion. In my experience, local churches have a group of mainly 60-80 years-old people who help in the community. These people do great things ranging from visiting the sick to distributing food parcels to making a cup of tea in the hall for lonely (and cold) people. You don’t have to think too hard to see why older people are more involved.
Meanwhile, instructions come from HQ to concentrate on young people. The vicars now play guitars and the churches have screens instead of hymn books. Of course, the regulars can’t see the screens properly so, having wasted the money, hymn books are still used. This concentration on young people is like the BBC. The customers are mainly old people but the management initiative concentrates on the young. Why would young people want to go to church or sit indoors watching television?
Yes, the congregation at my church (myself included ) is largely made up of people aged between 60 and 80 – and we try to do the great things you have indicated. But fortunately we have traditionalist clergy and a loyal choir – so no screens or guitars are inflicted on us. And in Chichester we have a sound Bishop.
Yes, the congregation at my church (myself included ) is largely made up of people aged between 60 and 80 – and we try to do the great things you have indicated. But fortunately we have traditionalist clergy and a loyal choir – so no screens or guitars are inflicted on us. And in Chichester we have a sound Bishop.
So, “he’s not a people person”, “he’s too managerial”, he laughs but is only pretending. How did he get through the first interview, let alone get the job?
The Church is riddled with confusion. Our local Church has a Bishop who spits nasty words against the the Tories whenever she is speaking to groups – she has been sent home for a few months on sick leave. This Archbishop in the article seems to have gone astray.
This supports my view that the local churches have become completely separated from the idea of religion. In my experience, local churches have a group of mainly 60-80 years-old people who help in the community. These people do great things ranging from visiting the sick to distributing food parcels to making a cup of tea in the hall for lonely (and cold) people. You don’t have to think too hard to see why older people are more involved.
Meanwhile, instructions come from HQ to concentrate on young people. The vicars now play guitars and the churches have screens instead of hymn books. Of course, the regulars can’t see the screens properly so, having wasted the money, hymn books are still used. This concentration on young people is like the BBC. The customers are mainly old people but the management initiative concentrates on the young. Why would young people want to go to church or sit indoors watching television?
What kind of archbishop forbade clergy to pray, alone, in their own churches? One whose brain has too many pointy bits.
What kind of archbishop forbade clergy to pray, alone, in their own churches? One whose brain has too many pointy bits.
But what has God got to do with any of this? Sounds like a flippant question but early on in the Covid ‘pandemic’ it struck me – someone who hasn’t stepped inside a church for years – that the only thing standing between me, Hendrik Mentz, and a totalising dystopian future ruled by the algorithm, is community founded on the sacred, embodied in the mystery of Christ. I’m more convinced today than ever. But this essay and the earlier by Thompson (Ten terrible years of Pope Francis) have shattered that illusion. (The only gleanable hope was you kept your church open.) It’s now or never (returning to the original question) otherwise I fear it’s tickets for humanity.
I have to disagree with your conclusion. It’s my very considered view that only once humanity has weaned itself away from belief in a divinity will we ever start to get to grips with our true nature. Concepts of ‘sin’ and suchlike are beyond useless to deal with the reality, and only serve to hinder a proper and full exploration of what it truly means to be part of an animal species that developed consciousness.
This also requires the kind of examination of ourselves that today’s article on child abuse demands. Giles mentions that one of the mentors of the Archbishop (or was it his mentor?) was found to have abused young boys. You also refer to the recent article on the Pope, which primarily involved the amount of corruption and abuse within the Church of Rome. Clearly, ‘holiness’ is another hollow concept which needs to be shown for what it is.
Belief in a god has created the current condition, whereby loss of that belief isn’t the problem, but rather the realisation that we humans are very good at fooling ourselves, and that this gets developed into systems and hierarchies. Enough is enough.
Hi Steve. I do not speak of belief or anything ‘out there’ separate from me. I speak of totality, as in God. I speak of relationship, of community, the sacred and of mystery embodied in the Christ who for me symbolises the suffering of every man, woman and child – also sacrifice, the unfathomable, and whatever flows therefrom. Any epistemology that doesn’t account for and embrace the foregoing, falls short, for me. As for your reference to ‘sin’, that for me requires acknowledging, living, and integrating the darkness within me; and you doing very much the same yourself.
I think you make some very
good points about the need for community; however in the faux multi cultural paradise that is the UK there is no ‘community’, just disparate groups whose views are frequently opposed to one another.
I also do not think it is possible to ‘reverse engineer’ Christian community via a return to the fold, so to speak.
The brutal truth is that most of the nation couldn’t give a damn what the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks. I would be surprised if more than half the country even knows who he is.
Jeff, I also don’t believe reverse-engineering an existing Christian flock would work, as it seems (judging by the two essays in question) there’s little there apart from a significant number of shallow, frightened, petty or evil members of a clergy or priesthood pursuing their own ends. And because the church is not about God or Christ it has nothing to offer humanity at grave irreversible risk. So to repeat: it’s now or never. The church must get its act together and I believe community will be born.
Yes exactly this – community is something that emerges, that’s what I meant to say.
I often feel we are at the end of one thing and the beginning of another and can’t go back , but I don’t trust my instincts, largely because I’m older and grouchier than I once was but also because I think that people have always felt like this.
That said I mourn the emptiness and disuse of English country churches – many of them are precious beyond measure even if, like me, you find it hard to have faith.
They also remain one of the few places left in our noisy world you can find some peace.
Jeff, your lamentation goes to the heart of the issue as I understand it, namely, that Christian clergy and the priesthood failed to understand, cherish and preserve that which manifests as stone, carvings, glassware, art, silence and presence in churches bequeathed us. For me this speaks of betrayal. It speaks of sin. It’s tragedy. So instead of feeling grouchy we (the potential or, by now, lost laity) should feel and express our rage.
Deleted, as this repeats the above reply.
Jeff, your lamentation goes to the heart of the issue as I understand it, namely, that Christian clergy and the priesthood failed to understand, cherish and preserve that which manifests as stone, carvings, glassware, art, silence and presence in churches bequeathed us. For me this speaks of betrayal. It speaks of sin. It’s tragedy. So instead of feeling grouchy we (the potential or, by now, lost laity) should feel and express our rage.
Deleted, as this repeats the above reply.
Yes exactly this – community is something that emerges, that’s what I meant to say.
I often feel we are at the end of one thing and the beginning of another and can’t go back , but I don’t trust my instincts, largely because I’m older and grouchier than I once was but also because I think that people have always felt like this.
That said I mourn the emptiness and disuse of English country churches – many of them are precious beyond measure even if, like me, you find it hard to have faith.
They also remain one of the few places left in our noisy world you can find some peace.
Jeff, I also don’t believe reverse-engineering an existing Christian flock would work, as it seems (judging by the two essays in question) there’s little there apart from a significant number of shallow, frightened, petty or evil members of a clergy or priesthood pursuing their own ends. And because the church is not about God or Christ it has nothing to offer humanity at grave irreversible risk. So to repeat: it’s now or never. The church must get its act together and I believe community will be born.
I speak of epistemology too, and the human tendency to try to grab hold of something – anything – rather than face up to our natures. I’ve no issue with the historical teachings of Jesus, but that’s all they are. There’s no divinity, and if there were it wouldn’t make any difference.
If a god could be proven to exist, i’d not want to worship. Quite simply, any god that required worshipping wouldn’t be worthy of being a god.
Our humanity is all we have. We’re conscious animals. When words such as “unfathomable” are used, i say, try harder. That’s not to confuse with spirituality. I’m immersed in it, as a human being. That’s what we should be embracing, not some invented externality. The universe has more beauty than we can yet see, but we can only try, and take our place within it.
No god, just humanity. Let’s find out who we really are. There doesn’t have to be a “why”. It’s an unnecessary question which prevents understanding.
We all have something that is our highest good. It may be family, friends, nation, a philosophy, or the divine. If our highest good is of human origin, we are giving our ‘worship’ to a flawed thing; only if the divine is worshipped are we setting our highest good on something that is flawless.
That’s interesting, because in your former comment you described the notion of sin as being ‘worse than useless.’ Yet that notion is precisely an attempt to ‘face up to our natures.’ If you investiagted the meaning of it, you might understand it better.
Undoubtedly true, but no Christian would content that God ‘requires worshipping.’ There are a lot of different conceptions of ‘god.’ Generalisations don’t help much in this area.
You seem very sure about that. I do often find that atheists are much less questioning, and much more certain, in a kind of aggressive, left-brainy way, than religious people.
You don’t think anything is unfathomable? You think human reason can work everything out? That science is a method capable of dissecting all of reality? Good luck!
In all seriousness: given that 87% of the world’s people are religious, and virtually 100% of our ancestors have been forevere, do you not think there is a chance they’re seeing something you’re not? Or were/are they all just deluded fools?
“If a god could be proven to exist, I’d not want to worship. Quite simply, any god that required worshipping wouldn’t be worthy of being a god.”
I didn’t bite the first time, but I will now from a Jewish point of view. In that context, the problem is not an intellectual one of belief or disbelief in God. Rather, it’s a moral one of fidelity or infidelity to the covenant between God and Israel.
In The Trial of God, Elie Wiesel tells the story of Jewish inmates in a Nazi death camp. One night, they decide to set up a traditional rabbinical court (beth din) and put God on trial for abandoning the covenant–that is, for not rescuing the victims of evil. The deliberate through the night. After many hours of hearing arguments on both sides of the case, they reach a decision. They declare that God is guilty as charged. At dawn, nonetheless, someone rises and says, “And now, let us pray.”
This is a traditional rabbinical tale, a midrash, not a liberal or secular one. In fact, Wiesel drew on his own Hasidic roots in writing it. I’ll try to sum up the commentaries that I’ve read about it and centuries of similar tales.
For traditional Jews, God is not necessarily an almighty being who lives in some other world but occasionally breaks into our own world and intervenes in history to save the good and punish the evil. That’s one strand of the biblical tradition, to be sure, but not the only one and probably not the earliest.
As for the divine covenant, it binds both parties. Just as we can prove ourselves unworthy or unreliable, so can God. But the relationship itself is both intimate and reciprocal. We need God, but God needs us (to complete the work of creation). We can suffer, but so can God.
The story offers no cognitive answer to the problem of suffering. Why do the rabbis call for morning prayer after finding God guilty of abandoning the covenant? Because how else could they go on living in a world that includes death camps? At the heart of this tale is God’s presence in the midst of suffering just as it is in the midst of joy. God is with us and even suffers with us. That idea brought no consolation to most victims of the sho’ah, but it worked for the Hassidim, who by now have the only Jewish communities with no need to worry about “continuity.”
This kind of God is–or should be–familiar to Christians, of course, but it originated centuries earlier than Christianity. Consider the biblical Job. Like the rabbis, he discovers that there is no such thing as a rational or moral answer to the problem of undeserved suffering. His “friends,” who insist that Job must have done something very wrong to have been punished so severely are, as God says, a bunch of fools and pious hypocrites. But Job receives another kind of answer, a non-cognitive one, in the context of a theophany (that is, the direct experience of holiness).
Thank you.
Thank you.
“If a god could be proven to exist, I’d not want to worship. Quite simply, any god that required worshipping wouldn’t be worthy of being a god.”
I didn’t bite the first time, but I will now from a Jewish point of view. In that context, the problem is not an intellectual one of belief or disbelief in God. Rather, it’s a moral one of fidelity or infidelity to the covenant between God and Israel.
In The Trial of God, Elie Wiesel tells the story of Jewish inmates in a Nazi death camp. One night, they decide to set up a traditional rabbinical court (beth din) and put God on trial for abandoning the covenant–that is, for not rescuing the victims of evil. The deliberate through the night. After many hours of hearing arguments on both sides of the case, they reach a decision. They declare that God is guilty as charged. At dawn, nonetheless, someone rises and says, “And now, let us pray.”
This is a traditional rabbinical tale, a midrash, not a liberal or secular one. In fact, Wiesel drew on his own Hasidic roots in writing it. I’ll try to sum up the commentaries that I’ve read about it and centuries of similar tales.
For traditional Jews, God is not necessarily an almighty being who lives in some other world but occasionally breaks into our own world and intervenes in history to save the good and punish the evil. That’s one strand of the biblical tradition, to be sure, but not the only one and probably not the earliest.
As for the divine covenant, it binds both parties. Just as we can prove ourselves unworthy or unreliable, so can God. But the relationship itself is both intimate and reciprocal. We need God, but God needs us (to complete the work of creation). We can suffer, but so can God.
The story offers no cognitive answer to the problem of suffering. Why do the rabbis call for morning prayer after finding God guilty of abandoning the covenant? Because how else could they go on living in a world that includes death camps? At the heart of this tale is God’s presence in the midst of suffering just as it is in the midst of joy. God is with us and even suffers with us. That idea brought no consolation to most victims of the sho’ah, but it worked for the Hassidim, who by now have the only Jewish communities with no need to worry about “continuity.”
This kind of God is–or should be–familiar to Christians, of course, but it originated centuries earlier than Christianity. Consider the biblical Job. Like the rabbis, he discovers that there is no such thing as a rational or moral answer to the problem of undeserved suffering. His “friends,” who insist that Job must have done something very wrong to have been punished so severely are, as God says, a bunch of fools and pious hypocrites. But Job receives another kind of answer, a non-cognitive one, in the context of a theophany (that is, the direct experience of holiness).
Steve, you cover much ground, so out of deference, here goes: not sure where you get the idea I’m ‘grabbing on to anything’ or ‘not facing my nature’. You would need to explain to your readers what ‘spirituality’ stripped of the divine means to you. Nowhere do I speak of a ‘god’ or even God requiring worship. Instead, if you read for meaning you will understand my sense is of God (as earlier defined) manifesting. I embrace totally (my understanding of) your sense of ‘humanity’ and ‘consciousness’ but am puzzled how to ‘try harder’ when faced with the ‘unfathomable’. Why would anyone want to? For me far rather sense awe; as you most likely do experiencing in a ‘universe (which) has more beauty than we can yet see, but we can only try, and take our place within it’. Your closing statement (‘No god, just humanity’) is palpably false given the immensity of the universe. Finally, I’m not asking ‘why’; only pointing out my sense of ‘that’. Hope I covered all your points.
Post script:
Hendrik, i wasn’t referring specifically to yourself in my comment about “grabbing onto anything”, rather about a human tendency which is obvious in most organised religions. It’s that tendency that in my view also encourages some (specifically males) to take advantage of others by preaching to that tendency. It’s a power dynamic, and within such, abuse can not only take place but prosper. Or the apparent need to take the lives of others in ‘the cause’ of one’s god.
When will we stop doing this? All the quotes in the world are just that – thoughts of others on the matter. They’re interesting (i’ve read them all before, and more) and some are beautiful, but where have they taken us? It’s time to unblock the dam that religious belief imposes between us and our understanding of ourselves. I fully understand where the concept of ‘sin’ comes from, thanks, and i’m seeking to move the debate beyond its limitations. Nothing original there, by the way.
“It’s time to unblock the dam that religious belief imposes between us and our understanding of ourselves.”
What if, in your earnest investigations, you find that ourselves can only really be understood through the medium of faith in something divine that transcends our individual temporal selves?
Please come back and tell us what you find.
“It’s time to unblock the dam that religious belief imposes between us and our understanding of ourselves.”
What if, in your earnest investigations, you find that ourselves can only really be understood through the medium of faith in something divine that transcends our individual temporal selves?
Please come back and tell us what you find.
Exactly so, Horatio. Trouble is, you dream of nothing. I dream of the Kingdom of God, and try to work for it. It is good to know we do not know everything in heaven or on earth.
Hendrik, i wasn’t referring specifically to yourself in my comment about “grabbing onto anything”, rather about a human tendency which is obvious in most organised religions. It’s that tendency that in my view also encourages some (specifically males) to take advantage of others by preaching to that tendency. It’s a power dynamic, and within such, abuse can not only take place but prosper. Or the apparent need to take the lives of others in ‘the cause’ of one’s god.
When will we stop doing this? All the quotes in the world are just that – thoughts of others on the matter. They’re interesting (i’ve read them all before, and more) and some are beautiful, but where have they taken us? It’s time to unblock the dam that religious belief imposes between us and our understanding of ourselves. I fully understand where the concept of ‘sin’ comes from, thanks, and i’m seeking to move the debate beyond its limitations. Nothing original there, by the way.
Exactly so, Horatio. Trouble is, you dream of nothing. I dream of the Kingdom of God, and try to work for it. It is good to know we do not know everything in heaven or on earth.
We’re selfish mobile blobs of blood, and gore who are very prone to greed, fear, and sloth. We’ve had a world without G*d before. Back then people worshipped rocks and animals or practiced human sacrifice, the rich kept slaves, primitives mutilated themselves, and nations precipitated genocide against each other. That’s who we are, I’m afraid: selfish organisms who have enough intelligence to rationalize evil behaviors. No amount of education or technology will ever change that.
The ancient Jews knew this in their own fashion which is why much of the Old Testament is filled with stories of biblical Israel’s rise and fall. Out of all the ancient gods in existence the G*d of Adam and Eve was the only one who made Man in his image, instead of a mere slave or plaything. When living according to G*d’s laws the ancient Israelis became great. When they became too comfortable and enlightened to need G*d they fell back into ancient and primitive ways. Eventually their vices overcame then and they proved too weak and decadent to resist hostile takeover by neighboring nations.
Maybe this is the point we are at in the West today, especially where freedom is perceived as the ability to fulfill every sexual urge and whim.
-Samson Agonistes by John Milton
I don’t think people worship god because he requires it; if there is any requirement it is that people require to worship which is why most people worship something whether it is a pop idol, their wealth, car, status, partner or things they envy.
We all have something that is our highest good. It may be family, friends, nation, a philosophy, or the divine. If our highest good is of human origin, we are giving our ‘worship’ to a flawed thing; only if the divine is worshipped are we setting our highest good on something that is flawless.
That’s interesting, because in your former comment you described the notion of sin as being ‘worse than useless.’ Yet that notion is precisely an attempt to ‘face up to our natures.’ If you investiagted the meaning of it, you might understand it better.
Undoubtedly true, but no Christian would content that God ‘requires worshipping.’ There are a lot of different conceptions of ‘god.’ Generalisations don’t help much in this area.
You seem very sure about that. I do often find that atheists are much less questioning, and much more certain, in a kind of aggressive, left-brainy way, than religious people.
You don’t think anything is unfathomable? You think human reason can work everything out? That science is a method capable of dissecting all of reality? Good luck!
In all seriousness: given that 87% of the world’s people are religious, and virtually 100% of our ancestors have been forevere, do you not think there is a chance they’re seeing something you’re not? Or were/are they all just deluded fools?
Steve, you cover much ground, so out of deference, here goes: not sure where you get the idea I’m ‘grabbing on to anything’ or ‘not facing my nature’. You would need to explain to your readers what ‘spirituality’ stripped of the divine means to you. Nowhere do I speak of a ‘god’ or even God requiring worship. Instead, if you read for meaning you will understand my sense is of God (as earlier defined) manifesting. I embrace totally (my understanding of) your sense of ‘humanity’ and ‘consciousness’ but am puzzled how to ‘try harder’ when faced with the ‘unfathomable’. Why would anyone want to? For me far rather sense awe; as you most likely do experiencing in a ‘universe (which) has more beauty than we can yet see, but we can only try, and take our place within it’. Your closing statement (‘No god, just humanity’) is palpably false given the immensity of the universe. Finally, I’m not asking ‘why’; only pointing out my sense of ‘that’. Hope I covered all your points.
Post script:
We’re selfish mobile blobs of blood, and gore who are very prone to greed, fear, and sloth. We’ve had a world without G*d before. Back then people worshipped rocks and animals or practiced human sacrifice, the rich kept slaves, primitives mutilated themselves, and nations precipitated genocide against each other. That’s who we are, I’m afraid: selfish organisms who have enough intelligence to rationalize evil behaviors. No amount of education or technology will ever change that.
The ancient Jews knew this in their own fashion which is why much of the Old Testament is filled with stories of biblical Israel’s rise and fall. Out of all the ancient gods in existence the G*d of Adam and Eve was the only one who made Man in his image, instead of a mere slave or plaything. When living according to G*d’s laws the ancient Israelis became great. When they became too comfortable and enlightened to need G*d they fell back into ancient and primitive ways. Eventually their vices overcame then and they proved too weak and decadent to resist hostile takeover by neighboring nations.
Maybe this is the point we are at in the West today, especially where freedom is perceived as the ability to fulfill every sexual urge and whim.
-Samson Agonistes by John Milton
I don’t think people worship god because he requires it; if there is any requirement it is that people require to worship which is why most people worship something whether it is a pop idol, their wealth, car, status, partner or things they envy.
I think you make some very
good points about the need for community; however in the faux multi cultural paradise that is the UK there is no ‘community’, just disparate groups whose views are frequently opposed to one another.
I also do not think it is possible to ‘reverse engineer’ Christian community via a return to the fold, so to speak.
The brutal truth is that most of the nation couldn’t give a damn what the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks. I would be surprised if more than half the country even knows who he is.
I speak of epistemology too, and the human tendency to try to grab hold of something – anything – rather than face up to our natures. I’ve no issue with the historical teachings of Jesus, but that’s all they are. There’s no divinity, and if there were it wouldn’t make any difference.
If a god could be proven to exist, i’d not want to worship. Quite simply, any god that required worshipping wouldn’t be worthy of being a god.
Our humanity is all we have. We’re conscious animals. When words such as “unfathomable” are used, i say, try harder. That’s not to confuse with spirituality. I’m immersed in it, as a human being. That’s what we should be embracing, not some invented externality. The universe has more beauty than we can yet see, but we can only try, and take our place within it.
No god, just humanity. Let’s find out who we really are. There doesn’t have to be a “why”. It’s an unnecessary question which prevents understanding.
I would like to stress that Thomson’s article on the Pope is from someone who has a rather large chip on his shoulder. He may be right, but it is difficult to find people as dismissing of Francis as he is.
Fsir point, but there’s more than enough evidence for the jury (as it were) to still be out.
My main point isn’t about individuals though, but rather beliefs among humans, whereby such systems arise.
Because George Pell upped and died?
Fsir point, but there’s more than enough evidence for the jury (as it were) to still be out.
My main point isn’t about individuals though, but rather beliefs among humans, whereby such systems arise.
Because George Pell upped and died?
We shouldn’t blame God for the sins of the world. They are (natural disasters apart) largely the fault of human beings. The point of a deity is to have an objective set of values against which one measures one’s own conduct. Mankind will always follow the path of least resistance and then attempt to justify it. We ignore God’s guiding star at our peril.
My point is precisely that ‘sins’ are part of the human condition, but that we shouldn’t ascribe that concept to them, since it’s primarily based upon a religious interpretation of the world which just isn’t helpful.
It’s time for humanity to move on beyond these old concepts, and only by doing so will we finally be able to recognise ourselves and stop using concepts such a god to hide behind, under the guise of “an objective set of values” which are anything but.
Just as all the bad things that happen are human, so are all the good things, and there’s plenty of those of course. So we should credit ourselves where due, look more closely and honestly about what we’re doing wrong, and continue to strive to improve our lot. No need for a concept of god in any of this.
My point is precisely that ‘sins’ are part of the human condition, but that we shouldn’t ascribe that concept to them, since it’s primarily based upon a religious interpretation of the world which just isn’t helpful.
It’s time for humanity to move on beyond these old concepts, and only by doing so will we finally be able to recognise ourselves and stop using concepts such a god to hide behind, under the guise of “an objective set of values” which are anything but.
Just as all the bad things that happen are human, so are all the good things, and there’s plenty of those of course. So we should credit ourselves where due, look more closely and honestly about what we’re doing wrong, and continue to strive to improve our lot. No need for a concept of god in any of this.
Holiness is not a “concept,” Steve, but an experience. But I’ve discussed some of this in another comment.
Well said, Steve. I do not understand your downvotes.
Boy you really are lost. Repent before you disappear into eternity.
What is our true nature and what is the evidence for your answer?
Hi Steve. I do not speak of belief or anything ‘out there’ separate from me. I speak of totality, as in God. I speak of relationship, of community, the sacred and of mystery embodied in the Christ who for me symbolises the suffering of every man, woman and child – also sacrifice, the unfathomable, and whatever flows therefrom. Any epistemology that doesn’t account for and embrace the foregoing, falls short, for me. As for your reference to ‘sin’, that for me requires acknowledging, living, and integrating the darkness within me; and you doing very much the same yourself.
I would like to stress that Thomson’s article on the Pope is from someone who has a rather large chip on his shoulder. He may be right, but it is difficult to find people as dismissing of Francis as he is.
We shouldn’t blame God for the sins of the world. They are (natural disasters apart) largely the fault of human beings. The point of a deity is to have an objective set of values against which one measures one’s own conduct. Mankind will always follow the path of least resistance and then attempt to justify it. We ignore God’s guiding star at our peril.
Holiness is not a “concept,” Steve, but an experience. But I’ve discussed some of this in another comment.
Well said, Steve. I do not understand your downvotes.
Boy you really are lost. Repent before you disappear into eternity.
What is our true nature and what is the evidence for your answer?
I have to disagree with your conclusion. It’s my very considered view that only once humanity has weaned itself away from belief in a divinity will we ever start to get to grips with our true nature. Concepts of ‘sin’ and suchlike are beyond useless to deal with the reality, and only serve to hinder a proper and full exploration of what it truly means to be part of an animal species that developed consciousness.
This also requires the kind of examination of ourselves that today’s article on child abuse demands. Giles mentions that one of the mentors of the Archbishop (or was it his mentor?) was found to have abused young boys. You also refer to the recent article on the Pope, which primarily involved the amount of corruption and abuse within the Church of Rome. Clearly, ‘holiness’ is another hollow concept which needs to be shown for what it is.
Belief in a god has created the current condition, whereby loss of that belief isn’t the problem, but rather the realisation that we humans are very good at fooling ourselves, and that this gets developed into systems and hierarchies. Enough is enough.
But what has God got to do with any of this? Sounds like a flippant question but early on in the Covid ‘pandemic’ it struck me – someone who hasn’t stepped inside a church for years – that the only thing standing between me, Hendrik Mentz, and a totalising dystopian future ruled by the algorithm, is community founded on the sacred, embodied in the mystery of Christ. I’m more convinced today than ever. But this essay and the earlier by Thompson (Ten terrible years of Pope Francis) have shattered that illusion. (The only gleanable hope was you kept your church open.) It’s now or never (returning to the original question) otherwise I fear it’s tickets for humanity.
If the Church of England has never felt weaker, perhaps it is because it is abandoning its fundamental teachings.
If the Church of England has never felt weaker, perhaps it is because it is abandoning its fundamental teachings.
There is a certain amount of ‘shop talk’ you expect among professional clergy, as their worldly calling and their spiritual calling intermingle in uncomfortable ways.
That said, it tells you all you really need to know about the current state of the Church of England that its participants think this kind of article is the right way to analyze it. This article has the same tone and approach as dozens of similar articles written every month about the leaders of major secular institutions, a university or charity or business or museum or govt dept. It is asking about personality, ‘management style,’ organizational questions, environmental headwinds, etc.
For any religious institution – from jihadists to the Holy See to shop-front churches in rural America or Africa – the first point of analysis must always be a religious one. What do these people believe and why? And how does their belief distinguish how they live from others in their societies? And do those distinctives enrich their lives or impoverish them?
What does the Church of England believe now? Anglicanism is dying precisely because religion is not and can never be a “big tent” affair. It is the essential relationship between man and eternity, between being and not-being, between shame and redemption, etc. etc. It can only transmute from a singular experience to “organized religion” under two conditions: political force, or collective agreement. Neither of those conditions obtain for the C of E today.
The Church of England has always been big tent, offering weddings, blessings, baptisms and funerals to all who live in its Parishes
Of course – and once there was the politico-cultural will to sustain such a social presence without getting too bothered about who believed what. There were plenty of non-religious purposes served by this ubiquitous religious institution. But that hasn’t been the case for a long time, and without them, the big tent will inevitably fold.
Unless, of course, there’s a revival of belief. Who’s game?
Wrong, plenty still get married or buried in my local Parish Church, including those who aren’t regular church goers. At Mothers’ Day on Sunday it was packed as it is for Christmas and Easter
Yes it is, our local church is regularly holding weddings and funerals and was full last Mother’s Day
Not true at all, my local Parish church is regularly full for weddings, funerals and baptisms and was full last Sunday for Mothering Sunday too
Anecdotal evidence? So, based on your local parish church, you believe the C of E is a healthy and robust institution? <<shrug>>
In rural areas and market towns like where I live yes, worship is still centred around the historic Church of England Parish Church, as are weddings, funerals etc. In big cities apart from cathedrals there is more competition as more Baptist, Pentecostal and Roman Catholic churches and mosques and temples too
He asked if you thought it was robust….and shrugged. The consensus of pretty well every single person here, even Giles Fraser, is that the CoE is buggered. This is a postmortem. God can raise the dead. But I wonder why he would bother…which is a shame because as a cradle Quaker turned atheist turned pagan turned Catholic….I still love Anglican hymns best. But unless people like Giles Fraser show a little courage and understand that the church is there to form people not the other way around….it is buggered
He asked if you thought it was robust….and shrugged. The consensus of pretty well every single person here, even Giles Fraser, is that the CoE is buggered. This is a postmortem. God can raise the dead. But I wonder why he would bother…which is a shame because as a cradle Quaker turned atheist turned pagan turned Catholic….I still love Anglican hymns best. But unless people like Giles Fraser show a little courage and understand that the church is there to form people not the other way around….it is buggered
In rural areas and market towns like where I live yes, worship is still centred around the historic Church of England Parish Church, as are weddings, funerals etc. In big cities apart from cathedrals there is more competition as more Baptist, Pentecostal and Roman Catholic churches and mosques and temples too
Anecdotal evidence? So, based on your local parish church, you believe the C of E is a healthy and robust institution? <<shrug>>
Wrong, plenty still get married or buried in my local Parish Church, including those who aren’t regular church goers. At Mothers’ Day on Sunday it was packed as it is for Christmas and Easter
Yes it is, our local church is regularly holding weddings and funerals and was full last Mother’s Day
Not true at all, my local Parish church is regularly full for weddings, funerals and baptisms and was full last Sunday for Mothering Sunday too
Of course – and once there was the politico-cultural will to sustain such a social presence without getting too bothered about who believed what. There were plenty of non-religious purposes served by this ubiquitous religious institution. But that hasn’t been the case for a long time, and without them, the big tent will inevitably fold.
Unless, of course, there’s a revival of belief. Who’s game?
The Church of England has always been big tent, offering weddings, blessings, baptisms and funerals to all who live in its Parishes
There is a certain amount of ‘shop talk’ you expect among professional clergy, as their worldly calling and their spiritual calling intermingle in uncomfortable ways.
That said, it tells you all you really need to know about the current state of the Church of England that its participants think this kind of article is the right way to analyze it. This article has the same tone and approach as dozens of similar articles written every month about the leaders of major secular institutions, a university or charity or business or museum or govt dept. It is asking about personality, ‘management style,’ organizational questions, environmental headwinds, etc.
For any religious institution – from jihadists to the Holy See to shop-front churches in rural America or Africa – the first point of analysis must always be a religious one. What do these people believe and why? And how does their belief distinguish how they live from others in their societies? And do those distinctives enrich their lives or impoverish them?
What does the Church of England believe now? Anglicanism is dying precisely because religion is not and can never be a “big tent” affair. It is the essential relationship between man and eternity, between being and not-being, between shame and redemption, etc. etc. It can only transmute from a singular experience to “organized religion” under two conditions: political force, or collective agreement. Neither of those conditions obtain for the C of E today.
“Ideologically, Welby can be what you want him to be.”
It is a tremendous advantage when scaling the greasy pole of promotion, to have no principles whatsoever.
Which explains Welby’s rise.
Can we please get rid and get an actual sincere Christian in the role?
‘Woke’ is anti-Christian, since it is the ideological heir of Marxism – a 19th Century religion in which Man and the State *replace* God. One cannot be Woke and Christian, since that would be a contradiction in terms.
1
Woke is the successor ideology. We either want it to succeed, or we are Christians. There is no middle ground.
1
Woke is the successor ideology. We either want it to succeed, or we are Christians. There is no middle ground.
“Ideologically, Welby can be what you want him to be.”
It is a tremendous advantage when scaling the greasy pole of promotion, to have no principles whatsoever.
Which explains Welby’s rise.
Can we please get rid and get an actual sincere Christian in the role?
‘Woke’ is anti-Christian, since it is the ideological heir of Marxism – a 19th Century religion in which Man and the State *replace* God. One cannot be Woke and Christian, since that would be a contradiction in terms.
Floreat Britannia, floreat Etona. As late as 2016 the heir-but-one to the throne, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Mayor of London and the Prime Minister had all been educated at the same school.
We are led by hang-wringing liberals distraught by their privilege and unable to make tough and unpopular decisions. The country (including the Church of England) is now paying a terrible price. We lost our way in the 1950s for the same reason.
Energy, drive and a renewed focus are desperately needed to arrest this alarming decline.
Both Eden and Macmillan were Etonians.
Both Eden and Macmillan were Etonians.
Floreat Britannia, floreat Etona. As late as 2016 the heir-but-one to the throne, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Mayor of London and the Prime Minister had all been educated at the same school.
We are led by hang-wringing liberals distraught by their privilege and unable to make tough and unpopular decisions. The country (including the Church of England) is now paying a terrible price. We lost our way in the 1950s for the same reason.
Energy, drive and a renewed focus are desperately needed to arrest this alarming decline.
My eldest son was confirmed by Welby, then Bishop of Durham,in a rather splendid ceremony in Durham Cathedral involving blazing bonfires and the first light filtering through the stained glass of the East window and the liberal application of holy oil. He was a very affable and approachable man but I can understand Giles’s assessment.
Managerialism has taken over not just Anglicanism but Methodism that I have been involved in through my wife. The Methodist church is desperate to close churches on economic grounds, although it inevitably sheds much of their congregations. During covid the ministers confined themselves to zooming like Welby. Absurdly they refused to furlough the ministers so a financial hole was blown in church funding and in the aftermath one minister was able to persuade the three churches she covered to close by consulting only those who could be persuaded. Many will say: “so what if they were struggling”. But the closure affected many of the non religious community organisations that used the church premises and weakened further community ties.
The value of the church is as a physical centre to foster the interconnectedness of communities that are not reliant on some specific mutual interest. The idea Methodism can return to its origin in biblical study groups and those eager to hear a sermon unconnected to a physical church simply will not fly.
The Church of England did furlough those staff whom it could. Most Clergy are not employees but are office holders. As such we could not be furloughed.
Could office holders not be furloughed? Did furlough only apply to employees only? An odd distinction if that was the case.
Who could be furloughed was up to the Government and, as far as I know, didn’t apply to any officeholders.
Who could be furloughed was up to the Government and, as far as I know, didn’t apply to any officeholders.
Could office holders not be furloughed? Did furlough only apply to employees only? An odd distinction if that was the case.
Yes, the value of churches is community.
The Church of England did furlough those staff whom it could. Most Clergy are not employees but are office holders. As such we could not be furloughed.
Yes, the value of churches is community.
My eldest son was confirmed by Welby, then Bishop of Durham,in a rather splendid ceremony in Durham Cathedral involving blazing bonfires and the first light filtering through the stained glass of the East window and the liberal application of holy oil. He was a very affable and approachable man but I can understand Giles’s assessment.
Managerialism has taken over not just Anglicanism but Methodism that I have been involved in through my wife. The Methodist church is desperate to close churches on economic grounds, although it inevitably sheds much of their congregations. During covid the ministers confined themselves to zooming like Welby. Absurdly they refused to furlough the ministers so a financial hole was blown in church funding and in the aftermath one minister was able to persuade the three churches she covered to close by consulting only those who could be persuaded. Many will say: “so what if they were struggling”. But the closure affected many of the non religious community organisations that used the church premises and weakened further community ties.
The value of the church is as a physical centre to foster the interconnectedness of communities that are not reliant on some specific mutual interest. The idea Methodism can return to its origin in biblical study groups and those eager to hear a sermon unconnected to a physical church simply will not fly.
I didn’t actually realised that Welby was an OE but I’m hardly surprised; it answers a number of questions.
Facing the greatest challenge of recent times, this Blairite beaurocrat abandoned his flock and withdrew into empty posturing.
I’m not a devout man by any standards but I always derived a certain comfort from the forms of the religion of my upbringing. Deprived of that in a moment of general crisis left me wondering what, if anything the CofE was FOR. This isn’t new; two generations of war veterans made similar comments about the uselessness of CofE chaplains, compared to the RC sort. It’s instructive that the figures of moral authority who emerged from the hellish Japanese camps were as often as not, military rather than religious; Col Toohey and Major Fagan come to mind.
Noel Duckworth was an outstanding exception to your last observation.
True. I had the honour of encountering (I can’t say “meeting” because it was a school occasion) “Padre Noel” and was much impressed. However I can’t help observing that he seems to have been a man of firm principles and highly competitive as well.
So I’ll see your Noel Duckworth and raise you the “Chaplain of Colditz” as unflattering portrayed by Pat Reid and others.
True. I had the honour of encountering (I can’t say “meeting” because it was a school occasion) “Padre Noel” and was much impressed. However I can’t help observing that he seems to have been a man of firm principles and highly competitive as well.
So I’ll see your Noel Duckworth and raise you the “Chaplain of Colditz” as unflattering portrayed by Pat Reid and others.
Noel Duckworth was an outstanding exception to your last observation.
I didn’t actually realised that Welby was an OE but I’m hardly surprised; it answers a number of questions.
Facing the greatest challenge of recent times, this Blairite beaurocrat abandoned his flock and withdrew into empty posturing.
I’m not a devout man by any standards but I always derived a certain comfort from the forms of the religion of my upbringing. Deprived of that in a moment of general crisis left me wondering what, if anything the CofE was FOR. This isn’t new; two generations of war veterans made similar comments about the uselessness of CofE chaplains, compared to the RC sort. It’s instructive that the figures of moral authority who emerged from the hellish Japanese camps were as often as not, military rather than religious; Col Toohey and Major Fagan come to mind.
He certainly cannot read the African, Caribbean and Asian room…..
He certainly cannot read the African, Caribbean and Asian room…..
The picture is absurd. You should never smile broadly while wearing a mitre – it makes you look slightly mad, or like the cat who got the cream, or both. Prelates should cultivate an air of gravitas and solemnity. Take a lesson from the Orthodox clergy.
What beards crawling with microscopic vermin, as seen on Mt Athos for example?
Even better!
Perhaps you need a holiday. Athos would be a good retreat.
I think I would probably fail the entrance requirement test, assuming there still is one.
I think you would pass the basic one, given that your name is Charles – unless, of course, it’s a nom de folie and you’re really Charlotte.
It would have to be Karlos I think.
It would have to be Karlos I think.
I think you would pass the basic one, given that your name is Charles – unless, of course, it’s a nom de folie and you’re really Charlotte.
I think I would probably fail the entrance requirement test, assuming there still is one.
Even better!
Perhaps you need a holiday. Athos would be a good retreat.
Hilarious. “while wearing a mitre and carrying an umbrella” no less.
What beards crawling with microscopic vermin, as seen on Mt Athos for example?
Hilarious. “while wearing a mitre and carrying an umbrella” no less.
The picture is absurd. You should never smile broadly while wearing a mitre – it makes you look slightly mad, or like the cat who got the cream, or both. Prelates should cultivate an air of gravitas and solemnity. Take a lesson from the Orthodox clergy.
Welby made it clear from the beginning that he was attracted to Christianity and to ordained ministry because he saw it primarily as a means of ‘making the world a better place’. You don’t have to be Thomas Aquinas to see that this is the wrong end of the stick, you simply have to read the Gospels.But it does explain why he and many of his colleagues choose to talk and behave as though the first and great commandment is to love one’s neighbour. This, of course, allows them to represent their various ideologies, preoccupations and fashionable mantras as the fulfilment of this precept. But on the actual great commandment, when was the last time you heard any of them even attempt to give guidance to the general public on the perplexing concept of loving God? Productions of Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark have rarely been a success.
Welby made it clear from the beginning that he was attracted to Christianity and to ordained ministry because he saw it primarily as a means of ‘making the world a better place’. You don’t have to be Thomas Aquinas to see that this is the wrong end of the stick, you simply have to read the Gospels.But it does explain why he and many of his colleagues choose to talk and behave as though the first and great commandment is to love one’s neighbour. This, of course, allows them to represent their various ideologies, preoccupations and fashionable mantras as the fulfilment of this precept. But on the actual great commandment, when was the last time you heard any of them even attempt to give guidance to the general public on the perplexing concept of loving God? Productions of Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark have rarely been a success.
Giles’s articles are the most fascinating and thoughtful pieces to be found on UnHerd. Well written, full of insight and usually provocative in a constructive way.
What always amazes me is the intolerance of those who want us to believe there is no God, or that He has moved on. You may want to believe that, I can certainly understand the argument, but why are you so furious with those harmless types who do have faith in something greater than themselves and try to live life guided by the highest standards? I struggle to be kind, tolerant, generous, caring, all those wonderful things, but the sense of there being some greater power, whatever it may be, helps a lot.
It does seem thought that a lot of Bishops and Archbishops do not have much time for that sort of faith, alas.
One can live humanitarian values without believing in the supernatural. One can raise a child to be kind and loving without ever mentioning god. Religion is divisive. If you know something for a fact you don’t need to believe.
You can live humanitarian values, but you have no foundation for them. You cannot derive ought from is. To any moral principle you may claim I should follow, I can reply, Why should I? and all you can offer in the end is force to compel me or ineffectual appeals.
Things are right when they conform to the character of God and wrong when they don’t.
You can live humanitarian values, but you have no foundation for them. You cannot derive ought from is. To any moral principle you may claim I should follow, I can reply, Why should I? and all you can offer in the end is force to compel me or ineffectual appeals.
Things are right when they conform to the character of God and wrong when they don’t.
One can live humanitarian values without believing in the supernatural. One can raise a child to be kind and loving without ever mentioning god. Religion is divisive. If you know something for a fact you don’t need to believe.
Giles’s articles are the most fascinating and thoughtful pieces to be found on UnHerd. Well written, full of insight and usually provocative in a constructive way.
What always amazes me is the intolerance of those who want us to believe there is no God, or that He has moved on. You may want to believe that, I can certainly understand the argument, but why are you so furious with those harmless types who do have faith in something greater than themselves and try to live life guided by the highest standards? I struggle to be kind, tolerant, generous, caring, all those wonderful things, but the sense of there being some greater power, whatever it may be, helps a lot.
It does seem thought that a lot of Bishops and Archbishops do not have much time for that sort of faith, alas.
Fussing as he has done before over the takeover of the CofE by mangement speak Giles completely fails to address the crisis that threatens actually to split it. This was triggered by the recent ‘agreement’ he mentions in passing (‘and the Church has now agreed on prayers for blessing same-sex marriages’). I foresaw this split in a piece I offered to Unherd a year ago, which they chose not to publish, though it has since been read with interest by theologians and bishops. Why will neither Unherd nor Giles bite this bullet?
Fussing as he has done before over the takeover of the CofE by mangement speak Giles completely fails to address the crisis that threatens actually to split it. This was triggered by the recent ‘agreement’ he mentions in passing (‘and the Church has now agreed on prayers for blessing same-sex marriages’). I foresaw this split in a piece I offered to Unherd a year ago, which they chose not to publish, though it has since been read with interest by theologians and bishops. Why will neither Unherd nor Giles bite this bullet?
The introduction of female clergy has significantly increased ‘wet liberalism’ into the Anglican Church.
Half the clergy are women, they are active, involved in their communities and have almost no cases of abuse. After all it took Thatcher to end wet liberal male leadership in the Conservative Party
The other half are old women for the most part.
The other half are old women for the most part.
There was already plenty of wet liberalism in the CofE before women clergy – it was what put them there in the first place.
Welby is soaking wet – dripping! He is at the apex of the Woking Class.
Half the clergy are women, they are active, involved in their communities and have almost no cases of abuse. After all it took Thatcher to end wet liberal male leadership in the Conservative Party
There was already plenty of wet liberalism in the CofE before women clergy – it was what put them there in the first place.
Welby is soaking wet – dripping! He is at the apex of the Woking Class.
The introduction of female clergy has significantly increased ‘wet liberalism’ into the Anglican Church.
Last September the Bishop of Europe opined that there was “no official definition of a woman”. I could clearly see where this was going and – sure enough – he turned up in Liverpool in January 23. Following Synod decision I listened to Steve Croft (my diocesan bishop) who spoke from the position of his “lived experience” seeing the distress of the trans community, I talked to my Church of Ireland minister uncle, I spoke with my tenor lay clerk husband, and I read scripture. With a sad heart I have left the cofe. Indeed, I have abandoned religion in favour of fatih. I read the bible, we sing the psalms and anthems we have been singing for over 50 years, and I pray. Is there a hole? Yes. Is it God-shaped? No. Going back to source with time to actually reflect at this point in my life is a privilege. Him indoors will hopefully point out my sins – he usually does.
An organisation having somebody called the Bishop of Europe and another bishop called Steve is not worthy of anyone’s membership.
An organisation having somebody called the Bishop of Europe and another bishop called Steve is not worthy of anyone’s membership.
Last September the Bishop of Europe opined that there was “no official definition of a woman”. I could clearly see where this was going and – sure enough – he turned up in Liverpool in January 23. Following Synod decision I listened to Steve Croft (my diocesan bishop) who spoke from the position of his “lived experience” seeing the distress of the trans community, I talked to my Church of Ireland minister uncle, I spoke with my tenor lay clerk husband, and I read scripture. With a sad heart I have left the cofe. Indeed, I have abandoned religion in favour of fatih. I read the bible, we sing the psalms and anthems we have been singing for over 50 years, and I pray. Is there a hole? Yes. Is it God-shaped? No. Going back to source with time to actually reflect at this point in my life is a privilege. Him indoors will hopefully point out my sins – he usually does.
Whilst I have no time for the useless Welby, it isn’t only his fault. If the C of E chose this man and has permitted him to continue in office for 10 years (has it really been that long ?), they have no one to blame but themselves.
One must assume that they actually wanted a manager and not a leader.
Whilst I have no time for the useless Welby, it isn’t only his fault. If the C of E chose this man and has permitted him to continue in office for 10 years (has it really been that long ?), they have no one to blame but themselves.
One must assume that they actually wanted a manager and not a leader.
What would I want from the new man or woman? Someone who believes in God would be nice, though there seem precious few in the House of Bishops who fit that fairly basic requirement.
What would I want from the new man or woman? Someone who believes in God would be nice, though there seem precious few in the House of Bishops who fit that fairly basic requirement.
Giles says “Welby wanted to … have access to levers of real executive power. But the Church of England is not set up like this. It never has been.”
What about Archbishop Laud’s use of the Star Chamber? Chopping off William Prynne’s ears sounds like “real executive power” to me. But maybe I am a bit old-school.
Giles says “Welby wanted to … have access to levers of real executive power. But the Church of England is not set up like this. It never has been.”
What about Archbishop Laud’s use of the Star Chamber? Chopping off William Prynne’s ears sounds like “real executive power” to me. But maybe I am a bit old-school.
I’m not a devout man by any standards but I have always derived a certain comfort from the forms of the religion of my upbringing. To have this cast aside in the face of the greatest crisis of modern times made me question what the CofE is FOR, I haven’t asked this question in decades.
I didn’t realise that Welby was an OE but it hardly surprises me. It answers a lot of questions.
I’m not a devout man by any standards but I have always derived a certain comfort from the forms of the religion of my upbringing. To have this cast aside in the face of the greatest crisis of modern times made me question what the CofE is FOR, I haven’t asked this question in decades.
I didn’t realise that Welby was an OE but it hardly surprises me. It answers a lot of questions.
I’m not a fan of religion. I see it in football, in the Left. A younger me would have seen it gone, all of it, because it is a major cause of division and hatred in the World. Older me acknowledges it is needed, the lame need a crutch after all and the 10 commandments seems to cover generally desirable codes to follow. As an onlooker, closing the churches during Covid I thought a poor show at a time when the lame most needed support. Science and religion are at odds and plagues were examples of the Church at its best historically. Welby seems prey to wet liberalism, a contradiction of his former capitalist life. He has a magisterial position and fails to be non partisan. He doesn’t like the black sheep and no fatted calves will fear any prodigal sons’ homecoming.
I’m not a fan of religion. I see it in football, in the Left. A younger me would have seen it gone, all of it, because it is a major cause of division and hatred in the World. Older me acknowledges it is needed, the lame need a crutch after all and the 10 commandments seems to cover generally desirable codes to follow. As an onlooker, closing the churches during Covid I thought a poor show at a time when the lame most needed support. Science and religion are at odds and plagues were examples of the Church at its best historically. Welby seems prey to wet liberalism, a contradiction of his former capitalist life. He has a magisterial position and fails to be non partisan. He doesn’t like the black sheep and no fatted calves will fear any prodigal sons’ homecoming.
It seems to me that Giles Fraser is the one who cannot “read the room”. Not even a passing word about the monumentally important situation for which Justin Welby is responsible, and that is the splitting of the Church of England down the middle because of the blessing of gay marriage. Already our Church is deemed apostate by three quarters of the world-wide Anglican Communion, and the Archbishop of Canterbury is no longer accepted as “primus inter pares” by the Archbishops of those provinces. Furthermore we face the very real prospect of the Church of England dividing into two jurisdictions – one which is orthodox, conservative, vibrant and growing; the other apostate, liberal and dying.
It seems to me that Giles Fraser is the one who cannot “read the room”. Not even a passing word about the monumentally important situation for which Justin Welby is responsible, and that is the splitting of the Church of England down the middle because of the blessing of gay marriage. Already our Church is deemed apostate by three quarters of the world-wide Anglican Communion, and the Archbishop of Canterbury is no longer accepted as “primus inter pares” by the Archbishops of those provinces. Furthermore we face the very real prospect of the Church of England dividing into two jurisdictions – one which is orthodox, conservative, vibrant and growing; the other apostate, liberal and dying.
The CofE has become an irrelevance in a country where Christianity (and belief in God) has been on the decline for decades. Welby projects an aura of mediocre paternalism that is all smiles but no convictions – it reminds me of the Liberal Democrats, and Keir Starmer
The CofE has become an irrelevance in a country where Christianity (and belief in God) has been on the decline for decades. Welby projects an aura of mediocre paternalism that is all smiles but no convictions – it reminds me of the Liberal Democrats, and Keir Starmer
Reading the room? How about reading the Bible! “Women bishops were approved within a few years, and the Church has now agreed on prayers for blessing same-sex marriages”. How is this working out for the Church? Seriously? How is that working for you guys?
It’s working out very badly. I regard the leadership of the Church of England as apostate. I left it for 19 years and in the interim it has only got worse.
Yet, bizarrely, I find that God wants me to attend a local village church with a regular congregation of about 10, the majority of whom are liable to die off within a decade or so. There is not even a bible on view anywhere in the building. Since he wants me there, I can only conclude that there is still the possibility of revival, though I am sure that the leadership will for the most part try to suppress it when it comes — far too uncomfortable!
It’s working out very badly. I regard the leadership of the Church of England as apostate. I left it for 19 years and in the interim it has only got worse.
Yet, bizarrely, I find that God wants me to attend a local village church with a regular congregation of about 10, the majority of whom are liable to die off within a decade or so. There is not even a bible on view anywhere in the building. Since he wants me there, I can only conclude that there is still the possibility of revival, though I am sure that the leadership will for the most part try to suppress it when it comes — far too uncomfortable!
Reading the room? How about reading the Bible! “Women bishops were approved within a few years, and the Church has now agreed on prayers for blessing same-sex marriages”. How is this working out for the Church? Seriously? How is that working for you guys?
You know, it’s pretty clear that as long as Welby and his ilk continue wearing silly hats and parading around with pomp and circumstance they will appear irrelevant. Because they are. The Church of England started downhill during the reign of Henry VIII. It continues to bounce off the bottom, which is only an appearance of life. As the old saying goes, the only solution to some problems ( moribund institutions ) is a good funeral. At the very least, sackcloth and ashes are called for. And ditching the silly hats.
You know, it’s pretty clear that as long as Welby and his ilk continue wearing silly hats and parading around with pomp and circumstance they will appear irrelevant. Because they are. The Church of England started downhill during the reign of Henry VIII. It continues to bounce off the bottom, which is only an appearance of life. As the old saying goes, the only solution to some problems ( moribund institutions ) is a good funeral. At the very least, sackcloth and ashes are called for. And ditching the silly hats.
“It’s not his fault” ? Huh? You’ve nailed it with “managerialism” but that kinda makes it his fault. The reason why the CofE is so woke and managerialist (these really are two sides of the same middle-class coin) is because it is run by well-meaning types who want to please and they are unable to stand up to the left.
I asked a Catholic friend of mine why the CofE was so pro-lockdown.
“You have to remember”, he replied, “the Church of England is an arm of the state”.
They are still the Conservative Party at Prayer: except the Conservative Party has got the new religion of managerial wokeness.
I’d be a member of the C of E, were it not for the C of E.
Welby stigmatizing those of us who – rightly we now know – refused the experimental gene therapy jabs – was the final straw for me.
That was NOT the action of a Christian. In which case, what IS he? Possessed, it seems to me. And anything BUY Christian.
Closing the Churches was the act of a complete coward, who refused to protect his flock.
Go now, Welby.
I’d be a member of the C of E, were it not for the C of E.
Welby stigmatizing those of us who – rightly we now know – refused the experimental gene therapy jabs – was the final straw for me.
That was NOT the action of a Christian. In which case, what IS he? Possessed, it seems to me. And anything BUY Christian.
Closing the Churches was the act of a complete coward, who refused to protect his flock.
Go now, Welby.
“It’s not his fault” ? Huh? You’ve nailed it with “managerialism” but that kinda makes it his fault. The reason why the CofE is so woke and managerialist (these really are two sides of the same middle-class coin) is because it is run by well-meaning types who want to please and they are unable to stand up to the left.
I asked a Catholic friend of mine why the CofE was so pro-lockdown.
“You have to remember”, he replied, “the Church of England is an arm of the state”.
They are still the Conservative Party at Prayer: except the Conservative Party has got the new religion of managerial wokeness.
I really enjoy Giles Fraser’s writing style. I feel pulled in from the start and amused. As a born atheist I don’t have much to say about churchy stuff but I do find it entertaining, particularly as Fraser presents it.
I am a born atheist and my wife is a born church person. But she isn’t particularly religious – just a little. To her the main thing is the community. I can certainly see the side of helping people in the community.
I am a born atheist and my wife is a born church person. But she isn’t particularly religious – just a little. To her the main thing is the community. I can certainly see the side of helping people in the community.
I really enjoy Giles Fraser’s writing style. I feel pulled in from the start and amused. As a born atheist I don’t have much to say about churchy stuff but I do find it entertaining, particularly as Fraser presents it.
Perhaps the church needs to start thinking more about the revelations of the Gospel of Thomas etc with its ‘god-like qualities’ within us Elaine Pagles book Beyond Belief is an excellent read on the subject.
Perhaps the church needs to start thinking more about the revelations of the Gospel of Thomas etc with its ‘god-like qualities’ within us Elaine Pagles book Beyond Belief is an excellent read on the subject.
On 6 May we’ll see. A patriotic pageant, a new age, or just an absurd piece of anachronistic show-biz? What exactly does the Carolingian Age have to look forward to other than its own dissolution? The King is fortunate to have been able to make his mark on the world before divinity descended upon him.
On 6 May we’ll see. A patriotic pageant, a new age, or just an absurd piece of anachronistic show-biz? What exactly does the Carolingian Age have to look forward to other than its own dissolution? The King is fortunate to have been able to make his mark on the world before divinity descended upon him.
What needs calling out too is the ugly snobbery exhibited by Giles towards what used to be called the ‘happy clappy’ evangelical ‘low church’ wing of the church of England. He sneers at Welby’s Etonian links but is far more disdainful than Welby towards those whose practises and convictions he dislikes. The loathing of the ‘high’ ‘progressive liberal wing towards the evangelicals is on full display. It is unfortunate for the ‘progressives’ that it is the evangelical churches that are drawing in new members from across social classes and generations.
I don’t read it that way at all. Certainly not “ugly snobbery” which is in itself rather an ugly and snobbish one way of hauling views you don’t concur with over the rack.
It is certainly unfortunate that the evangelical churches are drawing in new members; I was rather hoping the whole ridiculous edifice, progressives and evangelicals, was in steep decline.
Plenty of high church conservative Anglicans and Anglo Catholics who are as far from progressive liberals as they are low church evangelicals too. Indeed the biggest congregations for churches are not just evangelical ones but high church churches like Marcus Walker’s St Bartholomew’s or our great cathedrals
I don’t read it that way at all. Certainly not “ugly snobbery” which is in itself rather an ugly and snobbish one way of hauling views you don’t concur with over the rack.
It is certainly unfortunate that the evangelical churches are drawing in new members; I was rather hoping the whole ridiculous edifice, progressives and evangelicals, was in steep decline.
Plenty of high church conservative Anglicans and Anglo Catholics who are as far from progressive liberals as they are low church evangelicals too. Indeed the biggest congregations for churches are not just evangelical ones but high church churches like Marcus Walker’s St Bartholomew’s or our great cathedrals
What needs calling out too is the ugly snobbery exhibited by Giles towards what used to be called the ‘happy clappy’ evangelical ‘low church’ wing of the church of England. He sneers at Welby’s Etonian links but is far more disdainful than Welby towards those whose practises and convictions he dislikes. The loathing of the ‘high’ ‘progressive liberal wing towards the evangelicals is on full display. It is unfortunate for the ‘progressives’ that it is the evangelical churches that are drawing in new members from across social classes and generations.
Interesting that Oil Wellby has had drug issues – IME that is a humbling thing when you recover. So when someone says “racism is worse than paedophilia” or spends £s and hours of work to protect sex offenders from due process you can infer two things at least: He is not humble, and therefore has not recovered. I say to him its not too late to start. Go to meetings, serve others and be careful who you hang around with. Paedos and druggies are not in a good place, if you can’t help them for god’s sake don’t join them.
Actually, I never saw anything wrong in the notion of female clergy, or why there was such objection to them. I admit that some of those I’ve encountered haven’t been a great advertisement for the idea, including the one I met in Hants a few years ago who gave an uncomfortable impression of a Dawn French tribute act of some sort .. but that doesn’t disprove the general point.
Why there should be some inherent link between female clergy and homosexual marriage, I never understood.
Jesus set the example; there are no women in the 12. Women have important places and are indispensable to the church but not in this role. Besides that, all of society is becoming feminized and if you believe in difference of the sexes you understand that we need the return of a strong and steadfast patriarch who can deal with situations logically instead of emotionally.
Jesus set the example; there are no women in the 12. Women have important places and are indispensable to the church but not in this role. Besides that, all of society is becoming feminized and if you believe in difference of the sexes you understand that we need the return of a strong and steadfast patriarch who can deal with situations logically instead of emotionally.
Actually, I never saw anything wrong in the notion of female clergy, or why there was such objection to them. I admit that some of those I’ve encountered haven’t been a great advertisement for the idea, including the one I met in Hants a few years ago who gave an uncomfortable impression of a Dawn French tribute act of some sort .. but that doesn’t disprove the general point.
Why there should be some inherent link between female clergy and homosexual marriage, I never understood.
“Welby talks in tongues.”
I did not know this, and I find it disturbing. It is my heartfelt belief that anyone who talks in tongues should not be wearing a mitre : they should be wearing a straightjacket.
https://www.takimag.com/article/bashing-the-bishops-an-easter-sermon/
God save Justin Welby
He ‘admitted’ to taking antidepressants??? Admit definition; To disclose or confess (guilt or an error, for example). .What sort of language is that from any member, including the author here, of a supposedly supportive, loving, caring institution? No wonder congregation numbers are plummeting.
He disclosed and/or confessed. He didn’t disclose this information lightly. What other words than “admit” would one use?
In modern mental health fields the term ‘admit’ is archaic, ill informed and it’s use frankly barbaric. One should say a person has suffered from a mental health condition. Admit implies guilt so should never under any circumstances be used in connection with a person’s mental health.
It doesn’t imply guilt at all. It means he does not want to be talking about his problems unless he is forced to. Extraordinary
Why? The implication being he feels he needs to hide it. Equally barbaric.
Perhaps he wants to hide it, as most of us want to avoid discussion of illnesses and weaknesses.
Really? What century are you living in?
Oh my god, or your god seemingly. You’ve just exposed your archaic attitude that mental health issues are a WEAKNESS!!!!!! I rest my case.
The point is this: if everybody is talking non-stop about mental health issues, then everybody will have mental health issues. If everybody is talking about the frequency of suicides, there will be more suicides.
This is not a belittling of people’s problems, nor is it pretending that mental health issues don’t exist. It is simply a truism.
The point is this: if everybody is talking non-stop about mental health issues, then everybody will have mental health issues. If everybody is talking about the frequency of suicides, there will be more suicides.
This is not a belittling of people’s problems, nor is it pretending that mental health issues don’t exist. It is simply a truism.
Really? What century are you living in?
Oh my god, or your god seemingly. You’ve just exposed your archaic attitude that mental health issues are a WEAKNESS!!!!!! I rest my case.
Perhaps he wants to hide it, as most of us want to avoid discussion of illnesses and weaknesses.
Why? The implication being he feels he needs to hide it. Equally barbaric.
I think we need to get real here – he took the drugs – no one made him do it. Its not barbaric to narrate he admitted his drug use, but he is a very bad advert for narcotics because i can see absolutely zero evidence of recovery- or that he’s even attempted recovery.
It doesn’t imply guilt at all. It means he does not want to be talking about his problems unless he is forced to. Extraordinary
I think we need to get real here – he took the drugs – no one made him do it. Its not barbaric to narrate he admitted his drug use, but he is a very bad advert for narcotics because i can see absolutely zero evidence of recovery- or that he’s even attempted recovery.
In modern mental health fields the term ‘admit’ is archaic, ill informed and it’s use frankly barbaric. One should say a person has suffered from a mental health condition. Admit implies guilt so should never under any circumstances be used in connection with a person’s mental health.
“No wonder congregation numbers are plummeting.” Have you any idea how stereotyped and predictable that statement is? One hears it every time – literally, without fail – that the Church or any of its ministers says or does anything which anyone anywhere takes exception to. (Which inevitably is all the time.) It means nothing more than “I disagree with this.”
I refer you to the comment i gave to JR Stoker.
Members of any church should be fully conversant with modern mental health language and attitudes. After all their remit is supposed to cover care and compassion during a person’s time of need.
I refer you to the comment i gave to JR Stoker.
Members of any church should be fully conversant with modern mental health language and attitudes. After all their remit is supposed to cover care and compassion during a person’s time of need.
Good observation. The stigma of mental illness is alive and well.
Breathtakingly disappointing
Calm down dear
Calm down dear
Breathtakingly disappointing
He disclosed and/or confessed. He didn’t disclose this information lightly. What other words than “admit” would one use?
“No wonder congregation numbers are plummeting.” Have you any idea how stereotyped and predictable that statement is? One hears it every time – literally, without fail – that the Church or any of its ministers says or does anything which anyone anywhere takes exception to. (Which inevitably is all the time.) It means nothing more than “I disagree with this.”
Good observation. The stigma of mental illness is alive and well.
He ‘admitted’ to taking antidepressants??? Admit definition; To disclose or confess (guilt or an error, for example). .What sort of language is that from any member, including the author here, of a supposedly supportive, loving, caring institution? No wonder congregation numbers are plummeting.