As widely trailed, the Bishop of Durham has been announced as the next Archbishop of Canterbury, and the appointment has been widely welcomed, with just a few voices muttering that he is an old Etonian. The quality of the man chosen to fill this post matters to all of us, of other faiths and of none. He will be the official spiritual voice of the nation, for the CofE is the established church, with a voice in the Lords and a pulpit from which to give guidance and comment. His first announcements seemed admirably clear and modest. I made a point of following the speeches of the outgoing Archbishop and have to say that I found no illumination at all, save that he, reportedly, did not object to the accommodation of Sharia law within English law. By way of contrast, all the speakers at the second reading on October 19th of Baroness Cox’s Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill pointed out how some aspects of Sharia law and procedure offend against the most basic human and equality rights principles of English law. By all accounts, the Archbishop had difficulty in dealing with divisive issues relating to the Church and the conduct of the nation.
Over the past few years in the religious world there has been no rival to the Chief Rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks, for intellectual power coupled with clarity of exposition in his public pronouncements. He has been a respected and influential figure in the secular/religious debates and, as the Catholic Herald said, jokingly, it was a pity he couldn’t be the next Archbishop! His retirement date has been known for years and as yet the selection committee has not come up with the name of a successor. It took 9 months or so to identify the next Archbishop, but years have elapsed without agreement on the successor to Lord Sacks. Is this an important appointment for the nation too? It depends on the quality of the man. Undoubtedly Lord Sacks’ eloquence has added prestige to the post. Like the Archbishop, the incoming Chief Rabbi will have to deal with a reduced community, with growing minorities within the minority, with the position of women in the religion, with the question of gay marriage, and international relations. He (of course) will be the leader of mainstream Jewry, that is the United Synagogue, here and in the Commonwealth. But he will not be recognised as leader by the very orthodox, or by the various shades of reform Judaism. Like the Archbishop, he will have to deal with a fragmented community with heterogeneous views on the important issues of the day. Indeed the establishment of the post of Chief Rabbi in the late 19th century is said to have been modelled on the Archbishopric. Believers or not, we could all do with some good men attempting to give moral guidance in these troubled times. It’s rather like being Director General of the BBC . . .
I notice that one of Flashman’s dreaded enemies
in Borneo, a pirate leader, Don Solomon Haslam was an old Etonian, so that is nothing to think about.
There are workplace-‘leaders’, who actually command from a privilege-power-and-plenty base;
and there are lifeplace-leaders (or should be) who live as a transparent (24/7/52/lifespan) and emulable example, not just of a “good” or “Christian” or “Anglican” life, but of an holisticly sustainworthy life and genericly-affordable lifestyle.
The Archbishop, along with the meanest of other religigious ‘leaders’, falls under the former category;
as an overpaid and lifeplace-usurping pyramidal-workplace-commander,
whose personal efficiency and sustainworthiness in the Human-Race-Lifeplace and under Earth’s finite limitations are neither emulable nor long-term moral and affordable.
(For one thing he is given and draws from the Common Purse multiple-human-livings for his one-and-only-one protected luxury-lifestyle;
and for another, the vast majority of human-beings not only can not emulate such wealthy Etonian-lifestyle upbringing and ongoing lifestyle, but would prefer a much more personally-efficient lifeplace budgeting and suatainworthy lifestyle model.
I find no emulable, sustainworthy and affordable life-leaders visible and associable anywhere in the Internet World;
and I think that dearth to be no excuse for England not having a true, ‘all faiths’, emulable and associable lifeplace-leader.
Anglican Christianity is blatantly inconsistent in
(1) claiming to be “the only path to God”
whilst
(2) admitting (in answer to a specific and generic request for support for a healthier lifestyle) that it dogmatically excludes certain good and healthy habits and lifestyles as being “non Christian”
e.g. the healthier life that can be easily achieved by following a (Felden-christ)guidance manual called “Relaxercise”.
——-
Once again, scantily-concealed one-way, top-down authoritarianism shows its inability and unwillingness to bring us into the real and future world by constituting and fairly using, as a first and ongoing problem-solving resort, the Method III of cooperative needs & hows recognition and best-affordably-meeting.
appointment has been widely welcomed, with just a few voices muttering that he is an old Etonian.
Welcomed by a few; recognized by most to be a very poor exercice of judgement by an inadequate PM.
How long has this man been a clergyman at all? How long has he been a bishop at all?
Widespread discontent amongst the clergy, and nearly everybody else.
“recognized by most to be a very poor exercice of judgement by an inadequate PM”
(sighs) The Crown Nominations Commission (made up of bishop(s)/primates/clergy/lay members and those chosen by the synod. They make a decision and save for a last minute scandal the PM does little but pass it on to the Queen.
(sighs) The Crown Nominations Commission (made up of bishop(s)/primates/clergy/lay members and those chosen by the synod.
Tame! Permanent ecclesiastical dept at Downing St make the running; working the wheels within wheels.
aaah!
From Twitter:
https://twitter.com/KrustofskiForUK/status/268111349429723139
From the Evening Standard: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/patience-of-a-saint-for-next-chief-rabbi-8306637.html
Welby’s dissertation, an exploration into whether companies can sin,
HA! Ha! Ha!
Or can Archbishops be honestly chosen without prejudice!!!?
Better than some candidates for the job I can think of though.
This appointment is right in there with the society we now live in and the leadership, without mandate, we currently endure.
A recent oil man, Welby, will be well in to give advice to bankers, thieves in utility companies, tax evaders, including his congregation and fawners on how to stay barely on the side of the law, when end of year filing accounts comes in for a look. He will be in a prime position to advise government on how to avoid the morality issue they currently ignore and long to continue doing, without giving up their off shore stealth games. As no doubt, he learned a great deal in his stint that connected the big boys in the arms business at the same time.
And, as far as his stance on gay marriage is concerned, how is he going to see eye to eye with our strange, odd looking boy in number 11, who tells us today that the Tories will ‘not’ win the next election unless they back his friends on this marriage proposal fetish they have.
I would warn the Tories that the more likely scenario is, they will come nowhere close to winning the next election should they back gay marriage, as that is a front runner with his party faithful, who detest the parties duplicitous, deceitful con men who told them they were against such a move, in order to glean their vote.
Think of it this way. What on earth would the people of this country have to lose by backing New Labour if the Tories cling so slavishly to their weird and divisive policies that back, against the will of the majority, gay lobby groups and immigration wild activists whose intention is to eliminate the indigenous population of this country.
For confirmation of this, all you have to do is take on board the result of the recent Presidential election in the US. The only difference there is, the immigrant American forefathers eliminated the American Indian and now face the same fate they bestowed on others. The grass roots of the UK did not either eliminate an island people to settle here and also did not vote for mass immigration in order to become an extinct population within their own borders.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/immigration-republicans-and-the-end-of-white-america-page1-003/
And more.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/01/the-end-of-white-america/307208/
Wellby, it’s a Norse sounding name isn’t it?
Suffering from complete and utter shock after my trip through the constitutional life and time of James II it seems all he wanted to do was separate church from state and allow men to be possessed of a liberal conscience. In other words he wanted a secular state and an END to religious bigotry.
Perhaps the new Archbishop might insist on new clauses in the coronation oath something akin to ‘politics is the art of the possible’ and ‘I pledge common sense in pursing my duties to ensure they are both practical and safe’.
But what if contraception failed the present Royal House and they all were to go extinct, then what? More to the point how much would it cost the exchequer and Parliament to install a new royal line?
After James in Ireland was offered 2,000,000 pounds and troops by the French King (he declined the offer) to take on ‘King’ Billy, Parliament settled on the Prince of Orange a sum of 2,000,000 pounds before his coronation. Taking inflation into account this amount is worth some 40 billion pounds today and given that the executive is going to borrow 1.5 trillion pounds…
But what of the succession – it would have to go to Norway and they have 500 billion pounds sat in the bank. Difficult and treacherous can be the relationship between Parliament and the Monarchy when Personal Unions are evident or a prospect.
Ref: Haakon VII of Norway: Princess Maud of Wales
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Norwegian_monarchs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maud_of_Wales
@Senex:
It does appear the present heir is having problems producing a true royal line, considering the ‘romance’ has been ongoing for some ten years minimum and the blood line questionable. Not as if they need to get to know each other and find out what it is they have as joint goals in life. Is it?
Looking to Norway would be considered by the PC brigade as racist, they are either too red or blonde. Hence the house of Fairhair would be difficult to sell. So, I would suspect it would sit better if they looked more toward India, or, Africa. There has to be a blood connection that way somewhere, if those in the know look hard enough. Legitimacy is no longer recognised as a requirement, a DNA test should suffice.
And as a footnote, why they ever gave up the name of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha for Windsor is indeed an enigma. It simply conjurs up the tiny Barbara Windsor of Carry On fame. I had not heard of Maud Charlotte Mary Victoria of Wales before. You invariably enlighten me whenever you write a history lesson, Senex.
Enlightened but still a grumpy Maude? You say you would vote for an independent Scotland – it’s not that simple as there are two big side issues surrounding independence.
On the one side is the prospect of the English Parliament annexing Scotland and on the other is a Scottish executive toying with the notion of installing its own King. What right now is there in independence for the First Minister? He says Scotland would be 2 billion pounds better off after independence; but when would the money come rolling in?
Consider in an independent Scotland if a First Minister was to court a Prince of (Energy) Norway with a view to him being King of Scotland. The King with 40 billions in his back pocket and title to all the royal lands in Scotland plus its offshore assets and a political union with Norway would seem to be a better prospect than a personal union with a bankrupt England.
If law was laid down to prevent either side from doing the dirty on the other, the loss of this royal line would mean Scotland would have no access to Royal Plan B and Scotland would be forced to go the way of Ireland as a republic?
Couldn’t possibly happen could it?
@senex:
I like your Norwegian analysis and the possibilities that could turn a hair or two white overnight.
That aside, I thought of your point when today, quite by surprise as the paper is so eurosceptic, I saw on the letters page of the Mail, this thought that went along with mine precisely:
‘Face it, Merkel is right.’
The position of Norway and Switzerland (Letters) can in no way be compared with the UK’s position in the European common market.
The combined population of both countries is just a fraction of Britian’s. Norway is awash with natural resources, including gas, oil and hydroelectric power, while Switzerland has an established international banking system and a small but immensely sophisticated engineering industry. Their combined GDP per head of population dwarfs the UK’s.
As far as Britian reaching out to the Commonwealth goes, the truth is that former colonies look toward their closer neighbours in Asia and the Americas for trading ties. Why look for markets thousands of miles away when we have a huge trading block on our doorstep?
The truth is unpalatable to many, but Angela Merkel is correct. The UK belongs within the EU, it’s going through a fraught time, but for our childresn’s sake and the future generations. Europe should be the bedrock on which our economy should rest.
D.C.Z. Thompson
Newcastle up Tyne
This person is a thinker. And imagine that in this country of so called Europe haters.
Could this be another ploy by the right to convince us all that the British will vote for UKIP en masse if we don’t change our view? What a crock that spin is.
I would like to know, what if anything are our leaders helping to keep the now United Kingdom, Christian? Since the blasphemy Law was abolished. I and all peoples who I have contact with be they Christian or not and of diverse cultural mix and age. All agree that one thing which is missing from the now named country. Is a lack of morality and respect. This I believe to come from a mix of base tribal attitudes within different peoples. Not being encouraged to make efforts to mix and understand each other. More so preferring to alienate each of their own group from the host country’s law’s and cultural manners. Diversity is good and as one Human race we should welcome all peoples. To what affect though? That we the native inhabitants loose out identity and faith in our leaders? The Churches of this country (by tradition) and the very law’s we adhere to are themselves, historically the very foundation of which our peoples have managed to progress. From the Royalty, Government, Clergy though to common people, It was and continues to be recognised that decent morality and mutual respect has come through Christian teachings. We now live in very different times having not only voices from other cultures being heard but their traditions and teachings actually changing the geography of social life to the degree of making law’s to accept the differences. Rather than to defend and confront the misrepresented truth that is given in Our Holy Teachings.
From the Royalty, Government, Clergy though to common people, It was and continues to be recognised that decent morality and mutual respect has come through Christian teachings
Times have changed. They also come through Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and regrettably through some Mormon teachings, although the Latter do seem to straddle Christianity and Judaism/Zionism in a very convenient way, so it may not be so very regrettable.
The context Rhodri, The context! Historically! The freedom in which we now live in not through other faiths and their wisdoms. it is build on Christian teaching. It is obvious that multi faith consideration causes confusion and disharmony. I think it was the PM who said we need to become a nation of responsibility. ” Do we, then, abolish the Law by this faith? Of course not! Instead, we uphold the Law”. As it is our country was built on these teachings: OT and NT. We are one of the most welcoming countries in the world and we help our neighbours. Which lead to my original question. What if anything is the Government doing to help this country to remain Christian?
“We” (British) haven’t progressed sufficiently to become, neither on the World stage nor in the sight of God* a sustainworthy People nor Church, “for ever and ever”…
(* God, as The Creator, Saviour, and Enabler of Life, on Earth and “hereafter”).
—————–
(I note that Ubix2012 says (that)
(“)Diversity is good…and we should welcome all peoples…but we need to keep our identity and our faith in our leaders…the Churches of Britain and our Laws are the foundation upon which our peoples have managed to progress…utilising the decent morality and mutual respect that Christian teachings, as interpreted, taught and practised by Royalty, Government, Clergy to the Common-People, have established as being “British, and our singularly proud if not absolutely-unique English Culture”…(“)
yet (implies ubix) we need not only to defend the misrepresented Truth (presumably meaning ‘we need to defend the Truth that is being misrepresented’ ?) and to confront “it” (that misrepresentation, rather than that Truth ?), coming as “it” does from Our Holy Teachings (**) (** ‘Christian’ “Holiest-of-Holies”, of The World’s Teachings ?)…
———–
We face “schizosomatic”
as well as “schizoseelic” and “schizophrenic”
teachings, leaderships, altered-states-of-consciousnes;
these as inhibited even ‘maimed’ functions-of-body, emotion, feeling, sensation, spirit, and mind, in the name of “religion”, “education”, “tradition”.
for instance
(here, I must cetera-paribus-trustfully offer my head for a ‘hangman’s noose’)
I believe (and am finding in ‘life on the ground’)
that the modern Body-of-God-On-Earth now has
[as one of its ‘new’ organs qua The Holy Spirit being evolution-leading and human-development enhancing ongoingly ‘for ever’]
clear Guidances, written out, published, demonstrated, and ‘taught’,
by certain true-leaderships & educations,
one such being what might be called “the Felden-Christ” Movement for Human-Individual Health and Progress,
which are being denied, repressed, distorted, even ‘destroyed’,
including by Religions
and including the British-Christian (Anglican) one
now defacto headed by one Archbishop Justin Welby.
And in this, the fact that the Anglican Church calls such ‘new’ educational-guidance “Non-Christian”
shows Christianity and therein Anglicanism to contain,
and deeply and inhibitively so,
theological and human-relationship states of
.(i) bodypart-versus-bodypart (schizosoma),
(ii) spiritpart-versus-spiritpart (schizoseelia) and
(iii) mindpart-versus-mindpart (schizophrenia).
(I submit that these matters be continued under discussion and scrutiny,
and that we (British Isles) need a ‘Defender of All Faiths’ and thereto a new constitutional definition of “faiths” to include both mind-meanings and corporeal-practices & physical rituals…
but I need to give way to Others)
Let me put something irrefutable,
as simply as my currently-under-voluntary-re-education 85 year-old brain-body-spirit can make it:
The overall nominated Context is “Spiritual Leaders”,
put up by UK Seated Baroness Deech;
whose thereunder main-sub-focus is upon Christianity’s Anglican Church of England’s several intrinsic and extrinsic problems, issues and difficulties,
specificly now under the new Archbishop Justin Welby.
————–
The vital point I see being ignored is:
As far as is publicly known and establishmentarianly practised, Britain has no uncorrupted and longest-term-sustainworthy Leaders, neither Spiritual nor Temporal, nor even ‘Community’ or ‘Neighbourhood’.
Every so-called ‘spiritual leader’ is (thereunder) fundamentally corrupt, firstly by each being paid from the Common Purse more human-livings than the one they need as
(i) an just one efficiently-living individual human-being
(ii) as an exemplary and easily-emulable leader,
of their (also-multiple-livings-paid) professional underlings,
and most majorly as emulable leader of millions of other ‘lay’ (but mark you ‘spiritually’-equal) human beings
a small percentage of whom are registered as a specially-chosen supportive-part of each particular high-towering and professionally-profiteering religious-body;
whilst the massive-majority remain ‘lapsed’, ‘lost, and ‘outside’; and unable to afford and emulate the impossible ‘standards’ being dictated from on high;
but effectively are kept outside at arms-length
those ‘arms’ being all too increasingly often now guns, rockets, poisons, and disinformations.
They (quite likely “We” withal) are to be put down as
‘infidels’,
‘unsaved-sinners’,
‘social-immobiles’.
———–
Ergo, since these ‘spiritual-leaders’ private-purses, bodies, emotions, and minds that control them, are so materially-corrupted,
their own spirits have become insidiously corrupted, ‘into the bargain’,
and thereby unavoidably corrupted and falsified has become the dogmatically theologised ‘Holy-Spirit’ that they claim to ‘defend’ on behalf of its Primary-Owner [‘God’, YHVH, Allah, ‘Jesus’, ‘Whoever’/’Whatever’),
and to distribute and nurture throughout that particular Deity’s ‘Own Chosen People’ and ‘the Heathen or Unsaved’.
================
My second submission to this Topic
I see has been removed (‘censored’,’suppressed’,’excommunicated’?)
yet it raised similar reasoning-material,
and I do put it to the Lords of the Blog that such these questions as these need to be publicly and professionally aired, discussed, scrutinised, and constructively answered;
but where where is this being done, both faithfully and accessibly ?
Today’s news tells us a big kerfuffle is taking place as a result of the Church laity voting against the introduction of women bishops.
Well, if the Church wants to find it has no congregation whatsoever, it will take notice of what is happening on the ground. And the Laity obviously looked at it and took the clever step of defying a politically correct State which demands discrmination against the teachings of Christ as recorded in the Bible. You know, that book that was, once upon a time, the guide to what being a Christian demands.
What a strange world we have allowed the politicians to force us to live in. Here we are ruled by people who want to deny us every ‘Human Right’ possible and a major one being, a Christian Church forced to reject the basis of its reason for being.
It is clear that a huge majority of the Anglican congregation is leaving their house of religion because they are not up for receiving sermons from female or gay clergy. Now, whether you like that statement or not, it is a fact. A large slice of them don’t want it.
Yet, the women and gays who have this Christian ‘calling’ march on demanding they, not their followiers, have their way and remain in the position the flock rejects. So much for their devotion to the teachings of Christ.
And what on earth government is doing demanding an organisation or religion change its rules to accept their idea of what they think is right, when they are not in the business of religion, is an enigma. Are they intending to demand Islam accepts female Imams in the Mosques and if not, why not? Why interfere in one section of the community but not the other? Double standards for the country as a whole are turning it into a divided state.
It has to be realised that this demand for acceptance of change is a direct attack on the ‘freedom of association.’ Which, as I understand it, is protected under the Human Rights Act.
Extraordinarily as a nation, we have blithely adhered, under extreme stress, in all manner of organisation. For example, the male only clubs, but, not the WI. To decree that men cannot have associations that are men only is tyranical. What kind of society have we allowed to take us over?
As a woman, the most horrendous infringement on my comfort zone is equality in the health spa, hairdressers or beauty salon, or, come to that any other female oriented place where I find solace. I would have no alternative but to pass on patronage should the state demand men are imposed on me at times I want to be in the company of women.
Why has this simple freedom been removed from our society? And why do those who think it right not impose it on those they know will reject the imposition violently. Are they telling us, by this step to far into our rights of freedom, that the only way we can keep our choices, made for the needs we have as a society, is to threaten them with violence in order to get them off our backs.
The Laity voting against the introduction of female bshops were thinking of their Church and what it stands for, instead of what the meddling PC brigade demands, which goes against the well being of their organisation. Had they not done so, you could look forward to the demise of the Anglican Church altogether. This, of course, is exactly what these political tyrants are aiming for.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2012/may/25/church-of-england-female-priests
The Mothers Union in Plymouth’s St Andrews minster was today ‘giving away, free or by-donation’ a 1990 publication called “Let’s Do Theology” by one Laurie Green;
so having spotted within it something like
(“) theology has been constructed with respect to past situations (“)
I snapped it up and before leaving found within it a further gem, as a quote from St Francis
“Preach the gospel to all you meet. Use words only if necessary “.
Surely ‘laity-theology’ should arise from “How-God-Manifests-With-Us-As-A-Now-Grace or ‘Force’”. rather than “God-Now-Must-Conform-To-God-Then” ?
In other lay-words, (‘) how I find the ‘Divine-Help-Spirit’ actually operating intrinsicly in my own individual self, and also discern such a ‘holy spirit’ extrinsicly ‘working’ in other lives. places, and situations (‘)
shouldn’t it ?
That the Anglican Laity-Synod should have voted (by a majority of only 6 I believe) against the worth of a woman to work as a Bishop and thereby against both the Clergy-Synod and the Bishops-Synod,
smacks of ‘stuck-in-the-mud’ patriarchal prejudice and ‘closed-ranks-ing’ and ‘group-think’ amongst the dominant male-membership.
At least our English christianity should appoint readers, curates, priests, vicars, bishops, archbishops, from whatever age-bracket including Youth, and from any ‘walk-of-life’ but mostly from the ‘grass roots’ hands-on-experienced level;
and appoint according to
1) ability, and fitness-for-purpose
2) willingness to live both emulably and ‘sustainworthily’
according to ability and to willingness to live emulably ‘sustainworthy’.
(I prefer to ‘think’ of the Clergy as ‘sustainworthy-life-exemplars-&-facilitators’
except when they are not effectively helping ‘my real life’ wherein it is painfully as well as joyously clear that ‘Godly- help can be obtained from many sources other than The Church’).
Today in Plymouth’s St Andrews minster, the Mothers Union was ‘giving away free or by-donation’ an ‘as new’ 1990 publication called
“Let’s Do Theology” by one Laurie Green
so having spotted something like (“) theology has been constructed with respect to past situations (“) I snapped it up and before leaving found a further gem, as a quote from St Francis
“Preach the gospel to all you meet. Use words only if necessary “.
Surely ‘laity-theology’ should arise from “the Grace of God I experience ‘working’ now, intrinsicly in my individual self”, and “God-of-Today ‘working’ extrinsicly in other people, places, and situations” ;
rather than (‘)God-Today-Must-Conform-To-God-Of-Yesterday-and-of-Old (‘) ?
———————————-
That the Anglican Laity-Synod should have voted (by a majority of only 6 I believe) against Women being worthy to work as Bishops, and therein the (male-dominant ?) Laity voting against both the Clergy-Synod and the Bishops-Synod,
smacks to me of ‘stuck-in-the-mud’ blind patriarchal prejudice’, and of ‘closed-ranks-ings’ amongst the numbers-dominant male-membership.
Our English Christianity should at least be appointing leaders according to ability and sustainworthy-emulability,
from whatever age including Youth, and from whatever sustainworthily-emulable walk-of-life and experience.