• The Bishop of St Davids and the Archbishop of Canterbury

    The Rt Rev Dr Joanna Penberthy is the 129th Bishop of St Davids. In tweets that came to light recently, she exhibited an antipathy to members of the Conservative Party which did not sit well with her position.  “Never, never, never trust a Tory” is not what people expect to see a bishop tweeting.

    Once these tweets came to light, there was a considerable brouhaha which seemed to die down when she apologised and deleted her twitter account.

    Now, I happen to think that Bishop Joanna’s tweets were not compatible with her role. I work in a congregation which has political activists in it from time to time of all persuasions and I have had no trouble working and worshipping with them all. I think that she was right to apologise and to make sure that the tweets in question were removed from view.

    One does not need to go very far to realise that I do not have much truck with the policies of the Conservative Party. I have, after all, stood against Tory candidates in several elections. I am fairly obviously of the view that engagement with public political discourse is appropriate (if indeed not sometimes necessary) for those who hold prominent positions within the churches. As it happens, I am now a floating voter and not a member of a political party though I do strongly encourage others who are members of political parties to engage fully with them.

    One of my frustrations about the manner in which Bishop Joanna has expressed herself is that she will now find it very difficult to comment negatively on that which should legitimately be criticised about government policy.

    Policy is the key to the nature of appropriate political discourse I think. For my money, it is generally fair enough to criticise policy and generally not OK to criticise someone’s personality or core identity. 

    So, for example, my view is that it is legitimate to criticise this government’s manufactured hostile environment towards refugees (and now, it seems, all those trying to settle in this country). That policy is cruel. I would go so far as to say it is unchristian. Indeed, I have gone so far as to say such things, from the pulpit, in the newspapers and online.

    I have little doubt that Bishop Joanna would agree with me. However, she is now so far on the back-foot that she will struggle to be able to articulate any coherent opposition to wicked government policies for a very long time.

    Bishop Joanna did get it wrong. However, she did apologise and sought to make amends. Though I think it will be hard for her to do so, I hope that she is back on social media soon and that she will be able to make her points in ways that hit home and which do not lead to her being silenced.

    Now, all this would have been fading away, had not the Archbishop of Canterbury interfered in the matter. It is reported today that he has written to the Secretary of State for Wales expressing the view that he was “truly sorry” for Bishop Joanna’s comments.

    This has now led, very rightly, to outrage being expressed online about the Archbishop of Canterbury interfering in a matter about which he has no jurisdiction. He has no business apologising for what bishops in Wales say in public. 

    Apart from anything else, no archbishop is going to survive the mental gymnastics required if they hold themselves responsible for what every bishop in the Anglican world thinks or says.

    The complaint will now be made by some that people are focussing on Archbishop Justin’s comments and forgetting about the “offence” of Bishop Joanna’s comments.

    And that is, quite rightly, exactly what people are doing.

    Bishop Joanna and the Archbishop of Canterbury have both made statements which are incompatible with their office.

    Bishop Joanna has apologised and those who do have jurisdiction in this matter seem to think that her apology is sincere. Her twitter sins should be forgiven. Archbishop Justin has not apologised for his comments.

    The more he intervenes in the running of other provinces, the more difficult his job becomes.

    The Archbishop of Canterbury hath, as the badge says, no jurisdiction in this Realm of Scotland. The Archbishop of Canterbury hath no jurisdiction in this matter in the Realm of Wales either.

7 responses to “M 40, GSOH obviously…”

  1. Rachel Avatar
    Rachel

    Not sure if you read “Christianity” magazine, but they have had an “agony” column for the last few months which has addressed mostly sexual issues and has caused a storm of debate on the letters pages about their suitability in a “family” publication. The topics covered are among those least likely to be heard in a sermon but very important for christians to think through.

    I am dubious as to whether “Inspire” has the nerve to take up either of your suggestions.

  2. kelvin Avatar
    kelvin

    Thanks for the comment Rachel. I don’t read Christianity so I was unaware of this. How very interesting.

    Inspires does not claim to be a family magazine – it is for everyone, but I could easily imagine the same kind of debate.

    The most interesting thing about the kind of reaction that you describe is that people seem to be saying that such topics should not be discussed in a family setting. I’ve a feeling that this is a particularly strong view in the UK and very different to what seems to be the case in, for example, the Netherlands, where there would be a presumption that the family was exactly the right place for open discussion.

  3. Rev Ruth Avatar

    Rev F (50), small rectory, seeks clergy-wife /scrubber to keep house tidy, prepare meals and listen after a long hard day. GSOH essential.

  4. kelvin Avatar
    kelvin

    Mother R, has it passed you by that slavery has been abolished?

  5. Kimberly Avatar

    I think we need to combine this post with last:

    Fr Kevin’s agony-auntie weblog–

    relationship-guidance, fashion, vocational questions, handy household tips …

    just watch the blog-stats soar

  6. Rob+ Avatar

    M 38 happily attached… still waiting for that Liturgy though

    maybe I can bitch to agony-auntie for some help šŸ˜‰

  7. Andrew Avatar
    Andrew

    Almost new liturgy (one careful Methodist owner) seeks a church for meals and occasional companionship. Comes complete with canonical approval and Guild of Servers certification. Affectionate, but a little nervous with children and Archbishop Drexel Gomez. No Anglican Hymn-book time wasters please.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Easter Sermon

    I could see that they needed to get past. Their seats were on the other side of me – my right-hand side. I twisted my knees and they squeezed in and sat down. Two young men. Twentysomethings. Hipsters. All beards and tattoos. And everyone settled down to watch the play. And the hubbub settled down…

  • The Triduum Promise

    Over the next couple of days, I will be entering into a different time zone. It is one thing to put the clock forward to British Summer Time but it is quite another to step into the triduum zone. The Triduum is the set of services that begin with the Maundy Thursday communion service tonight…

  • Christians and Jews in Holy Week

    Over the last few years I’ve become much more aware of the things in the life of the Christian church which cause trouble for other people. Specifically, I took part in an interesting symposium a couple of years ago on how Christian preaching relates to Judaism. I learned a lot by listening to people there…

  • A Question about Marriage and the Bible – can you help

    I’ve been asked an interesting question by the Vice Provost, the Rev Cedric Blakey this week. The question is this – or at least something like this: If one were in conversation with a couple considering marriage, which married couples from the bible would you cite as good examples of marriage based on the biblical…