• The Archbishop, the gays and their sins

    Welby fbsize

    One of the things that we’ve learned about Archbishop Justin Welby in recent weeks is that he gets upset about what people write about him on social media.

    He wrote at some length about how what gets written online is upsetting and he’d just prefer to have personal contact with him rather than sounding off online.

    Love often says don’t tweet. Love often says don’t write. Love often says if you must rebuke, then do so in person and with touch – with an arm around the shoulder and tears in your eyes that can be seen by the person being rebuked.

    It is difficult not to have some sympathy for him and I say that as someone who has been really particularly critical of him in the past. It can’t have been much fun seeing my You Condemn It, Archbishop post being relentlessly copied, commented on and retweeted across the Anglican globe.

    And yet the trouble is, there’s no turning the social media clock back. Wanting a world where people don’t comment online about things they care about very deeply is wanting a fantasy world that has no chance of coming back into being.

    Is it possible for leaders and people in public life to do well when the whole internet seems bedeviled with naughty people who will retweet and repost every last mistake that people make?

    I think it is possible, but trying to stand above the fray and condemning people for writing about things you’ve said is hardly going to work nowadays.

    The Archbishop’s complaint about social media came just after someone published a blog post which appeared to suggest that one of the Archbishop’s closest advisors had given a briefing to a group of Anglicans which suggested that Lambeth was now not trying to avoid schism in the Anglican communion but trying to manage it – the expectation being that some parts of the Church of England (the most liberal and the most conservative) would be lost but that a coherent “middle” would survive. It was a deeply shocking position to claim to be true. So shocking that I didn’t believe it at first but have since heard others who were at the briefing confirm that this stuff was indeed said and repeat also that expectation is that there would be bargaining over which buildings to give away, within 10 years.

    That blog post disappeared fairly quickly but internet genies don’t jump back into bottles and the story was out there and really rather embarrassing to all concerned.

    No wonder the Archbishop posted something indicating his discomfort about social media.

    But the real question is whether the social media phenomenon is the problem or whether the archbishop’s problems lie with with the things that social media point towards.

    It must be terribly frustrating to have people pick up on your every utterance and make a big deal out of it.

    The trouble is, in public life, the words you say have a lot of power. Social media posts rebalance that power a little and we should be welcoming the fact that we are a community that cares enough to talk about things rather than trying to remake the Anglican world into one in which bishops speak and everyone else listens uncritically.

    I’ve no doubt that the Archbishop will be embarrassed by posts such as this one which highlight something he said this week. Asked about the usual topic – those pesky gays, a topic that he will be asked about in every interview he ever gives, he is reported to have said:

    I’m listening very, very closely to try to discern what the spirit of God is trying to tell us.

    I see my own selfishness and weakness and think who am I judge them for their sins, if they have sins.

    You can almost hear him dithering over the comma in that last sentence and wondering how this might sound on social media and adding a bit of theological nonsense.

    Of course gay people have sins. However if the first response you make when people ask you about gay people is to talk about sin, then you are going to sound pretty homophobic. And it doesn’t matter whether you like it or you don’t like it, people are going to call attention to it online.

    But is that to be too critical? What strategies could the Archbishop adopt that would help when he is asked about the Usual Topic?

    The most basic thing is to recognise that everything is a conversation these days.

    In fact the Archbishop did quite well in answering a question from a young Muslim who wanted to know whether he would try to convert him to Christianity.

    I am not going to put pressure on you, and I wouldn’t expect you to put pressure on me.

    He could have done far worse with that question than he did.

    Unfortunately, he answered the question on the Usual Topic by immediately talking about sin and then parroting the “sex outside marriage in the C of E is against the rules” line.

    It is a conversation, Archbishop.

    That means we want to talk about it, not be told what the rules are before the conversation gets going.
    It means we want to talk about it, not be told to lay off social media because it gives you the hump.
    It means you can have your say so too and people will listen respectfully and carefully to what you say, but only so long as you engage with people.

    It is a conversation, Archbishop. Everything is a conversation.

    When the first thing you say about gay people is about sin then you can’t expect the conversation to go well.

    It wasn’t helped that the second thing you said was along the lines of “some of my best friends are gay you know?”

    “Marriage is between one man and one woman for life and sexual activity should be confined to marriage, that’s in the Church of England’s laws” he said. “I’m equally aware I have a lot of gay friends and I know gay clergy and they are doing incredible work.”

    You say that stuff and you are going to get people observing that there’s a lot more archbishops who claim that gay people are their friends than gay people who claim archbishops are their friends.

    This could be going better. It could be going much better.

    And it is going to happen again. That question is going to be asked again and again and again.

    There are people out there who can help you find better answers.

    Guess where they are, Archbishop?

    Yes – all over social media.

10 responses to “Liturgical Notes – as given to the servers this morning”

  1. Moyra Avatar
    Moyra

    So what really happened?
    you can’t leave me in suspense like that…. Did any of it go according to plan?

  2.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    What really happened

    Well, Fr Bishop did not really turn up with enough time to spare to be accorded the offer to celebrate. He did make it into the pulpit in time for the sermon. Just.

    So, we had a Presiding Minister and Sub-deacon. Not quite a High Mass, more Gas Mark 5.

    Excellent control of the thurible.

    No amount of bowing to the offertory procession or censing them would make them go away. Perhaps someone was supposed to do something else to them, but I sure don’t know what they were waiting for. Perhaps someone will tell me in the week.

    Offertory elements arrived nearer verse 4 of the hymn than verse 1.

    Presiding Muggins ended up flitting out with the vessels to St Anne’s chapel.

    And a good time was had by all. 

     

     

  3. Pamela Avatar
    Pamela

    I wish I’d been able to get out my bed in time for yesterdays service – I love it when the incense is used.

  4. Vicky Avatar
    Vicky

    chaos what chaos?
    apart from the late Bish and the sneaky switching on of his mike, I was blissfully unaware of the chaos at the altar……isn’t it always like that?  Just think yourselves lucky you don’t have to accurately time the ringing of bells and the ‘donging’ of dongs which, if inappropriately done, can throw transubstantiation into reversal…..

  5. Brannon Hancock Avatar
    Brannon Hancock

    didn’t notice
    I didn’t notice a thing. (Well, except the tardy homilist.) ‘course, sitting out w/ the congregation, my eye misses a lot of that I’d probably notice were I with the choir in our normal place. For instance, with the Bishop at the “big pulpit,” I couldn’t see him at all from where I was sitting. In fact, it took me about 25 seconds to figure out where the strange disembodied voice was coming from…

  6.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    Servers and Sight Lines

    Oh, there was no chaos at the altar – the servers served impeccably. It is the mark of good serving that no-one should know that things were not quite going to plan.

    As for seeing the Bishop – one of the things I’ve been giving a lot of thought to is the sightlines in the Cathedral which are pretty terrible. There is no perfect place to preach from or to celebrate at which will enable everyone in the pews to see. At one time in the life of the church people were charged pew rents – higher rent for seats you could see from.

  7. Elizabeth Anderson Avatar
    Elizabeth Anderson

    sight lines
    True enough re sightlines. As someone who regularly sits in south side pews – I’ve figured out exactly where to sit in the pew so that the offending pillar is between altar and eagle – so I could see preacher and celebrant. Which is extremely selfish becuase it means whoever else is in the pew (usually James) can’t see.

    I thought the preaching from the centre, in front of the altar – most visible – and not so far away from congregation as ‘voice from the sky’pulpit – is best option so far.

    As for incense – not a wiff reached said south aisle. But I suppose for it to permeate to back of church would involve overwhelming those front and centre.

  8.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    Sight Lines from the North Aisle
    As a someone who regularly sits in the North Aisle, I can see most of what goes on except when the pulpit is being used. On those occaisions, moving tot he other end of the pew gives me a view of the pulpit around the north side of the organ console.

  9. Elizabeth Anderson Avatar
    Elizabeth Anderson

    Hmmmm
    I feel like great amusement could be had by all with coloured yarn connecting various bits of the Cathedral. Green for the pulpit, red for the altar, blue for the lectern – stretching around the pillars, organ console . . .

  10. Mysterious stranger Avatar
    Mysterious stranger

    Mystery to me
    As someone who has just about mastered morning prayers the above just remains a complete mystery to me.I like the idea of the yarn though.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Sermon – 26 September 2010

    Here’s what I said yesterday in the pulpit… There’s no getting away from it. Sooner or later we do have to think about hell. That’s the message from this morning’s gospel reading and I don’t think that there is any choice but to deal with it head on and allow ourselves the chance to ask…

  • Knowing Me, Knowing You (again!)

    Hey, remember the Knowing Me, Knowing You sessions that I ran a while ago? Well I’m doing another one this week. If you don’t remember what this is about, check out this description from an earlier one. These sessions are limited to 20 people in order that we can keep the conversation flowing. If you…

  • Consecration of new bishop in Kentucky

    The Diocese of Kentucky consecrates a new bishop today. The Diocese of Kentucky is one of Glasgow and Galloway’s Companion Dioceses. At about 4 pm UK time, the service will begin in Kentucky…. and, provided they can resolve their internet issues in Kentucky, on this blog: Now, ain’t that neat?

  • Home is the wanderer

    Ah, Glasgow. Here I am again. Today I arrived back in town after two weeks holiday. I’ve been to France, since you ask and I’ve had a lovely time. I was in the sud and so my body was warmed greatly by the sun. I tend not to tan a great deal, because I slap…