• 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.

8 responses to “Finding a place to be”

  1. Gordon Avatar
    Gordon

    I do think it’s important to remember that the sectarian persecutions of the past happened within a context that regarded itself as Christian – whether Episcopalian north of the border, or Reformed south of the border, the majority culture just saw itself as the ‘correct’ church.

    Our context is of overwhelming apathy towards religion at the best, and at worst, assuming that anyone religious is a fundamentalist with a scantily concealed desire to kill infidels.

    But I agree that we would be wise to trust in the Holy Spirit.

  2. Alastair O Avatar
    Alastair O

    Kelvin
    I always value reading your thoughts. May I suggest you give consideration when you use the word ‘church’? While the Church of Scotlad is closing many buildings, (s)he is not closing churches!

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      I’m aware of a C of S congregation which merged with a congregation that was a union of (I think) 7 congregations a number of years ago. This union of 8 has now announced its building will close and it will unite with another one making a union of 9. There is a plan to merge this with another congregation and there are discussions ongoing about which building should be kept.

      You can say that all those churches are still open if you like but I’m not sure that people local to this actually do see it that way.

      1. Ferdinand von Prondzynski Avatar
        Ferdinand von Prondzynski

        Indeed. See my separate comment.

      2. Alastair O Avatar
        Alastair O

        Greyfriars Kirk in Edinburgh is a united congregation which over the years has worshipped in 17 places. Worth a visit to see the 17 leg communion table crafted by its social enterprise arm Grassmarket Community Project.

  3. Rory Gillis Avatar
    Rory Gillis

    Hi from Nova Scotia. You mention the Canadian Church in passing. Church demographers told us recently that the last Canadian Anglican will disappear by 2040 and the update is, maybe sooner as a result of the pandemic. My take is that parties, whether ‘liberal’ ( mine) or conservative ( some one else’s) are more consequence than cause. Our current decline is tied in with the decline of religion in Canada in general. Ethnicity is also an issue. Anglicans here are as ethnic as any one else. Our ethnic cohort stopped having large families over two generations ago. Urbanization, rural decline and with it regional outmigration in historically Anglican strong areas like Atlantic Canada are part of the picture.

    I think one can distinguish between the decline of the grand old institution
    ( Anglican Church of Canada, previously The Church of England in Canada) and the future of a communities of faith with an Anglican heritage. Pace demographics, there are just too many stories of parishes and other entities being fully alive, full of The Spirit, doing creative things, holding a place in the community.

    Kevin, as your article notes, anecdotes and stories matter. They not only provide hopeful pause for reflection: they also testify to the creative perseverance of a Spirit filled people.

    1. Rory Gillis Avatar
      Rory Gillis

      Fr. Kelvin, last para, my apololgy for the typo in your name.It was either auto correct or a inattentive scribal error on my part. I know several ‘Kevins’ indeed too many perhaps. lol. please fix if possible. R.G.

  4. Elaine Avatar
    Elaine

    I think people are done with man made religion but spirituality well that’s a different thing. I feel that you are correct people are drawn to love, inclusivity and holy spaces I think our church is such a space and I know it is growing. I remember Mission 21, it appalled me. Statistics and money. Surely we are beyond that. I have faith, what will be will be. But it might be different to what we think we should have or it should be. Exciting times.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Inspires Online – October

    Just in case anyone was wondering, Inspires Online for October has been held back until tomorrow so that it can include the news of the Election of the new Bishop of Argyll and The Isles which will take place at an Episcopal Synod tomorrow at noon at the Cathedral of the Isles on Cumbrae. [Should…

  • Tyler Clementi

    There is a certain amount of discussion and debate going on over on American blogs at the moment, religious and non-religious about a several suicides of young gay people. Being gay is a factor in so many young suicides, something I’ve highlighted on this blog before. Rather than point to any of the debate, I…

  • Out of Africa

    Ah, there’s news of our friend Bishop Onesphore on Fr Madpriest’s blog. Odd though. I was always told that his views were quite the opposite of the quotes now being reported from him.

  • 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…