• 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.

10 responses to “The morning after the day before”

  1. Neil Oliver Avatar
    Neil Oliver

    Kelvin, I agree with much of what you’ve said here, particularly your paragraph on the merits of the Better Together campaign. I truly hope the energy in campaigning for a socially just Scotland and in the wider UK can continue.

  2. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    The problem with more powers for local government is that it is the least trusted and most corrupt wing of government, even in many places where one instinctively feels it ought to be a voice and a power for change.

  3. Derek Avatar
    Derek

    I hope you’re right but given the most recent WM polls from last week a likely outcome for Scotland is that there will be another Tory govt elected next year, and an EU referendum after that – who knows what will happen with UKIP. I wish there were signs for the reforms you mention but I can only sense self interested political party manouvering. I hope there’s a wider movement for local democracy and dispersed power that follows on from the yes campaign. I feel like yesterday was an opportunity missed but am still hopeful.

  4. Isobel Avatar
    Isobel

    Thankyou for this – today seems a little dreich.

  5. Christine McIntosh Avatar

    I shall continue to bang on about the immoral and absurd retention of nuclear weapons by what is going to continue as the UK – especially when the only place to keep them seems to be on my doorstep. There you are – moral high ground and nimbyism in one neat parcel.

  6. Fiona Avatar
    Fiona

    Absolutely Kelvin. I believe that the vast majority of the Scottish electorate agree on the things we want to change. We just have different ideas about how best these changes can be effected. I’m sad that people are still posting on social media that the “other” side are, to paraphrase, numpties.

  7. Jimmy Avatar

    The so called “middle class” turned their noses up at a possible egalitarian state.

    1. Christine McIntosh Avatar

      It was also, sadly, people of my generation who overwhelmingly voted to stay in the past.

  8. Kim Avatar
    Kim

    Liked your post.Hope there is no Glasgie “kissin”this w/e.personally I’m glad it’s a No vote so the Queen won’t need Her passport to stay at Balmoral.

  9. Alan McManus Avatar

    Glaesga in Scots. Glasgie in Liverpool (I have no idea why). And it’s not our ” “kissin” ” you have to watch but our smiles. I liked what Kelvin said on Twitter about the need for a commitment for social justice not just reconciliation. otherwise it’s the tyranny of niceness and papering over the cracks. It was “truth and reconciliation” in SA and although our situation is in no way comparable, theirs can still inspire us.
    I think Kelvin also put his finger on what’s been wrong with this referendum: odd bedfellows. We’ve had people voting one way out of international socialist solidarity; greed; fear; or not a little sectarianism (I witnessed this at a polling station outside Glasgow and I suspect it was a factor in S. Lanarkshire). we’ve had people voting the other out of think-global-act-local values; community values; Anglophobia; or nostalgia for The Corries (I really hope no-one was influenced by Mel Gibson but I suspect there were some).
    Therefore, to be cheery about the turnout is valid but to be complacent that we all voted for social justice in our own wee ways, is not. The referendum didn’t make the choice clear. It was a leap of faith into an unspecified future of going it alone versus business as usual or perhaps unspecified changed with an unspecified timetable – the latter becoming (as YES voters predicted) more and more unspecified as the days go on.
    Speaking as a YES voter, this is what helps:
    1 young people got involved in politics
    2 the majority of people I know, whatever they voted for, voted for noble reasons
    This is what doesn’t help:
    1 mixing up the Union of the Crowns with the Union of the Parliaments
    2 using the USA and ‘secession’ as analogous to the UK
    3 the retrospective admission by NO voters of the greed and fear of much of the NO THANKS campaign – admission before the vote may have stopped YES voters feeling so patronised
    4 lack of admission by YES voters that Anglophobia was a factor for some voters in this referendum, and continues to be a reality in Scotland
    5 political commentators using metaphors of torture for holding people accountable
    So, to do my bit for truth and reconciliation, I admit that I was so busy being really angry at people dismissing my thoughtfully worded comments as Anglophobic, that I neglected to publicly take on board that this kind of prejudice is quite real in my native country and that it is especially incumbent upon us as Scots to stamp it out.
    I’m sorry about that and I pledge to do better in future. Please don’t hold my feet to the fire. I’m vegetarian and my shoes will quite possibly melt.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • 25 Questions for people who want to make churches grow

    Do you have a decent church website? Is it up to date? Is it responsive – ie does it work on mobile phones? Does your own online profile feature your ideas and hopes and dreams other than a desire for people to turn up to church? Do you know what you are doing with twitter…

  • End of Life (aka Death)

    I was pleased this week that the vote in the Scottish Parliament to change the law on so-called assisted dying didn’t manage to make any further progress. Parliamentarians have now had a number of chances to think about this and vote on it and it still failed comprehensively to get anywhere near a majority of…

  • Going out and coming in

    This week I’ll have been at St Mary’s for nine years. It is the anniversary of my installation on Sunday. And this year I’ve decided to give myself an anniversary treat. When I came to St Mary’s there was much to try to understand and much to take in. Just trying to get your head…

  • What the Irish Marriage Referendum Means

    The first thing to say is congratulations to all those in Ireland who have campaigned and voted for a change in the law that will allow same-sex couples to be able to enter civil marriage. There’s something incredibly exciting about the fact that the first country to put marriage equality (or at least a step…