• 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.

4 responses to “Alternative Queen’s Speech”

  1. Pluralist Avatar

    They are only in office for a year. Then the Lib Dems will collapse, the Conservatives lose out to UKIP, Labour will also lose out to UKIP, but should, I hope, win if only to produce a luke-warm left government that will continue to bully those on benefits.

  2. Revruth Avatar

    Jolly good. May we also have fairtrade bananas sold loose instead of bags of 6 or 8, please?

  3. Elizabeth Avatar
    Elizabeth

    Hear, hear!!

    Ruth – you can find such loose and fair bananas in many fine emporia in this fair city of Glasgow. Do come visit soon!

  4. Alan McManus Avatar

    Kelvin, on the point of privacy, after being forced to opt-out (probably too late) from having my address (and perhaps email and telephone information) sold to anyone by Glasgow City Council, I’ve just sent the email below to Hugh Munro the Chartered Accountant who is Electoral Registration Officer for GCC. It strikes me that roll-calling in the Bible is usually A Bad Thing and in this case it quite obviously is. As Rosemary H. pointed out (in the middle of a rather heated debate on the Referendum – where she was very restrained and others including me were not) the problem with devolving power to Local Authorities is that they have to be both competent and ethical (my paraphrase, I can’t re-find her exact words).

    On Monday, 3 November 2014, 12:53, Alan McManus:

    Dear Mr Munro,

    I have just opted out of the Open Electoral Register by email, something which I should not have had to do. You, or whoever has executed this scheme, had no authority to sell my contact information and in doing so you, or they, have abused my trust. I expect a signed apology in writing and that this scheme be terminated with immediate effect.You are well aware that you are preying on the trust of the elderly who have no access to the internet and who will be too confused by this betrayal of confidence by their Local Authority to take action by telephone. You have sold the rights of privacy of the citizens of Glasgow for material gain. This is despicable and does nothing to ameliorate the legacy of the low reputation of the leadership of GCC.

    regards, Dr Alan McManus

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Previous Posts

  • 10 Things I learned from being a General Election Candidate

    Ten years ago today there was a General Election in the United Kingdom and 10 years ago today I was a candidate in it. Indeed, 10 years ago as I write this I was wearily standing at the polling station for the last 20 minutes of polling, thanking a few final voters for turning out.…

  • Power needs to be baptised by love

    Sermon preached by Kelvin Holdsworth on 3 May 2015 from St Mary's Cathedral, Glasgow on Vimeo. In the weeks after Easter, we get the only season of the year when we don’t directly read from the Hebrew Scriptures – the books that some call the Old Testament. Instead, our first reading each week comes from…

  • Dear St George – here’s 3 dragons I’d like slaying

    Today is St George’s Day. Cue articles about how we know almost nothing about St George and bewilderment as to how he became patron saint of England. Instead of that, here’s a few dragons that I like to see expertly slayed in our own day. 1 – Foodbanks in the UK. When I went to…