Justin Welby: The oil man called by God

"Justin Welby: The oil man called by God" (The Northern Echo, Surrey).

 

It's already doom and gloom among ACNA people.

 

Is there anything justifying that? What do you think of his positions and episcopal capability?

 

I suspect this may not be wise of the prime minister to choose a fellow Etonian. It may raise the accusation that it was a "job for old boys" mentality that got him the job.

On the plus side he's against the push for gay marriage and actively gay bishops so this is a positive. Lets see how strongly he will psuh for this issue.

His time as an oil well executive could be positive, he has experience of the outside secular world, he has not been cloistered in a Christian environmen although it is sad if the daily mail was right, that he was chosen for his manegerial skills raather than his faith, This is a firm reason why a secular government shoudl have no say in the appointment of bishops.

He does have a lack of experience in looking after a diocese but lets see how he will do

 

Why? Obviously I'm missing something. Welby is a happy-clappy Arminian "evangelical", but why should that be bad news for ACNA and its dominant Anglo-Catholic faction, especially on this side of the Atlantic? Are you thinking Welby is going to be more friendly to TEC liberals than Williams? Surely his double-mindedness on women's ordination is not a problem for ACNA.

 

It seems to have passed some people by, but actually the PM has, de facto, no say over the appointment of the ABC. The Constitution has been altered, as the ABC website says:

This appointment has nothing to do with David Cameron's preferences, and is entirely governed by the CNC, where the PM's secretary of appointments sits as a non-voting member.

To be honest, I don't see how it serves Mr. Cameron, Justin has been rather scathing of banks and big business- apprently the word 'usary' has issued forth from his lips...

Although he has not been long a bishop, he has apparently proved an adept one so far, and is quite an innovative organiser. This I think is good. For some reason the church prefers to run its bureacracy in-house, but I'm not sure the call to the priesthood quite captures the same qualities that Church House desperately needs. I'm told it can be rather fractious and political there as well (as if Anglicans would ever be obstructive because of party lines!) It really does need someone with a head for organising to take the whole structure of the CoE by the scruff of the neck and shake it up a bit, and the fact we've been able to muster a candidate who actually has a personality to go along with this is an enormous plus, in my book.

Just hope it actually happens like that- if it works out, he might be just what the CoE needs.

Also on the courage remark, as the Telegraph has also pointed out that he has been out doing conflict resolution in Africa where he narrowly escaped with his life at one point, so I wouldn't say its entirely un-apt.

To be honest I don't understand the ambivalence on this forum, I haven't met anyone in the flesh who thinks he will have anything other than a positive impact. Of course, we all thought that about Rowan as well and it just didn't go quite to plan but, I'm certainly willing to toast in the man who I think is the pick of the crop of english bishops!

 

He supports the idea of women bishops. That's pretty much guaranteed to secure at least ambivalence for a large % of Anglicans.

From Yahoo News:
"Last summer as Bishop of Durham, he was called on to defuse tensions over a vote on women bishops.

Even on homosexuality, where he was defended the Church's right to oppose same sex marriage, he was keen to accommodate opposing views."

Anyone who comes in to sit on the fence, defuse, and 'accommodate opposing views" is a moral villain in my opinion. Guess the patron saint of people like me is John Knox. I want hard-nosed manly conviction, not more bloody pandering and negotiating. If he's a liberal, let him be one!

 

I'm sorry, but seriously? I'm going to be quite honest, I find this post upsetting on a number of levels, and it actually makes me quite cross. It has potentially ruined the rest of my morning.

First this idea that somehow mediation and listening and inclusion is weak suggests a rather unpleasant attitude towards others, and hardly a Christlike one whatever happened to 'whoever is not for us is against us?' Whatever happened to 'being all thinks to all people'? Last night I listened to the anecdotes of a woman priest giving her experience of being at Walsingham, and she was quite blunt; the first time she went as a priest, she had abuse and threats hurled at her and she was spat on. Things have improved (thanks be to God) but I shall be equally blunt, that was an utterly disgraceful way to treat someone, and if that's the John Knox-like attitude you're seeking, then I would rather be the wettest, most spineless Christian than that.

Secondly the idea that somehow it is a peculiarity of theological liberalism suggests a rank ignorance of liberal theology. Too often in these forums as a whole in fact it is used as a sort of generic perjorative in a fashion that robs it of all content, this is just one more instance of a refusal to engage seriously with a line of thought that has at times been provoking, inspiring and challenging the Anglican Church for a long time, and if anyone sincerely thinks they have been untouched by the fruit of liberal thought, they can certainly think again, if only because they have managed to develop a line of thought that stands as opposed to it as possible.

But what really bothers meis that you immediately brought it back to women and gays. It's like you've lost all perspective on these issues. There are so many things that need dealing with in the life of the church, and I would hold up this post as an example of everything that has been wrong with the church in the last decade: the narrowness of concerns, the pre-judging of a person before listening to them, the recalcitrance. You're entitled to your views of course (much as I am to disagree with them) but these energy-draining kind of arguments are so boring and they're not actually going anywhere at the moment.

It's time to wake up and move on from these things. This is an opportunity for a clean slate, a chance to look at new beginnings...to reaffirm our general commitment to each other in love and in Christ, despite our differences. Somehow the Parish manages to function despite the conflicting views and personality clashes prevalent within it, and yet we do all wish peace upon each other and worship together, why not so more widely?

Of course, I'm not laying all the ills of the Anglican Communion at your door Consular, but I feel this knee-jerk sort of reaction is rather endemic in many quarters, and needs challenging because its time to re-awaken to the wider vision, to see the logs in our own eyes rather than having this obsession over a couple of specks we see in the eyes of our brothers and sisters.

 

Just imagine where we would be if making Biblical standards subject to compromise had been the an organizing principle at the Council of Nicaea. The fact is that everything bad in Anglicanism has come at the hand of this sort of compromise, beginning with the Ellizabethan 'Settlement' in 1559, without which John Knox would never have become Consular's patron saint . It has even been said that to be Anglican is to be willing to sell your soul for a bowl of porridge.

Incidentally, John Knox made a lot of mistakes, but leaving the CofE was not one of them.

 

Patrick, I am very sorry for causing upset. It wasn't at all my intent to lay a ruined morning at your door. Please forgive me!

It may or may not help, a little, to know that I suffer from an extreme anxiety disorder. I tend to blow basically every problem way out of proportion, and this anonymous forum is the only way to express that sometimes. It isn't at all the right thing to do, and I confess and repent to you, first, and to God. The "all is lost" mentality isn't at all helpful.

The John Knox attitude I am speaking about consists of refusing any error at all costs. I don't agree with Knox at all on many issues, but his heroic personality is commendable, like that of Tyndale. The woman you speak of was victimized, but it doesn't generate any sympathy in my heart for her error. We must learn to separate personality from theology in these debates. All sensible conservative people reject abuse and especially threats.

I admit that "liberal" thought is very nebulous and hard to pin down. As a word for "error", it stands on its own, but as a word for "free" or "connected to liberty", it is good. I here admit that I use "liberal" as a synonym for anyone who believes the truth can shift, change, or be liberally - freely - treated. Women clergy and open homosexual activity are forbidden by the witness of Scripture and the Fathers, and if liberals stand for liberty for those things, they must be opposed. To be honest, I don't much mind opposing something that provokes doubt in the promises of God, and inspires atheism in the long-run - that's what liberalism does. It embraces Bible-destroying textual criticism, historical relativism, and a "you may very well think that, but I have a different opinion and couldn't possibly comment" attitude. Every last scholar identified as "liberal" has done these things. People like me just can't take it. We need to vent, and you're free to as well. Please do!

I bring it back to women and gays because those are the two issues which most define heresy today. Acceptance of and ambivalence toward debauched behaviour has always been a sign of denial of the faith. The same goes for women clergy; every last spiritualist Heresy of the early church had women-clergy, and they were always required to drop that claim if they converted to the orthodox faith. I want to stand with the heroic Fathers, and if that makes me a bigot, then let them all be bigots in the eyes of this pathetic, failing culture.

The peace of Christ is all I wish on brothers and sisters, but the only way to achieve that true Pax is for all individuals to recognize our error and sin, and repent. Liberal theology too often denies sin outright; we're just "disordered", don't they say? Surely every moment is a time for renewal and moving forward, but the example of antiquity shows that no saints or martyrs were willing to move forward with what they were sure was wrong. I am sure and am convinced that women cannot be clergy, that gays need to stop the activity, that drug users need to reform themselves, that murderers must repent, that heretics must deny their wrongs, that gay-bashers must repent, that wife-beaters must repent, etc. ! Peace with God comes through faith and repentance in Christ, not in tolerance, fence-sitting, and being nice.

None of that was anxiety-driven, by the way. I certainly wish you peace, and have no intention of ruining your day. For that, I see that I am wrong to be so angry. Forgive me, but I have passed through the observation of atheism, Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and now Anglicanism, and all I see anywhere is apostasy from the values of the early Church and of the Scriptures. Heresy and error abound. It depresses the hell out of me, and when we human beings have no hope for any religion anywhere, we tend to get a little grouchy. Please forgive your brother, if it is in you to do so.

 

I should clarify by saying this:

The Gospel is: God, by no merit of any creature, is incarnate that we might unite with Him; died and defeated His enemies, that we might rise; rose, that we might ascend; and He ascended, that we might live in Him and serve Him without fear.

Because God has defeated HIs enemies, we should have nothing to fear. The children of perdition are hidden to us in the depths of their hearts. If Welby has the everlasting gospel to communicate, I should rather pray for him that he have the strength to do it, and not hate him that he may be scandalized and trip over obstacles.

 

I agree.

I disagree.

 

I look forward to the leadership of Justin Welby. Let us join hands in prayer for this man of God.

 

Bah Humbug. This alone is a disqualification: As dean of Liverpool Cathedral he controversially allowed John Lennon's "Imagine" to be played on the cathedral's bells as part of the Futuresonic 09 art project in May 2009 - despite the line "imagine there is no heaven".

 

Wow, is there a source for that?

If it's true, English Civil War II please.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20251972

 

http://hereford1938.blogspot.com.es/

 

Anyone know what happened to Bishops Chartres and Sentamu, or why they weren't selected?

 

Chartres: Uncomfortable ordaining women, possibly has avoided it altogether- unthinkable when the church is on the verge of voting in women bishops

Sentamu: ok for York, not so popular for Canterbury, a vibrant character who knows how to get attention, but his views can seem a bit flaky and not well thought-out, he can put his foot in it sometimes, and if I remember correctly, there are grumbles up north about his leadership style.

Plus, they're both a bit old, and would be approaching or possibly just over the retirement age by the next lambeth conference.

As for your post Consular, no worries, it didn't cloud my day for particularly long at all in the end! And you are right, as side-issues to the whole gospel they may well be, they have nevertheless become something of a litmus test for one's 'orthodoxy'.

Though an increasingly distorting one I'd say- as the debate has lumbered on, people from all walks of churchmanship have come out in favour of both women and gays, and who would deny that it necessarily means they follow liberal theology- there are evangelical ways and catholic ways and charismatic ways etc. of thinking about the issues that lead some in all sincerity to think that actually how we have understood the faith in this position needs rethinking, and not merely because we have an invitation and impetus from 'secular' (I use the word cautiously) culture.

I would even say there are even 'liberal' ways of thinking about it that do recourse to an actual system of internal values that spring from genuine faith- though I do accept there may well be some who go along with it because they haven't thought about it (though that's true on both sides I know)- but the pros and cons of the liberal perspectives I think are worthy of a separate thread.

I'm sorry to hear about your anxiety disorder, as the child of a parent in the same boat I can appreciate something of its difficulties and it's not easy, I wish you all grace and peace.

 

Hope this guy does a good job...not crazy about the song "Imagine" being played in a church for any reason, but I won't judge him based on that one incident. That was really pathetic, though.