Justin Welby versus Justin Welby


I find myself agreeing with Archbishop Welby's words in the clip below. But his words elsewhere, and more particularly his actions, dismay me. I feel that what I am seeing is a man filled with good intentions, but lacking a realistic perception of the state of the church he heads. 

In the worldwide Anglican Communion, Welby's willingness to cooperate with the church world's most socially progressive and sexually permissive elements is a matter deeply disturbing to traditionalists. Nearer to home, the Church of England's own traditionalists are deeply concerned over the same thing, and with what seems to them abandonment of historical church teachings and practices. They feel, increasingly, that they are offered the right boot of fellowship when they speak up.

Tradition-minded Anglicans in the UK and elsewhere are saying that the zeitgeist is too much in control of the church and that as a result, scripture, reason, and tradition get short shrift. Significant schisms upon that point have taken place in some places within Anglicanism and are pending in others. If you did not know all that was happening, you would not guess anything of the kind from the Archbishop's remarks below.

I know the Archbishop is aware of the traditionalist turmoil. I do not think he sees it as a serious matter. He wants to go on as if nothing consequential has gone wrong. As a political move that may be the smartest thing: Ignore the traditionalists and they surely will go away. The C of E will go on as a modern and indeed postmodern manifestation of the state church. It will shed its stodgy sexual ethics and its boring obsessiveness with the scriptures. It takes a degree of discernment Welby has not brought to the problem to see that outcome as a loss, not only for the church but for the society it seeks to serve. The priest of the stodgy old sort, the kind who had the courage to offer moral advice out of the Bible, even advice of a stern kind you did not want to hear, was a fixture of English culture and a large part of its strength. 



See also: https://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/speaking-and-writing/speeches/synod-archbishop-canterburys-presidential-address , where Welby explains at some length his view of tradition, traditionalism and change.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reality, fantasy and ecumenism

By Charles Marsh Recent conversations online and off have shown me something very curious. Some of what I believe to be Christian verity some other Christians take to be mere fantasy. They are cessationists and I am not . According to them, the things that I believe about tongues and prophecy and words of wisdom and of knowledge are sheer moonshine. So while in some churches I am thought orthodox enough, in others I am regarded as delusional or something rather like it. There are other matters in which, in like manner, some Christians view certain beliefs of other Christians as no better than free imagination, runaway fantasy or perhaps something worse: damaging falsehoods not harmless nuttiness. I admit to being somewhat dismayed by other Christians' newspaper novenas and Facebook prayer schemes. I do not think that is how prayer works. Their idea seems to be that if you repeat such and such a prayer x times, or republish it or "like" it or retweet it, then you w...
Read more

Science versus religion is a phony issue

By Charles Marsh The problem is that science, well suited to look at repeatable events, is at a loss about singular ones.  Some people suppose that science trumps religion, that a modern understanding of the world through science renders religious understandings obsolete. Some others suppose that religious understanding can be used to refute science. Both views are wrong. Science is rooted in philosophical naturalism. That is the stance that says we will explain what we see without reference to supernatural agencies. Science describes what happens without recourse to explanations involving angels, demons, gods, fairy godmothers, humors, vapors or ghosts. Acting on this basis, science has done a great deal of good. It has gotten rid of superstitions about what causes disease, where insects come from and a good many other misunderstandings. Notice that science is morally neutral. The same disciplines that give us vaccines and disease prevention can as...
Read more

What is a "Francisism"?

The first time I used the word I used it in attempting to explain some of Pope Francis's headline-grabbing remarks. This is what I said: This strikes me as another one of those Francisisms that generates lots of good press for Francis and then is walked back via more careful statements by others in the Church. I have remarked before on his tendency to do things like this. But it was not the first time I had encountered the concept. My remarks on this habit of Francis's go back a couple of years, to the early days of his pontificate. Francis tends to make sweeping-sounding statements that sound nearly un-Catholic in their generosity, toward gays, socialists, atheists, Lutherans and others. But when the statements are unpacked in light of Catholic faith and practice, they do not mean all that they seem to suggest. The statements are narrowly and logically true in some sense but really say less than they seem at first to say. Before I coined the word I wrote Pope Franc...
Read more