By any standard of measurement, the past year has been momentous. The financial crisis had us reeling as the value of our savings and our homes plummeted. As people felt less secure about their jobs, they spent less and gave less. Not only did High Street businesses suffer but charities were also affected. It is true, of course, that the financial crisis was brought about by a failure of regulation, especially in taking account of the growing complexity of global market transactions. But it was also brought about by moral failure. Even if we grant that market processes are “amoral” in themselves, we cannot deny that we are moral agents as we act within those processes and are thus responsible for our actions. In the past, the best of British financial and commercial life was characterised by the values of responsibility, honesty, trust and hard work. Such values arose from a specifically Christian view of accountability before God, the sacredness of even the most humble task (as George Herbert said, “Who sweeps a room, as for thy laws, makes that and the action fine”) and the recognition of mutual obligation by people of all classes and callings, one towards another. This rich tradition was set aside in favour of an entrepreneurial free for all and winner takes all ethos. We are now seeing the results. Far from engendering the wealth which would have benefited society as a whole, it has actually left not only this generation but future ones as well in such significant debt that it will affect the lives of us all for the foreseeable future.
Just as we were staggering back to our feet, we have been hit this time by the political fireball. Once again, it is important to see this as a moral, and even a spiritual, crisis. This is so in two ways: first, the weakening of a moral and spiritual framework for society has left people without an anchor for the mooring of their moral lives and without guidance by which to steer through the Scylla and Charybdis of contemporary dilemmas. Second, the lack of a framework has meant that there is no touchstone by which to judge a person’s actions as right or wrong.
After reading all of this, I reiterate what I have said several times here before: the best choice by far on the short list for ABC was Nazir-Ali. Both the CofE and Anglican Communion would be in far better condition than they are at present.
I haven’t read it all 9it runs to 5 pages) but I concur with #1 – there is historical knowledge, contemporary perceptiveness and biblical faithfulness here.
Nazir-Ali may yet emerge as the new leader of the new Communion.
And the C of E ought to look very hard at itself and ask why such a talented and deeply committed man felt he had to vacate his Cathedra in order to ‘work for the persecuted church’.
How sad that Micheal Nazir Ali felt quashed not liberated to live out the faith as a Diocesan Bishop. What does that say??
But of course they will not ask it. Nor why the other giften man of integrity ++David Hope came to the same conclusion, followed bt +Lindsay Irwin, +Alan Ladds and the list goes on.
A trickle of orthodoxy is leaving the house and what remains is somewhat uninspiring and totally ill equipped for the huge task at hand
3:
Williams, Sentamu, Wright, Inge, Platten, Urquhart, … the list goes on.
We’ve plenty of good people left; I wouldn’t panic too much.
Williams – gifted but seemingly unable to lead
sentamu- a curate’s egg but shamelessly media hungry
Wright- not half as clever as he likes to think he is but not bad
Inge…who?
Platten…er?
Urquhart?
Now back to my point – which of these is defending orthodox faith?
John Inge, new Bishop of Worcester. Platten of Wakefield, Urquhart of Birmingham. And while we’re at it, Chartres of London, and Stock of Bury St. Edmunds, Stevenson of Portsmouth, Forster of Chester, Langrish of Exeter and Jones of Liverpool. I don’t agree with all that all of them say – how could I when they disagree with each other? But all of them are staying, and all of them are of at least the intellectual, spiritual, and moral calibre -as far as I can tell – as Michael Nazir-Ali. And all defend the orthodox faith.
…unless of course you are skewing the conversation from the outset by defining support for WO as unorthodox. I think that is where you start from – but as I’ve argued in another thread, it might be wiser to start from ‘can this person say the creed without crossing his fingers?’