Dr Rowan Williams said the Church’s General Synod had “embarrassed” itself by an alleged whispering campaign against the appointment of the Bishop of Dover to a senior internal position.
It represents the latest clash between the Archbishop, the spiritual head of the 80 million-strong worldwide Anglican communion, and Synod members. Last year, Dr Williams suffered a major defeat over plans to allow women to be ordained as bishops.
The latest row centred on the appointment of a new chair of the Church’s business committee, who will help set the agendas for future assembly meetings, which usually take place twice a year.
Read it all and please also peruse the blog comments of Bishop Pete Broadbent about this there.
I remember my Archdeacon, at a dinner party in my Rectory, in the presence of the Patron of my living and his wife (who were notable figures in British politics and society), categorically state, “never trust a bishop.” No one demurred. And as for Trevor Wilmot, well known amongst his fellow clergy as “Mr Slope” (and referred to as such in his very presence by the late Lord Bishop of Peterborough William Westwood), in particular no one should ever trust him. One might speculate that the objectors, underneath their reasoning, actually feel uncomfortable with Trevor himself in such a position, since everyone knows he’s always been nothing more than a careerist.
“I think we’ve been quite properly embarrassed by what we’ve just heard – and so we should be,†the Archbishop said”.
Hopefully Pageantmaster won’t mind me cutting/pasting his words on another thread:
“As +Broadbent says in the link provided by #5 there is no precedent or intention that the Chairmanship of the Business Committee should be held by a bishop, much less Rowan’s suffragan.
I don’t know what went on this Synod “in the darkness†but it seems to me that there is a battle going on about Synod quite rightly resisting the control-freakery of the Archbishop and those around him and refusing to become an Indaba-emasculated council of advice to the ABC, to be heeded or not at Rowan’s whim, just like the old Supreme Soviet. It is a great pity the Primates who attended Dublin were not on the ball enough when Rowan pulled a similar fast one on them and got them to agree to neuter themselves to just advising him.
I don’t think it is anything to do with incapacity, effectiveness or integrity of bishops as the ABC tries to cast it in his hectoring rant, but everything to do with Synod’s rejection of him appointing Trevor Willmott as his suffragan and then through his influence on the Archbishops’ Council and with the HOB trying to get him placed in charge of the key Business Committee of Synod. It is obvious to anyone that there is a problem of both a conflict of interest and centralisation of power in Rowan in what Synod refused quite rightly to endorse”.
Funny how some are not embarrassed by their own behaviors.
Bookworm, You have hit it on the head. The Primates not attending Dublin refused to be manhandled by the main office. The others who did attend did not get it, or were not concerned about it or could care less. Hence, a calm meeting. This is also seen by these Synod machinations. We are witnessing the meltdown of the Communion because there are not consistent meetings at that level and everything is manipulated. Machiavellian.
It brings to mind what occured in Jamaica in 2009.
RE: “I think we’ve been quite properly embarrassed by what we’ve just heard – and so we should be . . . ”
Heh — I love his assumption on this.
I’m guessing nobody was embarrassed by the decision of the Bishop of Dover to step down or by the Bishop of Dover’s speech, or by the ABC’s attempted assumption of embarrassment and hectoring smug scolding.
What a piece of work this guy is.
There is an inaccuracy here: [i] “the Archbishop, the spiritual head of the 80 million-strong worldwide Anglican communion” [/i]
Rowan Williams holds an office that says he’s the one who presides, but is not really the spiritual head of anything but a rapidly diminishing group of revisionists and pansexual agendites. The orthodox Christians have sought and are making ‘other arrangements.’ Even the ‘affirming catholic’ group that tolerates/affirms homo/bisexuality, but dislikes female clergy, have left for Rome.
Ab Williams just can’t win for losing. But that is what happens when you depart from orthodoxy. Sponsoring that liberal from Denmark to speak at Synod will only estrange the AMIE/FCA group more.
Sarah et al, I probably don’t have to tell anyone here that it’s classic and called “projection”, because the mirror is denied, avoided, undesirable, or all three. Hence the blame is directed somewhere else, because some don’t like it when they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
Francis, I can’t take credit for that, I merely springboarded off Pageantmaster’s observations.
Here’s a question, it would be interesting to know where everyone’s betting money is. Do some people actually think they are subtle, or do they no longer care about subtlety anymore? Either way, we no longer have any illusions re: what we’ve got here, and haven’t for a while. The Emperor no longer has to occasionally flash, he’s abandoned his clothes altogether and is wandering down the street.
The masses need to either reject or assimilate. I know exactly what I would do.
6. Confessor.
The Aff Caths have not gone to Rome – it would not have them if they asked. They are still firmly attached to the CoE and its current drift. Indeed, I think I am right in saying that the ABC was, maybe still is, a member.
+Broadbent makes a good point on his blog:
[blockquote] “Having a bishop chairing the Business Committee when the House and its Standing Committee meet in secret, when the Bishop has the ear of his fellow bishops, when a bishop is perceived as a person of power, and when people are rightly suspicious of bishops (there’s nothing wrong with a bit of hermeneutical and ideological suspicion!) would be entirely wrong. We should change the Standing Orders to exclude the possibility of any bishop chairing the Business Committee.” [/blockquote]
I don’t think Rowan is going to get much sympathy from any group on this one. Clergy must be accountable to the laity when it comes to dealing with church funds. That is why even at parish level we have wardens.