If anything, the situation has been rather the reverse. My impression is that those who have had criticisms or reservations of Dr Sentamu’s candidacy have largely kept them to themselves over the past couple of years, precisely because they fear that they may have been accused of racism if they expressed them. Political correctness has served Dr Sentamu well.
Lately, it’s true that some of his critics have concluded that their views are as valid and innocent as if he were a white man. And so I’ve heard these words: Capricious, impulsive, vain with the media and quick to temper (as well, I might add, as words such as prophetic, inspirational, generous and kind). None of these words has anything to do with Dr Sentamu’s ethnicity.
One comment is worth repeating because of its implicit judgment of the current incumbent, “We really shouldn’t have another Archbishop of Canterbury who doesn’t want to be.”
#1 While I think that adequately speaks of ++Rowan, I think it’s wishful thinking by this author and other media types as it would apply to +John Sentamu. One doesn’t recuse oneself from the CAC and have surrogates go out to handle PR if one is not interested in the job.
It appears “church chatter” has been remarkably quiet these last several years and that perhaps York and Canterbury have had some significant disagreements in private, despite their unified public front. That’s the only logical explanation I can deduce from this stream of left-leaning media blather and apoplexy. (Of course, the left-leaning media and church folk could be “irrationally nonexuberant” I suppose.)
George Pitcher spends much of the article trying to negate the race card. Fine, whatever. His substantive comments about Sentamu seem to be as follows:
[blockquote] “Capricious, impulsive, vain with the media and quick to temper (as well, I might add, as words such as prophetic, inspirational, generous and kind).” [/blockquote]
They are certainly relevant points. But lets face it, the real reason why many liberals both within and without the Church of England do not like Sentamu is because there are times when he has deviated substantially from the liberal line of Rowan Williams. I don’t necessarily think Sentamu is the best choice, but he would be far better than a repeat of Williams’ foolish promotion of liberalism.
Pitcher also writes:
[blockquote] “For what it’s worth, my feeling is that the moment has passed for John Sentamu and Canterbury. He celebrates his 63rd birthday in about seven weeks’ time, meaning that he would be pushing compulsory retirement age by the next Lambeth Conference in 2018.” [/blockquote]
So what? Firstly, your church is going to be facing major crises long before Lambeth 2018. Secondly, there is no objective reason to think that a 70-year old cannot run an effective Lambeth – it depends on the 70-year old. Do you really think he can’t do better than the meaningless effort by the 58-year old who ran it last time?
[blockquote] “He’s not been blessed with the best of good health lately and, most importantly, I really don’t think he wants it anymore.” [/blockquote]
Oh please. He has recused himself from the CNC. There is only one reason for doing that, apart from imminent death.
[blockquote] “We really shouldn’t have another Archbishop of Canterbury who doesn’t want to be.” [/blockquote]
But ++Williams did want to be ABC when he was first chosen – its only after he saw the results of his promotion of liberalism that he wanted out.