Very disappointing to have no mention of the inspiring address by Archbishop Naoum drawing attention to the destruction of churches, the assassination of doctors and the marginalising of Christians in Gaza and the West Bank. Surely this deserved more space than just a long discussion about money, and a very short paragraph about Taybeh. It shows a tragic lack of interest in a current genocide and a people who belong to our past Anglican Missionary endeavour, and who have suffered from British maladministration.
Hi David, I've never claimed that this newsletter is in any way an attempt at comprehensive coverage of church news, let alone just C of E news. I write about things which I think are interesting and about which I may be able to offer some insight or analysis. My lack of mention of Naoum's address is not a reflection on its moral significance. I've actually addressed the situation in Gaza and Palestine on many occasions in the newsletter, including a lengthy discussion of to what extent the international church could be accused of abandoning its brethren in Palestine just a few months ago (https://tswyatt.substack.com/p/telling-the-whole-story). I don't think it's reasonable to extrapolate from one edition of this newsletter that I don't care about the suffering of the people of Gaza.
I owe you a serious apology. I must have missed the newsletter in which you dealt very thoroughly with many of the issues of the Palestine/Israel struggle. I have become rather used to people who make assertions without any awareness of the whole history of the colonisation of the land and the long process of openly declared ethnic cleansing that has been taking place over the last 100 years - including even the rather poor taste joke about Tibet in this feed. There is a very effective Israeli lobbying group well documented by the Israeli historian, Ilan Pappé in his “Lobbying for Israel’.
Tim, I think you are right to point out the degree of challenge to the central funding model. But I think even the debate missed the problems with the STP approach. Canterbury diocese lost half its children since 2019, whilst other dioceses have retained all of theirs. There are so many dioceses that just have not got their act together at all when it comes to mission, discipline, and growth.
On Issues, there is more to say. The main reason why Issues became the go to was in response to the 'don't ask, don't tell' approach of liberals, and ironically it was written by a liberal, Richard Harries. As you rightly say, nothing has actually changed. But here was the big difference: liberals finally saying out loud that it is the canons and doctrine that count, and that any change must come by due process. That is what some of us have been saying for many years. Why are they saying this? Because everything that has happened in the last six months have been massive blows to the liberal cause.
I agree, at least partly, that we're not really ready to entrust all the church's historic wealth to the dioceses because not all of them are yet in a place to spend it wisely and with a ruthless, disciplined missional focus. This comes across as patronising, and it is to an extent, but I do think it's probably also true.
I wasn't around in the 1990s and early 2000s so have no idea to what extent Issues was inserted into discernment in response to liberal dioceses pursuing don't ask, don't tell. Clearly, if it was intended to enforce the church's sexual ethic on the clergy it failed miserably, as there are at the very least hundreds (if not more) gay vicars (and archdeacons, and deans and, maybe, even bishops) who've been ordained since 1991 who are in sexually active relationships. Now what we'll never know is how many of those promised to live within Issues but just crossed their fingers behind their backs, versus how many were able to get through the discernment process without any meaningful pledge to abide by Issues because their diocese didn't believe in Issues either.
Don't ask, don't tell has been the C of E's policy for a very long time on this, long before Issues in fact, and it's produced quite disastrous pastoral consequences. It would have been wiser and fairer for the church to have always insisted that its clergy live within its teaching. For all of those bishops who would find it uncomfortable/intolerable to refuse ordination to gay partnered candidates, than there would be a strong incentive to reform teaching asap so that you can ordain those currently excluded. But sadly liberal bishops decided the better path was to ordain those it knew 'broke the rules', rather than seeking to change the rules.
Back to today, I agree that it is an interesting change of tone for the liberals to say openly that the current doctrine remains in force, is not about to change, and that clergy should be asked to abide by it in their personal lives. Perhaps some of their speeches last week might end up thrown back in their faces by the conservatives when we're debating the new guidance in February which probably will explicitly allow gay vicars to get married without meaningful censure. We will have to see!
'But sadly liberal bishops decided the better path was to ordain those it knew 'broke the rules', rather than seeking to change the rules.'
In other words, the reason we are in this pastoral, legal, and theological mess is that liberal bishops chose to lie. Who'd have thought?!
'Perhaps some of their speeches last week might end up thrown back in their faces by the conservatives when we're debating the new guidance in February'.
I am not sure about 'throw back in their face', but we will certainly hold them to this, which means that no meaningful change will be able to be brought. And hopefully that will be a line drawn under this damaging, dishonest, and divisive 8 year fiasco.
Entirely agree with your comments about clergy pensions. I’ve been struck by the blinkered view of many in the pensions fb group, and the seemingly wilful ignorance of so many clergy about the pension prospects of most people. To contrast with the distressing stories of hardship, there have been many examples of entitlement and special pleading.
Thanks Nicola - as you say, no doubt some people are struggling in retirement which we cannot be indifferent too, but the situation is more complicated than the pensions debate sometimes allows for.
Very disappointing to have no mention of the inspiring address by Archbishop Naoum drawing attention to the destruction of churches, the assassination of doctors and the marginalising of Christians in Gaza and the West Bank. Surely this deserved more space than just a long discussion about money, and a very short paragraph about Taybeh. It shows a tragic lack of interest in a current genocide and a people who belong to our past Anglican Missionary endeavour, and who have suffered from British maladministration.
Hi David, I've never claimed that this newsletter is in any way an attempt at comprehensive coverage of church news, let alone just C of E news. I write about things which I think are interesting and about which I may be able to offer some insight or analysis. My lack of mention of Naoum's address is not a reflection on its moral significance. I've actually addressed the situation in Gaza and Palestine on many occasions in the newsletter, including a lengthy discussion of to what extent the international church could be accused of abandoning its brethren in Palestine just a few months ago (https://tswyatt.substack.com/p/telling-the-whole-story). I don't think it's reasonable to extrapolate from one edition of this newsletter that I don't care about the suffering of the people of Gaza.
I owe you a serious apology. I must have missed the newsletter in which you dealt very thoroughly with many of the issues of the Palestine/Israel struggle. I have become rather used to people who make assertions without any awareness of the whole history of the colonisation of the land and the long process of openly declared ethnic cleansing that has been taking place over the last 100 years - including even the rather poor taste joke about Tibet in this feed. There is a very effective Israeli lobbying group well documented by the Israeli historian, Ilan Pappé in his “Lobbying for Israel’.
Are you referring to the genocide in Tibet?
You didn’t notice
Line 3 has the answer
Did you appreciate Archbishop Naoum’s address to Synod?
Tim, I think you are right to point out the degree of challenge to the central funding model. But I think even the debate missed the problems with the STP approach. Canterbury diocese lost half its children since 2019, whilst other dioceses have retained all of theirs. There are so many dioceses that just have not got their act together at all when it comes to mission, discipline, and growth.
On Issues, there is more to say. The main reason why Issues became the go to was in response to the 'don't ask, don't tell' approach of liberals, and ironically it was written by a liberal, Richard Harries. As you rightly say, nothing has actually changed. But here was the big difference: liberals finally saying out loud that it is the canons and doctrine that count, and that any change must come by due process. That is what some of us have been saying for many years. Why are they saying this? Because everything that has happened in the last six months have been massive blows to the liberal cause.
I agree, at least partly, that we're not really ready to entrust all the church's historic wealth to the dioceses because not all of them are yet in a place to spend it wisely and with a ruthless, disciplined missional focus. This comes across as patronising, and it is to an extent, but I do think it's probably also true.
I wasn't around in the 1990s and early 2000s so have no idea to what extent Issues was inserted into discernment in response to liberal dioceses pursuing don't ask, don't tell. Clearly, if it was intended to enforce the church's sexual ethic on the clergy it failed miserably, as there are at the very least hundreds (if not more) gay vicars (and archdeacons, and deans and, maybe, even bishops) who've been ordained since 1991 who are in sexually active relationships. Now what we'll never know is how many of those promised to live within Issues but just crossed their fingers behind their backs, versus how many were able to get through the discernment process without any meaningful pledge to abide by Issues because their diocese didn't believe in Issues either.
Don't ask, don't tell has been the C of E's policy for a very long time on this, long before Issues in fact, and it's produced quite disastrous pastoral consequences. It would have been wiser and fairer for the church to have always insisted that its clergy live within its teaching. For all of those bishops who would find it uncomfortable/intolerable to refuse ordination to gay partnered candidates, than there would be a strong incentive to reform teaching asap so that you can ordain those currently excluded. But sadly liberal bishops decided the better path was to ordain those it knew 'broke the rules', rather than seeking to change the rules.
Back to today, I agree that it is an interesting change of tone for the liberals to say openly that the current doctrine remains in force, is not about to change, and that clergy should be asked to abide by it in their personal lives. Perhaps some of their speeches last week might end up thrown back in their faces by the conservatives when we're debating the new guidance in February which probably will explicitly allow gay vicars to get married without meaningful censure. We will have to see!
'But sadly liberal bishops decided the better path was to ordain those it knew 'broke the rules', rather than seeking to change the rules.'
In other words, the reason we are in this pastoral, legal, and theological mess is that liberal bishops chose to lie. Who'd have thought?!
'Perhaps some of their speeches last week might end up thrown back in their faces by the conservatives when we're debating the new guidance in February'.
I am not sure about 'throw back in their face', but we will certainly hold them to this, which means that no meaningful change will be able to be brought. And hopefully that will be a line drawn under this damaging, dishonest, and divisive 8 year fiasco.
Entirely agree with your comments about clergy pensions. I’ve been struck by the blinkered view of many in the pensions fb group, and the seemingly wilful ignorance of so many clergy about the pension prospects of most people. To contrast with the distressing stories of hardship, there have been many examples of entitlement and special pleading.
Thanks Nicola - as you say, no doubt some people are struggling in retirement which we cannot be indifferent too, but the situation is more complicated than the pensions debate sometimes allows for.