In response to Should the Archbishop put a cassock in it?,
2 Timothy 3:16 – All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 – That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
The Archbishop should speak using the God-inspired words from the Bible and not from some political party manifesto.
Maybe OilWelby could examine the breaches of the Coronation Oath, made before God in the presence of one of his predecessors, and determine which of those breaches is pouring petrol on divisions of the country. If he has any spare time, he could diversify into perhaps reading the Bible.
One could say in the context of Parliamentary debates on Brexit that one man’s inflammatory language is another man’s blunt and long overdue statement of truth. I wonder if Jesus was trying to inflame tensions when he called the Pharisees a ‘brood of vipers’? More likely it was righteous anger towards a bunch of hypocrites who put ordinary people under a burdensome yoke.
Welby might want to reflect on this. Besides what does he think all this language will lead to? Civil war? I think most people can see that Parliament is the problem and that attacking each other would be a pointless distraction from the real enemies of democracy. There is too much gagging going on these days. There are too many attempts to silence the truth in case it ‘triggers’ someone. Well, many of us have been triggered for three and a half years by Parliament’s betrayal of the demos and we’re not about to put the safety catch on.
Mike Bell wrote:
It is right for the leader of a church to make general statements on ethical issues such as asking politicians to refrain from inflammatory language. It is wrong that he seemed to direct it at Boris and Co with little evidence that the name-calling has been one-sided.
I’m a Lay Minister in the C of E (although at the distinctly conservative evangelical end) and I agree with Mark. The Church’s main job is to spread the faith, the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a message of salvation and hope, conditional upon our acceptance of it. Standing alongside that primary task is the need to speak up for the downtrodden, and this is known as the Social Gospel. It is this Social Gospel that made the Church, going back to the very beginning, the founder, the originator of such social goods as schools, hospitals and the dispenser of relief to the needy.
But this secondary role, the Social Gospel, must avoid being seen as supporting or favouring any particular political group, party or political philosophy. Instead, it must simply be seen as practical compassion, and with an eye to the future as well as the now.
Above all, we must look to the long-term, common good of the whole, not just specific groups or causes. This is not socialism, globalism, capitalism or any other utopianism. In this way, the Church can be available to serve everyone and all types of people.
Archbishop Welby means well, and would probably agree with my general points, as above. But, like many today, I suspect that he is so steeped in, and surrounded by, the PC politics of the Left-liberal, globalist establishment, that he lacks sufficient self-awareness and appreciation of the other points of view in society. This limitation, blindness even, is common amongst many of the bishops. Society has become dangerously stratified and the Establishment lives within an echo chamber.
As a result he treads unwarily, falling headlong into these traps. Thereby he risks alienating all those who, including me, do not share his soft-Left, top-down and essentially globalist political view. He should desist from being seen as favouring certain party political positions. This is no easy task, but then being Archbishop of Canterbury was never going to be a stroll in the park. We need him to learn.