WE LIVE in times of great moral confusion. Old certainties and beliefs have been trashed while ‘woke’ values and ideologies have been elevated to unchallengeable doctrines, and heretics suffer the consequence of being ‘cancelled’, often losing jobs or careers as a result. Meanwhile on the streets, gangs of youths run amok, often sticking knives into one another. Shoplifting has become an acceptable lifestyle with no legal sanctions; casual crime such as grabbing mobile phones from unwary pedestrians is now common on the streets of our cities or jumping the barriers on the Underground. In towns where large numbers of illegal immigrants are housed in local hotels, parents are afraid to let their daughters go out at night lest they be harassed and propositioned by young men who have nothing to do except hang around all day.
On a larger scale, the recently released Casey Review into the systematic sexual exploitation of young girls (or rape as it should be more accurately termed), by mainly Muslim men from Pakistan, has demonstrated a catalogue of failures at all levels to protect the most vulnerable in society, perhaps the biggest criminal scandal of our day. Parliament has recently voted, by a large majority after only a two-hour debate which was not widely advertised, to decriminalise all abortion, even up to term where there is a significant chance that the baby would be born alive but presumably allowed to die; and opening the way for the abortion of unwanted females (as already happens in many cultures). A vote for assisted suicide was passed on Friday meaning that apart from some divine intervention it will soon be legalised.
Sexual morality has degenerated into ‘anything goes’, as demonstrated by Pride marches where a variety of indecent sexual fetishes are celebrated on public display which, in any other setting, would be illegal. Meanwhile, two-tier justice and the suppression of free speech is now so common it rarely raises comment (c.f. the attacks on TCW and The Daily Sceptic). Politicians talk endlessly of British ‘values’ but seemingly with little understanding of what these values are, or where they came from.
I could go on at some length; indeed, I did in the first draft of this article, but I sensed the editor’s red pen poised to delete much of it, so I had better get to the point.
In his book, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, the author Douglas Murray highlights the demise of Judeo-Christianity in the West, and the rise of Islamist ideology as among the key factors in what he terms the suicide of Europe, UK included. Indeed, no one would dispute the fact that almost every aspect of our culture has been shaped over many years by the teachings of the Bible. I can remember as a kid in a state school writing out the Ten Commandments in my best handwriting and illustrating it as the monks of old used to do. ‘Don’t steal, don’t murder, don’t lie, don’t be jealous, respect your parents, don’t be sexually immoral’ etc. The school recognised that these, along with the Sermon on the Mount and the Lord’s Prayer, were key principles in raising good citizens and a cohesive society. How many of our children today have even heard of these things? I am sure that Murray is correct in what he writes.
What is needed in these troubled days is a strong spiritual leader who can guide the nation back to our historical Christian roots. Someone who will fearlessly challenge the current zeitgeist and point the way forward for our nation to regain genuine values. Some might think that this responsibility should fall to the leader of our national Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury, a post which is currently vacant although with a recruitment process currently underway.
What sort of person would be up to this task? Fortunately, we need look no further than the Diocese of Canterbury, who have published a document, ‘Appointment of the 106th Archbishop of Canterbury – a Statement of Needs’, which is a cross between a job description and a person specification. Let’s take a look at the priorities.
The first thing to notice is that throughout the document, and right from the start, the personal pronoun used is ‘they’. Oh Dear! This is a rather large clue to the shape of what is to come. ‘The Archbishop we are seeking’ obviously must have theological depth, be prayerful and of the utmost integrity of character (a bit of a swipe at the last incumbent). They must be able to speak ‘prophetically’, addressing the social and political issues of the day. In this context, the word prophetically implies speaking the very words of God, a rather pretentious statement. Generally, clerics who preach politics from the pulpit empty the pews.
The next priority is that they must unequivocally support the ministry of women and men (note the order) and may themselves be male or female. Of course, this should come as no surprise given that a third of the clergy are now women and there are a good number of female bishops, some in very senior positions. However, it is perhaps churlish to note that the increasing feminisation of the Church has parallelled the inexorable decline in congregations over the decades. I suspect this is nothing to do with gender, but because, by and large, female clergy are more likely to be towards the liberal end of the theological spectrum, and telling congregations about how little of the Bible they believe also empties pews.
All of this leads on to the next crucial priority. They must ‘have worked and continue to work with the “Living in Love and Faith” process and will fully welcome those from the LGBTQIA+ community’. Of course, the church must welcome any who come sincerely seeking truth, forgiveness, faith, hope and love, but why single out this community? We are long past the days of those such as Alan Turing, and gays are hardly a marginalised group. This statement alone will exclude any theologically conservative Anglican from the application process.
The most disadvantaged group today, by all social metrics, are white working-class lads. Why not make them a priority? This line of thinking leads on to the (inevitable) climax: ‘They will embrace those who pray for change to enable same-sex partners to marry in the Church of England.’ Embrace! What a strange usage of a word which implies intimacy and affection. Currently, this is singularly lacking in the debate. Yet amid all the moral chaos and confusion of our current society, this seems to be the priority of the Canterbury diocese, despite the fact than if/when this is voted in by the Synod, it will result in the complete fracturing of the Anglican community both nationally and globally. Many African Anglican churches, and some large conservative evangelical churches in London and elsewhere are already dissociating themselves from Canterbury. To give balance, however, the statement continues, ‘They will also embrace those who hold the current Church of England teaching on marriage.’ This is a lot of embracing for one individual and implies completely incoherent fence-sitting. There is no doubt which side ‘they’ are to be on.
These are to be the first priorities of the next Archbishop, and the clear implication, although not stated, is that in addition to being either male or female, ‘they’ may also be gay or indeed anywhere else on the LGBTQIA+ spectrum. Now there’s a thought!
The rest of the document reads like the prospectus of any large club or organisation which exists for the benefit of its members, but with a veneer of spiritual language pasted over the top. It seeks to grow church attendance, but there is little or no emphasis on the church’s primary mission: evangelism, to preach the Gospel of Christ with a view to conversion, and to teach the truths of scripture.
There are two other noteworthy points. The first is an emphasis on the relationship with the Bishop of Dover, The Rt Revd Rose Hudson-Wilkin, who basically runs the diocese to free the Archbishop for their wider ministry of running the whole shebang. The good bishop is no stranger to controversy herself, speaking critically of the ‘whiteness’ in the church, and supporting the arrival of illegal immigrants on the Kent beaches on the grounds that France is not a safe country! Based on this document, she would seem to be a strong candidate (there is nothing like writing your own job description). However, under her leadership, the statistics given in the document do not show the diocese of Canterbury to be in a particularly healthy state with struggling congregations and very poor financial security.
The other shibboleth is the emphasis on meeting the 2030 Net Zero target. This could only be achieved by stripping our fine old church buildings of their polluting gas or oil heating systems and replacing them with, er, probably nothing since heat pumps will simply not work in these types of buildings and fitting them would be prohibitively expensive for most nearly bankrupt parishes. Elderly parishioners may freeze to death during the services, further diminishing church attendance.
In conclusion, I am reminded of the commission given to the prophet Jeremiah, six centuries before Christ: ‘See, today I appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot, and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant’ (Jeremiah 1:10, NIV). The mores of the society he lived in were similar in many ways to our own, and the clergy were as confused and heretical as many of ours seem to be. Commenting on the priests he states, ‘They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. Peace, peace, they say when there is no peace.’ (Jeremiah 6:14).
I believe that this sums up much (although not all) of the Church of England today. What is needed is an Archbishop who will be as blunt as Jeremiah in exposing the sin and weakness of first the Church itself, then in our society, which has lost so much in trashing its Christian heritage. But if the appointment is based on this load of nonsense, don’t hold your breath.
