Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby resigns over Church abuse scandal

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...hop-canterbury

The archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, has announced that he will step down after facing mounting pressure to quit over his handling of an abuse scandal.

Pressure on Welby has been intensifying since the publication last week of a damning report on the church’s cover-up of John Smyth’s abuse in the UK in the late 1970s and early 80s, and later in Zimbabwe and South Africa. About 130 boys are believed to have been victims.

The independent Makin review into the abuse concluded that he might have been brought to justice had the archbishop formally reported it to police a decade ago.

His position was untenable since the report came out but this is a shocking fall from grace. I am not especially up with the Anglican community but he seemed rather respected outside of it at least.

Also, our atheist Prime Minister now has to 'advise', i.e pick, the next archbishop. I know that a committee decides it and the PM just passes that advice on but interesting. Have we had a PM who wasn't a member of the Church of England do this before? Sunak would have counted but didn't have the chance.

[papa smurf]

The police should be involved in this

Have we had a PM who wasn't a member of the Church of England do this before?

Disraeli - the Archbishop was Archibald Campbell.

Originally Posted by Hugh

Disraeli - the Archbishop was Archibald Campbell.

He was born Jewish but didn't he convert?

Originally Posted by Damien

He was born Jewish but didn't he convert?

Yes, he did.

[heero_yuy]

Fallen on his crozier eh.

Realistically he didn't have an alternative.

[thenry]

An assumption cost his job? Scary. Very complacent.

[nffc]

the most recent ones are:



Welby 2013 (Cameron)

Williams 2002 (Blair)

Carey 1991 (Major)

Runcie 1980 (Thatcher)


I'm not sure Major was particularly religious, maybe not as much as Starmer, but probably one of those who might go to church at Christmas and/or say they're Christian on a form or something but not particularly be practising otherwise.


Thatcher was brought up Methodist, so Christian but not within the CoE.


Blair was technically CoE when in office but converted to Catholicism after.


Cameron is practising CoE (As is May, who was the daughter of a clergyman - Johnson is Catholic now, and has flipped mainly for vanity reasons I think. Truss like Major is technically CoE but not practising, and Sunak is Hindu, though none of them got the chance.)


Hopefully whoever gets the job next won't feel so inclined to instil a culture which covers up child sex offenders.

It’s hard to sum up what I think of this. I’m Baptist, which means I’m averse to high authority in the church. We don’t have bishops running dioceses; we don’t even have the Scottish version of that (a presbytery, which is a committee made up of a mix of ordained ministers and laypeople running each region). All Baptist unions around the world are free associations designed to facilitate co-operation rather than denominational HQs. So I’m tempted to tut and shake my head and simply say this is what happens when you allow the idea to take root that one, or a few, powerful people, divinely appointed, act on divine authority. It makes it very much harder to believe they’re capable of doing anything wrong.

But I am also acutely aware that this sort of thing, and worse, can and does happen in non-denominational churches as well. It can happen anywhere a powerful, charismatic leader becomes too big to fail and too powerful to resist. It isn’t a uniquely Christian problem, it is a human failing. What makes me mad is that the church is supposed to be the exemplar of a different way of living. And even in the midst of that, Justin could have demonstrated that different way by repenting and acknowledging his failing without reservation some considerable time ago, which may have occasioned his resignation but on the other hand in the context of repentance and restitution might not have. We will never know. But instead he made the same age-old mistake of worrying about the church’s reputation, as if the church, and Christ who is its head, hasn’t weathered plenty over the past 2 millennia without the Archbishop of Canterbury’s input.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by nffc

Hopefully whoever gets the job next won't feel so inclined to instil a culture which covers up child sex offenders.

History suggests that they isn't much chance of that.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Itshim

History suggests that they isn't much chance of that.

not going to disagree


The replacement will come from the existing Bishops and the chain of accountability is similar. And there are probably many who have already done similar.


It needs serious top down leadership...

Originally Posted by Itshim

History suggests that they isn't much chance of that.

When looking at these historical cases within institutions I think it's worth remembering it was, in part, taking place at a time when wider society was also not taking these kinds of accusations that seriously either. It didn't happen in a vacuum. Think how often euphemisms like 'dirty old man' were thrown around as an almost comical description of an eccentric old man as opposed to people calling them a sex pest or offender.

When people talk of the BBC and Saville, they failed massively there, but the press never really chased up accusations or rumours they had heard of him. A lot of his concerning behaviour was taking place in public but was chalked up to his weird character. Few people knew the reality of what he was doing but few wanted to confront it or explore it further in the first place. Teenagers hanging around the dressing room of pop stars was seen as normal rather than a safeguarding issue.

That's all to say that although cover-ups will still happen I think it's less likely we see such institutional blindness on the same scale in the future as happened in the past. Wider society is more aware of it now. If bits of information came out the press and police are more likely to follow up on it as well.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by Damien

When looking at these historical cases within institutions I think it's worth remembering it was, in part, taking place at a time when wider society was also not taking these kinds of accusations that seriously either. It didn't happen in a vacuum. Think how often euphemisms like 'dirty old man' were thrown around as an almost comical description of an eccentric old man as opposed to people calling them a sex pest or offender.

When people talk of the BBC and Saville, they failed massively there, but the press never really chased up accusations or rumours they had heard of him. A lot of his concerning behaviour was taking place in public but was chalked up to his weird character. Few people knew the reality of what he was doing but few wanted to confront it or explore it further in the first place. Teenagers hanging around the dressing room of pop stars was seen as normal rather than a safeguarding issue.

That's all to say that although cover-ups will still happen I think it's less likely we see such institutional blindness on the same scale in the future as happened in the past. Wider society is more aware of it now. If bits of information came out the press and police are more likely to follow up on it as well.

I would love to think you are correct, something tells me it will still happen

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

It’s hard to sum up what I think of this. I’m Baptist, which means I’m averse to high authority in the church. We don’t have bishops running dioceses; we don’t even have the Scottish version of that (a presbytery, which is a committee made up of a mix of ordained ministers and laypeople running each region). All Baptist unions around the world are free associations designed to facilitate co-operation rather than denominational HQs. So I’m tempted to tut and shake my head and simply say this is what happens when you allow the idea to take root that one, or a few, powerful people, divinely appointed, act on divine authority. It makes it very much harder to believe they’re capable of doing anything wrong.

But I am also acutely aware that this sort of thing, and worse, can and does happen in non-denominational churches as well. It can happen anywhere a powerful, charismatic leader becomes too big to fail and too powerful to resist. It isn’t a uniquely Christian problem, it is a human failing. What makes me mad is that the church is supposed to be the exemplar of a different way of living. And even in the midst of that, Justin could have demonstrated that different way by repenting and acknowledging his failing without reservation some considerable time ago, which may have occasioned his resignation but on the other hand in the context of repentance and restitution might not have. We will never know. But instead he made the same age-old mistake of worrying about the church’s reputation, as if the church, and Christ who is its head, hasn’t weathered plenty over the past 2 millennia without the Archbishop of Canterbury’s input.

I am curious how the Baptist church members view the head of the Protestant church being the (self appointed) highest authority in terms of leadership, titled as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. I am guessing they would not recognise his authority? Serious question ...
.

[Pierre]

I thought the King was ultimately the head of the Anglican Church?