'The Archbishop of Canterbury is NOT a witch'. Assessing the Canterbury enthronement with Peter Ould

About this sermon

https://drgavinashenden.substack.com/ Please consider subscribing to my substack One of the reasons Anglicanism once achieved dignity and respect in the public square was due to the highest level of intellectual and professional competence embodied in its Archbishops. When the spoke about complex issues of faith, ethics and theology in the public square, they did so with records of intellectual and philosophical achievement that were at least the equal and usually superior to most other commentators. They were listened to with the respect such competence deserved, even amongst those who disagreed with them. Something went wrong with the appointment of Justin Welby, when a man was chosen without anything beyond the basic theological credentials, and not much parish experience either. It was thought that his prior career in middle management within the oil industry compensated for this. It turned out that it didn’t. The serious complexities of being responsible for a highly complex organisation like the Church of England tragically proved to be beyond him at almost every level of engagement. Astonishingly he was effectively finally sacked because of a failure in basic administration. He lost sight of the paperwork and progress of a disastrous sexual scandal; a situation that was not improved when it was discovered that he had first hand knowledge of the circumstances and might have been expected to treat the crisis with as much seriousness and practical acumen as it deserved. Was this then the moment to return to the model of intellectually, theologically and experientially qualified clergy of the highest calibre in looking for a new Archbishop? The immediate predecessors were highly impressive people: Michael Ramsey was Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge. Donald Coggan was a classical scholar, a biblical linguist, and a specialist in New Testament Greek. Robert Runcie had been a fellow and Dean of Trinity Hall, Cambridge, and principal of an Oxford theological college. George Carey, despite humble beginnings, distinguished himself with a PhD and became principal of a theological college. Rowan Williams, perhaps the most intellectually distinguished of his generation, was Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Oxford. Against this background, the difficulty with the appointment of Sarah Mullally is clear: the Church of England appears to have abandoned the expectation of deep theological formation, augmented by proven church experience and replaced it with a different set of qualities. Sarah Mullally trained first as a nurse at South London Polytechnic. Demonstrating real ability once in nursing, she rose to the highest levels of nursing administration. She later trained for ordination as a clergywoman at evening classes, completing a two-year diploma at a newly created Church of England training institution designed for busy professionals entering ministry. Her theological formation comprised of a diploma for which she studied part time over two years. After being ordained she accumulated three years experience in one parish before being promoted to assistant bishop. So she had neither theology, nor experience in a context when most bishops will have served for about twenty years in parishes, including a learning curve which often involved experience as an Archdeacon or Cathedral Dean. It can only be assumed that rising to the top of nursing administration compensated for these gaps in expertise and experience. It became harder to maintain such confidence when voices of victims of sexual abuse were raised claiming that her administrative incompetence was tarnished by the way she dealt with the suicide of a false accused priest and the complaints of other victims of abuse. Sarah Mullally deserves respect for reaching the top of two entirely different professions. But many will reasonably ask whether this is sufficient preparation for the role of Archbishop of Canterbury — a role in which she will be tested by some of the most intellectually formidable figures in public life.