Monday, 16 April 2012
CofE appoints new Communications Director
Press release from Church House Westminster: Director of Communications appointed.
The Revd Arun Arora has been appointed to serve the Church of England as Director of Communications at Church House, Westminster, following a competitive process.
The Communications Office, previously led by Peter Crumpler, provides direct support to the Archbishops’ Council, Church Commissioners and Pensions Board, and works closely with Lambeth and Bishopthorpe Palaces, other bishops’ offices, diocesan communications officers and cathedrals. Arun will take up the Director’s post in the summer.
Welcoming the appointment, the Rt Revd Graham James, Bishop of Norwich and lead bishop on communications, said: “Arun Arora is a person of great and varied talents. His skills as a communications professional are matched by the insights he has gained since ordination. I know his appointment will be warmly welcomed within the Church of England and well beyond it, too.”
Arun currently serves as the Team Leader of Wolverhampton Pioneer Ministries, a fresh expression of church based in Wolverhampton City Centre. Prior to his move to Wolverhampton, Arun served his curacy in Harrogate where he also served for three years as Director of Communications to the Archbishop of York and prior to that for four years as Bishop’s Press Officer and Director of Communications in the Diocese of Birmingham…
Here are two recent articles written by Arun Arora:
The Besmirching of John Sentamu
Why Sentamu Was Right to Write for the Sunday Sun
Posted by Simon Sarmiento on
Monday, 16 April 2012 at 11:39am BST
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Church of England
When I think that we can now get ad hominem attacks against critics and a bullying tone of righteous self-regard seven days a week from our country’s established church, all I can say is ‘WOW!’
With Arun Arora having worked for John Sentamu twice in the past ( and having so recently defended him in the press - which I'm sure did no harm at interview ) won't it be lovely that they will be re-united when Archbishop Sentamu is translated to Canterbury.
Even as I write I suspect that Church House Communications are writing a press statement for the CNC " senior lay evangelical" leaker (who ever he may be ! ) in readiness for his eventual outing ( every pun intended - lets see how he likes it )
Sorry if this all sounds cycnical, but....
Good grief. I thought the British were big on ¨appearances¨...guess not. (aren´t C of E members getting tired of being railroaded by the ABs self-serving-run-riot ¨management¨ style?)
my, my, MY. This certainly didn't take long. Lambeth hasn't changed hands yet, but it would seem that the sea-change is well underway.
What a pity that rjb and salopian accord themselves the right to be cynical about Arun Arora's appointment, the established church and its Communications Unit. Prayes for all three might be a more suitable response from Christians.
Does suggest that the church "secretariat" has learned nothing from the Covenant debacle. And, in passing, I get a feeling that complaints about "leakers" on the Nominations Committee will be ignored. Check the comments on Arora's "Why Sentamu was right" piece, tho'. By no means all of his readers drank the Koolaid.
If this is meant to signal some sort of preference for the idea of translating Sentamu, it seems to me like it might backfire, since it comes across as bad form.
Arun's appointment is brilliant news; he is a first class communicator, knows the field well and, above all he is prepared to think big, bold and to take risks; and most of them come off too.
Delighted to see it.
Accuasations of racism should not be a cover to protect from criticism either. At the same time as the Leveson Inquiry was making serious criticisms of The News of the World, Sentamu was writing in its replacement to put the past behind us and buy the Sun 7 days a week. The other questions are about his behaviour, highlighted by the Colin Slee memo.
I hope that Arun Arora will permit honest opinions about John Sentamu? Or would all comment be deemed to be racist? He has many qualities - not least as a warm and generous human being who is a gifted communicator 'off the cuff' and in person. His prepared speeches and sermons are less gifted. But in his early years as a Bishop he was known to be very robust, but also very quick to make friends when people stood up to him and told him to stop being a bit of a bully. For all his strengths and weaknesses, in the end he is a remarkable Christian leader who deserves to be a strong contender.
'... permit honest opinions about John Sentamu ...'
I think you've missed the point entirely about the role of the Director of Communications. There are no mechanisms by which discussion can be 'permitted' or 'not permitted', partly because the Church of England is not like that, partly because at every level a huge degree of independence is built into the structure (or was until common tenure); but mostly because it's a stupid and repellent notion that no professional communicator would countenance.
And as for Sentamu writing for the Sun, I don't mind that he took the risk and engaged with one of the largest newspaper readerships around. Maybe it didn't quite come off; but if you want to restrict what the church says to two or three 'acceptable' newspapers you'll end up talking to a smaller and smaller circle of the like-minded. Not a good strategy for mission.
Besides which, Leveson is a long way from finished and I think judgement should be reserved until all the facts are known.
Sentamu is the most publicly identified Archbishop of York since at least (I would guess) Michael Ramsey, which in an age when people just don't notice the church, counts for something.
At the end of the day, the Sun readership, like the Radio 2 audience is far closer to the bulk of the population than the broadsheets' readers and the Radio 4 audience & the church as a whole shouldn't neglect either.
Jonathan J: "There are no mechanisms by which discussion can be 'permitted' or 'not permitted', partly because the Church of England is not like that..."
Well, up to a point: it seems to me that the CofE has become adept at not permitting discussion of contentious topics. Hence the current total lack of coherence when it comes to homosexuality.
JJ - I think you have missed the point. I was not referring to official mechanisms and the new role of AA, but very simply that I hope he will realise that it is perfectly permissable to have negative opinions about +JS that are nothing whatsoever to do with racism, but rather with perceived flaws. We all have flaws. One of +JS's has, in the past, to have been 'robust' in his treatment of colleagues. And I am using diplomatic language here. His wonderful human qualities however, by far outweigh any weaknesses.
I'm not suggesting there should be any official discussion about such opinions. Just that AA admit (to himself) that people have a right to their opinions.
to quote sir Humphrey
'that would be to mistake lethargy for strategy...'
Fr Mark, for all its (our?) many faults, you can hardly accuse the CofE of preventing discussion of contentious topics. Failing to reach resolution, yes, but we talk - and talk, and talk, arguably the issue is that we spend too much time talking and never get around to doing anything.
And as for the notion that homosexuality doesn't get discussed - that feels like some parallel universe version of the CofE (where presumably the issue would be whether heterosexuals and men can be bishops).
Neil - point taken.
And honest opinions can always, I hope, be honestly challenged.
If Archbishop Sentamu chooses to promote the Son in the Sun isn't that a good thing - especially as numerous charities benefit from his journalistic contributions and the Good News of the Gospel reaches a much wider audience than any sermon preached from the pulpit?
Stuart: I think the most pressing issue for the CofE in regard to homosexuality would be how it can formulate proper pastoral policy for those of its members, lay as much (or more than) clergy, who are gay, particularly in the light of the (now already old) civil partnership legislation and soon-to-be-expected equal mariage legislation. It seems to me that bishops, synods etc have been doing their best to sweep these people under the carpet for a long time now, merely in the the hope of thus appeasing angry Evangelicals and avoiding rows.