Comments: Opinion - 19 May 2018

I think we can safely say that as of today, there is no possibility that the TEC needs to worry about what Justin Welby thinks about their inclusivity, their acceptance or indeed anything else. We just watched what could be a fundamental turning point: the Queen hosting an event at which an organisation in impaired communion with the church of which she is the official head was given a pulpit in front of two million people. Since most of the countries whose homophobia Welby panders to are Commonwealth nations, it's absolutely huge: the Queen has thrown down a gauntlet.

Posted by Interested Observer at Saturday, 19 May 2018 at 2:00pm BST

Re: Michael Curry: Well, they got that right! If he'd paused for a moment, (which he didn't) it would have been to the sound of well-heeled jaws hitting the floor. Quite the best wedding sermon (and it was a sermon) I've ever heard, delivered with passion, humour, conviction and grace, and with a clear and simple message (with a touch of John Lennon.) It (almost) re-converted me, then Welby and co. were back on, and I remembered why I left in the first place...

Posted by stephen morgan at Saturday, 19 May 2018 at 3:34pm BST

PB Michael Curry's sermon was so powerful. "Jesus died for the well being of the world". Absolutely brilliant! His two major references to both Dr. Martin Luther King and Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was most creative and inspiring. Civil/human rights plus science and mysticism--what a great message for the world stage.

Upon hearing the sermon I had a good thought for Bernard Lonergan who noted that the major exception to the Latin tag (knowledge precedes love) nihil amatum nisi praecognitum is, "God's gift of love flooding our hearts.Then we are in a dynamic state of being in Love."

It is very interesting that ABC Welby apparently encouraged the couple to have the PB as the preacher.

I smiled when Curry, while talking about fire, referenced our being dysfunctional with each other on social media. (:

Curry represents something really great about America. He is a powerful African-American preacher and as such clearly a 'subversive' Christian leader.

Posted by Rod Gillis at Saturday, 19 May 2018 at 3:56pm BST

"...the Queen hosting an event at which an organisation in impaired communion with the church of which she is the official head was given a pulpit in front of two million people. Since most of the countries whose homophobia Welby panders to are Commonwealth nations, it's absolutely huge: the Queen has thrown down a gauntlet."

Very dramatic! The Queen personally thrilled at the presence of the PB of TEC. Throwing down gauntlets. She behind it all.

Leaving aside whether this is remotely true, your suggestion is that the Queen's big agenda was putting down her ABC in favour of the PB of TEC, and sending via this means a message to Commonwealth nations, who are supposed to weigh this all with heavy brow and genuflect?

I believe it is this kind of thinking--not the reality of the Queen's actions as supposed--that just boggles the minds of Anglican Christians worldwide.

Posted by crs at Saturday, 19 May 2018 at 4:10pm BST

Appreciated Lucy Winkett's article on Pentecost.

Winkett writes, "The most beautiful scriptural word-pictures...scriptural tales are signifiers: signposts pointing us towards a deep, transforming, revolutionary faith that formed new communities..."

I've long had a hunch that the resurrection experiences were grounded in some sort of spirit filled religious experience--the various scriptural narratives being the development of the legacy to specific applications.

There are tantalizing clues in John 20 for example. When one adds contemporary experiences as Winkett does or comparisons to religious experiences found in other faiths or modern psychological insight into religious experience, the gut feeling about the inseparability of resurrection appearances and charismatic experience grows.

Shifting the line back from the various narratives ( about both Easter and Pentecost) to the notion of an initial spirit filled experience increases the plausibility of the resurrection. One gets a greater glimpse of the ontological reality behind the various "scriptural tales".

That's my two cents worth anyway.

Posted by Rod Gillis at Saturday, 19 May 2018 at 6:11pm BST

IO, I hope that your interpretation is correct. Between your Queen and PM, there have been a lot of signals against homophobia lately.

I wish ++Michael had broken into song when he talked about the spiritual "There is a Balm in Gilead." He normally would. And he normally walks vigorously up and down the aisle. It may be hard to believe, but he was actually incredibly restrained.

I also wish that the media wouldn't make things quite so personal, like saying ++Michael Curry "opposes Trump." It could be a nuance, but whenever Trump says or does something dehumanizing, ++Michael preaches the Gospel of love, inclusion, and welcome and brings comfort and affirmation to the oppressed-du-jour. He projects that joyful presence in the face of this horror of a US President, but he is preaching the Gospel and if that is 180 degrees opposite of what comes out of the White House, then so be it.

What a joyful day. Best wishes to the couple and long live the Queen.

Posted by Cynthia at Saturday, 19 May 2018 at 10:46pm BST

Interested Observer,
Yes, I suppose the Queen had to -- officially -- approve every line of the service, every reader, every flower arrangement, but this was Harry and Meghan's show. The whole wedding had a different feel to it than William and Kate's. Slightly less formal, no hundreds of foreign dignitaries, etc.
I don't think the newlyweds saw themselves as firing a shot across the bow of the ABC's ship so much as wanting to acknowledge the TEC heritage of Meghan, and when you're the royals and you want an Episcopal priest, you get the PB. And tyhe Queen simply accepted the choice.

I bet there hasn't been a sermon or homily spoken in that ancient pile of wood and bricks quite like what was spoken Saturday. The PB set the place on fire.

Posted by peterpi - Peter Gross at Sunday, 20 May 2018 at 12:15am BST

I agree with 95% of what Interested Observer wrote, just not the throwing down the gauntlet bit.

But Bishop Michael did throw down a gauntlet. That is undeniable. I doubt it was accidental. And he did so in front of an enormous television audience, at a royal event, and with the Archbishop of Canterbury presiding. How will GAFCON react? "Consequences" did not inhibit Bishop Michael one iota.

Posted by Kate at Sunday, 20 May 2018 at 2:44am BST

"a pulpit in front of two million people" - is this a typo for two billion? Certainly beats the average congregation.

Posted by T Pott at Sunday, 20 May 2018 at 8:50am BST

*The whole wedding had a different feel to it than William and Kate's*

That's not a hugely useful comparison, because this was a marriage in Windsor Chapel of the sixth in line to the throne. It's more important than, say, any upcoming wedding of Princess Beatrice, but only just (she's eighth in line). There there is pretty much no imaginable world in which Harry ever becomes King. It's possible that one of William's children will have had a child before Charles dies, and more than possible William and Kate will have another child, so he's unlikely to even ever be closer than sixth in line.

William's wedding was a state occasion, in Westminster Abbey, of the heir apparent who is, all other things being equal, likely to be the King of England for thirty or forty years. Kate is, to a high degree of certainty, going to be Queen within the next thirty years. Megan isn't.

So you can't read much into the differences between the events, because they were fundamentally different events in nature. William and Kate could well have wanted a similarly modern and informal ceremony (in so far as any such major event can be informal), and had William been fifth in line to the throne at the time he could have done. But he wasn't.

Posted by Interested Observer at Sunday, 20 May 2018 at 11:24am BST

*But Bishop Michael did throw down a gauntlet.*

OK, I'll settle for that.

Bishop Michael was given a pulpit by the Royal Family; Windsor is a royal peculiar, so no-one else gets a say. TEC's relationship with Canterbury will have been known to everyone involved. For all the talk about people not knowing what he was going to say or for how long he was going to say it, there is no suggestion he overran any timings; the BBC coverage came out into Football Focus for the prelude to the FA Cup Final bang on time.

So even if, pace CRS, the palace just signed off on the overall order of service, they would have known that they were giving a 14 minute slot in front of billions of people to a man on the Anglican naughty step. A man whose views on many topics would be far more in line with the image the royal family wants to present today than Justin Welby's constant fear of upsetting conservatives. So perhaps I was over dramatic to say the Queen threw down a gauntlet: rather, perhaps, she set up a gauntlet staff outside the chapel with a big sign saying "help yourself", and invited a famous gauntlet thrower to come over for the day.

Posted by Interested Observer at Sunday, 20 May 2018 at 11:38am BST

"So even if, pace CRS, the palace just signed off on the overall order of service, they would have known that they were giving a 14 minute slot in front of billions of people to a man on the Anglican naughty step."

What is "pace CRS”? This is exactly what I said. The palace just signed off. You said they pinned Welby's ears back, went over his head, and threw a gauntlet down *to the commonwealth nations.*

I think that is nonsense. What is more revealing is that you, a member of the CofE, would concoct this idea.

It is not difficult to suppose that Welby invited Curry because it leaves him as ABC fully in power, and as has been suggested, the logic is obvious enough. MM becomes an Anglican. Curry is the head of the American counterpart. MM is an American. In addition, a major sub-theme Curry himself referred to in the interview: ethnicity. "Stand by me" with Black choir, prominent African Americans, and so on.

If you want an American, and an African American, who are you going to invite for a wedding according to the rites of the CofE? Jesse Jackson? Al Sharpton? A prominent mega church pastor like TD Jakes who practices "in the name of Jesus only" baptism?

Welby has enough problems in the wider AC leadership role without throwing the Queen in her nineties at him. If your gauntlet idea vis-à-vis the Commonwealth were true, it would be the last gauntlet to be lancé and the Communion idea would be gone for good.

Posted by crs at Sunday, 20 May 2018 at 3:00pm BST

I'm a little confused by all the paeans of praise for Bishop Michael Curry, or indeed the suggestion of throwing gauntlets. I didn't see the sermon so maybe his delivery was wonderfully passionate and exhilarating - I certainly hope so. But I've re-read the full text 3 times now and find it a pretty mediocre sermon. There are some lovely concepts and encouragements, mixed in with lots of inspirational verses. But it's very generic. As a Reformed conservative evangelical, there's not a single line I disagree with, other than citing Teilhard de Chardin approvingly, though the fire motif mentioned is uncontroversial. In terms of preaching method, it's missing specific application, either to the couple or to us more generally, though of course that is exactly the point at which it would have become controversial and I might have started to disagree. Motherhood and apple pie, like a politician promising progress and prosperity.

Posted by NJ at Sunday, 20 May 2018 at 6:56pm BST

NJ:

Search out a video of the sermon; shouldn't be hard to find, it's all over the internet.

Suffice to say it is a masterful example of the style of preaching seen in predominantly Afro-American churches, something I gather is rarely if ever seen on the other side of the pond. It was both insightful and inciting. It was conversational at the same time as it was invigorating. He spoke in a tone and a manner that made you want to applaud. (I assure you, in a black church in my country there would have been shouted "Amens" from the congregation.)

Posted by Pat O'Neill at Sunday, 20 May 2018 at 8:25pm BST

There are a number of misconceptions about the workings of 'the palace' on this thread.

Crucially 'the palace' isn't a monolith. I suspect Clarence House, not Buckingham Palace, was responsible for the strategy. Clarence House is the court-in-waiting but equally, given the age of Charles, William (who is clearly very close to Harry) represents the court-in-waiting-in-waiting (however one constructs that). It is an interesting dynamic.

Within that, the marriage of Beatrix is a non-event. I rather like the Duke and Duchess of York but it takes no real insight to appreciate that he lacks real influence these days.

Posted by Kate at Sunday, 20 May 2018 at 10:00pm BST

"But it's very generic"

But that's the point. The theology behind same sex marriage is the theology of love and welcome not Leviticus and Genesis.

But you are missing another point, I think. When did you last see so many people praising a sermon, including mainstream media? That's a colossal achievement and he did so, not on the diet of sin evangelicals have been feeding people, but on a message of love.

Posted by Kate at Sunday, 20 May 2018 at 10:11pm BST

I've heard Michael Curry preach several times. This is his style and this is his theology. I can't imagine that Harry and Meghan asked him to preach without having a pretty good knowledge of what he was going to say and how he was going to say it.

Give them some deference -- it was their wedding. If the complainers want a different theology and a different style at their wedding, fine; the complainers are free to ask somebody else.

Personally, I thought it was good (if too long), much better than the treacly saccharine I've heard at a lot of weddings.

Posted by dr.primrose at Sunday, 20 May 2018 at 11:59pm BST

Interested Observer,
"William's wedding was a state occasion, in Westminster Abbey, of the heir apparent who is, all other things being equal, likely to be the King of England for thirty or forty years ..."

I was acknowledging that. It was precisely my point. Saturday's ceremony was a wedding between two people. People who are a part of the British royal family, but two people nonetheless. William and Kate's marriage had far more State significance. So, the Queen may have been more involved.
But, this wedding? Maybe the Queen cocked an eyebrow at the choice of preacher, and several royals looked like they were about to fall out of their seats during the sermon, but it was Harry and Meghan's show.
The royals are supposed to hold themselves above the internal politics of Church or State, but if the Queen feels she needs to send a message to the ABC (or ABY, for that matter), I bet she has ways of doing so outside of her grandson's wedding. While appearing above the fray and without ruffling her hair or clutching her handbag.

Posted by peterpi - Peter Gross at Monday, 21 May 2018 at 12:45am BST

crs. Why can you just not accept that the eirenic invitation to the Presiding Bishop of TEC to preach at the Royal Wedding could have been divinely appointed - as well as an act of graciousness from both H.M. The Queen and H.G. The Archbishop of Canterbury - issuing in one of the most powerful sermons on the overcoming power of God's Love for ALL people (one of TEC's inspirational messages to the Anglican Communion).

Yes, serendipity might just have played a hand in this arrangement. But then, the Scriptures tell us - about God - that: "My ways are not your ways" (Christopher) "Nor my thoughts, your thoughts". In any case, both Prince Harry and his spouse might have been influenced for the good by a sermon full of grace, that may well have proved to be a more encouraging start to their marriage than might have been possible is a GAFCON church.

Rejoice and be glad with the rest of us that this Wedding, seen by 2 billion people around the world, may have done more the propagate the Gospel of a loving God than the negativity of the nay-sayers of ACNA, AMIE and GAFCON. P.T.L.!

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Monday, 21 May 2018 at 1:42am BST

++Michael's sermons need to be experienced. What may seem "generic" on paper becomes the Good News in his delivery and it brings hope. And makes you want to follow Jesus and love your neighbor. As Kate pointed it out, theology is simple, love God, love your neighbor. It's simple, but we have yet to be motivated to do it at scale. He pointed out that love may start with the couple, but it doesn't end there.

On a day that was about symbols, don't miss the fact that a recent descendant of slaves - an institution inaugurated and perpetuated by British colonialism in the US and nearby islands - preached a message on love at Windsor.

Just when I was worried that the British weren't going to "get it," Erika Baker sent me a link to the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/20/bishop-michael-curry-sermon-history-harry-meghan-wedding?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

"It was a sermon that will go down in history as a moment when the enduring seat of colonialism was brought before the Lord, and questioned in its own house."

Amazingly, Michael did it without accusing, without guilt tripping anyone. He merely preached the Gospel of Jesus with mind, body, and soul, and lay before us an alternate reality that we could have by following the path of love. He was exemplifying God's love by delivering the message with love.

I suggest that those very posh people take it to heart. Because if social inequality grows much deeper, the next challenge won't be an American black preacher, it'll be the peasants with pitchforks.

Posted by Cynthia at Monday, 21 May 2018 at 2:04am BST

"...eirenic invitation" -- where was IO describing the invitation as eirenic?

I have said nothing about the invitation nor the content -- (I have likely heard more Black preaching than most people here and prefer the serious character of James Forbes over this by miles... but that is not at issue).

My comments are directed at the throwing gauntlet, Queen runs the AC, view of IO.

Hardly "eirenic invitation' oriented.

I do wish you would read more carefully. Selah.

Posted by crs at Monday, 21 May 2018 at 8:23am BST

Whatever the decisionmaking tree for inviting Presiding Bishop Curry to preach at the Sussexes' wedding, I do note that Justin Welby was quite willing to leave the wedding reception early with him to go to St. Alban's and join with 3,000-4,000 people in a prayer meeting. (See the link.) https://twitter.com/mikepilav/status/997945467794345985

It was neat that I learned about this from Mike Pilavachi's Twitter feed. Pilavachi, like the Archbishop of Canterbury, is a major charismatic evangelical leader in the UK and chose to tweet a selfie with both of them.

But like crs, I doubt that anyone from Her Majesty on down was throwing down a pro-GLBT gauntlet to the Commonwealth. Quite the opposite. Much of the optics of that ceremony was intended to emphasize the non-white and Canadian ties of the bride as a way to more strongly connect the Royal Family to the Commonwealth. For example, her veil was notably festooned with floral symbols from all the nations of the Commonwealth and her native California. And Commonwealth tours for the couple are planned in the next two years.

What American Episcopalians should take from this whole thing that if and when they are seen as effective in mission in their American context, they will be embraced by the leadership of the Church of England for their missiological purposes in the British context.

Posted by Caelius Spinator at Monday, 21 May 2018 at 9:30am BST

NJ: "In terms of preaching method, it's missing specific application, either to the couple or to us more generally..."

Wouldn't it be a rather limited vision of sermons if every sermon had to comform to a template, one that ends with a specific application? Isn't there scope for different styles and structures and emphases that balance out over time?

Posted by John Swanson at Monday, 21 May 2018 at 11:54am BST

"I didn't see the sermon"

Yeah, you can really stop there. Is reading a libretto a substitute for actually attending the opera? O_o

Posted by JCF at Monday, 21 May 2018 at 12:54pm BST

"William's wedding was a state occasion, in Westminster Abbey, of the heir apparent who is, all other things being equal, likely to be the King of England..."

I agree William is very likely to be King but I think his dad is still heir apparent.

Posted by DRH at Monday, 21 May 2018 at 4:32pm BST

I think the sermon is turning into a religious version of the laurel/yanny saga and neatly illustrates the conflict between ‘mean” and “non-mean” Christianity

Non mean sees a joyous proclamation of sacrificial love. Mean sees a false teacher preaching pelagianism

The conservative evangelical sites are divided on this as I have not seen before

Posted by david at Monday, 21 May 2018 at 6:43pm BST

I've heard some talk of this being a "New Age" sermon. Are they talking about Teilhard?

Posted by JPM at Tuesday, 22 May 2018 at 2:53am BST

Dear crs. You injunction to us (me) to read more carefully has its parallel with the options open to people wanting to examine the content of the Gospel of Love preached by the TEC's Presiding Bishop. One suspects - in the light of your comment - that you might only have 'read about' this sermon, when you could have seen and heard it and maybe understood the dynamics of it. Maybe it could have converted you to the inner conviction that 'God is Love'.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Tuesday, 22 May 2018 at 8:03am BST

*I agree William is very likely to be King but I think his dad is still heir apparent.*

My mistake. What I meant was "is in line to be King in the normal run of events without there being any way for that to change". You're correct to say that usually only applies to the first in line. Historically, "Heir Presumptive" is used of someone who is in line to the throne but could be displaced: under older rules, the now Queen Elizabeth was heir presumptive up until her accession, because in principle at least a male heir could have been born at any point. I just meant that William can't be displaced from his position in the line of succession in the way that Harry has been and is continuing to be.

Posted by Interested Observer at Tuesday, 22 May 2018 at 8:46am BST

Thank you Fr Ron for your response. This will surely advance the Gospel of Love.

Please do not impute to me views I do not hold. That would model a Gospel of Love.

I saw the event. I find Curry two-dimensional and something like a 'Black preacher for white folks.'

But he seems to be trying hard to enthuse up Christian disciples. God the Holy Spirit can take it from there.

I do not envy him in his present post. General Convention in a month's time could be a real challenge. Prayers for him in that.

It has been interesting to hear the comments of my French friends who saw the wedding. It was quite an extravaganza. Elton John, George Clooney, David Beckham, Serena Williams, Stand by Me, crowd shots of various reactions to this and that.

I am doing some wedding preparation for a young couple here and have been very impressed with the character of readings they have chosen, which speak of the challenges ahead and the grace of God necessary for the reality. That is a Gospel of sacrificial Love.

Posted by crs at Tuesday, 22 May 2018 at 9:19am BST

Is it not racist for CRS to suggest Bishop Curry is a "black preacher for white folks"? Was the young musician a "black cellist for white folks"? To me, Bishop Curry is a preacher for all folks.

Posted by FrDavidH at Tuesday, 22 May 2018 at 11:38am BST

Yes, I think ‘a black preacher for white folks’ is more than mildly racist of crs, leaving aside the rather patronising ‘two-dimensional’ jibe. Perhaps crs could descend from his lofty perch and explain to us mere mortals what other dimensions Michael Curry could have utilised? Only to add that the only sermon since mlk to have gained such positive praise and traction from the world outside the Anglican bubble is attracting so much criticism from within?

Posted by Stephen morgan at Tuesday, 22 May 2018 at 3:12pm BST

FrD -- it is a comment famously made by African-Americans, admittedly many non-Episcopalian. It is a view I share.

One can get a bit tired of stereotypes, now coming from all directions...especially from white folks. If one spends much time in Black Gospel churches in the US, right away the *content* presented by the TEC PB is noticeably different. That is his right of course.

But to suggest he is a typical Black preacher says far more about his manner than his substance.

I have hosted College of Preacher events with Will Willimon and listened to a lot of preaching over the years -- most of it non TEC.. Yale Divinity School (where I was for over ten years) was in its day a remarkably strong pulpit presence.

If I have any outstanding biases they are more toward upper middle class English Anglicans of the calling others racist variety...

Posted by crs at Tuesday, 22 May 2018 at 3:28pm BST

Dear Friends,

I have to agree that Bishop Curry was quite wonderfully understated in his sermon. Nevertheless, his passion, integrity, joy, and hope shone through. I served under Bishop Curry throughout his episcopate in the Diocese of North Carolina. He joins heart and mind together in a way that must be experienced. Lastly, if 14 restrained minutes behind a pulpit raises an eyebrow, watch this. You (in our local parlance) "ain't seen nothing yet."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj_N3OsHxxo

May I get an Amen!

Posted by The Rev. Randall Keeney at Tuesday, 22 May 2018 at 5:20pm BST

I've heard plenty of African-American preachers too, from a variety of denominations, including TEC. ++Michael has the broadest range and is the most inspiring. He can draw up all the scholarly references as needed, but his capacity to reach the heart is unparalleled, and that's what the world needs. Of course the scholarly and intellectual have their place, but the Gospel is a movement of the heart. Radical, sacrificial, redemptive love requires a change of heart. Anyone can justify what is in their head, but one's actions and how we structure our society is a product of heart and heartfelt priorities.

It seems to me that some people mistake the joy that radiates from ++Michael as lacking substance. Newsflash: The joy is the substance. The descendant of slaves came to the seat of the colonial power that enslaved his ancestors and preached and radiated love. I'll take ++Michael's inspiring joy over the curmudgeonly theology espoused by others any day.

Peace.

Posted by Cynthia at Tuesday, 22 May 2018 at 5:30pm BST

Having followed this thread with caution, I must confess that for me it is time to move on from the Harry, Megan, Stand By Me, Royal Millions of Pounds Wedding and Its Great Significance.

Posted by crs at Tuesday, 22 May 2018 at 5:40pm BST

"I find Curry two-dimensional and something like a 'Black preacher for white folks.'"

My congregation consists of a number of people of African descent, whose more recent heritage comes from both the United States and the Caribbean.

They are uniformly very enthusiastic about Michael Curry and most of them have heard him preach in person.

To put it mildly, they would look very unkindly as being referred to as "white folks."

Posted by dr.primrose at Tuesday, 22 May 2018 at 5:58pm BST

"William is very likely to be King but I think his dad is still heir apparent" @DRH. More is the pity, then, that he sat there with a condescending smirk throughout Bishop Curry's sermon. Like so many English people, he deals with difference by ridiculing it. Black. Polish. Muslim. It's all the same. Anything other than English cannot possibly be authentic. Contrast William's reaction (and that of the Beckhams and countless other celebrities who would be very quick to flash their 'British' credentials) with the courtesy and attentiveness of Meghan Markle and her amazing mother.

Posted by Michael Mulhern at Tuesday, 22 May 2018 at 6:22pm BST

" If one spends much time in Black Gospel churches in the US, right away the *content* presented by the TEC PB is noticeably different."

I should hope so. His content was firmly Anglican and Episcopalian...while most Black preachers in the States are in the Pentecostal or Baptist traditions. Many are non-denominational. Some of the most vociferous are, I regret to say, firmly in the "Prosperity Gospel" mode.

Posted by Pat O'Neill at Tuesday, 22 May 2018 at 8:08pm BST

'Is it not racist for CRS to suggest Bishop Curry is a "black preacher for white folks"? Was the young musician a "black cellist for white folks"? '

Just catching on to a common theme in conservatism? One of its basic immovable tenets, actually. Haven't you seen it in Anglican Communion nonsense, as American conservatives take up the white man's burden to shield those poor African churches from the horrible gays because they "aren't like us" they "don't have our values." Anyone who's lived in the southern U. S. knows these little codes for "they can't be made civilized," when they hear them. Things aren't getting worse, just more obvious.

Posted by MarkBrunson at Wednesday, 23 May 2018 at 5:32am BST

"condescending smirk", "ridiculing". Perhaps His Royal Highness was simply showing his appreciation of Bishop Curry's humour, or the points made. He has met people of all kinds everywhere and if, which I do not believe, he finds most of them ridiculous, he is much too well trained to reveal it, least of all at his brother's wedding.

He will one day be a fine governor of the Church, and it is a pity that many services now have prayers for bishops ahead, or instead of , for him and his grandmother.

Posted by T Pott at Wednesday, 23 May 2018 at 9:53pm BST

"it is a pity that many services now have prayers for bishops ahead, or instead of , for him and his grandmother."

At present the bishops seem to be much more in need of them lol

The Royal Family was in serious trouble when Diana died. There was a sense that the monarchy was irrelevant, out of touch and lacking in sensitivity. The Royal Family has worked hard to modernise and largely turned that around. Last Saturday was a good example of them being much more in tune with the public mood.

In contrast, the Church of England, facing almost the same issues in terms of public mood, is still defiantly clinging to the past in the vain hope that it will become popular again without needing to modernise.

Posted by Kate at Thursday, 24 May 2018 at 2:39pm BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.