Why Justin Welby is irrelevant

I have some concerns about the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby. To some extent, the problem is not with him, but with the role, but it is personified in Justin. I want to explore them here.

My first problem is that he has only been a bishop for a year. I am reminded of George Carey. Now I should say that I likes George Carey, and I think he made a good archbishop, in a difficult situation. It is significant that he saw through the ordination of women, which is a massive achievement, even though the agreement that they came to was and is extremely flawed - it is a start. I compare this with Rowan Williams, who is leaving before women bishops come into effect, and has skirted around the problem of gay relationships. This is not intended to sum up either of their archepiscopacies, just to note some differences.

The problem that Lord Carey had is that he never realised in his early days how to be an archbishop, because he had not yet learnt how to be a bishop - I have been told that it takes at least 2 years to learn the job. He struggled with the challenges of the role, and, I suspect, struggled especially with the 9/11 attacks, and the world change that was focused around that event.

Justin Welby has only been a bishop for a year. Now he has come from a senior position in an oil company, but there is nothing quite like the very public role of Canterbury, and I wonder whether he is up to that. I very much hope that he is, and I very much hope that he can use his skills and learn very quickly. Let me make it clear - I do wish him well.

However the biggest problem is that the role of Archbishop of Canterbury is becoming an anachronism. The process of choosing Welby has come in for some significant criticism - it is secretive and then the result was leaked early. It is not clear how the decision was made, what the basis of the decision was, why Welby was chosen. That opacity is, today, a problem. It reflects an opacity across much of the church, where the requirements for ministry - in any form - are not clear, defined or even consistent.

What it tells me is that the church actually does not know what is required for ministry. Being able and willing to tow the line, to fit in and conform, to provide appropriate theological insight and challenge, but only within the right constraints and framework. Not rocking the boat is, it would appear, the only clear requirement.

The problem I have is that Jesus rocked the boat. As did Paul, Peter - in fact most of the early church. I don't think anyone from the biblical writings we have would have made it into ministry today, and I don't think that most of the church leaders today would be leaders in the early church.

That is my problem with Justin Welby - that we are appointing people to a role in the church that is dying on its feet. Unfortunately, I don't believe that anyone in the role of Archbishop could make a real difference to that. And that is, at core, the biggest problem facing the church today. There is a real danger that either Welby or his successor will have to accept and preside over the death of hte church. I am not sure he is up to that.