Pummeling the Prelates

“It ain’t jest the thing,” admonished Oliver Wendell Holmes, “to grease your ex with ile o’ vitrul.” Oblivious to such sagacity is Michael de-la-Noy, who was fired last year as the Archbishop of Canterbury’s press officer, ostensibly for speaking and writing sympathetically about the permissive society. The 37-year-old journalist is convinced, however, that the real reason was the establishment’s fear of “someone who, because of their own deep insecurity, they actually believed was a threat to them.”

But a threat to Them he undoubtedly was, as no one can deny who reads his recently published book, A Day in the Life of God (Citadel Press). This scorcher attacks the Church of England and all top brass who sail in her. The ship is sinking, affirms de-la-Noy, the dinosaur is dying (though after the manner of dinosaurs the process is unconscionably protracted), the administration is “a shambles.” Thereafter, for those who don’t get bogged down in the metaphorical morass, the author offers snappy assessments, juicy titbits, waspish recriminations—all trotted out with an unswervable sense of inner rectitude that first astounds, then merely irritates.

After serving the establishment for more than three years de-la-Noy concludes that “the hypocrisy and cowardice of the established religion of this realm is really frightening.” That’s just a warmer-upper for what comes next. “The average intellectual standing of the bishops,” he calmly announces, “has probably never been lower.” While this might be true (all but five or six of the present diocesans are Oxford/Cambridge men) it is difficult to prove. And eleven of the bishops, we are told for good measure, are still domiciled in castles or palaces.

A certain pummeling of prelates then ensues. De-la-Noy names names. The Archbishop of York’s best friends, we are assured, can hardly hold that “he has done anything to enhance the dignity of his province or to promote any major cause in the interests of Church or State.” Of his lordship of London, “future generations are unlikely to remember the name of the present bishop,” who is devoid of “flair and imagination.”

Other senior bishops are dealt with after the same manner. Four samples: “Equally well known for his egocentricity and a certain pastoral insensitivity”.… “A sort of do-it-yourself catholic-evangelical. While he is exhorting you to go to confession you almost expect him to ask if you are saved”.… “Some of the radical members tend to suspect the facade he can adopt of a wounded spaniel”.… “An autocrat, a prince-bishop of the old school, not the sort … you would lightly telephone on a Saturday.

Much space is given to a patchy and pathetic vignette of Dr. Ramsey, who this year celebrated his tenth anniversary at Canterbury. Here the journalist provides some interesting and relatively innocuous information about his erstwhile boss, who seems to have treated him kindly. The primate can’t replace a fuse, is accident-prone, “often feels free to hide behind his eccentricity” (who doesn’t?), cannot bear to be under attack, has “a shrewd assessment of his own capabilities,” is “essentially a sad and lonely man with no close friends apart from his wife,” and is personally anglo-catholic, but “like most diocesan bishops … is perfectly capable of being all things to all men.”

Other details about Dr. Ramsey are more significant: he would like to see a measure of disestablishment; he has no time for “the secular implementation of the gospel in radical terms”; often fails to give the nation clearcut leadership on certain issues because of his intellectual honesty (I find this a little hard to grasp); “all his judgments tend to be clouded by irrational prejudices”; and, though theology fascinates him, “the world God actually made is for him in far too many ways a closed … book.”

Some readers may think that because of Mr. de-la-Noy’s own irrational prejudices his too will remain for many a closed and unread book. (Moreover, I could find no religious bookstore that stocked it.) If it will do nothing for the Church of England’s image it will do even less for the author’s. That he sensed this belatedly is suggested by a report that he tried unsuccessfully to have it withdrawn before publication.

But some of de-la-Noy’s points have more than a little validity. The bishop whom he had criticized for “a certain pastoral insensitivity” has since advised all couples to marry in a civil ceremony; only those “who want something more” should have a church wedding later. If a marriage collapses, adds the 55-year-old prelate, himself a bachelor, the wisest course may be to end the contract and let the couple start afresh independently.

Another topic about which de-la-Noy has serious misgivings is the established—therefore privileged—status of the Church of England. Here he has the support of the newly appointed Bishop of Manchester, the Right Rev. Patrick Rodger (the Russian-speaking Scot originally nominated as successor to Dr. Visser ’t Hooft as WCC general secretary, and rejected solely because of a procedural wrangle). “It has long seemed to me,” said Bishop Rodger, “that the Church of England’s connection with the State … tended to produce some serious self-deception (and) to exaggerate our supposed influence upon the public life and policies of our country.”

De-la-Noy discloses too that Dr. Ramsey considered resigning when the scheme of union with the Methodists was rejected. This is a sore point with the establishment, for again and again it has returned to it—lobbying, cajoling, pleading, unwilling to accept a decision which before the voting was to be regarded as definitive.

Meanwhile from the sidelines its Methodist counterpart is putting up alarm signals. The denomination’s newspaper says that the Methodist Church’s ministry is on “a spiral of death,” shrinking annually at the rate of 3.5 per cent; a mere forty-nine men were ordained this year. Conference secretary Kenneth Greet said this summer that if the present trend of accelerated decrease in membership continues, the organized church in Britain will disappear within forty years.

Neither these pitiful pressures nor the fury of establishment scored is softening the hearts of that thirty-five per cent of the Anglican general synod whose opposition to the plan of union at the last vote continued to frustrate the unionists. Apart from that alliance of evangelicals and anglo-catholics which always made William Temple tremble (so he said), the more broadly based Anglican Association has also urged rejection of the merger, contending (albeit late in the day) that the plan is theologically unsound and would divide the church.

Moreover, past evidence suggests that while a referendum among Methodist laity might achieve a straight majority in favor of union, it would not come near the required 75 per cent. A strong minority remains unconvinced that an injection of Anglicanism is the panacea for ailing Methodism. And Michael de-la-Noy’s book will only confirm their resistance.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.