Tuesday, 21 June 2011

PLACE YOUR BETS

One of my reliable (by OCICBW... standards) sources in the capital has informed me that the smart money is on the acceptable face of mild rebellion, Giles Fraser, becoming either the new bishop of Woolwich or Dean of Southwark. In the Church of England we have a few top posts that are set aside for those slightly controversial clerics who know how to play the game and who come from the right sort of background. The two mentioned here would fall into that category.

To be honest, I was disappointed that Giles didn't get offered Durham. I realise that Giles would regard me as one of those uppity oiks with pretensions above their station in life who clutter up the Internet saying stuff that really should be left to those with an Oxford lectureship and a regular column in "The Church Times" (a view he made known about six years back), but, in my opinion, he would have still been a more accommodating bishop than the fast-tracked evangelical we've ended up with. But, on the other hand, there are a lot of similarities between Giles Fraser  and the pre-archepiscopal Rowan Williams, so if I was in the diocese or cathedral that he will get as his reward (which will happen, sooner rather than later) I would not celebrate his arrival until he has faced his first major attack from the haters.

18 comments:

  1. Verrry interesting...


    Word verification: tedlern. Make up a meaning for it. "Oh, that chap is such a tedlern."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Giles may surprise you if he is appointed to one of the posts, MadPriest.

    What exactly did he say that so pissed you off?

    ReplyDelete
  3. About five years or so ago he wrote a piece saying that bloggers should shut up because they know nothing and commenting on the church should be left up to people like him.

    But what really pisses me off is that, although we say the same sort of things, because he is from the right background he gets to become bishop and I get sacked. And what really, really pisses me off is that people like him don't stand up for the stormtroopers like me, who they rely on to get their ideas out there. Not one so called progressive has given me any support, verbal or practical. They are only in the revolution so they can personally prosper.

    ReplyDelete
  4. MadPriest, we are riff-raff, and it's only right that the toffs get the credit and the positions. Such is life in the church of Jesus Christ, who only ever spent time or gave attention to the learned scribes and Pharisees, doncha see?

    If Giles said such things about bloggers, he was talking about me, too, and I am now properly pissed. Do you happen to have a link? Nevermind, I'll look it up.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Giles said in Feb. 2007:

    Yet, despite the social unacceptability of sending hate mail, those who post comments on websites — also known as bloggers — are able to get away with the most disgusting bile, wrapped in the clothing of anonymity. “Comment is free” is what The Guardian calls its blog site. Comment is cheap, more like. Sadly, nasty and insulting comment drives away all the interesting stuff. Who wants to get involved in a serious discussion only to end up trading abuse?


    In reality, intemperate bloggers are poisoning the wells of open debate, not enhancing it. Many of those outside the blogsphere are put off by the sheer unpleasantness of internet debate. So it is abandoned to people with thick skins and short tempers. And that is hardly the open forum that many bloggers claim they are protecting.


    Giles' quote is from Dave Walker's The Cartoon Blog, because the original in the Church Times is archived and available only to those with subscriptions.

    Socially unacceptable, aka bloggers, disgusting bile, anonymous - there you have it. Who would want to have anything to do with people like that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Giles said in Feb. 2007:

    Yet, despite the social unacceptability of sending hate mail, those who post comments on websites — also known as bloggers — are able to get away with the most disgusting bile, wrapped in the clothing of anonymity. “Comment is free” is what The Guardian calls its blog site. Comment is cheap, more like. Sadly, nasty and insulting comment drives away all the interesting stuff. Who wants to get involved in a serious discussion only to end up trading abuse?


    In reality, intemperate bloggers are poisoning the wells of open debate, not enhancing it. Many of those outside the blogsphere are put off by the sheer unpleasantness of internet debate. So it is abandoned to people with thick skins and short tempers. And that is hardly the open forum that many bloggers claim they are protecting.


    And this was the fit for publication in the Church Times account of his original blast off against bloggers that was not so centred on "intemperate bloggers." Personally I think this tirade indicates that Giles may have control issues. As I said in the post, he is very similar to the Grand Tufti who has demonstrated beyond doubt that he has control issues. I hope that whoever is responsible for choosing the right people for these two posts will check with previous parishes before appointing.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have no idea. It didn't turn up, other than as an email to me. I assumed that you did not want to be linked to the quotations and so, as they are important, I posted them under my name.

    Please try again.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Why would I not want to be linked to the quotation? I found it. I couldn't delete until the comment was posted, which apparently never happened for some reason.

    Nevermind, it doesn't matter.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Credit where credit is due .....

    he he he he he he he chuckle

    wv is vibrical

    Is this a new form of lively Bible-based worship?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Why would I not want to be linked to the quotation?

    I have no idea. But I have second guessed you in the past with disastrous consequences so I just don't try to anymore.

    But I didn't delete your comment. It just didn't come through. Your email was on gmail not blogger.

    ReplyDelete
  11. wv is vibrical

    Is this a new form of lively Bible-based worship?


    I hope so. Even I would consider the alternative blasphemous.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I could not delete my own comment until the comment appeared, which it apparently never did. What maneuver did you imagine I could use to delete a comment that never posted? I now know that the failure was a Blogger glitch.

    I see no point in trying again, since you posted Giles' entire quote.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hey, it's not my fault. Stop getting at me, woman!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well, if he thinks we're being intemperate, we are clearly doing our jobs...so keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Troll is trolling.

    FWIW, MP, I really think Giles was dissing anonymous blog comments (which may be "the most disgusting bile"---see re directly above!).

    He wasn't dissing (emphatically non-anonymous) bloggers like yourself.

    Is Giles really of the Better Social Set? He certainly doesn't look like it! (Just an observation)

    ReplyDelete
  16. NB: MP deleted the troll's comment, Tracie. I wasn't referring to you! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  17. I don't trust him, MP. But, no one listens to me, either. He strikes me as one of those whose all for equality, so long as those equal don't disagree with him on any point, then he'll launch one of his sneering, condescending tirades, cloaking his words' brutality in educated terms.

    wv: trampuld - as in "Us poor unpreest people deesurvs to bee trampuld in da mudd."

    ReplyDelete