The Archbishop of Canterbury and Grimsby ~ Some History
The Archbishop of Canterbury came to Grimsby
No, it’s not the start of a joke or vulgar limerick, he actually did visit the town last week.
‘It’s the first time any Archbishop of Canterbury has ever visited Grimsby’ is what I was told
Hmmmm I thought . . . let’s look into that . . . so we shall and it’s pretty interesting
It sounded slightly suspect to me as a statement, especially after being told ‘thats what it said on the local radio’ so today I thought I’d do some research.
The first thing I came across was our own local boy made good - one John Whitgift, son of the famous Grimsby businessman Henry Whitgift.
John Whitgift, portrait seen left, was born in Grimsby and was The Archbishop of Canterbury . . . from 1583 to 1604 !
Incidentally, he was once rector of St Margaret’s Church in Laceby and his uncle was the Abbot at Wellow Abbey.
Interestingly, after his elevation he was involved in something I’ve written about before,
St Mary’s church in Grimsby. In 1586 it was him that united the two parishes of St Mary and Saint James.
From what I read he seems like a good man doing much for the poor.
He also attended Queen Elizabeth on her last night on earth to pray with her, after her death he placed the crown on the head of her successor - not bad for a Grimsby Boy !
Of course, we’ve all read the Latin Chronicle by the well known Anglo-Saxon historian Ethelward, or Æthelweard if you can get your computer to write it, he was an Abbot at the monastery at Louth not far from Grimsby. He too became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1020 !
Not GY but very close - did neither of these men ever visit Grimsby after their elevation ?
I have to say I’m struggling now, I thought I’d nail this with a nice snippet from an antiquarian book of a visit a millennium ago or such like but . . .
Could it be that Dr Rowan Williams, leader of the Church of England, is the first Archbishop of Canterbury to visit Grimsby ?
I still can’t believe it, there must be something somewhere to disprove it, I’ll have to keep digging and also hope that somebody out there may know something or indeed any other interesting connections between the post and Grimsby or its immediate environs.
Reverentially Yours
Rod
Annie Flinn said,
March 8, 2010 @ 5:55 pm
So why, after all these centuries is the Archbishop visiting? Is he here to do a bit of shopping, or deconsecrating any churches?And what kept the others away, if, indeed, they did stay away?
Annie
Rod said,
March 8, 2010 @ 6:29 pm
Annie,
when I heard the arch bish was riding into town I naturally presumed he was primarily coming to meet me but I was more than a little disappointed not to receive any invitations to civic events etc - it was something of a mystery until I remembered that I called upon him to resign some time ago I think
I suspect he read that and was going to call it a day until his closest advisors managed to pursuade him to stay on - no doubt those same advisors bore a grudge and kiboshed my invite !
As to what’s kept them away, too many Pagans and Dirt Worshippers around here
Yours in Good Humour
Rod
PS: I bet I know someone who did meet him
chris keyworth said,
March 8, 2010 @ 6:58 pm
Rod i think you know what i was thinking when i learnt he was coming, he should have carried on going after the remarks he made last year about the Armed Forces, the guys a T*T…
regards
chris..
History Hunter said,
March 15, 2010 @ 4:59 pm
Chris i think you missed another asterisk out of that final word!!!
Personally me thinks it should have read T**T!!!
chris keyworth said,
March 15, 2010 @ 5:18 pm
lol
Peter Mullins said,
March 16, 2010 @ 7:59 am
This is what the Archbishop said last June:
Recent years have brought home to all of us the tragic costs of war, in a way most of us have not experienced before or have not experienced for very many years. We ask our service personnel to carry a huge load on our behalf – not only in the physical risks they run, but also in the making of almost impossibly difficult and sensitive operational decisions. We know how high the human costs are, and how much we owe to those who live daily with such costs.
The professionalism and responsibility they regularly show, as well as their courage in the field, are deeply appreciated, and it is right that they should be nationally recognised on this Armed Forces Day. It is also an opportunity to give thanks for all those who have served their country in past conflicts, for their sacrifice and example.
As we continue to pray for the peace that God wills for his creation, we pray also for all currently serving in the Forces and for their families – for inner strength, and for commitment to a vision of justice and stability in the world which will sustain them in their labours.
And this is an under reported part of the sermon he then preached in October:
The modern serviceman or woman will not be someone who has accepted without question a set of easy answers. Their obedience is anything but mindless. But it is obedience all the same, obedience that comes from recognising that others have been given a clear responsibility for certain difficult decisions. What matters is not that there is no debate, disagreement or uncertainty – simply that everyone knows who has to answer which questions.
This was a conflict where some of the highest-level questions were unusually hard and sharply argued over. But everyone has had their share of the tough challenges. The responsibility of those in the front-line remained and remains the same: sustaining the climate of mutual trust and confidence that allows decisions to be implemented effectively, and behaving in ways that maintain everyone’s trust in the integrity of the armed services. The demanding task of winning local trust in a chaotic, ravaged society like post-invasion Iraq was one of the heaviest responsibilities laid on armed personnel anywhere in recent times. Many here will know just how patiently and consistently that work was taken on. The moral credibility of any country engaged in war depends a lot less on the rhetoric of politicians and commentators than on the capacity of every serving soldier to discharge these responsibilities with integrity and intelligence.
Rod said,
March 16, 2010 @ 8:27 am
Hi Peter,
thanks for providing a bigger picture - it’s always more than useful and the dangers of working from ‘press reports’ and their selective quoting is clear.
I wouldn’t for one minute question the Archbishop in terms of being anti the military or unsupportive etc - nor would I be abusive.
It’s easy to be critical when anybody makes a speech or gives a sermon, if they say something we disagree with we naturally think we’re right and therefore ‘they’ must be wrong - obviously the reverse could be true so most of the controversies are simply a matter of opinion.
This whole thing went badly wrong in my opinion because it felt so ill advised on so many levels.
I felt his presence that day was all about ceremony. In order to show as much respect as possible all the big guns were out - the most important people and high ranking officials, the top religious venue and our top religious man to be the MC - I just didn’t think it was a day for opinion - other days would do for that.
Come what may a lot of people who attended felt let down, some very badly so, I think he let himself down as well.
I honestly believe he used it as a platform for his opinion when really he should have been there to conduct the religious ceremonies with his attendance bringing real gravitas to the occasion.
I don’t say I’m right Peter only that after seeing it that’s the way it left me feeling and I believe he knew what he was doing when he did it - it was considered and very carefully thought out - had to be
Best wishes
Rod
Peter Mullins said,
March 16, 2010 @ 8:56 am
Yes, I do understand your point of view fully. I’m sure the stark point of diagreement is exactly the one on which you put your finger - the role and purpose of his involvement in this sort of service. You express clearly one view which many share, while others would have felt very let down if he hadn’t spoken to the much wider audience on that day. It isn’t a new conflict and I guess it will be repeated to a greater or lesser extent every single time there is such a service: Archbishop Runcie was clear that the equivalent Falklands’ service should include prayers for all those who had suffered because the war took place, while Prime Minister Thatcher was very strong in her contrasting view that the service itself was for celebration only and that he should not have done that. I suppose the only reason I posted was that the existence of a sincere disagreement in the country as a whole about an Archbishop’s role at such services doesn’t necessarily make him into a t*t or a t**t.
Rod said,
March 16, 2010 @ 9:32 am
Peter,
it’s a great debate and I really do enjoy this sort of discussion.
The point I alluded to at the time and subsequently was one of being wrong on many levels therefore even if you agree on one thing there were still other things he got wrong.
I fully understand there are different opinions on the war and I would agree that this was a real opportunity to address everybody - not just those there and directly affected. However should he have done so ?
My argument would be that he is very important and high profile - he could have got this across on another day in another place and it would have got reported.
Again it goes back to so many things being amiss with it - it really did leave me with the feeling that he knew he had a platform and a captive audience the like of which he’d seldom get and he wanted to make the most of it.
There were plenty of people there who had very different opinions of the war but it wasn’t the day for that in my opinion.
Even if everything he said was misconstrued he did leave a lot of people with a bad impression and that in itself has to be a failure on the part of somebody who should be a supreme communicator.
I’m sure he didn’t intend to alienate himself from a lot of servicemen, ex servicemen and their widows but it seems he did, surely that could and should have been avoided.
I’m very pleased you did decide to post Peter as it’s opened up the issue and also got me to read what he said fully.
Much appreciated
Rod
chris keyworth said,
March 16, 2010 @ 2:36 pm
The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:2-17 NKJV)
1 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.
3 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
4 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
5 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
6 “You shall not murder.
7 “You shall not commit adultery.
8 “You shall not steal.
9 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”
How would the Church Justify Comandment No6 to a Serving Soldier who has just shot and killed a hostile, When the said Soldier dies and reaches the pearly gates what will he get turned away for, murdering his fellow man, i just find the church very hypocritical on the subject they need to make things clearer they are either for or against the war, i think personaly they are against it and thus should stay out of thearter of war there roll would be better served with the familys left at home.
Regards
Chris…
donkeys kick like hell stay clear people…
Rod said,
March 16, 2010 @ 5:14 pm
Chris,
I read a very interesting book a while ago and in it the suggestion was that originally the
‘thou shall not kill’ line did in fact mean ‘thou shall not kill fellow Jews’
There’s plenty of talk in the bible of slaughtering all your enemies and the like.
I’m no biblical scholar, so forgive any errors everybody - in fact don’t forgive them pick me up on them people, I also think Jesus himself said ‘I do not come to bring peace but the sword’ or something very similar.
I wonder who much of religion is based solely on our experience of it and our lives.
I personally struggle to understand many aspects of the Roman Catholic style religion for example but is that because my life has been primarily free from any religion at all ?
I would liken it much to your situation as a former front line soldier Chris who has been involved in hostile action.
People may try and understand it, think they can imagine what it feels like to lose friends and comrades, both then and still today in your case Chris, but only those immersed in it for real can ever really know and understand I believe.
I wonder whether religion also requires immersion for true understanding and faith ?
All the best
Rod
PS: I know they say never discuss religion but I really hope we can here. This is a civilized site so I think we can without insulting or upsetting anybody - it’s a very interesting subject and I would encourage debate on it as and when it comes up - we all gain from an exchange of ideas and opinions
Peter Mullins said,
March 16, 2010 @ 6:49 pm
Goodness. I’d thought the original comment was about a particular sermon, but it looks as if I’ve innocently walked into hostile territory myself, and with a promise of a good kicking I’m unlikely to come out on top.
As to hypocricy, what can I say? A previous Bishop of Grantham used to say ‘It is not true that the church is full of hypocrites; there is room for plenty more of us’.
And, having quoted the Ten Commandmenst in full, you might enjoy a Victorian accustaion of hypocricy thus:
Thou shalt have one God only; who
Would be at the expense of two?
No graven images may be
Worshipp’d, except the currency:
Swear not at all; for, for thy curse
Thine enemy is none the worse:
At church on Sunday to attend
Will serve to keep the world thy friend:
Honour thy parents; that is, all
From whom advancement may befall:
Thou shalt not kill; but need’st not strive
Officiously to keep alive:
Do not adultery commit;
Advantage rarely comes of it:
Thou shalt not steal; an empty feat,
When it’s so lucrative to cheat:
Bear not false witness; let the lie
Have time on its own wings to fly:
Thou shalt not covet; but tradition
Approves all forms of competition.
Rod said,
March 16, 2010 @ 7:26 pm
Peter,
Chris is a pussycat really - just give him a rolled up copy of an archaeological report and he’ll be putty in your hands
The Bishop of Grantham sounds like a great man - love that quote - I think more of that wouldn’t do anybody concerned any harm.
Re hypocrisy: I wonder whether there’s ever any annoyance for those in the Church of England when they get tarred with the same brush as the Church of Rome - I’m no expert but an English Vicar and a Roman Catholic Priest seem a long way apart in my imagination at least.
I know much of what I thought of as hypocrisy within the church turned out to be RC - as you’ll note I’m that most dangerous of people - somebody who is just starting to learn about something
Best wishes
Rod
chris keyworth said,
March 16, 2010 @ 9:24 pm
I am all for churches just not the church i am a true non beleiver, dont get me wrong i think that the bible is a great and ancient story book but as to the truth of it i dont go along with that, there is a distinct lack of fact based evidence in the new testiment, the old testement however have some storys that are wrooted in documented contempary accounts ie in hyrogliphics, i think every body needs to believe in somthing as we are a weak race who cant except that we just evolved over time like everything around us, it serves the human mind to believe in a higher being greater than our selves it makes people feel safe, just not me i would personaly class it as a weakness in my self to be a believer it would hinder my decision making and place me in mortal danger.
regards
chris….
Peter Mullins said,
March 17, 2010 @ 8:17 am
Bible. I’ve opened my old ‘Archaeological Companion to the Bible’ at random (thanks, Rod for the tip on how to get round Chris) and been struck this time again by the Lachish letters - scarps of correspondance from an isolated outpost about to over run by the Babylonians, letters sent from exactly the same place and at the same time that the Bible describes. But actually I agree more with Chris than he might think. I often point out that the span of time over which the Bible was written was longer than the span of time over which the whole of English literature has been written, so everyone other than really fundamentalist Christains would expect to find it contains material of very different sorts and quality (from erotic love poems and the justification for genocide to reliable history and the most demanding of moral imperatives).
Hypocrisy. This comes in degrees. There is the level built into almost all human decision making where we are not absolutely consistent and where we are often unaware of the complicated variety of things which really influence us. There is the level built into all Christian living where we know we are not as good as we preach and as we aspire to be, which is why there is a formal Confession as part of most Christian services. And there is the culpable flagrant destructive level (of which I would have thought some Anglicans are quite as likely to be guilty as some Catholics) about which Jesus of Nazareth is reported as having said some of his sternest things.
Rod said,
March 17, 2010 @ 8:51 am
Peter,
what you say about the content of the Bible being different to what many might imagine is absolutely spot on in my case.
I like many people thought I knew roughly what was in the Bible, after all we’ve all heard the stories and don’t need to read it . . .
My avenues of historic interest began to mingle with religious history and I became fascinated.
I always imagined, in my crushing ignorance, that the bible was merely stories about characters that were presumably fictional but that many people believed in - I was completely unprepared for the fact that huge portions of the bible are based on real historic evidence and that the people in it existed and most of the events actually happened albeit perhaps slightly different to the edited versions.
I felt such a fool, my total ignorance was embarrassing. It was only tempered slightly when I began to realise that it was shared by so many others as well - including a lay preacher I had a fabulous discussion with - who, as it turned out, was also massively ignorant on the subject !
It’s a fabulous subject to look into and of course just down the road we have our own big connection . . .
We all know what happened to Lazarus in Caistor don’t we ?
Absoutely fascinating Peter
Best wishes
Rod