Opinion: Welby must ditch the evangelism By Matt Byrne 19 November 2012 00:00 17 December 2015 11:59 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer Frank Reed 20 November 2012 at 14:29 Shame on you. Jesus accepted the tax collectors because they needed healing and the church will divide regardless who is the new leader. This may be the first positive step the church has taken to save itself and it’s teaching of the Bible in a long time. Reply Link Anonymous 20 November 2012 at 15:31 The writer asks whether Bishop Welby’s experience qualifies him to opine on finance and the City, but what qualifies the writer to opine on theology? It isn’t his grasp of the subject matter given his obvious misunderstanding of evangelical theology. Taken to its logical conclusion, his position is that the Archbishop of Canterbury (who apparently must represent everybody) may not take a view on any matter whatsoever or criticise anyone……if he did then one must conclude that he is not ‘representing everybody’, which seems fairly absurd. Reply Link Anonymous 20 November 2012 at 20:08 “Leopard must ditch its spots to blend in with the crowd”. “Christian must dicth his religion so that non-Christians do not feel threatened”. “Mo Farah should run backwards so that others do not feel inadequate”. Etc … Reply Link Anonymous 20 November 2012 at 21:39 Agree with the previous posters. What a load of claptrap! This is clearly a vanity piece that Mr Griffiths has written with the intention of sending to all his clients so that he is fighting their corner against all those who do not believe in the Gospel according to Gordon Gekko. Reply Link Anonymous 20 November 2012 at 23:11 You’re wrong. The Church of England is by law established, so the people – all of the people (even homosexuals) – are its people. So, actually, in this sense (and this is axiomatic),the Church of England must represent everybody. This, presumably, is why someone decided it might be defensible to let Durham keep his free seat in the Lords. No-one (I know) is saying that means he can’t have views, just that given his exalted position, we’re entitled to expect them to be informed, nuanced. We live in hope more than expectation. Reply Link Mr Cranmer 21 November 2012 at 17:58 Excellent article. The Lawyer should do more of this. Whether or not one agrees with Mr Griffiths, the profession should take an interest in this new appointement and how it relates to the City. Reply Link Anonymous 22 November 2012 at 15:28 As a non-Anglican I’m startled to hear that the Church of England represents me – I’d rather it didn’t…..that sort of tortuous legal reasoning could land a client in trouble. As for it being an excellent article, it simply gives the impression that lawyers are in thrall to their clients. An excellent article might be one in The Lawyer where a lawyer exercises independent judgment and criticises the banks, but that won’t happen in a journal like The Lawyer for obvious reasons – the influence of the banks and the need for most law firms (including mine) to keep them onside. Reply Link Confused in Temple 23 November 2012 at 11:12 I have no idea how this sort of article has anything to do with the provision of legal services. Of course the author is entitled to any view at all on Justin Welby, or Holy Trinity Brompton. He is entitled to publish them. But it’s an error of judgment for this kind of cynical invective to be published in a trade magazine. Reply Link Unconfused in Temple 27 November 2012 at 13:33 I respect the previous comment but I disagree. There is room for an op-ed piece in a trade magazine. Whether this is good quality op-ed is a different question, on which I expect to agree with Confused in Temple! Reply Link Harry the Dog 27 November 2012 at 21:34 i didn’t understand the article, but I’m not that sharp. just reckon Confused in Temple should get out for a few beers and lighten up. Reply Link Anonymous 28 November 2012 at 10:39 I don’t think Justin Welby would mind seeing this given an airing in a trade rag for lawyers. Even in the Gospel the relationship between God, lawyers and the law has been an issue. Lord Atkin picked up on this in Donohue v Stevenson, I seem dimly to recall. Reply Link Baffled 14 March 2013 at 13:09 I am baffled by religion and those who seek it but I respect their views and beliefs; perhaps it is I who is missing something. I don’t like this article and I agree with most of the posters it is just a transparently cynical and naive attempt to pander to the Gordon Gekko’s but in doing so a spectacular misfire. The Lawyer is increasingly becoming a marketing tool for desperate partners trying to raise their profile and law firms promoting their practices. I would like to see a more courageous editorial board – then pigs might fly. Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.