Archbishop Welby speaks for Prince Andrew and humanity -By Tunji Ajibade

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, made a comment not long ago. What he said reminded me of a phenomenon that another gentleman once addressed.  For some time this phenomenon had remained a puzzle for me but the gentleman resolved it in a manner I never heard anyone do before. He says religious leaders have a ministry of “reconciliation” and only that, “reconciliation.” One can break this into pieces, for instance,  reconciliation between man and man; reconciliation between man and Divinity.

I need to state though that this description used to float rather fleetingly in my mind long ago. Then Rwanda (where religious leaders helped carry out acts of genocide) happened and in Nigeria, some religious leaders started to sound like ethnic agitators. From that point, I wasn’t sure anymore of the phenomenon, which idea floated in my mind, until the gentleman made his clarification.  Subsequently, each time religious leaders made public utterances; his clarification helped me make a categorisation.  In the event, I go like—Yes, that’s how religious leaders should sound; how they should conduct themselves.  This was the same manner I reacted when Welby made his comment.

Many religious leaders don’t sound as they should these days. So one takes note of the few who remember that their job is centred around reconciliation. The other time Pope Francis sounded as religious leaders should while commenting on how humans shouldn’t behave to fellow humans, I expressed appreciation on this page. When the Catholic bishops in Nigeria had their conference this year,  the Papa Nuncio to Nigeria, stated some things at the event. He makes a demarcation between a religious leader and anyone who is not focusing the attention of his listeners on what their calling is.

I suppose Papa Nuncio is inherently reminding religious leaders that they’re meant to reconcile, not divide people on the basis of ethnicity, which is now common in Nigeria. Certainly, he was reorienting religious leaders, whose hearts weren’t drawn to all peoples as the heart of the founders of their faiths were; those who became enmeshed in ethnic and political agitation which characterised the messages they delivered on podiums these days. That’s one angle to how religious leaders should or shouldn’t conduct themselves.

There’s the other angle that Archbishop Welby’s comment presents as well. This isn’t the first time Welby says something striking and I note them down in my file; unfortunately, I didn’t follow them up on this page. In his last Christmas message, for instance, Welby talked about immigration to the UK and how the government handled it. Regarding this, he had said, “It’s not politics, it’s simply humanity.” Humanity is his concern as it should be the concern of any religious leader whose job is centred around reconciliation.  Welby’s particular comment that’s the focus of this piece has to do with Prince Andrew, the second son of Queen Elizabeth II. Speaking on ITV News, UK, Welby said, “We all have to step back a bit; he (Andrew) is seeking to make amends, and I think that’s a very good thing.”

The “amends” Welby refers to are related to an allegation of sexual misconduct that an American lady levelled against Andrew. The matter has since been settled out of court though Andrew insists he’s innocent. He said he didn’t recall meeting this particular lady since it’s been several years since the alleged event happened, a possibility when you’re a celebrity and you meet thousands of people in a year. Besides a picture meant to have Andrew and the lady, then a teenager, seen together the other thing in the public space was the lady’s lawyers saying they had what it would take to press charges in court. How far this would have proven to be the case wasn’t clear, or if they could win at all.

However, it’s noteworthy that from the outset the Royal family took the step of ensuring one of their members cleared his name; they relieved Andrew of all official duties. It was to ensure the family wasn’t seen to be condoning any act that all of us should condemn. While I condemn any unacceptable act, there’s the possibility that Andrew is publicly adjudged guilty because of his apparent association with the American businessman, Jeffrey Epstein,  who committed suicide before he could face justice for related allegations.

Is there the possibility of Andrew being accused of whatever he did and every other thing he didn’t do because he’s here and Epstein isn’t? Did anyone make a scapegoat of Andrew in this particular matter, he being a high-profile personality who would attract media headlines? Did this case enrage the public because of the popular perception that predatory behaviours were common among men? Nonetheless, Andrew has faced up to this matter and sorted it out as real men should. For some time after he did, the only time Andrew was seen publicly in connection with the rest of the royal family was when he walked with the Queen to a memorial service marking the passing of his father, the Duke of Edinburgh.

This made media headlines as though a son shouldn’t ever be seen alongside his mother because an allegation was made. In my culture, we say one’s child can never be so bad that we chase him to the leopard to tear apart and eat. At the time I saw Andrew walking with his mother into the venue of the event, I had noted thus on my Twitter handle, “I appreciate the Queen for showing dear Prince Andrew so much love and support. We all need a mother’s love.”

Regarding the incident, some critics sounded as though a mother’s love for her child is one that can rise and ebb as if a mother’s love depends on whether or not her child is accused of a misdemeanour. There’s something insensitive in this disposition. Parents who have children in police custody or in jail and who go to visit them, hoping their children would be freed,  understand what I refer to. Even among the British public, how many parents hate their ‘bad’ child? The late UK Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, reportedly travelled to negotiate issues surrounding her son who was implicated in a weapon sale cum coup d’état allegation in Equatorial Guinea. That’s our humanity on display.

I think, for all manner of reasons, we increasingly forget our humanity. And we shouldn’t because we’re all humans with all the frailties we exhibit. None of us is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. But the way we go about the mistakes of others, even in cases where they’re proven guilty,  doesn’t reflect our humanity. When Welby pointed out, as any religious leader who’s focused on reconciliation should, that Prince Andrew wanted to make amends, a news website named List.com was shocked. It stated, “The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, caused a stir when he urged people to forgive Prince Andrew.”  Stating that a fellow human being wants to make amends causes a stir among members of the public. This is how far we’ve travelled in the wrong direction, getting it upside-down when it comes to the need for the human race to reconcile man to man.

I appreciate Archbishop Welby for doing his work according to the dictates of his calling, acknowledging it is “a good thing” that Andrew wants to make amends. What he says isn’t only for Prince Andrew, he speaks for humanity too. Voices that speak for humanity, not just segments, are important in our world. For it’s a dangerous world we’re creating when we develop the mentality that a situation is such that it should justify our unwillingness to reconcile. Reconciliation is actually core to the survival of the human race. It is for our peace. We can’t afford to stop working at it.

As for Andrew, he should continue on the path of making amends he personally chose. He shouldn’t allow an increasingly unforgiving public to nail him into a box. In any case, reconciliation, as I’ve been made to understand, isn’t just between man and man. And reconciliation is never forced. If the other party feels they’re too perfect a people to be reconciled to whoever has tendered their deepest apologies, one can’t compel them.