|
“Consonant” is how we describe the way Anglicans relate to scripture and tradition, reason and experience. It is not simply a theoretical term, but one that encourages us to identify the connection between theology and mission, spirituality and society.
Yet the outcome of last week’s General Synod debate on women bishops seems to strike a discordant note. This is not because the debate articulated the desire to move forward towards the ordination of women as bishops; that was already recognised and understood. But Synod seemed discordantly unwilling to explore how to make the future provision needed by those for whom this development would provide further difficulties of theology and ecclesiological identity.
The Manchester report identified the assurances given in 1993 that provision for those unable to accept the ordination of women priests would be there as long as it is required. Professor David McClean and the then Bishop of Guildford, the Rt Revd Michael Adie, both gave this undertaking to the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament, as did Archbishop George Carey. To withdraw this undertaking is described by the report as “an abrupt change of direction”. It would not be consonant.
In last week’s debate, however, there was also evidence of consonance with the Church of England’s generosity for “traditionalists” (for want of a better phrase). It was clearly articulated in amendments and speeches from the Bishops of Winchester, Exeter, Ripon & Leeds, Willesden, and Dover, and in speeches by both Archbishops. They all spoke as those who welcome the ordination of women.
What seems odd is that the voting figures were not consistent with the quality of generosity indicated by those speeches. As an Anglo-Catholic unable to accept the ordination of women, I have (like many others) received messages of support during the past week from people with whom I disagree — women colleagues, ordained and lay, foremost among them.
There are four observations that I wish to make on all of this. First, I think that we were not behaving like a Church in the Synod debate. We were behaving like a parliament, hampered by the legitimate processes of parliamentary debate. Process and weariness took their toll, and inhibited the fruition of listening that had been much more evident in group discussions the previous Saturday morning.
There was also something profoundly unsettling about a debate in which both Archbishops spoke, and then were effectively ignored by the voting that followed. If the Archbishops speak, and we expect to hear from them instruction about consonance with fundamental matters of scripture and tradition, reason and experience, and if we do not heed them, does that not suggest we do not trust them? Perhaps we trust them only when they agree with us.
Second, on process: I was uneasy about the space available for important work to be done thoroughly. At this stage, there is a great deal that could usefully be accomplished through those on different sides of this debate having an opportunity to contribute towards how we find a way forward together. I am encouraged that in London there are signs of this happening.
THIRD, the Manchester report observes that “even Christian communities need their rule books.” There are benefits that rules, in the structural provision of the 1993 Measure and Act of Synod, have brought since 1992.
As Priest Administrator of the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham from 1993 until 2002, I witnessed a slow recovery of confidence among Anglo-Catholic parishes, many of which had seen their incumbent leave to be received into the Roman Catholic Church.
They are now engaged, like others, in renewed outreach among children, young adults, families, and wider society. They are clear about their theological position, and faithful to their vocation in the Church of England. Most of them are from urban areas, often comprising a wide ethnic mix and from places of acute deprivation.
Finally, the emphasis on a structural provision is not to provide protection from women bishops, but to ensure identity and coherence for a theological conviction that is recognised as legitimate and authentically expressive of life in the Church of England.
An ecclesiological structure is the evidence of what legitimates this theological viewpoint. In my work at St Paul’s Cathedral, we encompass a range of views. I am hugely privileged to work with inspiring colleagues, three of whom are women priests. From them I receive great courtesy and generosity, and seek to reciprocate in like manner.
The provisions enshrined in the 1993 Measure and Act of Synod do not pertain to how we order our life at St Paul’s. But we respect each other and can work together because this structural provision indicates the legitimacy of the differences in our theological convictions. Otherwise, to interrupt sacramental communion would be inconceivable and inadmissible, before God and each other.
Out of a quest for the highest degrees of communion possible in order to engage in mission in London, we have discerned what the Manchester report identifies as “mutual flourishing”.
So, for the sake of our mission, my hope now is that what Synod receives back from the legislative drafting group will be consonant with a vision of mutual flourishing and the generosity on which it can be founded. The question is: how do we pull back from the brink?
The Revd Dr Martin Warner is Canon Treasurer of St Paul’s Cathedral, and a member of General Synod.
|
back to Comment
previous story
|
next story 
