From Mr O. W. H. Clark
Sir, — The House of Bishops is to be thanked for its positive reaffirmation in its latest document, GS 1685A (News, 13 June), that, on the issue of women’s ordination, there is a place in the Church of England for both assenters and dissenters, and that both are “loyal Anglicans”. As one who pleaded in your columns (Letters, 16 May) for a response to those key questions as identified by the Manchester report, I express my sincere thanks unreservedly.
I wish I could be as enthusiastic about the rest of GS 1685A. As a “Note from the Presidents” (as it is headed), it is a useful factual record of recent episcopal discussions, and a helpful indicator of the synodical way ahead procedurally. Nevertheless, as a “Report from the House of Bishops” (its title in the July agenda of the General Synod) intended with its appended motion “as a starting point for discussion”, it seems little more than a blinkered exercise in unargued negativity.
Why, before a synodical word is spoken, do the Bishops — or a majority of them — insist on the maintenance of “existing structures” and on the provisions for dissenters to be contained in a “code of practice”? Of course, other possibilities will be introduced in the Synod’s debate, but what is so sacrosanct about these two items that bishops have to insist on them from the outset and without argumentation of any sort?
Reams have been written and carefully argued about non-geographical dioceses, mandated delegation, additional bishops, dioceses, and provinces, etc. All are jettisoned — without an episcopal word — in the proposed motion. Certainly “the nature of episcopal authority within the C of E” must not be undermined, but that concern is not to be equated with a blind subservience to the concept of “territoriality” as though that were a precept of the Gospel. “Existing structures” are not inviolate.
A code of practice can be appropriate to deal with “mechanics” and “out-working” when there is no dispute about the principle of the substantive matter, and when there is trust between the parties. Neither of these conditions is satisfied in regard to the ordination of women as bishops and priests.
The House of Bishops may not like to hear it, but the plain and sad fact is that, in their treatment of dissenters since 1993 and their operation of the current statutory and synodical provisions for dissenters, too many bishops have shown that they are not to be trusted. The Pilling report (GS 1650) wrote tellingly (chapter 4) about the “the element of unfair discrimination” to which “Traditional Catholics” and “Conservative Evangelical Clergy” are subject, and about the importance of the C of E’s “commitment to fairness”.
Yes, the provisions for dissenters must be “national” in their range, but any talk of “having regard to” some domestic code in which the decision or discretion of the local bishop is conclusive is wholly unacceptable. If the position and rights of women ordained as bishops are to be prescribed and safeguarded as primary legislation, it is beyond equity to suggest that the position and rights of those opposed should be treated and safeguarded less authoritatively and less securely.
Assenters and dissenters are equally “loyal Anglicans”. Justice and the good name of the Church demand parity of treatment (and the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament is likely to expect nothing less).
What is under discussion is a matter not of “difficulty”, but of a fundamental and principled division, grounded for assenters and dissenters alike in theological and ecclesiological conviction. Division demands legislation.
We can still live together in the one Church of England in harmony, courtesy, and consideration, but only if the chosen option provides for the safeguards and operational arrangements for assenters and dissenters to be expressed in primary legislation with appropriate structural modifications. Only so can there be a realistic hope of fairness and peace with mutual trust and respect.
O. W. H. CLARK
5 Seaview Road, Highcliffe
Christchurch, Dorset BH23 5QJ
From the Revd David Waller SSC
Sir, — Christina Rees “described ‘dire predictions’ of an exodus of 500 clergy if the Measure were passed unamended as ‘unfounded and untrue’” (News, 20 June). On what basis are such predictions denied? I have not been contacted by Ms Rees and asked my intentions. Neither have any of my colleagues with whom I have spoken.
The fact is that traditionalists have consistently sought to cooperate with others to identify a way of proceeding with the consecration of women while retaining adequate provision for oponents. The publication of the report Consecrated Women was an example of these endeavours, as were various submissions to the legislative drafting group. If the July Synod chooses to ignore the needs of traditionalists, and we end up with a single-clause Measure (with or without a code of practice), this will be a total betrayal of the promises given in the 1990s, and of the faithful service delivered on the basis of those promises.
Many of us have deep theological reasons why we cannot accept the ordination of women. Until now, it is the Act of Synod that has enabled us to remain in the Church of England. With women bishops, nothing less than a structural solution will suffice. Yes, in the 1990s, 500 priests (according to official figures) left; but many more priests and thousands of laity remained because of the provision made.
It is to be hoped that this July members of Synod will give more weight to the reservations concerning a single-clause Measure expressed by the two Archbishops and by the legislative drafting group than they do to the totally misleading and unsubstantiated comments of Ms Rees.
DAVID WALLER
St Saviour’s Vicarage
210 Markhouse Road
London E17 8EP
|
back to Letters
previous story
|
next story 
back to top
