LEAD STORY Saving honour


The Editorial Board describe why the July Synod debate will prove so important to the credibility of the Church it represents


T if the


Church of England cannot make a


promise or is unable to keep its


promises it would have to withdraw from all


participation in


ecumenical dialogues


his month, the General Synod of the


Church of England has set aside two and a half days to resolve the current impasse


in the Women Bishops legislation. Tis is a great deal longer than was earmarked for the fateful debate in July 2008 that still stands, two years later, as one of the more shameful low-points in the life of that institution. Te presenting issue is Women Bishops, or at


least that is the title given to the various elements of draſt legislation and its accompanying reports. Tis, of course, is not what the debate is about, for this mater has already been decided. Right or wrong, and in this case wrong, that decision was made – by default or sleight of hand – in 2005 when the then Bishop of Southwark initiated the current round of quasi-parliamentary process. Taken that there are to be women bishops, the


actual line of batle now concerns the provision to be made for those who cannot in conscience accept the ministry of a woman bishop, or any male priest or bishop ordained by a woman bishop. It is this problem which has so exercised the Revision Commitee. However – and New Directions has pointed


this out ad nauseam – this is still not the real issue. What happens to an orthodox minority, however important, can only be of secondary importance. It may be deeply hurtful to those ejected from the church of their birth; it may cause real suffering to many devout Christians; but we cannot doubt that the Lord Jesus will look aſter his faithful servants. Tis is not an issue about individuals, but


about our common life together. It is not what is to happen to us that is the principal concern, but what will happen to our Church. What are the implications for the Church of England?


and serious consequences. For any institution that claims to be a Church, or part of the Church, the consequences are potentially fatal. It is this possibility that makes the July session so important to all members of the Church of England. Was a promise ever made? One might say, and some have said,


A that no promise could


ever have been given by the very nature of the process and the institutions involved. Tis was


4 ■ newdirections ■ July 2010


ctions have consequences. If a promise has been given, and is then broken, there are real


put most clearly by Christina Rees, writing for New Directions in September 2008. She wrote, ‘A vote taken in one Synod cannot


‘promise’ something in perpetuity, because synodical government is part of a dynamic ‘due process’. We have all heard that succinct description that the Church of England is episcopally led and synodically governed. Te bishops provide a lead and the General Synod responds with reports, debates and votes.’ On this analysis, Synod can neither make


a promise nor bind its own future, because its members are elected. Tose who make legislation by their own votes were themselves elected by the votes of others. In this it follows the English political model, where Parliament, being both sovereign and democratic, cannot legislate for its successors: it has to allow for its own legislation to be revised or repealed by a later, elected chamber. Tus, if Synod is to maintain its democratic freedom and authority, it too must allow for a reversal of any vote that it takes. One can see where the idea comes from, but


this does not mean it makes sense. Te Church of England is still episcopally led, and this means more than merely providing a lead. As successors to the Apostles, they are the heirs of a tradition and entrusted with handing it on. Te revelation of Jesus Christ is received, not voted upon. Te Church of England, in other words, is not sovereign, but servant. If General Synod cannot, by its institutional


characer, make a promise, then this is a fault of that particular institution and not an excuse: if this is true, then its structure and process are simply misconceived. Either it must be able to make a promise, if it is to serve the Church as it claims; or else, if it cannot, it must hand back its claim to authority to those who can. However you wish to colour it, and in whatever


theological tradition you wish to expound it, the Church is the expression on earth of the covenant of God, and that covenant is and was, first and for ever, expressed in promise. No promise, no covenant; no covenant, no church. Tere may be beter ways of puting it, but none which can remove or mitigate this truth. Te fundamental basis of the relationship with God is one of promise, from Adam, to


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40