Noah, to Moses, to David and throughout the pages of the Old Testament. God’s promise is the foundation of each and every covenant, finally and completely fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Te notion of promise is central to any notion of
Church. To break a promise is to break the very nature of the Church; it is to perform an acion that will have the most disastrous of consequences. Tere has to be that foundation of promise and trust
if there is to be any basis for the continuing life of a church. If Synod reaffirms the truths of Scripture or the Creeds, could these really be taken as only temporary? Of course not. Synod must be able to take part in the maintaining and handing on of the promises of the Church.
W
hat was the promise? In simple terms, that those who cannot in conscience accept
the ordination of women to the priesthood or the episcopate are and remain true Anglicans, and share as honourable a position within the Church as do those who can. Te question is open; this is a period of reception; no one is to be excluded for their convictions on this issue. It is important to remember
that it was Bishops who gave the definitive and formal expression to this position, at the Lambeth Conference of 1998, ‘that those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to, the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate are both loyal Anglicans.’ As Dame Mary Tanner so eloquently reminded us
last month, this understanding of reception is a serious enterprise. Indeed, it is almost an Anglican vocation, ‘How we in the Church of England live with difference has significance not only for ourselves but also for the wider Church.’ Tere must be ‘secure and generous provision’ for those who hold that ‘ordination and the recognition of orders are among those elements of our common Christian inheritance about which there is no room for doubt.’ ‘We need to go on explaining why it is Gosel truth for some that women should be ordained, and why it is Gosel truth for others that women should not be ordained.’ Did we take these notions of an equal and honoured
status and of the process of reception to be a promise? Of course, and so did everyone else. ‘You say, now, it was a promise; because you want it to be. But did you really understand it as such ten/fiſteen years ago?’ Yes. And so did everyone else. Tere is no need to find the formal words and the formal context. A promise is not a contract; there was no moment of
signature, no single, ratifying document. A promise is stronger than a contract – it is received as permanent, and shared as a positive bond of trust; unlike a contract, it is not writen on the basis of its being broken in the future. Did Watch or others, who now suggest that the due process of Synod does not allow for promises, ever warn
unequivocally predicated on the foundation of this promise – a promise made not as a calculation, nor under duress, but as part of its own self-understanding. And aced upon, across the board, on this understanding. How many older clergy trusted this promise, stayed
in the Church of England, and did not take the financial compensation? And how many millions were saved thereby? How many younger clergy answered the call to ordination within the CofE, trusting in this undertaking, and were given assurances based upon it? How many lay people, old, young, men and women, continued to commit prayer, money, time and work to their parish church, because of this solemn promise that they had and would continue to have a secure place within the church of their birth? Of course it was taken to be a promise. Te Church of
England would now be considerably poorer if it had not been trusted as such. Older clergy have been encouraged to stay; young men have been encouraged to answer the call; lay people have been encouraged to support their parish church. Liberals of goodwill within the majority have taken it to be a promise: it is part of the comprehensiveness of the CofE.
T
he promise of an honourable place could never, of course, be fulfilled by a Code of Pracice. Tis was
recorded by the Revision Commitee, as we cited last month, when it acknowledged the view ‘that it was illogical – and, indeed, something of a pretence – to enact legislation that recognized the existence of doubt about
July 2010 ■ newdirections ■ 5
that this would be the case back in the Nineties? Of course not. Did any of the bishops? No. All who took part, all who made any claim to authority, aced and claimed to act with honour and trustworthiness. When, for example, the Second Church Estates Commissioner said in the House of Commons [29 Oct 1993] of the Resolutions element of the Measure ‘Both this and clause 4, which relates to cathedrals, are continuing provisions without limit of time – built-in, permanent parochial safeguards,’ no one suggested he was stating anything other than the obvious. Te life of the Church of England has been fully and
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