The last post generated the following reaction:
"Many thanks, Mike .. just so long as you are against it too! .. As you point out, we already have all that we need in our common creeds etc. I only have one point to add. I have heard it said (and I agree) that, although in theory this is something that needs to be considered by each church in turn in the Anglican Communion, the position of the church of England, as the'mother church' of the Communion is going to be more influential (in moral terms, not legally) than the position of other churches. If we reject it, the chances are that it will not really get off the ground elsewhere. Time will tell, no doubt, but I think we need to be aware of this when we vote on the matter."
I have responded:
I am not entirely sure about the influence of the Church of England per se (as distinct from ABC)
Many Americans find it impossible to understand why their country is despised in some parts of the world - this makes their attempts to influence specific situations all the more compromised.
In the same way, I suspect that from our perspective it is easy to overlook the empire legacy and that anything 'British' is not always seen as necessarily to be respected.
Indeed, being first in this process and rejecting the Covenant might well lead to some Churches feeling all the more that it is needed, specifically to overcome that legacy of 'us' telling 'them' what to do and how to behave.
Avoiding a messy outcome from this process will take some finely naunced language.
In my submitted-but-not-yet-examined thesis, I develop the notion of Uncertain Theology which allows for the possibility that what is 'truth' may have to find different forms in different contexts.
Thursday 23 September 2010
Wednesday 22 September 2010
Anglican Covenant
I have received the following comment:
"I have been surprised (and somewhat concerned) to see, in the various election addresses that we have all now received, that you and xxx are the only two candidates to refer specifically to the Anglican Covenant in our addresses. It seems to me to be one of the most important issues facing the Church of England today; it comes before General Synod in November.
Whilst I share your views that it would be very good to see the church of England able to turn its attention outwards rather than inwards, I am very concerned that we do not sleepwalk into a covenant that will (as currently drafted), in my view gravely restrict our ability to carry out that mission effectively. I cannot share your view that most people in this Diocese would find little in the covenant to object to, - not, that is, if they fully understand it - and I do fear that if not stopped it will indeed fulfil the expectations of those who are arguing for it.
Whilst the covenant does state that the constitutional autonomy of member churches shall be respected (section 3.2.2) it then proceeds to specify very clearly (section 4.2) the means by which one Province of the Anglican Communion may call into question (and de facto effectively prevent) any innovation that may be decided upon , quite legitimately, by any other Province. As far as I can see, no member church will be able to proceed with any kind of change (certainly no major change, such as the introduction of women priests or bishops, say) unless all other member churches are in agreement. To me, this seems to be a recipe for stagnation and would have the effect of preventing the local cultural adaptations that are so much needed if our churches (all of those in the Anglican Communion) are to witness effectively to the societies in which we are set.
I would be most interested to know in more detail how you arrived at your rather more relaxed reading of the covenant text than I have managed to do. Do you think I am making a mountain out of a molehill?"
I have replied:
I doubt whether our positions on the Covenant are that far apart: my election address initially refers to the fact that the overt definition of what it is that we are expected to affirm is little different from what every clergy person affirms at each licensing except that I think it does not actually mention the 39 Articles (now that could be an interesting debate!) We lay folk are allowed slightly greater freedom but each time we meet together for worship and prayer, recite the creeds and celebrate together in Holy Communion, we are effectively attesting to Section 1.1. Section 1.2 is arguably significant only in its differences from the Catholic Church by making Hooker's Scripture, Tradition and Reason the determinants of what we avow.
Hitherto, the Anglican Communion has held together despite following different paths on some matters which are seen by others as rather significant. In particular, the issue of Women Bishops - which so exercises some sections of the Church of England - is not seen as a reason to violate our communion nor to invoke the Dispute Resolution process of Section 4. In fact, as far as I am aware, it is only the matter of the theology of same-sex relationships which has really endangered that communion. It is, I suspect, very unlikely that the existence of the Covenant will affect the way in which various Churches (in the sense of Section 4.2) move forward on that matter. Even the debate on Lay Presidency in some provinces has not (yet) been elevated to a Section 4 matter.
If Section 4 were to be interpreted as requiring universal consent to any major change in a Church's practice then we would become so moribund that we would rapidly decline into insignificance. I do not subscribe to the view that only by adhering to Orthodoxy will the church survive. In many respects it is the 'nuclear option' of 'mutually assured destruction' (known as MAD in in the 1960's!)
There is a general assumption that these procedures would be used by those Churches that incline more to orthodoxy against those that incline to change. I suspect that some places might feel differently if it were used seriously in the converse direction to coerce reluctant churches into a change to which the others were committed. Such an action is entirely feasible in the terms in which the Covenant is drafted.
This then is my fear: it is generally true that well-intentioned legislation - and, like it or not, that is what the Covenant is - sooner or later becomes used for purposes which its founders never considered. The Human Rights Act is a prime example. The nightmare scenario is theological lawyers crawling all over every dot and comma in search of never imagined interpretations.
My election address was intended to convey the opinion that I do not really see the necessity for the Covenant and that it may well become a stumbling block to discovering the kingdom. The Church of England, on its own is perhaps not in a strong position to block the move towards its general adoption, but we might be able to warn its supporters of inherent 'unintended consequences' and thus cause people to think again before finally taking this step.
"I have been surprised (and somewhat concerned) to see, in the various election addresses that we have all now received, that you and xxx are the only two candidates to refer specifically to the Anglican Covenant in our addresses. It seems to me to be one of the most important issues facing the Church of England today; it comes before General Synod in November.
Whilst I share your views that it would be very good to see the church of England able to turn its attention outwards rather than inwards, I am very concerned that we do not sleepwalk into a covenant that will (as currently drafted), in my view gravely restrict our ability to carry out that mission effectively. I cannot share your view that most people in this Diocese would find little in the covenant to object to, - not, that is, if they fully understand it - and I do fear that if not stopped it will indeed fulfil the expectations of those who are arguing for it.
Whilst the covenant does state that the constitutional autonomy of member churches shall be respected (section 3.2.2) it then proceeds to specify very clearly (section 4.2) the means by which one Province of the Anglican Communion may call into question (and de facto effectively prevent) any innovation that may be decided upon , quite legitimately, by any other Province. As far as I can see, no member church will be able to proceed with any kind of change (certainly no major change, such as the introduction of women priests or bishops, say) unless all other member churches are in agreement. To me, this seems to be a recipe for stagnation and would have the effect of preventing the local cultural adaptations that are so much needed if our churches (all of those in the Anglican Communion) are to witness effectively to the societies in which we are set.
I would be most interested to know in more detail how you arrived at your rather more relaxed reading of the covenant text than I have managed to do. Do you think I am making a mountain out of a molehill?"
I have replied:
I doubt whether our positions on the Covenant are that far apart: my election address initially refers to the fact that the overt definition of what it is that we are expected to affirm is little different from what every clergy person affirms at each licensing except that I think it does not actually mention the 39 Articles (now that could be an interesting debate!) We lay folk are allowed slightly greater freedom but each time we meet together for worship and prayer, recite the creeds and celebrate together in Holy Communion, we are effectively attesting to Section 1.1. Section 1.2 is arguably significant only in its differences from the Catholic Church by making Hooker's Scripture, Tradition and Reason the determinants of what we avow.
Hitherto, the Anglican Communion has held together despite following different paths on some matters which are seen by others as rather significant. In particular, the issue of Women Bishops - which so exercises some sections of the Church of England - is not seen as a reason to violate our communion nor to invoke the Dispute Resolution process of Section 4. In fact, as far as I am aware, it is only the matter of the theology of same-sex relationships which has really endangered that communion. It is, I suspect, very unlikely that the existence of the Covenant will affect the way in which various Churches (in the sense of Section 4.2) move forward on that matter. Even the debate on Lay Presidency in some provinces has not (yet) been elevated to a Section 4 matter.
If Section 4 were to be interpreted as requiring universal consent to any major change in a Church's practice then we would become so moribund that we would rapidly decline into insignificance. I do not subscribe to the view that only by adhering to Orthodoxy will the church survive. In many respects it is the 'nuclear option' of 'mutually assured destruction' (known as MAD in in the 1960's!)
There is a general assumption that these procedures would be used by those Churches that incline more to orthodoxy against those that incline to change. I suspect that some places might feel differently if it were used seriously in the converse direction to coerce reluctant churches into a change to which the others were committed. Such an action is entirely feasible in the terms in which the Covenant is drafted.
This then is my fear: it is generally true that well-intentioned legislation - and, like it or not, that is what the Covenant is - sooner or later becomes used for purposes which its founders never considered. The Human Rights Act is a prime example. The nightmare scenario is theological lawyers crawling all over every dot and comma in search of never imagined interpretations.
My election address was intended to convey the opinion that I do not really see the necessity for the Covenant and that it may well become a stumbling block to discovering the kingdom. The Church of England, on its own is perhaps not in a strong position to block the move towards its general adoption, but we might be able to warn its supporters of inherent 'unintended consequences' and thus cause people to think again before finally taking this step.
Women Bishops
I have received the following question:
"I am looking through the election addresses of the candidates for General Synod. I note you refer to the debate on women bishops but no mention of the code of practise for those opposed to this. This has still to be resolved but you give no indication of how you would approach this.
Will you be insistent on, to the point of voting for, the provisions for allowing the needs of those so opposed ?
I hope you will represent those in the church who are against women bishops to the point that suitable provisions will be made by General Synod.
If you will do this, I most certainly will support you and I would be grateful for your comments."
My reply has been:
"Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my election address.
Firstly, I need to make it clear that I have for several decades been in favour of ordaining women in the Church of England. In ecumenical contexts I have, as a lay person, worked with many ordained women (from different churches) and valued their ministry - and I have found that, given practical experience, most people overcome any misgivings they might have had. For me to deny those views would be wrong.
However:
I have over many years worked with those whose disquiet about women priests extends beyond a practical level to a genuine principled inability to accept that such a move is consistent with their interpretation of Hooker's three components of Anglicanism: namely Scripture, Tradition and Reason.
In my own parish in our recent long vacancy, as churchwarden I had to take into account the views of a minority who cannot accept a priestly ministry from women - just as there are those fundamentally in favour of it (in my experience, most people adopt views that are pragmatic rather than fundamental) As a result - since we legally could not restrict ourselves to male priests to celebrate Holy Communion - I made it clear that I could not guarantee a male celebrant on every occasion. But, we made sure that arrangements were made sufficiently well in advance (typically well over a month) so that we could give out details and those who needed to know could make alternative arrangements and, most especially, not arrive and be embarrassed by being compromised. This approach was, I believe, well-respected and meant that we kept 'on board' those with this particular view.
Elsewhere, especially when chairing Diocesan Synod, I have tried very hard to find means of keeping a wide variety of opinion and well-founded beliefs within the broad church that makes the Church of England so distinctive. In my view, if we start to go down a road that seeks to exclude one or other group of the church then we forfeit our particular place within English society, heritage and tradition. As the established church, we have a duty to speak for everyone - in the same way that our parish role is for the whole population, not just our members.
Of course, I recognise that there is a real danger that in seeking to 'please' everyone, the church may stand accused of being unable to determine what actions in life are acceptable in God's sight and those which are not. However, I am firmly of the view that none of us humans has a monopoly on truth.
I accept that there remains at the very least a suspicion in some quarters that the position reached at the last session of General Synod will not be honoured. I do not share that suspicion - not least because the matter will have to come back to General Synod in perhaps two years' time after it has been out for consultation in the dioceses, deaneries and parishes. As Diocesan Lay Chair during this time I will work very hard indeed to ensure that the debate is open and allows all shades of opinion to be heard and recorded.
Unless the final proposal is able to convince two thirds of each house in General Synod that it makes proper provision to enable sufficient people like yourself to stay within the church then it will fall. Given that a significant majority are enthusiastic for change then such an outcome would itself be highly divisive and I do not expect the church to be willing to allow that. Hence, I am confident that a reasonable provision will be made that allows all those who represent some form of Anglicanism to support it and work effectively within it.
As I have already indicated, I believe that - notwithstanding how important this matter is to some, even many, people within the church - it is ultimately a distraction from where our minds ought really to be focused: on mission and the presentation of God's gospel message to everyone. The two years we now have, will give Synod an opportunity to begin to do just that and, with God's help, it will re-orientate the way in which Synod works on a long term basis.
That is why, even given my own convictions, I am very keen to see proper provision for that broad variety of churchmanship which we accept as the Anglican tradition of what, ultimately, is the Christian church."
"
"I am looking through the election addresses of the candidates for General Synod. I note you refer to the debate on women bishops but no mention of the code of practise for those opposed to this. This has still to be resolved but you give no indication of how you would approach this.
Will you be insistent on, to the point of voting for, the provisions for allowing the needs of those so opposed ?
I hope you will represent those in the church who are against women bishops to the point that suitable provisions will be made by General Synod.
If you will do this, I most certainly will support you and I would be grateful for your comments."
My reply has been:
"Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my election address.
Firstly, I need to make it clear that I have for several decades been in favour of ordaining women in the Church of England. In ecumenical contexts I have, as a lay person, worked with many ordained women (from different churches) and valued their ministry - and I have found that, given practical experience, most people overcome any misgivings they might have had. For me to deny those views would be wrong.
However:
I have over many years worked with those whose disquiet about women priests extends beyond a practical level to a genuine principled inability to accept that such a move is consistent with their interpretation of Hooker's three components of Anglicanism: namely Scripture, Tradition and Reason.
In my own parish in our recent long vacancy, as churchwarden I had to take into account the views of a minority who cannot accept a priestly ministry from women - just as there are those fundamentally in favour of it (in my experience, most people adopt views that are pragmatic rather than fundamental) As a result - since we legally could not restrict ourselves to male priests to celebrate Holy Communion - I made it clear that I could not guarantee a male celebrant on every occasion. But, we made sure that arrangements were made sufficiently well in advance (typically well over a month) so that we could give out details and those who needed to know could make alternative arrangements and, most especially, not arrive and be embarrassed by being compromised. This approach was, I believe, well-respected and meant that we kept 'on board' those with this particular view.
Elsewhere, especially when chairing Diocesan Synod, I have tried very hard to find means of keeping a wide variety of opinion and well-founded beliefs within the broad church that makes the Church of England so distinctive. In my view, if we start to go down a road that seeks to exclude one or other group of the church then we forfeit our particular place within English society, heritage and tradition. As the established church, we have a duty to speak for everyone - in the same way that our parish role is for the whole population, not just our members.
Of course, I recognise that there is a real danger that in seeking to 'please' everyone, the church may stand accused of being unable to determine what actions in life are acceptable in God's sight and those which are not. However, I am firmly of the view that none of us humans has a monopoly on truth.
I accept that there remains at the very least a suspicion in some quarters that the position reached at the last session of General Synod will not be honoured. I do not share that suspicion - not least because the matter will have to come back to General Synod in perhaps two years' time after it has been out for consultation in the dioceses, deaneries and parishes. As Diocesan Lay Chair during this time I will work very hard indeed to ensure that the debate is open and allows all shades of opinion to be heard and recorded.
Unless the final proposal is able to convince two thirds of each house in General Synod that it makes proper provision to enable sufficient people like yourself to stay within the church then it will fall. Given that a significant majority are enthusiastic for change then such an outcome would itself be highly divisive and I do not expect the church to be willing to allow that. Hence, I am confident that a reasonable provision will be made that allows all those who represent some form of Anglicanism to support it and work effectively within it.
As I have already indicated, I believe that - notwithstanding how important this matter is to some, even many, people within the church - it is ultimately a distraction from where our minds ought really to be focused: on mission and the presentation of God's gospel message to everyone. The two years we now have, will give Synod an opportunity to begin to do just that and, with God's help, it will re-orientate the way in which Synod works on a long term basis.
That is why, even given my own convictions, I am very keen to see proper provision for that broad variety of churchmanship which we accept as the Anglican tradition of what, ultimately, is the Christian church."
"
Tuesday 21 September 2010
Election Addresses Out
Well, at last the election addresses have dropped onto electors mats this morning - somewhat later than in most dioceses where I have heard from their lay chairs. In this case there are nine candidates for three places - it seems that in most places the ratio of candidates to places (the number of which depends on the size of each diocese) has risen by a significant amount this time in comparison with quite a few elections back.
It is good that this shows a renewed interest in General Synod - I hope that it is a positive sign and not just a polarisation brought on by recent controversies, so often rooted in sexual or gender matters. It is vital that the new Synod raises its game and spends more time on the essential task of mission - looking outward more than it looks inward.
As every elector in this diocese must know by now, we are not holding any 'hustings' - in some ways this to me is a disappointment because I value the face-to-face contact with those I would wish to represent but feedback from other dioceses indicates that we would have been unlikely to have any higher attendance than most of them - in many cases the numbers in the audience did not exceed the number of candidates.
If you do wish to ask me any questions - or would like me to visit - please email mike@mjcmtodd.plus.com or call 01208-816043. The diocese is also arranging for each candidate to have a one minute video made to be put on the diocesan website but these will not be available until the start of October, but there will still be plenty of time to send in your ballot paper if you want to wait until you have had a chance to see them!
It is good that this shows a renewed interest in General Synod - I hope that it is a positive sign and not just a polarisation brought on by recent controversies, so often rooted in sexual or gender matters. It is vital that the new Synod raises its game and spends more time on the essential task of mission - looking outward more than it looks inward.
As every elector in this diocese must know by now, we are not holding any 'hustings' - in some ways this to me is a disappointment because I value the face-to-face contact with those I would wish to represent but feedback from other dioceses indicates that we would have been unlikely to have any higher attendance than most of them - in many cases the numbers in the audience did not exceed the number of candidates.
If you do wish to ask me any questions - or would like me to visit - please email mike@mjcmtodd.plus.com or call 01208-816043. The diocese is also arranging for each candidate to have a one minute video made to be put on the diocesan website but these will not be available until the start of October, but there will still be plenty of time to send in your ballot paper if you want to wait until you have had a chance to see them!
Monday 2 August 2010
Nomination
Today I drove down to Truro to hand in my nomination paper at Diocesan House - Esther, the Presiding Officer for this election - confirmed that it seemed to be in order.
Perhaps I should explain for anyone who has wandered into this blog by accident: the General Synod of the Church of England (rather like its parliament) is elected every five years and this is an election year. Each diocese holds its own elections - separately for the clergy and the laity. In this diocese we have to elect three lay representatives and it is for this election that I am now standing.
It has taken some persuading - and a lot of thought - to decide to stand, despite the fact that I have been doing things in the diocese for some time now, including being elected as Chair of the House of Laity - but that is a much simpler election than this one where there is real competition for the places.
Of course, much of this is down to the contentious issues, such as the possibility of ordaining women as bishops, which have so divided people in recent times. The people who vote in this election are the members of the various Deanery Synods and they quite reasonably want to know where candidates stand on such matters.
In Cornwall it is not practical to hold events - hustings - where all the candidates can be questioned and so I have decided to set up this blog. I will, through my election address, be inviting people to email me with anyu questions and I will publish the responses on this blog. I may even post opinions with being asked as the election proceeds.
Perhaps I should explain for anyone who has wandered into this blog by accident: the General Synod of the Church of England (rather like its parliament) is elected every five years and this is an election year. Each diocese holds its own elections - separately for the clergy and the laity. In this diocese we have to elect three lay representatives and it is for this election that I am now standing.
It has taken some persuading - and a lot of thought - to decide to stand, despite the fact that I have been doing things in the diocese for some time now, including being elected as Chair of the House of Laity - but that is a much simpler election than this one where there is real competition for the places.
Of course, much of this is down to the contentious issues, such as the possibility of ordaining women as bishops, which have so divided people in recent times. The people who vote in this election are the members of the various Deanery Synods and they quite reasonably want to know where candidates stand on such matters.
In Cornwall it is not practical to hold events - hustings - where all the candidates can be questioned and so I have decided to set up this blog. I will, through my election address, be inviting people to email me with anyu questions and I will publish the responses on this blog. I may even post opinions with being asked as the election proceeds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)