NEXT Wednesday is November 11. At 11am on that day a ceremony will be
in progress about 400 yards from the Cenotaph in Whitehall. It will be
taking place in Church House, Westminster, the home of the General Synod
of the Church of England, and at 11am the synod will be in full session
debating the question of whether the Church of England should have women
priests.
In order for this to happen all three ''houses'' of the synod, which
is constructed on pseudo-parliamentary lines, will have to vote in
favour by majorities of two-thirds for the legislation. I have compared
it the getting three lemons in a row in a fruit machine. One or two
isn't enough to win the jackpot, and a single vote could decide the
issue. Recent polls indicate that a nail-biting climax is anticipated
with the situation being too close to call in the House of Clergy and
the House of Laity.
This vote is the crunch one. In previous years there have been votes
on the question of women deacons, on the principle of having woman
priests, and to give the go-ahead for legislation to be drawn up. On
every occasion there has been heated debate, with talk of schism by the
opponents if the evil day were ever to dawn of a woman presiding at the
Eucharist, and countertalk of renegade action by the proponents if they
fail to get their way.
Those of us from traditions in which women clergy are now accepted as
unremarkable listen with amazement at some of the wild-eyed paranoia
that is trotted out in the name of ''doctrine''. It must also be
offensive to those Anglicans who have become used to women priests in
their parts of worldwide Anglicana to hear pompous statements that ''it
is not possible for a woman to be a priest'' when palpably it has been,
and is.
But childish threats by the pro-women lobby that they would place an
embargo on Eucharists except at Christmas and Easter are just as worthy
of contempt. Yet they both indicate division and passion that run so
deep that one is justified in wondering whether such a thing as a broad
national church founded on consensus can be sustained in England any
more whatever the outcome of Wednesday's debate.
The argument that the C of E would forfeit its place as part of the
Catholic and Universal if it goes ahead in ordaining women seems to
suggest that there is a deep-rooted contempt for Reformed tradition and
that it is denied legitimacy. Where does that leave the ecumenical
movement? If we cannot have church unity within a denomination such as
the C of E, at what price is it to be obtained between denominations?
This debate has perhaps brought to light some unwelcome facts hitherto
downplayed by protocol and diplomacy, namely that many people refuse to
recognise as valid or legitimate the ceremonies and orders of other
parts of the Christian church. The consequences of this will hardly be a
happy one, and one of them will be to speed the process of
disestablishment of the Church of England from its constitutional
position within the United Kingdom.
There have been many factors undermining this position in recent
years, among them secularisation, decline in C of E membership and
ascendancy relative to other denominations, multiculturalism, as well as
the constitutional anomalies created by having bishops' seats in the
House of Lords and the monarch as head of the Church of England.
But if the C of E splits in twain, riven by dissent, it undermines the
position of a moderate, broadly-based institution which is promoted by
the defenders of its establishment as the conscience of the man on the
Clapham omnibus. Or, as the late Gerald Priestland once said, '''The C
of E is the perfect church for people who don't go to church''.
There is another reason why the traditional role of the C of E must be
questioned in respect of national religious festivals, and it is
underlined by the synod debate on Wednesday. At 11am on the 11th day of
the 11th month of the year the traffic in the centre of London once
stopped for two minutes while the nation remembered the war dead.
For many reasons, most of them pragmatic, the principal remembrance
celebration has been focused on the Sunday closest to that date and the
traffic no longer stops at 11am on the 11th. Personally I think this is
a pity. It says something about our modern society that it is not
capable of taking two minutes out of its frenetic cycle in order to pay
homage to people who have died in order to preserve the independence and
freedom of the nation. How busy and selfish we are if we cannot spare
that tiny interval of our time.
For the Church of England to stage its debate 400 yards from the
Cenotaph on this day at this time is the conduct of an inwardly-looking
sect rather a national church. I am sure no insult was intended but it
just shows how little we care, how little we do really remember the
important things.
It would been a symbolic gesture to have started the synod session at
11.15 on that day. It is a symbolic gesture in reverse that no
cognisance will be taken of that special time, if not as insulting as
those weasel campaigners who seek to intrude their white flowers into
the poppy parades in an attempt to introduce a pacifist agenda.
There is a time and a place for debate, and for respecting the opinion
or the ordination of others. And there is a time for keeping silence.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article