Synod Days 2,3 & 4

The importance of the debate on the Anglican Covenant that we report in today's paper cannot be underestimated. Had it been successfully stopped at this point, the signal to the rest of the Anglican Communion, as well as the Church's ecumenical partners, would have been unmistakeable. Today, instead of covering the debate about senior appointments, discussed in our leader columns this week, my colleagues and I would be reflecting on the pending disintegration of Anglicanism worldwide. That's not to say the disintegration might not yet happen. But once again, Rowan Williams, even in absentia, has managed to postpone it for another few months. Waiting for schism is becoming a bit like waiting for Godot, with conversations in the bars around York assuming tones of Becket, Samuel that is, not Thomas. Will we even recognise schism, if and when it comes?

Father Jake has written an interesting commentary on the debate, as has Chuck Blanchard. For links to almost every aspect of this and other debates at synod, along with links to the various audio files, see Thinking Anglicans where Simon Sarmiento is making life easier for all of us covering the synod this July. Anglican Mainstream has posted the Archbishop of the West Indies' and the Bishop of Rochester's speeches.

Several things struck me about the covenant debate.

I came out buoyed up a sense of renewed joy in simply being an Anglican. Everyone in the chamber was clearly aware of the importance of what they were doing. Everyone really tried, and the contributions were serious minded and high in quality. There was a sense of dedication, devotion and duty.

But subsequent reflection brought other aspects to mind as well. In the recent reductions in the size of the Synod, several qualities have been lost. One serious absence is that of the sceptical reality checks brought in the past by the archdeacon-in-synod, the c'rook at the head of the bishop's staff,' as Martin Wroe described him in one book. Most archdeacons have been banished from Synod in the recent reforms. Those more interesting ones that remain in the wider church might also be going soon as well, if rumours of the pending elevation of one particularly evangelical archdeacon to the diocese of S&M are to be believed. (Still, at least that would get another Archdeacon onto Synod, even if only by the back door, as it were.)

Simply in the reduction of size, Synod has lost something of its former gravitas. Something in the balance has tipped, meaning it is easier for the bishops, even the archbishops dare I suggest, to get what they want, they way they want.

There are parallels with what has been happening in secular politics.

Under Tony Blair, it was as if Parliament became a talking shop, with all the real decisions made by Cabinet in advance, or even a small clique in Cabinet, and then leaked to us sometimes even before they were debated, to the fury of backbenchers. Now, just as Gordon Brown is taking things back to the way they once were, reasserting a welcome,1950s-style Presbyterian probity over the whole caboodle, Synod is continuing its lurch down the path paved for it by New Labour: spin and manipulation.

Not that this is necessarily a bad thing. I'm undecided on the merits of how Synod is presently working. For a start, the democratic model it apes is possibly not appropriate in any case for a church that is in practice as well as theory episcopal and therefore hierarchical.

Timothy Cox, a rare member of Synod who looked as though he is about 12 and wore a red sweatshirt with a summer soul slogan emblazoned on it, was one of the few with the courage to voice openly the fears of the Church Society among others in an amendment that failed to get any support beyond his own. The covenant, he warned, would transform the Anglican Church into "a rigid, international structure" and make it like the Catholic Church "with its own Pope, Curia and so on." (Yes of course it would,Timothy, that's the idea, don't you see?) It fails to make clear its assertion that Scripture is the Word of God, he warned, and is inadequate in the place it grants to the historic formularies.

It says something about the Synod today that even Frank Knaggs didn't vote for the amendment, but abstained.

The Church of England is still, largely, a liberal body, and this is reflected in its Synod as well as its Archbishop. Most of them must, surely, have severe doubts about this whole covenantal process. I have always felt that one of the attractions of Anglicanism is that conservatives could reach for the most extreme and fundamental aspects of their beliefs, knowing that they would in the end be checked by the liberal, middle ground. Anglicanism would remain at once catholic, reformed and the via media, all at the same time. But even I am starting to feel sorry for the liberals now, and a tiny, little bit worried for the Church of England. Where are the catholics shouting conspiracy, the intellectuals shouting "enough"? Whether they win or not, surely we need to hear their voices.

Up in the press gallery, as amendment after amendment was lost, it was possible to feel the synod lurching, one minute to the left, the next to the right. At least it lurched as one body, as it were. I suppose it was Christian cohesiveness in action, although I wouldn't have minded a division or two, a split or three. But where were the votes by houses that used to be such fun? Couldn't the Synod have mustered at least one of those on something as crucial to the future shape of Anglicanism as the covenant?

Instead, the Synod gave an easy victory to Tom Wright and those singing from the same hymn sheet. It's pretty much my own hymn sheet, in fact, but with the fight gone out of Synod the tune is beginning to sound a little flat, the words a bit hollow. Why did Peter Selby have to suffer the humiliation of standing time after time to speak in the debate, and never be called? And where on earth was Colin Slee? A few easily deployed rhetorical skills, and the Bishop of Durham had the Synod swinging right to his beat. No wonder he keeps interfering in the business of TEC. At least they put up a good challenge over there.

Of course the covenant must go through in the end. But for the sake of God, let's have a bit of a fight over it first. The thing was summed up for me in the bar afterwards, when Giles "Inclusive Church" Fraser bought me and my fellow scribes a drink. This is a man who's recently been getting into (metaphorical of course) bed with Graham "Open Evangelical Fulcrum" Kings. I had assumed the softening was all on Kings' side. Not so. Giles confessed that he is becoming slightly, well, conservative. This famed Guardian columnist even spoke with interest of Paul Dacre and the Daily Mail. "Is this a political or theological development" I had to ask. "Theological," he said.

Comments

[Alan Marsh]

Jubilee 2000 was, well, seven years ago, and was strongly supported at the time. It contributed to a change of heart in government which led to one of the biggest improvements in aid and debt relief ever seen.

At its most recent meeting the Synod was simply doing the work for which it exists - church practice and governance - there is an Archbishops' Council, 43 dioceses and some 13,000 parishes which do the work of the Gospel in this country, supporting an astonishing variety of missionary work and social service.

The Synod meets for just a few days each year to do the "parliamentary" work for which it was designed. The Church of England is at work in every parish, every day of the year doing the things which are appropriate to its calling.

[Hugh Manitas]

Alan: Where's the link between Synod and Jubilee 2000? A search of the site revealed nothing.

At this year's assembly there were fourteen or so debates. One inquired into modern childhood, another echoed the futility of any proposed strike by the U.S. on Iran; the itinerary said earnestly 'if there is time'. This, presumably was because the other twelve items consisted mainly of issues dealing with church practice and governance - including pensions, clerical disabilities, a liturgical commission, the Anglican Covernant and council appointments. There was one budgetary aspect mentioning the need for ethical investment.

[Alan Marsh]

The Synod supports the work of many missionary societies which provide health care, education (including agricultural training) and in crises, food, water and shelter.

It also raises the profile of the plight of those around the world who are suffering, so that governments find themselves more inclined to respond with the kind of aid which makes a massive difference, such as Jubilee 2000. Take a look at their web page.

You won't get a good lunch at Synod. I never did.

[Hugh Manitas]

So what has the Synod decided to do about the terrible plight of the many communities who are starving and dying in Africa? Would it for example rely upon explaining the benefits of Christian family values and after a good lunch endorse the actions of our local church who have collected for years in order to fund the building of, guess what, another new church in Tanzania, with a party of worthies heading off shortly on a sightseeing trip?

[Alan Marsh]

Physics has given us, among many other things, powerful explosives and nuclear weapons.

Someone needs to think about the morality of such activity. It is no good remembering that the earth is very old, or that in 5 billion years' time it will be consumed by fire. What happens now is what concerns me and many Christians who have no wish to put their heads deep into the quicksand, as A Physicist would have us do. It is too important to leave it to The Physicists.

The Church in Africa is deeply concerned - rightly - about the wellbeing of society here and now. It has concluded that what the Christian scriptures recommend - stable family life - is rather better for people than the anarchy which leads to disease and disorder.

Other scientists too are warning about what is happening in Africa and Asia, in the absence of any moral self-discipline:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6911736.stm

I therefore suggest that A Physicist might consider removing his head from a dark place and ask what he could do to make the world a better place - as Christians meeting in Synods do.

[A numerate, incredulous, modest, honest, altruistic and uncorrupted physicist]

It's astonishing that this discussion of total trivia by adults goes on and on. My advice to Ruth Gledhill, these commentators and members of the Synod is to buy themselves good telescopes and take a look at the universe and thereby learn just how irrelevant and insignificant they are in the scheme of things. It is sobering to appreciate that the carbon, hydrogen, oxygen.... nuclei in our bodies were cooked into existance in massive stars thousands of millions of years ago. When the Sun finally conks out in about 5000 millions year from now, everything in our solar system will be destroyed and the material returned to the rest of the Universe for recycling and probably further cooking.

In any case, nothing that the Synod decides will have the slightest influence on the way that most ordinary people in the UK conduct their lives. But of course it will be used to manipulate people in Africa etc. Instead of spending their time discussing these things,I suggest that the members of the Synod use their time more usefully by caring for others or by taking their families on vacation and relaxing so as to clear their minds.

Anyway, I'm now off to program my computer to find out how many grams of Holy Spirit can be contained in an atom of carbon. Common sense already informs me that the number is larger than that for hydrogen. I shall then instigate a long-running discussion on my results in a blog -- until someone is kind enough to remind me that I have no proof that the Holy Spirit exists and that even if it did, I would still need to know its density in grams per cubic centimetre.

[Roger (Lapinbizarre)]

Not a posting to your site, but thoughts on your last "Thinking Anglicans" posting. What with all the recent GS postings, that thread has now slipped so far down the page as to be effectively out of sight.

In consequence of his anti-gay stance - and he really has, at least in the past, been seriously trailing his coat on this one - Abp Akinola has become so demonized with the many of those who post on TA that one instinctively sees red whenever he crops up. Which is principally what triggered the strong reaction to your interview with him. Think what the response might have been to a positive interview with Hitler - and I am NOT saying that this is a valid analogy, merely that this is close to the way in which the archbishop is presently perceived by some - and it may help explain the some of the unkindnesses that were reflexively lobbed in your direction this past week.

Maybe Schori will come round. I rather hope so. As to the poor ABC. He's been getting it from everyone and reminds one of the Lloyd George quote (said of whom?) that he has sat on the fence for so long that the iron has entered his soul.

[Robert Ian Williams]

If the Covenant is genuine, and is to protect Anglicanism from homosexuality...it must define marriage.

Not just that it is between one man and one woman...but whether it is indissoluable or not.

This they will not be able to agree to, as there are serious divisions even amongst so-called Anglo-Catholic or evangelical conservatives.

You can see this when you examine the REFORM covenant or the one drawn up by Anglican Mainstream. They delenerately avoisd the issue.

To jump over the hurdle they simply remove a bar.

Furthermore a Diocese like Sydney may not accept the Covenant if it blocks the way to lay celebration.

[Gillibrand]

"make it like the Catholic Church with its own Pope, Curia and so on."

If there are any Anglicans wishing to attempt this, I do have to remind them that there is already a perfectly licit and viable Pope, Curia and so on (whatever that means), resident in Rome.

The thought of "Pope" Rowan I and Last fills me with horror, as I suspect it does the prospective holder of the office.

[Graeme Buttery]

Ruth,
Just got back from General Synod. Just one short point about archdeacons. Although the special constituency went, you will find that most archdeacons got back onto Synod through the clergy elections. It is laity and parish clergy who seem to have "lost out".

[Hugh Manitas]

Is really is difficult to imagine a more stultifying homage to irrelevance than this. The man on the Clapham omnibus told me that he considered 'schism' and 'covenant' slightly less important within the scheme of things, than a close examination of the Council of Trent and the Fascist deconstruction of Vatican II. He would appreciate however a swift return to pictorial wall painting and a Wikipedia course in Latin, in order to decipher the reasons for his attendance at church.

[Graham Kings]

Thanks for your ruminations, Ruth, on the Covenant debate.

From 'Inclusive Church' and 'Fulcrum' respectively, Giles Goddard and Andrew Goddard (no relation) have been having an online correspondence - which is not so much showing signs of 'softening' as 'clarification'. Waiting for Goddards...
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=181

Good to hear that Giles Fraser is becoming more conservative...

For my critical review of the book Inclusive God, see:
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=213

[saint]

That's a pretty aweful (and misleading) headline to your article in the paper.

[James]

Diocese of S&M... is that in The Episcopal Church (ECUSA) ?
Having a doctrinal confession may destroy us, but having Gay Bishops and blessing gay unions won't?
C'mon...we've lost so much credibility within worldwide orthodoxy over this blasphemous stance already, Rome and Constantinople are licking their chops.
(S&M - Sodor & Man - Isle of Man, CofE. V traditionalist Anglo-Catholic diocese.rg)

[A modest, honest, altruistic and uncorrupted physicist]

Ruth Gledhill writes:
"The importance of the debate on the Anglican Covenant that we report in today's paper cannot be underestimated".
Personally,I cannot think of anything more irrelevant for the "man in the street" or for people who don't need to read an old book to get through life, but who can nevertheless lead altruistic, caring and moral lives and can think for themselves. But this column does provide me with endless amusement. So please keep going Ms. Gledhill.

[Mike]

Having gay or lesbian bishops may cause a lot of disagreement, distress, and for some, separation, but it will not destroy Anglicanism. The demands for doctrinal uniformity very well might, since a confession of faith (by any name) will erase what separates us from the major Protestant traditions. We would no longer be the "via media," and that would be a far greater tragedy than the disruptions caused by the consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire.

[A Renegade Priest]

It seems that this whole covenant stuff is a bit like shutting the stable door after the said equine boltation.

Whatever people may fear, the covenant will not make us like the RC's. In that Church unity is guaranteed by a universally recognized sacramental ministry, under the authority of bishops who are in full communion with one another other.

For better, or for worse, we threw that one out when we started ordaining women. Controversial, possibly, but just an observation

[A Renegade Priest]

It seems that this whole covenant stuff is a bit like shutting the stable door after the said equine boltation.

Whatever people may fear, the covenant will not make us like the RC's. In that Church unity is guaranteed by a universally recognized sacramental ministry, under the authority of bishops who are in full communion with one another other.

For better, or for worse, we threw that one out when we started ordaining women. Controversial, possibly, but just an observation

[Neal Terry]

You will get the fight you seem to desire. The covenant is simply drawing the pitch and agreeing the rules under which it will be fought. A sort of Marquis of Queensbury Covenant as opposed actually turning Lambeth into a colossal boxing booth and seeing who is still standing at the end of the month. If schism comes then I have no doubt it will be recognised as this foul legislation will highlight it for all to see.
What difference it will make in the western world which already rgards Anglicanism, if not christianity, as a tired anachronism is arguable. 98% of my Anglican congregation are blissfully unaware of all this nonsense and are likely to remain so.

[Chris McMullen]

Ruth I recently sat through our (Fredericton, Canada) Diocesan Synod, and then watched our (Canadian) General Synod, with similar feelings as yours. Perhaps the Holy Spirit is at work. Perhaps this does not close the door to an approriate respect for and ministry with gays, while keeping us together in our unique Anglican search for catholicity without papacy. I've decidedly tried to be cautiously optimistic about the whole thing. I know that journalists love a good fight. It's the bread and butter of your profession. But let the fight be about something more productive!

[Simon Sarmiento]

In fact, the TA reports on the synod sessions are being written by Peter Owen. I'm just rounding up the press links and other reports.