General Synod
Church militant
Stephen Glover
Last week's Second General Synod of the Church of England followed hard upon the Archbishop's call to the nation. But though Her Majesty the Queen added some queenly endorsements in her speech at the opening ceremony, and Dr Coggan harped on familiar themes in his presidential address, the call did not command the interest, let alone imagination, of the General Synod. • In fact most of the business was conducted on a far more practical level. The 555-strong Synod does not, of course, thrive on the vituperative debate and rancour of the House of Commons. Discussion is polite, sometimes excessively so, and too many speakers are allowed to ramble on. But despite this indulgence, it is clear that the Church of England is stirring itself to put its house in order.
This was evident in the debates on financial matters. The Church of England is short of money. A report of a committee headed by the Dean of Windsor calculates that essential Church expenditure will rise next year to £92 million, compared with £65 million in 1973. Part of the increase will be met by the Church Commissioners. In the year ending March 1974 they controlled some £670 million of capital. This may sound a lot, but they are reluctant to lose capital and thereby lose income. At any rate it is estimated that if 'the man in the pew' gives an extra 20p per week, then a further and necessary £20 million can be raised. This presupposes a regular church attendance of nearly two million.
Such preoccupation with figures did not please everyone. One layman (the Synod is made up of all diocesan bishops, some suffragans and deans, and elected laity and clergy) said that there was too much emphasis on finance and not enough on God. But on the whole pragmatism prevailed. Money is most needed for the payment and housing of clergy: the average clerical wage is £36 a week, though the incumbent does get a free house. Still, it is felt that the dwindling number of clergy owes much to low salaries and another report expressed determination "to improve the stipends of clergymen, deaconesses, and licensed lay workers." This will not be possible if regular giving does not increase.
Another drain on Church funds is the upkeep of churches. Dr Coggan touched on this at his enthronement as Archbishop of Canterbury and in his recent call to the nation, but last week he was more explicit. "We will ... address ourselves to the speeding up of ways and means by which otiose buildings are disposed of. We cannot promise to relieve you at once of the weight of masonry which hangs around our necks but we realise the scandal . .. and we will tackle it with renewed vigour and determination." This view gained widespread support and there can be no doubt that he means business: the Church can now dispose of its buildings without the sanction of Parliament. Exceptional church buildings will, of course, always be protected whatever their function. But many other precious churches are in danger of redundancy or even demolition.
This businesslike approach to finance was typical of the Synod's attitude to other matters, for example the liturgy, where the 1662 prayerbook is being replaced by the experimental 'Series Three' in modern English. Last week the new wedding service was discussed and, despite a few cavils, universally endorsed before final revisions. The changes are not revolutionary but they are telling. The controversial 'obey' clause of 1662 is dropped. Language is pepped up, and in the iirocess theological assumptions are sometimes changed. Compare, for example, the old "With this ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow: in the name of the Father. and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen," with the new "I give you this ring as a sign of our marriage, in the name of God, 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit. With my body I honour you, all that I am I give to you, and all that I have I share with you." The poetry of the original has been desecrated.
A parish priest, the Revd G. Austin, moved a motion which is worth quoting in full. "This Synod views with the gravest concern the support given by the World Council of Churches through the programme to combat racism to organisations which seek to achieve their aims by violence and terrorism." This refers to relatively small grants for medical and other non-military supplies given by the WCC in the last few years to guerrilla organisations, mostly African, such as Frelimo. This Sunday the first WCC conference since 1968 opens in Nairobi and will be attended by a Church of England delegation including Dr Coggan and two diocesan bishops. Mr Austin was anxious that this party should convey the Synod's disapproval of the WCC's support of guerrilla organisations. And yet he was overwhelmingly defeated by a show of hands. Equally surprising were the comments of the Bishop of Litchfield. Without actually condoning violence he dwelt upon examples of white oppression which he had personally witnessed in Rhodesia. "We must not," he said, "give any countenance to a motion which suggests that we do not take racism seriously."
This unprecedented synodical endorsement of WCC's subsidy of terrorists indicates a Church uneasy about its middle-class image and striving to be 'relevant.' But of course the Church of England is risking its credibility. Whatever the merits of any guerrilla war, there are too many dangers and ironies in a Christian subsidy of violence. The WCC has a reputation for extremism, and its handbook for the coming conference (which was not available at the Synod) is full of polemical claptrap such as this: "Educational priority must be given to the popular education of adults, to 'political literacy,' to education closely tied to community development and action, to overcoming parochial consciousness and consciences, and to fostering global and ecumenical awareness and engagement." Does the Church of England want to be associated with this kind of drivel? At Nairobi, when the WCC asks for at least $300,000 for 1975 grants to anti-racist groups. the Anglican delegation should perhaps reexamine its own conscience.
The Church of England is clearly in a changing state. But despite innovations, the First General Synod rejected progressive measures such as the ordination of women as priests and union with the Methodists. The Church is still cagey on such matters as homosexuality and preand extra-marital sex. These and other questions will doubtless come up again during the next five years in the twenty or so meetings of this second Synod. The problem for the Church is how to adapt without . compromising its Christianity or destroying its best traditions.
Previous page
