Religion
Fashion and faith
.Martin Sullivan
Once more the Church of England has refused to face up to the question of the marriage in church of those divorced from partners now living. A short time ago the General Synod was asked merely to give the subject an airing at 'grass roots' level. The resolution before it requested that this important mattershould be debated by Diocesan synods and that their findings should then be sent back. It seems incredible that such a reasonable resolution should be defeated and even more so that the House of Laity should be responsible. There is an explanation for this which is almost as regrettable as the vote. The Archbishop-designate of Canterbury, Dr Coggan, intervened in the debate with the result that the laity, overawed by his views, accepted them although his fellow bishops and the clergy rejected them. One house can always exercise a veto over the other two.
What were Dr Coggan's arguments? They were three in number and all doubtful. "Let us make no mistake where the burden of responsibility rests in matters of immense theological, ethical, and
pastoral importance or to the danger coming to us in the government of the church by General Synod. The danger is that we shall lapse, without realising it, into a government by consensus." It is surprising that such a bland misrepresentation appears to have gone unchallenged. There was no question of a referendum but simply a suggestion that the matter be referred to Diocesan Synods, properly elected and qualified bodies. Such reference is a normal constitutional procedure, so what was the Archbishop talking about? His second argument was much worse. "Let us remember that we are still an episcopal church and that needs understanding too. The two main centres of our thinking are the General Synod and the House of Bishops and we must work out our relationships." This is an unfounded assertion. The General Synod is one body, consisting of three houses, Bishops, Clergy and Laity, and all its decisions must receive the support of those three houses. The House of Bishops has no special relationship with the General Synod which distinguishes it from the other two. The Archbishop's argument is made to look ridiculous in the light of the matter we are now discussing. The Bishops voted to refer the question to the Diocesan Synods, but the laity defeated their Lordships. That result is of the essence of Synodical government, but Dr Coggan's argument seems to undermine it.
The Archbishop's third point is again a vague general assertion which under a most superficial examination falls to pieces. 'The matter before the House is one fraught with emotion. If it were referred to the Diocesan Synods and a certain answer came back, of what weight would that answer be? Unless carefully led and well directed theologically it could give an answer charged with emotion rather than with theological and ethical considerations." When I read that I rubbed my eyes. Forty-two Diocesan Synods are told they are incapable of making an objective decision about the remarriage of divorced people in church. And what special charisma invests the General Synod whose numbers are elected by and drawn from these same Diocesan Synods? Is this decision to be left to the Bishops alone? If so synodical government will come to an early and untimely end.
These are delaying tactics. It will be a long time before the issue is resolved and meantime those who after a breakdown in their first marriage really want to make a new start and to pledge themselves to this end before God and their neighbours, must wait on the side-line. I pray there will be no more commissions set up to try to decide this matter. We have had several already and I would be interested to see which distinguished theologians would agree to serve on another. They know their answers and could give them now.
Here is a church which has been crying out for the right to govern itself and as soon as it is faced with the call for an awkward decision it runs for cover. The retiring Archbishop of Canterbury, as his last action, piloted a measure through the Lords giving the church power to control its liturgy through the General Synod and after reference to Diocesan Synods. Is not this matter of divorce and re-marriage deserving of the same treatment?
Martin Sullivan is Dean of St Paul's
Previous page
