Getting With God’s Programme
For Baptismal Integrity www.Baptism.org.uk
This is Baptismal Integrity’s first contribution to this column in the CEN for 2013. Allow me, therefore, to wish everyone somewhat belated good wishes for a peaceful new year.
Writing at the outset of a new year (well, almost – it is late January as I do so) one naturally looks back over the previous one. In the Church of England 2012 began normally enough, as I recall, but ended in the greatest maelstrom of controversy that I can remember in 25 years and more of ministry in it. Issues of Christian initiation (with which BI is principally concerned) did not loom large in all of this, though I will suggest a connection – please read on. The two big issues were, of course, women bishops and gay marriage. They will continue to be so, and both have a way to run yet. Seeking to stand aside from partisan positions on these issues, I offer some reflections and comments hopefully worthy of thought.
The catalyst for all the angst as 2012 drew to a close was the General Synod’s debate and vote on legislation intended to permit the consecration of women to the episcopate. Like many, I assumed it would go through. The resulting hysteria, demonstrated by the media, parliament and some church groups, when it didn’t, lacked balance and proportion. Emotion ran high, and this is neither good nor wise in any situation.
Any casual observer (of which there must have been many) would have thought that the church had unexpectedly decided to reverse its previous decision to introduce women bishops. It had done no such thing; the motion fell on the issue of “proper provision”.
Everyone knows – on all sides of the debate and of all shades of opinion – that women are going to become bishops in the Church of England. It’s simply been held up for a while, ironically because of the votes of some supporters of women bishops in the House of Laity.
As I understand it, those opposed in principle were never numerous enough to block the legislation.
But to return to the astonishing reaction by press and parliament – many of whom seldom darken the doors of a church building, while still feeling entitled to have a say – and some within the church itself. Deeper issues – theological and ecclesiological (mainly the latter) - need to be addressed; this should be of concern to all within the church regardless of their personal stance on the issue of women in the episcopate.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (an MP on the Government benches charged, in a honorary capacity, with communication vis a vis ecclesiastical matters in the House of Commons, and who is therefore an ex-officio member of the General Synod) came to Parliament and, instead of delivering a measured explanation to the House as to the reasons behind the outcome of the debate in Synod, as would be expected, said: “As a consequence of the decision by the General Synod, the Church of England no longer looks like a national Church; it simply looks like a sect, like any other sect. If it wishes to be a national Church that reflects the nation, it has to reflect the values of the nation” (my emphasis).
Then the Prime Minister – clearly also irritated by the outcome of the General Synod’s debate – subsequently, and in similar vein, suggested in the House of Commons that the Church of England needed to “get with the pro- gramme.”
Many things could be said about this, but I confine myself to but a few.
First, the suggestion that the Church of England could ever become “a sect” is difficult to imagine; so there’s no need for worr y on that front.
Second, and more seriously, reflecting the values of a nation logically means including with good grace the views and positions of those who don’t agree with the majority; that’s how coherent families function.
Third, and theologically, the calling of the Church of God (of which the CofE is a small part) under God is not to reflect the values of any nation; it is to reflect the values of the Kingdom of God – the central message of Jesus Christ, which is God’s programme. I realise that statements like this raise more questions than answers, but so be it; space doesn’t permit elaboration.
It is almost 20 years since Bishop Colin Buchanan – Baptismal Integrity’s President - published his book, “Cut The Connection – Disestablishment and the Church of England.” In it, he argued that the time had come for the Church of England to govern its own affairs and make its own decisions. Since then, this deeper issue has remained largely quiet – until now, that is.
The issue has been reawakened, not because the Church of England governed its own affairs in this instance (however curiously in the eyes of some), but by the ill-considered reactions of some parliamentarians. It might become the next “big issue” for church and state.
And what of Christian Initiation in all of this? In Baptism we make deep and profound vows and promises to follow Christ – that is to “get with God’s programme”. That, as Christ himself discovered, is often not the same thing as any national, political or cultural programme or fashion.