Whose Church is it anyway?

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

The world of the Church of England ‘Democracy’ is somewhat defective in that it is a rather closed environment.  It is closed for a variety of reasons and here are a few I can think of from my observations.

Firstly it is not covered very well by much of the Press.  Ordinary people, not least ordinary worshippers do not hear what goes on.  The dedicated, and not widely read, publications that do carry General Synod reports are dry and staid in their reporting and thereby not likely to be accessed by most people.  Most of the honest and up to the minute reporting goes on online and to a slowly growing audience, and I’m not talking about the C of E website. Do try THINKING ANGLICANS, they are very good.

Secondly, the more local democracy (Diocesan Synods) are not well run, with matters being badly chaired, usually by management.  Real opposition to the accepted view is not given much of a voice, if any.  In the case of the Anglican Covenant the matter seems to be being presented to many diocese as a matter for endorsement rather than debate!

Thirdly, there is a long accepted acquiescence towards Clergy and particularly senior clergy who are most often given the status of ‘sainthood’ in the minds of the worshippers.  It is unfortunate that clergy are viewed in this way as it provides a predisposition to believe what they say and at the very least to give them the benefit of the doubt.  Therefore reason may fail in a debate when Archbishops and others demand loyalty.

Democracy demands openness and an active press.  So much in the Church of England relies on explicit and implicit secrecy.  Opposition is too often painted as disloyalty to clergy and good reporting is not widely read by the constituents.  Synod allows this untidy and unsatisfactory position to continue on the whole, but there are a growing number of subversives who are muttering discontent in the restaurants of London and the corridors of York University (summertime).

Mr C

Synodical tradition in London and York

One of the other quaint practices that I have encountered at General Synod is that of eating out in a large group or in a more sinister styled group of two or three.  The latter being adopted by Bishops more ususally.  Then the tradition is to move on to a venue that stays open till late, say two in the morning.  We are uncertain how many Bishops adopt the ‘night owl’ part of the practice openly.

Anyhow the main preoccupation during the whole of the tradition in London is to talk about all the other members of synod who are not present at the table and to poo-poo their ideas, their dress sense, their predicted voting preferences and their general friendliness, or lack of it.

After this process has ended, which may take most of the evening, the tradition is that matters move on to who is likely to be the next Diocesan Bishop of ‘Wheresoever and Therewithal’.  It is thought that this is indeed the conversation most preferred by some Archdeacons and many a Suffragan.  The hilarity that ensues as each probable and improbable candidate is shoe horned into the prospect is a sight to see; with many a stocking clad leg being thrust into the air wantonly, as the ecstatic owner falls off her chair in unbounded laughter and derision.  Great fun is had by many.

What never fails to amaze me is that whilst these discussions can go on well into the night all  participants will be found in the chamber the following morning, and quite a few at synod too.

Of course at York none of this is applicable or at least the tradition is somewhat curtailed as the University security staff now bar all synod members from any rooms other than their beds after eleven.   The situation has become more desperate in recent years as more security staff have been pressed to control the nocturnal revelry of synod members.

Related articles

• Traditionalists make synod gains (bbc.co.uk)
• Religious do not have monopoly on virtue, Queen tells synod (guardian.co.uk)