CHURCH OF ENGLAND (WORSHIP AND DOCTRINE) MEASURE

HL Deb 14 November 1974 vol 354 cc867-74

3.17 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty The Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty having been informed of the purport of the Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure has consented to place Her prerogative and interest so far as they are affected by the Measure at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Measure.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, the Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The most reverend Primate said: My Lords, this is, I believe, the most important Church Measure which has been presented to Parliament for a good many years. It passed the Church's Genera! Synod in February of this year, and it was then hoped that the Measure would come before Parliament before Easter, but two General Elections and other factors have delayed the possibility of its introduction until to-day, which is the last day before my own retirement from Office.

First, let me mention that this Measure comes with overwhelming support in the Church's General Synod. The vote in favour was 340, and the vote against numbered only eight of the clerical members and two of the lay members. I see that your Lordships have been circularised with a Statement that the Synod fails to represent the laity because it is elected by 36,000 people, while there are nearly 2 million people entered on parish rolls. But the 36,000 electors are themselves members of Deanery Synods who are themselves elected by the parish meetings. This procedure ensures that important issues for the Church are discussed in the deaneries as well as the dioceses throughout the country, so that lay discussion, linked with lay representation, exists at all these levels. I believe it is impossible to maintain with any justice that the lay support for this Measure is not very strong indeed. There was indeed only one Diocesan Synod which did not declare its support for these proposals in one form or another, and that was because it desired more radical proposals.

My Lords, let me first say what this Measure is not. It is necessary to say what it is not. It is not a Measure for the disestablishment of the Church of England, nor a step towards separating the Church of England from the Crown. I would claim rather—I hope to show so in the course of my argument—that this Measure provides a way in which the link between the Church of England and the State can continue in a form which enables each to fulfil its distinctive role for the benefit of the other, with greater effectiveness in the life of the Church. Again, it is not a Measure for abolishing the Book of Common Prayer. As I shall presently show, it gives to the Book of Common Prayer a secure place which could be altered only by the action of Parliament itself.

This Measure is a chapter in a story which starts a long way back, but my allusions to this long story will be brief. In 1906 the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline reported that the law of public worship was too narrowly drawn for the needs of the time and called for the initiation of liturgical reform. But how could this be brought about? The enabling Act of 1919 gave the Church Assembly of Bishops, Clergy and Laity the power to propose Measures, including Measures concerned with liturgy, which could receive the Royal Assent after an Affirmative Resolution in each House of Parliament. As everyone knows, a Measure for an Alternative Prayer Book, submitted by the Church Assembly in 1927 and 1928, was rejected in the House of Commons and a deadlock followed. I will not describe now a number of abortive attempts which were made to overcome the deadlock in the years between 1928 and the 1960s, but I would describe the main issue as I see it.

Ought a Christian Church, through its own chief pastors, ministers and laity, to have the ordering of its own forms of worship? I do not believe that there is a single Church in Christendom which would not answer, "Yes, a Christian Church ought to have the ordering of its own forms of worship". Certainly the Church of Scotland, established as it is, would say this. Certainly every province of the world-wide Anglican Communion would say this. But this is linked with another question. If being a citizen and being an adherent of another Church are no longer identical, as was assumed in Hooker's great work, Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, is it possible for a particular Church to have the desired autonomy in its worship and doctrine, and at the same time to have the link with the State and the Crown which we know as Establishment? My answer is that it is certainly possible, and the status of the Church of Scotland shows that that is so.

But let it be recognised that certain conditions are necessary. One condition is that in the United Kingdom such a Church must uphold the position of the Crown in relation to the Papal claims of the past. Another condition is that such a Church should have a defined identity. In Scotland, for example, the Church is identified as a Reformed Church of Presbyterian order. In England, the Church is identified as an Anglican Church whose formularies are known as its standard of belief. A further safeguard is surely necessary; that such a Church should be one in whose government the laity participate fully in partnership with the clergy.

In England, I believe it is true to say that the desire for greater self-government for the Church was long vitiated by the failure to introduce the role of the laity effectively into a traditionally episcopal Church. Now, however, the Church's synodical constitution brings in the partnership of the laity at every level of the Church's government and, as I hope to show, the proposals in this Measure involve the full participation of the laity in decisions about the use of forms of worship.

Now, my Lords, unless the Church of England was to be the only Church in Christendom which did not tackle the revision of old forms of worship, a start had to be made somewhere. This start was at long last made when in 1965 the Royal Assent was given to the Prayer Book (Alternative and Other Services) Measure, which it was at the time my privilege to introduce in your Lordships' House. That Measure, as noble Lords will remember, gave power to the Church's Convocations and House of Laity to sanction, by two-thirds majorities, forms of service alternative to those of the 1662 Prayer Book for limited periods, with the proviso that the use of an alternative service in any parish requires the consent of the Parochial Church Council.

The Church has now enjoyed for nine years the use of new forms of service under the 1965 Measure. I believe that in spite of the misgivings of those who love the old forms, misgivings which call for much sympathy, the new forms, and in particular what is called the Series II services of Baptism and Holy Communion, have helped many people in a more lively participation in worship without loss of reverence or mystery. I would make one claim in particular. I believe that the Series II service, which I have mentioned, has enabled something of a breakthrough in the drawing together of those whom in the old language we called High Church and Low Church. I believe it is true that in the years in which we have indeed had varieties and variations the spiritual unity of our Church is stronger than in the past, and the kind of illegalities which were so troublesome to Church and State alike some 30 to 40 years ago are very much less frequent than in the past.

I think that I would put the matter thus. When I first became a Bishop 22 years ago, the Bishop's pastoral work as reconciler was still to some extent concerned with the historic parties in the Church, Catholic and Evangelical as they are called, and the tensions between them. To-day I am quite sure that the need for that kind of reconciling activity has greatly diminished, and the kind of pastoral leadership called for is now rather different. It is to bring understanding between those who value what is archaic and mysterious and those who feel more the pressures of contemporary need. It is a delicate task, but it is surely just the kind of task which Anglican leadership ought to be able to perform. But the performing of it needs both short-term and long-term strategy, and I believe we lack the opportunity for that. This Measure would provide that opportunity; and I should be very surprised if at the end of the day Parliament thought that this was a task that it could perform itself.

My Lords, the powers given under the 1965 Measure will be expiring round about the year 1980. What then? If there is no further legislation, then the only services possessing lawful authority will be those of the 1662 Prayer Book. Is it really possible or desirable to revert to that position? Is it likely that the Church would be able or willing to present to Parliament one Prayer Book—all at once—designed to last a long time? No, my Lords, I think it is most unlikely; and the Measure that I am introducing is the Church's attempt to find a solution. As your Lordships know, it is based upon the Report of the Commission on Church and State, which was presided over by Dr. Owen Chadwick, the Regius Professor of Modern History at the University of Cambridge. That Commission reported two variants, of which the proposals in this Measure are one variant, and, in fact, the more conservative and cautious of the two of them. The Measure provides that the General Synod will have, not only for limited periods but for indefinite periods, the power to sanction alternative forms of service as well as rubrics and forms of subscription. It gives to the General Synod thus considerably more power in the control or worship and doctrine. But in order to conserve both the Church's doctrinal identity and the place of the Book of Common Prayer, and the rights of the laity—all three of these needs, my Lords—there are important provisos built into the Measure and sometimes critics of the Measure have overlooked this.

In the Measure the Book of Common Prayer remains as one of the Church's standards of doctrine. This, affirmed already in the existing Canons, is reaffirmed within the Measure. Furthermore, it is laid down that in any parish where the PCC desires that a service of the 1662 Book shall be used then it shall be used. What if the PCC and the parish priest disagree in what they want? In the original draft of the Measure the Bishop was to be the arbiter in such a dispute; but in the final draft of the Measure, in order to make the role of the laity strong and unequivocal, it is laid down, as will be seen, that the PCC may insist either on continuing a form which has been in use for the past two years, if it wishes, or on reverting to the 1662 form if it wishes. I believe that this retention of the Prayer Book, both as a standard of doctrine and as a set of forms available when the PCC desires them, is a right means of conserving the identity of the Church to which Parliament is asked to allow the considerable new powers. There were those who wanted something more radical. I believe that this restraint and the proviso is right for the reasons which I have mentioned.

Noble Lords will not be misled by talk about the destruction of the Prayer Book when they notice that the safeguards for its use are stronger than they are at present under the 1965 Measure, stronger than they were in the draft Measure appended to the Chadwick Report and stronger than what was proposed when the Measure first came to our General Synod. The place of the Prayer Book in the Church's standards and the avail-ability of the Prayer Book in the parishes when desired will be alterable only if Parliament were to decide to alter it. Cannot we say, therefore, that this Measure offers a right balance between the role of the Church and the role of the State in a continuing partnership?

Under the Measure it will be for the General Synod to decide what is and what is not consonant with sound doctrine. Is it likely that the Synod will be rash or hasty or unreliable in the use of this power? Its constitutional procedure would seem to make this somewhat unlikely, for what is that procedure? It is quite lengthy. Let me describe it. There is a debate on principles in one session, followed by a Revision Committee, followed in turn by a further session with the findings of the Revision Committee before it, and then a revision stage again. After all that Article 7 of the Constitution of the Synod comes into play, and it lays down: A provision touching doctrinal formulae or the services or ceremonies of the Church of England or the administration of the Sacraments or sacred rites thereof shall, before it is finally approved by the General Synod, be referred to the House of Bishops, and shall be submitted for such final approval in terms proposed by the House of Bishops and not otherwise". I hardly think that at the end of the day Parliament would wish to undertake that function itself. Further, in any proposal of liturgy or arrangement affecting relationships with other Churches, non-Anglican Churches, Article 8 of the Constitution comes into play, and Article 8 lays down that in such cases a proposal shall be submitted to all the diocesan Synods before it becomes finally acceptable.

There is still one more plea against this Measure. It is urged that the Measure is premature and that we ought to wait until the Synod has become a more experienced body. But, my Lords, although the Synod is a young body in its constituent parts, the Houses of Bishops and Clergy and Laity have been engaged on these questions for a very long time. It is 54 years since the old Church Assembly set its hand to the problem. It is 46 years since the deadlock of 1928. It is nine years since the period of alternatives with lawful authority began. If it is suggested that I am an old man in a hurry, I would recall that at my enthronement in Canterbury 13 years ago I pleaded for the necessity of a Measure on these lines, and it has taken until the last few hours of my Primacy for its introduction to come about.

My Lords, so far from the Measure being hasty, I believe that its rejection would be very damaging. I think it would be damaging to the leadership of the Church of England in the rest of the Anglican Communion and to the cause of Christian unity for any hope of reconciliation with the Free Churches and the United Church in this country—and I still treasure that hope and I feel very sure indeed that many noble Lords do as well. Any such hope will require something like this Measure as regards the Church's ordering of its own affairs, but rejection would be damaging chiefly to the younger people to whom the Church's mission is so important.

I rejoice to say that in the present year there has been a striking increase in the number of younger men seeking and being accepted for Ordination. This is the first rise of that kind to occur for a good many years. I believe that to be a sign that, with all the country's present frustrations, there is spiritual vitality and renewal happening in the Church, but I believe that the rejection of this Measure would be deeply discouraging to those who want to see the Church more able to give the kind of leadership it ought. Here, too, I believe, is a chance for a partnership between the Church and the State in which the role of each will be better expressed and more effective. I ask, my Lords, that you will be ready to commend this Measure for the Royal Assent.

Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)