HL Deb 26 April 1988 vol 496 cc194-200

7.48 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of Rochester rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.

The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This second Measure which it is my duty to present to your Lordships tonight is an enabling Measure which will make it lawful for the General Synod to promote canons in matters of ecumenical relations. It comes before this House after overwhelming votes in all three houses of the General Synod and after the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament has deemed it to be expedient.

The need for the Measure arises from the growth of co-operation at the grass roots, in the parishes of the country, rather than from another round of high-level negotiations. In an increasing number of places up and down the country, co-operation between the local churches of all denominations is developing apace. There are now 700 local councils of churches and nearly 500 local ecumenical projects, where churches are working very closely together and where there is often a considerable amount of shared worship.

The Church of England is involved in many such projects, not only with the English Free Churches but also with the Roman Catholic Church, for it is important to note that in no fewer than 110 places the Church of England is participating with Roman Catholics either alone or in a wider scheme. If my diocese is anything to go by, there are in addition many places where the Church of England welcomes the local Roman Catholic congregation to the parish church for its own mass.

Things have been happening very fast in recent years and shared worship has run ahead of the law. Section 15 of the Act of Uniformity 1662, in dealing, for instance, with common prayer requires everyone who preaches in a parish church to have a bishop's licence. Therefore technically every time a Roman Catholic priest or a Free Church minister or layman preaches at a Church of England service that law is being broken.

The Sharing of Church Buildings Measure, which I had the honour to move in your Lordships' House in 1970, permitted for the first time the sharing of buildings. Although it allowed a measure of shared worship, that was not its primary aim.

In 1980 the House of Bishops issued a code of practice on ecumenical relations in order to provide guidelines for ecumenical co-operation. That code was an interim document produced in the expectation that there would soon be substantial changes in relationships between the Churches. Sadly, very sadly, in the judgment of many of us, those changes have not yet come about. So the House of Bishops had to establish a working party under the chairmanship of the former Bishop of Derby to consider the Anglican involvement in local ecumenical developments. The measure now before the House and the canons which are proposed attempt to implement the recommendations of the Derby Working Party.

Clause 1 of the Measure makes it possible for provision by canon to be made for joint worship with other Churches and for the use of Church of England buildings by members of other Churches. Clause 2 makes it possible for a canon to permit a bishop to authorise areas in his diocese to participate in local ecumenical projects. Clause 3 lays down who may be permitted to preside at the Holy Communion and to solemnise marriages, while Clause 4 allows clergy from the United Churches of South India, North India, Pakistan and Bangladesh when visiting England for a limited period to exercise their ministry in both Anglican and non-Anglican churches. This is an amendment which many feel is long overdue.

Your Lordships will see that, while the Measure and the canons give legal authority for co-operation with Christians of other traditions, there are at every point carefully drafted safeguards. This means that they do not go as far or as fast as some enthusiasts would like. They have, however, received the overwhelming support not only of the three Houses of the General Synod but also of the 43 Diocesan Synods.

There are at present no national schemes or proposals for union before the Church of England. Therefore it is desirable to establish some rules for Church of England parishes and clergy to follow in ecumenical relations. This Measure enables such rules to be established. I commend it to your Lordships' House in what, as one noble Lord has already suggested, may well be my last speech from these Benches. When I spoke here for the first time, it was about the sharing of buildings and tonight it has been my duty and pleasure to speak about the sharing of ministry.

I rejoice that, despite all the disappointments in Church relations of the past two decades, this is a welcome indication that the ecumenical movement is still moving. I beg to move.

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

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the right reverend Prelate for moving the Church of England (Ecumenical Relations) Measure. The House will note that there are perhaps more items of controversy in this Measure than there were in my view in the previous Measure that the right reverend Prelate moved.

It is true that this matter was discussed in the Ecclesiastical Committee as is proper and it is true that that committee deemed the Measure to be expedient. Nevertheless, there was considerable discussion in that committee about Clause 5 which I should like to bring to the Floor of your Lordships' House. Clause 5 refers to the safeguards which I think the right reverend Prelate mentioned. It defines those Churches which may be designated by the two archbishops, acting jointly, as a Church to which the Measure applies.

I cannot imagine that anyone would quarrel with the right reverend Prelate when he expresses his sincere desire for progress in ecumenical relations. It must be right that various Churches of all denominations should try to come closer together. That has been a movement which I personally have supported. My father supported it and others have supported its general thrust.

Nevertheless there are certain criteria which I am sure the right reverend Prelate would accept that we have to insist on if ecumenical relationships are going to correspond to what some of us believe to be the proper doctrine of what I shall refer to as one catholic and apostolic church.

Clause 5 stipulates as a criterion for a Church to be designated by the archbishops that that church should subscribe to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and should administer the sacraments of baptism and holy communion. Some of us have doubts—I put it no stronger than that—about simple subscription to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as opposed to the other doctrines in the Nicene Creed. I raised this matter with the right reverend Prelate before the debate, so I hope that this does not come as a sudden challenge. I do not mean it to be a challenge. Some of us believe that simple subscription to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not sufficient, although it is necessary, to qualify for a designation by the two archbishops as Churches with which the Church of England should properly enter into ecumenical relations. There are other extensions beyond the doctrine of the Holy Trinity which are contained in the Nicene Creed and which are represented in the corpus of belief of the Church of England which I would qualify as being the corpus of belief represented by the Book of Common Prayer.

I should be most grateful if, when the right reverend Prelate comes to reply, he will let us know—I hope, if I may say so without being controversial, in a slightly fuller manner than the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby was able to let us know in the Ecclesiastical Committee— exactly why the Holy Trinity doctrine was chosen as a fundamental bottom line belief, as it were, for a Church that could be so designated.

I do not wish at all to enter into theological controversy but I am sure that the right reverend Prelate will recognise that this is a matter on which many people do feel quite strongly. When he does come to reply I shall be grateful if he will enlighten us on exactly why this expression has been chosen.

Lord Banks

My Lords, in my previous intervention, I said that I greatly welcomed co-operation between the different Christian Churches. The United Reformed Church, of which I am a member, does of course include two traditions—the Presbyterian and the Congregational. Having moved home, my wife and I are just about to join a new Church. That is the Amersham Free Church. The Church is interesting, in that it is a full member of the United Reformed Church and a full member of the Baptist Union. But, going beyond that, that free Church representing three traditions works in the closest possible way with the Church of England and the Methodist Church in Amersham. It is to be hoped that the co-operation will be strengthened and extended. I welcome all such co-operation and I am glad that the Measure which we are discussing will facilitate it.

8 p.m.

Lord Fanshawe of Richmond

My Lords, I should like to thank the right reverend Prelate for taking us so carefully and skilfully through the Measure which is before your Lordships' House, and to associate myself with the comments which have been made by noble Lords on both sides of the House concerning his retirement. I want to join in thanking him for the work which he has done in the House over the years.

I should not like the Measure to pass without making some comment on Clause 1 of the draft Canon B43. While I support and agree with all the comments which have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, Clause 1(1)(a) fails to mention the Book of Common Prayer or to enjoin parochial church councils in their duty to use it.

Noble Lords who are members of the Church of England have to suffer in our parish churches on far too many occasions the Series 3 rite, which is an alternative to the Book of Common Prayer. More and more it is becoming the only liturgy in use in many parish churches. It is rare today to find a church where one can attend Matins. Occasionally it is imposed on the members of the church after a sung Eucharist so that the church empties and a few people remain for Matins. It is rarely used as a separate service.

More and more the priests who leave our theological colleges tend to leave with the idea that Series 3 is the liturgy which should be used today. Fewer and fewer parish priests are prepared or wish to use the 1662 Prayer Book. Recent events about which we have read in our newspapers concerning a village called Hartley Wintney not far from London have seemed to me to be the tip of the iceberg of what is going on in many parish churches at the present time. I was delighted to see that the parishoners in Hartley Wintney won their battle and will not have their altar wheeled around the church on a trolley or have the pews removed. However, the fact that that sort of dispute can take place in the Church today is indicative of the attitude of many of the leaders of the Anglican Church.

We are told that the young dislike the 1662 Prayer Book. I am not sure that that is correct. However, that is what we are told. We are told that people like myself are out of date and do not count in the Church. I should like to take the opportunity on my own behalf to warn the Episcopate that we may be old-fashioned and out of date but we are the backbone of the Church and we should not be ignored in the way that many people who have attended church all their lives are finding they are, particularly in relation to the Prayer Book.

Finally perhaps I may quote the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, from the Official Report for 29th October 1987 at col. 708. In that debate he said: The rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer are and have a certain hallowed authority, if I may put it like that. At our peril we move away from the tradition of the Church of England as enshrined in the Book of Common Prayer".

The Lord Bishop of Rochester

My Lords, I am very grateful to those of your Lordships who have taken part in the debate. I appreciate the kind words of the noble Lord who has just spoken in associating himself with what others said earlier. I am grateful to both the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Banks, for their support for the Measure.

I should like to put Clause 5 in its historical context. I well remember, when the British Council of Churches was inaugurated in 1942, that Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher, then Archbishop of Canterbury and the second president of the council, was concerned that those from the Society of Friends and from the Salvation Army who had been associated with many inter-Church activities and consultations in the 1930s should not be excluded from the new British Council of Churches, which was then coming into being. With his own particular genius for finding a way through problems of that sort, he found a form of words which enabled those two bodies, as well as the YMCA and the YWCA, to be associated with the council from the start.

The measure reflects a change of emphasis which has taken place in the past 45 years or so. It reflects the recent ecumenical discussions that have taken place in which Roman Catholics and others have been involved on baptism, eucharist and ministry. It reflects a renewed emphasis on what is sometimes called the Lambeth Quadrilateral—the four main points upon which the Anglican communion stands: the Bible, the Creeds, the threefold ministry and the two dominical sacraments. It is to reflect that and carry the support of those of Catholic loyalty in not only the Church of England but in other churches that the phrase is used. I am hound to say that I do not regard it as the best phrase. However, in the context of 40 years of continuing discussions and of the recent ecumenical discussions across the board, it makes a stand for the point of view which the noble Lord was emphasising.

The reference made by the noble Lord to the Book of Common Prayer is only marginally relevant to a Measure dealing with ecumenical relations. Let me assure him that the Alternative Service Book which succeeded Series 3 in 1980 is widely used. The bishops have taken particular pains to ensure that in all our theological colleges those who are being trained as the clergy of the future shall be trained both in the understanding and the use of the Book of Common Prayer as well as of the alternative book.

I would assure him that some things that happen in parishes happen because of pressure from the laity. Certainly in some of the parishes, like the one he quoted at Hartley Wintney—of which I have several in my diocese—it is very often the clergy who hold the restraining hand. I do not think that those who are loyal to the Prayer Book and who wish to see it maintained understand the pressures on the clergy in many cases for a much freer and much less traditional form of service.

I am grateful to many of my own clergy for the way in which they seek to hold the balance and to provide in their parochial programme for those who wish to worship according to the Prayer Book and for those who welcome and support the use of the alternative book.

Although it is only marginally related to the Measure, in courtesy to the noble Lord I have expressed myself at some length on that point. I can assure him that all of us in the House of Bishops and all those who sit on these Benches recognise it as a matter of concern in many places. We also know that in many other places the Church is growing, growing at quite a rate. In those places where churches are having to be extended and new churches built it is not because they are using the old Prayer Book; they are holding with difficulty to the alternative book and pressing on to something that possibly by the year 2000 will look even more different.

I come back to the Church of England (Ecumenical Relations) Measure and thank your Lordships for your support for it.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Viscount Davidson

My Lords, before adjourning the House I should like to add my voice to those of other noble Lords and, on behalf of the Government, wish the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester a well-earned, happy and long retirement. He has graced the Bishops' Benches since 1969 and we shall all miss his episcopal presence and resonant voice. We shall also miss his occasional trips through the Government Lobby.

On behalf of the Government I should like to record our appreciation of his service to the House and of his contributions to our deliberations on many occasions.