Roles & Responsibilities
- Overview
- Diocese of Canterbury
-
Church of England »
-
About General Synod »
- Women in the Episcopate
- General Synod Draft Legislation: Women in the Episcopate
- General Synod Draft Legislation: Women in the Episcopate amendments
- General Synod London 2010
- Previous Presidential Addresses by the Archbishop
-
Archive »
- Archbishop's farewells from the February 2009 Synod
- Archbishop - We have to spread the good news of what is done
- Archbishop - What kind of global communion do we want to be?
- Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure
- Archbishop's Presidential Address
- Archbishop introduces His Eminence Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster, to address the Synod
- General Synod, York - The Church of the Triune God
- Archbishop's farewell tribute to Bishop of Truro
- Archbishop's farewell tribute - Bishop of Sheffield
- The Archbishop's Speech on Gambling, at the General Synod
- Presidential Address to the opening of General Synod
- General Synod Debate on Lesbian and Gay Christians
- Fresh Expressions - 'the Life Blood of Who We Are'
- The Anglican Communion - Archbishop's Presidential Address to General Synod
- The Future of Trident - General Synod Debate
- Women in the Episcopate - General Synod Debate
- Speech to General Synod on Women Bishops
- Archbishop's Address to the Synod
- Speeches to General Synod on Women Bishops
- Bicentenary of the Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade - Speech to General Synod
- General Synod Women Bishops' Debate - Archbishop's Contributions
- General Synod - London Sessions, 15-16 November 2005 Archbishop's contribution during the debate on The Review of Clergy Terms of Service: property issues and progress report
- General Synod London Sessions, 15-16 November 2005 Archbishop of Canterbury's farewell tribute to the Bishop of Oxford, the Rt Revd Richard Harries
- General Synod London Sessions, 15-16 November 2005 Archbishop's speech moving the Loyal Address
- General Synod London Sessions, 15-16 November 2005 Archbishop's Presidential Address
- General Synod, London Sessions, 15-16 November 2005 Archbishop's contribution during the presentation on 'Episcopacy in the Church of England'
- General Synod London Sessions, 15-16 November 2005 Archbishop's remarks at opening session
- General Synod London Sessions, 15-16 November 2005 Archbishop's contribution in debate on terrorism
- General Synod: Speech in debate on the environment
- General Synod: Speech in debate on the Windsor Report
- General Synod: Speech in Take Note debate on the theology of Women in the Episcopate
- General Synod: Speech Moving Motion on Women in the Episcopate
- General Synod: Speech Moving Motion on Women in the Episcopate
- General Synod: Intervention in the debate on Trade Justice
- General Synod: Intervention in the debate on Rethinking Sentencing
- General Synod: Debate on Clergy Discipline (Doctrine) »
- General Synod: Debate on Asylum- Archbishop of Canterbury's remarks
- General Synod: Debate on The Gift of Authority- Archbishop of Canterbury's remarks
- General Synod: Telling the story, being positive about HIV/AIDS - Archbishop of Canterbury's remarks
- General Synod: Archbishop of Canterbury welcome to the Secretary of State for International Development
- General Synod: Debate on the Future use of the Church Commissioners' Funds- Archbishop's remarks
- General Synod: Archbishop remarks in the debate on the Mission-Shaped Church
- General Synod: Debate on the Agenda - Archbishop's remarks
- Archbishop's Presidential Address
-
About General Synod »
- Anglican Communion
- Ecumenical Relationships
- Inter Faith
- Lambeth Palace
- Archbishop as Patron
- Archbishop's Awards
- The Archbishop's Examination in Theology
- House of Lords
- The Archbishops from Augustine to Williams
General Synod: Debate on Clergy Discipline (Doctrine)
Saturday 10 July 2004
Thank you Mr Chairman. It's always very difficult in a situation where we're immediately aware of particular controversies to retreat and look at general principle. And at the moment it may be rather difficult to imagine that the church could ever be concerned about anything other than sex or surplices, given the particular configuration of offences that seem to be envisaged here. But I hope that we can think more broadly, more evangelically, if I may so put it, about the purposes of such a proposed measure. The question I think we ought to be asking is a question about whether this does or does not serve the integrity or credibility of the church in the long run. And if we believe that if such a measure serves integrity and credibility, that we then we should vote for it and see what happens. And I believe that such a measure can serve the integrity and credibility of the church if we do indeed step back in this way.
Certain things really are incompatible with Christian profession. And I don't think we ought to let ourselves forget that. It's twenty something years, I think since the world alliance of reformed churches declared a theological justification of apartheid was a heresy. It would be, I think a very incredible and inadequate Christian church which did not have the resource to say something like that. There's an issue also about the nature of our responsibility to one another in the church and the way in which what is said by one is felt to commit, and indeed affect in other ways, others.
I'd like also to pick up a point very briefly that the Bishop of Rochester touched on. Case law can be a benign fact in the history of a church; it can sometimes be helpful in calling the bluff of idle or vexatious complainants and I think we can bear that in mind as something affecting the general credibility and integrity of the church. And it's broadly for those reasons that I think I shall want to vote for this to go to the next round. And I'm grateful for the work that's been done by the group which has produced this report.
The two reservations I'd like to enter at this point, hoping that they will go into the continuing process have to do first with a rather obvious point already touched on by Professor McHenry and flagged in the proposed amendments. That is, the obvious question of whether the hurdle is high enough in all cases. I and I imagine some others here could imagine others here could imagine without too much difficulty certain PCCs we have known and loved where the assembling of a two-thirds majority would not be as difficult as it perhaps ought to be. I speak from some experience here from a province which did have a doctrinal canon along these lines. And I think that the point made by Professor McHenry about consultation with the Bishops so that there was a corporate element to any discernment by an individual bishop is of great help.
But my slightly more serious and persistent worry is about what we mean by ritual and ceremonial. I suspect, you see that the thrust of what we have here is really about liturgical order, that is the principal of liturgical order, the principal of what being answerable for what is said and very broadly done in church in accordance with what the church at large determines. I would see that as slightly different from what the words 'ritual' and 'ceremonial' immediately suggest to me and to many people. And I feel that the potential there for idle and vexatious complain is enormous, whether from the ultra-conservative or the ultra liberal. And I think we're going to need a little bit more clarification in that area before we can simply pass this through as it stands. But I would, going back to where I began, say once again that I'm happy to see this go to the next round of exploration and discussion on that fundamental question 'is this something which makes our church credible? is this something that serves our common integrity?' and remind you that, as I've said, there is a question about our answerability to one another in the church which has to find some sort of expression in law; not of itself as I'm sure many people on the platform will be glad to hear me say, but if itself, a bad thing. Thank you.
© Rowan Williams 2004

