Looking for a lead

Sir, — With a welcome and compelling candour, the Manchester Group has made crystal-clear its primary judgement that “far and away the most important issue that the Church of England now has to face” (para. 22) is whether, in the matter of women priests and women bishops, the C of E wishes to maintain “a mixed economy” (para. 25).

May I respectfully suggest that it is on this pivotal issue that the House of Bishops should concentrate at its meeting later this month. On this issue, the C of E — and not least its General Synod — must have the formal and collective opinion of its fathers-in-God, the acknowledged guardians of the faith committed to it.

It will only add to confusion to embark on a consideration of particular possibilities for the way ahead without a judgement on the primary matter. At the end of the day, an Article 7 Measure can be submitted for final approval only in terms approved by the House of Bishops.

I am a cradle layman of the C of E with no plans to go anywhere else. In the sphere of the ordained ministry, it is is not I who have changed my views; I adhere to the traditional faith and order of the C of E down the ages. But am I still wanted?

For the sake of church unity, I am content to live in a C of E whose orders are open equally to men and women, and I do not for a moment question the sincerity of the convictions of any of those ordained within it, nor the validity of their ordinations in legal terms. Such persons are the lawful occupants of the offices to which they have been duly appointed, and are fully entitled to the appropriate respect and courtesy. In pursuit of the wider mission of the Church, I would wish to co-operate with them to the utmost extent that conscience permits.

But — and here comes the rub — I have to say as an “Old Believer” that, after much prayer and study, I cannot for myself find in a priestly and episcopal ministry of women the level of assurance that would enable me to accept their sacramental ministrations — or those of those who had ordained them or were ordained by them. For me, doubt remains in an area where, for the laity at large, doubt cannot be entertained. I cannot, therefore, in all honesty, accept them as “truly” bishops or priests in the terms of Canon A4.

Does that rule me out — and those who think as I do? The House of Bishops must say. I would urge them not to duck, delay, or delegate elsewhere their critical responsibility in this area. Of course, if I am to stay, it cannot be as the result of some act of tolerance or “grace and favour” by anyone. The position of those who think as I do and the treatment to be accorded them must be statutorily recognised and safeguarded in perpetuity in terms no less clear, certain, and authoritative than those accorded to duly ordained women priests and bishops.

O. W. H. CLARK 5 Seaview Road, Highcliffe Christchurch, Dorset BH23 5QJ