from Psephizo
When the Church of England changed its practice to allow the ordination of women, there was a period of ‘open reception.’ Is there a parallel with same-sex marriage? Could ‘open reception’ both work and preserve unity? What are the major obstacles to such an idea?
Andrew Goddard writes: The House of Bishops in July’s General Synod defeated a Private Members Motion on there being a “legitimate range of theological perspectives” in relation to marriage and sexuality. This week a Deanery Synod motion in Southwark is being introduced by The Revd Dr Charlie Bączyk-Bell. It proposes a similar approach in order to maintain “the overall unity of the Church of England, including the unity of each diocese under the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop”. It does so by appealing to the practice of “open reception” drawing on the Eames Commission and the Grindrod Report on women’s ministry.
In the article that follows, having noted that it is the desire to introduce developments in doctrine and practice which is currently straining our unity, I offer an initial critique of this appeal to “reception”, setting out three major obstacles which show why it “is not as simple as is made out and indeed seriously flawed”.
First, the motion and supporting paper fail to note that the Anglican Communion considered such an approach and was clear (The Windsor Report para 69) that where church teaching exists
no province, diocese or parish has the right to introduce a novelty which goes against such teaching and excuse it on the grounds that it has simply been put forward for reception.
I note that, although some may dispute there is any longer “such teaching” on marriage in the Communion, there clearly is in the Church of England—in the BCP marriage liturgy and ordinal, and in Canon B30:
The Church of England affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better for worse, till death them do part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and affections, and for the mutual society, help and comfort which the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.
Secondly, I show by reference to various Church of England and Communion sources that the appeal to a precedent in women’s ordination fails. This is because reception there followed after
a formal decision, by a church following its due processes, to act in new ways, based on compelling doctrinal reasons and with overwhelming support.