Church of England Irks Establishment
Episcopal News Service. January 13, 1983 [83011]
LONDON (DPS, Jan. 13) -- The established Church of England is finding itself at odds these days with certain segments of the Establishment, notably the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher and its supporters.
During the Falklands war last spring, Church leaders were either openly supportive or silent and the government had reason to think that -- apart from the "radical fringes" -- the Church would remain supportive or passive on military and international issues. The months since have jarred that assumption and brought the entire issue of the role that a Church can play in a nation's affairs to the foreground.
The question was first raised when St. Paul's Cathedral, here, was chosen as the site for a national service of thanksgiving at the conclusion of the Falklands war. Many in the nation and government viewed the event as a "Victory Celebration" and were surprised, dismayed and angered when Dean Alan Webster and Archbishop Robert Runcie of Canterbury made it very clear that the focus and intent of the service would be thanksgiving for the end of hostilities and compassion for the victims of war.
In his sermon at the somber-toned rite, Runcie decried war as "a sign of human failure," and said that the grief of victims' kin was a reminder of the terrifying power of destruction possessed by humanity.
His stand, and that of Webster, won immediate support and praise from Roman Catholic, Protestant and Anglican church leaders, many of whom had taken part in the service. But the point was apparently lost on the prime minister who was said to be angry and on others, including one Conservative who called it "revolting" and spoke of "cringing clergy."
The next cringing action was to bring to public attention a report that suggests Great Britain withdraw unilaterally from the nuclear weapons stage.
This report, which the General Synod of the Church is expected to take up next month, is designed to provoke debate on the role of smaller nations in controlling nuclear proliferation. Discussion in Synod is likely to focus on whether or not the Church has the right to provoke that debate. The authors of the report feel the Church has a duty to do so, and there is growing evidence that Church leaders will continue in that role.
The most recent evidence to that came in the furor over a Christmas sermon in which Runcie -- who led armored troops in World War II combat -- denounced the growing tendency to consider nuclear war winnable and expressed support for peace demonstrators.
With American Cruise missiles scheduled to become part of the arsenal in Britain this spring, such demonstrations have been increasing in size and strength and some Conservative politicians reacted angrily to the sermon.
Church spokesmen were quick to play down the talk of a rift between the party and the Church hut no one seems to deny the notion that the Church of England is using its prophetic voice more often.
In doing so, wrote Oxford Bishop Patrick Rodger, the Church must be aware of the "passionate partisanship of our times" which, he warns, "may soon place a great strain on the fellowship of the Church."
It is the hope of Rodger, Runcie and the Church leaders that the almost unexpected use of the prophetic voice will help make people aware that current divisions are too sharply drawn to be workable and that new attitudes need to be developed.
Runcie's Christmas sermon summed up the tenor of the debate: "We need the man with the child in his eyes, in alliance with the man who has left childish things behind him to give hope and courage to the man with pain in his mind."