There was a problem with the phrase “and was made man”. I saw the two Archbishops making signs for me to intervene in the debate. I passed them a note pointing out that under Standing Orders the Ecumenical Representatives were not allowed to speak unless they had given prior notice of their desire to be called. The Archbishops replied, “We shall overrule the Chair!”
In a maiden speech I pointed out to Synod that the words “and was made man” was a mistranslation of the Latin et homo factus est, of which a correct translation would be “and he became man”, since the Greek original, enanthropesanta, was active, not passive. The important thing doctrinally was that the verb should be active not passive. The debate continued and towards the end a middle-aged gentleman from the shires said with some emphasis, if my memory is correct, “I think we should retain those four fine English monosyllables, ‘and was made man’”. This is what Synod agreed. Thiscomparatively minor detail raises for me the problem of dealing with doctrinal matters in a democratically elected body which works on parliamentary lines, even though certain safeguards are built into the system.
The problem was high-lighted later in the same series of sessions when the Eucharistic Prayers that had been worked over with detailed discussion by the previous Synod were rejected on Final Approval by the newly elected one in which the theological balance of power had shifted somewhat. As the late Michael Vasey said, “Doing Liturgy in
General Synod is like doing fine lacework with a gang of football hooligans”. Synod does not officially work on a party system like Parliament, but it would be foolish to pretend that parties do not exist. During my first attendance at Synod in July 1995 I said to one of our “minders”, who is still a respected member of the Synod staff, “Here in York, with the lake and the ducks, it is quite pleasant sitting out lengthy debates on the duties of Churchwardens, but what do we do in London?” He replied, “Go down to the tea room and plot”.
Where texts are concerned unity can be maintained by allowing variety in both text and interpretation and Common Worship can accommodate both those who hold a Zwinglian view of the Eucharist and those who favour the worst excesses of the Counterreformation. This is less easywhen actual people are involved, which is why I can see no easy solution to certain current problems in the Church of England. The Eucharist is the heart of the Body of Christ and the Bishop is the celebrant of the Eucharist in the diocese. A presbyter presides at the Lord’s Supper as the representative of the Bishop and so I cannot understand an ecclesiology which would allow a presbyter to refuse to take part in the Eucharist of his Ordinary.
The Very Revd Archimandrite Ephrem Lash
