DRAFT AMENDING CANON No. 36
Submission to Revision Committee by Clive Scowen (London 358)
Paragraph 1: General
1. I strongly urge the committee that, contrary to some comments made in the debate on First Consideration, paragraph 1
should stand part of the draft Amending Canon, for three reasons.
2. First, mission requires it. While there are no doubt some people whose journey to faith could be assisted by the wearing
of robes in public worship (and nothing in this draft canon would interfere with that), there are very many wholly
unchurched people for whom the wearing of any sort of robes is a real barrier. That is true not only of fresh expressions,
in most of which the wearing of robes would be truly absurd, but also in many who adhere to an inherited model of
church. If we are serious about the re-evangelisation of England we will remove all regulations which create barriers to
reaching the maximum number of our fellow country- men and women hearing and believing the good news of Jesus
Christ.
3. Second, there is now a very substantial tradition within the Church of England in which the wearing of any form of robes
does not feature. Just as in the nineteenth century the Anglo-Catholic revival re-established in the Church of England a
tradition of wearing catholic vesture, instead of the Tudor reformation dress of cassock, surplice and scarf, and that
tradition became so mainstream that it is now reflected in Canon B8, so in the late twentieth and early twenty-first
century charismatic renewal in broadly evangelical churches has generated a widespread tradition where robes are
never worn and the wearing of them would be completely alien to the desire and expectation of the congregations. That
tradition should now be reflected in Canon B8 just as the catholic tradition is.
4. Third, such widespread disregard of the canonical requirements brings the Canons into disrepute. Canon B8 should
either be enforced (to the detriment of the church’s mission and resulting in the sort of unedifying litigation which
besmirched the church’s reputation in the nineteenth century) or amended to reflect the legitimate developments in the
traditions of the church. I hope the latter course will commend itself to the committee.
Paragraph 1(5): Occasional offices
5. The committee needs to give consideration to the meaning of “the persons concerned”. In the case of weddings there
can be no doubt that that means the couple concerned. However, for a funeral there may well be lack of agreement on
the issue between the members of the immediate family of the deceased. I suggest that in the case of funerals the
agreement of the next of kin of the deceased should be required for some “other form of dress”.
6. Although in the case of baptisms there ought to be less risk of confusion about whose agreement is required, I think
that it would nevertheless be wise to define “the persons concerned” as (a) the person to be baptized or (b) in
the case of an infant, the parent or parents who is or are bringing the infant for baptism.
7. However, if there were more than one candidate for baptism at a single service it is not clear how any disagreement
between the candidates, or their parents, would be resolved. Maybe the agreement of “all the persons concerned”
should be required.
8. While the approach proposed in paragraph 1(5) would (subject to the points in paras 6 and 7 above) no doubt work for
“private” baptisms, the policy (rightly in my view) is that baptism should normally be administered at public worship in the
course of a regular Sunday service. When baptism is so administered I question whether it is appropriate to give the
candidate or parent the right to veto the parish’s usual policy regarding vesture at public worship. In a parish where
robes are never worn at public worship on a Sunday it would be outrageous if a parent who was not even a regular
worshipper could insist on the wearing of robes at his or her child’s baptism.
Paragraph 1(6): “Seemly”
9. I hope the committee will resist any calls to try to define what is meant by “seemly.” Given the enormous variety of
cultural contexts in which Anglican worship is offered such a definition is impossible, since what is seemly in one context
may be wholly unseemly in another. It must be left to the good sense of the minister in consultation with the PCC.
Clive Scowen
14.viii.16