PETITION TO THE THIRD GLOBAL ANGLICAN SOUTH TO SOUTH LEADERSHIP TEAM AND PRIMATES ADIVSORY GROUP:
SOME COMMENT & CRITIQUE FROM THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION INSTITUTE
Who are the authors?
The two signatories on behalf of The Society for the Propagation of Reformed Evangelical Anglican Doctrine (SPREAD) are Bishop John Rodgers Jr and Bishop John Rucyahana from Rwanda . This is important. In addition to their involvement in a similar petition to the Egpyt meeting of the Global South, both have a long history of separatism and intervention within the American Church . John Rodgers was one of the first consecrated Anglican Mission in American (AMiA) bishops and John Rucyahana not only serves in the province which created AMiA but notes that he himself sought soon after the last Lambeth conference to give ‘episcopal oversight to Anglicans in anti-Scriptural ECUSA dioceses’ (p22). The authors, in other words, have developed their analysis and their methodology over many years and this simply represents the latest stage in their approach to Communion disagreements over sexuality and Scripture.
What is their argument?
The claim is that the Communion is at a crucial moment because the divisions over homosexuality are fundamentally divisions over the supreme authority of Scripture. They believe that three groups can be identified within the Communion:
· those who uphold Scripture and so oppose homosexuality (true Anglicans represented here by Abp. Akinola of Nigeria ),
· those who reject Scripture and are actively undermining it in the Communion by a campaign to achieve acceptance of homosexuality (revisionists represented by Abp. of Canterbury Rowan Williams),
· those who seem to accept Scripture’s authority and currently oppose moves to accept homosexuality, but who – not least by their support for a listening process – show themselves willing to reject Scripture on the basis of experience and/or church authority and come to some form of acceptance of homosexuality (traditionalist/pragmatist group represented by former Abp. of Canterbury, George Carey).
Given the (alleged) outright attack on true Anglicans by revisionists and the (alleged) more subtle but still destructive attack by traditionalist/pragmatists (who are really ultimately allies of revisionists), the argument is that there must be a clear and decisive break to preserve the true faith and establish a genuine and pure Anglican church structure clearly submitted to Scripture.
What are its flaws?
There are major difficulties and a number of errors in the document’s analysis of the three groups. This alone seriously undermines its argument. There are also serious questions to be raised about the extent to which its solution to its misleading diagnosis of the problem is biblical and wise at the current time – questions that current debate within the Communion is rightly addressing in a broad way.
The Three Groups
The heart of the analysis is the account (pp3-28) of the 3 groups, their representative spokesmen and the relationship between them.
Anglican
There is clearly much here that is true and important, but the selective nature of the description and the contrast with the other two groups is more problematic. It is odd for a group propagating a clearly defined stance of ‘Reformed Evangelical Anglican Doctrine’ to claim that ‘at one time, the Anglican faith was held in common by the CofE and the 38 autonmous churches..which…compose the Anglican Communion’ (4). Does SPREAD really mean to say that its stance is was onceuniversally shared by Anglicans in all 38 provinces (some of which are quite recent)? While the emphasis on the ordinal, the Articles and the supreme authority of Scripture is welcome, the account – especially by making Archbishop Akinola representative of true Anglicans - downplays the great diversity of outlook which has been present for centuries within Anglicanism and seems to set up a rather denuded confessional form of Anglican identity.
The more serious problems, however, are (1) with the attempt to map the current situation in terms simply of descriptions of people’s ‘positions on the two issues of whether the Church should approve of same gender sexual relations and whether the Church is subordinate to the supreme authority of Scripture’ (7); (2) with the categorising of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the revisionist group; (3) with the description of the traditionalist/pragmatist group.
Revisionists
There are undoubtedly bishops who fall into the category of those who ‘teach that the Church should approve of same gender sexual relations’ and who ‘teach that the Church is not subordinate to Scripture’s sovereign authority’. Although citing Frank Griswold as one such (and many more could be given, particularly from North America ), the claim is made that ‘the most eminent figure of the revisionist group is the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams’ (10). This, and many of the claims made in support of it, are seriously flawed and appear to be based on a limited knowledge of Archbishop Williams, his work, and his powers and actions as Archbishop of Canterbury. It appears that there is a focus on him in order to further SPREAD’s political cause of realignment within the Communion where he acts as a focus of unity.
The author appears to have limited first-hand knowledge of Rowan Williams’ writings and theology. He also relies on the work of Garry Williams (‘it appears from Williams’s writing, as described in the Critique….’ (10)) rather than more serious studies such as those of Rupert Shortt and Mike Higton.
His account of the AbC’s position includes assertions that seriously mislead the reader (‘Williams actively teaches by his words and actions that the Church should approve of same gender sexual relations’ (10)) and his selection of events is tendentious and drawn from the distant rather than recent past. For example,
· The ordination of ‘a priest he knew to be unrepentantly engaged in same gender sexual relations’ was apparently prior to the 1998 Lambeth Conference resolution.
· Although his lecture was reprinted in 2002 it is unclear that he gave his permission for this republication and he has clearly distanced himself from aspects of this (over 15 year old) lecture, including any claim that the lecture’s tentative arguments should be taken as in any way normative proposals.
· The claim that ‘Williams has made it known throughout the Anglican Communion that he is committed to the Church’s approval of same gender sexual relations’ is a strange description of his conduct in recent years; indeed, it stands in stark contrast to his actual conduct.
· No mention is made of various explicit statements that clearly distance him from standard ‘revisionists’, e.g.
JH: What about your own personal position here. Do you believe that Canon Robinson should become a bishop? RW: No I don't (Today programme, 18th October 2003); or,
Q: Apart from that unity point, what is your own view of same-sex blessings? A: I've never licenced one or performed one because I believe that there are significantly serious questions about how that is to be distinguished from marriage not to rush into the innovation. So it is very complex and I don't have a quick answer. Q: How will you deal with bishops or clergy in this country who do undertake them? A: I can only speak with past experience. When I have encountered cases where a cleric has performed a same-sex blessing I have said that this must not happen again. Anything that is done in the name of the Church must be something done by more than just an individual. (Daily Telegraph interview).
· There is no account of his consistent approach to the current crisis which he set out on the day of his appointment in a letter to the Primates.
· The assertion of ‘Williams’s rejection of the sovereign authority of Scripture’ and ‘Williams’s teaching that the Church should approve of doctrine contrary to Scripture’ (12) sits uneasily with his serious and substantive subjection to Scripture in many of his writings, including his clear and positive statement in his recent ‘Challenge and Hope’ that Anglicanism is marked by ‘a reformed commitment to the absolute priority of the Bible for deciding doctrine’.
A major plank in the argument that Williams is a leading revisionist is his support at the end of the 1998 Lambeth Conference for ‘A Pastoral Statement to Lesbian and Gay Anglicans’. While critique can be offered of that document and those who signed it, the petition’s summary is seriously flawed in its account of its content. For example, it claims (12) that the signatories ‘committed themselves to continue to respect and support members of the Communion engaged in same gender sexual relations’ when no such explicit commitment is made and in fact it is stated that ‘Communion-wide we are in great disagreement over what full inclusion would mean. We ourselves have varied views’. It also alleges that the signatories “apologized for Lambeth’s ‘sense of rejection’ of their conduct” when in fact the petition referred to the refusal to let gay and lesbian people present to the sub-group at Lambeth and stated ‘Within the limitations of this Conference, it has not been possible to hear adequately your voices, and we apologize for any sense of rejection that has occurred because of this reality.
Finally (although other matters could be raised – see below for discussion of the listening process which is also part of the critique of Abp Rowan), there are serious flaws in the description of the level of danger presented by the Archbishop of Canterbury. For example,
· It is claimed that ‘Williams has powers to back up and spread his teaching’, failing to mention that he has in both word and deed made clear he will not push an agenda as Archbishop and that he wishes to work collegially with the Primates of the Communion.
· It is false to say that ‘Williams decides what churches are in communion with the Church of England and therefore members of the Anglican Communion’ – Williams does not have the power (it is in some cases jointly shared with the Archbishop of York and in a fuller sense probably determined by Synod) and anyway being ‘in communion with the Church of England’ is not the same as being a member of the Anglican Communion.
· It is false to say that ‘he decides the territorial boundaries of the churches and whether one church may enter the territory of another church’.
· The examples cited of him ‘already using the powers of the Archbishop of Canterbury to advance his anti-Scriptural teaching’ (13) are either weak, tendentious and irrelevant or false (eg ‘prevented full consideration of the Lambeth Commission’s Windsor Report at the 2005 Dromantine Primates’ Meeting by assigning it to the ACC’).
In short, the climactic claim (underlined in the text) that ‘Williams has made it clear that he will not repent and intends to continue teaching that the Church should approve of same gender sexual relations’ (16) is untrue and, like much that precedes it, perilously close to being an example of bearing false witness about a Christian brother and leader in the church.
Traditionalist/Pragmatist
While few would doubt that there are “revisionist” bishops in the Communion (even though most would question whether Archbishop Rowan really fits the description), this third grouping is more contentious. It is argued that its members ‘hold that the Church is not subordinate to the sovereign authority of Scripture and therefore may approve of same gender sexual relations, but presently teach that the Church should not do so for traditional or pragmatic reasons’ (16). As with the treatment of the current Archbishop so here major questions must be asked of the account offered of his predecessor, George Carey. Again there are errors about this powers (eg his refusal to use ‘the powers of the AbC to obtain the repentance or withdraw his recognition of the ministry of the Episcopal ministry of at least 187 bishops’ (18) who signed the Pastoral Letter) and instead ‘using his powers to protect and advance their teachings and thwart the opposition thereto’ (18)).
The heart of this claim and, it would appear, the main evidence that this grouping is distinct from true Anglicans and denies the supreme authority of Scripture is found in the understanding of the listening process. George Carey’s error was ‘in effect heeding the call in the 1988 Pastoral Statement ‘on the entire Communion to continue (and in many places begin) prayerful, respectful conversation on the issue of homosexuality’ (18). This is then contrasted with the statement in I.10 which expressed a commitment to ‘listen to the experience of homosexual persons’. The false dichotomy here is another fundamental flaw in the whole account of the petition.
It is claimed that ‘the clear purpose of the bishops’ commitment to listen to such experience was to pastorally counsel persons from continuing to engage in same gender sexual relations’ (18). There must be great caution in offering a definitive interpretation of the resolution as a whole given the complexities surrounding its final form. Perhaps no two people who voted for the lengthy final resolution interpreted it or its significance in precisely the same way. Nowhere perhaps is this more the case than in relation to the clause on listening which was not in the original proposed motion from the section working on sexuality. It was proposed in the plenary debate by Michael Bourke, Suffragan Bishop of Wolverhampton in the Diocese of Litchfield. His own understanding is clear from his speech as reported at the time. He warned that ‘the Bible can be used both as source as faith and as a way to oppress people’ and referred to witch-burning and racism to argue that ‘we should use humility in interpreting texts. We should rely on the Spirit of Jesus’. He then went on to say, ‘Lambeth is not going to say homosexuality is all right, but we need to listen to homosexual people. Listening to their stories is especially important if you think homosexuality is sinful – listening is the only way to overcome homophobic societies all around the world’. Later in the debate, Peter Selby, Bishop of Worcester drew attention to the fact that the proposed amendment calling for listening to gay and lesbian people had not been taken and it was agreed to consider it with Peter Selby the main speaker in its favour. He made clear his view that ‘the resolution won’t have authority if it doesn’t respond to the people affected. We must listen’. The amendment was overwhelmingly approved and incorporated into the final text. It is quite clear that the intention of those moving the amendment (both supporters of ‘full inclusion’ and signatories of the Pastoral Letter) as expressed in the debate was quite different from that being argued for here and fully in line with what the Communion has attempted in terms of a ‘listening process’.
This process is not therefore to be dismissed simply as a sign that ‘the Church may approve of same gender sexual relations even though such conduct is expressly prohibited by Scripture’ (19) or that the Church and experience are superior to Scripture. Instituting and supporting the programme is not to promise ‘the advocates of the Church’s approval of same gender sexual relations’ that they have permission ‘to persuade the bishops of the Anglican Communion to favour such approval’ (19). To listen to Christian voices one disagrees with is not to ‘undermine(d) the authority of Scripture’ (21). To imply that all who support the listening process fall into this group as defined is therefore seriously misleading.
Two other critiques of this group are also made and are also flawed. One is that ‘armed with a resolution to protect the territorial boundaries of bishops obtained on the last day of the 1998 Lambeth Conference’ (22), George Carey set about protecting the control of revisionists in their home dioceses. This gives the impression that the resolution was some sort of novelty and fails to note that the resolution on territorial boundaries simply reaffirms longstanding Anglican and wider catholic ecclesiology. The other critique is that only a ‘relatively small number of Primates…have actively sought to enforce Resolution I.10’ (23). The only evidence for this is the failure of Rwanda/AMiA to gain the support of even orthodox primates at Oporto for their disregard for the tradition of respect for jurisdictional boundaries in the Communion.
While there are undoubtedly some who would fit the description of this grouping, the evidence that they are a large group, that George Carey is among them and that support for the listening process post-Lambeth is a sign of membership within it are all much more dubious claims. In particular, it is totally unwarranted to claim that the former Archbishop and (by implication) all those who claim to oppose same-sex blessings but do not support Akinola and the appeal of the petition are to be viewed as in this group and hence do not believe the Church is subordinate to the sovereign authority of Scripture but rather that bishops ‘are free to find God’s Word wherever they may feel inspired to look’ (25) and ‘may favour or oppose the Church’s approval of same gender sexual relations on whatever grounds they may consider fitting’ as ‘they are free in their own minds to pick and choose which commandments and teachings of Scripture they will obey and teach and which ones they will disobey or not teach’ (26).
Conclusion
The analysis offered in the petition is therefore seriously flawed. It creates three categories (only one of which is genuinely Anglican, the other two of which true Anglicans ‘cannot go together with’ (28)) and then forces people into them in order to serve the petitioners’ divisive political ends. In so doing it disregards the evidence concerning the present and former Archbishops’ views and powers, twists the wording of Lambeth I.10 and fails to understand the complexities of the current disagreements. In particular, and most significantly, it fails to address the Windsor Report or see differences in ecclesiology as a fundamental factor at work. This is perhaps because the authors lack a proper biblical and theological understanding of the nature of communion and, paradoxically, have an understanding and are proposing a course of action that is a mirror-image of what they so resolutely oppose in North America . Given the real dangers that aspects of Western Anglicanism’s breakdown of teaching and discipline poses to the Anglican Communion, we need to look elsewhere than to the Petition for guidance.
