Current Editorial
PAST EDITORIAL 15.3... Summer 1998
A Review of the Lambeth Conference
by The Rev'd Gavin DunbarAnyone who has attended a diocesan or general synod in the Anglican Church can only imagine what the Lambeth Conference must be like. Local or national synods are usually rather indigestible events, with excessively packed agendas, little time to discuss the matters properly, confusing and often inefficient procedures for doing so. When the ever swelling numbers of active bishops of the Anglican world assemble at Canterbury, as they have every decade since 1867 (except during wartime), it is doubtful that anyone really knows what is going on, or what its ultimate impact will be.
But there is no doubt about what story emerged from Lambeth ‘98 to grab the headlines. In the debate on sexuality, a vast majority of bishops (526 to 70 with 45 abstentions) voted to uphold traditional teaching on marriage, and refused to legitimize the homosexual lifestyle. Neither homosexual marriage, nor the ordination of practising homosexuals, were approved, much less accepted as a possibility to be considered by the Church (for full text of the motion see sidebar).
The liberal bishops who dominate the Anglican Church in the rich world (North America, Australia, New Zealand, and Britain), and who long have used their wealth and bureaucratic expertise to dominate the organs of international Anglicanism (the Primates' meeting, the Anglican Consultative Council, and the Lambeth Conference) found themselves in a definite minority. The new and overwhelming majority was formed by the bishops of Africa and Asia in alliance with the few morally-conservative bishops of the rich world (including the Archbishop of Canterbury). It was a dramatic sign of the great demographic shift which Anglicans have been noticing for a long time: that the vast majority of the world's Anglicans are now to be found in Africa and Asia, where the church's growth is in stark contrast to the virtual stagnation of the white churches in the rich world.
(Coincidentally, just shortly before Lambeth opened, the British House of Lords, with its Bishops turning out in force, together with Tory Peers like Baroness Margaret, and the highly respected former chief rabbi, Lord Jakobovits, had thrown out a government move to lower the legal age of consent for homosexual acts from 18 to 16, defeating it by 290 votes to 122. Polls indicated 70 percent of the British public also opposed the government move. Meanwhile in the USA a publicity campaign was launched in criticism of the gay agenda. It was not a good month for gay liberation.)
It was a defeat for the liberal agenda to which the liberals themselves contributed, by arrogance and tactlessness. Having already quarrelled publicly with the Archbishop of Canterbury earlier this spring, Bishop John Spong, the outspoken and avowedly atheist bishop of Newark, then went on to raise the hackles of African bishops in an interview (with, coincidentally, Andrew Carey, the Archbishop of Canterbury's son). In the Church of England Newspaper on the very eve of the Lambeth debate, he dismissed the views of African Christians "because they had only just moved out of animism" and practise a "very superstitious Christianity". "They've yet to face the intellectual revolution of Copernicus and Einstein that we've had to face: that is just not on their radar screen".
Needless to say, such patronizing remarks did not endear him or his shrill advocacy of the homosexual agenda to the vast majority of bishops, and his belated, highly-qualified apology, did not reconcile them either. (Bishop Holloway, another outspoken liberal, and Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church also urged that future Lambeth Conferences offer classes on the interpretation of the Bible for the African bishops).
Such arrogance doubtless added steel to the African bishops resolve, but the homosexual agenda would not have made much progress anyway. Conservative bishops in the USA and Australia had already alerted their African and Asian colleagues to the advance of the homosexual agenda in the rich world churches, and were able to help them to use the Conference procedure instead of being manipulated by it. Unlike the stagnant churches of the rich world, the African churches are not pinning their hopes for institutional survival on accommodating the desire of prosperous gays for public affirmation, and the legitimization of their lifestyle. They have long outstripped the churches of the rich world in numbers of active Anglicans, if not in wealth or bureaucratic apparatus.
This defeat on their current pet issue outraged the liberals. Primus Richard Holloway of Scotland said he "never felt this depressed and so close to tears in my life", but said he would continue his efforts as an advocate for gay and lesbian Anglicans. "I feel gutted, I feel betrayed, but the struggle will go on", and claimed to have felt homophobia during the debate.
Bishop Randerson of Canberra and Goulburn (Australia) claimed that the Conference had voted to "unchurch people who conscientiously believe themselves to be members of the church" - although the resolution had explicitly affirmed gay and lesbian Anglicans to be members of the church.
The liberals, of course, made clear that they would not accept the results of the vote. Bishop Spong said that the vote would not stand indefinitely. "Be assured that today's minority will inevitably be tomorrow's majority". Over one hundred bishops (mainly from the rich world, with a few token third world liberals from Brazil-- a church closely tied to the US-- and South Africa) signed a pledge to work for the "full inclusion" of gay and lesbian Christians in the life and ministry of the Church. Among the signatories was Archbishop Michael Peers, the primate of All Canada.
Resounding as this victory may seem for those who wish to uphold the traditional moral discipline of the Church, its impact is likely to be limited. Lambeth is not a synod but a conference, and its resolutions bear only "moral authority"-- which to judge from the outrage of liberal bishops after the vote means they have no authority whatsoever.
Given the intransigent extremism of the liberals, it seems more likely that this vote will but mark the opening salvo of a debate likely to convulse the Communion for some years to come, and which could yet break it up into a liberal bloc (a minority, mainly in North America), and a traditional one (a majority, mainly in Africa and Asia, possibly also in England, and also in a few strongly conservative dioceses in North America). Nonetheless, it establishes a benchmark to which conservatives may appeal and against which liberals will have to struggle.
Diocesan Boundaries
The basic problem faced by conservative Anglicans in resisting the revolutionary radicalism of the liberal bishops, is the fact that the Anglican communion has almost no structures for accountability. The bureaucratic establishment of each national church—especially those in the USA and Canada—are virtually a law to themselves. A majority of bishops in both countries has so far refused to discipline any of their members. Even John Spong, who has publicly rejected theism (belief in God), creation, the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, the saving power of his death on the cross, the resurrection and ascension, the power of prayer, and so on, is utterly free from censure. In these churches, it is quickly producing a tyranny of the liberal majority over the conservative minority, who have effectively been marginalized in the church.
Three strategies are possible. First, the Anglican world could develop its current structures of consultation and mutual encouragement to provide more effective accountability—and Lambeth ‘98 did not even discuss the issue, probably because neither side, quite understandably, wants to be held accountable to the doctrinal standards of the other. Or conservative bishops could declare themselves out of communion with openly faithless bishops, and cross diocesan boundaries to minister to the faithful who are in the jurisdiction of the false bishops—a move which would accelerate the realignment of the Anglican Communion, and isolate the liberal rump in the rich world.
Although some conservative bishops have begun to think about this possibility out loud, and even to act upon it (in just a handful of cases so far), most of them are clearly nervous about so radical a departure. Virtually no one stood up to contest the resolution pushed by the liberal majority in North America, which reaffirms the inviolability of diocesan boundaries. Resolution V.13a reaffirmed the 1988 Lambeth Conference's declaration barring bishops or priests from exercising episcopal or pastoral ministry in another diocese without the permission of the local bishop, and asks the primates to encourage their bishops to "consider the implications" (a phrase that replaced "oversee compliance") of the 1988 resolution.
Freedom on Conscience on Women's Ordination and Flying Bishops too?
A third possibility does exist, a kind of middle way already pioneered in the Church of England with regard to the ordination of women, sometimes known as the "two integrities". Both those who accept the ordination of women to the priesthood, and those who oppose it, are given equal respect in the church, regardless of numbers, and each has the right to be ministered to by clergy (both bishops and priests) of like mind. To provide episcopal ministry in dioceses where the bishop ordains women, the Archbishop of Canterbury has appointed suffragans to be "flying bishops", with power to provide episcopal ministry to parishes across diocesan boundaries.
Interestingly enough, this possibility was raised in a resolution sponsored by Bishop Penny Jamieson of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, in consultation with traditionalist bishops. The resolution, titled "Unity of the Anglican Communion" was the fruit of conversations between a small group of women bishops and traditionalist bishops. It stated that bishops should not be compelled to ordain or license women, called upon provinces to make provisions for "appropriate episcopal ministry"—an apparent reference to flying bishops. Bishop Victoria Matthews, of Edmonton, Alberta, who was part of the group that drafted the amendment, said, "At this Lambeth Conference I have been received with a gracious and generous spirit…and as one of the first generation of women bishops, I ask that we keep this same spirit of graciousness and generosity as we continue the process of open reception [of female clergy]". Bishop Barbara Harris of Massachusetts, however, was having nothing to do with generosity of spirit: "While the language seems gracious" she commented, "it contravenes the canons of the Episcopal Church USA, and the discipline of the church in the Provinces of Canada and New Zealand".
She pointed out that the Episcopal Church has just passed a canon making ordination of women mandatory on all bishops, regardless of conscience. Her comments were also echoed by Bishop Catherine Roskam of New York, who said the resolution "doesn't mean anything in terms of our own polity". The principle of "subsidiarity" applies, she said, in which local policies take precedence (a rather novel interpretation of "subsidiarity"). She also had the audacity to say, "there's a kind of arrogance among bishops here that forgets there's the rest of the church". This, from a bishop of the Episcopal Church of the USA, which has for almost thirty years demonstrated no interest whatsoever in what any other part of the church thinks, believes, and experiences.
Compared to such mean-spirited legalism, and revolutionary intolerance of dissent, the remarks of Bishop Matthews struck a note of humility, wisdom and charity that deserves respect: "I have no idea", she said just before the plenary, "the number of years the process of reception of women clergy will take. The church grows into fullness of being by prayer and waiting on the spirit. I would hope that it would be a matter of time before all three orders of women clergy are accepted, but I could be wrong. The possibility of reversal is there".
Debt Relief and Euthanasia
The Lambeth Conference dealt with a host of other matters. Deserving further comment at some later date is its call for a the forgiveness of the crushing debts borne by impoverished third world countries, largely incurred by irresponsible (both constitutionally and financially) governments.Critics immediately pointed out the weakness of the resolution—that it did not deal with the problem of irresponsible government which had caused the debt burden in the first place. Also the conference took a generally strong stand against euthanasia, precisely defined as the intentional act of causing a death, as opposed to the act of hallowing someone to die, by the actions of withholding, declining, or terminating excessive medical treatment. They ruled out civil legislation permitting any form of assisted suicide, because it is "virtually impossible" to prevent "abuse by the unscrupulous". This is so generally wise and courageous a statement that controversy will surely be confined to a relatively small point—their apparent definition of nutrition of someone in a permanent vegetative state (PVS) as "excessive medical treatment"—a decision that would authorize starving to death someone in a PVS.
Mitred Follies
No gathering of clergy on this scale would have been complete without some ecclesiastical lunacy, worthy of a latter-day Trollope, and for that we must be grateful to Bishop Holloway, the outspoken primus of Scotland. But it began with a remark of the Archbishop of Canterbury in one of his addresses to the Conference, when he said that he would gladly fling his mitre in the Thames if that would help wean the Anglican Church from smelly hymn books and ornate pageantry to service, goodness, holiness and humility.
The sentiment was cheap enough, but Bishop Holloway, along with a number of others, decided to put it into action, by flinging special biodegradable mitres into the Thames, as a plea for a "people's episcopacy" (thus invoking the publicity-hungry shade of the late princess Diana). A letter to the Times from a certain Canon Simon Bloxam-Rose drily commented: "Surely the future of the Anglican Communion is assured partly by the fact that, in addition to their mitres, the Bishop of Edinburgh and his colleagues are also biodegradable".
CURRENT EDITORIAL II .... Summer 1998
Naive Rejoicing:
The Aftermath of Canadian General Synod 1998
by The Rev'd Gavin DunbarAfter the news from Lambeth, the fallout from the last General Synod of Canada may seem like old news. But the canons passed by the Canadian General Synod will have a greater legal impact than the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference, in particular the amendments to the Licensing Canon, which authorizes a bishop to attach any condition whatsoever to the licenses by which he authorizes priests to exercise their ministry.
This concentration of power in episcopal hands essentially places their decision beyond any accountability for the exercise of that licensing power, and removes the right of priests to exercise their ministry, even if they do so entirely in accord with the requirements of canon law. A bishop, for instance, might attach to a license a requirement to use the BAS, to admit babies to communion, to use the new feminist eucharistic prayers, to marry same-sex couples—anything at all. Or, perhaps more cannily, he can simply issue the license for a limited period (say a year or two), so that when it automatically expires, a priest can simply be "let go" if he has not toed the desired line.
The canon is obviously open to abuses. It places absolute power in the hands of corruptible men. Lord Acton's famous maxim should be recalled: "power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Doubtless many of the bishops (including those of conservative inclination) approved this measure solely with the idea of getting rid of "dead wood", priests of real incompetence whom it would be too much trouble to evict by the present canonical means. But the canon allows far more than that. And what it allows, in the intolerant atmosphere of today's church, is the arbitrary crushing of diversity, of conscientious dissent and loyal opposition.
What adds another layer of disquiet to this measure is the naivety with which the Press Release of the Essentials Council Liaison Team viewed the results of General Synod. The Essentials Coalition is supported by three different Anglican groups - the Prayer Book Society (PBSC, liturgical traditionalists, including both conservative catholics and evangelicals), Barnabas Anglican Ministries (BAM, evangelicals, including liberal evangelicals), and Anglican Renewal Ministries (ARM, charismatics).
The press release is significant, because it apparently reflects not just the views of the Liaison Team itself, but something of a consensus of the BAM and ARM sympathizers at the General Synod. Notably, the concerns of the PBSC do not appear. In the Press Release the Liaison Team is rightly and clearly pleased by three developments.
First of all, the representatives of the Essentials Coalition were a significant and recognized presence in the Synod, a sign that the Coalition is well-positioned to have considerable impact on the Canadian Church in years to come. Secondly, the Synod passed a resolution reaffirming the House of Bishops' 1997 (basically orthodox) guidelines on homosexuality—practising homosexuals are not to be ordained, nor same-sex relationships blessed, though "dialogue" is to be pursued.
Thirdly, the proposed "Covenant of Protection" (guidelines for hiring and firing of non-ordained church employees)—which would not have permitted the Church to refuse employment on the grounds of sexual immorality—did not pass.
The Liaison Team rightly views these developments as positive signs—although it would be a mistake to make too much of them. The guidelines on homosexuality are still under attack, and could be overturned by a future Synod. Moreover, the Liaison Team appears to have overlooked the grim threat posed by the Licensing Canon, which is not even mentioned in the Press Release, and which would make the victories on the Synod floor irrelevant to the realities of parochial ministry. Furthermore, the release states, "three new eucharistic prayers…were passed but only after significant improvements suggested by Essentials supporters were incorporated". This glosses over entirely the great defects of these prayers, and the very minor character of the improvements.
The first two of these prayers are still thoroughly feminist in their theology, abandon entirely the Scriptural language of Father and Son, virtually abandon the orthodox doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Atonement, and redefine salvation in this-worldly terms. The modifications introduced barely skimmed the surface of these prayers' heterodoxy. That they were approved without serious opposition from the Essentials Coalition members at General Synod is as great a defeat for orthodoxy as a failure to re-affirm the Bishops' guidelines on homosexuality would have been. Moreover, that the third prayer, designed to reflect a "Reformed theological conscience" (i.e. classical evangelical theology) was approved, with the addition of the word "Father" (hitherto, inexplicably, absent from the draft) is no victory either.
As one observer astutely commented, "the situation for public truth and for transcendent truth is in a bad way especially when Barnabas [Anglican Ministries, the evangelical grouping which tends to dominate the coalition's coordinating body] has committed itself now to being a part of the relativism by saying, ‘give us ours and you can have yours'. Standing for public truth is primary, getting their own variation is very secondary".
The Press Release appears to reflect a disturbing naivety on the part of the leadership of BAM and ARM (and a willingness to ignore the views of the PBSC in the Essentials Coalition). Upholding the Church's moral order apparently is thought to be more important than upholding its doctrinal and liturgical order; small tactical victories in the Synod process have been won at the expense of a major strategic setback for the freedom of priests to exercise their ministry. +
A note on our Editor:
The Rev'd Gavin Dunbar was Rector of the Parish of Ecum Secum, Nova Scotia, and now serves as an associate priest in the parish of St. John's, Savannah, Georgia.
He is the editor of the Anglican Free Press, and past Vice-President of the Nova Scotia / PEI branch of the Prayer Book Society of Canada, and a former instructor at the Atlantic St. Michael's Youth Conference. He has written and lectured extensively on a range of topics, and has many god-children.
~ Anglican Free Press ~ Calendar ~ Catalogue ~ Conferences ~ Pearce Publications ~ Links ~ Order Forms ~ Credits ~