THE ARCHBISHOPS IN SECRET
The recent meeting of Anglican primates (the principal bishops of each of the separate Anglican churches, large and small) did nothing to improve the situation in the Anglican Communion. Whether it has left us materially worse off is something we shall learn only in the years to come. My guess is that the Archbishop of Canterbury invited his fellow primates to gather in the hope that he could at least prevent our incipient schism from growing worse. It is a legitimate goal. Schisms that reach fully institutionalized character are notoriously difficult to resolve. Whatever issue is claimed as the occasion for schism assumes an importance that it may never really have deserved simply because it becomes the distinctive badge of the community resulting from the schism. It must continue to be justified as the only acceptable decision, even if, in later years, it should cease to seem so important after all.
The Anglican tradition’s combination of dispersed authority and respect for tradition is both blessing and weakness. It helps avert the kind of political authoritarianism that created the Inquisition and provoked the Reformation, but it has difficulty in satisfying people’s desire for clarity. Once people are truly furious with one another over a contested issue, there is no authority that can rein in the warring sides. In this respect, of course, we are in precisely the same situation as earliest Christianity. No voice could successfully reunite those Jewish Christians who insisted on full conversion of Gentiles to Jewish identity with those who regarded the Gentiles’ presence in the church as a sign of the Holy Spirit’s work. In the same way, no voice in contemporary Anglicanism can reconcile those who feel that the existence of gay, lesbian, and transgender Anglicans is radically transgressive with those who are persuaded that it is an important victory of the gospel. The only hope of preserving church unity is to find, foster, or create a majority who are prepared to regard the issue as an adiaphoron, a matter that should not occasion division.
It is not surprising, to be sure, that Christians, early or late, have been uncomfortable with this protracted and uncertain sort of process and have sometimes looked for social mechanisms that could speed it up or even short-circuit it. The gradual increase in the power of the early papacy was fueled in part by requests that the Bishop of Rome intervene in local quandaries in Western Europe. The parallel rise of the patriarchates of the East owed something to the same process as well as to the emperor’s desire to quell conflict in the church. In the long run, however, the result was an increasing rigidity that had difficulty making room even for innovations of great spiritual value—with divergent and unpredictable results as exemplified in the cases of, say, Francis of Assisi and Martin Luther. The Reformation broke with the absolute power of the papacy, but held onto much of the rigidity of the Western Christian mindset and became, as a result, a welter of competing and conflicting organizations, divided by disputes that sometimes seem of dubious value in the present era. The desire for doctrinal purity occasioned much division. One distinctive element of the Elizabethan settlement in England was the effort to hold these diverse elements together under a single roof—an effort never completely successful even in the resulting Church of England.
We now have significant elements of schism among Anglicans. There are churches that refuse to share communion with The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, and wish to have the secessionist elements grouped together in the Anglican Church in North America officially recognized as their replacements. There are those who resolutely oppose this program. If the Archbishop of Canterbury hopes to prevent this situation from becoming more entrenched, he must probably aim at buying time in which to foster the growth and consolidation of the group that sees the matter as adiaphoron and rejects the idea of dividing over it.
This will not be an easy matter, given the global character of Anglicanism. The status of lesbians and gay men (still more of transexual persons) varies enormously from culture to culture. And it is part of the larger issue of gender, which also remains unresolved among us. It is no accident that many of the churches that are particularly angry about the embrace of homosexual persons are also opposed to the ordination of women. And it is no accident that the leadership of these groups is entirely male and presents itself as emphatically heterosexual.
But the fact that the task is difficult does not mean that it can or should be lightly abandoned. The unity of the church is more than an institutional convenience, more than a theological premise, and more than a concern of professional ecumenists. It is a matter of deep spiritual value. God’s creation of humanity in God’s image and likeness, implies, as I have said elsewhere on this weblog, God’s search for friends. And since God has created so many of us and of such different temperament, experience, and culture, it seems reasonable to infer that our very multiplicity is part of what we bring to God as God’s friends. The great danger of Christians in any one place or time is that we shall begin to identify the gospel with the practices and prejudices of our particular time and place. Only a community of discourse that is large and varied enough to disrupt that kind of fossilization is ultimately adequate to the needs of our growing friendship with God, this friendship for which God created us and to which we are learning to respond through God’s grace.
Accordingly, I praise and honor Archbishop Welby for his efforts to keep us all in conversation and not yield prematurely to the forces of disintegration. At the same time, there are consequences of the meeting that bode ill. Most significantly, it has reinforced the apparent power of the Consultation of Primates, a gathering that has no theological or constitutional rationale for exercising this kind of authority. It was first created as a consultation, and anything beyond that on its part is a usurpation. It has become, in effect, a weapon of convenience for those who wish to suppress theological debate on topics that they have defined as out of bounds. This is a dangerous precedent both in its own right and beccause the group’s meetings are essentially secret—out of the eye of the larger church in a way that our local conventions and synods or the global Anglican Consultative Council are not. Moreover, those who wish to control the discourse are resorting to the age-old schismatic device of trying to bar their opposition from participation. I fear that by reinforcing these precedents of secrecy and exclusion Archbishop Welby’s initiative may prove more destructive than helpful, for they cut against the real need—to foster the community of those who are committed to broad unity and disinclined to dig trenches between us.
Bill … I love your clear and cogent explanation both of the present situation, and of the many ancillary issues. So sad in such polarizing times throughout the world that the church is unable to provide more details nsigh, healing, and trusted leadership. But voices like yours make all the difference. Thank you so much. Patrick
Many thanks, Patrick!
Thank you and God bless you !
Thank you for your blessing!
Are we to dismiss love that comes in a form that we might not understand? God’s love is so great it is beyond our understanding and yet in faith we trust what we don’t understand. When two people love each other with a deep selfless love, who are we to judge even if that love shares elements that are outside of our personal experience? We must uphold committed relationships that express this deep love, and this includes same gender couples. We should not allow selfless love to suffer categorization, but rather, love should be allowed to overcome the familiarity of prejudice.
I am reminded of input I sought when the homosexual issue first became divisive in the Anglican Communion. Since we are in communion with the Old Catholics of Germany, I asked how they were reacting. Their web site at the time included a statement concretely addressing the issue you raise, namely whether disagreement on homosexuality is basic to unity. The author said that Anglicans and Old Catholics worked through a long list of concrete fundamentals when deciding whether the two could be in full communion. The morality of homosexual relationships was no where on that list. The American church is at fault in handling the issue as noisily as it has. The African churches for their part have other, much more pressing, issues they need to be addressing.
Thank you, Anne. The Old Catholics, as often, have displayed balance and reasonableness—something Anglicans have historically admired, but not always practiced. Whether the American church has seemed too noisy abroad, I can’t say. Sometimes Americans can’t seem to escape seeming noisy. But our internal conflicts have certainly been loud—and we carry a certain amount of resentment from others if only because the US in general has accumulated so much of it, some of it well deserved. I get the feeling that there are many different issues mixed together in the leadership of Gafcon: resentment of the colonial past, determination to rule their own territories, sometimes excessive identification with local governments, not all of them above reproach, a desire to distract their people from important but intractable problems, and also, of course, a European theology inherited in relatively intractable form.
Thank you for this, Bill. Oddly enough, about six years ago one of our bishops used his contacts at Canterbury to place a letter of mine to the archbishop which suggested that he and others could short circuit the attacks by declaring the matter of supporting the full inclusion of gay, lesbian, and transgendered people as adiaphoron. Unfortunately, he did not press this early on. I think it would have been much more productive to talk about the difference between gospel and didache than the validity of fundamentalism’s proof texting (though your Dirt, Sex, and Greed did make a huge difference in this country.
In my retirement I have begun a new career – as playwright and librettist. My two most successful 15 minute plays have dealt with issues in human sexuality – both comedies with a real bite. I’m not sure I can access your email, so I’ll leave you the url for the one on you tube — “And the Winner Is . .” which is now also an opera (which has been sung in part in Berkeley and elsewhere. If you will send me your email address, I will send you the script for “Body and Soul,” which was produced at the Santa Fe Playhouse and later served as the keynote event at a recent national convention of psychotherapists.
I’m glad you are still active! Here is the url: https://youtu.be/e-P4xxLZO_8
All the best, Tom Woodward
i have a niece who was baptisted as a baby and signed with cross and made GODS forever and grew up she turned gay.however she is GODS forever and who can say she is not HIS.let me know how this can change one of GODS children. HE loves her and i do too.it is like the catholic telling us we can t have commuion in their church. if JESUS was along side of you whooooooo can tell you that you can t go near HIM let me know ok .in JESUS i pray.
All I can say is ‘Amen!”
Dr. Bill, your thoughts and your publications have been very influential in my spiritual growth, especially in overcoming my own homophobia and embracing a fully inclusive outlook. A long overdue THANK YOU! In this present situation, beyond the adiaphoron, I wonder how you would see us addressing our brother and sister Anglicans in order to provoke their own reexamination of the gospel message of inclusion? This blog sounds somewhat pessimistic about getting through to them. Given the way this has dragged on for years without much official change, I can understand your hesitancy to project a resolution. but I wonder if we should explore some new or renewed approach or strategy. Gary
Thanks, Gary. You’re very kind. I think that the problem has partly to do with a very rigid theological stance, shared by many Evangelical Anglicans and some Anglo-Catholics, that is unable to reexamine scripture. Scripture is simply identified wholesale with a particular interpretation and one is forbidden to question or rethink that. I repeatedly found, in the years when I was involved in many church conversations of this topic that ardent opponents of the full member ship of Gay and Lesbian people in the church could repeat their own position endlessly but never gave any evidence of a willingness to read the Bible together with others. There may also, in some cultures, be such a premium set on heterosexual masculinity that leaders think they will lose all credibility if they show any willingness to let it be questioned. Indeed that was true, not long ago, among us, and is still characteristic of many parts of the US. I think the essential thing is to preserve whatever church to church contacts we can manage without selling our souls and let the process of rethinking have air to breathe.
I understand that some African scholars have developed their biblical interpretations in the direction of inclusion, and I hope I can see something of that result in the days to come. I am sure that what you say about rigidity of interpretation is behind the resistance to change.
Your own contribution could possibly be said to be along the line of a new hermeneutic for biblical interpretation. To what extent has it been picked up and developed by others? This question may show how much out of the loop I am, but I want to rectify that,
There was nothing particularly new about my hermeneutic in Dirt, Greed, and Sex. It was basically old-fashioned close reading within a historical context. If anything was different, it was simply that I did not begin with any particular conviction about the meaning of the oft-cited texts, most of which I found rather puzzling, in fact. In the second edition, I took a closer look at the widely assumed notion of a creation ethic that forbids same-sex relationships and found that it is cobbled together out of disparate texts rather than representing a significant theme in scripture. I see, from reviews, that a number of younger Evangelical scholars are now suggesting related approaches. I suspect that they have read my work, but am not aware that they cite. That might be prudent, since it could alienate their audience.
Thank you, Tom!
Bill,
Thanks for your thoughts. We would accept this maybe temporary suspension if the primates simultaneously decried the criminalisation of same-gender sexual activity. Unfortunately, there was no public mention even of discussion about that matter.
Thus we wonder how a better relationship can be made by absenting ourselves? And for our lgbt sisters and brothers in those places where their very identity may cause them great harm, the Communion again shows itself to be no comfort. As Dr King said, “Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic.” It was and IS time for the primates who would support justice for all to speak with such loving power!
Send an email when you can – it has been too long since your visit to the Ranch.
Bart (and Tony!)
In the mosts recent issue of The Church Times, there was a reference to a fuller form of the Primates’ statement that apparently does include a reaffirmation of opposition to persecution of GLBTI folk. One hopes that that will get some kind of serious commitment. Your quote from Dr. King is certainly a propos, and I think Archbishop Welby has some work cut out for him if he is to avoid being found “sentimental and anemic.” At the same time, I think that we are talking about vast societal changes, changes that may be more difficult in some societies than in others. I do not want to break the communion up before those changes have had a chance to work, just as I did not want to leave the Episcopal Church even when I became very impatient with it.
Perhaps we should start singing “The Church’s One Foundation” as our exit hymn every Sunday, to give us hope as we walk out into our divided and angry world. Teddy
Well Done Dr. Countryman! I enjoyed every word of your above statement! Jesus, He
practiced inclusion–for example: At the Blessing & Distribution of the: “Loaves & Fishes” He bade EVERYONE to come and eat and enjoy! He didn’t summon forward ONLY Married People-as worthy to participate-and exclude Singles, Divorced or Gays! The Food and His Divine Message of INCLUSIVENESS was meant for: All To Enjoy–and not a select Few-who the Temple Heavies might have approved of! Won’t The Anglican Communion-and indeed, other Branches of Christianity show Humility and take example
from : Master Jesus? I’m hoping so; for the Laity-in a lot of ways-have set the example!
Many thanks Professor. Your wisdom and balance are the essence of Anglican Christianity.
Thank you, Bishop Edwards!