A Pastoral Response to ST Article “Anglican leader on gays and marriage”, published on 8th August 2008

Some of you may have read the article, “Anglican leader on gays and marriage” published in the Straits Times (ST, Singapore) on 8th August 2008. It is necessary that the following clarifications be made to address any possible concerns, confusion or misperception.

The ST article was a report on the news by The Times (UK) on 7th August 2008, which was released almost immediately after the conclusion of the Lambeth Conference on 3rd August. It is regrettable that these letters, written in private correspondence some eight years ago, gives the impression that it is a fresh statement of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s views. His theological viewpoints on this issue were not totally unknown in the public arena then.

Whatever his personal views may be on the subject, the Archbishop has since made a press statement on 8th August which states, “I wish to make it plain that, as I have consistently said, I accept Resolution 1.10 (which views homosexual practice as incompatible with Scriptures) of the 1998 Lambeth Conference as stating the position of the worldwide Anglican Communion on issues of sexual ethics and this as providing the authoritative basis on which I as Archbishop speak on such questions.” As the ST article rightly reported, the Archbishop of Canterbury “recommitted the Anglican Communion to its orthodox position” at the recent 2008 Lambeth Conference.

The Diocese of Singapore, in its teaching on biblical faith and order, is firmly committed to this orthodox position on sexual ethics. I need to express as clearly as I possibly can; that what the church here believes (in essential beliefs and moral ethics) needs to be taught and upheld personally and publicly by all our clergy, lay leaders and members of the Diocese. While we can continue to discuss the pastoral challenges on the ground, we need to remain faithful to the teaching of the Church by virtue of the trust committed to us by the Lord and our love for our fellow human being

We believe and hold that the Bible is clear and authoritative in bearing witness to God’s will regarding human sexuality; namely that sexual relations are to be expressed only within the life-long union of a man and a woman in holy matrimony. All forms of sexual promiscuity, including homosexual practices, between men or women, as well as heterosexual relationships outside marriage are incompatible with the divine vision and design of human life. The Bible describes them as sinful practices that are contrary to God’s good purposes. They dehumanise God’s image in humanity and need to be repented of. At the same time, we hold that there is divine grace of forgiveness, healing and transformation for all who repent of homosexual or other illicit forms of sexual practice. We do not condone inhuman and unsocial acts against homosexuals nor do we discriminate against them. Rather, we extend to them God’s love, compassionate ministry and true freedom through Jesus Christ.

As part of the worldwide Anglican Communion, we have consistently registered our commitment to the Church’s historic and orthodox teaching on human sexuality, as contained in the Kuala Lumpur’s Statement on Human Sexuality (1997) and Resolution I.10 of Lambeth Conference (1998).  Consequently, we together with our fellow-Dioceses in the Province of Southeast Asia have declared that our communion with The Episcopal Church (TEC) of USA is impaired, following TEC’s ordination of a man in active gay relationship as a bishop in 2003. To date, he is not recognised as a bishop by either our Church or the Communion. Also, our Diocesan stand on human sexuality is fully consonant with the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) Statement on Homosexuality published in July 2003.

The Anglican Church of Singapore as part of the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic” church believes that it is duty bound to discharge a divine trust and to express life-authenticating love for our fellow-man and woman by holding to the pattern of life (including matters of sexual ethics) as prescribed in the Bible and ministering to all who are broken and marred by sin with the grace of Jesus Christ. We remain fully committed to the well-being of our society which has been built on time-tested values, including the sanctity of marriage and the holistic bonds of the family institution, both of which are greatly at risk today.

The Most Revd Dr John Chew
The Bishop of Singapore
The Diocese of Singapore (Anglican)
15 August, 2008
http://www.anglican.org.sg

By Andrew Carey, CEN

At the recent Lambeth Conference I had a couple of conversations with so-called ‘conservative’ Americans, both amongst the press and the bishops. I was even able to give the Bishop of Springfield (no relation to ‘The Simpsons’) some pointers on the rules of cricket as we snatched five minutes in the bar to watch England being clinically defeated by South Africa.

Their depressing and urgent situation in The Episcopal Church becomes ever clearer over time, despite all of the efforts of their liberal church leaders to try and persuade the rest of the Anglican Communion that really we’re just like you. Close watchers of the US, and readers of this newspaper, will be more aware than most of the state of that Church. Heterodoxy is never punished, whereas orthodox impatience is the subject of lawsuits all over the country. And the amount of heterodoxy uttered in The Episcopal Church is truly astonishing. Even leaving aside the virtual atheism of Bishop Spong’s ‘Twelve Theses’, we’ve had bishops claim that the church can ‘re-write the Bible’, others make sweeping apologies for Christian mission to those of other faiths, while the Presiding Bishop views Jesus as just one way among many.

Furthermore, they’ve had scandals the likes of which would destroy the Church of England in the eyes of the world, with our much more effective national press conducting the funeral rites. They’ve had thrice-divorced bishops, a child-abusing bishop, as well as one who’s covered up sex abuse by his brother, a priest. There’s been a drug-dealing priest, others who’ve been exposed in a pornographic magazine for engaging in bizarre sex with Brazilians. This is truly only the tip of the iceberg. Any one or two of these cases would have been a national scandal in Britain, in the US it’s only a few column inches.

With whole parishes and dioceses deserting the national Church amid such widespread heterodoxy and scandal, followed by a wave of litigation and squabbling over property, it’s impossible to see The Episcopal Church as anything other than a disaster area. If there ever was a Church under the judgment of God, it is this one.

By Canon Neal Michell

To download a PDF version of this document for easy sharing via email, click here

August 25, 2008

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

We the undersigned contributors to Covenant-Communion.com believe that “a word in time” is now needed in order to assist the Communion to move forward in a constructive manner following the Lambeth Conference. We would like to speak such a word by specifically addressing the points Bishop Bob Duncan raises in his email to Bishop Gary Lillibridge, which has now been made public with Bp. Duncan’s permission. Our reflections are offered with all due respect for Bishop Duncan as a dear friend to some of us, and one whom those of us who know him personally admire as a stalwart in the faith. Bishop Duncan’s words are quoted in italics with our reflections following.

1. The first difficulty is the moral equivalence implied between the three moratoria, a notion specifically rejected in the original Windsor Report and at Dromantine.

Actually, it is largely American and Canadian liberals that have implied a moral equivalency between the two. We think most people are clear that the crisis in our Communion was precipitated by specific American and Canadian actions. In any event, someone has to be the first to give up their “rights” (either Bishop Duncan and the GAFCON folks by agreeing to moratorium #3 in clear terms, or the American and Canadian leadership by agreeing to moratoria #1 and #2, as well as an immediate cessation of the lawsuits and ecclesiastical trials). Who will be the first to display an act of Christian charity and self-giving on behalf of the Communion at this critical turning point in the life of the Communion?

Our understanding of the comments from the Windsor Continuation Group hearings at the Lambeth Conference is that no one really expects the jurisdictional crossings to cease without the concomitant cessation of blessing same sex unions and assurances of refusal to consent to the consecration of a bishop in a same sex relationship.

2. This process cannot be stopped — constitutions require an automatic second vote, and to recommend against passage without guarantees from the other side would be suicidal.

We recognize the canonical difficulties this presents. A constitutional change requires a second vote in the following year or the proposed constitutional change fails for lack of a second reading. Not even the Archbishop of Canterbury can change this requirement. Further, we understand that these dioceses are fearful of further legal repercussions that a delay would entail.

We suggest this is such a crucial issue that Dr. Williams convene a meeting, preferably in person, by September 30th, to work through an agreement on the assurances of the moratoria as well as the “safe haven” for those in the American and Canadian churches who feel the need for protection. We respectfully submit that this meeting be chaired by the Archbishop of Canterbury and include the bishops of Ft. Worth, Pittsburgh, Quincy, the primate of Uganda, the primate of the Southern Cone, the presiding bishop of The Episcopal Church, the primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, the chair of the Windsor Continuation Group, and perhaps two bishops agreed to by all other parties. This meeting should be held at a neutral site without attorneys present. Such a meeting would acknowledge the urgency of the matters under consideration and give an opportunity to the parties to work through the implementation of the moratoria requested.

3. The third reality is that those already separated parishes and missionary jurisdictions . . . will never consent to the “holding tank” whose stated purpose is eventual “reconciliation” with TEC or the Anglican Church of Canada.

This complaint presupposes that TEC and Canada will continue undisciplined in their acts that have “torn the fabric of the Communion.” The goal is the restoration of good order in the Church that would make possible deeper relationships in Christ. We envision an Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada that are fully reconciled to the rest of the Anglican Communion through commitment to a freely entered into Covenant. We believe this goal is possible given patience and perseverance, even if it must be accomplished diocese by diocese, and in some places, parish by parish. This reconciliation would include a common life that would respect (i) the principle of communion as the limit of autonomy as articulated by the Windsor Report (para. 82) as well as (ii) Lambeth Resolutions and other official acts of the Instruments of Communion that have come to serve as boundary markers in our mutually shared discernment.

The “holding tank”— “safe haven” might be a more accurate and positive description—would be the basis for these dioceses and congregations to continue as full members of the Anglican Communion without fear of legal or ecclesiastical reprisals. Recall Dr. Williams’ ecclesiological statement that provinces are not primary units but secondary to the direct relationship between each diocesan bishop and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Such a “safe haven” would provide each diocese and congregation with a direct relationship to the Archbishop of Canterbury, not through the provincial primate.

There is a difference, in our view, between being culturally Anglican and being ecclesiologically Anglican. An ecclesiological Anglican relates directly to the Archbishop of Canterbury through his or her own bishop and not through the primate. A cultural Anglican uses the Anglican forms and formularies, rites and ceremonies, but does not have that direct ecclesiological relationship with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Why settle for an uncertain connection with +Canterbury through an intervening province when one can have a direct relationship with the Archbishop of Canterbury—as evidenced, among other things, by a decennial invitation to Lambeth?

4. The fourth matter is that the legal proceedings brought by TEC and ACC against many of us have been nowhere suspended by these aggressor provinces, with no willingness to mediate or negotiate though we have proposed it repeatedly, not least since Dar es Salaam.

We recognize the validity of this complaint, hence, the need for an immediate meeting between the principals proposed above. Tevye in “Fiddler on the Roof” made the comment that if we all live by “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” the whole world will soon be blind and toothless.

We believe some pressure has to be brought to bear on the American Church at such a meeting to stop the legal proceedings. The reason for withdrawing the lawsuits is for the sake of fostering relationships which are of utmost importance in Anglicanism. The rationale is: “I give up my ‘right’ to sue this church/diocese for the sake of the possibility of reconciliation. I acknowledge the ‘safe haven’ as a place of integrity within the Communion until we can work out our differences, regardless of however long it might take.”

Ultimately, we think, the issue is whether one wants to be a cultural Anglican with either an attenuated or no direct relationship with the Archbishop of Canterbury, with relationships and recognition of Holy Orders, Communion, etc., having to be negotiated diocese by diocese, or an ecclesiological Anglican with a direct relationship with the Archbishop of Canterbury, with relationships and Holy Orders, etc., being much clearer. We believe that the overwhelming majority of Anglicans certainly prefer the latter, and are willing to do those things necessary to preserve the unity of the Communion on the appropriate basis.

Faithfully,

The Rev’d Canon Neal Michell
Diocese of Dallas

The Rev’d George Willcox Brown III
Diocese of Dallas

The Rev’d Anthony F. M. Clavier
Diocese of Northern Indiana

The Rev’d Daniel K. Dunlap
Diocese of Texas

The Rev’d Joseph B. Howard
Diocese of Tennessee

The Rev’d Nathan J.A. Humphrey
Diocese of Washington

The Rev’d Richard Kew
Diocese of Tennessee

The Rev’d Canon Dr. Graham Kings
Vicar, St. Mary’s Islington (Church of England)

The Rev’d Daniel H. Martins
Diocese of Northern Indiana

The Rev’d Dorsey McConnell
Diocese of Massachusetts

The Very Rev’d Dr. Jean McCurdy Meade
Diocese of Louisiana

The Rev’d Matthew S. C. Olver
Diocese of Dallas

The Rev’d Dr. Ephraim Radner
Diocese of Colorado

The Rev’d Bruce M. Robison
Diocese of Pittsburgh

Mr. Dale A. Rye
Diocese of Texas

Mr. Dave Sims
Diocese of Dallas

Mr. Craig Uffman
Diocese of Northern Indiana

Mr. Christopher Wells
Diocese of Northern Indiana

Tuesday 26 August 2008

As the Lambeth Conference of 2008 comes to an end, I want to offer some further reflections of my own on what the bishops gathered in Canterbury have learned and experienced.  Those of you who have been present here will be able to share your own insights with your people, but it may be useful for me to add my own perspectives as to where we have been led.

For the vast majority of bishops, it seems, this has been a time when they have felt God to have been at work.  The Conference was not a time for making new laws or for binding decisions; in spite of the way some have expressed their expectations, Lambeth Conferences have never worked straightforwardly in this way.  The Conference Design Group believed strongly that the chief need of our Communion at the moment was the rebuilding of relationships – the rebuilding of trust in one another – and of confidence in our Anglican identity.  And it was with this in mind that they planned for a very different sort of Conference, determined to allow every bishop’s voice to be heard and to seek for a final outcome for which the bishops were genuinely able to recognize an authentic account of their own work.

I believe that the Conference succeeded in doing this to a very remarkable degree – more than most people expected.  At the end of our time together, many people, especially some of the newer bishops, said that they had been surprised by the amount of convergence they had seen.  And there can be no doubt that practically all who were present sincerely wanted the Communion to stay together.

But they also recognized the challenge in staying together and the continuing possibility of further division.  As the proposals for an Anglican Covenant now go forward, it is still possible that some will not be able to agree; there was a clear sense that some sort of covenant will help our identity and cohesion, although the bishops wish to avoid a legalistic or juridical tone.  A strong majority of bishops present agreed that moratoria on same-sex blessings and on cross-provincial interventions were necessary, but they were aware of the conscientious difficulties this posed for some, and there needs to be a greater clarity about the exact expectations and what can be realistically implemented.  How far the intensified sense of belonging together will help mutual restraint in such matters remains to be seen.  But it can be said that few of those who attended left without feeling they had in some respects moved and changed. 

We were conscious of the absence of many of our colleagues, and wanted to express our sadness that they felt unable to be with us and our desire to build bridges and restore our fellowship.  We were aware also of the recent meeting in Jerusalem and its statements; many of us expressed a clear sense of affinity with much that was said there and were grateful that many had attended both meetings, but we know that there is work to do to bring us closer together and are determined to do that work. 

The final document of Conference Reflections is not a ‘Report’ in the style of earlier Conferences, but an attempt to present an honest account of what was discussed and expressed in the ‘indaba’ groups which formed the main communal work of the Conference by the Reflections Group.  But although this document is not a formal Report, it has a number of pointers as to where the common goals and assumptions are in the Communion.  Let me mention some of these.

First, there was an overwhelming unity around the need for the Church to play its full part in the worldwide struggle against poverty ignorance and disease.  The Millennium Development Goals were repeatedly stressed, and there was universal agreement that both governmental and non-governmental development agencies needed to create more effective partnerships with the churches and to help the churches increase and improve their own capacity to deliver change for the sake of justice.  To further this, it was agreed that we needed a much enhanced capacity in the Communion for co-ordinated work in the field of development.  Our Walk of Witness in London and the memorable address of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom formed a powerful focus for these concerns.  And the challenge to every bishop to identify clear goals for developing environmentally responsible policies in church life was articulated very forcefully indeed: information was provided to all about how the ‘carbon footprint’ of the Conference itself might be offset, and new impetus given to careful and critical self-examination of all our practices.  We were reminded by first-hand testimony that the literal survival of many of our most disadvantaged communities was at risk as a result of environmental change.  This enabled us to see the issue more clearly as one of justice both to God’s earth and to God’s people

Second, on the controversial issue of the day regarding human sexuality, there was a very widely-held conviction that premature or unilateral local change was risky and divisive, in spite of the diversity of opinion expressed on specific questions.  There was no appetite for revising Resolution 1.10 of Lambeth 1998, though there was also a clear commitment to continue theological and pastoral discussion of the questions involved.  In addition to a widespread support for moratoria in the areas already mentioned, there was much support for the idea of a ‘Pastoral Forum’ as a means of addressing present and future tensions, and as a clearing house for proposals concerning the care of groups at odds with dominant views within their Provinces, so as to avoid the confusing situation of violations of provincial boundaries and competing jurisdictions.

Importantly, it was recognized that all these matters involved serious reflection on the Christian doctrine of human nature and a continuing deepening of our understanding of Christian marriage.  A joint session with bishops and spouses also reminded us that broader moral issues about power and violence in relations between men and women needed attention if we were to speak credibly to the tensions and sufferings of those we serve.

Third, there was a general desire to find better ways of managing our business as a Communion.  Many participants believed that the indaba method, while not designed to achieve final decisions, was such a necessary aspect of understanding what the questions might be that they expressed the desire to see the method used more widely – and to continue among themselves the conversations begun in Canterbury.  This is an important steer for the meetings of the Primates and the ACC which will be taking place in the first half of next year, and I shall be seeking to identify the resources we shall need in order to take forward some of the proposals about our structures and methods.

The Conference was richly blessed in its guest speakers, who all testified to their appreciation of the Anglican heritage, while asking us searching questions about how flexible and creative our evangelistic policies were, about the integration of our social passion with our theology and about the nature of the unity we were seeking both within the Anglican Communion and with other Christian families.  Our many ecumenical representatives played a full and robust part in all our work together and we owe them a considerable debt.

Finally and most importantly of all, we were held within an atmosphere of steady and deep prayer by our Chaplaincy Team.  The commitment of the Conference members to daily worship was impressive; and this has much to do with the quality of that worship, both in moments of profound quiet and in exuberant celebration.  It mattered greatly that we were able to begin with a period of retreat in the context of Canterbury Cathedral; the welcome we received there was immensely generous and we all valued the message clearly given, that this was our Cathedral, and that all of us were a full part of the worshipping community that had been here since Augustine came to Canterbury in 597.

I know that all present would wish me to express thanks once again to all who planned and organized the Conference, to those who composed the Bible Studies, those who devised and monitored the work of the indaba groups and all others who served us so devotedly in all sorts of ways – not least the Stewards, whose youthful energy and commitment and unfailingly supportive presence gave all of us great hope for the future. Thanks to all of you – bishops and spouses – who attended, for the great commitment shown and for the encouragement you have given each other.

But together we give thanks to God for his presence with us, his faithfulness to us and his gifts to our Communion.  As was said in the closing plenary session, we believe that God has many more gifts to give to and through our Communion; and we ask his grace and assistance in teaching us how to receive what he wills to give.  “He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your seed for sowing and increase the harvest of your righteousness.” (2 Cor. 9v10)

Your servant in Christ

+Rowan Cantuar:

David Anderson, American Anglican Council: May I submit, from my own position far down the ecclesial food chain, that there is no longer theological space to be an orthodox bishop of the church and privately believe that which is contrary to what the Church teaches on core doctrine and moral discipline. To do so becomes, in the most benign situation, a form of mental illness where the individual experiences a bifurcation of mind, and in more extreme form, a spiritual illness representing a foot in each Kingdom. This time in the life of the Christian and Anglican Church calls for a clear mind aligned with and fully embracing the core teachings of the Christian faith, reformed and catholic. Full Stop. Read the rest here

Paul Richardson, Religious Intelligence: Even if the Communion overcomes the immediate causes of division it will be important to address the underlying factors. Part of the problem is that, while bright young Catholic students, whether they be Thomists, liberation theologians, or Augustinians, all flock to Rome to study, Anglicans study in different parts of the Communion and, for the most part, read different texts. Read the rest here.

THE ANGLICAN Communion must prepare for “an orderly” separation if differences cannot be healed, claims the Bishop of Winchester (pictured). In a report addressed to his diocese relaying his reflections on the 2008 Lambeth Conference, the Rt Rev Michael Scott-Joynt said that the Archbishop of Canterbury had three realistic options ahead of him after the next Primates meeting in 2009.

Firstly, Dr Williams will need to judge “whether there is a will for the Anglican Communion to go forward together in our Lord’s service,” claimed the Bishop. Secondly there existed the “terrifyingly difficult decision” of negotiating “an orderly separation”. And finally there is the looming possibility of watching a “more destructive separation take place around him.”

During the Lambeth Conference the Bishop told The Sunday Telegraph that the Archbishop’s plan to maintain unity was unlikely to work. “The Lambeth Conference is required to do something rather than live down to the worst expectations of the bishops who stayed away,” he said. “We need to negotiate a separation in the Communion sooner rather than later, to leave the strongest possibility of remaining in some kind of fellowship.”

Following the Conference, his document this week has confirmed to him the likely option of separation. Ideally the separation would mean one large “orthodox” majority which stayed faithful to the See of Canterbury. The church would then maintain “some defined relationship with a ‘separated’ and more ‘liberal’ Communion of Churches centred on The Episcopal Church.”

He added that much depended on “the Gafcon Primates and the rest of the ‘Global South’ quickly mending the relationships between them that have been put at risk.”

He said it was therefore important for the Gafcon primates, who boycotted Lambeth, to ensure that they attended the forthcoming Primates’ Meeting.

But Fr Geoffrey Kirk, of Forward in Faith, was sceptical of that approach. He said that the idea that the opposing factions in the communion might talk at the next Primates’ Meeting was highly improbable.

“The thing that shocked me most while at Gafcon was just how angry some of the African bishops are,” Fr Kirk said.

He added: “Bishop Scott-Joynt is rapidly moving into a position where he will be regarded as an extremist. The fact is he is an absolute centralist.”

Meanwhile, the Rev Rod Thomas of Reform said: “I would hope there is a growing desire in the Communion for churches to align themselves with the Gafcon statement, so that those who can’t subscribe separate themselves from the Communion.”

We have also made some necessary changes to the article in question.

Read the rest here

At 8.08 pm today (8 August 2008), the Beijing Olympic Games will be officially opened.  More than 100 heads of state and national leaders, 92,000 spectators, and an estimated four billion people watching on TV worldwide, will enjoy a spectacular show put up by 20,000 performers and the march of the world’s best athletes.  We rejoice with China as it hosts the Olympic Games, and pray for a successful and safe Olympic. 

We thank God for the distribution of the Holy Scriptures during the Games (see attached news release by UBS):

a.  100,000 copies of the special Beijing Olympic edition of Chinese-English Four Gospel (Today’s Chinese Version and Good News Translation).
b.  30,000 copies of the Chinese-English New Testament (Studium Biblicum Version and New Revised Standard Version).
c.  10,000 copies of the Chinese-English Bible (Chinese Union Version and English Standard Version).  See also press release by Crossway: http://www.crossway.org/page/news.2008.08.06.

The Bible, what was once a banned and prohibited religious book in China (during the Cultural Revolution), is now officially approved by the authorities for distribution at the Beijing Olympic.  We thank God for this amazing answer to prayers. 

Pray for the distribution of the Holy Scriptures during the Olympic Games – that many will be reached and touched by the Word of God and receive the prize which will last forever (1 Corinthians 9: 25). 

2.  “God’s Word Gives Me Strength To Live”

One of those who have been touched by the Word of God is Ms Liu Yali, a member of the China national women’s soccer team.  Yali came to faith after experiencing peace through prayer and the reading of the Bible.  She found that every word in the Bible was speaking to her personally.  She said, “God’s Word gives me strength to live.” Read her testimony at http://www.ubscp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=61&Itemid=80.

3.  Training of Bible Scholars for China (see attached news release by UBS)
With the explosive growth of the Church in China, there is a great need for good Bible teaching and Bible teachers.  In order to raise up well trained Bible teachers, the Church in China sent two Bible teachers for post-graduate Biblical studies – one in New Testament and the other in Old Testament.  Both of them completed their Master of Theological Studies at Trinity Theological College in Singapore and continued their PhD studies at Durham University in the UK. 

Dr Shi Wenhua successfully defended her thesis and graduated in June 2008.  Ms Hu Huiping is working on the final draft of her thesis and she hopes to complete her studies by the end of this year.  Both of them will return to China to serve the Church and to contribute to Bible teaching and Bible translation work. 

We thank God for the faithful support of Bible Societies’ donors, which has enabled us to provide scholarship to Wenhua and Huiping for their years of studies.  We thank God for Wenhua’s and Huiping’s commitment and perseverance in their studies and research.  Pray for Wenhua as she returns to China and begins her ministry.  Pray for Huiping as she works on the final draft of her thesis and defends it.

Yours, together in His Service,

Kua Wee Seng
Coordinator, China Partnership
United Bible Societies
St Andrew’s Village
1 Francis Thomas Drive
#03-04
Singapore 359340
Office Tel: +65 6334 6315
Office Fax: +65 6334 6316
Email address: wseng@singnet.com.sg
Website: http://www.ubscp.org

Winchester, August 11th 2008

www.winchester.anglican.org

 
The Lambeth Conference 2008 – and the future of the Anglican Communion

A Report to the Diocese of Winchester

On May 17th I devoted half of my Presidential Address to the Diocesan Synod to the Lambeth Conference, then still two months away. I begin this review of the Conference with what I said that day, because it describes the hopes, fears and convictions with which I went to Canterbury; so I hope that it will help those who read what follows to the end to evaluate  my particular experience of the Conference.

I want to say a little about this summer’s Lambeth Conference in which Trevor and Paul and I, with our wives, will participate; and to do so – both to speak now and to participate in July – in the spirit of those verses from Ephesians read just now, in which St. Paul addresses a situation that sounds so contemporary –“tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine” -  with “but speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ…..” (4.14, 15).

“speaking the truth in love”: I’ve often heard that phrase used as if it means no more than “call a spade a spade, sock it to them - but lovingly!”; but I’m sure that the words require more informed  care than that. “The Truth”, which is to be maintained, lived, spoken, has specific meaning both in this Letter and more widely in the New Testament. “…the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation…”, “fasten the belt of truth around your waist” in chapters 1 and 6 of Ephesians; “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life”, “for this I was born…..to testify to the truth” in John. To speak, to live, the “Truth” must  be to seek to live and to speak ever more accurately within and out of the Risen Life of Jesus, and of the beliefs and the way of life that we have received in and through Him. And by the same token, Jesus, and scripture more widely, must be the illustration, the arbiter of the meaning here of “in love”: so this “love” is not fluffy, still less flabby; but love in the character of Jesus, marked by his warm reforming compassion, his welcome and his challenge, his mercy and his justice; and like the Lord it may cause division – “Have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?” (the same word in Gal. 4.6).

I pray that the hopes for this Lambeth Conference of Archbishop Rowan and of the Design Group will be blessed;

• that we shall return from the Conference “better bishops” for our Churches and for the Church’s witness, encouraged and refreshed, through seeking the Holy Spirit together, through reading St John together, and through the relationships which we will make or re-make with colleagues from every part of the world, for the ministry that we are called and commissioned to offer;


• that we shall discover a new level of trust in common service to God, and come more deeply to appreciate the calling and opportunities of the Anglican Communion in today’s world;


• and that in the context of all this we shall be able to address the conflict within the Communion, and do useful work on the Anglican Communion Covenant as a chief means of clarifying our vision and uniting the Churches of the Anglican Communion.

I regret more than I can say the absence from the Conference, and from our Pre-Lambeth programme in the Diocese, of our Partner-bishops and their wives from Rwanda and Uganda; they will be very greatly missed from the Conference, and their wives from the Spouses Conference; and I want you to know that both for them and for me their absence has no adverse implication for our Diocesan Partnerships which they are as  eager to continue and to develop as I am, and as I trust that you are too.

But what if the Lambeth Conference becomes engulfed in, taken over by, the profound disagreements that exist among us around the legitimacy for Christians of same-sex sexual behaviour – disagreements to which the Conference will of course have to devote some time? This is, I fear, the story that sections of the media have written already; and there are those, bishops among them, who want the Conference to re-open the questions determined by Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Conference.

I pray that this will not happen. But if it does, then especially will be the time  to “speak the truth in love”  in the richly orthodox  senses to which I drew your attention a few minutes ago. As many of you know, I continue to judge that the Church of England’s House of Bishops was right in 1991, in Issues in Human Sexuality, to teach that although people who judge it appropriate as Christians to live in same-sex relationships should be made welcome in our parishes, the Church should not affirm their life-style, still less consider them for ordination into its sacramental and teaching ministries. In the same way, while we know that there are people in many of our churches who are living together but are not married, we do not accept such people as candidates for Reader ministry or for training for ordination. Issues… had, I believe, both ways of living in view in its paragraph 5.13: “the world will assume that all ways of living which an ordained person is allowed to adopt are in Christian eyes equally valid”.

I see no future for the Anglican Communion as we know it, or for the Church of England as we know it, if either deserts this teaching.

“We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine…….. But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, even Christ…..”(Ephesians 4.14,15)

And I went to Canterbury, too, deeply engaged with the relationships that my wife Lou and I had the great privilege and delight of re-making with our Burmese, Congolese and Burundian Partner-bishops and their wives, and in the event with one Rwandan bishop, through the pre-Lambeth hospitality programme in the Diocese. I thank very warmly the large number of people, across the mainland diocese and in the Islands, who offered a lot of generous hospitality and care to Bishops and their wives; and to Lou, and Mervyn Jones, and all those who worked with them over many  months to make (and re-make more than once!) a web of complex arrangements that in the event worked wonderfully and were much appreciated by our friends.

A modern “Lambeth Conference” is actually two conferences: the Lambeth Conference of the bishops of the Communion into which the Archbishop of the day also invites a substantial number of ecumenical participants; and a Spouses’ Conference. The two Conferences participate together in the round of daily Worship, over meals, and in a small number of Plenaries; but for the most part they have separate programmes, crucially including separate groups for daily Bible Study – though again this year both Conferences used the same Bible Study material on the “I am” sayings of Our Lord in St John’s Gospel.

So  much about “Lambeth 2008” was wonderfully encouraging, moving and often humbling:

• living for 18 days in a kaleidoscopic Christian community made up from almost every country in the world, especially expressed when we said the Lord’s Prayer together in our mother-tongues, in the dazzling colours of the clothes of so many Bishops’ wives, and in the opportunity to talk with so many over meals.


• deepening friendships with our own Partner-Bishops and their wives (though this only  underlined for me the absence of the Ugandans and Rwandans) – and I regret the times when I found myself addressing Burmese in the poor French with which I’d been trying to talk with Congolese!


• worshipping in this wonderfully mixed community, both in the Cathedral at the beginning and end of the Conference, and daily in the “Big Top”


• the strikingly generous welcome to the Conference given by Canterbury Cathedral, who devoted that tremendous building and the whole Precinct to the Conference for two days; and both the fact, and the content, of the Retreat given by Archbishop Rowan before the Conference opened on the first Sunday


• the presence and ministry throughout the Conference of the Chaplaincy Team, made up of Religious Sisters and Brothers from the Pacific, Australasia, North America and the UK


• the day the Conference spent in London: the walk from Whitehall to Lambeth Palace witnessing to the critical importance of the Millennium Development Goals; Gordon Brown’s remarkable and passionate speech before the façade of Lambeth Palace, and the wonderfully appropriate appreciation of him by the Ugandan Helen Wangusa who represents the Anglican Communion at the United Nations: “If I had it in my power to do so, I would ordain you now…..”!; lunch there, and the Garden Party at Buckingham Palace – and all on Lou’s and my 43rd wedding anniversary (“how very thoughtful of the Archbishop and of the Queen to arrange parties for you!”).


• Some of the evening Plenaries, especially those given by Cardinal Dias and by the Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks


• Archbishop Rowan’s three Presidential Addresses, for me especially the last of them on the  final afternoon of the Conference.


• The daily “home-group” of eight bishops – for me, three South Indians, two from the USA, one from South Africa, and another English bishop, with the addition on two mornings of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor – reflecting together on the “I am” sayings in St John’s Gospel


• The wonderful weather almost throughout the Conference (even though it made some venues, and some sessions that even without the heat would have been demanding, oppressively hot); the beauty of the Campus of the University of Kent, its views of the Cathedral, and its wildlife (especially the ubiquitous rabbits!)

The long days had other ingredients some of which, for me at any rate, worked less happily. After the daily Eucharist at 7.15, breakfast, the Bible Study groups at 9.15 and a drink at 10.30, we went on to the much discussed “indaba groups”, each made up of forty Bishops (five Bible Study groups). These were given a different topic each day; each had a Bishop designated as “leader”, and a “reporter” (generally a student or ordinand) tasked to produce for “the management” of the Conference the gist of what had been said day by day. I was by no means the only Bishop who found this process unsatisfactory – over-managed, under-prepared, often frustrating; and the “indabas” a context which though quite often good for mutual relationships and understanding did not encourage much real learning together, let alone the development by the Bishops of any substantial “teaching”.

In the afternoons there were a host of “self-select groups” which bishops could choose to attend, and which together made up quite a rich and varied  programme; but what with the heat and the long working-hours, I’m afraid that many were only sparsely attended. I valued those given by Cardinals Murphy-O’Connor and Kasper; and (very different) the one which I was asked to chair, with a Burundian and a Sudanese bishop speaking from their own experience about climate change, and how their Churches was seeking to react to it. 

Into this already full programme was inserted at a late stage the work of the  Windsor Continuation Group, three preliminary reports each followed by a “hearing” in what turned out to be intense and humid heat! The task of the Group, set up by Archbishop Rowan   as recently as  January 2008, is to review the Communion’s progress with the Windsor Report in the light of the communiqué from the meeting of the Primates in Dar-es-Salaam in February 2007. Chaired by the recently retired Archbishop Clive Handford, they produced what seemed to me to be refreshingly honest and challenging diagnoses of the crisis facing the Communion, if rather less challenging proposals for its resolution. The “hearings” enabled those who attended (and who had the stamina!) to broach the divisive issues, and to listen to each other speaking about  them, a good deal earlier in the Conference than the indaba-programme had originally intended.

At the end of the first full week of the Conference, there was a significant ground-swell of opinion that the programme should be freed up, the “indabas” left with more freedom to manage their own agenda, and the critical questions of the use of Scripture, same-sex relationships and the Anglican Communion Covenant explicitly brought into the “indabas” before the last three working days of the Conference. Understandably, but I judged and still judge regrettably, the “management” decided to stick with their programme.

This placed significant pressure on us all as we began to tire, and as the end of the Conference loomed. I doubt whether many “indabas” did justice to these subjects upon which so many were looking to the Bishops to do careful work together and to offer some pointers, even some guidance, to the Communion.  This made still more difficult and contentious the process which many of us rapidly realised had been poorly designed to produce, in the last days of the Conference, the 43 page report eventually entitled “Lambeth Indaba: capturing conversations and reflections from the Lambeth Conference 2008” -  “conversations and reflections”, and only from the “indabas”; not the guidance, even the teaching, that most Bishops from the developing world, and many others, thought that it was the business of the Conference to offer at this critical moment in the Communion’s life! I make no criticism of those tasked with managing this process  who worked long and hard and skilfully to achieve a result against the odds; and they joined many others in regretting that this  process excluded, from having any part in shaping this report, Bishops with a less than confident command of English.

By the second full week of the Conference I and many other bishops had come to the view that the programme as a whole was designed to ensure that the Conference should not seek to offer any clear guidance or teaching on any issue, because of the potentially divisive effects of our starting upon the plenary debates, and the voting, which alone would enable the Conference to articulate a particular view comparable to that of “Lambeth 1998”. To me and to many others this had the effect of legitimising, in the life of the Conference and by implication in the Communion,  the whole range of convictions about same-sex relationships and about the use of Scripture. There was little if any sense that the Conference was bound by Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference; and over and over again participants were encouraged to think especially of their “context” – with the tacit but clear impression that “context” could indeed, as some insist, powerfully influence Christian teaching; and that a world-wide family of Churches could continue with radically different teaching on the content of the Holy Life in different parts of the world, even when all are in communication in seconds through the Web.

For many of us, and perhaps especially for many Bishops from the developing world, these impressions were exacerbated by the extent to which the physical environment of the Conference  was strongly coloured by the well-organised and well–funded activities of groups and individuals lobbying against the Communion’s teaching expressed in Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference, and for that publicly advocated by The Episcopal Church and those who think like it. Around  a third of the stalls in the  “Market-place” were taken by those lobbying for change in the Communion’s teaching; Bishop Gene Robinson was quite often around the campus and extensively “hyped” by the British media; and news-stands at strategic points around the site offered copies of a near-daily news-sheet, The Lambeth Witness,  sponsored by InclusiveChurch and providing its “take” on events and people, while looking as if it might be an official organ of the Conference!

On the other hand, early in the Conference 19 Primates from the developing world sponsored a meeting which gave an opportunity for Bishops broadly in sympathy with the “Global South” in its emphasis on orthodox teaching on the use of scripture, on the person of Christ and on same-sex relationships, to hear from some of their leaders in the Conference and to offer each other mutual encouragement. Well over 150 bishops attended, from Ireland, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the USA and England as well as from the developing world. Many of the latter had persisted in coming to Canterbury in the face of persuasion to join Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda and Kenya in staying away (but five Kenyan Bishops and the wives of four of them braved the criticism of their colleagues to come to the Conference). That afternoon and throughout the Conference we greatly missed what would have been the strong participation of those who stayed away.

At the beginning of the second week I e-mailed letters to our own Partners, the Archbishops of Rwanda and Uganda, expressing my sadness at their and their Bishops’ absence, strong though my sympathy was for the convictions which had led them to judge that they should stay away. I received a warm note, before the end of the Conference, from Archbishop Henry Orombi, affirming the contribution over the years of Winchester to the Church of Uganda, and his own and his bishops’ continuing commitment to our range of Partnerships. Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini had made the same clear commitment to me – and I to him – when we talked for 2 hours, at his invitation, in Sussex in mid-May.

Though the Conference was not, as I expressed my fears to the Diocesan Synod, “engulfed in, taken over by, the profound disagreements that exist among us around the legitimacy for Christians of same-sex sexual behaviour”, I found that these were never far below the surface, indeed that they were explicit, in every Bible Study and every meeting of the “indaba” of which I was a member – even while these settings enabled Bishops to express their disagreements courteously and respectfully to each other.  There was no escaping, in my experience of the Conference, the demanding reality that not only in parts of the world distant from each other, but often within the same Province, Bishops hold radically – I should say, incompatibly – different convictions on the use of Scripture, on same-sex sexual relationships and on whether people in such relationships may be ordained.

Bishops who argue for the “revisionist” position see themselves and their churches as prophetic, and obedient to fresh disclosures of the Holy Spirit; and they see as both unreasonable and impossible, and profoundly detrimental to the credibility of their Christian witness in their context, the demands of the Primates in recent years that they should draw back from what is now a generation or more of thinking and behaving in these ways in their Dioceses – and the “tickets” on which they themselves were elected to their Sees.

To many other Bishops, especially but by no means only in the developing world, and by no means only to Evangelicals, this teaching and practice does not only disobey the clear teaching of Scripture and the unvaried practice of the Church until this generation; it threatens the reputation and credibility of their Churches, and exposes their Christians to mockery if not actually to violence. In the UK, too, today the “orthodox” often face mockery, and charges of “bigotry”, for their convictions (as I know well)!

It was not surprising that these opposing views largely proved to govern Bishops support for, or their  doubts about, the Anglican Communion Covenant. “Revisionists” oppose proposals that are designed to enable the Anglican Communion to declare its boundaries and hold member-Provinces accountable to their colleagues; “orthodox” on the other hand see such “discipline” (though the present draft text of the Covenant does not use the word!) as self-evidently necessary if the Anglican Communion is to remain together.

To much of the rest of the Christian world, and especially to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, while of course they recognise that the same questions are “alive” in their own churches too, the extent and depth of this divide renders the Anglican Communion doctrinally incoherent, and a profoundly unreliable dialogue-partner and colleague in Mission – as especially Cardinal Kasper, the President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, again made clear to the Conference.  

Right up until the final afternoon of the Conference and Archbishop Rowan’s third Presidential Address, everything seemed to be “managed” to ensure that these opposing and (in my judgement and experience) mutually incompatible views should be held in tension; and that this “both-and”, not Resolution 1.10 of Lambeth 1998, should effectively be the teaching of the Conference and the means of holding the Anglican Communion together.

I described this apparently likely  outcome as “living down” to the concerns about “Lambeth 2008” that motivated the Global Anglican Futures Conference (GAFCON) in Jerusalem in July, and that led more than 200 bishops to refuse the Archbishop of Canterbury’s invitation to the Conference. I expressed my concern that if this were to be the outcome of the Conference, more Provinces might well be drawn away from the See of Canterbury to the new structures that GAFCON had committed itself to bringing into being;  and I suggested that the wisest future for the Communion could be some kind of negotiated  “orderly separation” that would free both “sides” from more years of necessarily inconclusive debate and from the damage that each perceived itself receiving from the other.

But on the final afternoon Archbishop Rowan decisively tipped the balance for the first time in the Conference. Affirming the uniqueness of Christ as the Way, the Truth and the life, he re-affirmed Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference as the teaching of the Anglican Communion on sexual behaviour, and the Primates’ 2007 call for moratoria on blessings of same-sex relationships, on the consecration of any more priests in same-sex sexual relationships like Gene Robison, and on incursions by bishops into the dioceses of others; and he again backed work on the Anglican Communion Covenant as the most fruitful way for the Communion to manage its life together.  “The onus of proof”, he said, “is on those who seek a new understanding.”  And later:  “The vision of a global Church of interdependent communities is not the vision of an ecclesiastical world empire - or even a colonial relic… The global horizon of the Church matters because churches without this are always in danger of slowly surrendering to the culture around them and losing sight of their calling to challenge that culture.”  And  then he went on to speak memorably of the Church’s “truthful Christian witness in situations of profound social corruption and disorder”, instancing Zimbabwe; and by implication of the imperative upon Christians to pray for and to stand with those everywhere who are the concern of the Millennium Development Goals.  

So that night and the following morning, after a fine Eucharist in the Cathedral and a memorable party/supper offered by the Cathedral and brilliantly relocated at the last minute in deference to a rain-storm, the Bishops of the Anglican Communion and their spouses  left Canterbury with nothing resolved;  but with this clear call from Archbishop Rowan – and with the future of the Communion depending yet again on how especially (but not solely) North Americans would respond to the Archbishops final Address, and how much further  the patience, with The Episcopal Church in particular,  of the churches of the developing world would stretch.

So what are my own provisional conclusions, as I complete this Report to the Diocese of Winchester nearly a week after the close of the Lambeth Conference of 2008?

Notwithstanding  Archbishop Rowan’s magnificent final Address, I continue to see a negotiated “orderly separation” as the best and most fruitful way forward for the Anglican Communion. The experience of this Lambeth Conference, underlined by that final Address, has again convinced me that the Anglican Communion cannot hold in tension convictions and practices that are incompatible, and so not patent of “reconciliation”, without continuing seriously to damage  the life and witness of Anglican Churches as much in “the Global South” as in North America and in other provinces that have followed the lead of TEC. The experience of this Conference cannot have encouraged any participant to imagine that the latter are about to turn their backs on a generation or more of development in directions foreign to the life and convictions of the vast majority of Anglicans, let alone of other Christians, across the world. I cannot see that the members of an “international family of Churches” can thrive and grow and offer a clear witness to Jesus Christ as Lord while offering contradictory teaching, on a matter as central as the character of the Holy Life, in different parts of a world knit together by instantaneous e-communications.

I am not imagining that such an “orderly separation” could prove either straightforward or painless. Archbishop Rowan said two years ago that if partings came, they would be as unmanageable, and as unpredictable in their effects, as the splintering of panes of glass; and I realise that there could be especially difficult implications for the Church of England, as there continue to be for the Churches of North America. But I recognise as quite fair the summary of my and others’ views offered by the Guardian newspaper’s Editorial on August 4th: they “feel that the avoidance of confrontation this past fortnight has merely set up a worse confrontation in the future”.

If this may be the future under God of the Anglican Communion - a large “orthodox”  majority continuing to look to its historic roots (I pray and hope) in the See of Canterbury yet maintaining some defined relationship with a “separated” and more “liberal” Communion of Churches centred on TEC – much now depends on the GAFCON Primates and the rest of the “Global South” quickly mending the relationships between them that have been put at risk, and on all of them together reacting positively to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s stated intention to call a meeting of the Primates of the Communion early in 2009.

By then they, and the rest of us, may have a clear sense of how TEC and others are going to respond to Archbishop Rowan’s calls in his final Address on August 3rd; and the Archbishop  may himself be in  a position to judge whether there is a will for the Anglican Communion to go forward together in Our Lord’s service – or whether he faces the terrifyingly difficult decision between initiating negotiations that may make for “an orderly separation”, or watching a still more destructive separation take place around him.

I trust that you join me in holding Archbishop Rowan and his wife Jane, the churches of the Anglican Communion and especially those in Myanmar, Burundi, Congo, Rwanda and Uganda that are our Partners, the Church of England and this Diocese of Winchester daily in your prayers.  

The Addresses, Sermons, Papers etc given in the course of Lambeth 2008 can be found on www.lambethconference.org