Dear Friends in Christ,

++Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury and symbolic head of the Anglican Communion, has issued his most serious and straightforward diagnosis of the crisis within the Anglican Communion.  He did so last week in Mexico, on the feast day of Jeremy Taylor.  He cited Jeremy Taylor as an example of one who proclaimed tolerance of differing opinions in an age of religious civil war and persecution.  In contrast to Jeremy Taylor, he said the Anglican Communion is moving in the opposite direction – into disintegration and chaos in bitter disputes between traditionalists and progressives. Quoting Jeremy Taylor, he gave this analysis:

“It is unnatural and unreasonable to persecute disagreeing opinions: … Force in matters of opinion can do no good, but is very apt to do hurt…”  Taylor wrote those words at a time of civil war and rebellion, when even to suggest toleration was to risk prison – and he went there. The very existence of the state was felt to be threatened if there was variety of religious belief.  I sometimes worry that as Anglicans we are drifting back in that direction. Not consciously, of course, but in an unconscious way that is more dangerous. Like a drunk man walking near the edge of a cliff, we trip and totter and slip and wander, ever nearer to the edge of the precipice.”

There you have it.  The problem within the Anglican Communion is a lack of tolerance and even the suggestion of “force” (read “discipline”) in disputes over faith and order (read “opinions”).

Contrast ++Justin Welby’s analysis with the statement of the leaders of the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans in April 2012 from London (200 Archbishops, bishops, priests, deacons and lay leaders from 30 countries and 25 Anglican provinces) who described the problem this way:

“The conflict in the Anglican Communion since 1998 [is] a crisis of Gospel truth, not only regarding matters of human sexuality, but the authority of Holy Scripture as God’s inspired Word and the unique Person and Work of Jesus Christ for salvation… The chairman of the FCA, the Most Rev. Eliud Wabukala, Primate of Kenya, opened the Conference with a keynote address on the identity of confessing Anglicans in the light of the current crisis, highlighting the fact that “The heart of the crisis we face is not only institutional, but spiritual.” We were also reminded that we are not wrestling against flesh and blood but against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places (Eph 6:12).”

Judge for yourself:  which of these two analyses of the problem is more faithful to the facts and underlying causes of the crisis in the Anglican Communion unfolding and accelerating over the last 10 years?  Which of these two analyses – the Archbishop of Canterbury’s, or the 200 leaders re[resenting the majority of Anglican’s worldwide – is more faithful to both Gospel truth and the fulfillment of Gospel mission in Christ’s Great Commission (see Matthew 28:16-20).

The Archbishop of Canterbury went on to describe one “extreme” this way:

“It is a dangerous place, a narrow path we walk as Anglicans at present. On one side is the steep fall into an absence of any core beliefs, a chasm where we lose touch with God, and thus we rely only on ourselves and our own message.”

If only that extreme were true, it would be easy to repudiate.  But it is not in fact a description of those who describe themselves as liberal or theologically “progressive.”  From the statement of the bishops dissenting from the Lambeth Conference Resolution 1.10 (1998) on human sexuality and holy orders to the Chicago Consultation of bishops and theologians within the Episcopal Church USA (TEC) today, the issue has never, ever been an absence of core beliefs.  Rather, they have been about changing the core beliefs of Anglicanism – indeed of Christianity itself – on the essentials of the catholic and apostolic faith.  From the supremacy of Christ alone as “the way, the truth and the life” (Jn 14:6)  to Christ the great teacher as a way, a truth and a life; from the creeds and councils of the Apostolic church and the 39 Articles to the Millennium Development Goals; from baptism as initiation into new life through the blood of Jesus Christ to baptism as a bill of rights for access to any office within the church… And the list goes on.

By defining the one extreme this way, the Archbishop has completely removed the matter from the challenge that there is to faith and order within the Anglican Communion.

The Archbishop of Canterbury goes on to describe the other extreme this way:

“On the other side there is a vast fall into a ravine of intolerance and cruel exclusion. It is for those who claim all truth, and exclude any who question. When we fall into this place, we lose touch with human beings and create a small church, or rather many small churches – divided, ineffective in serving the poor, the hungry and the suffering, incapable of living with each other, and incomprehensible to those outside the church.”

I won’t dwell on the disproportionate contrast in sheer numbers of words between his descriptions of liberals and traditionalists.  Nor will I dwell on the contrast between a “steep” fall and a “vast’ fall, or the contrast between falling into a place of “losing touch with God” and “falling into a ravine of intolerance and cruel exclusion.”   Again, the point is simply that the Archbishop has set up another straw man as an extreme.

For those who describe themselves as traditional, biblical, evangelical, catholic and confessing Anglicans, Archbishop Welby’s caricature is not only far from reality but hurtful.  We do not know of any place or practice among ourselves which excludes any who question.  If it were not so, we would not intentionally create such opportunities for people to ask the questions worth asking about life in places and practices like ALPHA, Christianity Rediscovered and a host of other process-evangelistic opportunities.  If he were to walk about the vibrant, growing Anglican churches in places like Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Argentina, Peru and the Anglican Church in North America, I am sure that the Archbishop would discover people who are neither divided nor ineffective in serving the poor, the suffering and the hungry.  In fact, he would find them meeting the whole needs of the whole person – spiritual as well as material. He would find them not only living with each other but partnering at ever deeper levels with other likeminded, biblically grounded Christians from other denominations.  He would find them seeking to contextualize the gospel without sacrificing the content of the Bible in the face of increasing secularization, religious pluralism and even outright persecution.

How sad that the Archbishop has chosen to caricature such faithful Anglicans in this way. He came to office with the expectation that his deep experience in reconciliation would bring people together.  One of the essential skills of reconciliation is the acknowledgement and telling of truth; the ability to fairly represent the position of all sides.  Such skills require a careful listening to all sides so that one can indeed faithfully represent each side’s position.  The Archbishop’s failure to fairly represent either side of the “precipice” makes one wonder the extent to which he has carefully listened to all sides.

In the end, ++Justin Welby concluded his sermon this way:

“Light is the answer to the troubles of the Communion, to enable us to find our true way and to serve our world. There must not be politics in dark corners, but love expressed in the light, even love expressing difference. In that light we will be secure enough to be churches that reach out, serve the poor, and draw others to light, as a lighted house draws the weary traveler.”

And to whom is he speaking about “politics in dark corners”?  The liberal extreme?  The traditional extreme?  Both?  By failing to distinguish, he makes a comment that is potentially, if not in fact, deeply offensive to confessing Anglicans everywhere – and especially to those children of the East African revival who have in fact been walking in the light (I John 1:7) from the inception of that revival over 100 years ago, through the duplicities of fellow Archbishops from the developed west who promised in Primates meetings not to “tear the fabric of the Anglican Communion at its deepest levels,” – and then went ahead and did so by ordaining practicing homosexuals and lesbians as bishops, sanctioning same-sex blessings and seeking to change the core beliefs of the Christian faith up to this present moment.

Has the Archbishop of Canterbury listened to those confessing Anglican leaders through their tears over the attempts they have made in the last 10 years to call the leadership of TEC, the Anglican Church of Canada and other “progressives” into repentance?

You see, the light that is the Archbishop’s answer is not the light of dialogue, indaba or Hegelian processes of bringing new revelation out of a synthesis of opposing positions.  The light he rightly cites from I John 1:7 includes the next two verses, I John 1:8-9, in which the Apostle says “If we say we have no sin we lie, and the truth is not in us.  But if we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”  What the Communion needs on all sides is forgiveness and cleansing that go to the root of our sins.  And this will require public confession and public repentance.

So far, the Archbishop of Canterbury has reserved the call to confession and repentance for pernicious payday lenders and homophobics.  Based on his analysis of the problems within the Anglican Communion, how far will confession and repentance go in the Archbishop of Canterbury’s agenda?

Yours in Christ,
Phil+

The Rev. Canon Phil Ashey
Chief Operating and Development Officer, American Anglican Council