This week it has been reported that the Bishops of the Church of England have been meeting to discuss the proposals of the controversial Pilling Report. The Pilling Report recommends that the Mother Church of the Anglican Communion extend its liturgical blessing to same sex civil partnerships, perhaps even same-sex civil marriages. If the Bishops decide to do so, they will be breaking the traditional Christian teaching that all sexual practice outside (heterosexual) marriage, including same-sex sexual practice, is sinful and contrary to God’s will revealed in Scripture. This is the starting point for the Church of England Evangelical Council’s recent essay to the Bishops and the wider Church, Guarding the Deposit: Apostolic Truth for an Apostolic Church (2016).
This CEEC essay restates exactly the same Biblical standards set forth in 1998 in Lambeth Conference of Bishops Resolution 1.10, and even earlier in 1997 by Bishops, clergy and lay delegates from the Anglican Global South meeting at Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, who stated:
- The Scripture bears witness to God’s will regarding human sexuality which is to be expressed only within the life long union of a man and a woman in holy matrimony.
- The Holy Scriptures are clear in teaching that all sexual promiscuity is sin. We are convinced that this includes homosexual practices, between men or women, as well as heterosexual relationships
outside marriage
Within the last two weeks, the Rev. Dr, Stephen Noll defended the Biblical and Anglican Communion standards for human sexuality represented in Lambeth Resolution 1.10 (1998) and Kuala Lumpur (1997) against an attack by William Nye of the Church of England Archbishops Council. Nye argued that Lambeth 1.10 (1998) is neither authoritative nor legally binding on the Church of England. Noll points out that as Nye wrote in his official capacity as Secretary General of the Archbishops Council, he must be taken as articulating the view of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York themselves.
Noll goes on to dissect the flaws in Nye’s statement paragraph by paragraph, the tortuous logic and legalism used to evade the authority of the Bible, the reliance by the Archbishops Council on mere legal positivism, and concludes by quoting the recent, unambiguous warning to the bishops of the Church of England from the Communique of the Sixth Global South Gathering in Cairo in October that any move to accept the blessing of same sex unions “would have serious implications for us [the Anglican Global South].” Noll rightly concludes:
“I do not know how the Global South churches could be clearer. They do not want to break communion with the Church of England, as they have done with the Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada. But they fear she is going the same way as the North Americans.”
You can read all of Noll’s essay here.
It seems as if the Archbishops of Canterbury and York are preparing the way for the blessing of same sex unions in the Church of England. In so doing, they are falling back on the bizarre idea that the Communion of Anglican Churches is simply defined by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s mailing list. Apparently there are no boundaries Biblical, morally authoritative, traditional or otherwise other than the ABC’s invitation to attend a meeting!
It was the Rev. Dr. Roger Beckwith who raised this very “bizarre” scenario almost 15 years ago in his essay “The Limits of Anglican Diversity” (Winter 2003, The Churchman at 347-362). Beckwith argues that there are limits to Anglican diversity. Those limits are Biblical, Creedal, and Conciliar (based upon the doctrinal statements of the first six General Councils of the ancient Church). Beckwith goes back to the restatement of these Biblical, apostolic, catholic and conciliar “guardrails” in Resolution 48 of the 1930 Lambeth Conference of Bishops, from the statement of the committee on “The Anglican Communion.” It is well worth repeating:
“The bond which holds [the Anglican Communion] together is not so much the historical and racial link with the British Isles, but the spiritual bond of faith…The Anglican Communion includes not merely those who are racially connected with England, but many others whose faith has been grounded in the doctrines and ideals for which the Church of England has always stood (emphasis added)”.
And what are these doctrines?
“We hold the Catholic faith in its entirety: that is to say, the truth of Christ, contained in Holy Scripture; stated in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds; expressed in the Sacraments of the Gospel and the rites of the Primitive Church… “(emphasis added).
Resolution 48 (1930) sets this “common faith” in the context of the faith of the Church in the first four centuries—just as the Anglican Reformers did:
“The Provinces and Patriarchates of the first four centuries were bound together by no administrative bond…”
Let the reader understand: Anglicanism is not defined by an administrative “nexus” located in Canterbury! Resolution 48 goes on to say:
“…the real nexus was a common life resting upon a common faith, common Sacraments, and a common allegiance to an Unseen Head. This common life found from time to time an organ of expression in the General Councils. The Anglican Communion is constituted upon this principle.” (emphasis added).
This is nothing less than the confessional identity of Anglicanism. Some refuse to acknowledge what is at stake. Some will say that marriage is not a “core doctrine” of the Church so why make a fuss? “Just go with the flow so we can win a hearing within our culture.” Such compromise ignores the fact that it is much more than marriage, sexual orientation or gender identity which is at stake. God’s will in creation, the authority, clarity and trustworthiness of the Bible, and the very nature of the Gospel itself are really and truly at stake. Is the Gospel of Jesus Christ “come as you are and stay as you are—let the culture define the gift of sexuality God has given you.” Or is the Gospel of Jesus Christ “come as you are but please don’t stay as you are—Find your identity in Christ alone, and let Him show you how to discover and express this gift he has given you”?
Others will say that the Bible is not clear; that they are following a higher ethic and a different interpretation. Their arguments resonate with those who reject any one definition of a text—as if any text, statement or reality is capable of being interpreted in any way one pleases, without any regard to the context or language itself. Beckwith also addressed this objection carefully:
“Even on a matter where Scripture speaks emphatically and repeatedly, such as homosexual intercourse, there are those who claim that the Bible does not forbid it, but that another interpretation is possible. What those who make this sort of claim need to ask themselves is whether they would submit to the teaching of the Bible even if the Bible did forbid the practice. For if the honest answer is “no”, the suggestion of a different interpretation is a mere evasion, and is probably wishful thinking. Those who have examined most carefully the new interpretations that have now been proposed, such as Robert Gagnon in his book The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001) have ended up quite dissatisfied with them. There is, after all, such a thing as ‘twisting the Scriptures to one’s own destruction (2 Peter 3:16).”
If and when the Bishops of the Church of England decide to accept the blessing of same sex unions by the Church, they will forever breach the limits of Anglican diversity. The tear in the Communion will be irreparable. The Windsor Report and all of the processes that followed will be dead. Yes, the Bishops of the Mother Church are not “legally” bound by any resolutions of the Lambeth Conference of Bishops, including Lambeth 1.10 (1998)—even though they carry very great moral weight and authority, even though they represent the conciliar consensus (consensus fidelium) of Biblical, apostolic, and catholic teaching of the whole Church. They are legally free to exercise their authority to ignore such teachings and precedents and to accept the blessing of same sex unions.
But as Resolution 48 of the Lambeth Conference (1930) also pointed out, this freedom comes with a terrible risk:
“This freedom naturally and necessarily carries with it the risk of divergence to the point even of disruption [of the Communion]. In case any such risk should actually arise, it is clear that the Lambeth Conference as such could not take any disciplinary action. Formal action would belong to the several Churches of the Anglican Communion individually…” (Emphasis added).
As Beckwith concludes “These are words which deserve much pondering.”
If and when the Archbishops and Bishops of the Mother Church take that risk, if they wager that the disruption will not be that great, what will they do when Anglican Churches in the Global South decide to declare themselves in broken or impaired Communion? What leads the Archbishops and Bishops to believe that the chaos will be any less than that which North America saw from 2003 to the present? What will the Archbishop of Canterbury do when he calls a meeting and few show up?
Then his mailing list will shrink dramatically. Those who take Communion seriously, on the basis of a shared faith, will do what they need to do to reconstitute the Communion of Anglican Churches on the basis of those principles set forth in Resolution 48 (1930).
The Rev. Canon Phil Ashey is President & CEO of the American Anglican Council.
