Sandi Toksvig has published an open letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury that a lot of people are getting very excited about as it seems to be a slam dunk refutation of the wicked, homophobic Archbishop of Canterbury.
The only trouble with the letter is that it is based on a number of claims about the Archbishop and the Lambeth Conference that are not in fact actually true.
For example:
- “You and your other religious pals got together at the Lambeth Conference and the main take away seems to be that gay sex is a sin.”
Well, no, Justin Welby hasn’t said that gay sex is a sin and neither has the Lambeth Conference. You can read his actual words and check: https://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/speaking-writing/speeches/lambeth-call-human-dignity-read-archbishop-justins-remarks
- It was a sin in 1998 and you just wanted to make clear in 2022 that no-one in your finely frocked gang has moved on from that.”
Well, actually the Lambeth resolution in 1998 that gave cause to all this never mentioned sin. You can check that out here: https://www.anglicancommunion.org/resources/document-library/lambeth-conference/1998/section-i-called-to-full-humanity/section-i10-human-sexuality
The Guardian and some reports on the BBC suggested this week that the conference reaffirmed that gay sex was a sin. But it didn’t. It actually didn’t do that.
What’s more, the Archbishop’s actual words this week both in his letter to the bishops and in his remarks explicitly spoke of those who had moved on from the 1998 resolution. Indeed, he legitimised them (us!) within Anglicanism. Again, check his own words here: https://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/speaking-writing/speeches/lambeth-call-human-dignity-read-archbishop-justins-remarks
Speaking of the churches which have moved to marry and/bless same sex couples, he said, “They have not arrived lightly at their ideas that traditional teaching needs to change. They are not careless about scripture. They do not reject Christ. But they have come to a different view on sexuality after long prayer, deep study and reflection on understandings of human nature. For them, to question this different teaching is unthinkable, and in many countries is making the church a victim of derision, contempt and even attack. For these churches not to change traditional teaching challenges their very existence.”
What Sandi Toksvig says is demonstrably the opposite of what Justin Welby did.
- “Seriously, with the state the world is in, that is what you wanted to focus on? You didn’t have other more pressing matters like, I don’t know, war or poverty?”
Actually the bishops spent just over an hour in a two week conference on this topic. The rest of the time has been spent on things like, oh, you know, war, poverty, climate change, safeguarding etc. Again, this is easily found out by reading the Lambeth Calls document – https://www.lambethconference.org/programme/lambeth-calls/
What Sandi Toksvig says is again demonstrably the opposite of what actually happened.
There’s lots to be cross about when it comes to the way the churches deal with sexuality. If it were me, I’d be cross with the C of E bishops staying silent, particularly those who are suspected of being supportive of same-sex couples being able to marry.
But attacking Justin Welby in this way this week seems grossly unfair, not least in that this week he has spoken of the validity of the churches which have started to marry same-sex couples and stood up to those who want such churches to be thrown out of the Anglican Communion or otherwise disciplined. Again, his own words are published. They are easily checked. https://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/speaking-writing/speeches/lambeth-call-human-dignity-read-archbishop-justins-remarks
He actually said:
“I neither have, nor do I seek, the authority to discipline or exclude a church of the Anglican Communion. I will not do so. I may comment in public on occasions, but that is all. We are a Communion of Churches, not a single church.”
I’ve been the first to criticise Justin Welby when I’ve disagreed with him in the past. However, I suspect that Justin Welby’s words this week will pave the way, eventually, to new paths of inclusion within the Church of England when the Living in Love and Faith process that all their bishops are clutching to themselves like so many fig-leaves, fails.
The Anglican Communion has, witheringly slowly, moved a few steps in an inclusive direction this week.
Sandi Toksvig’s argument is a straw man.
She’s got things factually wrong.
If this is what Archbishop Justin needed to say to preserve the Anglican Communion, is it worth preserving? It seems that it will be a very long time until there is unity on this, and all that time we are damaging and hurting our LGBTQI + siblings (some of them living in the global south), and our faithfulness to the loving and inclusive gospel we are called to share.
Thanks for using the visibility of the blog to clarify outcomes and more.
The exact facts of Sandis arguments maybe up for debate but the sentiment is surely not. Any other business organisation that said, hopefully these words will move us towards inclusivity as if it some long distant unachievable goal would be taken to court and ripped apart for its blatant failures and unethical practices. The Anglican church apparently gets a pass on this because its a religion, what me and most of the rest of the secular world don’t understand is why this ever was and should continue to be the case. And the more you defend it the less relevant Christianty will become in a modern society.
Thanks for your comments, Tom. There isn’t anything that is “The Anglican Church” though, just a collection of churches around the world, held together more by bonds of affection than anything else. There is no rule book. There is no Anglican pope who can just decide things.
I know that seems like a cop out, but it is the legal reality. There’s no The Anglican Church that can make decisions, no The Anglican Church that anyone can sue if it doesn’t like something and no The Anglican Church that can make homophobia disappear in every place around the world.
The Scottish Episcopal Church, which I’m a member of is as inclusive as we can make it right now. I’m happy to perform the marriages of same-sex couples and they are generally fabulous. (Straight couples can marry too and also have fabulous weddings – we really are inclusive).
We worked hard on making it so. It took a long time. I’m glad we put the effort in and did it.
But I don’t understand why you wouldn’t want me to advocate for the same processes to happen in other parts of the Anglican Communion – ie in the other Anglican Churches around the world. I’m certainly not claiming they should get a pass. Far from it – I tend to be known for shouting for inclusion quite loudly.
Hi Kelvin, I’ve seen a few folk giving the AB of C a bad press in light of Sandi Toksvig’s letter and have shared your blog in response. Like much of what you write, it’s well thought out and balanced. Sadly well thought out and balanced is in short supply these days and you end up upsetting everybody. From what I’ve seen of the AB of S, he strikes me as a good and honourable man doing with almost impossible task. One might be inclined to believe it justifies his fairly large salary. Either way, it’s too easy to kick the wrong people.
I had the great misfortune lately of encountering Lisa Nolland via an article she wrote for Christian Today. The gist seems to be that the gays are hell bent on subverting all that is godly and are riddled with disease. The rhetoric is frighteningly familiar. She dismissed reports higher suicide risk among young LGBT people as “a pretext”. Chilling. She seems to have some following although others I’ve spoken to accept she’s an extremist that latches onto some instance of supposed bad behaviour and tars everyone with the same brush. I can live with the fact that Christians may be opposed to SSM, say, but I really struggle with those that insist “gay Christian” is an oxymoron. For all their claims of orthodoxy, they’re actually denying the very core of the gospel, that we are saved by grace. What the thing has done is revealed how toxic the discussion in parts of the C of E has become. Frankly, you’d be hard pressed to find such extreme language in my own Free Church of Scotland; excepting David Robertson, of course, who is far from universally respected.
Graeme and I are now members in the C of S. The denomination’s recent decision to allow C of S ministers to perform SSMs is pretty earth shattering. It had been expected over the last couple of years but ten years ago it was all but inconceivable. It’s as if once the thing had gathered momentum, the outcome was inevitable. Of course many will be hoping the tiny steps taken at the synod could be the start of something. But only a fool would expect Anglicans in Uganda or Nigeria to embrace the more inclusive approach. Of course that’s Welby’s difficulty. He isn’t just primate of all England but the figure head for millions of Anglicans world wide. Insofar as it depends on him, he needs to preserve the unity of the church, even when disagreements are profound.
Here in Scotland, we have the national church, the SEC, Methodists, URC, Quakers, Unitarians and others performing or ready to perform SSM. Who would have thought it just a short while ago. That has to challenge the sometimes quite lazy assumption that Christians are against LGBT+ people. Some are, perhaps many are, but many are not. Is it too much to hope that after being excluded for such a long time, LGBT people will be drawn to church? But even then, we need to encourage unity. What we really want is a church where progressives, evangelicals, conservatives are all welcome. I suspect Justin Welby thinks that too. Perhaps AB of C is a poison chalice but as Christians surely we want to support him as best we can.
always lovely to have someone – Sandy, Christian extraordinary – who hasn’t made the slightest contribution to “Church: now feels compelled to tell it off. Sigh
She has already decided which particular direction of travel counts as ‘moving on’. That is precisely what the discussion was supposed to be about. In arrogance, she thinks she can bypass the discussion without venturing an argument rather than an assertion, and in the meantime label all who disagree with her as regressive (rather than not subject to the vagaries of fashion, and having more robust principles undergirding their decisions).
I think the crux of the dispute here is this: is an “accurate description of reality” from the purported head of one of the largest Christian denominations in the world what is called for at this historic moment in time? Or, is taking a moral stand to protect the most vulnerable–namely, LGBTQ2S+ people in both the global north and south–what is called for? I think it’s clear which one Jesus would choose, and it’s not the one the archbishop did.
I’m here at Lambeth as a diocesan bishop in the Scottish Episcopal Church – what Kelvin has written is the case (what was actually said and done). Which is why the queer married bishops from the Episcopal Church in the USA were the first to stand and applaud +Justin. We are a Communion of churches not an international Church; there’s much more to do, but this week has been a significant step towards full inclusion of those of us who are LGBT.