• The Archbishop of Canterbury’s Mexico Sermon

    The Short Version

    • The Anglican Communion is in a mess
    • The Archbishop of Canterbury is in Mexico and he has preached a sermon
    • It isn’t really a very helpful sermon and is quite offensive

    The Long Version

    This week the Archbishop of Canterbury (I think we can stop calling him the new Archbishop of Canterbury now) has been preaching in Mexico. He preached a sermon earlier this week which was aimed at the troubles of the Anglican Communion. Though its conclusion is that we must all “walk in the light” which is pretty untroublesome, he has used language to get there which stigmatises fellow Anglicans and which I don’t really think is helpful at all.

    The troublesome bit is this, where he speaks of the Anglican Communion in this way:

    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.

    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. 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.

    It isn’t really helpful to characterize the troubles of the Communion as being “sides” in any case and neither of these images is remotely helpful.

    The basic trouble in the Communion is that some of us think that gay people should be treated like anyone else and have our reasons for doing so. Others think that is wrong and have their own reasons for taking that view. The latter sometimes think that they alone believe a view consonant with the bible.

    It is deeply unhelpful of the Archbishop to use language which appears to suggest that the risk that those who wish to affirm gay people present is one of a lack or loss of core beliefs. That just isn’t true and is a nasty slur against fellow Anglicans. The US and Canadian churches are not places where God is absent and if the Archbishop needs to find that out, he needs to go there and meet them, something that his predecessor seemed to find impossible to do.

    People will read the sermon in the US and Canadian churches and take immediate offence. (I find it offensive here in Scotland, but there it will appear to be a judgement on their national churches). Those who wish to affirm the place of LGBT people do so because of their core beliefs as Christians and as Anglicans, not because of any lack of belief or loss of God.

    Does the Archbishop of Canterbury not have anyone on staff from the US or Canada or someone who knows those churches who could look at this kind of stuff and say, “hang on a minute, Father, that might not go down too well?”

    I suspect also that those who do not wish to affirm the place of LGBT people in the church may well say that intolerance is something that they experience from those who do. Neither “side” has the monopoly on that trait.

    The other uncomfortable notion in this sermon is that it looks as though the Archbishop is painting a scene where there are these two squabbling factions and the bishops tentatively walk a narrow path of balance and moderation between them. Innocently tripping along the cliff edge, fearful of being dragged down one side or the other. (Do cliffs normally have two sides anyway?)

    That is not my experience. Bishops are part of our problems. Indeed, the Episcopate is the place where a very great deal of these problems occur in the communion.

    Here in Scotland, it sometimes seems as though the Bishops think they should present themselves as only possible “honest” brokers amidst naughty disagreement amongst others. It isn’t true and we all know it isn’t true. Our bishops are not of one mind yet appear entirely unable to model their diversity in a healthy way. What might help would be if they could come out and say, “Well we don’t agree about this but we still respect one another and work together and that is the answer to the Communion’s problems – Anglicans of different views are part of one organic whole, we need one another and are getting on with it”. That would be honest, helpful modelling of how to manage conflict. Instead of which we get a corrosive, conservative silence which is damaging the church and relations within it.

    The basic question that bishops need to answer is a simple one and it is this:

    Do gay people in their loving relationships have the potential to experience love that can be described as sacramental?

    All else will follow from the answer to that question.

    The Archbishop of Canterbury needs to be asked that question again and again and again. He seems to think gay relationships are something to be admired – describing some couples as living relationships of “stunning quality”. But does he think they can be godly?

    Bishops (and yes, Archbishops) failing to answer basic questions about the godly potential of gay lives  is at the core of the problem the Anglican Communion has. That’s true here in Scotland and appears to be true for the Archbishop in Mexico on his travels.

    We all deserve answers to those questions.

9 responses to “Faith and Order Board Business – the Anglican Covenant process”

  1. kelvin Avatar

    Tim Daplyn – says that the Indaba process is not a normative process but something which means many things to many people. We have no rules of procedure. Asks if the feedback from Indaba will be incorporated into synod. is is canonical. Indaba was designed for African situation not our own.

  2. kelvin Avatar

    Chris Mayo – history is replete with turning points. We are at a turning point. Covenant process is laiden with emotion. People making up their minds at an early stage. Some see it as taking away our identity. Others see it as essential in a chaning environment. Question today is about moving on the journey. Thinks it would be abbrogation of responsibility to turn down this motion. We have a voice the punches far above our weight to communion.

    1. kelvin Avatar

      I speak and ask for material for dioceses to consider which puts a different position to that put by the Anglican Comminion Office.

  3. kelvin Avatar

    Grant Swain speaks in favour of the covenant and says that we would be left out in the cold by refusing to sign. Says that we must be there. But, our strength lies in being undecided. He supports the motion and says that we must sign the Covenant so we can mediate between extremists both in and outside our church. Talk is needed. But we need to be

  4. kelvin Avatar

    Lawrie Scrimgeour – asks since Independence is on the agenda, in this motion we are talking about Independence. Has the faith and order board considered a referendum on the question of the Covenant.

  5. kelvin Avatar

    Anne Pankhurst – notes that the Faith and Order Board say that there could be other processes. She says that we could end up with a Canon which was very difficult to change. She asks for further enlightenment.

  6. kelvin Avatar

    Bishop of Glasgow (Acting Convener) responds: Synod does seem to have the capacity to decide to adopt the process outlined. Responds to my suggestion by saying that he will take those views back to Faith and Order Board. He says that the Process itself takes no view on the Covenant. Synod is the only legally competent body to decided it. A referendum has not been considered and he believes it would not be canonical. Faith and Order Board has considered the posibility of remaining undecided.

  7. kelvin Avatar

    Bishop of Argyll says that Indaba process is a way of giving everyone a voice in a transparent way. We are trying to talk this year and explore the issues in depth. Next year a canonical process. Everyone will see everything that has been said in the Indaba process. The process is no in camera or in committee but a way of giving everyone a voice.

    1. kelvin Avatar

      Motion is carried – I think about 12 – 15 people voted against and 1 or 2 abstentions. So, we have a process for considering the Covenant.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Lost Property

    Does anyone happen to know where my big black coat is? I’ve worn it in the last 10 days and cannot think where I’ve left it. It is paired with a rather nice scarf – grey with muted stripes designed by … (no, lets not be pretentious). Any sightings of the coat and/or scarf most…

  • Counting the Sheep

    One of my jobs this week is to do the annual statistical return for St Mary’s. Lots of columns of figures have to be totted up – at the end of it all, a book it published for General Synod which tells us how many baptisms have been performed in each church, how many communions…

  • Last Night – World AIDS Day Service

    The AIDS Day service was very moving last night. It is troubling how much the organisers feel that they have to emphasise that everyone is welcome, “even though it is in a church”. The choir stalls were taken up by a fabulous women’s drumming group which made me wonder whether the stone that was rolled…

  • 1 December 2006

    Glasgow’s service for World AIDS Day 7 pm – St Mary’s Cathedral, 300 Great Western Road. All Welcome