What is in Kelvin's Head?

The Archbishop of Canterbury’s Mexico Sermon

23/08/2013
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.
Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, Mexico, Sermon

36 responses to “Inclusive Language and Politeness”

John Prescott

29/11/2017

I am loving the breath, depth, and civility of this conversation. At risk of muddying the waters, I would like to add another element to this discussion, namely language changes to choral works sung by a choir. As a progressive Episcopalian I want to do everything possible to make the liturgy inclusive. As a musicologist by profession, I also care about the integrity of musical works from other historical periods. Composers like Byrd and Purcell took exquisite care in the setting of particular words to music. Hymn tunes and texts, on the other hand, are often interchangeable and so, in my opinion we can be much freer in altering them. A solution may be for choirs to perform works from earlier times with their original words but also make a point of including new works with much more inclusive language. This is one possibility and I would welcome any other thoughts.

Reply
Meg Rosenfeld

30/11/2017

John, your suggestion is eminently sensible and would enable us both to enjoy and appreciate the older musical works (whether as singers or listeners), and to rejoice in the inclusiveness of new or perhaps intelligently altered newer pieces (e.g. hymns and/or modern anthems.) Actually, I think that’s basically what we do, or strive to do at All Saints; would you agree?

Reply
Ross E. Herman

01/12/2017

As an historian, much of this takes me back to the Puritanism of the seventeenth century that wreaked havoc on the traditional ways of worship and the beautiful art that so many held dear, things which our many of our Continental cousins still have and cherish. One of the three legs of Anglicanism is tradition and the respect we hold for those who came before from whom we inherited our faith and worship. Changing poems such as Bunyan’s impose our own values on an ancestor, debasing his genius and his faith, saying that he was somehow not enlightened enough to anticipate how mores would change. Part of the church’s mission is to celebrate the wonders of Creation, including the artistic contributions of the faithful.

This issue is very similar to the argument in America over the censorship of Mark Twain’s seminal novel, Huckleberry Finn, which, as an honest reflection of his time, includes quite a number of instances of the use of the ‘n-word’. As it has been taught in American schools for decades, many have proposed, and even published versions which replace this with an alternative. This is wrongheaded on many counts, but it most importantly insults readers by presuming they are not intelligent enough to incorporate the historical context of the book into their comprehension of it; this also applies to the drive to puritanically whitewash any reference to gender, including the wholesale abandonment of traditions and practices that bring comfort to many.

As an institution which holds teaching the Gospel as one of its fundamental missions, the church is perfectly well-equipped to remind or teach people of the context of things which may possibly offend, even using it as an opportunity to teach the importance of critically thinking about our world. The approach advocated here is an abdication of the church’s responsibility to preach the truth for the sake of making everyone, including itself, feel righteous and insulated from the iniquities of mankind. (NB: I seriously doubt Neil Armstrong was thinking that the many women at Playtex who worked to make his spacesuit were somehow excluded from the ‘big leap for mankind’; or maybe I’m wrong and he was actually a horrible bigot whose words should be scrubbed from history.)

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  01/12/2017
  
  And yet, I’m guessing you’d not be comfortable with a church using a hymn in public worship with the n-word in it. Am I right?
  
  Reply
  1. Ross E. Herman
    
    01/12/2017
    
    Such an argument only begs the question of whether such a thing even exists; worship exists within reality, and hypotheticals can only go so far in addressing the needs of the faithful. Besides, it is an invocation of the fallacious warning against slippery slopes.
    
    Reply
    1. Kelvin
      
      01/12/2017
      
      Not really. We tend to speak of Spirituals these days in our worship rather than the way in which people used to refer to them.
      
      Reply
Ross E. Herman

01/12/2017

Also, your decision to exclude critical commentary is incredibly hypocritical, blatantly going against the discursive nature of the Anglicanism that has enabled you as a priest to speak out in the first place. I understand the just desire to discourage hateful words, but criticism is not inherently hateful or derogatory. Please reconsider your policy.

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  01/12/2017
  
  er, I published your critical commentary, didn’t I?
  
  Reply
  1. Meg Rosenfeld
    
    01/12/2017
    
    You did indeed! 😎
    
    Reply
Tony Wesley

02/12/2017

At Trinity Cathedral in Cleveland, OH, USA, our beloved canon has recently introduced the term “kindred” to use instead of “brothers and sisters” precisely to address our non binary members and visitors. It seems to have taken hold more and more in our weekly newsletters, group emails, etc. I still pause when I use it and that is a valuable pause as it makes me aware again of the vastness of creation.

Reply
Mikhail Ramendik

03/12/2017

Suggestion, good Reverend:

==
Dear Lord and Father of our kind,
Forgive our foolish ways!
Reclothe us in our rightful mind,
In purer lives Thy service find,
In deeper reverence, praise.
==

I see a possible problem here with “our kind” being read as Christians as opposed to humans, but not sure if it is a real danger.

Reply
Ryan S.

03/12/2017

Dear Kelvin,

Such a wonderful reflection on inclusive language in our worship.

I have long cherished “Dear Lord and Father of mankind”—you could even say it’s my favorite hymn—and in my search for something to sing as a solo one day, I found several versions of it adapted for inclusive language. I ultimately decided I preferred “Dear God who loves all humankind,” though I also thought “Dear God, compassionate and kind” would’ve had a lovely sound to it. Someday, I hope that perhaps we shall all move away from referring to God with an implicit gender.

Do keep up the good work. You’re doing fabulously.

Joyfully,
Ryan

Reply