• The Lambeth Conference: Homophobic by Design

    Next week the long delayed Lambeth Conference gets underway. The conference is the gathering of bishops from around the Anglican Communion which used to take place every 10 years.

    The conference hasn’t taken place for 14 years and was delayed by Covid and also because relationships within the Anglican Communion were so difficult that it has taken years of careful diplomacy from the Archbishop of Canterbury to get to this point, where there seems to be a viable quorum of bishops who would actually attend.

    Famously, the last two Lambeth Conferences have been dominated by questions about the legitimacy of same-sex couples.

    And yes, of course this is ridiculous. And no, it being ridiculous doesn’t stop it from being true.

    The touchstone of this argument is a resolution which was agreed by the bishops at the 1998 conference. The resolution is referred to as Lambeth 1.10. It says some platitudinous things about people who are described as having “homosexual orientation”  but also simutaneously condemns same-sex relationships as being incompatable with Scripture.

    An enormous amount of work has been done to try to get the bishops of the Anglican Communion together again. One of the things which seemed to many bishops to have been promised by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who convenes and invites people to these affairs is that this conference was about people saying things which they were united about and some effort seems to have gone into suggesting that there would be no more voting on divisive resolutions.

    One rather unpleasant fact of gathering the bishops is that the Archbishop decided to invite those bishops who happened to be in same-sex marriages but expressly disinvited their spouses. The Lambeth Conference exists in a pseudo-1950s age where spouses – usually wives, are invited too at great cost to the dioceses their other half leads. In the case of bishops from Scotland, it is costing £5000 per bishop to send them to the conference and a further £5000 for their spouse to go and I gather that 6 spouses are going to the tune of £30 000.

    Thus, Scottish Episcopalians have been expected to fund a conference that was homophobic by design.

    I must confess that I don’t understand why any of the spouses of bishops from Scotland are going, much as I think they are collectively fantastic people with great skills and wisdom.

    The Archbishop, like Archbishops before him has staked his own reputation as someone who takes reconciliation seriously, on bringing people together for the conference.

    It has come as a considerable surprise therefore that a list of proposed resolutions (renamed as Lambeth Calls in order to maintain the fiction that there will be no more resolutions) has been published in the last two days. Indeed, it has been published so much at the last minute that many bishops from around the world were either already travelling or packing their smalls.

    And lo! Buried deep in the Lambeth Calls we find that the bishops are going to be invited to affirm a resolution which suggests that Lambeth 1.10 represents “the mind of the whole of the Anglican Communion” and which once again suggests that it isn’t legitimate for Anglicans to bless same-sex couples or marry same-sex couples.

    Apart from anything else, it must be blatently obvious to everyone in the world that the Anglican Communion is not of one mind about this. It bewilders me that anyone could suggest that it is. For to state that it is is a bald, bare-faced lie.

    Christians are not supposed to bear false witness or lie in public about things. (Lying is a sin that I presume we all do actually agree about).

    In one sense, it is deja vu all over again. We seem to have been here before, with the legitimacy of gay lives being up for debate. Such a debate is homophobic and seems even more so when one discovers that the bishops can’t vote against it – they can only vote in favour or vote in a way that suggests that the resolution Call needs more work.

    Up until now, I’ve believed that though there were problems with the conference itself, our bishops were right to be there. However, events of the last 48 hours have made me change my mind.

    The resolution now before the bishops (for debate in secret, closed sessions) isn’t merely about the legitimacy of same-sex relationships. This time around it is expressly about the legitimacy of provinces of the Anglican Communion making it possible for same-sex couples to be blessed or indeed married.

    The bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church have issued a statement today about all this. It isn’t easy to find on the SEC website but it can be found here: https://www.scotland.anglican.org/a-statement-from-the-college-of-bishops-preparing-for-the-lambeth-conference/.

    My personal view is that this is a poor response to a bad situation. Although I have much sympathy with our bishops having little time to formulate a response, they don’t seem to understand that our church’s legitimacy in making decisions about marriage is being debated this week, as is their own legitimacy in administering the decisions which our synod has made.

    This isn’t actually about same-sex couples any more. Actually it never was, it was always about power, but it has seemed to be about same-sex relationships to many up until now. It doesn’t help for our bishops in Scotland to maintain that narrative any longer.

    Nothing good comes from engaging with processes that are homophobic by design. Nothing.

    It is my view that our bishops and those of other countries who share our values and ethics should have nothing at all to do with such a vote and should instead make it very clear that they have been invited to this conference under false pretenses.

    I don’t think the Conference would have been much of a starter if it had been known all along that a vote such as this was on the cards.

    That’s why it seems particularly deceitful for this to have emerged right at the last minute.

    The Archbishop of Canterbury doesn’t look like much of a reconciler right now.

8 responses to “Deck the hair…”

  1. (fabulous for an alleged evangelical) ryan Avatar
    (fabulous for an alleged evangelical) ryan

    Out of interest, is there a proper churchy rule or convention on the right time for Christmas trees to go up? Don’t know if the grumpiness in your post is personal or praepostorial

  2. Kimberly Avatar

    A properly churchy time for the Christmas tree to go up is at Chrismas. i.e. after the fourth Sunday of Advent and in time for the Midnight Mass.

    Grumpiness about Christmas in October is natural and appropriate, surely.

  3. Anne Avatar
    Anne

    On a sliding scale of grumpiness which is worse, harumph or bah humbug?[PS M and S had hot cross buns in their bakery today]

  4. ChickPea Avatar
    ChickPea

    Ah, Kelvin…….. I wonder, is there a link between the demoralising ‘Facebook’ notices bewailed in your last post and your enticing sentiments expressed in this ?

    Perhaps you need to create a little sunshine to tempt them – a little progressive development of the fly-fishing technique, the swish and flick of the wrist, the fleeting glimpse of temptation just enough in sight to, er, arouse interest……

    Maybe your own bedecked seasonal tree (call it an ‘Advent Tree’ to thwart the Christmas Tree Traditionalists – thereby launching yourself as a trend-setter) – such tree selected and styled with eagerness in longing anticipation of future festivities……..

    (You could call it ‘forward planning par excellence’, even, to gain bonus brownie points and thwart critics)…..

    Then, perchance, the ‘Facebook Fanatics’ may clamour to, er, beat a path to your door ?

    (Tho……. more to the point……. would you honestly be wanting them to ?……….is that really where Everyman finds his bosom buddies ?)

    PS. Put your dazzling Advent Tree prominently in your window and WE’ll all come round so’s you’re not lonely – how’s that for a Gloom-Buster to tweak the morale, eh ?

  5. kelvin Avatar

    I think that facebook is just another meeting place and similar patterns of community seem to play out there though sometimes at a faster rate than in face to face communication. Certainly, the flirting, fighting and flummery as well as thoughtful the slow conversation that I recognise from off-line communication, is all present there too.

    Would I want to entice those who would be enticed by early Christmas trees, albeit dressed up in another name.

    I’d rather not.

    [BTW Anne – three Harumphs certainly trump a single Bah Humbug]

  6. Rev Ruth Avatar

    I think it is just attention seeking.

  7. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    Your new hair looks lovely incidently. Am sure you’re turning heads at that clergy conference.

  8. kelvin Avatar

    Ryan, your faith in my hair is almost unbearably touching. At this clergy conference, however, it was trumped by the hair of the Rector of St Margaret’s, Newlands.

    He came to the conference whilst his hair did not, his having been shaved completely bald the day before.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • 12 tips to get people to come to Christmas Services

    Earlier this year, I won a competition. Someone had published a new plugin for WordPress that allows you to fairly easily publish google maps with your own points of interest on them. As a way of promoting the plugin, the competition was to offer a year’s license to the top 20 people who came up…

  • The next five questions the Archbishop needs to be asked

    First of all, we need to give some cheers to Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury. He was asked some great questions about the Usual Topic this week in an interview and he gave some great answers. The interviewer was Michael Gove and the interview appeared in the Spectator. The crucial bit is this: It…

  • The #syriavote is not so simple really

    Like many people in the UK, I spent much of yesterday dipping into what was happening in parliament as a long debate took place as to whether this country should engage in military action against ISIL in Syria. I once had aspirations to be an MP and that always makes me wonder which division lobby…