• 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.

6 responses to “What institutional homophobia looks like”

  1. Edward Andrews Avatar
    Edward Andrews

    Yes, I noticed that as well. It is nothing to do with what was said on both sides (the internal conversation in the Kirk) everything to do with what was said or about people who are gay.
    I would however put in a plea of mitigation for him in that he has to reflect what the institution can get away with. Personally I would have no problem if the so called Confessing Bunch (which an abuse of the name of the Church of Barth and Bonhoeffer neither of whom they would give house room) packed their traps and left, but John can’t say that because that is not policy, though I know a number of people who feel my way.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      I think the problem here is not so much what the institution can get away with but that the words he says are factually wrong. What the Assembly is being asked to do is not what he says the Assembly is being asked to do.

      As I’ve said, I recognise the pressures on someone in his position. But that’s kind of the point.

  2. Fr Keith Avatar
    Fr Keith

    Extremely well put, Kelvin…

  3. Richard Ashby Avatar
    Richard Ashby

    Since I don’t know the man I have no idea whether or not he is homophobic personally, but you’re quite right. That’s not what the report says. And in anycase why apologise for only ‘some’ of the harsh things. What about the rest?

  4. Bryan Kerr Avatar

    Hey Kelvin,
    Thanks for your post.
    I think it is helpful as someone who is going into preparation for the General assembly.
    I hear what you say … I for one, on behalf of me, my congregation (the one I serve now, the ones in which I have served and the one in which I grew up), and my denomination seek to apologise unreservedly for any ways in which we have treated those who are LGBTI in any way which falls short of mirroring the love of God.
    John was in a challenging position, defending a report which had been leaked to the media before he could get his head around it fully. He may have been the secretary of the forum but our timescales mean this report would have been finalised in late January and, since then, as Principal clerk, he will have been through every other report going to Assembly.
    Perhaps, we might see this as more of a need for a refresh of what the leaked report said in its entirety at a time when called for comment out of the blue, than anything else. I would imagine that might be close to the mark in this one!
    Blessings.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      Thanks for your comments, Bryan.

      I’m struggling a bit with your interpretation of what happened. The report doesn’t call for “both sides” to apologise – that isn’t even it’s tone. And in the rest of the news report, the Principal Clerk is shown sitting at a table reading it.

      I do hear your desire to think the best of him – and honestly, this isn’t personal, I’m sure he is lovely.

      The consistent experience that I have is that the most difficult things that are said about gay people come from people who would claim to be supportive.

      A number of gay C of S clerics were in touch with me to affirm that they had heard these comments in the same way that I have outlined above.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Christmas Advertising

    This is the Christmas Ad campaign from the Churches Advertising Network. Sometimes these campaigns get people very angry and upset – don’t know whether this one will. I think it is quite good, but don’t know whether it will catch the zeitgeist. There are radio ads to go with it too. The basic idea of…

  • Mobile Phone re-negotiation

    I’d have to say that sorting out a more sensible mobile phone deal is even harder than buying flipflops. They do talk nonsense. Here is a business plan for someone – a mobile phone company that charges straightforward rates. No discounts per month, bundles, flexitime, stop-the-clock, price planning for you, inclusive minutes, top-ups, value top-ups,…

  • Glasgow Rain

    It has started to rain in Glasgow in a way I’ve not seen since moving here. Will it go on until May?