• 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.

7 responses to “Eucharistic Prayer”

  1. Stewart Avatar

    Another great clip Kelvin – The singing is great.

    I found myself singing along with the Santus and Benedictus.

    Please more of the service. The cathedral always sounds great when the a large congregation is being supported by the organ. The snippet of “All people that on earth do dwell” to the tune of Jerusalem on the BBC website leaves me wanting more.

  2. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    Yeah, I think ours are the best (although I heard New Zealand’s are lovely too). Who actually writes these things? The then-bishops themselves? Artistic clergy? I can see why they would want them to be written in house but (personally) I think it would be great , in the future, to approach notable writers/poets to do them (Edwin Morgan!) irrespective of belief, and have them checked for theological accuracy by someone appropriate.

  3. Caron Avatar
    Caron

    Do you know, I always thought the 1970 Liturgy was best and I couldn’t come to terms with the modern stuff. I might be more open to persuasion than I thought.

    The atmosphere at the service must have been wonderful and it does come across in the video clip.

    As for the angel – thank you so much for having that attitude to a baby. Others are not so tolerant.

  4. John Penman Avatar
    John Penman

    Totally agree on the excellence of the modern Scottish Liturgy. Having had to suffer the Roman Rite and the ASB when working in Englandshire and occassional exposure to Common Worship (which is both), it was nice to come back to what was/is “simply the best”. Being picky tho, we took a wee while to get there: 1982 was the 1st Eucharistic Prayer – the other 4 were authorised in 1990! Like Caron I was a 1970 fan, but exposure to the Blue Book has made it much more “home” for me.

  5. Eamonn Avatar
    Eamonn

    I agree that the 1982 Liturgy is unbeatable. Every time I visit the C of E or the C of I, the liturgies used seem (with respect) to have yawning gaps in them.

    Caron, the 1970 Liturgy has strengths if you want the underlying theology spelt out in propositional statements. The 1982 service more often expresses the theology through imagery, which to some of us speaks more eloquently. As it happens, a bishop who is a published poet was involved in the drafting.

  6. MadPriest Avatar
    MadPriest

    “Now, what do you want next”
    Have you got any Simpsons, or maybe an early Torchwood episode?

  7. Thomas L W Graham Avatar
    Thomas L W Graham

    Just visiting these sites for the first time. What a wonderful innovation to include all these video’s and sermons etc on the web. Hope the enclosed donation is of some assistance.

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…