• 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.

56 responses to “Six things I have learned about anti-semitism and the church”

  1. Jacqui Norman Avatar
    Jacqui Norman

    Dear Kevin,
    I am sure that some Jews would be offended, and this is very sad on every level. Just as it would be sad for Christians to object to non Christians celebrating Christmas or Resurrection Day.
    In your piece you said yourself, that some Jewish people invite Christian people to join them for the meals. This demonstrates that the offence to Gentiles celebrating with their Jewish brothers and sisters is not universal in the faith.
    Blessings.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      No Jacqui. It is considered a blessing in Judaism to include others in the ritual of passover. This does not justify Christians copying it without Jews being present, appropriating the ceremony to make it something entirely Christian and in doing so causing offence. It is not the same in any way as Christians objecting or not to non-Christians celebrating Christmas.

      If you wish to follow the line of saying that Christian Passovers are not offensive to all Jewish people, then can I ask what proportion of Jewish people you think it is legitimate for Christians to be offensive to? How many is OK?

      1. Jacqui Norman Avatar
        Jacqui Norman

        Of course one would not wish to offend anybody.
        I feel we must graciously agree to disagree, I see no difference to the Christmas/Resurrection Day comparison… We disagree on this one point from your piece.
        God bless you.

        1. Kelvin Avatar

          > We disagree on this one point from your piece.

          So what you’re saying is that anti-semitic things that other people do are wrong but things that you do can’t be anti-semitic because you do them with good intent in your heart?

          Isn’t that what the problem is?

          1. Jacqui Norman Avatar
            Jacqui Norman

            WOW what a leap!
            No, of course it is not what I am saying… It is the opposite!
            Your opinion is that Christians should not engage with the Old Testament. Mine is that it is divisive NOT to. As you said Jesus is Jewish, we are his body …
            I have never had a conversation with a Jew who has expressed your opinion about this matter.
            I asked you politely about this aspect of your opinion, and you have made a personal attack at me(whom you do not know) and called me an anti Semite when nothing could be further from the truth. Now, that kind of thing IS where the problem lies.
            Blessings to you.

          2. Kelvin Avatar

            Don’t be ridiculous, Jacqui. My opinion is not that Christians should not engage with the Old Testament.

            If you can’t post things truthfully then I’ll not allow further comment.

      2. Martin Reynolds Avatar
        Martin Reynolds

        I would ask the opposite question.
        How many need to be offended?
        Just one?

        This argument seems to be in the mode of
        “Christians shouldn’t practice yoga.” school of thought.

        1. Kelvin Avatar

          There’s a difference isn’t there? Most people wanting to stop Christians practicing yoga think that they should take that view because it will harm Christian souls rather because it will harm Hindu feelings.

          1. Martin Reynolds Avatar
            Martin Reynolds

            It depends which Hindu you talk to.

          2. Kelvin Avatar

            Can you point me to an argument coming from someone in the Hindu community who believes that Christians and non-Hindus should refrain from practising yoga? I’m genuinely interested.

        2. Martin Reynolds Avatar
          Martin Reynolds

          I will try and point you in the right direction.

  2. Alexander Hamilton Avatar
    Alexander Hamilton

    Wel now that was a jolly good read. Thank you to all contributers, some thought provoking matters raised, with of course no conclusion, and properly so. So much is a matter of personal belief and practise, no matter how bedecked and caparisoned the chuch one attends. I find myself sayng, ‘What would Jesus say?’ when watching the next best thing to pantomime at some services.

    1. Jacqui Norman Avatar
      Jacqui Norman

      Amen

  3. Jacqui Norman Avatar
    Jacqui Norman

    Ps, In my opinion, the fact that “Passover is not important to most Christians ” is due to a lack of good teaching on the subject. It is not possible to fully appreciate the work of Jesus, (who in you picture, notably does not have the “Jewish nose” – very much enforcing your point that people do not appreciate that Jesus was (is!) a Jew, and with which I wholeheartedly agree with you) without first understanding the Old Testament story in its fullness.

    I would also like to emphasise that this is the only one of your points with which I disagree 🙂

  4. Jacqui Norman Avatar
    Jacqui Norman

    From the homepage:

    Disclaimer
    The views published here are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of St Mary’s Catheral nor the Scottish Episcopal Church.

    Nor do they represent what I’ll think forever.

    I change my mind sometimes – especially when persuaded of something by someone in debate.

    Try me and see.

    Maybe that should read “Try me and get called ridiculous ”

    Very sad.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      Jacqui – this is my blog space. You don’t get to post untruthful things about me on it.

      Whether you like that or not doesn’t really matter to me it is the way it is.

      No further comments from you.

  5. Dion Smythe Avatar
    Dion Smythe

    Christian “seders” are comparable to Jewish [re]appropriation of the Eurcharistic texts and reciting them [with some notable omissions] at Kiddush after the Sabbath morning service….

    1. Meg Rosenfeld Avatar
      Meg Rosenfeld

      As a Christian who once visited a conservative synagogue where they did this, I was surprised and pleased to find this activity that was so much like ours, taking place. It seemed home-like. My daughter, then a teen-ager, had the same reaction. We were both thinking “Now I see where this part of our ritual comes from.” After all, Jesus (a Jew) was probably following very familiar tradition when he, as we say, instituted the Eucharist; he just said some new and startling things.

      1. Dion Smythe Avatar
        Dion Smythe

        Meg, I think you’ll find that what you witnesses at a conservative Jewish synagogue was the standard Kiddush after the Sabbath morning service — blessings over wine and bread and then the sharing of the same. What I was suggesting was that these Christian “Seders” would be comparable to Jewish congregations celebrating Christian Eucharists but with the important words left out [or indeed maybe even not] rather than the comparison between Christian “Seders” and Jews [or other non Christians] celebrating or marking the celebrations of Christmas or Easter, but not going so far as to have a parody of the Christian Eucharist.

        1. Meg Rosenfeld Avatar
          Meg Rosenfeld

          Hmm. since I’ve never seen the sort of thing you’re describing, I can’t really make an intelligent comment. It’s difficult to think of a literal parody of a Christian ritual (except maybe in the case of a group of kids “playing church”) other than the secular Santa-centered goings-on which seem to be increasingly taking over the holy day commonly known as Christmas . . .

  6. Meg Rosenfeld Avatar
    Meg Rosenfeld

    Back to St. John, sometimes I can’t help wondering what Jesus would say if he heard some of John’s more convoluted pronouncements. What’s the Aramaic for “Huh?”

  7. James Byron Avatar
    James Byron

    Regarding offensiveness: surely Christianity’s central claim, that Jesus of Nazareth was God in human form, is deeply offensive to Judaism.

    Further, offense isn’t a knockdown argument. It just means that someone strongly objects to something. Many evangelicals find gay relationships offensive; many Calvinists find Arminianism offensive, and so on. Such feelings say nothing for the merits of the view.

    The key question isn’t whether X is offensive, but whether the objections are reasonable and compelling enough to justify ending it.

    1. Dennis Avatar
      Dennis

      Once again, we have a problem with most of western society having forgotten the difference between disagreeing with and being offended by. Offensiveness is most certainly not just when someone strongly objects to something. Calvinists don’t or shouldn’t find Armenianism offensive, though they disagree with it. It is merely a competing theory that divides evangelicals. But a play or novel that presented John Calvin as pimp who ran a brothel on the side and committed sex crimes with little boys would be offensive because it would be a false characterization meant to belittle and demean. So-called Christian seders are more like the sex-crime pimp John Calvin example than the disgreement with non-predestinationist types example – and would therefore be offensive.

  8. Bernard Randall Avatar
    Bernard Randall

    At the risk of re-opening a can of worms, it seems to me a mistake to suggest that passover is not important to Christians. The death of the firstborn Son, the crossing of the people through the waters etc – the whole Exodus narrative – are deeply part of Christian theology. It’s an inescapable background to much in the New Testament (Sermon on the Mount as reflecting Moses on Sinai, or Jesus (in John’s Gospel) being crucified at the same time as the Passover lambs are sacrificed, anyone?).
    So to take just a few liturgical examples, in “Common Worship” material for Easter season, the introduction to confessional starts “Christ our Passover lamb has been sacrificed for us …”; the Eucharistic prefaces say “he is the true paschal lamb” or “in the joy of this Passover”; and the invitation to Communion is “Alleluia. Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast. Alleluia.”
    Fine, that’s Church of England, not everyone will be saying those particular words, but the theology is front and centre.
    To this extent the passover story belongs just as much to Christianity as to Rabbinic Judaism. But the passover story in the Bible is not the same as the Passover religious observance/festival of modern Judaism.
    Indeed I thoroughly object to Christians celebrating a Seder meal, because it isn’t what Jesus did – both because the Seder as we have it is a later development, and because the Last Supper quite likely wasn’t a Passover meal. A “Christian Seder” doesn’t connect us to anything historically, while we have the Eucharist (and Maundy foot washing) to connect theologically to what Jesus did at the Last Supper.
    I don’t think that being offensive alone is a reason not do something with another more positive purpose, but in the case of a “Christian Seder” the offense is caused to no good purpose and so the case against is fatal. It ought not to be done.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • All Souls

    All Souls Day is a rehearsal for my own funeral. I realised this a few years ago when someone commented that the All Souls Requiem at St Mary’s seemed to be a particularly important time of the year and was appealing to more people than it used to. When I sat and thought about it,…

  • The speech Bishop Rachel Treweek might have made

    This is the speech that I would have liked the Rt Rev Rachel Treweek to have made this week on entering the House of Lords. My Lords – I am overwhelmed by your generosity in welcoming me to this house. Your warm and unprecedented applause as I was introduced to this house contrasted so strongly…

  • Sermon at the Salvation Army in Clydebank

    Here’s what I said yesterday at the centenary celebrations for Clydebank Singing Company at Clydebank Citadel of the Salvation Army. May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in thy sight O Lord our strength and our redeemer. Major, I wonder whether you’d mind me starting with a confession.…

  • D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

    The recent Synod on the Family which has taken place in Rome comprising many leaders within the Roman Catholic Church has once again highlighted attitudes of Christians to divorce. It seems to me that there really are very different attitudes to divorce in different parts of the church – both geographically and denominationally. You could…