• 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.

9 responses to “Never mind the quality, feel the width”

  1. chris Avatar

    Gosh, you’ve hit an apparently tender spot there. As someone who was originally brought into the church – and I mean the whole shebang, not just a particular building or denomination, though that was important too – by beautiful music and dignified liturgy, I have been asking for an aspiration towards excellence for the past 30 years or so. But is it not the case that for many people that smacks of an elitism that sits ill with their idea of ‘being church’ (a vile phrase, therefore I use it not)? The idea that as church is for all, you’re not allowed to look for certain standards in music, in reading, in serving …
    I could go on, but I don’t need to. You’ve said it. Go for it! (And please delete the earlier comment, in which I was so carried away by my parenthesis that I forgot to finish the original clause)

  2. kelvin Avatar

    I was thinking about all of this yesterday. It is choir holidays at the moment and yesterday the choir were singing down in Englandshire. It might have been expected to be a bit of a flat day here. However, there was none of that. We had a good turnout and wonderful worship both morning and evening. No sign of a summer slump and it was obvious that people came expecting something good even without the regular musicians.

    Summer Sung Evensong last night attracted 37 souls. That’s 35 more than might have been expected to turn up seven years ago.

    Now, we’ll all be thrilled when the choir come back and put the icing on the cake in a few week’s time – they are full of fabulousness, but yesterday was good proof that we are not simply a one-trick musical pony.

  3. chris Avatar

    Well as you know we don’t have a choir in my church, tho’ many years ago there was a great one with children and adults. But we can still produce a frisson, and the reaction of visitors bears that out; it’s just that not everyone seems to see what produces said frisson.(I know. It’s not just us, but …)

  4. Fraser Pearce Avatar

    Excellent points and something of an encouragement to me at the moment.

    The new set up is much better on my phone, by the way.

    Fp

  5. […] it for six, it’s not just cosy log-rolling for me to affirm his point. This morning, Kelvin says what great many people won’t: that excellence and forethought and diligence and attention really do make a tremendous difference […]

  6. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    Preaching. I have a wealth of experience of hearing terrible preaching, and a wealth of hearing good. The gulf between the two is immense. I have NO IDEA how one can persuade those who cannot, really really cannot, preach to do something to raise their game. I think you hint the way is probably to persuade those who can, REALLY can to raise their game too. HOW? How when the attempt to hold a music day fails,and people generally find that a much easier thing to approach? Teaching preaching is something at which I am good – if you ever find a way, I will come along and help coach.

  7. […] worship Posted by Fr. Sam Keyes on July 23, 2012 | 0 comments Kelvin Holdsworth, Provost of St. Mary’s in Glasgow, wonders why more people don’t consider the obvious […]

  8. chris Avatar

    Couldn’t agree more about the music days either, Rosemary – we’ve held several singing workshops here, and unless they are tied in to fundraising and a BBQ the attendance tends to be thin and the usual suspects – who can generally sing quite respectably anyway – turn up.

    1. Kimberly Avatar

      but thankfully, you do a really good BBQ so there is hope yet.

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?