I’ve been asked quite a few times recently what I think of the recent Lambeth Conference.  Well, here is more of an answer that might be anticipated.  I have to be a bit careful, because I wasn’t there…  But I guess the main issue for many (in spite of what looked like a lot of effort to make it not the main issue!) was always going to be the question of whether the Conference would re-affirm the Church’s teaching on marriage and sexuality. Certainly many of the Bishops and Archbishops themselves saw this as the main issue, as we’ll see below.

And on this, it was apparent that the Archbishop of Canterbury wasn’t going to please everyone.  He couldn’t.  There are two incompatible theologies at work.  Perhaps that much at least has come into renewed focus.  There is no middle ground, though the Archbishop tried hard to find it.  I was reminded a little of the old riddle about how may angels can dance on the head of a pin?  Welby himself acknowledged the near impossibility of reaching a consensus…  I think the inclusion of ‘near’ there was a bit optimistic!

But our Bishops and Primates had a chance to do what the Church should do.  They had a chance to declare what God has revealed in His Word to the world.  They had a chance to proclaim Good News.  They had a chance to renew the Church, and to reform the Church that is reformed and which must always be reforming. And they were called to do it in no uncertain terms.  And they came so close.

The Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches made it easy, by producing their own clarion statement and offering it for the Bishops to sign and for the Conference to affirm.  The Archbishop of Canterbury chose to stay closer to the fence.  In an oddly worded phrase he said: ‘It is the case that the whole of Lambeth 1.10 1998 still exists. This Call does not in any way question the validity of that resolution’.  He went on, ‘For the large majority of the Anglican Communion the traditional understanding of marriage is something that is understood, accepted and without question.  For them, to question this teaching is unthinkable, and in many countries would make the church a victim of derision, contempt and even attack.’

There has already been much discussion about what he may or may not be saying here.  He has been criticised for both saying too much and too little.   But it is clear that he stops short of proclaiming the teaching of Scripture as authoritative and binding on the Church.  And if you sense a touch of cultural relativism at play, you could be right.  The Archbishop went on to affirm, possibly with rather more clarity, that some Churches had moved away from Anglicanism’s historic teaching, and that they would not be disciplined for that.  At least, he insisted that he does not have, and he does not seek ‘the authority to discipline or exclude a church’ if they conduct or bless same-sex marriages.  Institutionally, this might be the case, but that is not to say there is nothing that Canterbury could do to lead the Church in ways shaped by a faithfulness to Scripture.  It is simply disingenuous to deny that he does have an authority which could be brought to bear.  Instead, he invites us to simply accept the reality on the ground as it is, rather than to strive for what it should be.  It is not an invitation that is being taken up by all Primates and Bishops.  The leadership of GSFA recognises the responsibility it has: “We must record our grief that significant numbers of our brothers and sisters have embraced teaching which does not accord with ‘the foundation of the apostles and prophets’ (Eph. 2:20) and which is contrary to our calling … We find that if there is no authentic repentance by the revisionist provinces, then we will sadly accept a state of 'impaired communion' with them."   In spite of his protestation to the contrary, the Archbishop does seem to have uncoupled unity from truth, and in doing so, risks dismantling the very unity he aspires to protect.  Unity is based on truth, and is already lost when truth is lost.  That fracturing of unity was all too evident at Lambeth 22, where a number of Bishops and Archbishops refused to receive communion.

‘For such churches’ (as have denied Scripture’s teaching) Welby claims, ‘not to change traditional teaching challenges their very existence’.  So far, this includes 5 out of 42 provinces (and 2 others who have taken a rather more ambiguous position, but all in, constituting somewhat less than 10% of the Anglican Communion).  Welby’s suggestion is that we learn to live with the diversity of opinion on what constitutes the Gospel, and discipleship.  It might prove a naïve hope rather than a realistic strategy for future.  After all, a number of African Primates and Bishops flatly refused Welby’s invitation to the conference, and others from the Global South were clear that ‘Our willingness as orthodox Bishops to attend this Conference does not mean that we have agreed to ‘walk together’ with the revisionist Primates and Bishops in the Anglican Communion … Failing to correct false teaching is to fail to act in love. Hence, orthodox Bishops are duty-bound to God not to ‘live and let live’ under the guise of simply walking together in continuing dialogue with those who have departed from the way (or path) of truth … The only basis for our walking together is to submit ourselves again to the sovereign authority of Holy Scripture in loyalty to the Anglican tradition and its formularies’.  The GSFA came with the stated intent of calling the whole Communion back to biblical faithfulness, and in so doing they invited the Conference to affirm that ‘renewed steps be taken to ensure that all Provinces abide by this doctrine in their faith, order & practice’.

The legacy of Lambeth 22 is one of ambiguity and mild confusion at best, and fear for the future of the Communion at worst.  At one level, Archbishop Justin seems to have powerfully described, with great empathy, the situation as it is.  Beyond that there is little that is certain, with Bishops on both sides of the debate feeling validated, claiming the Archbishop of Canterbury as their ally, and commentators on both sides lamenting his perceived lack of support.  He seems to be suggesting that each Province should make its own decision based on what prevents the Church from becoming ‘a victim of derision, contempt and even attack’.  There are significant questions about this as a way of discerning what the Church should believe and teach!  In Scripture, we are called to be faithful, especially when such faithfulness results in persecution. 

Which leaves to my mind three significant questions:

The first is the vision of theology that is now at work within the structures of the Church of England.  many are increasingly fearful that our denomination is fast moving away from even a pretence of rooting the teaching of the Church of England in her historic formularies.  There is rather, a profound and pragmatic relativism shaping our vision of what it means to be the people of God.  What we teach is whatever is best for us in our local context. Is it all equally valid?  This doesn’t sit well with Scripture, or even the Archbishop’s own challenge that our theology should not be shaped by our cultural context, especially when that culture ‘seeks to construct itself without God’.  But he is at least consistent with his stated desire to rpeserve institutional unity.  He acknowledges both the reality of ‘deep disagreement’, and that it sometimes takes a long time for Churches to accept or reject revisionist teaching.  That much is true.  And at times incompatible teaching has co-existed within the same Catholic Church.  But we expect more from our Bishops and Archbishops.  For those of us ‘in the trenches’, living out our faith in challenging contexts, we want to know that the leadership of our Church ‘has our back’…  that when we do face opposition for seeking to be faithful in our witness of Christ, our leaders will defend us and support us.  It is far from clear that this is now the case in the Church of England.

Secondly, is the enduring question of what it means for the Church of England specifically, and what it means for Living in Love and Faith, and the anticipated General Synod debates and votes over the next months.  The short answer is that there is nothing coming out of the Lambeth Conference that indicates one way or the other the leadership that the Archbishop, or indeed any other Bishop will give on this.  Based on what he has been said at Lambeth, there is no a priori commitment to either side of the debate.  My own sense is that this does not bode well, and that it will lead to either a stand-off, or more likely, an attempt to create space for both theologies to work out at the local parish level.  This will be presented as a paragon of tolerance and ‘unity’, but is in fact the worst of all worlds, presenting as if there is no change to the teaching of the Church, when in fact there has been massive change.  Tremendous pressure will be brought to bear on parish priests and PCCs, local congregations will be rent asunder, relationships between parishes and their Diocese will be critically undermined, and we will be committed to the long slow march to denominatinal collapse (as is happening to each denomination that has shifted itst eaching in this matter. It is important to realise that there are whole Dioceses in ECUSA that have a lower Sunday Attnedance than some large UK Anglican Churches).  Once we have lost our commitment to Scriptures as authoritative, it is only a matter of time before any Church will drift from its moorings.

The third is more subtle, and more insidious because of it.  There is more than a whiff of latent cultural elitism from Lambeth.  It is hard to nail down, but it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.  Listen again to the narrative: those Provinces (mostly Western) who have decided to step away from the historic teaching of the Church have done so after ‘long prayer, deep study and reflection on understandings of human nature’.  Those who seek to stand on the traditional interpretations of Scripture (mostly from the Global South) are culturally bound.  Listen to how ‘orthodox’ and ‘revisionist’ parts ot he Anglican Communion are described in this key part of the Archbishop’s remarks on the Call on Human Dignity:

For the large majority of the Anglican Communion the traditional understanding of marriage is something that is understood, accepted and without question, not only by Bishops but their entire Church, and the societies in which they live. For them, to question this teaching is unthinkable, and in many countries would make the church a victim of derision, contempt and even attack. For many churches to change traditional teaching challenges their very existence.

For a minority, we can say almost the same. They have not arrived lightly at their ideas that traditional teaching needs to change. They are not careless about scripture. They do not reject Christ. But they have come to a different view on sexuality after long prayer, deep study and reflection on understandings of human nature. For them, to question this different teaching is unthinkable, and in many countries is making the church a victim of derision, contempt and even attack. For these churches not to change traditional teaching challenges their very existence.

In spite of the fact that ‘we can almost say the same’ about both sides of the tension, he doesn’t.  Traditional Churches hold their position because that is the position of the ‘societies in which they live’.  There is no mention here of the commitment to Scripture, prayer, deep study or reflection that is said to have given rise to the Revisionist position (whether this is the case or not is a separate question).  Neither is there recognition that revisionist Churches exist in the context of societies that have similarly moved away from anything representing the Bible’s teaching on amtters of humanity.  I have read his speech, and particualrly those paragraphs a number of times, and I accept that there may be more charitable interpretations.  But in such a formal and scrutinised statement on a critical issue facing Lambeth 2022, the words matter!  The ones that are used and the ones that aren’t!  It is hardly surprising that the South Sudanese Primate, Justin Badi could say during the Conference: ‘We often feel that our voices are not listened to, or respected...’.

Of course, it also ignores the many Anglicans in the ‘West’ who hold to the teaching of Scripture in matters of human dignity, marriage and sexuality, and who were ordained into, or who attend Anglican Churches precisely because of that Church’s historic legacy, and who are distraught at the prospect of it’s being changed, or even side-lined.  It bypasses the sense of betrayal felt by the vast majority of the global Anglican Communion (in the West as well as the Global South), and the growing frustration felt by many in the UK – who incidentally believe what they do irrespective of whether it makes us ‘a victim of derision, contempt of even attack’.  We believe what we believe because this is what the Living God has revealed in His Word, and because this is ‘Good News’, and the path to true human flourishing.

And in case you think I am being overly harsh, here is a citation from a piece posted at Anglican Ink (kind of an online Global Anglican newspaper) that puts it even more strongly:

Get it? This is a debate between unthinking traditionalists and unblinking theologians. Very politely, but one may say utterly ruthlessly, the Archbishop of Canterbury has painted a picture of primitive, unquestioning, traditionalists, who reflect their culture, in contrast to the deeply prayerful, intellectual progressives, who have studied the scriptures.

The assumption, of course, is that eventually the immature, unscientific laggards will eventually grow-up and catch-up.

The assumption is wrong, as one archbishop of the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans (GSFA) said with a knowing look, “Do they think we are children?”

And so, the 15th Lambeth Conference (with a budget running into millions!) came to a close with an insistence that sexuality wasn’t the only, or even the main item on the agenda!  Which is true - the agenda covered a huge variety of issues including Mission, Safeguarding, Anglican Identity, Reconciliation, Human Dignity, Environment and Sustainable Development, Technology, Economics, Centralisation (as a means of power and control), Persecution, Unity, Inter-faith Relations, Discipleship, and Science and Faith, and more...  Undoubtedly there is much to rejoice in, and in many places there were Calls, affirmations and statements that re-iterated the Church’s historical priorities.  Many Bishops are reflecting this as they write to their Dioceses, often seeking to underline the fact that Lambeth was about more than questions about human sexuality.  We need to hear that, and to celebrate it.  By all accounts it was, for those who attended, a deeply moving experience as they studied Scriptures together and heard of the experience of the Church elsewhere in the world.  This is only to be expected.  But how moving a Conference is can hardly be the criteria by which it’s impact is judged.  And the question isn’t so much about what was ‘on the agenda’.  It includes what was important to those who weren’t privileged to be setting the agenda, and who saw fit to bring their own resolutions to the Conference.  And it includes the question of what difference the Conference will make for our witness to Christ, whether it will contribute to the ongoing decline of the Church in the UK (and growth elsewhere in the world), or change its trajectory.   That remains to be seen.  But this 15th Lambeth Conference simply because of when it was held in the history of Anglicanism, was always going to be about, and was always going to be judged by, what it said about Lambeth 1:10.  And any claim to the contrary is simply untenable.  And on this, it is far from clear that its legacy will be as positive as some Bishops are claiming…

The Archbishop of Canterbury is, I fear, right on one thing.  We are facing an ‘existential threat’ to the Anglican Church.    

The ‘Communique of Orthodox Bishops, presented by the Steering Group of the GFSA , and suggesting the end of the Communion can be found here:

https://www.thegsfa.org/_files/ugd/6e992c_8951f0f7ce4b4e7083f877b4b38294a2.pdf

And an interesting blog exploring this and highlighting the key issues facing the Global Anglican Communion from a perspective across the pond, can be found here:

https://anglican.ink/2022/08/11/anglican-unscripted-752-walking-apart/