The Final Lambeth Reflections Document
Thought it would be interesting to analyse where the final reflections document differs from the fourth draft.
- This is text removed
- This is text added
- This is text moved
| Fourth Draft | Final Document |
| This section should have been titled “The Bishop and Homosexuality” because it was quickly apparent the whole spectrum of human sexuality, including issues of marriage and family, was not going to be discussed. The self select sessions identified with human sexuality included sessions on Human Sexuality and the Witness of Scripture, Listening and Mission, The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality, Listening in Practice, Sexuality and Spirituality, Questions of Science, Culture and Christ, Culture and Homosexualities, Listening to the Experience of Homosexual People. | This section appears here to address the tensions that have arisen in our common life. It should have been titled “The Bishop and Homosexuality” because these discussions were the focus of this topic in the indaba groups. The self select sessions identified with human sexuality included Human Sexuality and the Witness of Scripture, Listening and Mission, The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality, Listening in Practice, Sexuality and Spirituality, Questions of Science, Culture and Christ, Culture and Homosexualities, Listening to the Experience of Homosexual People. |
| The third meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council in 1976 spoke about the Communion in this way: “As in the first century, we can expect the Holy Spirit to press us to listen to each other, to state new insights frankly, and to accept implications of the Gospel new to us, whether painful or exhilarating.” Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10, while reiterating clearly the traditional stance of the Church, also called for sensitive listening. The Bible study and indaba groups gave us the opportunity to meet in a spirit of generosity and prayerful humility which helped us to listen patiently to each other and to speak honestly. | Faced with the issue of the ordination of women, the third meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council in 1976 spoke about the Communion in this way: “As in the first century, we can expect the Holy Spirit to press us to listen to each other, to state new insights frankly, and to accept implications of the Gospel new to us, whether painful or exhilarating. Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10, while reiterating clearly the traditional stance of the Church, also called for sensitive listening. The Bible study and indaba groups gave us the opportunity to meet in a spirit of generosity and prayerful humility which helped us to listen patiently to each other and to speak honestly. |
| Christians are called to exercise judgement and discernment in their vocation and discipleship, but to embrace that discipleship with humility and with generosity. The Lord himself warned us to avoid judgementalism. It is important therefore to be careful not to make dismissive judgements, because people have come to their decision after prayer and careful study of the Bible. Nor is there a monopoly on Christian charity: those who take different positions regarding this issue have often been the bearers of compassionate pastoral care to homosexual persons, though we must confess some failure in this regard. We come from different backgrounds, contexts and experiences. As Bishops we need to repent of the ways in which our hardness of heart toward each other may have contributed to the brokenness of our Communion at this present time. We need to repent of statements and actions that have further damaged the dignity of homosexual persons. People who have held traditional views on this matter have sometimes felt that they have been dismissed with ridicule or contempt. | Christians are called to exercise judgement and discernment in their vocation and discipleship, and to embrace that discipleship with humility and with generosity. The Lord himself warned us to avoid judgementalism. It is important therefore to be careful not to make dismissive judgements, because people have come to their decision after prayer and careful study of the Bible. Nor is there a monopoly on Christian charity: those who take different positions regarding this issue have often been the bearers of compassionate pastoral care to homosexual persons, though we must confess some failure in this regard. We come from different backgrounds, contexts and experiences. As Bishops we need to repent of the ways in which our hardness of heart toward each other may have contributed to the brokenness of our Communion at this present time. We need to repent of statements and actions that have further damaged the dignity of homosexual persons. People who have held traditional views on this matter have sometimes felt that they have been dismissed with ridicule or contempt. |
| There were repeated statements of the desire to remain in communion while attempting to maintain a generous space for ongoing discussions. Although there has been a great appreciation of one to one conversations, there is the need to develop further trust in the relationships that have started here. In this regard, in some groups, in addition to previous expressions of regret by both the House of Bishops and the General Convention of The Episcopal Church, some individual bishops of The Episcopal Church have expressed apologies in their groups, noting that they had not previously grasped the depth of the negative impact that their action in the consecration of the present Bishop of New Hampshire had caused in many parts of the Communion. | There were repeated statements of the desire to remain in communion while attempting to maintain a generous space for ongoing discussions. Although there has been a great appreciation of one to one conversations, there is the need to develop further trust in the relationships that have started here. In addition to previous expressions of regret by both the House of Bishops and the General Convention of The Episcopal Church, some individual bishops of The Episcopal Church have expressed apologies in their groups, noting that they had not previously grasped the depth of the negative impact that their action in the consecration of a bishop living in a same gender union had caused in many parts of the Communion. |
| There were several references to the Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10, although it was clear that only one section was being referenced and not the whole report on Human Sexuality from the 1998 Lambeth Conference or the whole resolution. | There were several references to the Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10, although it sometimes appeared that only one section was being referenced and not the whole report on Human Sexuality to the 1998 Lambeth Conference or the whole resolution. |
There is confusion about what “the issue” really means. There are three aspects that would help to clarify discussions:
|
There is confusion about what “the issue” really means. There are three aspects that would help to clarify discussions:
|
| The whole issue of homosexual relations is highly sensitive because there are very strong affirmations and denials in different cultures across the world which are reflected in contrasting civil provisions, ranging from legal provision for same-sex marriage to criminal action against homosexuals. In some parts of the Communion, homosexual relations are a taboo while in others they have become a human rights issue. | The issue of homosexual relations is as sensitive as it is because it conflicts with the long tradition of Christian moral teaching. For some, the new teaching cannot be acceptable on biblical grounds as they consider all homosexual activity as intrinsically sinful. Tension has arisen when those who hold the traditional teaching are faced with changes in the Church’s life or teaching without being able to understand or engage with a clear presentation of how people have come to a new understanding of scripture and pastoral theology. |
| Some people said that their understanding of the long tradition of Christian moral teaching is now being questioned and this creates confusion when a clear presentation of how people have come to their new understanding of scripture and theology is not available to them. For some, such new teaching cannot be acceptable as they consider all homosexual activity as irredeemably sinful. | The whole issue of homosexual relations is also highly sensitive because there are very strong affirmations and denials in different cultures across the world which are reflected in contrasting civil provisions, ranging from legal provision for same-sex marriage to criminal action against homosexuals. In some parts of the Communion, homosexual relations are a taboo while in others they have become a human rights issue. |
| In the framework of The Bishop in Mission, it is agreed that the ordination of a partnered homosexual Bishop has compromised mission in many parts of the Communion and has had a profoundly disruptive effect on the Communion by detracting from other aspects of mission. There is anxiety that this will not turn out to be a single act but something that is likely to happen again and further compromise mission. | In the framework of the bishop in mission, it is agreed that the ordination of a bishop living in a same gender union has compromised mission in many parts of the Communion and has had a profoundly disruptive effect on the Communion by detracting from other aspects of mission. There is anxiety that this will not turn out to be a single act but something that is likely to happen again and further compromise mission. |
| For some, the way the Communion has been perceived to handle polygamy has complicated the issue. Polygamy has been part of the history and of the present of some provinces of the Communion. It is unacceptable in other parts of the Communion. The perception has been that the Communion did not tell those Provinces that they must withdraw from the Communion. The Communion made a space for them to deal with this issue at their local level. This they are doing, setting clear standards while providing pastoral attention. The question from some is, why can we not make the same space in regard to homosexuality? In the case of polygamy, there is a universal standard – it is understood to be a sin, but local pastoral provision is made: polygamists are not admitted to positions of leadership, nor after acceptance of the Gospel can a convert take another wife, nor, in some areas, are they admitted to Holy Communion. | For some, the way the Communion has been perceived to handle polygamy has complicated the issue. Polygamy has been part of the history and of the present of some Provinces of the Communion. It is unacceptable in other parts of the Communion. The Communion made a space for such Provinces to deal with this issue at their local level. This they have done, setting clear standards while providing pastoral attention. The question from some is: why can we not make the same space in regard to homosexuality? In the case of polygamy, there is a universal standard – it is understood to be a sin, therefore polygamists are not admitted to positions of leadership including Holy Orders, nor after acceptance of the Gospel can a convert take another wife, nor, in some areas, are they admitted to Holy Communion. |
| There have been many aspects of the history of this current situation that has brought us to this point in time. To some, the possible acceptance of homosexual people as good Christian people is new, and their acceptance as possible leaders in the church is unacceptable. To others, thirty years of Scripture study, of theological discussion, of listening and discussion to come to the present understanding, seems a long time. In the time frame of Christianity, or even of the Anglican tradition, it has not been enough time to allow for the Bishops of the Communion to come to a new consensus within Provinces or worldwide – either to agree, or to live together in disagreement. | There have been many aspects of the history of this current situation that have brought us to this point in time. In some parts of the Communion the issue of homosexuality has been under discussion for over thirty years, whereas for others it is a more recent conversation. In other places, there are legal or cultural reasons which constrain dialogue. In some Provinces, the acceptance of homosexual practice would be seen as a betrayal of the teaching of the missionaries who brought the faith, and experienced as a new form of colonialism. In the time frame of Christianity, or even of the Anglican tradition, there has not been enough time to allow for the Bishops of the Communion to come to a new consensus within Provinces or worldwide – either to agree, or to live together in disagreement. |
| The issue of homosexuality has challenged us and our Churches on what it might mean to be a Communion. We are still learning how to be the Communion that God has called and gifted us to be. | The issue of homosexuality has challenged us and our Churches on what it might mean to be a Communion. We are still learning how to be the Communion that God has called and gifted us to be. |
| For many Anglicans, the ordination of an openly homosexual bishop, is seen as questioning the authority of Scripture and the church’s traditional reading on these matters. It calls into question traditional moral teaching concerning the nature of marriage. The question for many is "Whether the Bible transforms the culture or the culture is allowed to transform the Bible". | For many Anglicans, the ordination of a bishop living in a same gender union is seen as questioning the authority of scripture and the Church’s traditional reading on these matters. It calls into question traditional moral teaching concerning the nature of marriage. The question for many is "Whether the Bible transforms the culture or the culture is allowed to transform the Bible". |
The ordination of an openly partnered homosexual bishop and the open blessing of same sex relationships has had many negative results including:
|
The ordination of a bishop living in a same gender union and the open blessing of same sex relationships has had many negative results including:
|
| There have also been positive effects in parts of Canada, the US and England when homosexual people are accepted as God’s children, are treated with dignity and choose to give their lives to Christ and to live in the community of faith as disciples of Jesus Christ with fidelity and commitment. | It was also reported that there has been positive effects in parts of Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Mexico and Central America and in other parts of the world when homosexual people are accepted as God’s children, are treated with dignity and choose to give their lives to Christ and to live in the community of faith as disciples of Jesus Christ with fidelity and commitment. |
All in all, the final section on Human Sexuality is tighter and more conservative than the fourth draft. In particular:
- Issues of function versus ontology ("an openly homosexual bishop" being replaced by "a bishop living in a same gender union")
- The removal of the referral to "local pastoral provision" as regards polygamy makes it very clear that the practice of African churches in response to polygamy cannot be compared to the willingness of some to bless same-sex unions.
- The addition of the section on the ecumenical impact of the revisionists’ actions highlights the wider catholicity within which the Anglican Communion must operate
Later on I’ll turn my attention to the proposed way forward.
General question : what’s the point of saying that you are making a declaration but then emphasising the importance of *listening*; if said listening won’t affect an established declaration then what’s the point? Is it a political cop-out e.g. liberals won’t see the declaration as precluding future pro-homosex authorative statements because they can (wrongly?) see the emphasis on listening as indicative of flexible policy? Didn’t Gagnon make a similar point (not in relation to Anglicans)? ( I think he said that we wouldn’t listen to lots of adulterers or similar with the aim of modifying the Church’s view on the matter).
 I think the fact of people wrongly seeing inclusive churches as the “gay church” carries no moral weight (appearance=reality?) If someone made a “most people leave the church because it’s seen as old-fashioned and homophobic” argument *against* (e.g.) you I think you’d rightly be contempous of such temporal concerns. I don’t see the last paragraph’s changing to “it has been reported that” changes very much at all (and I’m sure your aware of what many will infer from that passage).
I also predict that conservatives will react with derision at anyway looking to change, say, Akinola’s behaviour on that document’s statements on treating homosexual persons with dignity.
Of course, all this does support somewhat +Gene’s view of bullying conservatives falsely regarding themselves as a persecuted minority…..
Â
I think ‘has been reported’ brings the paragraph closer to the truth, disregarding scripture may truly have been reported to have a positive effect. It of course could not have truly done so.
A statement that people left the church because it was ‘old fashioned and anti-unrepentant sin’ wouldn’t have made the report – unless it too had as a preamble ‘it has been reported..’
(I think he [Gagnon] said that we wouldn’t listen to lots of adulterers or similar with the aim of modifying the Church’s view on the matter).
except of course that – historically – the church did listen to adulterers and did change it’s teaching. Now Sydney doesn’t agree, neither I’m sure does Peter Ould, but most Anglican churches will in practice remarry the divorced — i.e. they bless adultery.
Similarly, the church listened to lots of usurers too – and changed it’s teaching.Â
I think usury is a touch more complicated than adultery as the Scriptural prohibition is arguably against charging interest to people who need money or goods to survive.
With usury, the church has traditionally recognised the difference between usury in the technical sense (i.e lending money at interest), and investment (as in sharing the benefits of trade). However, as it is in effect systemic evil we are talking about in that sense, it is incredibly hard for individuals to extricate themselves from it.
Divorce is a slightly different matter. There is, of course, no “divorce lobby” in the church who are arguing that divorce is a good thing. However, Jesus and Paul both recognise exceptions where divorce may be permitted (i.e adultery and abandonment). If the grounds for divorce are valid, i.e you have been the victim of adultery or abandonment, then the biblical position seems (to me) to be that that person is free to remarry. Of course, these circumstances probably only apply to a minority of cases and where they do not apply many Christians would have a big problem with those people remarrying in church.