Both sides of the human sexuality struggle in the Anglican communion are pushing their narrative as the Lambeth Conference of bishops winds down.
While the numbers in the Anglican Communion clearly lie with the conservatives, progressive Anglicans push the theory that the conference has legitimised their views adopting a “dual integrity” on LGBTIQA issues.
Which will remind many of the situations in the Australian church: a clear majority of conservatives but blocked by a group of leaders from claiming a conservative victory on human sexuality.
At Lambeth, it was the Archbishop of Canterbury, who shaped the meeting structure to prevent delegates from the Global South Anglican Fellowship, which claims the allegiance of 75 per cent of worshipping Anglicans, from re-affirming the conservative “Lambeth 1:10” motion from 1998. The structure of the meeting meant no vote, no decision and no plenary discussions on the most contentious of subjects could be raised.
At the Australian General Synod in May, it was the house of Bishops that blocked a conservative statement on same-sex blessings from being adopted, despite over-whelming conservative majorities in the houses of laity (non-ordained delegates) and clergy.
The Australian church is clearly mostly conservative, just like the worldwide Anglican communion is even more overwhelmingly conservative, but in both instances, a smaller group of leaders block the majority from expressing themselves.
The Archbishop of Canterbury provided one view – of rebuilt unity. From the left and the right came two different responses
The view from the podium
“Christians are the largest nation on earth, Justin Welby said in a keynote speech wrapping up the conference. “In the first 315 years, Peter’s so-called holy nation conquered the world’s greatest empire without the sword. Today there are two billion of us.
“All over the world, we run schools, clinics, hospitals. We serve refugees, we wash the feet of those on the street, we feed the hungry, and we care for the orphan and the alien.
“We challenge Governments over justice, we set up charities for those caught in war.
“Who created the Red Cross? A Christian. Who created the great hospitals in London? The monasteries. We are harried and persecuted, we are hunted as Christians from one killing ground to another, but we do not hate as our enemies want us to.
“And may I say it by God’s grace, by God’s grace, this week we have disagreed without hatred. Not as many in the press want us to.”
A speech and a letter by the Archbishop of Canterbury embraced both sides during a “human dignity” session. He described both conservatives and progressive Anglican provinces (national churches) as adopting positions on human sexuality that respond to their social circumstances. Conservatives responding against the accusation by Muslims that they are soft on homosexuality, and progressives responding against the derision from their secularised culture.
Views from north and south
Welby’s speeches aimed at keeping both sides in the room and talking. Conservatives, such as UK evangelical Susie Leafe reacted by accusing the ABC of declaring human sexuality “adiaphora,” a theological term meaning “things indifferent” matters that Christians can disagree about. This amounted to an accusation that the archbishop was rejecting the conservatives. UK academic Andrew Goddard wrote on the widely-read Psephizo blog that Welby’s attempt to equate the progressive and conservative stances of provinces as both being reasonable responses to their social contexts fails – “it needs to be asked how important it should be in the church’s discernment whether or not their surrounding culture views their judgment as worthy of ‘derision, contempt and even attack’? It is difficult, in the light of both Old and New Testaments, not least 1 Peter (e.g. 1:1, 2:11; 3:14ff; 4:3-4) which the Conference is studying, to give great theological weight to this as a criterion of truthfulness and faithfulness.”
Progressives such as veteran Episcopalian activist and journalist Jim Naughton accused the ABC of “othering” LGBTQIA persons, of “centring the experiences of the bishops”. Jane Ozanne, the UK’s main Anglican LGBTQIA campaigner agreed “I’ve returned from @LambethConf with a heavy heart It’s clear that the Communion focus is ‘unity at all costs’ – with cost being paid by LGBT+ people I can’t help thinking. What Would Jesus Do? I believe it would be to defend the marginalised & those most at risk – at all costs!”
This implied that Lambeth was doing what progressives regard as a sin, pushing an “oppressed” group of people to the side of the debate. These activists accused the archbishop of rejecting progressive views.
Both sides’ criticisms had the logical force of pointing out where Welby’s stance could lead. In emphasising the building of unity between progressives and conservatives in the Anglican communion, he did imply that same-sex marriage was adiaphora (although he did not say that), and that unity was at least as important as the claims of LGBTQIA persons (although he did not say that).
Both sides claim that Welby gave the “other side” too much, and too little to themselves. But this is not to say that Welby being attacked by both sides places himself in the right place.
Perhaps the ambiguous perceptions of the Lambeth Conference is summed up by the UK Media coverage with the left-wing Guardian headline “Justin Welby ‘affirms validity’ of 1998 declaration that gay sex is a sin” and the Tory-aligned Telegraph’s “Justin Welby: I won’t punish churches that conduct gay marriages.” Both are true, based on Welby’s letter and speech on the “Human Dignity” section of the conference. Both play to the fears of their audiences, interestingly enough.
Because this is a zero-sum game, both sides agree in saying the other is wrong.
Bishops’ responses
Unlike the activists commenting from the sidelines, many bishops in the “global north” welcomed the Archbishop’s vision. New Zealand’s Peter Carrell, Bishop of Christchurch, wrote cautiously that “Somewhat tentatively, it is possible that today marks a moment in Anglican Communion history in which we have formally recognised that we are a Communion with plural understandings on marriage and human sexuality.”
Bishop Michael Curry, presiding Bishop of the progressive US-based The Episcopal Church, also took a positive line “My friends, I’ve been a bishop 22 years, been a priest over 40 years, and I have to tell you that, as far as I know, that is the first time a document in the Anglican Communion has recognised that there is a plurality of view on marriage…That’s why I say today is a hopeful day.”
The conservative Global South Fellowship of Anglicans’ bishops issued a statement mourning that some provinces have accepted same-sex marriage but asserting the underlying issue is the authority of the Bible.
- “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 to live as ‘exiles on earth’ in all holiness and obedience. We pray for our whole communion to return, heed, and obey the Word of God as our rule in faith and practice, for we humbly and steadfastly believe in the authority, clarity and life-giving nature of the Word of God as written in Holy Scripture”.
Duelling petitions – the numbers
To keep a lid on the discussions the conference leaders avoided “up and down” votes. But as English academic Andrew Goddard pointed out in the Psephizo blog: “The reality, of course, is that only 5 of the 42 provinces have in some way officially disregarded I.10 (US, Brazil, Wales, Scotland, and New Zealand) with 2 others unclear or allowing diocesan local options (Canada and Australia) and, given how comparatively small these provinces are, probably 90% to 95% of Anglicans worship in churches which uphold traditional teaching – this is not a 52:48 situation!”
A boycott by a second conservative group Gafcon (Global Anglicans) meant that some 250 to 300 of the possible attendees at the Lambeth conference, including most Australian evangelical bishops, did not show up. So the Lambeth conference was skewed numbers-wise to the progressives.
The Global South responded to the tightly controlled format of Lambeth by announcing a petition on the sidelines to reaffirm Lambeth 1:10. Bishops of The Episcopal Church, joined by other progressives issued a rival petition, which quickly gathered about 170 signatures, outpacing the conservative one which has 125. This may be because the progressives have more internet savvy. But in any case, both groups have opened their petition to bishops who did not make it to Lambeth, if Gafcon joins in the conservatives will overtake the progressives possibly scoring two-thirds. (The three Gafcon provinces who totally boycotted account for 213 bishops.) The Church of England Bishops have mostly kept out of the duelling petitions, citing a continuing debate in that province.
The conservative petition is anonymous. The progressive petition has 11 Australian signatures.
Archbishop Kaye Goldsworthy of Perth, Cameron Venables, John Roundhill and Jeremy Greaves of Southern Queensland, Peter Stuart, Charlie Murry and Sonia Roulston of Newcastle, Clarence E Bester of Wangaratta, Kate Prowd of Melbourne, Denise Ferguson of Adelaide, Murray Harvey of Grafton. There are some progressives missing, and we’ll update the list if we can.
The aftermath – what fades?
“Justin Welby spoke and the great shadow faded” is the headline of a piece by Ruth Peacock
Of the Religion Media Centre. She describes the Archbishop of Canterbury laying out the differences in human sexuality as “lancing a boil” which is an accurate description of how the global north experienced things, judging from the Twitter and Facebook feeds of many of their bishops.
The Global South press release by contrast spoke of “impaired communion.” They will gather alongside the boycotting bishops from Rwanda, Uganda and Nigeria who stayed away as a bloc, plus other boycotters from provinces like Australia and Kenya which had a mix of some Lambeth attendees and stayers-at-home in Kigali, Rwanda in 2023.
And here the strategy of the Gafcon groups who were not present at Lambeth comes into play. Because their plan is for the Lambeth Conference itself to fade away, replaced by new networks and gatherings.
Whether the Lambeth vision of two views held in tension or the Kigali vision of Anglicans as a conservative body is the one that fades, will determine the future for Anglicans around the world.
Just as in the Anglican Church of Australia where the contrasting visions of “comprehensive Anglicanism” that incorporates same-sex blessings, or a church led by the evangelicals are in a slow-moving collision.