The future of Christianity

In a landmark address, Peter Jensen says the fight over homosexuality is really about the authority of the Bible. This is a special edition of Archbishop Writes and is taken from an extract from Archbishop Peter Jensen’s landmark Latimer Fellowship address.

The present crisis in the Communion is only the presenting issue of a set of deeper and more significant problems revolving around authority and mission. In effect the church in the West is being strained by significantly different theologies: the question is, will it be strained to breaking point? Will there be a new Reformation? Furthermore, although we can all see that this is an international problem, it plays itself out at the national and local arenas even more sharply. In due course, many of us are going to have to face quite painful questions arising from our fellowship with those with whom we differ profoundly. In other parts of the world tumultuous events are occurring and it is wise for us to think about them, to have some understanding of what is going on and to have a plan of action.

A PLAN OF ACTION
Let me illustrate. Whenever I try to crystallise the issues, my mind turns to Vancouver and the situation in the Diocese of Westminster. Several years ago, the diocesan synod approved the blessing of same-sex unions. As a result, several parishes left the synod and have virtually declared themselves to be out of communion with the Bishop and the Diocese. I understand that they have also refused to pay their diocesan contribution. This makes biblical sense since one of the ways we fellowship with our fellow Christians is through money. The largest of these parishes is St John’s, Shaughnessy.  It is a famous evangelical parish. While being out of communion with their Diocese, however, they claimed to be still in communion with the Anglican Church worldwide, a claim supported by visits and assurances they have received from Primates and others. 

These events are paradigmatic, and in a sense more important than the more talked-about events in the US. Put yourselves in the shoes of those from that parish. Like many evangelicals, their church was one of the best attended in the Diocese and paid more than its dues in supporting the Diocese financially. Like most evangelicals they were not in a majority in the Diocese, but were accustomed and indeed content to remain in fellowship with a Diocese dominated by theological views and liturgical practices very different from their own. Like many, part of what made them content was the well-founded view that evangelicals and their forerunners have had a long and satisfactory existence in the Church of England and its offshoots, and that at the very least the Prayer Book and the Articles of Religion can be read as supporting their theological position. Who has a better claim to be ‘Anglican’ than evangelicals?

Now, however, they have attempted to disconnect from the Diocese, at least until there is a change of mind from the synod and Bishop. It is a risky strategy, one that exposes their future to grave uncertainties. Will they be able to retain their building? Will they be able to retain their evangelical succession? Where do they look to for oversight? Are they still Anglican? Why has this subject been one which they have taken a stand on? Furthermore, has the strategy they have adopted, of appeal to international Anglicanism for recognition and support, any validity? In asking these questions, I am hoping to go deeper on a number of subjects we need to think about as we consider the way forward. Let me make the following points.

It is often said that one of the glories of Anglicanism is its comprehensiveness, inclusiveness and tolerance. There is some truth in this although I fear that much of it is also romantic wishful thinking, or the dream world of a majority which fails to see how they are treating the minority. Certainly, however, in the 20th century in a number of places we learned to get on with each and to recognise the valid existence of other points of view within the church. It helped to have a poor historical memory. We learned to live with a fair degree of pluriformity.

But comprehensiveness has never included every available option. The idea that a church has truth commitments which it will ignore in the interests of inclusion is likewise a dream.  To state the obvious, such a ‘structure’ could not survive. I state the obvious, but I wonder how obvious this is.  On the other hand, I think that I could gain support on this, for example, if a vicar declared that he would not baptise infants any longer, most people would think that he could no longer remain an Anglican. He would be asked to find another denomination to belong to. If a vicar said that he was in favour of polygamy and practised it, he could no longer stay an Anglican. I don’t think that our inclusiveness extends to anabaptists or polygamists in ministry.

There is, however, something a little strange about this. If I were to preach on Sunday that the bodily resurrection of Jesus was ‘a conjuring trick with bones’, and unbelievable, it would cause a ripple, but I would not be drummed out of the Anglican Church. But if I refuse on principle to baptise infants, I would not be able to stay, although there is a perfectly respectable and non-heretical Christian denomination which takes the same position. Why?

I judge that the difference lies in this: the bodily resurrection can be seen as a matter of opinion. The baptism of an infant is something decisive. You either do it, or refrain. Furthermore, it is to do with little human beings who will be deprived of this sacrament. It looks like an injustice.

Now in one way this helps explain the amount of difficulty we encountered about the ordination of women. People who call it a ‘second-order issue’, or a ‘non-gospel issue’ are right at one level. But the strength of feeling was in part due to the fact that we are dealing with a necessarily decisive situation – you either do, or you do not ordain women - and secondly because it was a justice issue involving real, live people, who can be hurt or not hurt as the case may be.

Once more, in thinking about issues to do with homosexuality we have a similar set of circumstances.  We have situations in which we either do or do not take an action, in, for example, the blessing of same-sex unions, or the consecration of a gay bishop. And we seem to have a justice issue to do with real persons. Justice issues certainly arouse strong emotions. 

It is worth distinguishing comprehensiveness from unity. That we are a comprehensive denomination is, on the whole, a good thing, even though members of the same network believe opposite and irreconcilable things at times. But Christian unity is based on shared truth, and there are distinct limits to the unity we can share when matters of truth are at stake. We need to bear witness to the fact that truth really matters, while also being willing to compromise at various points in order to sustain unity. Part of that compromise is a concession that some truths are more vital, more central, than others.

Take our differences over women’s ordination. Despite appearances, a large amount of the Anglican world, and of course the vast majority in the Christian world, does not ordain women to the priesthood. For the reasons I have given above, this issue has been a specially painful one in the Anglican Church. On the one side there has been a conviction that this is a matter of sheer justice, with no theological or scriptural barrier standing in the way. Others, however, are convinced that the very character of Anglican orders and so sacraments is at stake here. Others still regard this development as an act of disobedience to Scripture. So the stakes are quite high on all sides. Quite a number have left the church because of it. But the church has not split.

The denomination has not split, but the nature of its fellowship has been altered necessarily. Whereas there was in a previous day in principle interchangeability of clergy through immediate recognition of orders, it is sad but true that there are now no-go areas for some clergy based on the gender of the person involved. My way of describing this is to say that our communion has been loosened, or that the Anglican communion has taken a step towards becoming a federation of churches. This is all the more clear when arrangements are made, as they have been in the UK, for ‘flying bishops’ to exercise a degree of non-geographical supervision.

As you know, I am opposed to the ordination of women on scriptural grounds. I realise that many will disagree with me and argue the case differently. The ordination of women posed a special problem for someone like me. Up to that point, although I knew that there were all sorts of practices within the Church with which I did no agree, none of them had become the official policy of the Church.  This is no longer the case. Here is something official which I believe to be non-scriptural.

How then could I stay an Australian Anglican? I can remain an Anglican, for three reasons: first, because of the strongly diocesan base of our church, my conscience has not been compromised by being forced to take part in activities which I think are unscriptural; second because the ordination of women can be seen as a matter of order rather than salvation; and third because I have been able to continue to make my dissent clear and so to distinguish myself from others in the same denomination.

On the last point, I realise that at one level I am linked to those who think and act differently, and I regret our lack of unity at this point. But I do not think our fellowship is a scandal. This is all somewhat easier in that we do not have women bishops in Australia. The bishop’s role affects everyone in a diocese as well as those who have to relate to the diocese, and creates a difficulty for those who reject the ordination of women, if they live under her jurisdiction.

But when is the limit of comprehensiveness reached? I think that you can see that I would be troubled by a development which

(a) forced me to do what I believe to be unscriptural,
(b) involved a matter of salvation,
(c) so involved me in the actions of others so that it appears that I agree with the development because I do not protest or withdraw.

Let us create new structures of fellowship where necessary. We have been too slack, too individualistic, too touchy about the issues that divide, too parish-focused. Evangelical people everywhere need to unite around the issues which are at the heart of what we believe and make us what we are. At the same time, if and when necessary, and with a heavy heart, they must clearly and corporately dissociate from developments which are unscriptural and spiritually dangerous. An evangelical network can do the following: First, speak for a large number, so that protests cannot be dismissed as isolated and unimportant. Second, agree to defend and support any individual or church being disadvantaged because of a principled stand on an issue of the magnitude of homosexuality. Third, enter coalitions with like-minded groups without creating compromise on other subjects. Fourth, speak for and with similar networks elsewhere in the communion. Fifth, agree on a strategy by which it will be clear that the network is dissenting from an official but blatantly unscriptural policy. Sixth, adopt polices for joint action where necessary.

Overarching all, however, must be a commitment to the gospel, and hence to mission worldwide and in the secular West. An example of the last in some parts of the world would be for a network to agree not to baptise persons living in a same-sex relationship and to support those who operate on that principle.

In a case as serious as that of St John’s, other North American Anglicans and leaders from the Global South have made it very clear indeed that they regard St John’s as having done the right thing, and as being thoroughly Anglican. Indeed, they are prepared to provide episcopal ministry for the church should it be necessary. We belong together – we have a worldwide fellowship of evangelical Christians inside and outside the Anglican Church.

Because of our silence, and our lack of support for those who make a stand, those in favour of the innovations are sometimes able to treat this matter as though it is the sophisticated and wise West against the ill-educated homophobes of the Global South. We need to say this is not true: in the first place it is demeaning, patronising and racist to dismiss the Global South in these terms, and second, that there are many in the West who reject these developments simply because they believe that the Bible is the word of God, and they know that it teaches against them.

Of course a church may lose its property. Of course a new church may be planted in the building by the diocese, and the protesting church may be completely lost to the diocese. But a networked church will remain recognised by Anglicans elsewhere as being authentic. Indeed you are probably aware that movements along these lines have begun in North America, with much support from the Global South. The aim of the network will be to ensure that everyone knows that there is a protest about policy, that there is a lessening of fellowship, that there is a willingness to support each other, that there is a hope for a new future, and that the fundamental unity of the church still matters. But is this the end of our unity? Is this schism? I think not. A diocese, a national church, the Communion itself is a network in which the reality and quality of fellowship differ for all sorts of reasons, geographic, political, cultural, ecclesiastical, theological. If a new leader were to arise, supplanting the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury, calling his own conference, setting up his own structures and also forbidding those in communion with him to attend Lambeth or take part in any of the structures of the existing communion, I suppose you could say that a split had occurred. In my view we are very far from this, as indeed we should be. Internal networks will relate differently and there will be – there now is - an evolution parallel to that of Empire to Commonwealth. But it would be very hard to split the Communion.

I seriously believe that we have before us a struggle for the soul of the Anglican Church. It is not about homosexuality, though that is the presenting issue: it is about the clarity and authority of Scripture and about the preaching of the gospel in a postmodern world. We cannot afford to stand aside and think that because the struggle is elsewhere it does not concern me. In particular there is a need to offer support and help to the Global South, who are our partners in the gospel.

Frankly, much of the issue is to do with leadership. For various reasons the leadership of Anglican evangelicals exercised by John Stott has not passed to the next generation in an obvious way.

Perhaps such a thing was not possible. But, let me say that the day is a new day. Leadership within the evangelical movement is not ever easy; we do not like papal figures with good reason. But for anyone to offer leadership today is triply difficult. The movement has been seriously divided for a generation over other issues. We have not produced well-thought out theologians who can also be statesmen and prophets.  Furthermore, the level of vilification of leaders within the community, within the church and within the movement is horrendous. Few will want to be involved at any more than parish level. Unfortunately, without leadership which has widespread support and recognition it will be extremely difficult for evangelicalism to retain a significant place in any modern denomination which is not evangelical itself. Pray for courageous, biblical, recognisable leadership. When it comes, honour it and don’t undermine it. 

Let me now turn to one last major issue: theological education. Last October I had the immense privilege of attending the Third Global South Conference in Egypt. It is true to say that the phrase ‘Global South’ is not so much a geographic one as a theological one. It is a bringing together of Anglican Christian leaders from Africa, Asia, South and Central America and elsewhere. These churches represent the numerical bulk of world Anglicanism. They are where the action is.

It was an impressive gathering. The delegates gave themselves to the study of the Church, one, holy catholic and apostolic. Their papers were biblical: they endeavoured to relate the truth of the Bible to our present situation. There was no doubting the deeply conservative nature of almost all present when it came to theology. It shames me that these leaders have been vilified in Western church media; it shames me that we have given them a gospel which we are now wishing to deny; it shames me that we thought that we have a deeper spirituality and the right to tell them what to do and to believe.

Let me not be romantic. The Global South brethren have their troubles, their sins, their disagreements. They are in the first flush of enthusiasm about the number of people in some of their churches, and the recognition that they have been far more evangelistically successful than Christians in the West. But as their leadership itself points out, the sheer movement of people has its own difficulties and much of the Christianity is also shallow. The needs of the Global South as they battle with the problems of poverty and sicknesses such as HIV/AIDS are immense. But there is none so great as the need for sound theological education. It is clear that the present leadership of most of the churches is theologically biblical. It is clear that they prize genuine Christian experience and fidelity to Scripture. But the church, wherever it is, is always one generation removed from disaster. Such is the pressure of globalisation, so extraordinary are modern methods of communication, that the sound and faithful churches of today may become the latest victim of liberalising cultural change tomorrow.

This has been recognised by liberal Christians in the West. They understand the crucial role played by theological education in the health of the church. They see that the rejection of Western ideas of sexuality has come from an understanding of the Bible which they would regard as pre-modern. They are determined to make sure that the next generation of ordinands in the Global South churches are taught what they would regard as better ways of interpreting and applying Scripture.

The irony of this is that the theological education of the West has, speaking very generally, enfeebled the churches, taken away the Bible and been the major source of the cultural captivity of the church.

The very thing we do not want to export to the South is the theological education practised in many standard Western seminaries. What we desperately need is the reform of theological education in our own seminaries.

To sum up: the crisis in the Communion is about the relation between culture and revelation, liberalism and the Bible. It may show itself in the area of human sexuality, but it really goes back to the authority of Scripture and our willingness to be subservient to its teaching despite the unpopularity which this may bring in the world and in the church. In order to be obedient under pressure we are going to have to attend more that we have done up until now to the issue of depth in theological education in parishes and in the denomination. Especially we are going to have to care for each other, to encourage and strengthen each other and to support each other in unpopular stands, if these need to be taken. And remember, ‘Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage – with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears will want them to hear… But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.’ (2 Timothy 4:2-5).

Click here to comment on this article for the next edition of Southern Cross

Latest articles in Latest articles
- Christmas lights up our darkness - 2 days, 3 hours ago
- A response to market meltdown - 1 month, 1 week ago
- The greatest thing of all - 2 months ago