(an interview with a devout, learned R C female theologian which contains "truths" that few high church or low church Protestants want to hear --P.T.)
Same-Sex Marriage and Its Relation With Contraception
Janet E. Smith Links Rejection of "Humanae Vitae" to Acceptance of Homosexuality
DETROIT, Michigan, OCT. 17, 2003 (Zenit.org).- Culture has all but embraced homosexual activity since abandoning the principle that procreative sex within a marriage is the only moral form of sexuality, says an expert on the Church's sexual teachings.
Janet E. Smith, who holds the Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Issues at Sacred Heart Major Seminary, shared her views with ZENIT in this interview.
A consultor to the Pontifical Council on the Family, Smith is the author of "Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later" (CUA Press). More than 500,000 copies of her tape, "Contraception: Why Not" (One More Soul) have been distributed.
Q: Do you see any connection between the rejection of the Church's teaching on contraception and the push for homosexual marriages?
Smith: Not so many years ago at a conference on homosexuality, Russell Hittinger argued that there is not much ground for opposing homosexual marriages in a culture where most unions are contraceptive. He said we were already blessing unions whose primary reason for existence was sexual pleasure.
In fact, many years ago, when dissent first started concerning the Church's teaching on contraception, some of those defending the teaching said, if we were to approve of contraception, soon people would be arguing that masturbation, fornication and homosexuality were morally permissible. Some people thought those claims were absurd and likely most now would as well, but in both the Church and in the culture it is clear that widespread acceptance of contraception has radically changed our understanding of sexuality.
Rather than holding to the Christian and common sense view that sex belongs within marriage between a male and a female committed to each other for life and open to children, our culture thinks that sex is quite simply for pleasure -- and that almost any combination of consenting individuals may morally seek that pleasure without any commitment, without an openness to children.
Now, I am one of those who believe that probably most of those with homosexual orientations have some sort of psychological disorder probably not acquired through their own deliberate choices; something damaging may have happened in their youth or childhood. Thus, I am not suggesting that people who contracept are going to begin to engage in homosexual activity -- though I do think they may develop appetites for various kinds of perverse sexual activity.
What I am saying is that the culture becomes more accepting of homosexual activity since it has abandoned the principle that heterosexuality with a respect for the procreative power of the act is the only moral form of sexuality.
Q: Dissent from the Church's teaching on contraception is still widespread. How has that changed dating and courtship over the past 40 years?
Smith: There basically is no such thing as dating and courtship except in the smallest of religious circles. Now there is "coupling" and "hooking up" and "living together," but little really careful selection of dating partners followed by a slow and careful process of getting to know the other and to let oneself be known.
There is no question that contraception has greatly increased the incidence of sex outside of marriage. Certainly very few people marry as virgins. Many people start having sex early in a relationship.
The pattern of marriages in the United States is often something like this: multiple sexual partners before marriage; a two- or three-year period of cohabitation, all the while contracepting; two or three years of contracepted sex after marriage; suspending with contraception for a short period of time in order to conceive the first child; return to contraception; suspending contraception to conceive the second child; then the wife or husband gets sterilized; then they get divorced.
This is not the pattern of courtship or marriage that God had in mind.
Abstinence before marriage permits the couple to get to know each other without the confusion and premature bonding of sexual involvement; they can get out of relationships that aren't leading to marriage without severe heartbreak and disruption to one's life. They develop a wide range of methods of expressing their love for each other, and when they begin their sexual relationship after marriage it is the proper "seal" to put on a relationship they have already established and intend to nurture for a lifetime.
Q: In your experience with young people, what has been the impact, if any, of "Humanae Vitae"?
Smith: Young or not so young, few Catholics have read it or attempted to live it. For several decades seminarians were taught not to teach the teaching of "Humanae Vitae." Father Charles Curran's position was dominant: "The Church was wrong and would eventually change."
Thus in the last several decades even Catholics who have gone through Catholic high schools and colleges and through Catholic marriage preparation have heard no explanation or defense of the Church's teaching. The document has either been ignored or pilloried.
Q: What is the toughest thing for young people to understand about the Church's teaching? Have you seen a shift in thinking among young people over the years?
Smith: It is not so tough for the young to understand once it is explained to them. The young and even the not so young are surprisingly receptive once they understand what the meaning and purpose of sexuality is.
They have some deep sense that this culture is tremendously messed up about sexuality and that people have suffered great damage because of their sexual choices. When they hear the Church's teaching about sexuality articulated it makes quite a bit of sense to them.
One thing I can count on is that young people hate divorce; either they have grown up in divorced households and have experienced the heartbreak and trauma of divorce or they have friends who have. They want long-lasting marriages.
When I tell them that those who live by the Church's teaching -- no sex before marriage, no contraception within marriage, using of NFP [natural family planning] to space children when necessary -- almost never divorce, they are prepared to listen.
Yes, there has been a huge shift. My generation didn't want to listen to anyone over 30 and we have paid a great price for our arrogance, as have our children and our culture. Frankly, young people don't want to be as messed up as we are, and are looking for another, better way.
The Church has the other, better way. Various movements in the Church are succeeding in galvanizing the faith of young people and they are prepared to give the Church's teaching on any matter a very respectful hearing.
Q: Regarding sexual morality, contemporary society and the media promote a message very different from Catholic teachings. How can the Church communicate better to young people the wisdom of "Humanae Vitae"?
Smith: There is actually an abundance of good material out there. Parents should acquire some of it and read it, watch it, listen to it and discuss it with their children.
Among others, I recommend the works of Mary Beth Bonacci, Jason Everett, Chris West, Colleen Kelly Mast and Molly Kelly, and the programs developed by Family Honor, the Couple to Couple League, Teen Star and the Family of the Americas.
Q: What effect has Pope John Paul II's teachings had in this regard?
Smith: It has had an enormous effect. Young adults are mesmerized by his "Theology of the Body," especially as promoted by such effective presenters as Chris West. Themes such as the nuptial meaning of the body, the need for self-mastery and sexuality as being a complete gift of one's self seem to grab young people. It is being taught with fervor in several seminaries and in conferences for laity across the United States. Seeds are being sown that will bear great fruit.
Q: Are you foresee any bright spots?
Smith: In another generation I think we will see a very different Church. Priests and seminarians will make promoting the Church's teaching on sexuality one of the foremost themes of their pastoring, both through various means of educating their parish and through marriage preparation. The abstinence-based chastity education programs are having an effect.
If we get people basing their marriages on the Church's teaching, we will have many more happy and healthy families. A good number of those families already exist and they are producing strong vocations to the religious life, to the celibate life and to married life. I am a firm optimist in this respect.
ZE03101724
Saturday, October 18, 2003
Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church on Crisis
From the Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church
16 October 2003
Dear friends,
I am writing this note on my return journey from the meeting of Anglican Primates at Lambeth Palace called by the Archbishop of Canterbury. This as you know was as a result of the controversy created by the election of Canon Gene Robinson as the Bishop of New Hampshire in the USA and the decision by the Diocese of New Westminster in Canada to authorise a liturgy for the blessing of those in committed same sex relationships
I have been very grateful to many of you who have in recent weeks sent me messages assuring me of your prayers and sharing with me your own concerns and convictions from both sides of the argument. The tone of such messages has always been generous and considerate - in contrast I have to say to some I have received from other parts of the world!
The full statement of the Primates meeting is to be found on the Anglican Communion website www.anglicancommunion.org and I would encourage you to read this alongside any newspaper reports. If you are not on the Internet then Lorna Finley at the GSO Office can ensure that you have a copy.
The meeting itself was one in which strong views were expressed and especially by those Primates mainly from the global south who have felt particularly upset by the decisions taken in Canada and the USA. I sometimes felt that we were locked in a struggle out of which there would be no resolution. Some of us experienced what might be described as being on a 'rollercoaster' of emotions as the mood of the meeting changed on a number of occasions. Yet through the sensitive and, as Robin Eames commented, 'prayerful' guidance of Rowan Williams we found a way to say that "what we had in common is greater than that which divides us in proclaiming Good News to the world". Serious problems and divisions still exist, of course, and it is very likely that some provinces will take their own action after the ordination of Canon Robinson as indicated in the statement. The challenge is in whether we allow these problems to be destructive of our common together as Christians within the Anglican Communion. The statement identifies some ways forward for the Communion to address this matter.
In our own Scottish Episcopal Church we have often described ourselves as seeking to be a church which reflects the Gospel through a welcoming, open and inclusive attitude; which values the rich diversity that exists within our shared Christian journey; and which is ready to explore the difficult issues of faith and order with, I hope, honesty and love. None of that, I believe, is compromised by this statement. But I hope it may also challenge us to take more seriously the study of scripture, acknowledging as the statement says 'a legitimate diversity of interpretation' ; and to continue, as the Lambeth Conference 1998 resolution on human sexuality asked us, to listen to the experiences and struggles of homosexual people in the church.
Finally, whatever happens in the coming weeks in ECUSA regarding the ordination of Canon Gene Robinson I hope that we will uphold in our prayers all those in our sister church with whom we have strong historical and continuing friendships.
I could say more - and indeed will write an article for the 'Scottish Episcopalian' after I've had some more time to reflect on these past two days. But given that the press will inevitably put their own particular 'spin' on the event I felt it important to share with you as soon as possible my own initial reflection. Do feel free to share this with others.
Once more my thanks for your prayers and support
+Bruce
16 October 2003
Dear friends,
I am writing this note on my return journey from the meeting of Anglican Primates at Lambeth Palace called by the Archbishop of Canterbury. This as you know was as a result of the controversy created by the election of Canon Gene Robinson as the Bishop of New Hampshire in the USA and the decision by the Diocese of New Westminster in Canada to authorise a liturgy for the blessing of those in committed same sex relationships
I have been very grateful to many of you who have in recent weeks sent me messages assuring me of your prayers and sharing with me your own concerns and convictions from both sides of the argument. The tone of such messages has always been generous and considerate - in contrast I have to say to some I have received from other parts of the world!
The full statement of the Primates meeting is to be found on the Anglican Communion website www.anglicancommunion.org and I would encourage you to read this alongside any newspaper reports. If you are not on the Internet then Lorna Finley at the GSO Office can ensure that you have a copy.
The meeting itself was one in which strong views were expressed and especially by those Primates mainly from the global south who have felt particularly upset by the decisions taken in Canada and the USA. I sometimes felt that we were locked in a struggle out of which there would be no resolution. Some of us experienced what might be described as being on a 'rollercoaster' of emotions as the mood of the meeting changed on a number of occasions. Yet through the sensitive and, as Robin Eames commented, 'prayerful' guidance of Rowan Williams we found a way to say that "what we had in common is greater than that which divides us in proclaiming Good News to the world". Serious problems and divisions still exist, of course, and it is very likely that some provinces will take their own action after the ordination of Canon Robinson as indicated in the statement. The challenge is in whether we allow these problems to be destructive of our common together as Christians within the Anglican Communion. The statement identifies some ways forward for the Communion to address this matter.
In our own Scottish Episcopal Church we have often described ourselves as seeking to be a church which reflects the Gospel through a welcoming, open and inclusive attitude; which values the rich diversity that exists within our shared Christian journey; and which is ready to explore the difficult issues of faith and order with, I hope, honesty and love. None of that, I believe, is compromised by this statement. But I hope it may also challenge us to take more seriously the study of scripture, acknowledging as the statement says 'a legitimate diversity of interpretation' ; and to continue, as the Lambeth Conference 1998 resolution on human sexuality asked us, to listen to the experiences and struggles of homosexual people in the church.
Finally, whatever happens in the coming weeks in ECUSA regarding the ordination of Canon Gene Robinson I hope that we will uphold in our prayers all those in our sister church with whom we have strong historical and continuing friendships.
I could say more - and indeed will write an article for the 'Scottish Episcopalian' after I've had some more time to reflect on these past two days. But given that the press will inevitably put their own particular 'spin' on the event I felt it important to share with you as soon as possible my own initial reflection. Do feel free to share this with others.
Once more my thanks for your prayers and support
+Bruce
Rebuilding the Anglican Household in America – a task for 2004
A response to the Primates’ Statement of October 16, 2003, and a vocation for faithful Anglicans
While we can expect to hear more from our faithful brethren in Africa, Asia,and the Southern Cone, the Statement of the Primates ought not to come as a great surprise. Yes, the innocent souls that had hoped for a one-time, one-meeting solution to heresy and apostasy in ECUSA, Canada, or the Anglican Communion in general, do and will need a great deal of comforting.
Nevertheless, we believe it is time to remind ourselves that it was never reasonable to expect the Primates, even the orthodox Primates, to give the faithful in America an easy, painless victory.
The reformation of a particular national church has much in common with a war, and in particular with a "corrective war" of the sort known as a "war of liberation" or a "war of independence." Aquinas would describe such a struggle as an act of charity, not only in defense of the oppressed faithful, but also on behalf of those in error, who must be rescued from their error and deprived of the ability to do further harm to the lambs of Christ.
To use an analogy, American colonists, by and large, did not hate Great Britain. Rather, they loved Britain, her history, and her rule of law. When, however, the colonists had done their best to seek redress of their legitimate grievances and had been denied it, they could no longer put off action on their own behalf. Their Congress declared the independence of the American colonies from the governance of Great Britain, along with the new status of those colonies as an independent nation able to govern itself according to the rules of law and equity.
Indeed, those first American citizens had friends and allies in other nations, but the major burden of reforming American civil life rested on American shoulders. In the same way, the burden of reforming the American church is the primary burden of Americans, and not of our beloved brethren and friends in other countries. We cannot ask them to pay the price of our reformation; but we must demand of ourselves that we pay the price of fidelity and true Christian fellowship.
Warfare, even spiritual warfare, is an application of force--moral, temporal, and supernatural-- to achieve a defined purpose. It is a mistake to depend too much on the subjective models of our modern, secular & therapeutic culture, when the task before is the restoration of the objective faithfulness of the American Church to Jesus Christ, rather than on sharing our private feelings of disappointment or exile. We should never meet again to talk about how we feel, but only to plan a course of action. We must not be afraid to face the hard question of whether or not, despite our common opposition to the Griswold regime, we have enough in common to foster a single effort. It may be that we cannot abide in one household, but we will not know that until we have defined not just who and what we are right now, but more importantly who and what we intend to be for the sake of Jesus Christ when our labors, by God's grace, are successful.
The way to work with the Primates, and in particular with the Theological Commission which in the next year will look into acceptable ways of help being provided by one Province to another, where there is major internal disagreement in a given Province, is not to attempt endlessly to change their minds, looking for immediate and substantial help. Rather, it is to build a province and to seek their fellowship, in general or in particular, as our Lord will give us the light to see our duty. The way to build a province is to learn from the reorganization of the American church after the War of Independence and to adapt those lessons to our present needs and circumstances.
We can achieve, with God's help, a faithful province. We can make an honorable and charitable witness to the Anglican Communion and to the rest of the world. But we will not succeed if we keep asking permission to reform ourselves. It is time to rebel against the errors of men and to embrace the call of Jesus Christ to build up with him. God being our helper, there is nothing that is not possible to us now that was possible before the Primates issued their Statement.
Louis Tarsitano & Peter Toon
E Mail Peter@toon662.fsnet.co.uk
E-mail (Louis) episocas@bellsouth.net
While we can expect to hear more from our faithful brethren in Africa, Asia,and the Southern Cone, the Statement of the Primates ought not to come as a great surprise. Yes, the innocent souls that had hoped for a one-time, one-meeting solution to heresy and apostasy in ECUSA, Canada, or the Anglican Communion in general, do and will need a great deal of comforting.
Nevertheless, we believe it is time to remind ourselves that it was never reasonable to expect the Primates, even the orthodox Primates, to give the faithful in America an easy, painless victory.
The reformation of a particular national church has much in common with a war, and in particular with a "corrective war" of the sort known as a "war of liberation" or a "war of independence." Aquinas would describe such a struggle as an act of charity, not only in defense of the oppressed faithful, but also on behalf of those in error, who must be rescued from their error and deprived of the ability to do further harm to the lambs of Christ.
To use an analogy, American colonists, by and large, did not hate Great Britain. Rather, they loved Britain, her history, and her rule of law. When, however, the colonists had done their best to seek redress of their legitimate grievances and had been denied it, they could no longer put off action on their own behalf. Their Congress declared the independence of the American colonies from the governance of Great Britain, along with the new status of those colonies as an independent nation able to govern itself according to the rules of law and equity.
Indeed, those first American citizens had friends and allies in other nations, but the major burden of reforming American civil life rested on American shoulders. In the same way, the burden of reforming the American church is the primary burden of Americans, and not of our beloved brethren and friends in other countries. We cannot ask them to pay the price of our reformation; but we must demand of ourselves that we pay the price of fidelity and true Christian fellowship.
Warfare, even spiritual warfare, is an application of force--moral, temporal, and supernatural-- to achieve a defined purpose. It is a mistake to depend too much on the subjective models of our modern, secular & therapeutic culture, when the task before is the restoration of the objective faithfulness of the American Church to Jesus Christ, rather than on sharing our private feelings of disappointment or exile. We should never meet again to talk about how we feel, but only to plan a course of action. We must not be afraid to face the hard question of whether or not, despite our common opposition to the Griswold regime, we have enough in common to foster a single effort. It may be that we cannot abide in one household, but we will not know that until we have defined not just who and what we are right now, but more importantly who and what we intend to be for the sake of Jesus Christ when our labors, by God's grace, are successful.
The way to work with the Primates, and in particular with the Theological Commission which in the next year will look into acceptable ways of help being provided by one Province to another, where there is major internal disagreement in a given Province, is not to attempt endlessly to change their minds, looking for immediate and substantial help. Rather, it is to build a province and to seek their fellowship, in general or in particular, as our Lord will give us the light to see our duty. The way to build a province is to learn from the reorganization of the American church after the War of Independence and to adapt those lessons to our present needs and circumstances.
We can achieve, with God's help, a faithful province. We can make an honorable and charitable witness to the Anglican Communion and to the rest of the world. But we will not succeed if we keep asking permission to reform ourselves. It is time to rebel against the errors of men and to embrace the call of Jesus Christ to build up with him. God being our helper, there is nothing that is not possible to us now that was possible before the Primates issued their Statement.
Louis Tarsitano & Peter Toon
E Mail Peter@toon662.fsnet.co.uk
E-mail (Louis) episocas@bellsouth.net
PECUSA, ECUSA & Biblical Discipline
Let us soberly recall that, had the basic discipline been in place in 2003 that was in place in the old PECUSA (the discipline that was set aside by the new ECUSA) up to the middle of the 20th century, then Gene Robinson would not (never) have been a candidate for the Episcopate.
As a divorced priest he would have not been eligible for election even if he were the kindest man on earth.
Whether one is the supposed guilty or non-guilty party to a divorce, to be divorced used to make one ineligible for ordination & consecration in the Episcopal Church. And it still does in most of the Provinces of the Anglican Communion. (Find a divorced or divorced or remarried priest - or bishop!- in the Anglican Churches north of S Africa or in S E Asia; he is a very rare person if he exists at all.)
That Robinson was actively "gay" merely adds a further impediment (and for many a very offensive impediment - due to local religious, cultural reasons as well as biblical interpretation) to that of being a divorced person in terms of candidature for ministry. Being divorced ought to have been an insuperable barrier, at least whilst his wife is alive!
The point is this - that if the ECUSA had retained anything like a biblical discipline then the Robinson case would not have arisen and the present crisis would not be with us. It is because the ECUSA dug up its foundations of biblical discipline in the 1960s and 1970s that this crisis eventually came. Crises will come to any church or group that flings away its foundations.
Regrettably, since the AAC works with, and has not actively moved (as far as I know) to change the divorce canons of the ECUSA or for its own membership, then it stands apart from traditional church practice and doctrine even though it makes statements about the ideal of marriage and being orthodox.
If the word of the Lord is being heard, surely the leadership of the AAC & Fin F NA and so on will now see the need to "dig again the wells of Abraham" and to "search for the old paths and walk therein". Going back to the status quo of July 2003 was never an option that would please the Lord our God. To walk with the Primates into the future means rebuilding the Anglican House in the USA. This is the vocation before us and here there will be no gain without pain.
The Primates' Meeting (as Canon Bill Atwood has shown - see below) has positive good news for the possibility of reform and renewal. But internally in ECUSA those who wish to be reformed and renewed have great work to do - to return to basic and first principles, that is to the Lord their God through the biblical and classical means provided in the historic Anglican Way (as understood and exercised in the USA since the 18th century).
See the forthcoming Paper on this REBUILDING OF THE HOUSEHOLD by Dr Tarsitano & Dr Toon.
-----------------------------
Bill Atwood (whom I last saw on the 16th at the ancient gate of Westminster Abbey talking into a Camera!) has written in these terms:
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
As a divorced priest he would have not been eligible for election even if he were the kindest man on earth.
Whether one is the supposed guilty or non-guilty party to a divorce, to be divorced used to make one ineligible for ordination & consecration in the Episcopal Church. And it still does in most of the Provinces of the Anglican Communion. (Find a divorced or divorced or remarried priest - or bishop!- in the Anglican Churches north of S Africa or in S E Asia; he is a very rare person if he exists at all.)
That Robinson was actively "gay" merely adds a further impediment (and for many a very offensive impediment - due to local religious, cultural reasons as well as biblical interpretation) to that of being a divorced person in terms of candidature for ministry. Being divorced ought to have been an insuperable barrier, at least whilst his wife is alive!
The point is this - that if the ECUSA had retained anything like a biblical discipline then the Robinson case would not have arisen and the present crisis would not be with us. It is because the ECUSA dug up its foundations of biblical discipline in the 1960s and 1970s that this crisis eventually came. Crises will come to any church or group that flings away its foundations.
Regrettably, since the AAC works with, and has not actively moved (as far as I know) to change the divorce canons of the ECUSA or for its own membership, then it stands apart from traditional church practice and doctrine even though it makes statements about the ideal of marriage and being orthodox.
If the word of the Lord is being heard, surely the leadership of the AAC & Fin F NA and so on will now see the need to "dig again the wells of Abraham" and to "search for the old paths and walk therein". Going back to the status quo of July 2003 was never an option that would please the Lord our God. To walk with the Primates into the future means rebuilding the Anglican House in the USA. This is the vocation before us and here there will be no gain without pain.
The Primates' Meeting (as Canon Bill Atwood has shown - see below) has positive good news for the possibility of reform and renewal. But internally in ECUSA those who wish to be reformed and renewed have great work to do - to return to basic and first principles, that is to the Lord their God through the biblical and classical means provided in the historic Anglican Way (as understood and exercised in the USA since the 18th century).
See the forthcoming Paper on this REBUILDING OF THE HOUSEHOLD by Dr Tarsitano & Dr Toon.
-----------------------------
Bill Atwood (whom I last saw on the 16th at the ancient gate of Westminster Abbey talking into a Camera!) has written in these terms:
"Having been in conversation with primates before, during, and after their meeting, let me explain a few things.
The commitments of the primates at this meeting are Biblical, Christian, and good.
It is not a waffle, sell-out, or liberal victory. Not surprisingly, these mature leaders of millions used diplomatic language, but the message is clear if read. Sometimes things in England are complex.
For example, at the place where I am staying, one has to take the lift to the fourth floor in order to get to the third floor.
Here are just some of the victories:
John Peterson was not included in the deliberations.
The Lambeth Conference commitment to scripture was affirmed.
Homosexual practice is rejected.
They clearly stated that teaching of the church cannot be changed unilaterally ECUSA and New Westminster are WRONG
Primates have accepted a role of enhanced oversight
ADEQUATE Episcopal Oversight is in place in consultation with the ABC ON behalf of the primates (That means it is not up to Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold or Archbishop Michael Peers to decide what it adequate.)
New Westminster was specifically addressed.
A commission was established, but it is not to discuss sexuality, it is to work through legal issues of entanglement and disengagement.
In pressing for Adequate Episcopal Oversight (which means "with jurisdiction") the primates adopted a new structural direction for the communion that will help mission. (Moving beyond geographical jurisdiction.)
These things are huge and historic. The mechanisms are being put in place to insure a future for those who maintain Anglican faith and practice. OK, it is not finished yet, but steps had to be designed that took into account the advice of the canon lawyers who said the Primates could not do "anything" about discipline.
What the Primates wound up saying is basically, "Yes we can. We have established the limits of diversity. When ECUSA exceeds that, they will be excluded from the communion. The lawyers are working out the details." That is what the commission is really about.
It is sad that some conservatives are so spring loaded to be negative that they cannot see encouragement even in the middle of an historic victory. If you were expecting the headline, "Anglican Primates conduct armed assault on 815:Bodies of liberals litter Second Avenue," you were no doubt disappointed. It took thirty (plus) years to get into this mess. It will take a while to get out of it, but the way has been established. Our faith has been affirmed. The Scriptures set the limits. We have Primate supervised Alternative Oversight while the mess is being worked out.
A commission is working on legal issues of re-structuring. When ECUSA consecrates Gene Robinson, separation will follow formally.
There is a new day for the Anglican Communion. Some are seeing it emerge now."
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
Presiding Bishop Griswold on the Crisis
A Word to the Church
10/17/2003
10/17/2003
[Episcopal News Service] I have just returned several hours ago from the meeting of the Primates in London. It was a difficult but very truthful meeting in which our understanding of one another¹s contexts and the burdens each one of us must bear were made abundantly clear. I have ever greater respect and affection for these brothers of mine and for the ministry they carry out, often in the most difficult and seemingly hopeless circumstances.
The effects for our Anglican brothers and sisters of our action taken at General Convention giving consent to the ordination and consecration of the bishop coadjutor-elect of New Hampshire were described in very stark terms. Many spoke about ridicule they had received within their provinces and the threat to their ability to proclaim the gospel, particularly in places where other religions are dominant.
The statement issuing from our meeting reflects hours of intense conversation and confrontation, always in the spirit of mutual respect. It is too soon to draw out all the implications contained in the statement or to see exactly how its provisions might best be articulated. I will have more to say at a later time.
One paragraph of the statement reads as follows: Whilst we reaffirm the teaching of successive Lambeth Conferences that bishops must respect the autonomy and territorial integrity of dioceses and provinces other than their own, we call on the provinces concerned to made adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates.² On this coming Monday I will be meeting with the Pastoral Development Committee of the House of Bishops to begin to consider how best we can honor this concern, building on the already expressed willingness of our bishops to make provision for extended episcopal ministry in particular circumstances.
I returned home with a sense of gratitude for all of the members of our church, regardless of our various points of view. I am grateful even for our struggles in which we so openly and honestly engage. I pray they may be a gift. I believe that what has occurred in the Episcopal Church is the work of the Spirit. As difficult as this moment may be, if this is, in fact, a work of the Spirit it will contain some yet to be revealed way in which communion in that same Spirit is made stronger and deeper. This is my hope and my prayer.
This brief word to the church comes with my love and my blessings.
The Most Rev. Frank T. Griswold
Presiding Bishop and Primate
Friday, October 17, 2003
What happened at the Primates Meeting? - from ACNS
ACNS 3635 | ACO | 17 OCTOBER 2003
What happened at the Primates Meeting? A guide for our ecumenical partners
As you will know, the Primates of the Anglican Communion met together at Lambeth Palace on 15 and 16 October in response to recent developments within the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church of the United States of America. These developments included the election of a priest in a committed same sex relationship as a bishop, and the authorisation by one diocese in Canada of a public Rite of Blessing for Same Sex Unions.
In their Statement at the end of the meeting, the Primates said four main things - (a) they committed themselves to working together in the Communion as far as possible, (b) they reaffirmed the teaching of the Anglican Communion on sexual ethics, (c) they acknowledged that recent developments will damage the Communion, and (d) they established a commission to take matters further.
1. The Primates expressed their unanimous commitment to the ongoing life of the Communion. The meeting reaffirmed, and indeed celebrated, the Anglican tradition of faith and worship, and all the primates are committed to co-operating together as far as possible in the Communion's shared work and witness, in spite of disagreements on the issue of homosexuality.
2. The Primates also reaffirmed the traditional teaching of the Communion in relation to the issue of homosexuality, as expressed at the Lambeth Conference 1998 in Resolution 1.10. They reaffirmed the whole of this resolution, including commending the main report of the Lambeth Conference on this issue to the members of the Communion, and the commitment to listen to the experience of homosexual persons in an ongoing process of study.
3. This reaffirmation means that the wider Communion cannot support the recent developments for the blessings of same sex unions or the election of Canon Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. Indeed, the ministry of Gene Robinson as a bishop will not be recognised or received in the vast majority of the Anglican world.
What are the consequences of all of this?
4. First, it means that a state of impaired or broken Communion is beginning to exist between many parts of the Anglican world and the Diocese of New Westminster in Canada. The Anglican Church of Canada is still in the process of resolving the questions that the authorisation of a public Rite of Blessing for Same Sex Unions in that diocese raise, and it is unlikely that any further developments can occur until the Canadian General Synod has met in 2004.
5. Secondly, for many parts of the Anglican Communion a state of impaired or broken communion will exist with the Diocese of New Hampshire, given the assumption that the Consecration will go ahead, and possibly with the whole of the Episcopal Church (USA).
What are the wider implications?
6. Questions remain about the nature, extent and duration of this impaired or broken communion. Will a breach in Communion between two parts of the Anglican Communion mean a Communion-wide split with each province having to choose between one side or the other? How will these divisions affect the relationship of each province with the See of Canterbury as the centre of unity of the Communion?
7. In order to answer these questions, the Primates have requested the Archbishop of Canterbury to establish a Commission which will report in twelve months time to the next meeting of the Primates. Until then, provinces have been urged by the Primates to avoid precipitate action.
8. The Department of Ecumenical Affairs and Studies will be pleased to respond to any enquiries from our ecumenical partners on these issues, and can be contacted at the Anglican Communion Office.
A copy of the Primates' Statement can be found at
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/36/25/acns3633.html.
The Lambeth resolutions from 1998 can be found at: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/lambeth/1/sect1rpt.html. The resolution on human sexuality is Resolution I.10.
Gregory K Cameron,
Director of Ecumenical Affairs and Studies,
London, 17 October 2003
What happened at the Primates Meeting? A guide for our ecumenical partners
As you will know, the Primates of the Anglican Communion met together at Lambeth Palace on 15 and 16 October in response to recent developments within the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church of the United States of America. These developments included the election of a priest in a committed same sex relationship as a bishop, and the authorisation by one diocese in Canada of a public Rite of Blessing for Same Sex Unions.
In their Statement at the end of the meeting, the Primates said four main things - (a) they committed themselves to working together in the Communion as far as possible, (b) they reaffirmed the teaching of the Anglican Communion on sexual ethics, (c) they acknowledged that recent developments will damage the Communion, and (d) they established a commission to take matters further.
1. The Primates expressed their unanimous commitment to the ongoing life of the Communion. The meeting reaffirmed, and indeed celebrated, the Anglican tradition of faith and worship, and all the primates are committed to co-operating together as far as possible in the Communion's shared work and witness, in spite of disagreements on the issue of homosexuality.
2. The Primates also reaffirmed the traditional teaching of the Communion in relation to the issue of homosexuality, as expressed at the Lambeth Conference 1998 in Resolution 1.10. They reaffirmed the whole of this resolution, including commending the main report of the Lambeth Conference on this issue to the members of the Communion, and the commitment to listen to the experience of homosexual persons in an ongoing process of study.
3. This reaffirmation means that the wider Communion cannot support the recent developments for the blessings of same sex unions or the election of Canon Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. Indeed, the ministry of Gene Robinson as a bishop will not be recognised or received in the vast majority of the Anglican world.
What are the consequences of all of this?
4. First, it means that a state of impaired or broken Communion is beginning to exist between many parts of the Anglican world and the Diocese of New Westminster in Canada. The Anglican Church of Canada is still in the process of resolving the questions that the authorisation of a public Rite of Blessing for Same Sex Unions in that diocese raise, and it is unlikely that any further developments can occur until the Canadian General Synod has met in 2004.
5. Secondly, for many parts of the Anglican Communion a state of impaired or broken communion will exist with the Diocese of New Hampshire, given the assumption that the Consecration will go ahead, and possibly with the whole of the Episcopal Church (USA).
What are the wider implications?
6. Questions remain about the nature, extent and duration of this impaired or broken communion. Will a breach in Communion between two parts of the Anglican Communion mean a Communion-wide split with each province having to choose between one side or the other? How will these divisions affect the relationship of each province with the See of Canterbury as the centre of unity of the Communion?
7. In order to answer these questions, the Primates have requested the Archbishop of Canterbury to establish a Commission which will report in twelve months time to the next meeting of the Primates. Until then, provinces have been urged by the Primates to avoid precipitate action.
8. The Department of Ecumenical Affairs and Studies will be pleased to respond to any enquiries from our ecumenical partners on these issues, and can be contacted at the Anglican Communion Office.
A copy of the Primates' Statement can be found at
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/36/25/acns3633.html.
The Lambeth resolutions from 1998 can be found at: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/lambeth/1/sect1rpt.html. The resolution on human sexuality is Resolution I.10.
Gregory K Cameron,
Director of Ecumenical Affairs and Studies,
London, 17 October 2003
Final Statement of the Primates
(As I was present on Thursday evening at the Press Conference with the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church USA, Frank Griswold and the Primate of the West Indies, Drexel Gomez, - sat 8 feet away and facing them - let me give a few words of introduction to this docoment. First, all Primates agreed to its release but not all agreed with everything it says. Frank Griswold stated clearly that he had no intention to do anything to prevent the consecration of the "gay" Canon Robinson and also that he would not go to any special lengths to arrange for alternative episcopal oversight. Drexel Gomez indicated that he, and he hoped all, the conservatives would be patient for up to a year - waiting for the results of the Commission advising on parallel jurisdictions and the like - before taking precipitate action. However the threat of schism is very real within the Communion and it could begin with African provinces declaring that they do not recognize the "gay" bishop as a bishop and are not in communion with those who consecrated him - and then the whole thing could mushroom. One complicating fact is that Rowan Williams maintains his own private position that possible in some circumstances gay unions are not sinful. He said this on BBC Radio this morning, but he insists that the Church's teaching is one thing and private opinion another and that he will maintain the Church's teaching and seek to keep its members talking to one another. If The C of E does not declare itself out of communion with the Diocese of New Hampshire and possibly the whole ECUSA then possibly African provinces will see themselves out of communion with Canterbury... And meanwhile it is probable that various Primates will not wait for the year and move to recognize internal ECUSA arrangements...)
ACNS 3633 | ENGLAND | 16 OCTOBER 2003
A Statement by the Primates of the Anglican Communion meeting in Lambeth Palace
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
ACNS 3633 | ENGLAND | 16 OCTOBER 2003
A Statement by the Primates of the Anglican Communion meeting in Lambeth Palace
The Primates of the Anglican Communion and the Moderators of the United Churches, meeting together at Lambeth Palace on the 15th and 16th October, 2003, wish to express our gratitude to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, for calling us together in response to recent events in the Diocese of New Westminster, Canada, and the Episcopal Church (USA), and welcoming us into his home so that we might take counsel together, and to seek to discern, in an atmosphere of common prayer and worship, the will and guidance of the Holy Spirit for the common life of the thirty-eight provinces which constitute our Communion.
At a time of tension, we have struggled at great cost with the issues before us, but have also been renewed and strengthened in our Communion with one another through our worship and study of the Bible. This has led us into a deeper commitment to work together, and we affirm our pride in the Anglican inheritance of faith and order and our firm desire to remain part of a Communion, where what we hold in common is much greater than that which divides us in proclaiming Good News to the world.
At this time we feel the profound pain and uncertainty shared by others about our Christian discipleship in the light of controversial decisions by the Diocese of New Westminster to authorise a Public Rite of Blessing for those in committed same sex relationships, and by the 74th General Convention of the Episcopal Church (USA) to confirm the election of a priest in a committed same sex relationship to the office and work of a Bishop.
These actions threaten the unity of our own Communion as well as our relationships with other parts of Christ's Church, our mission and witness, and our relations with other faiths, in a world already confused in areas of sexuality, morality and theology, and polarised Christian opinion.
As Primates of our Communion seeking to exercise the "enhanced responsibility" entrusted to us by successive Lambeth Conferences, we re-affirm our common understanding of the centrality and authority of Scripture in determining the basis of our faith. Whilst we acknowledge a legitimate diversity of interpretation that arises in the Church, this diversity does not mean that some of us take the authority of Scripture more lightly than others. Nevertheless, each province needs to be aware of the possible effects of its interpretation of Scripture on the life of other provinces in the Communion. We commit ourselves afresh to mutual respect whilst seeking from the Lord a correct discernment of how God's Word speaks to us in our contemporary world.
We also re-affirm the resolutions made by the bishops of the Anglican Communion gathered at the Lambeth Conference in 1998 on issues of human sexuality as having moral force and commanding the respect of the Communion as its present position on these issues. We commend the report of that Conference in its entirety to all members of the Anglican Communion, valuing especially its emphasis on the need "to listen to the experience of homosexual persons, and to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ"; and its acknowledgement of the need for ongoing study on questions of human sexuality.
Therefore, as a body we deeply regret the actions of the Diocese of New Westminster and the Episcopal Church (USA) which appear to a number of provinces to have short-circuited that process, and could be perceived to alter unilaterally the teaching of the Anglican Communion on this issue. They do not. Whilst we recognise the juridical autonomy of each province in our Communion, the mutual interdependence of the provinces means that none has authority unilaterally to substitute an alternative teaching as if it were the teaching of the entire Anglican Communion.
To this extent, therefore, we must make clear that recent actions in New Westminster and in the Episcopal Church (USA) do not express the mind of our Communion as a whole, and these decisions jeopardise our sacramental fellowship with each other. We have a particular concern for those who in all conscience feel bound to dissent from the teaching and practice of their province in such matters. Whilst we reaffirm the teaching of successive Lambeth Conferences that bishops must respect the autonomy and territorial integrity of dioceses and provinces other than their own, we call on the provinces concerned to make adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates.
The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (USA) has explained to us the constitutional framework within which the election and confirmation of a new bishop in the Episcopal Church (USA) takes place. As Primates, it is not for us to pass judgement on the constitutional processes of another province. We recognise the sensitive balance between provincial autonomy and the expression of critical opinion by others on the internal actions of a province. Nevertheless, many Primates have pointed to the grave difficulties that this election has raised and will continue to raise. In most of our provinces the election of Canon Gene Robinson would not have been possible since his chosen lifestyle would give rise to a canonical impediment to his consecration as a bishop.
If his consecration proceeds, we recognise that we have reached a crucial and critical point in the life of the Anglican Communion and we have had to conclude that the future of the Communion itself will be put in jeopardy. In this case, the ministry of this one bishop will not be recognised by most of the Anglican world, and many provinces are likely to consider themselves to be out of Communion with the Episcopal Church (USA). This will tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level, and may lead to further division on this and further issues as provinces have to decide in consequence whether they can remain in communion with provinces that choose not to break communion with the Episcopal Church (USA).
Similar considerations apply to the situation pertaining in the Diocese of New Westminster.
We have noted that the Lambeth Conference 1998 requested the Archbishop of Canterbury to establish a commission to consider his own role in maintaining communion within and between provinces when grave difficulties arise . We ask him now to establish such a commission, but that its remit be extended to include urgent and deep theological and legal reflection on the way in which the dangers we have identified at this meeting will have to be addressed. We request that such a commission complete its work, at least in relation to the issues raised at this meeting, within twelve months.
We urge our provinces not to act precipitately on these wider questions, but take time to share in this process of reflection and to consider their own constitutional requirements as individual provinces face up to potential realignments.
Questions of the parity of our canon law, and the nature of the relationship between the laws of our provinces with one another have also been raised. We encourage the Network of Legal Advisers established by the Anglican Consultative Council, meeting in Hong Kong in 2002, to bring to completion the work which they have already begun on this question.
It is clear that recent controversies have opened debates within the life of our Communion which will not be resolved until there has been a lengthy process of prayer, reflection and substantial work in and alongside the Commission which we have recommended. We pray that God will equip our Communion to be equal to the task and challenges which lie before it.
"Now I appeal to the elders of your community, as a fellow elder and a witness to Christ's sufferings, and as one who has shared in the glory to be revealed: look after the flock of God whose shepherd you are." (1 Peter 5.1,2a)
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
Rowan Williams at Press Conference
Adelphoi,
I was sat about 8 feet from Rowan W when he read this and I must say I was very moved by his sincerity, and this was in stark contrast to the attitude of the PB of the ECUSA who came across as rather flippant and arrogant to the many secular journalists in the room (from all major news outlets in the UK). There was no U-turn for Frank or for others in the ECUSA.
ANGLICAN COMMUNION NEWS SERVICE
16 OCTOBER 2003
Archbishop of Canterbury's statement at the final press conference of the Primates' Meeting
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
I was sat about 8 feet from Rowan W when he read this and I must say I was very moved by his sincerity, and this was in stark contrast to the attitude of the PB of the ECUSA who came across as rather flippant and arrogant to the many secular journalists in the room (from all major news outlets in the UK). There was no U-turn for Frank or for others in the ECUSA.
ANGLICAN COMMUNION NEWS SERVICE
16 OCTOBER 2003
Archbishop of Canterbury's statement at the final press conference of the Primates' Meeting
Good evening everyone. Thank you very much for joining us. I hope you've had a chance, at least, to glance at the statement which has been produced by our meeting which has, in fact, been unanimously agreed by the meeting of the primates. And I'd like to offer a few words of introduction to this before we turn to questions.
It has been a very remarkable couple of days in the life of the Anglican Communion and it has certainly been anything but easy. It has not been without pain. But it has been honest and open and I hope that we have grown in some real shared understanding as a result. And I do want to take this opportunity of paying tribute to my colleagues in the Communion for all the dedication and the energy and steadfastness in Christian service that they show generally and that they have shown in these two demanding days.
Such understanding as we've achieved has been very hard won and it couldn't have been otherwise given the enormous challenges that we have faced in these two days and the very widely differing positions that we have brought to them. That makes our work together all the more significant. We have, very emphatically, found the will to keep talking and working together. In short we have grown closer together rather than, as many people predicted, further apart during this meeting. And that is what matters most to all of us and what I think renders any talk of winners and losers in this irrelevant.
Now it's quite clear from our discussions that issues around human sexuality will continue to be difficult and divisive for the Anglican Communion, as they are for many Christians. These issues will continue to cause pain and anger, misunderstanding and resentment all around. But I must make it clear that the Primates' Meeting has no legal jurisdiction, it's not a supreme court of the Communion and it would have been rather surprising had we been able, at this gathering, to make all the problems go away at once. We haven't. The challenge we have worked hard to meet has been to find some way of coping with divisive issues as a Communion. So these two days have not
been primarily a seminar on sexuality or an attempt to revisit discussions and decisions already taken, but rather an attempt to see what it means to be in Communion and that remains our shared commitment.
A word about Communion: people have talked about being in or out of Communion within our Church. The fact is, of course, as came out very clearly in our discussions, that Communion means a great many things, and means more than simply a set of structures, a regular pattern of meetings between Primates or any other official leaders. Communion means the Mother's
Union group from Lancashire going to visit Burundi, it mean the youth workers in the West Indies going to spend five years in the United States, and all manner of things like that. It means the existing close relationships between provinces as, for a long time, between Australia and Papua New Guinea whereby the life and the resource of different bits of the
Communion is shared. So the degree to which we are in or out of Communion, as between local churches, is never that easy to determine. Having said that, a superficial unity just clinging to structural forms for the sake of it is not at all what we are about. That's why I emphasise the deeper levels of Communion.
I believe that the family we belong to, the family of the Anglican Church around the globe, has to be an instrument of God's love for the world and that means that, in seeking to hold together as a Communion, we have to be seeking to serve that purpose and no other. So by attempting to work through our differences within our family we may come to a better discernment of what we're called to be in mission. I must say that some of the hardest
issues that were presented to us in the last few days were ways in which mission can be affected in one part of the world by what happens in another. So we look outwards again at the wider world we're in: a world that has remained in the focus of our prayers in our time together and we can be in no doubt about the work that is still to be done by the Church of God at large. And that greater challenge we attempt to look and in the service of that calling we have met and deliberated and sought God's guidance. What has emerged I think is a statement - an honest statement - of where we are, a statement of our willingness to work together and a recognition of the obstacles in that working together which we still face, but also some suggestions as to how we might cope with those obstacles. Thank you.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
Wednesday, October 15, 2003
Latest from Primates Meeting
ACNS 3626 | ENGLAND | 15 OCTOBER 2003
Archbishop Robin Eames addresses the media at Lambeth Palace
The Primates of the Anglican Communion gathered today for a two-day meeting in Lambeth Palace to listen to provincial perspectives, reflect on the issues raised and explore ways forward.
The media attention has been overwhelming and it was necessary to hold a press briefing at 4pm in the courtyard of Lambeth Palace where an unscripted statement was delivered by the Archbishop of Armagh, the Most Revd Robin Eames, on behalf of the primates meeting.
The full text of the statement follows:
"I think we wanted to give you an update on how things are going. We are now seven hours into the meeting. The meeting has combined worship, prayer, bible study and discussion and, at the present time, the Primates are all here, bar one who just has a problem unrelated to the subject or anything like that.
"We are telling the story of how the Provinces of the Anglican Communion have reacted to the developments that the Archbishop of Canterbury thought necessary to bring to our attention. Those stories represent the cultural differences right across our Communion, the reaction the Primates have had in their own countries and nations, and also the opportunity to show that there is an underlying anxiety right across the board to maintain the Anglican Communion.
"I have to say that in all my experience of these meetings, I have never attended or been involved with one where there is such openness, frankness and honesty. And also, one where each and every Primate has been given the opportunity to respond in his own way to the question that has brought us together. I have also to say to you, that the anxiety to maintain the Anglican Communion, contrary to many of the predictions which your profession may well have shown to us earlier on, I have to say to you that that was unfounded because there is a tremendous anxiety to maintain the Anglican Communion on a basis of collegiality, cooperation and the common faith.
"Now, as I say, we are seven hours into the meeting. The programme is permitting the telling of those stories, as we put it. And I cannot tell you any more at this stage of the agenda, simply to say that we are still at that point. How long it will take, I wish I could tell you, because seven hours is quite a long time of intensity and I am sure you will understand, having waited out here in the wind, that seven hours is seven hours! But I would like to stress once more, that the Archbishop of Canterbury who is chairing this meeting is very anxious indeed that every possible opportunity is given to individual Primates to express the concerns that they have, which are varied, which in some cases are totally coloured by the culture of that country. But above all else, it is a very open and a very, very serious meeting.
"Now, I want to get back to what is happening. I'll take three questions and I'm not having any favourites!"
Question: Will this eventually come to a vote? How will this be resolved?
Answer: I can't honestly answer that, because at the moment, it's a case of telling the reactions, telling the stories. But if I were to hazard a guess, I would say it's moving towards a consensus situation. Now what form that consensus will take obviously won't become obvious - if it is to become obvious - until tomorrow. But certainly, at the moment, it's very, very much an honest expression of concerns.
Question: Are you a betting man? Could you let us know what you think the odds are of coming to a consensus that keeps the Church together?
Answer: In Northern Ireland terms, I'm known quite simply as the divine optimist! And I don't know whether that classifies me as a betting man or not, but I would say I am optimistic that the Anglican Communion will emerge from this stronger than it has ever been. What I would also like to predict is that there will be much greater honesty than perhaps we have had up until now.
Question: What is the next stage once you have heard the stories and the reactions.
Answer: Well I can answer that. The next stage is to reflect on what we have heard from the various Provinces. The process has simply been one after the other going through the 37 or so provinces. And obviously we want now the chance to reflect on what we have heard from our colleagues. So the next stage will be building on the current session that we are having.
Now can you be good enough to let me go back because, as I said it's a very, very open session and I would like to thank you for your patience.
Archbishop Robin Eames addresses the media at Lambeth Palace
The Primates of the Anglican Communion gathered today for a two-day meeting in Lambeth Palace to listen to provincial perspectives, reflect on the issues raised and explore ways forward.
The media attention has been overwhelming and it was necessary to hold a press briefing at 4pm in the courtyard of Lambeth Palace where an unscripted statement was delivered by the Archbishop of Armagh, the Most Revd Robin Eames, on behalf of the primates meeting.
The full text of the statement follows:
"I think we wanted to give you an update on how things are going. We are now seven hours into the meeting. The meeting has combined worship, prayer, bible study and discussion and, at the present time, the Primates are all here, bar one who just has a problem unrelated to the subject or anything like that.
"We are telling the story of how the Provinces of the Anglican Communion have reacted to the developments that the Archbishop of Canterbury thought necessary to bring to our attention. Those stories represent the cultural differences right across our Communion, the reaction the Primates have had in their own countries and nations, and also the opportunity to show that there is an underlying anxiety right across the board to maintain the Anglican Communion.
"I have to say that in all my experience of these meetings, I have never attended or been involved with one where there is such openness, frankness and honesty. And also, one where each and every Primate has been given the opportunity to respond in his own way to the question that has brought us together. I have also to say to you, that the anxiety to maintain the Anglican Communion, contrary to many of the predictions which your profession may well have shown to us earlier on, I have to say to you that that was unfounded because there is a tremendous anxiety to maintain the Anglican Communion on a basis of collegiality, cooperation and the common faith.
"Now, as I say, we are seven hours into the meeting. The programme is permitting the telling of those stories, as we put it. And I cannot tell you any more at this stage of the agenda, simply to say that we are still at that point. How long it will take, I wish I could tell you, because seven hours is quite a long time of intensity and I am sure you will understand, having waited out here in the wind, that seven hours is seven hours! But I would like to stress once more, that the Archbishop of Canterbury who is chairing this meeting is very anxious indeed that every possible opportunity is given to individual Primates to express the concerns that they have, which are varied, which in some cases are totally coloured by the culture of that country. But above all else, it is a very open and a very, very serious meeting.
"Now, I want to get back to what is happening. I'll take three questions and I'm not having any favourites!"
Question: Will this eventually come to a vote? How will this be resolved?
Answer: I can't honestly answer that, because at the moment, it's a case of telling the reactions, telling the stories. But if I were to hazard a guess, I would say it's moving towards a consensus situation. Now what form that consensus will take obviously won't become obvious - if it is to become obvious - until tomorrow. But certainly, at the moment, it's very, very much an honest expression of concerns.
Question: Are you a betting man? Could you let us know what you think the odds are of coming to a consensus that keeps the Church together?
Answer: In Northern Ireland terms, I'm known quite simply as the divine optimist! And I don't know whether that classifies me as a betting man or not, but I would say I am optimistic that the Anglican Communion will emerge from this stronger than it has ever been. What I would also like to predict is that there will be much greater honesty than perhaps we have had up until now.
Question: What is the next stage once you have heard the stories and the reactions.
Answer: Well I can answer that. The next stage is to reflect on what we have heard from the various Provinces. The process has simply been one after the other going through the 37 or so provinces. And obviously we want now the chance to reflect on what we have heard from our colleagues. So the next stage will be building on the current session that we are having.
Now can you be good enough to let me go back because, as I said it's a very, very open session and I would like to thank you for your patience.
Tuesday, October 14, 2003
Defender of the Faith
Why all Anglican eyes in London are nervously fixed on a powerful African archbishop
by Philip Jenkins
(copyright Atlantic Monthly)
The most important figure today in the Anglican Communion, a worldwide federation of churches with some 75 million adherents, is probably a man few people in the West know anything about: Archbishop Peter Jasper Akinola, of Nigeria. An uncompromising traditionalist, Akinola presides over the most vibrant and almost certainly the largest Anglican community in the world-at a time when the Anglican world's true center of gravity has shifted to Africa.
It was no small matter, then, when Akinola went public this past summer with blistering denunciations of proposals to consecrate openly gay bishops and to sanctify gay marriage. Commenting on the decision of the Canadian diocese of New Westminster to approve the blessing of gay unions, Akinola declared that the diocese had in practice seceded from the Anglican world. Reacting to a proposal in the Church of England to ordain a gay bishop (a proposal ultimately withdrawn after intense pressure from African and Asian leaders), Akinola thundered, "This is an attack on the Church of God -a Satanic attack on God's Church." And during the buildup to the U.S. Episcopal Church's controversial ordination of Gene Robinson as the bishop of New Hampshire, he announced, "I cannot think of how a man in his senses would be having a sexual relationship with another man. Even in the world of animals, dogs, cows, lions, we don't hear of such things."
American and European readers may be inclined to dismiss such remarks as coming from a hidebound bigot, or perhaps from a demagogue seeking attention-but they would be wrong to do so. In his attitudes toward sexuality, and above all in his attitude toward religious authority, Akinola represents a deep-rooted conservative tradition in African Christianity that is flourishing and growing, and that is simply not going to vanish as levels of economic growth and education rise in Africa. The prospect of imminent global schism in the Anglican Communion is therefore real.
Matters may well have come to a head by the time this article goes to press: in October the Archbishop of Canterbury was scheduled to preside over an emergency session in London of the primates of his Church worldwide. Perhaps the session will turn out to avert open schism, but even the friendliest such meeting could not change the nature of the enduring conflict between the older and the younger Anglican churches, with those of Europe and North America set against those of Africa and Asia. Methodists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians are watching these events with foreboding, because what is really at issue, of course, is competing conceptions of the nature of religious authority, of the relationship between the religious and secular spheres, and even of the possibility of coexisting peacefully with other faiths.
Peter Jasper Akinola is (not necessarily in this order) a Nigerian, a Christian, and an Anglican. He is an imposing figure, tall and graying, who has been married for thirty-four years and has six children. He was born in 1944 and spent his early life in the province of Ogun, the land of the Yoruba people, in the far west of Nigeria; he was sixteen when the country achieved its independence. Akinola thus came of age in an era of enormous
optimism about a nation that had the potential, because of its vast oil reserves and its surging population, to be one of the most powerful countries in Africa-indeed, possibly a world power. From 1966 to 1970, however, Nigeria was torn apart by a civil war that killed perhaps two million people, and from 1983 to 1999 the country was ruled by a series of brutal and stunningly corrupt military dictatorships that set back development at home and blighted the nation's reputation overseas. In this disastrous secular environment many Nigerians began to see their future in the Christian churches, which offered a growing place of refuge.
When Nigeria's civil war began, Akinola was starting an entrepreneurial career in Lagos as a carpenter and a furniture maker, with a sideline in patent medicines. In 1968 he began training as a catechist, and after studying at Anglican theological colleges in northern Nigeria, he was ordained a deacon in 1978 and a priest in 1979. He traveled to the United States and in 1981 received a master's in theology at Virginia Theological Seminary. Later that year he returned to Nigeria, to Abuja, the city that was being developed as the nation's new federal capital. His return coincided with the start of a remarkable religious explosion. The Nigerian Church has never since known anything but boom years, and the specific nature of this boom is central to understanding Akinola's response to the debates over homosexuality.
he Anglican Church of Nigeria was founded by British missionaries in 1842. For well over a century it grew healthily but not remarkably. In the 1980s and 1990s, however, the Church began a furious period of evangelism, with growth statistics that sound like the goals of a Stalinist Five Year Plan. In the late 1970s Nigeria was home to five million or so Anglicans; that number has now grown to perhaps 18 million, and it may double by 2025 or so. (To put that in perspective, North America has about four million Anglicans, and the number is stagnant or shrinking.) In 1979 the Nigerian Church had sixteen dioceses, organized in a single province; today it has nearly eighty dioceses, organized in ten provinces. In 1979 Nigeria had a single archbishop; today it has ten, overseeing a whole national hierarchy.
When Akinola arrived in Abuja, he began a mission from next to nothing, with "not even one square inch of land," as he told the magazine Anglican World in 2001. "There was no church member, no organ, no choir, no money, nothing-and I mean practically nothing." Eight years later he was the first bishop of the see of Abuja; by 1998 he was the archbishop of a province of Abuja, with eight bishops under him. Since 2000 he has been the primate of the whole Nigerian Church. The expansion that fueled his rise is the kind of growth that he sees as normal and that he expects will continue. "In our country today," he told Anglican World, "there are many new churches springing up on a daily basis." It was a claim he meant literally.
But in Akinola's view, this growth depends entirely on loyalty to orthodox biblical faith. His experience in Nigeria has shown him that orthodox churches flourish, and heretical or schismatic churches fail. Nigerian Anglicanism is at its core intensely Bible-centered. "We in Nigeria believe very strongly in the priority of the Scripture," he has said. "We want to
see ourselves as a church that seeks to live in obedience to the dictates of the Scripture, regardless of whether that is convenient or inconvenient."
Akinola and his church are also firmly committed to evangelism. "If a fire is not burning," he has observed, "then it is no longer fire. If the Church is not evangelizing, then it is like a dead fire." Evangelism means spreading the message of the Bible, of course, and although debate about biblical interpretation is possible in some cases, Akinola sees no room for it when the New Testament text speaks as clearly as it does on homosexuality. The worst feature of the North American debates, he felt, was that scriptural arguments were simply ignored. Reacting to the Episcopal approval of Robinson's election, Akinola declared himself "astonished that such a high-level convention ... should conspire to turn their back on the clear teaching of the Bible on the matter of human sexuality."
Although Akinola believes that American and British churches are in error, his Anglican roots condition how and when he feels he can intervene directly. This tradition gives him a strong sense of the global dimensions of Christianity. He heads not the Church of Nigeria but the "Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion)," and that is a crucial difference. Anglicans everywhere fall within his area of concern. His communion is a family, and as he has put it, "That is where we belong." Yet Akinola is reluctant to speak out of turn. He venerates the Anglican idea of autonomous churches under their own primates and bishops, and feels that a primate has no right to interfere in another province, except in the direst circumstances. He has been remarkably moderate toward the North American churches-however difficult this may be to believe for those who know him only from his recent remarks. In interviews he has gone out of his way not to condemn the U.S. Episcopal Church, and he makes a point of praising Bishop Frank Griswold, its leader, and other American liberals. He refuses to ally himself with American conservatives who want to break away from their liberal bishops altogether. "You don't just jump from your diocese to begin to do whatever you like in another man's diocese," he told the Church of Nigeria News in 2001. "That is not done in our Anglican tradition."
That Akinola has now spoken out so strongly on issues being debated in other countries suggests his level of fury. This arises in part from his sense that the Northern churches are abandoning the Christian moral tradition. But another element further explains Akinola's-and, indeed, African Christianity's-desperate intervention in the Church's controversies over homosexuality: rivalry with Islam. At first sight the connection may seem tenuous: what does it matter to Christians in Lagos or Kampala whether an Anglican minister blesses two men in a civil ceremony of union in Vancouver? But the link is in fact an important one.
Nigeria is a land of intense interfaith conflict. Islamist authorities have imposed sharia law in a third of the country's thirty-six states, and Christians there face a very real danger of persecution and jihad. These sharia states include Kebbi and Kaduna, where Akinola lived during his years of theological training in the 1970s. He saw firsthand the growth of Muslim militancy, and his diploma is from the Theological College of Northern Nigeria, located in Jos, which for several years now has been a storm center of rioting and anti-Christian pogroms. Since 1990 the Anglican Church has responded to these threats by deliberately reinforcing its presence in the Muslim north, to show that Christians are not going to fade away without a fight.
This struggle provides the crucial context for African concerns about sexual morality. Across the continent Muslims have tried to make converts by arguing that the Christian West is decadent and sexually irresponsible-a belief that finds daily confirmation in Western films and television. If the Anglican Communion accepted gay bishops or approved gay unions, Muslims would gain an enormous propaganda victory in Nigeria-and in a dozen or so other African countries in which Christians and Muslims compete for converts, often violently. When Akinola speaks out, therefore, it is not because he wants to intrude on the affairs of other churches but, rather, because he feels that the very existence of Christianity in his own territory is under threat. At stake, he believes, is the religious map of much of Africa, and the global balance between Christianity and Islam.
Philip Jenkins is a Distinguished Professor of History and Religious Studies at Pennsylvania State University. His most recent book is The New Anti-Catholicism (2003).
Copyright © 2003 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
The Atlantic Monthly; November 2003; Defender of the Faith; Volume 292, No. 4; 46-49.
by Philip Jenkins
(copyright Atlantic Monthly)
The most important figure today in the Anglican Communion, a worldwide federation of churches with some 75 million adherents, is probably a man few people in the West know anything about: Archbishop Peter Jasper Akinola, of Nigeria. An uncompromising traditionalist, Akinola presides over the most vibrant and almost certainly the largest Anglican community in the world-at a time when the Anglican world's true center of gravity has shifted to Africa.
It was no small matter, then, when Akinola went public this past summer with blistering denunciations of proposals to consecrate openly gay bishops and to sanctify gay marriage. Commenting on the decision of the Canadian diocese of New Westminster to approve the blessing of gay unions, Akinola declared that the diocese had in practice seceded from the Anglican world. Reacting to a proposal in the Church of England to ordain a gay bishop (a proposal ultimately withdrawn after intense pressure from African and Asian leaders), Akinola thundered, "This is an attack on the Church of God -a Satanic attack on God's Church." And during the buildup to the U.S. Episcopal Church's controversial ordination of Gene Robinson as the bishop of New Hampshire, he announced, "I cannot think of how a man in his senses would be having a sexual relationship with another man. Even in the world of animals, dogs, cows, lions, we don't hear of such things."
American and European readers may be inclined to dismiss such remarks as coming from a hidebound bigot, or perhaps from a demagogue seeking attention-but they would be wrong to do so. In his attitudes toward sexuality, and above all in his attitude toward religious authority, Akinola represents a deep-rooted conservative tradition in African Christianity that is flourishing and growing, and that is simply not going to vanish as levels of economic growth and education rise in Africa. The prospect of imminent global schism in the Anglican Communion is therefore real.
Matters may well have come to a head by the time this article goes to press: in October the Archbishop of Canterbury was scheduled to preside over an emergency session in London of the primates of his Church worldwide. Perhaps the session will turn out to avert open schism, but even the friendliest such meeting could not change the nature of the enduring conflict between the older and the younger Anglican churches, with those of Europe and North America set against those of Africa and Asia. Methodists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians are watching these events with foreboding, because what is really at issue, of course, is competing conceptions of the nature of religious authority, of the relationship between the religious and secular spheres, and even of the possibility of coexisting peacefully with other faiths.
Peter Jasper Akinola is (not necessarily in this order) a Nigerian, a Christian, and an Anglican. He is an imposing figure, tall and graying, who has been married for thirty-four years and has six children. He was born in 1944 and spent his early life in the province of Ogun, the land of the Yoruba people, in the far west of Nigeria; he was sixteen when the country achieved its independence. Akinola thus came of age in an era of enormous
optimism about a nation that had the potential, because of its vast oil reserves and its surging population, to be one of the most powerful countries in Africa-indeed, possibly a world power. From 1966 to 1970, however, Nigeria was torn apart by a civil war that killed perhaps two million people, and from 1983 to 1999 the country was ruled by a series of brutal and stunningly corrupt military dictatorships that set back development at home and blighted the nation's reputation overseas. In this disastrous secular environment many Nigerians began to see their future in the Christian churches, which offered a growing place of refuge.
When Nigeria's civil war began, Akinola was starting an entrepreneurial career in Lagos as a carpenter and a furniture maker, with a sideline in patent medicines. In 1968 he began training as a catechist, and after studying at Anglican theological colleges in northern Nigeria, he was ordained a deacon in 1978 and a priest in 1979. He traveled to the United States and in 1981 received a master's in theology at Virginia Theological Seminary. Later that year he returned to Nigeria, to Abuja, the city that was being developed as the nation's new federal capital. His return coincided with the start of a remarkable religious explosion. The Nigerian Church has never since known anything but boom years, and the specific nature of this boom is central to understanding Akinola's response to the debates over homosexuality.
he Anglican Church of Nigeria was founded by British missionaries in 1842. For well over a century it grew healthily but not remarkably. In the 1980s and 1990s, however, the Church began a furious period of evangelism, with growth statistics that sound like the goals of a Stalinist Five Year Plan. In the late 1970s Nigeria was home to five million or so Anglicans; that number has now grown to perhaps 18 million, and it may double by 2025 or so. (To put that in perspective, North America has about four million Anglicans, and the number is stagnant or shrinking.) In 1979 the Nigerian Church had sixteen dioceses, organized in a single province; today it has nearly eighty dioceses, organized in ten provinces. In 1979 Nigeria had a single archbishop; today it has ten, overseeing a whole national hierarchy.
When Akinola arrived in Abuja, he began a mission from next to nothing, with "not even one square inch of land," as he told the magazine Anglican World in 2001. "There was no church member, no organ, no choir, no money, nothing-and I mean practically nothing." Eight years later he was the first bishop of the see of Abuja; by 1998 he was the archbishop of a province of Abuja, with eight bishops under him. Since 2000 he has been the primate of the whole Nigerian Church. The expansion that fueled his rise is the kind of growth that he sees as normal and that he expects will continue. "In our country today," he told Anglican World, "there are many new churches springing up on a daily basis." It was a claim he meant literally.
But in Akinola's view, this growth depends entirely on loyalty to orthodox biblical faith. His experience in Nigeria has shown him that orthodox churches flourish, and heretical or schismatic churches fail. Nigerian Anglicanism is at its core intensely Bible-centered. "We in Nigeria believe very strongly in the priority of the Scripture," he has said. "We want to
see ourselves as a church that seeks to live in obedience to the dictates of the Scripture, regardless of whether that is convenient or inconvenient."
Akinola and his church are also firmly committed to evangelism. "If a fire is not burning," he has observed, "then it is no longer fire. If the Church is not evangelizing, then it is like a dead fire." Evangelism means spreading the message of the Bible, of course, and although debate about biblical interpretation is possible in some cases, Akinola sees no room for it when the New Testament text speaks as clearly as it does on homosexuality. The worst feature of the North American debates, he felt, was that scriptural arguments were simply ignored. Reacting to the Episcopal approval of Robinson's election, Akinola declared himself "astonished that such a high-level convention ... should conspire to turn their back on the clear teaching of the Bible on the matter of human sexuality."
Although Akinola believes that American and British churches are in error, his Anglican roots condition how and when he feels he can intervene directly. This tradition gives him a strong sense of the global dimensions of Christianity. He heads not the Church of Nigeria but the "Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion)," and that is a crucial difference. Anglicans everywhere fall within his area of concern. His communion is a family, and as he has put it, "That is where we belong." Yet Akinola is reluctant to speak out of turn. He venerates the Anglican idea of autonomous churches under their own primates and bishops, and feels that a primate has no right to interfere in another province, except in the direst circumstances. He has been remarkably moderate toward the North American churches-however difficult this may be to believe for those who know him only from his recent remarks. In interviews he has gone out of his way not to condemn the U.S. Episcopal Church, and he makes a point of praising Bishop Frank Griswold, its leader, and other American liberals. He refuses to ally himself with American conservatives who want to break away from their liberal bishops altogether. "You don't just jump from your diocese to begin to do whatever you like in another man's diocese," he told the Church of Nigeria News in 2001. "That is not done in our Anglican tradition."
That Akinola has now spoken out so strongly on issues being debated in other countries suggests his level of fury. This arises in part from his sense that the Northern churches are abandoning the Christian moral tradition. But another element further explains Akinola's-and, indeed, African Christianity's-desperate intervention in the Church's controversies over homosexuality: rivalry with Islam. At first sight the connection may seem tenuous: what does it matter to Christians in Lagos or Kampala whether an Anglican minister blesses two men in a civil ceremony of union in Vancouver? But the link is in fact an important one.
Nigeria is a land of intense interfaith conflict. Islamist authorities have imposed sharia law in a third of the country's thirty-six states, and Christians there face a very real danger of persecution and jihad. These sharia states include Kebbi and Kaduna, where Akinola lived during his years of theological training in the 1970s. He saw firsthand the growth of Muslim militancy, and his diploma is from the Theological College of Northern Nigeria, located in Jos, which for several years now has been a storm center of rioting and anti-Christian pogroms. Since 1990 the Anglican Church has responded to these threats by deliberately reinforcing its presence in the Muslim north, to show that Christians are not going to fade away without a fight.
This struggle provides the crucial context for African concerns about sexual morality. Across the continent Muslims have tried to make converts by arguing that the Christian West is decadent and sexually irresponsible-a belief that finds daily confirmation in Western films and television. If the Anglican Communion accepted gay bishops or approved gay unions, Muslims would gain an enormous propaganda victory in Nigeria-and in a dozen or so other African countries in which Christians and Muslims compete for converts, often violently. When Akinola speaks out, therefore, it is not because he wants to intrude on the affairs of other churches but, rather, because he feels that the very existence of Christianity in his own territory is under threat. At stake, he believes, is the religious map of much of Africa, and the global balance between Christianity and Islam.
Philip Jenkins is a Distinguished Professor of History and Religious Studies at Pennsylvania State University. His most recent book is The New Anti-Catholicism (2003).
Copyright © 2003 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
The Atlantic Monthly; November 2003; Defender of the Faith; Volume 292, No. 4; 46-49.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)