Rector’s Message

November 2003

My dear friends,

I am writing this article the week after the Primates Conference in London at which most of the primates of the Anglican Communion (that is, all the bishops who are “heads” of their churches, such as the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Bishop Griswold) met to discuss the future of the Anglican communion in light of the tensions and disagreements over homosexuality. This whole matter, of course, is highlighted by the plans of the Diocese of New Hampshire to ordain an openly gay Bishop, the Reverend Canon V. G. Robinson.

By the time you receive this letter, in the Messenger (print edition), there may be other developments and I will comment upon them in the Rector’s Journal on this Website.

Let’s look more closely at what the primates have said. Copies of the document are available at the church, in the common room, on the table where such distributions are usually available. Alternatively, you may read it at the Anglican Communion News Service website.  Click here to go to the ACNS page with the Primates' Statement.

The statement says, initially, that the primates are committed to staying together, and that their pride in the Anglican inheritance of faith and order is greater than the forces which threaten to divide the church.

And then, it goes on to say that they feel the pain and uncertainty, as they put it, about the actions of one diocese in the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC) which has authorized same-sex blessings and that of the Episcopal church planning to ordain Canon Robinson to the episcopate in November.

The document goes on to say that they are seeking to exercise something they call an enhanced responsibility entrusted to them by recent Lambeth Conferences. Lambeth Conferences are meetings of all the Bishops—several hundred—from around the world, not just the primates. They claim that this enhanced authority leads them to invite the communion to a common understanding of the centrality and authority of scripture. And they acknowledge that there is a diversity of understandings about how scripture is analyzed and applied, and that we all need to believe that all branches of the church share a similar view of the high authority of the Bible. But then, they go on to imply, if not directly state, that some views of scripture are better than others. And, guess whose view of scriptural authority is best. It is clearly not that of the Western Church. Note too, please, that the primates are not speaking about the Bible’s indifference to slavery and its subordination of women—in the New Testament; or its strict dietary laws, implicit condoning of rape, and its passion about people wearing clothing made of fabric blends—in the Old Testament. Only one issue raises the hackles of the primates. If there was ever a case of selective fundamentalism, it is surely this one.

The statement tries to be conciliatory in some ways and attempts to be charitable to gay men and lesbians who find themselves in this Church, but the attempt rings hollow. After all, what does it mean to say that they assure homosexual persons that “they are loved by God and that all baptized, believing, and faithful persons regardless of sexual orientation are full members of the body of Christ,” and then propose that they be denied ordination if they presume to act upon this orientation by attempting a monogamous, permanent relationship with another person? It is devoutly to be hoped that we could have progressed beyond this simple-minded, sophomoric attitude, but apparently that hope is not founded upon fact.

Then, the primates go on to urge that in the case of anti-gay dissenting minorities, such minorities need to have what has come to be called “alternative episcopal oversight.” That might be a pretty good idea. The insight I offer here has been made by others, but it is so good that I pass it on to you. Alternative Episcopal oversight could be a very good thing. Let’s see how that might work. Archbishop Peter Akinola, of Nigeria, who enjoys a throne in our own Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine, has said that gay clergy should have heavy millstones hung about their necks and they should, thus encumbered, be pitched into the ocean. Now, let’s imagine a “minority, dissenting” group of gay Anglicans in Lagos. Surely it would be a pastorally sensitive thing to offer them the ministry of a Bishop who accepts gay ordinations, and if alternative episcopal oversight is such a good deal, Archbishop Akinola would surely be in favor of it. I am sure he is busy drafting plans for such an arrangement as we speak. Before we begin to talk about running in Bishops from other locations to suit our convictions, let’s consider that this is a sword that cuts both ways.

Of all the things which this unhappy document says, perhaps the most inane, is that Canon Robinson would not be elected in most parts of the Anglican communion because of his “chosen life style.” Granted the level of hostility toward gay and lesbian folks over the decades, no one but a fool would choose to be gay. And granted the deep level of our personality and formation at which sexual orientation takes place, it is hardly a choice. It is genuinely appalling to think that the primates are so poorly informed that they could say something like this.

In the last instance, this document fails to understand what the American Church was doing when it approved the election of Canon Robinson. On the one hand, the document says that the primates agree that each province of the communion enjoys juridical autonomy. But they go on to say that none has the authority unilaterally to substitute an alternative teaching as if it were the teaching of the entire Anglican Communion. This is just a dishonest statement. The American Church was saying that in this part of the Church, gay men and lesbians can be ordained Bishops. We were not saying that we want to direct other provinces to follow suit or that we wish to change their teaching on this subject which may disagree with ours. To suggest that we have in mind this kind of hegemony is simply dishonest.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has a rough road ahead. I am sure that he wishes, from time to time, that he had stayed out in Wales in the midst of all those leeks and coal mines and presided over his thriving Welsh Church. But he has moved to London, and the Church needs to expect strong leadership from him, leadership which will preserve this communion, but at the same time insist that on all issues facing the Church, the church be guided by honesty, intellectual integrity, and, above all, justice.

Faithfully,

The Rev’d Lloyd Prator
Rector