What's to be Done?
On the day of writing this article two of the 'quality' newspapers have stories about the Anglican Church as their front-page headlines. It is the same story but they each take a different angle. The story is about whether the Anglican Church in general, and the Church of England in particular, can hold together, or whether some kind of break-up is now inevitable.
I am writing this at the beginning of July and you will be reading it perhaps a month later. Quite a lot will have happened in that month: the General Synod of the Church of England will have met and determined how to proceed over the consecration of women bishops; and the Lambeth Conference of 800 bishops from the worldwide Anglican Communion will be in full swing in Canterbury. The two issues which threaten to precipitate a break-up, or is it breakdown, in communion are the consecration of women to be bishops and the consecration of gay men also to be bishops.
Different sections of the church take exception to each of these developments: some, but not all, Evangelicals, on the one hand, are not happy about the recognition of gay people and their place in Anglican ministry; Anglo-Catholics, on the whole, have no problem with this but some, although not all, fend off moves to bring women onto the bench of bishops.
The General Synod of the Church of England has determined that there is no reason in principle why women should not be bishops. What it will have been about at its July meeting will be deciding how that is to be done. It may rescind the Act of Synod which allowed some parishes and clergy to form their own enclaves, with separate Episcopal oversight from bishops who do not themselves support women as priests or bishops. Current church legislation allows these parishes and clergy to receive Episcopal oversight from bishops other than their own Diocesan bishops, which is the usual practice.
In place of this legislation, and to accommodate those who will not accept women as bishops, a Code of Practice is proposed on a voluntary basis "to which all concerned would be required to have regard". This will encourage a new understanding between those who do, and those who don't, want women in ministry but would not allow or encourage alternative oversight as now.
Or, Synod may have gone for something more formal and binding, like the original Act of Synod passed when women became priests, and now structured into the life of the Church of England. Our own bishop in the Guildford Diocese, the Right Reverend Christopher Hill, in an open letter on this issue says:
"My own conviction, at least prior to the General Synod debate, is that if we do not wish to say 'goodbye, it is really time for you to go' to those who are against, some sort of structural provision will need to be provided in a way which least damages the nature of the Church and least impinges on the general recognition of women's ministry, including Episcopal ministry. In the end I think the choice is simply between a completely clean measure with no exceptions, or a measure which keeps discrimination out of the main part of the Church but allows a distinct part of the Church of England space to continue".
The strength of feeling amongst some clergy is reported in one of those newspaper articles I mentioned earlier. 1300 clergy and 11 bishops have apparently written to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York saying they would consider leaving the Church of England if women are consecrated as bishops, although if they would actually do so is not clear.
The other issue, which will be on the agenda of the Lambeth Conference, is the place of gay clergy in Anglican ministry. The Episcopal Church of the United States of America (ECUSA) has consecrated an openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson. In doing so they went against an Anglican agreement, which said that one church should not jump the gun. A conference of those bishops who think this issue is big enough to make for a division in the Communion, many of whom are staying away from Lambeth, has recently met in Jerusalem. In its way it was an alternative Lambeth conference, which sought to take leadership away from the Archbishop of Canterbury and set up its own hierarchy.
Archbishop Rowan Williams, for his part, has challenged the rebels. He is reported as accusing them of lacking legitimacy, authority and, by implication, integrity in setting up a Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans. This is intended as a global network of Anglicans unhappy with liberal teaching from the church in the West on matters like homosexuality and Biblical authority. Dr Williams said: "If the existing structures of the Communion are not working effectively, the challenge is to renew them rather than to improvise solutions that may seem to be effective for some in the short term but will continue to create more problems than they solve."
My own feeling on both these issues is that we need to be more progressive as a church. In the same way that we have developed new understandings in science and technology in recent years, it is perfectly legitimate to have a new understanding about what it means to be gay and female and, by implication, male. The Bible has some fixed concepts, which hold good for all time. But in other ways its ideas developed under God's guidance, and have continued to do so since. It is perfectly possible to take the Bible seriously but not interpret it the same way today, as may have been the case in earlier generations. God is proactive in helping us to deepen our awareness and understanding of each other.
I think the Anglican Church should accommodate minority views. It has always been a broad church, but I find it disappointing when we want to argue for an opt-out on an issue, which in any other organisation would be discriminatory. The acceptance of women as having an equal place in society with men has been a hard fought battle, and is not yet fully won. The same can be said about the attitudes to gay people. It is a great sadness if the Church, of all community groups, now wants to put the clock back. It is also a sadness that these issues, which revolve around gender and sexual orientation, should split the Church. It seems to support an unhealthy preoccupation with sexuality and male dominance.
Much more should we be a Christian Community which is inclusive and progressive and values all people whatever their gender or orientation; a community which upholds faithfulness in a way that challenges both gay and straight communities; a community which isn't derailed by those who are strident and fundamentalist, because it believes in a thoughtful and deeper appreciation of what it means to be Christian, and what it means to be human, by championing respect and tolerance to all.
Canon David Eaton, from the August 2008 Parish magazine