Instruments of Unity, or Not-So-Much … High Noon in Lusaka

Bishop Bill Atwood writes about the conundrum facing Justin Welby in Lusaka

The Anglican Communion has a long history, but despite centuries of some form of life, not until the 19th century did an actual Communion begin to emerge. Before that time, there were merely chaplaincies (both military and ex-pat) and a few indigenous churches springing up. In about 1850, the Church Missionary Society first posed the idea of having a global gathering of all Anglican Bishops. It took a while for the idea to take hold, with the first meeting being spurred by concerns from some Canadian Bishops. In 1867, 76 Bishops met at Lambeth, after which the custom of meeting every ten (or so) years developed. Not surprisingly, there was a gap during World War II. The meeting was not so much legislative as it was a way to discern “the mind of the Bishops of the Communion.” Rather than having institutional authority like a congress, it was a good-natured gathering that sought to address issues of mutual concern –  with Christian charity and clarity. 

In the twentieth century, especially in the second half of the century, the church in the two-thirds world grew to robust size while the churches in the industrial West began to shrink. Here is something I wrote after the 1998 Lambeth Conference: 

In 1978 Archbishop Joseph Adetiloye of Nigeria [Dec. 25, 1929 – Dec. 14, 2012] stood at the microphone at the Lambeth Conference for 30 minutes waiting to be recognized. For all that time, the chair continued to recognize bishops from Western Provinces at other microphones and overlooked Archbishop Joseph. 

When he was finally recognized, he said, “Here at this meeting, I have struggled to be recognize by the chair, but it will not always be this way.” He went on to prophesy, “In ten years time in 1988 the voice of the Africans will not only be allowed, it will  be sought. In 1998,” he said, “The Global South bishops (especially those in Africa) will set the agenda.” 

At the Lambeth Conference in 1998, that is exactly what happened. Well-organized Global South bishops overwhelmingly passed Lambeth Resolution 1.10 affirming the historic Biblical position on human sexuality. Scrambling liberals were not able to stop the clarity as it emerged and then was expressed in the vote for the resolution of 526-70. Liberals were only able to marshal 70 votes opposing the overwhelming vote from the bishops around the communion.

The liberals were completely surprised by the strength of the orthodox voice. In trying to recover from the stunning strength of the resolution, they latched on to the phrase “We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God … ”  

That phrase was originally intended to provide pastoral care for those seeking to stop acting out by engaging in same-sex intimacy, but liberals have insisted that the intention of the resolution was to “listen” to the experience of those practicing same-sex intimacy – austensibly until the conservatives are convinced of liberal values. 

As a result of Lambeth 1998, the Communion took on new dynamics, institutionally claiming to maintain the historic teaching of the church but in fact pursuing practices that wound up supporting the liberal, rather than the historical orthodox, agenda. Part of the strategy to keep the crisis from coming to the forefront was to pack  the agenda with numerous other issues. They knew that if same-sex blessings were debated, they would not be approved.  

The course of the Lambeth Bishops’ Conference has been dramatically changed by the strong voice of the Global South Anglicans in 1998. After what they described as “a humiliating defeat” at Lambeth 1998, the liberals regrouped and focused on impacting the structures that they were able to control, hoping to insure that such a defeat would never happen again. 

During the next several years, the so-called “progressives,” aided by Communion bureaucrats, continued to press ahead while maintaining protestations of being orthodox. By 2003, leaders in The Episcopal Church in the U.S.A. (TEC) thought they had sufficient strength to approve the consecration of Gene Robinson, who was in a practicing same-sex relationship. In October of that year, Primates gathered in an emergency meeting at Lambeth Palace. In the course of the meeting, the vast majority of the Primates insisted that the consecration was unacceptable. At that point, great deference was still given to the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Primates from conservative, orthodox Provinces projected the expectation of support onto the Archbishop, assuming that he would surely defend the Church and the Faith.  Such was not the case.

In 2005, the Primates met at Dromantine, Ireland, and called for the “urgent” establishment of a Panel of Reference to protect orthodox Anglicans who were under assault from liberal Anglican provinces. The Primates expected that this panel would be set up within a week, but Archbishop Rowan Williams waited more than 15 months before naming panel members – and then changed their charter and composed the membership to insure that there would be the appearance of balance without actually impacting the conflict in a way that aided the orthodox position. Instead, Archbishop Williams acted in ways that preserved institutional structures, even when those structures that stand in absolute opposition to the Gospel and Biblical truth. Internal communications from within the Panel surfaced later and revealed how the process was”managed” from the outset, namely not to support the beleaguered orthodox minority in the U.S., Canada, and Brazil.  

In succeeding years and Primates’ Meetings, the historic Biblical perspective was reiterated. The high-water mark came at the Primates’ Meeting in DAR es Salam, Tanzania, which insisted that TEC be held accountable. Again, sadly, Archbishop Williams used the organizational powers of his office to completely ignore and then systematically dismantle the accountability that had been so hard fought and won by the majority of Primates. 

Archbishop Williams’ refusal to implement the decisions of the Primates led to an erosion of confidence in his leadership among increasing numbers of Global South leaders. Despite the broad objections of the majority of the leaders of the Communion, Archbishop Williams invited the consecrators of Gene Robinson to Lambeth 2008. This action led to a principled decision by many Primates not to attend the Lambeth conference in 2008.  

At the same time, these unresolved conflicts and dissatisfaction with the anemic pursuit of mission led to a gathering of more than 1,000 people (300+ bishops plus other leaders) in Jerusalem. The prayerful and passionate meeting gave rise to the Jerusalem Declaration and the ongoing GAFCON/FCAmovement.  

In 2010, many Primates decided not to attend Primates’ Meetings until the Primates themselves are able to participate in the formation of the agendas for their own meetings.  

In practical terms, what these actions reveal is that the structures of the Anglican Communion have been illuminated and shown to reflect the very bankruptcy that Archbishop Adetiloye identified in 1978. 

This year, in January 2016, the Primates gathered for the first time in a number of years. Many of the Primates were new. In fact, 21 had never been to a Primates’ meeting. The Primates met, prayed, talked, and worked together, agreeing to take measures to discipline TEC for their General Convention decision in 2015 to redefine marriage as being between any two people, whether of the same or opposite sexes. There was also a new Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby. This time, the Archbishop actually allowed the Primates set their own agenda. Many Primates told me that they thought the conversations and prayers were genuine and they did not feel manipulated. Some were less sanguine, but it was certainly better than the last few meetings, which were completely manipulated. 

The result of the meeting was interesting. There was a very narrow decision to limit TEC from participating in Communion life in three areas: 

  • Doctrinal Conversations
  • Decisions of Polity
  • Ecumenical Conversations

As I said, that limitation was extremely limited and was just a slap on the wrist, but it also was very significant because 33 of the Primates wanted to see the TEC disciplined in one way or another. In addition, the discipline that they imposed was motivated by using Scripture as the standard. That is really huge.  

Now, however, there is an institutional crisis.

Immediately following the Primates’ Meeting,  TEC Presiding Bishop Michael Curry admitted that TEC had changed core doctrine about marriage and that he understood that people would be upset about that decision. However, once he was back in the shark pond here at home, he suddenly changed hisposition, saying that the TEC redefinition of marriage is not a change to core doctrine. Furthermore, he stated that the Primates can decided only matters that relate to the Primates’ Meeting and claims that nothing the Primates decided applies to the upcoming Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) meeting in Lusaka, Zambia, in April. That was certainly not the understanding of the Primates! They thought that the discipline to which they agreed would be applied everywhere across the Anglican Communion. 

So, there is this new crisis, and it is mostly for Archbishop Justin Welby to handle. Out of integrity, two different times at the Primates’ Meeting, he said to the Primates, “I give you my word that I will follow the directions of this meeting” – or words to that effect. The people from TEC, who view themselves as being “large and in charge,” have already announced that they are going to Lusaka and that they are going to participate and vote. 

Adding to the complexity, former Bishop of Southern Malawi, James Tengatenga, who is the elected chair of the ACC, has announced that TEC should be seated and should vote in Lusaka. It was a very strategic mistake not to get him to agree with what the Primates decided. Previously, he resigned from his diocese to take a teaching position in the U.S. as a dean at Dartmouth College. When homosexual activists discovered that he had voted and spoken in favor of Lambeth Resolution 1.10, declaring homosexual practice to be at odds with Scripture, his appointment evaporated. Subsequently, TEC picked him up as an adjunct professor at several seminaries. I suppose it is asking a lot to expect someone to speak out against the very ones who pay one’s salary, and I don’t know that he was compromised by the fact that TEC pays him, but it certainly is hard to understand his change of position otherwise. 

It is clear now that TEC will show up in Lusaka. Some will probably try to keep them from being seated, speaking, or voting, but I suspect that doing so will be very difficult. Africans are very gracious people. Western liberal activists are not the least bit gracious. Actually, forgive me. That was judgmental. I have never met a Western liberal activist who was gracious, so I suspect that in Lusaka, there will not be enough TEC graciousness to fill a thimble. [Note: on later reflection I remembered one gracious activist, so I suppose there might be others.] Activists not being gracious is going to put the Archbishop of Canterbury in a very difficult spot. We should all be praying for him. He has a tough row to hoe. 

We don’t yet know what will happen in Lusaka, but I can say that one way or another, it will cast the die for the future of the Anglican Communion. By early in May, we should be able to predict with some degree of accuracy what the Communion will look like. One thing is certain. There will be a huge, robust fellowship around GAFCON (the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans). There will be a wonderful, orthodox future for those who love the Lord and the Scriptures and desire to live under their authority. How big that group will be may well be shaped largely by what happens in Lusaka.

Latest Articles

Similar articles