Over the past month
there has been a bit of argy bargy between different member churches of the
Anglican Communion.
At the end of January
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York posted a communiqué
in regards to sodomy laws in Nigeria and Uganda, nations which are home to two
of the largest (numerically) Anglican Provinces. They quoted the Dromantine
Communique of 2005 which states the Anglican Communion is ‘unreservedly …
committed to the pastoral support and care of homosexual people.’ Amen to that!
Sadly, this
communiqué, (ABC and York’s one) which was sent to all Primates, as well as the
President’s of Nigeria and Uganda had a somehow (don’t ask me how) unforeseen side-effect
of upsetting the Primate of Nigeria the Most Rev. Nicholas Okoh and the Primate
of Uganda The Most Rev. Stanley Ntagali.
Archbishop Ntagali
laid the smack
down and called the ABC and York to get their own house in order regarding
Lambeth Resolution 1.10
and suggested that perhaps the Communion could do with some attention in that
area, rather than prematurely calling Nigeria and Uganda to account when in
actual fact Uganda had challenged the draft Anti-homosexuality Bill before the
parliament in 2010. As a result of that challenge they had successfully seen
the death penalty and mandatory reporting of homosexual activity removed from
the bill, whilst encouraging proportional sentencing. Whoops, someone in the C
of E must’ve missed the memo or not looked up the Church of Uganda’s
recommendations on the google box before the ABC and York stood up and
chastised Uganda and Nigeria.
No surprises as to what happened next – the Presiding Bishop of the
Episcopal Church showed why she was the better man by making a statement
about gay civil rights . Big ups for KJS.
What does this all
underscore, and where is the Squeaky Cog going with this dredging up of not so
current affairs?
All of this interaction
at the highest levels of leadership has showed just how desperate the situation
within the Anglican Communion really is, here three provinces have vastly
different understandings of what a loving pastoral response to people who are
struggling with same-sex attraction or homosexual orientation looks like.
TEC offers full
acceptance. Their pastoral response is to say “we need to change our doctrine
and our teaching to make these people fully accepted.’ This was clear in the
actions of TEC to ordain Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire – in some
ways the straw that broke the camels back. In the eyes of TEC this is a loving
response. I believe that this is where the ACANZP is headed too.
There seems to be a
sum that Christlike Love + Pastoral Response = Full Acceptance.
I don’t buy that. The
equation seems flawed to me, and here’s why.
Full Acceptance ÷ 1Cor 6:9-10 = Possible* eternal damnation.
(I say ‘possible’
because I know that the Bible and what it says is somehow up for grabs within
theAnglican Communion. All sides of the spectrum have beaten each other over
the head with it citing passages which demonstrate our positions. Whilst I
strongly believe that Scripture is the final authority on this issue I want to
try and park that conviction and refer to reason for a few moments.)
So, let’s examine the reason,
that beloved leg of Hooker’s Stool which progressive Anglicans love to fly high
as the single leg we ought to stand on most heavily when dealing with issues
today.
I have reasoned that for
me to get on board with this Full Acceptance model within the Church you would
have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, actually, beyond any doubt at all that
St Paul was wrong when he wrote to the church at Corinth. Why? Because
otherwise the Church is participating in accepting something which is resulting
in possible eternal damnation.
How loving is that?
Are we playing Russian Roulette with people’s souls here? Is not the Full
Acceptance position saying “I found this old revolver, there are bullets in
there, I’m not sure if they are any good any more, we think they are rubbish,
go ahead, pull the trigger”? Is this a loving, or pastoral response?
To love is to warn of
danger. To love is to correct behaviour. To love is to be clear – You are
putting your future with God at risk. Wow. That’s going to be hard work. I
don’t think it’s going to be very fashionable, but I’m convinced it will be
faithful. Is to say “I will fully accept behaviour which is condemning you to hell”
actually loving? Is this a legitimate pastoral response? Not a chance. It is
selfish and weak. I hope I never find myself in the place where I so lose my
faith in the Word of God, that I park reason and accept fear over love.
