ANGLICAN COMMUNION NEWS SERVICE 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)

~~~

From "Anglican Communion News Service" <> Date Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:59:27 +0100

ACNS 3638 | PRIMATES MEETING |17 OCTOBER 2003

Press statements from Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold and Archbishop Drexel Gomez

At the final press conference at the end of the Primates' Meeting yesterday, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, USA, gave the following statement:

"I'd certainly like to underscore the Archbishop's point about it being a difficult but truthful meeting. I think one thing that became very clear early on is that we seek to embody and proclaim the Gospel in very different contexts and what may, in fact, be good news to a majority in one province may, in fact, be bad news somewhere else in the world. And here I think particularly of my own province, the United States in which a majority, though not the whole province, has wrestled with the whole question of homosexuality for at least the last 30 years and come to a sense that men and women whose affections are ordered to members of the same sex are faithful members of the church; are people with whom we share ministry; are people we in many instances ordain, which of course has led to the confirmation of the election of the Bishop Elect of New Hampshire, which has caused such a division and certainly been one of the major focuses of our meeting here. But I do think what binds us together is deeper than some of the things that divide us and certainly the whole question of human sexuality; more particularly homosexuality; is far from settled and as we continue to struggle together I think it's also important, as the Archbishop said, that we keep our focus on the mission we share because there is so much in the world that cries out for our attention beyond issues of human sexuality.

"So it's been a difficult but fruitful two days and I think it's important for us to be aware that communion is not something static, communion is always developing and evolving and the tensions that one has to face in living the mystery of communion often deepens that sense of relationship, even though more immediately there may be obstacles and problems that one has to confront."

Archbishop Drexel Gomez from the West Indies offered the following statement:

"As it has been previously stated, we have had approximately two days of a very honest, difficult encounter but we have dealt with it in what we have come to call an 'Anglican' style but all of our meetings are characterised by reflection in the context of common prayer undergirded by our bible study and the module that I like to use is the one found in Acts chapter 15 where a problem developed in the early Christian community and the leaders of the church assembled in Jerusalem - they prayed, reflected on scripture, and then they came to some determinations, and sent a circular letter to the churches which was binding on the churches.

In our process we have studied, reflected, prayed and worked together and we have done so in almost brutal honesty; because we came to this meeting knowing that we had some very diverse views on the main item before us but I think that part of the success of our meeting is due to the abundance of God's grace that accompanied us but also by the inspired leadership given to us by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that did not play a small part in the outcome of the meeting."

The Archbishop of Canterbury's statement can be found at: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/36/25/acns3634.html.

ACNSlist, published by Anglican Communion News Service, London, is distributed to more than 7,000 journalists and other readers around http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/acnslist.html ~~~

Title : Archbishop of Canterbury warns of major split over gay bishop By : Date : 17 October 2003 2252 hrs (SST)

URL : http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/52835/1/.html

LONDON : The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams warned the consecration of a gay bishop in the United States would trigger a crisis for the world's 70 million Anglicans, amid fears the church is heading for a schism.

"Undoubtedly there is a huge crisis looming," Williams said, after the US diocese of New Hampshire refused to bow to pressure from Anglican leaders to call off the consecration of sexually active gay cleric Gene Robinson.

After emergency talks at Lambeth Palace in central London, Anglican leaders or primates said Thursday they "deeply regret" Robinson's appointment and warned his consecration would jeopardise the future of the church.

"This will tear the fabric of our communion at its deepest level, and may lead to further division," said a joint statement from the Anglican leadership.

But, within hours of the statement, defiant New Hampshire clerics said Robinson would be consecrated as planned on November 2.

"There will be a split, there is no other option," warned a leading conservative archbishop, Gregory Venables -- primate of the Southern Cone.

Williams told BBC radio Friday some provinces would break their communion with the New Hampshire diocese entirely if Robinson became a fully-flegded bishop.

"It leaves the church with a number of very untidy relationships," Williams said.

Asked whether he felt Robinson, who has said he is not celibate, should become bishop, Williams told BBC radio: "No I don't".

Enthroned in February this year, Williams is known for his liberal views and his support in principle for the appointment of gay clergy.

"I believe that on a major issue of this kind the church has to make a decision together," Williams said.

The Lambeth Palace summit saw liberal religious leaders from Western nations come up against churchmen from developing countries, many of whom stick to the traditional view that the practice of homosexuality is a sin.

"We are profoundly disappointed that the primates as a body have not yet taken decisive action," said David Phillips, general secretary of the Church Society, which is opposed to gay clergy.

"They have not rebuked false teaching," Phillips said.

"However, the primates make plain that if the consecration of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire goes ahead in November, it will result in the breakup of the Anglican Communion," Phillips added.

The Anglican Communion is the community of Anglican churches in over 160 countries.

"Surely the church needs to take a committed stand. It seems to be saying what could be a sin in Nigeria is not a sin in the UK. It makes no sense," said Brett Lock from gay rights group Outrage.

The future unity of the church was called into question shortly after the Lambeth summit by the Archbishop of Canada Michael Peers, a primate who attended the meeting.

"We have agreed to disagree, but there are dark days on the horizon, particularly because of the ordination of Canon Robinson," Peers said.

"We will now proceed in our own way just as the Church in Nigeria, for example, will proceed in their own way," Peers said.

The London meeting discussed as well the approval of same-sex "marriages" in the diocese of New Westminster, Canada, which the leaders also said they regretted.

It also came in the wake of a bitter row in Britain over the nomination of homosexual Jeffrey John as bishop of Reading, west of London, who withdrew his acceptance of the post after a campaign by traditionalists, despite saying he was in a celibate relationship.

Primates in the Anglican Church head autonomous provinces -- including Australia, Canada, Nigeria, Pakistan, Uganda and the United States -- which make up the Anglican Communion.

A commission on the divisive issue of homosexuality and the Anglican church has been asked to report back within a year.

- AFP

~~~

From "Anglican Communion News Service" <> Date Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:59:22 +0100

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

ACNSlist, published by Anglican Communion News Service, London, is distributed to more than 7,000 journalists and other readers around http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/acnslist.html ~~~

[From CanadianChristianity]:

Anglican same-sex debate remains unresolved after primates' meeting

By Peter T. Chattaway

BOTH SIDES of the Anglican debate over same-sex unions claimed a measure of victory today, after church leaders from around the world issued a statement following an emergency meeting in London called by the Archbishop of Canterbury to discuss the issue. In Canada, conservatives and liberals who have fought over the issue for years both said the statement supported their respective positions.

The primates issued their statement one day after Bishop Michael Ingham of the Diocese of New Westminster announced that he was considering legal action against conservative clergy who, in protesting his decision to permit the blessing of same-sex unions, have defied his authority and asked Yukon Bishop Terry Buckle to be their bishop instead.

In their statement, the 37 Anglican primates, or national church leaders, who attended the meeting addressed the controversies brewing in North America, including the ordination of an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire and the blessing of same-sex unions in New Westminster.

The primates said they "deeply regret" these developments, and warned that these decisions "will tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level" and "jeopardise our sacramental fellowship" as Anglican churches around the world are forced to decide whether they can stay in communion with those churches that do not break communion with the Episcopal Church USA or the Diocese of New Westminster.

The primates added, "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."

Support for alternative bishop?

The Anglican Communion in New Westminster (ACiNW), a coalition of 11 conservative parishes who have asked for a full alternative bishop ever since Ingham decided to permit the blessing of same-sex unions, hailed the statement as an endorsement of their request.

"Conservative parishes in the Diocese of New Westminster are today welcoming news that the senior Archbishops of the worldwide Anglican Communion have given their endorsement for the alternative oversight they have been seeking," the ACiNW declared in a press release shortly after the primates' statement was made public. "The measure of 'alternative oversight' is a major step beyond the provision of Episcopal Visitor offered by the Diocese in May 2002."

Peter Turner, president of Fidelity BC and a spokesman for the ACiNW, said Ingham ought to heed the primates' advice and allow Buckle to provide the alternative authority that the conservative parishes have asked for. Buckle, like the clergy who requested his services, is also facing disciplinary measures for intervening in Ingham's diocese.

Turner said Ingham -- who dismissed the wardens at St. Martin's in North Vancouver last month, tried to change the locks on the doors to that church, and has now raised the possibility of trying conservative clergy before an ecclesiastical court -- has used "bullying tactics" in his dealings with the ACiNW.

"Basically, he has alienated a quarter of his diocese, simply because we maintain that his stance goes against scripture," Turner told CC.com. "I think everybody recognizes that what has transpired here to date is totally inadequate and totally misrepresenting our Christian values."

Support for the existing bishop?

But Ingham said the primates' statement actually supported his position, rather than that of the ACiNW. Noting that the phrase "alternative oversight" does not appear in the primates' statement, he said there is "no compatibility at all" between what the primates recommended and what the ACiNW parishes want.

"What the dissenting parishes in this diocese are asking for is an external bishop with jurisdiction, and the primates' statement is very clear that jurisdiction belongs with the bishop and the lawful authorities in each province," Ingham said. "The primates' statement studiously avoids the phrase 'alternative episcopal oversight.' It doesn't appear in their statement because it has become a buzzword for 'external oversight.'"

In a press release of his own, Ingham said he hoped conservative bishops in Canada would now recognize gay and lesbian Anglicans as a "dissenting minority" and provide special pastoral care to them, too. "That's a very interesting phrase," he told CC.com, "because [the primates' statement] does not say 'conservative dissenting minorities.'"

Ingham also said the pastoral care he has provided to the conservative parishes, including the offer to let a 'visiting bishop' meet with them, should be enough to satisfy the primates. "It will be the judgment of provinces, not individual dissenters, as to what is considered adequate," he said. "That's exactly what has happened in Canada. The House of Bishops has overwhelmingly endorsed the pastoral care that I am providing to parishes who disagree with the synod here."

Taking a hard line

Several of Canada's top Anglicans took a hard line against bishops and archbishops who would intervene in the affairs of other dioceses, in the week leading up to the primates' meeting, which was dubbed 'The Gay Summit' by some observers.

Archbishop David Crawley, Metropolitan of British Columbia and Yukon and the soon-to-be acting Primate of Canada, confirmed last week that he was pursuing disciplinary measures against Buckle for interfering in Ingham's diocese.

The following day, all five metropolitans in Canada -- including Crawley and Archbishop Michael Peers, the current Primate of Canada -- issued a statement criticizing Buckle for his intervention in Ingham's diocese. The metropolitans also told Anglicans "from afar" to stop acting in ways that might "divide our church."

This was followed yesterday by Ingham's announcement that he had appointed a Commission of Enquiry to investigate formal charges against several clergy who have been accused of "disobedient and disrespectful conduct." The commission could recommend that the clergy in question, who have not yet been identified, face trial in an ecclesiastical court and be stripped of their licenses.

Turner said Ingham was refusing to listen to orthodox Anglicans both within his diocese and outside of it. He also said it was "unfortunate" that the metropolitans were chastising Buckle for trying to help conservative parishes while letting Ingham off the hook for defying the House of Bishops' request, made in October of last year, that "all bishops" uphold the church's official teachings on sexual activity until the matter can be discussed at the next national synod in 2004.

"Why are the metropolitans picking on a guy who is just trying to provide pastoral care, where for years there hasn't been any, and at the same time turning a blind eye to one of their own charges who for months now has been thumbing his nose at the whole world, including them?" asked Turner.

Ingham, however, said he had tried to listen to conservative parishes in his diocese, but they refused to talk to him. "Many of these parishes walked out of the dialogue that we had between 1999 and 2001, they walked out of synod, and they walked out of the reconciliation process that the House of Bishops asked for. So who's not talking?" said Ingham. "Their position appears to be that, 'unless you agree to our demands, we will not talk and we will blame you.'"

The primates' meeting took place one week after 2,700 conservative Anglicans and Episcopalians met in Texas last week and issued a 'Call to Action' asking the primates to "guide the realignment of Anglicanism in North America" and to "encourage orthodox bishops as they extend episcopal oversight, pastoral care, and apostolic mission across current diocesan boundaries."

Ingham said the statement issued by the primates today would probably disappoint those conservatives, since it went "much further" than previous statements in recognizing the presence of gays and lesbians within the Anglican church. He concluded, "I think that will not be good news to the Dallas people who were hoping for quite a different result."

Anglicans scold American church over gay issues Group admits hand slapping means little in decentralized religion

By JOE CREA

LONDON | Conservative Anglican leaders upbraided U.S. Episcopalians for appointing a gay bishop but conceded yesterday during a two-day meeting that the Archbishop of Canterbury, nor they, could stop his consecration on Nov. 2.

Both liberals and conservatives said that Anglican leaders had addressed the concerns they had over the confirmation of Rev. Gene Robinson, bishop-elect of New Hampshire, and the issue of blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples. Liberals said they were pleased that the Anglican leaders made no attempt to directly intervene with the U.S. Episcopal church. Conservatives were satisfied that the primates directed all the churches in the 77-million-member communion to meet the spiritual needs of members who disagree with ordaining gays, the Associated Press reported.

"They've found that Anglican middle," said Jim Solheim, director of the Episcopal News Service. "The debate is very reminiscent of the 1980s when Anglican leaders thought Americans were going to mess things up when they elected a woman bishop."

~~~

Anglican Leaders Issue Warning on Gay Bishop

Thursday, October 16, 2003

LONDON - The world's Anglican leaders piled pressure Thursday on churches in New Hampshire and their openly gay bishop-elect, warning that if he takes office it could shatter a global communion deeply torn over homosexuality.

"If his consecration proceeds, we recognize that we have reached a crucial and critical point in the life of the Anglican Communion (search)," the leaders of 37 national churches said after two days of emergency, closed-door talks. "We have had to conclude that the future of the communion itself will be put in jeopardy."

The Anglican primates issued a statement that also told church leaders to start thinking about new structures of "episcopal oversight" so that bishops on one side of the debate over gays would not have to supervise congregations that rejected their views.

Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold (search), head of the U.S. Episcopal Church (search), joined in the statement. American conservatives, who are close to revolt over their church's growing acceptance of gay relationships, took that as a hopeful sign.

Griswold said he intended to be in New Hampshire on Nov. 2 for the consecration of the Rev. V. Gene Robinson (search) as bishop - but he said "anything could happen" before then.

Asked if he would urge Robinson to withdraw, Griswold said: "I might do many things."

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams (search), who is personally sympathetic to gays but has pledged to uphold the church's teaching that homosexual acts are contrary to Scripture, said the primates had issued "an honest statement of where we are, a statement of our willingness to work together, and our recognition of the obstacles to our working together."

Archbishop Drexel Gomez, primate of the Province of the West Indies and a sharp critic of Robinson's election, said the primates had "studied, reflected, prayed and worked together, and we have done so in almost brutal honesty."

Both sides in the bitter debate found reasons to cheer the statement, and primates left the meeting with their fragile association still intact.

Supporters of gay clergy took heart that the primates agreed to appoint a commission to begin "urgent and deep theological and legal reflection" on ways out of the impasse, and to report within a year.

"This leaves Rowan Williams free to encourage debate, which is what I hoped for above everything," said the Rev. Colin Slee, dean of London's Southwark Cathedral.

The Rev. Kendall Harmon, a conservative from the Episcopal diocese of South Carolina, said he believed Griswold might yet ask the New Hampshire diocese to put off the consecration.

The statement also criticized Canada's diocese of New Westminster, in British Columbia, for deciding to permit blessings of gay couples.

"We are still in communion but there are dark, dark clouds on the horizon, particularly around the consecration of the bishop of New Hampshire," said Canada's primate, Archbishop Michael Peers.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has no authority to discipline any of the national churches, which have previously divided over the ordination of women as priests and bishops. However, he could withdraw recognition that a church is part of Anglicanism.

Williams called the summit immediately after the General Convention of the Episcopal Church confirmed Robinson's election this summer, which came over vehement conservative objections.

Robinson has said repeatedly that he will not withdraw, and a statement Thursday from diocesan officials in New Hampshire held that line. "We look forward to the consecration of Bishop-elect Robinson on Nov. 2, believing that God has called him to this ministry," they said.

If he is consecrated, the primates said, "the ministry of this one bishop will not be recognized 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."

American conservatives, organized under the banner of the American Anglican Council, had hoped that the leaders would expel the Episcopal Church and recognize them as the true Anglican body in the United States.

But the primates didn't go that far. They urged national churches to "take time to share in this process of reflection and to consider their own constitutional requirements as individual provinces face up to potential realignments."

The conservative Church of Nigeria, home to 17.5 million Anglicans and the communion's second-largest province, has already severed ties with the Canadian diocese in protest of gay blessings.

Evangelicals fear that pro-gay decisions anywhere within the communion will undermine their evangelism, especially in areas where they are competing with Muslims.

"Minority churches which exist in places like Pakistan and elsewhere depend quite a lot for their status and their public voice on being associated with a ... worldwide body," Williams said.

"When parts of that worldwide body make decision which may be thought to commit or involve those small local churches, they can be placed in appallingly difficult positions."

A reporter asked Williams how he would respond to accusations that he "sold out" Jeffrey John, a gay Church of England priest who withdrew from appointment as a bishop earlier this year, and was doing the same to Robinson.

"I would say that my primary duty is to the church whose orders I hold, and whose unity I have to serve as best I can." Williams said.

"We can't deny the realities of the reactions that I have described to you, which are the reactions of the greater part of the Anglican world."

~~~

An Alarm Sounds in London: Will It Matter? Albert Mohler

The emergency meeting of the primates of the Anglican Communion ended yesterday with the 37 national leaders of the Anglican churches still trying to prevent a schism in their ranks. They released a unanimous statement warning that their communion would be torn asunder by action of the Episcopal Church (USA) to consecrate the first openly homosexual bishop of the church. The release of the statement came after two days of meetings in London under the glare of press speculation and public attention. The stakes could not be higher.

Conservatives will be disappointed that the group did not take direct action to expel the Episcopal Church (USA) from the Anglican Communion. Experienced observers of the work and ways of the Anglicans will not be surprised. Established as a "middle way" between Catholicism and Protestantism, the Church of England and its daughter churches around the world have always been known for moderate action and considerable diversity. The expulsion of the Episcopal Church would have been unprecedented, but the primates' decision not to expel the church will likely lead to the very schism the leaders wanted to avoid.

The statement first established that the reason for the unusual convocation was "recent events in the diocese of New Westminster, Canada, and the Episcopal Church (USA)." The Canadian and American churches have acted unilaterally in multiple ways to endorse homosexuality. The Canadian diocese had adopted a Rite of Blessing for those in committed same sex relationships. The Episcopal Church (USA) elected Canon Gene Robinson, a divorced man living in a homosexual partnership, as Bishop of New Hampshire. These decisions were simply too much for orthodox Anglicans to take.

As the primates headed for London, conservatives seemed confident that they had gathered a majority ready to expel the American church and establish a new Anglican body within North America. Lead by African leaders such as Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola, the primates knew in advance that schism was a very real possibility.

According to the statement, the actions of the Canadian and American churches "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 world already confused in areas of sexuality, morality, and theology, and polarized Christian opinion."

The statement also made reference to the 1998 Lambeth Conference, at which the primates had affirmed that homosexuality is incompatible with Scripture. In true Anglican fashion, the primates called upon Dr. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, to establish a study commission charged to bring a report back to the group within twelve months.

The primates stated that the actions in New Westminster and the United States "do not express the mind of our Communion as a whole, and these decisions jeopardize our sacramental fellowship with each other." The statement acknowledged that those who dissent from the pro-homosexual actions of the Canadian and American bodies may be forced by conscience to sever all ties with the offending churches. Furthermore, the statement left wide open the question of whether the Anglican Communion will take any specific position on the sinfulness of homosexuality for their worldwide body of churches.

Given the stature of the American church, the decision by the Episcopal Church (USA) was what actually prompted this unusual gathering. "In most of our provinces," said the primates, "the election on 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." Conservatives will be encouraged to see that the thirty seven participating primates unanimously gave consent to a statement that described Cannon Robinson's lifestyle as chosen rather than given.

At the same time, evangelical Anglicans will be distressed to read the evasive language in the statement about biblical authority According to the statement, all the primates hold to a high view of Scripture. "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 then others." The statement continued: "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 while seeking from the Lord a correct discernment of how God's Word speaks to us in our contemporary world."

The problem with this statement should be obvious to any accustomed to reading the disingenuous evasions of official bureaucratic language. It is simply not true that the affirmation biblical authority unites these primates. This argument is patent nonsense and theological evasion. These words sound almost exactly like the language of the statement made this past summer by Bishop Frank Griswold, the presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (USA), in his statement defending the election of the homosexual bishop.

Theological liberals seek to take cover under the claim that what separates liberal and conservatives is not our commitment to the authority of Scripture, but rather mere matters of interpretation. This is intellectually dishonest. Those pushing for acceptance of homosexuality are pushing against the clear and unambiguous teaching of Scripture.

The formation of yet another study commission is another bad sign. The issue of homosexuality in the Scripture requires no extensive study commission. The Scripture is consistently and explicitly clear in its denunciation of homosexuality in every form. There is no room for evasion and there is no problem of confusion in the text. Those who argue for the normalization of homosexuality do so in direct contradiction to the Holy Scripture. Under these circumstances, a study commission is more like a negotiated surrender of biblical authority and theological integrity.

The Church of England and its daughter churches of the Anglican Communion are established by constitution. At the center of their constitutional life is the confessional statement known as the "Thirty-Nine Articles." Article XX of the confession reads: "It is not lawful for the church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another." This is a classic statement of the evangelical Scripture principle. It states emphatically that the church is not free to ordain or approve anything contrary to God's Word. Thus, the scriptural condemnation of homosexuality is adequate and non-negotiable to establish that the church cannot normalize or accept, much less celebrate, homosexuality in any form. In addition, this article of the confession also requires a method of interpretation that does not place one scriptural text over against another. This is the usual technique of those to seek to subvert the Word of God from within the church.

Clear lines of division mark the debate over this issue. An exchange posted on the website for BBC News featured Dr. Philip Giddings, convener of Anglican Mainstream insisting that the church cannot be driven to revise its understanding of homosexuality by the pressure of modern political correctness. "We respond to the argument that we have got to 'move with the times' by saying that as Christian disciples we are called to obey the teaching of Scripture whether we like it or not. People may wish it said something different, but we are not at liberty to pick and chose the bits that fit with our current culture of our personal desires."

Responding to Giddings, Reverend Gareth Williams, Vice Pincipal of St. Michael's Theological College in Llandaff, argued: "As regards the Bible, the problem I have is that many people who take the view that the Bible is against homosexuality are approaching a rich and complex text rather too simplistically. Two thousand years on we know so much more about what makes us human. Reading the Bible with the naivety that pretends to know nothing of what modern human psychology tells us about the givenness of our sexuality only perpetuates injustices towards lesbian and gay people. We know that sexuality is hard-wired into our genes, so what Scripture can then help us with is how we can best handle our given sexuality in a way that best honors human integrity, honesty and faithfulness." Williams is taking the classic liberal revisionist line by arguing that the Scripture has to be corrected by modern psychology. Furthermore he dishonestly asserts that we "know" that sexual orientation is genetically based, when we actually know no such thing at all.

The stage is now set for a division in the church--and the fuse will be lit if the American church goes ahead with its plans to consecrate Gene Robinson on November 2nd. This action, which most observers still expect to go forward, will put orthodox Anglicans around the world on notice that the unity of their Communion has effectively been destroyed by this unbiblical action.

As expected, several Anglican leaders from Africa were among the champions of orthodoxy at the London meeting. In response to the action of the Episcopal Church, the church of Nigeria had declared: "We totally rejected and renounced this obnoxious attitude and behaviour. It is devilish and satanic. It comes directly from the pit of hell. It is an idea sponsored by Satan himself and being executed by his followers and adherents who have infiltrated the church. The blood and power of Jesus Christ of Nazareth will flush them out with disgrace and great pains." Any doubt where this church stands?

That is the quality of conviction that this crisis demands. The statement released in London is far too equivocal and temporizing. No doubt, the Anglican Communion will undergo great pains as it deals with this crisis. The clock is ticking as this church runs out of time to recover biblical truth.

(Crosswalk)

~~~

Anglican leaders end meeting with stern warning

A split in the Anglican Communion seems inevitable following a two-day summit of Anglican primates, as U.S. Episcopalians rejected a demand from senior archbishops that they not consecrate a gay man as bishop. "Undoubtedly there is a huge crisis looming," Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, said Friday. "I think what we have achieved this week, though, is at least to find some way of talking through the crisis without instantly jumping into what appear to be quick solutions," Williams, spiritual leader of the world's 77 million Anglicans, told British Broadcasting Corp. radio. At the end of a two-day crisis meeting Thursday, the primates of 37 Anglican churches said the diocese of New Hampshire could be responsible for a split in the communion if it proceeds with plans to consecrate the Reverend V. Gene Robinson as bishop on November 2. Officials of the diocese said they are determined to go ahead with consecrating Robinson, who lives with his male partner.

The Anglican leaders also rebuked the Canadian diocese of New Westminster in British Columbia for approving blessings for same-sex couples. And they set up a commission that will spend a year examining the practical issues of administering to churches, notably in the United States, that are riven by disputes over homosexuality. "When and if the ordination of Canon Robinson goes ahead in the U.S., we shall immediately have some responses from around the world, I am sure," Williams said. "But what we have done is to give ourselves a sort of 12-month-plus thinking time, inviting provinces to reflect on their reactions and also having a central commission in the Anglican Church, which will look at the possible implications of a split because there are constitutional legal questions for all the churches involved."

Advocates for gay clergy and their traditionalist opponents both found some comfort in the primates' statement. "The dream of a church that was open and welcoming to gay and lesbian people was realistically never ever go ing to happen," said the Reverend Colin Coward of the pro-gay U.K. group Changing Attitudes. "The relief is that for the moment the communion stays together, because that means the conversations can continue--that is certainly good news."

Conservatives said they are pleased that the primates directed all the churches in the 77 million-member communion to meet the spiritual needs of members who disagree with ordaining gays. Evangelicals had warned they would walk away from the church if the primates did not go far enough in responding to the crisis. "There will be a split, because there is no option," said Archbishop Gregory Venables, leader of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of America, representing the church in Latin America.

The statement called on church leaders to begin thinking about new structures of "Episcopal oversight" so that bishops on one side of the debate would not have to supervise congregations that reject their views. Presiding bishop Frank Griswold, leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church, joined in the statement. He said he had intended to be present in New Hampshire for Robinson's consecration--but he said "anything could happen" before then. Asked if he would urge Robinson to withdraw, Griswold said, "I might do many things."

Williams, who is personally sympathetic to gays but has pledged to uphold the church's teaching that homosexual acts are contrary to Scripture, on Thursday called the primates' statement "an honest statement of where we are, a statement of our willingness to work together, and our recognition of the obstacles to our working together." Evangelicals fear that pro-gay decisions anywhere within the communion will undermine their evangelism, especially in areas where they are competing with Muslims. "Minority churches that exist in places like Pakistan and elsewhere depend quite a lot for their status and their public voice on being associated with a...worldwide body," Williams said. "When parts of that worldwide body make decisions that may be thought to commit or involve those small local churches, they can be placed in appallingly difficult positions."

~~~

10/17/2003

Statement from the Diocese of New Hampshire

[The Diocese of New Hampshire] The Bishop and Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire met today in response to the London meeting of the Primates from the 38 autonomous Provinces of the worldwide Anglican Communion for prayer, bible study and discussion. We acknowledge and affirm the wisdom of the Primates of the Anglican Communion in their statement. We echo their affirmation that "what we hold in common is much greater than that which divides us in proclaiming Good News to the world."

We commend their resolve to follow the 1998 Lambeth resolution calling for the Church 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."

We warmly invite the Primates, and anyone else in the Anglican Communion, to come to New Hampshire and experience our shared communion here. We invite them to join us in worshiping, praying, studying scripture, breaking bread and celebrating our unity in God's love and mercy. We grieve that others in the Anglican Communion have felt deep pain with these issues. Despite our differences, we pray that we can move forward together in service to our Lord. Much energy and many resources have been expended over the issues of sexuality in the life of the Church. We long for a time when the Church can focus her ministries on the many urgent needs in so many other places.

We reaffirm our belief that the Diocese of New Hampshire faithfully and prayerfully considered and followed a Spirit-led process for the election of our new bishop. Canon Robinson was elected based on his nearly three decades of ministry in the diocese, his considerable pastoral skills, and his vision for ministry. His sexuality was incidental to his call to serve as our bishop. We look forward to focusing on our mission and ministry, addressing the pressing needs within and beyond the Diocese of New Hampshire. We look forward to the consecration of Bishop-elect Robinson on November 2, believing that God has called him to this ministry, a call confirmed by diocesan election and by the consent of General Convention, in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. We believe the Spirit is calling us forward into an ever-deepening relationship with Our Lord Jesus Christ, so that we might reach out to all of God's children, and become God's loving arms in a world that hungers for that relationship.

The Bishop of New Hampshire The Bishop Coadjutor-elect of New Hampshire The Standing Committee of the Diocese of New Hampshire

~~~

One-and-One-Half Cheers for the Anglican Primates' Statement An interview with theologian-and longtime Anglican-J.I. Packer By Mark Galli | posted 10/17/2003

In the January issue of Christianity Today, renowned Anglican theologian (and CT executive editor) J.I. Packer wrote about why he walked out of the synod of the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster as it authorized a service for same sex-unions. In a long-awaited statement, the world's Anglican leaders (called primates) yesterday criticized that diocese's action-along with the Episcopal Church USA's confirmation of a gay bishop-as threatening "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 the hours that followed its release, Christianity Today managing editor Mark Galli discussed the primates' statement with Packer.

Where do you think the statement got it right?

I think the statement is a brilliancy of its own kind. First, it's realistic about the seriousness of the relational situation between the different parts of the Anglican Communion. That realism goes beyond what has been representatively acknowledged hitherto, and the facts of threatening division are faced.

And the brilliancy was to formulate the statement in such a way that the frank facing of the facts and the open-endedness of what was said about the future made it possible for that majority to accept the statement as an interim statement, acknowledging their concerns-just as liberal primates who basically remain in sympathy with the move to accept the gay lifestyle in some Anglican provinces were able to accept the statement. Although for one or two of them the words-"as a body we deeply regret the actions of the Diocese of the Westminster and of the Episcopal Church"-implicitly involves a different stance for these liberals from that which they've taken thus far. "As a body we deeply regret"-I'm thankful they say that, and presumably they say it with full honesty.

Where do you think it fell short?

Two things about it seem to me to be less than what really was needed. I think that the issue of the authority of Scripture is fudged. They say that the dispute over the gay issue is only a matter of the interpreting of Scripture, not the authority of Scripture. The truth of the matter is that if you interpret Holy Scripture in an arbitrary way, a way which the writers of the Bible books themselves would not have accepted as correct or valid, if you make Scripture mean something other than what it meant in the minds of those who wrote the words to express their meaning-well, you are actually undermining the authority of Scripture, you are indeed negating it, and it would be a lot clearer to say that straight out.

Or to say something like this: "We accept the authority of Scripture as relative, though not all of us can accept it as absolute." Relative means that we respect the wisdom, the insight of the chaps who wrote it, but we don't see them as having spoken the last word.

Some think of the inspiration of Scripture as a matter of divine origin, God speaking through men, as he spoke through the prophets. Some think of the inspiration of Scripture as simply the quality of the testimony of men who had a lot of spiritual insight, wisdom, and power to inspire readers, but whose testimony, thoughts, experience is in no way decisive. I wish that distinction had been more clearly articulated.

Second, they don't say what needs to be said explicitly in order to express the reality of the situation. Those who have conscientiously separated themselves from the gay lifestyle do so because they see the gospel-quite specifically, the gospel-as bound up in the issue. And they cannot get it out of their minds that in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, the Apostle Paul says to the Corinthians (who had the gay lifestyle as a going concern among them), "Don't be deceived"-because this is a matter on which it was obviously easy to be deceived in Corinth, and on which perhaps it's easy to be deceived today as well. Then comes a vice list-those who do, present tense verbs, those who commit themselves habitually, or as a way of life, to these particular vices like adultery and theft, and homosexual activity. This idea is expressed very clearly by the use of two words that point to the involvement of two men in any homosexual connection. Those who do these things, in the sense of making this their lifestyle, will not inherit the kingdom of God, says Paul.

The gospel is about the way into the kingdom of God. The burden of Paul's statement is that you are negating the gospel, and so jeopardizing your own soul, if you continue to engage in any of these vicious lifestyles. And I say "continue to" because Paul then goes on to say, "and that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

So for those who have dissociated themselves from the acceptance of the gay lifestyle, they do so because it involves a denial of the gospel. As one who believes in the diving authority of the Scriptures, I am 100 percent with them.

Does this statement, in your mind, make schism less inevitable or simply delay it?

First of all the word schism seems to me to be prejudicial here. Schism is a technical term meaning causeless division, blameworthy division. What's envisaged and being feared is the separation of some parts of the Anglican Communion from other parts of the Anglican Communion, separation for conscientious reasons.

The statement is an interim statement; it asks for certain things to be done within 12 months. After which, presumably, the whole matter will be reviewed, I suppose by the primates. But this interim statement acknowledges, and I read the words, "If the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson proceeds, we recognize that we have reached a crucial and critical point of the life of the Anglican Communion and we have had to conclude that the future of the Communion itself will be put in jeopardy." It's in jeopardy now, and I don't think that the present statement, in light of the expectation that two weeks from now Bishop Gene Robinson will be consecrated, diminishes the likelihood of eventual separation in the least. The most you can say is that it postpones it. The primates have agreed to postpone the matter. I think that's what the statement announced: they agreed to postpone the matter for 12 months.

I infer that from the fact that "we," meaning all the primates consenting to the statement, "urge our provinces not to act precipitately on these wider questions." I don't think that means that specific groups of dissenting churches won't separate themselves from those in authority who embrace the gay lifestyle. It has happened in the diocese of New Westminster; a group of 11 churches has already done that. It may happen again. If it didn't happen in New Hampshire, I would be surprised.

But be that as it may, the primates, as primates, are agreeing to urge their provinces not to act precipitately as provinces. In other words, they won't themselves bring up the question of separation or declaring themselves out of communion or anything like that for 12 months until the commission that they've asked to be established has reported. That's the natural reading of the document. Who's to say whether an individual primate will cut loose? And under pressure you never quite know what's going to happen, even in the Anglican Communion.

There is a real likelihood of permanent separation. It hasn't been either increased or diminished by this statement, only postponed.

What does this portend for individual parishes and individual dioceses? The statement seems to give some wiggle room for conservative parishes and dioceses.

Yes, I think it does. And this links up with what I was saying a moment ago about my expectation that in some dioceses, the kind of action that we took for conscientious reasons in the diocese of New Westminster will be matched.

And of course, at the moment in the U.S. there is a great deal of talk, you could say almost agitation, about forming a new conservative, explicitly Bible-based Anglican province of a nongeographical sort, consisting of parishes that have explicitly rejected the gay lifestyle. And such a diocese could be a North American diocese, which includes Canadian as well as American Episcopal church parishes.

I don't know; we wait to see. I don't think the document rules that out.

Is it significant that the document says that minorities within dioceses and parishes would have the right to seek alternate oversight under the guidance of the archbishop?

I hope it's significant. I hope it is seriously met. I hope the words won't be treated as a kind of dead letter in the life of real dioceses over this next 12 months.

I would hope that this is so not because if words are not to be taken seriously, it's better that they be not used at all. Smokescreen wording doesn't honor God any more than it benefits people.

Furthermore, if nothing is done to acknowledge the legitimacy of dissent, 12 months down the road, the dissenters will be more angry than ever.

And what to you is the next key meeting or event or circumstance that we should be watching for?

First, the continuing process of interchange between the dissenting parishes and dioceses-especially the situation in New Westminster-and the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Second, what is done in the way of continuing planning, organizing, talking, discussing, and exploring possibilities by those of the Episcopal Church, especially those many assembled at Plano, Texas, one week ago, who have declared themselves totally opposed to official sanctioning of the gay lifestyle.

And third, the production, the production of this report within a 12-month period, and the next meeting of primates after that.

It's a moving situation and a complex one.

~~~

Why I Walked Sometimes loving a denomination requires you to fight. by J. I. Packer | posted 01/03/2003

In June 2002, the synod of the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster authorized its bishop to produce a service for blessing same-sex unions, to be used in any parish of the diocese that requests it. A number of synod members walked out to protest the decision. They declared themselves out of communion with the bishop and the synod, and they appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury and other Anglican primates and bishops for help.

J. I. Packer, an executive editor of Christianity Today, was one of those who walked out. Many people have asked him why. Though one part of his answer applies specifically to Anglicans, his larger argument should give guidance to any Christians troubled by developments in their church or denomination.

Why did I walk out with the others? Because this decision, taken in its context, falsifies the gospel of Christ, abandons the authority of Scripture, jeopardizes the salvation of fellow human beings, and betrays the church in its God-appointed role as the bastion and bulwark of divine truth.

My primary authority is a Bible writer named Paul. For many decades now, I have asked myself at every turn of my theological road: Would Paul be with me in this? What would he say if he were in my shoes? I have never dared to offer a view on anything that I did not have good reason to think he would endorse.

In 1 Corinthians we find the following, addressed it seems to exponents of some kind of antinomian spirituality:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God (6:9-11, ESV). To make sure we grasp what Paul is saying here, I pose some questions.

First: What is Paul talking about in this vice list? Answer: Lifestyles, regular behavior patterns, habits of mind and action. He has in view not single lapses followed by repentance, forgiveness, and greater watchfulness (with God's help) against recurrence, but ways of life in which some of his readers were set, believing that for Christians there was no harm in them.

Second: What is Paul saying about these habits? Answer: They are ways of sin that, if not repented of and forsaken, will keep people out of God's kingdom of salvation. Clearly, self-indulgence and self-service, free from self-discipline and self-denial, is the attitude they express, and a lack of moral discernment lies at their heart.

Third: What is Paul saying about homosexuality? Answer: Those who claim to be Christ's should avoid the practice of same-sex physical connection for orgasm, on the model of heterosexual intercourse. Paul's phrase, "men who practice homosexuality," covers two Greek words for the parties involved in these acts. The first, arsenokoitai, means literally "male-bedders," which seems clear enough. The second, malakoi, is used in many connections to mean "unmanly," "womanish," and "effeminate," and here refers to males matching the woman's part in physical sex.

In this context, in which Paul has used two terms for sexual misbehavior, there is really no room for doubt regarding what he has in mind. He must have known, as Christians today know, that some men are sexually drawn to men rather than women, but he is not speaking of inclinations, only of behavior, what has more recently been called acting out. His point is that Christians need to resist these urges, since acting them out cannot please God and will reveal lethal impenitence. Romans 1:26 shows that Paul would have spoken similarly about lesbian acting out if he had had reason to mention it here.

Fourth: What is Paul saying about the gospel? Answer: Those who, as lost sinners, cast themselves in genuine faith on Christ and so receive the Holy Spirit, as all Christians do (see Gal. 3:2), find transformation through the transaction. They gain cleansing of conscience (the washing of forgiveness), acceptance with God (justification), and strength to resist and not act out the particular temptations they experience (sanctification). As a preacher friend declared to his congregation, "I want you to know that I am a non-practicing adulterer." Thus he testified to receiving strength from God.

With some of the Corinthian Christians, Paul was celebrating the moral empowering of the Holy Spirit in heterosexual terms; with others of the Corinthians, today's homosexuals are called to prove, live out, and celebrate the moral empowering of the Holy Spirit in homosexual terms. Another friend, well known to me for 30 years, has lived with homosexual desires all his adult life, but remains a faithful husband and father, sexually chaste, through the power of the Holy Spirit, according to the gospel. He is a model in every way. We are all sexually tempted, one way or another, yet we may all tread the path of chastity through the Spirit's enablement, and thereby please God.

Missing Paul's point As one who assumes the full seriousness and sincerity of all who take part in today's debates among Christians regarding homosexuality, both in New Westminster and elsewhere, I now must ask: how can anyone miss the force of what Paul says here? There are, I think, two ways in which this happens.

One way, the easier one to deal with, is the way of special exegesis: I mean interpretations that, however possible, are artificial and not natural, but that allow one to say, "What Paul is condemning is not my sort of same-sex union." Whether a line of interpretation is artificial, so constituting misinterpretation, is, I grant, a matter of personal judgment. I do not, however, know how any reasonable person could read Robert A. J. Gagnon's 500-page book, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon, 2001), and not conclude that any exegesis evading the clear meaning of Paul is evasive indeed. Nor from now on can I regard anyone as qualified to debate homosexuality who has not come to terms with Gagnon's encyclopedic examination of all the relevant passages and all the exegetical hypotheses concerning them. I have not always agreed with James Barr, but when on the dust jacket he describes Gagnon's treatise as "indispensable even for those who disagree with the author," I think he is absolutely right.

The second way, which is harder to engage, is to let experience judge the Bible. Some moderns, backed by propaganda from campaigners for homosexual equality, and with hearts possessed by the pseudo-Freudian myth that you can hardly be a healthy human without active sexual expression, feel entitled to say: "Our experience is-in other words, we feel-that gay unions are good, so the Bible's prohibitions of gay behavior must be wrong." The natural response is that the Bible is meant to judge our experience rather than the other way around, and that feelings of sexual arousal and attraction, generating a sense of huge significance and need for release in action as they do, cannot be trusted as either a path to wise living or a guide to biblical interpretation. Rhyming the point to make what in my youth was called a grook: the sweet bright fire / of sexual desire / is a dreadful liar. But more must be said than that.

Two views of the Bible At issue here is a Grand Canyon-wide difference about the nature of the Bible and the way it conveys God's message to modern readers. Two positions challenge each other.

One is the historic Christian belief that through the prophets, the incarnate Son, the apostles, and the writers of canonical Scripture as a body, God has used human language to tell us definitively and transculturally about his ways, his works, his will, and his worship. Furthermore, this revealed truth is grasped by letting the Bible interpret itself to us from within, in the knowledge that the way into God's mind is through that of the writers. Through them, the Holy Spirit who inspired them teaches the church. Finally, one mark of sound biblical insights is that they do not run counter to anything else in the canon.

This is the position of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, and of evangelicals and other conservative Protestants. There are differences on the place of the church in the interpretive process, but all agree that the process itself is essentially as described. I call this the objectivist position.

The second view applies to Christianity the Enlightenment's trust in human reason, along with the fashionable evolutionary assumption that the present is wiser than the past. It concludes that the world has the wisdom, and the church must play intellectual catch-up in each generation in order to survive. From this standpoint, everything in the Bible becomes relative to the church's evolving insights, which themselves are relative to society's continuing development (nothing stands still), and the Holy Spirit's teaching ministry is to help the faithful see where Bible doctrine shows the cultural limitations of the ancient world and needs adjustment in light of latter-day experience (encounters, interactions, perplexities, states of mind and emotion, and so on). Same-sex unions are one example. This view is scarcely 50 years old, though its antecedents go back much further. I call it the subjectivist position.

In the New Westminster debate, subjectivists say that what is at issue is not the authority of Scripture, but its interpretation. I do not question the sincerity of those who say this, but I have my doubts about their clear-headedness. The subjectivist way of affirming the authority of Scripture, as the source of the teaching that now needs to be adjusted, is precisely a denying of Scripture's authority from the objectivist point of view, and clarity requires us to say so. The relative authority of ancient religious expertise, now to be revamped in our post-Christian, multifaith, evolving Western world, is one view. The absolute authority of God's unchanging utterances, set before us to be learned, believed, and obeyed as the mainstream church has always done, never mind what the world thinks, is the other.

What are represented as different "interpretations" are in fact reflections of what is definitive: in the one view, the doctrinal and moral teaching of Scripture is always final for Christian people; in the other view, it never is. What is definitive for the exponents of that view is not what the Bible says, as such, but what their own minds come up with as they seek to make Bible teaching match the wisdom of the world.

Each view of biblical authority sees the other as false and disastrous, and is sure that the long-term welfare of Christianity requires that the other view be given up and left behind as quickly as possible. The continuing conflict between them, which breaks surface in the disagreement about same-sex unions, is a fight to the death, in which both sides are sure that they have the church's best interests at heart. It is most misleading, indeed crass, to call this disagreement simply a difference about interpretation, of the kind for which Anglican comprehensiveness has always sought to make room.

Spiritual dangers In addition, major spiritual issues are involved. To bless same-sex unions liturgically is to ask God to bless them and to enrich those who join in them, as is done in marriage ceremonies. This assumes that the relationship, of which the physical bond is an integral part, is intrinsically good and thus, if I may coin a word, blessable, as procreative sexual intercourse within heterosexual marriage is. About this assumption there are three things to say.

First, it entails deviation from the biblical gospel and the historic Christian creed. It distorts the doctrines of creation and sin, claiming that homosexual orientation is good since gay people are made that way, and rejecting the idea that homosexual inclinations are a spiritual disorder, one more sign and fruit of original sin in some people's moral system. It distorts the doctrines of regeneration and sanctification, calling same-sex union a Christian relationship and so affirming what the Bible would call salvation in sin rather than from it.

Second, it threatens destruction to my neighbor. The official proposal said that ministers who, like me, are unwilling to give this blessing should refer gay couples to a minister willing to give it. Would that be pastoral care? Should I not try to help gay people change their behavior, rather than to anchor them in it? Should I not try to help them to the practice of chastity, just as I try to help restless singles and divorcees to the practice of chastity? Do I not want to see them all in the kingdom of God?

Third, it involves the delusion of looking to God-actually asking him-to sanctify sin by blessing what he condemns. This is irresponsible, irreverent, indeed blasphemous, and utterly unacceptable as church policy. How could I do it?

Changing a historical tradition Finally, a major change in Anglicanism is involved: Writing into a diocesan constitution something that Scripture, canonically interpreted, clearly and unambiguously rejects as sin. This has never been done before, and ought not to be done now.

All the written standards of post-Reformation Anglicanism have been intentionally biblical and catholic. They have been biblical in terms of the historic view of the nature and authority of Scripture. They have been catholic in terms of the historic consensus of the mainstream church.

Many individual eccentricities and variations may have been tolerated in practice. The relatively recent controversial permissions to remarry the divorced and make women presbyters arguably had biblical warrant, though minorities disputed this. In biblical and catholic terms, however, the New Westminster decision writes legitimation of sin into the diocese's constitutional standards.

It categorizes the tolerated abstainers as the awkward squad of eccentrics rather than the mainstream Anglicans that they were before. It is thus a decision that can only be justified in terms of biblical relativism, the novel notion of biblical authority that to my mind is a cuckoo in the Anglican nest and a heresy in its own right. It is a watershed decision for world Anglicanism, for it changes the nature of Anglicanism itself. It has to be reversed.

Luther's response at Worms when he was asked to recant all his writings echoes in my memory, as it has done for more than 50 years.

Unless you prove to me by Scripture and plain reason that I am wrong, I cannot and will not recant. My conscience is captive to the Word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe [it endangers the soul]. Here I stand. There is nothing else I can do. God help me. Amen. Conscience is that power of the mind over which we have no power, which binds us to believe what we see to be true and do what we see to be right. Captivity of conscience to the Word of God, that is, to the absolutes of God's authoritative teaching in the Bible, is integral to authentic Christianity.

More words from Luther come to mind.

If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point that the world and the devil are at the moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages is where the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is merely flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point. Was the protest in order? Was "no" the right way to vote? Did faithfulness to Christ, and faithful confession of Christ, require it? It seems so. And if so, then our task is to stand fast, watch, pray, and fight for better things: for the true authority of the Bible, for the "true truth" of the gospel, and for the salvation of gay people for whom we care.

J. I. Packer is an executive editor of Christianity Today.

~~~