Time for reformation?

The worldwide edifice of Anglicanism is on the verge of collapse. Should we move out, renovate or demolish and start again? In this article we look at recent extraordinary events.

Do you have a picture in your mind of what it was like when Luther nailed his famous 95 Theses to the door in Wittenberg?

One imagines Luther treading grimly through the town square, 95 theses in one hand, hammer and huge iron nail in the other (like those used in Hollywood movies when Jesus is nailed to the cross). He strides up to the massive oak door of the castle church, his monk's habit flying about him in the wind. Clouds gather in the sky. With a look of defiance, he pounds in the nail, fastening his revolutionary document to the very door of the popish cathedral.

The reverberations echo around the square. The good burghers of Wittenberg fling back their shutters at the sound, and peer anxiously out. “Gott in Himmel!” they cry. “Master Luther has nailed his Theses to ze Door!” People rush out from their houses. A crowd gathers, and Luther passionately expounds his complaint against the corruptions of Rome. The Reformation has begun!

The reality, of course, was much different. The church door in Wittenberg was the normal place to post notices and issues for public debate—rather like writing a Letter to the Editor in your local newspaper. Luther was doing something ordinary and unexceptional, and he never imagined in his wildest dreams that he was starting a revolution. Nor, most probably, did his contemporaries. Of all the theses that were affixed to all the doors in Germany in the 16th century, who would have known that this was the one that history would record as the spark that ignited the Reformation.

In the last six months or so, several things have happened which history may well eventually label as ‘Wittenberg Doors’ for worldwide Anglicanism. On the whole, they have been greeted with as much immediate fanfare and sensation as have Luther's—that is to say, very little. They have not been spectacular or dramatic, and many Briefing readers will not be aware that they have happened—a gathering of bishops in Kampala in November last year, a church service in Singapore on January 29, a committee meeting in Sydney on February 28, a press release by some Sydney bishops on March 31.

Yet each of these very ordinary events, in hindsight, might be seen as a turning point in the history of the Anglican communion, the world's largest protestant grouping. We will come back to these events below, but first we must understand why they are so potentially significant. It is because of the crisis that is currently engulfing worldwide Anglicanism.

How it came to this

In the view of a growing number of evangelical and conservative Anglican leaders, the Anglican communion is in a state of decay and corruption that has become intolerable. Thirty years of liberal theology and leadership has taken many Anglican dioceses to a point where evangelical and conservative clergy find themselves ‘strangers in a strange land’. Groups such as the American ‘Concerned Clergy and Laity of the Episcopal Church’ put it this way: “Today, there are two religions in the Episcopal Church. One remains faithful to the biblical truth and received teachings of the Church, while the other rejects them.” Astute Anglican commentator, David Mills, summarizes the situation thus:

_

The Anglican Church has been a grand and glorious gothic castle, with turrets and battlements rising up impressive and beautiful, but for years stones have been falling out of the walls, slates have been sliding off the roof and shattering on the courtyard below, the roofs have leaked and here and there collapsed, windows have been smashed, and underneath, unnoticed for years, the foundation has begun to crumble and buckle.

_

Some men we don't really trust have been seen going down to the basement with pickaxes and dynamite, often on official business and with the approval of the castle's authorities. Some rooms, even some of the chapels, smell of brimstone, and peculiar men go around whispering that the Lord of the castle is not to be listened to, and many people follow them.

_

David Mills is describing the effect of 30 years of liberal theology on Anglican churches around the Western world. Although liberalism had existed for some considerable time, it was in the 1960s that liberal theology began to run like a fire through protestant theological colleges, seminaries and clergy. It was the time of John Robinson's Honest to God, of the ‘death of God’ movement, of intense scepticism about the historical reliability of the Bible, of the ascendancy of theologians like Rudolph Bultmann and Paul Tillich. This liberalism has had a generation to do its work throughout most of the Western denominations, including Anglicanism. The Churches of Wales, Ireland, Scotland, England, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and America are dominated by liberalism—by which I mean that a majority of bishops and clergy subscribe to a version of liberal theology (some more extreme than others).

One of the chief tenets of this theology is that the Bible is no longer considered supremely authoritative. It is seen merely as a human witness or record of God's revelation in the past, and is thus liable to be re-interpreted or even ignored when its message is unpalatable to modern ears. Ultimately, it is human reason which dictates which parts of the Bible are acceptable and which are not.

This theology is expressed in numerous ways that have been seen repeatedly in Western Anglican churches in the latter part of the 20th century:

_
• the Bible and its gospel are simply not preached; preaching becomes moralism, social commentary or mystical speculation
_
• miraculous or supernatural events are rejected as being the naïve beliefs of a more primitive time; Christ's resurrection is re-cast as a spiritual or poetic event, rather than a real bodily resurrection
_
• the focus of church activity tends to become ritual or social action
_
• adherence to a holy lifestyle diminishes in importance and becomes fluid in content, especially with regard to sexuality
_
• ecumenical and inter-faith links are strongly pursued; evangelical ministry is opposed and hindered.
_

Homosexuality is to the current crisis what indulgences were to the Reformation. When Luther opposed indulgences, and thus sparked a revolution, it soon became clear that the real issue was Scripture and the gospel. The practice of selling indulgences was the scandalous symptom that could no longer be tolerated. For modern Anglicanism, homosexuality is the scandalous symptom, but the underlying issue is much the same as in Luther's day—the authority of Scripture and the truth of the gospel.

The support and advocacy of homosexuality in liberal dioceses around the Western world is the issue that has galvanized conservative and evangelical Anglicans to cry ‘Enough!’. And so we come to events of the past six months.

Signs of revolt

The first tremors were felt at Lambeth in 1998.¹ A coalition of conservative bishops (mainly Anglo-catholic and evangelical), with the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury, succeeded in passing a resolution which surprised many by the strength of its sentiment. Even though couched in the language of pastoral sensitivity, listening and love, the resolution still denounced homosexual practice as “incompatible with Scripture”, and advised against any blessing of same-sex unions or ordination of “those involved in same gender unions”. In the end, the Lambeth resolution caught up many of the bishops in its train, even a fair proportion of liberals who felt reluctant to go against what they thought was an irresistible tide. In the end, the margin was 529 to 70.

Two things followed Lambeth. The conservative coalition, buoyed by its success, sought to press harder for biblical reform in liberal provinces and dioceses. In particular, one of their first priorities was to provide support and oversight for conservative and evangelical congregations who were suffering in liberal provinces such as the USA.

Meanwhile, the liberals, shocked at their defeat, sought to regroup. Pro-gay resolutions and statements were signed and distributed in both England and the US. Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in America (ECUSA), Frank Griswold, tried to build bridges with the conservatives by inviting them on a ‘come and see’ visit to show them that the American church was still in good shape. The delegation of bishops, among them Sydney's Harry Goodhew, was far from impressed. In their report, they said:

_

We were made aware of the fears that the General Convention (or national synod) to be held next year would see changes made in areas of accepted moral teaching. People expressed a concern that this would make a point beyond which they would be forced to leave ECUSA or to seek other forms of Episcopal oversight.

_

The failure to recognize the biblical revelation of marriage between a man and a woman as the proper place for sexual expression appeared to us to be widespread.

_

It seems that the ‘come and see’ visit only confirmed the opinion of the conservative coalition that something had to be done. Further discussions were held with conservative Anglican groups in the US such as First Promise and Forward in Faith, the most significant being a gathering in Kampala in November, 1999. At the Kampala meeting, English evangelical leader David Holloway spoke powerfully of the need to take decisive action, in the face of gross immorality and idolatry. He argued from the Bible, from Anglican history and from reason, that taking ‘irregular’ action is sometimes necessary, simply because the time of crisis is itself irregular. He pointed out that Athanasius conducted ‘irregular’ ordinations in the face of the Arian controversy, and that Anglican evangelicals did likewise when the authorities refused to ordain men for missionary service, when CMS was founded in 1813. Holloway quoted Luther's response when faced with the same problem:

_

Would it not be unnatural if a fire broke out in a city and everybody were to stand by and let it burn on and on and consume everything that could burn because nobody had the authority of the mayor, or because, perhaps, the fire broke out in the mayor's house? In such a situation is it not the duty of every citizen to arouse and summon the rest? How much more should this be done in the spiritual city of Christ if a fire of offence breaks out, whether in the papal government, or anywhere else.

_

Not all those present in Kampala were quite ready to follow David Holloway's suggestion and proceed quickly with irregular action. Let us wait for the Primates meeting in March, it was argued.² All the same, the Kampala Statement contained these ominous words:

_

Among us are those ready to respond to specific and urgent situations which may arise in the months before the Primates' meeting in Portugal from 23 to 28 March.

_

The Singapore consecrations

On January 29, Archbishops Kollini (Rwanda) and Tay (Singapore) took the step that many doubted any bishop would have the courage to take. They went ahead and consecrated two Americans, John Rogers and Chuck Murphy, to be ‘missionary bishops’ to the USA, to provide alternative oversight and support for evangelical and conservative congregations.

Reaction from the church authorities was, predictably enough, negative. The liberals were incensed. The new primate of the Anglican Church in Australia, Archbishop Peter Carnley of Perth, referred to the action as ‘wicked’, ‘irregular’ and ‘unlawful’. Many conservatives were also rather disturbed that such action had occurred so soon after the Kampala meeting. The Archbishop of Canterbury himself expressed a negative view of the event, and concluded that he could not “recognize their episcopal ministry”.

Archbishops Kollini and Tay, however, were unrepentant. In a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, they wrote:

_

The consecrations in Singapore are an interim action to provide pastoral assistance and nurture to faithful individuals and congregations. The apostasy of [Bishop Spong's] “12 Theses”, the continued rejection of the Lambeth Resolutions by a number of dioceses in ECUSA and the actions of the Primus of Scotland have gone unrebuked as the boundaries of Christian and Anglican Faith have been notoriously breached. The unity of Anglicanism must be understood as grounded not merely in polity but fundamentally in the historic Faith entrusted to us. Far from being an attack on the Communion, this action is an affirmation of the unity of Anglican doctrine and Faith which has been frequently and flagrantly violated in the ECUSA.

_

It is precisely our irresponsible inaction that has allowed this division to continue. It is the violation of the Faith that makes unity impossible. This pastoral step establishes no new entity but simply gives pastoral care until faithful doctrine and ecclesiastical discipline has been restored. We believe this action will greatly assist the primates in March to address these issues

_

We trust that the concern which you have expressed for the unity of the Communion will bear fruit at the Primates' meeting in March and will result in action that affirms the boundaries of the historic Anglican Faith reflected in the Resolutions of Lambeth 1998 and not merely further discussion.

_

All eyes turned to the fast approaching gathering of Primates in Oporto, Portugal, in late March, when the worldwide leaders of Anglicanism would gather for their two yearly meeting, under the chairmanship of the Archbishop of Canterbury. What would be their reaction to the growing crisis? Would they rebuke the rebellion of ECUSA over homosexuality? Would they condemn the ‘irregular’ consecrations in Singapore? Or would they do nothing at all?

A call for orthodoxy

In the meantime, on February 28, the Standing Committee of Sydney Diocese nailed another challenge to the door. They passed a motion which was sent to all the Primates before the Portugal meeting. It was also sent to all parish councils in Sydney, and to all bishops and standing committees throughout Australia, as well as being distributed through media outlets. It read as follows:

_

Standing Committee, supporting Archbishop Goodhew's initiatives, respectfully requests that the Primates in Lisbon take note of the recent consecrations of the Right Reverends John Rogers and Chuck Murphy as an expression of the extreme frustration of orthodox and faithful Anglicans in ECUSA and in the world wide communion and, recognising the disparity between heretical and immoral actions on the one hand and irregular actions on the other, calls upon the Primates —

_

_
1. to affirm in the face of current denials—_
   _
   1. the uniqueness of Jesus as the only name for obtaining salvation;
   _
   2. our redemption through his full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world whereby he reconciled his Father to us;
   _
   3. the resurrection of Jesus in which he took again his body with flesh, bones and all things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature; and
   _
   4. the sufficiency and authority of Scripture; and
   _
   _
_
2. to reject current advocacy of—_
   _
   1. heterosexual immorality; and
   _
   2. homosexual practice; and
   _
   _
_
3. to take all necessary and possible steps to ensure that all members of the communion have available to them episcopal ministry in accordance with the principles set out in the form of consecrating of a Bishop found in the Book of Common Prayer (1662); and
_
4. to take the actions outlined above, rather than pursuing the development of further legislative authority and juridicially binding structures at various levels of the Communion.
_

_

This little document may well disappear into the dustbin of history as yet another motion passed at just another committee meeting. Yet it was extraordinary all the same.

It was extraordinary because it was so ordinary. It asked the world leaders of a major protestant denomination simply to affirm their belief in basic Christian doctrine—such as the substitutionary death of Christ for sin, and his bodily resurrection, and the immoral nature of homosexual practice. And it did so in the form of a challenge. It said to the Primates, “Will you take your stand on Scripture, and declare what you believe?”

Oporto and beyond

When the time for the Primates meeting in Portugal finally arrived, the pressure for real action—as opposed to further thought, dialogue and study—was building, perhaps unrealistically so. There were promises that the meeting would be conducted openly and with full disclosure. In the end, that did not happen, quite possibly because of the work of the liberal-dominated secretariat that organized the gathering.

Even so, the information that did leak out suggested that the meeting was unusually frank, with even ‘dignified anger’ being displayed. According to one report, the irrepressible Archbishop Kollini responded to those who were upset at the Singapore consecrations by saying, “Why are you angry with me? You put a fence around me and told me to stay quiet. That's colonialism! In Singapore, I knocked your fence down. I will not be manipulated by you, or anyone. I have a responsibility before God to speak the truth of the Bible.”

The final communiqué issued by the Primates at Oporto was seen by many as a classic piece of polite Anglican double-speak. It did not condemn the Singapore consecrations, but it did say that “such action taken without appropriate consultation poses serious questions for the life of the Communion”. It recommended no direct action against rebel pro-gay provinces such as ECUSA, yet it did indicate that some actions “have come to threaten the unity of the communion in a profound way”, and that “further public actions of the kind mentioned above strain the reality of mutual accountability in a global Communion”.

In the midst off it all, Sydney's call for an affirmation of biblical orthodoxy was ignored.

Reactions to the Communiqué have been mixed. One liberal Primate saw it as a kind of victory: “It is my hope that we have halted or slowed down the conservative ascendancy”. On the other side, Archbishop Kollini was equally sure that within the ‘velvet glove’ of the statement was contained the ‘clenched fist of African determination’.

Meanwhile, Presiding Bishop Griswold has already indicated that ECUSA is not in any hurry to change. Speaking after a meeting of ECUSA bishops, he said that those bishops who have been ordaining homosexuals as priests would continue to do so. He commented that it would “unrealistic” to think that any diocese would change its present position “in the light of anything that has happened, either here or in Portugal”.

For their part, Sydney's bishops were “greatly disappointed” with the Portugal Communiqué, according to a statement issued by Archbishop Harry Goodhew and his brother bishops. It reads in part:

_

We cannot identify in the Communiqué any real pressure to reverse or at least halt practices previously believed by the Church to be spiritually destructive. Nor is there anything said about the pastoral oversight and care of those who cannot accept the ministry of bishops who support same sex unions and the ordination of practising homosexuals and lesbians.

_

We are troubled that an action, albeit somewhat irregular, prompted by desperation over many years, is criticised while the adoption of unbiblical and sub-Christian sexual ethics is allowed to be considered as a matter which does not challenge the integrity of the Church

_

When Anglican bishops publicly criticise a gathering of all the Primates for not making a clear stand for the truth, then you know that something strange and new is happening in the world of Anglicanism.

As to what will happen next, who can say? The Sydney bishops have indicated their intention to “pursue this matter with colleagues around the world to determine what might be an appropriate response”. There is real anger in many quarters at Presiding Bishop Griswold's statement, less than a week after the Oporto meeting, that ECUSA has no intention of changing its policy. Rumours are circulating that ECUSA's intransigence will hasten more direct action from the Archbishop of Canterbury; counter-rumours say that Canterbury is also considering the suspension of the provinces of Singapore and Rwanda for their part in the ‘irregular’ consecrations. Both rumours seem unlikely.

Whatever action evangelicals take in the coming months, Bible-believing Anglicans—clergy or lay—need to be ready to support them. If there once was a time when it was perhaps the best thing simply to get on with the job in our local churches, and ignore the corruption in the wider Anglican world, that time seems now to be past. With our wider denomination on the point of collapse—or revolution—we need to stay informed, to pray for our leaders, and to let them know of our intention to stand with them in fighting for the truth.

Endnotes

¹ The Lambeth Conference is the 10-yearly gathering of Anglican bishops at Lambeth Palace in Canterbury.

² A ‘primate’ is the national head of the Anglican Church in a particular country. Nine of the gathering in Kampala were primates.