Anglican Communion News Service - Digest News

With what seems like immense power the cultural situation continues in many ways  to be unfavourable to the faith. This is so in the general community. It  has  also  impacted  the  church  community.  Mr Peter Young sent me an account  of  his  recent  visit  to  a  famous Chapel in Britain: 'A female layperson  conducted  a  brief  prayer  service.  She  was doing this in an Anglican  Church. She commenced by ringing a Buddhist bell three times. She concluded  with  a  prayer,  'May  the  god  who  is God in your judgement, according  to  whatever  faith you hold, give you peace.' He continues, 'I immediately  thought "How often has Peter or his brother (Phillip, the Dean of  Sydney)  expressed  this very prayer in his cathedral?" I'm sure I know the answer!'

What  Mr  Young  observed here, of course, was the twin evils of syncretism and  subjectivism.  The mixture of religions, together with the endorsement of any  religion  without  discrimination, is what the gospel delivered us from. The idea that we are the source of God's life ('the god who is God in  your  judgement') takes us back to the idolatry of old, where the gods were

made  according  to  the imagination of our hearts, rather than the God who reveals  himself  to us in spirit and in truth. The fact that this occurred in a Christian building illustrates the widespread captivity of the church to the culture, with the consequent failure in nerve to promote the faith. If we cannot do it under such circumstances, when will we do it?

As  you  all  know,  we  have  invested considerable resources into a first class, academically sound, doctrinally clear theological education. We have put  Biblical  Theology  at the centre of the curriculum of our College and have  been prepared to allow Biblical Theology to correct us and change us, as  it should. It is as well that we have done so. We have rightly favoured the  preaching,  teaching ministry of the pastor and we may see the results in  the  relatively  robust  quality  of so much of our church life and the clear  understanding  of  the  truth  of  God's  word  usually found in our churches. So far, we have usually managed to favour the Bible as our source of  truth  rather  than  the  opinion pages of the newspapers. The diocesan Mission would have been quite impossible to launch and maintain if we had not been preparing for the preaching and teaching ministry all these years.

That  Mission  rightly  rests  on  spiritual foundations. Most obviously it maintains as its first priority preaching and prayer. More than that, it relies  on  our  understanding of the sovereignty of God to prevent it from becoming  a  mere  business transaction or an ever more frenetic search for converts.  It is as well to remember this, because more and more it is also becoming clear that we are involved in a contest that is spiritual and, as the  Bible  says, the weapons of that warfare are not weapons of the world: they remain prayer and the word of God.

The  American  Episcopal  Church  held its General Convention or Synod this year.  As  a  result of its endorsement of the election of Bishop Robinson, Bishop  of  New Hampshire, in 2003, and the sustained protest of so much of the rest of world Anglicanism, it met under strong pressure to align itself to  the  Windsor  Report  and  to  express  regret  for what it had done in disregarding  Lambeth 1.10 and in repentance by deciding on a moratorium on further such consecrations or the blessings of same sex unions.

I  believe,  observing  the  Convention  from  a  distance, that there were genuine  attempts  to  move in the direction of compliance with Windsor and fellowship  with  the  Communion. Opinions differ as to the extent to which compliance  occurred.  But  there  was  no sense that the Church as a whole actually  resiled  from  the  practices  which  have  caused  such  concern throughout  the  world.   I  say  this  because  of  the  way  in which the Convention  seems to have conducted itself and the comments of participants subsequently.  I  was  particularly  dismayed  by  the sermon of the Bishop Katharine  Schori who elected to be the Presiding Bishop, a sermon in which she referred to Jesus as a Mother.

Not  surprisingly the American Church itself is in disarray over this, with seven  or  eight  Dioceses (out of over one hundred) signalling a desire to withdraw fellowship in some sense. So moderate a Bishop as Jeffrey Steenson of  the  Rio Grande has recently indicated that 'for what I trust are sound
biblical  reasons' he will not be able to attend the investiture of the new Presiding  Bishop,  but  will  be  'prayerfully  absent',  noting  that  'a significant  portion  of our diocese is deeply concerned about her apparent views  on  some crucial points of doctrine, especially about the uniqueness and universality of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.
I presume that Bishop Steenson may be referring to this question and answer in Time Magazine (July 17th 2006): Q:Is belief in Jesus the only way to get to heaven? ANS: 'We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to  the  divine.  But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box.'

He also observed:  'For a long time the Episcopal Church has identified itself  with  H. Richard Niebuhr's category, the Christ of culture: it sees itself  as  America's  cultural  elite  at  prayer.  Whatever  we  think of ourselves  as progressives or traditionalists, we bring American values and behaviour patterns with us. But that does not always sit well with the rest of  our  Anglican  Communion  family...The Anglican Communion is undergoing a remarkable  transformation, and I cannot help but think that so many of the attitudes  and  behaviours we take for granted in the American context will not  be  welcome  in  the  new  communion  discipline.' Bishop's Convention

Address, Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande, October 13th, 2006.

I  think  that  Bishop  Steenson  is  right.  The powerful individualism of American  culture, and its triumphalistic belief that it leads the world in civic  freedoms  has  captured  the  church.  The new faith is a missionary religion.  America  is  a  missionary  country,  with  its version of human freedom  to export throughout the world. What happens in the US will affect every  nation  and  we  see  here the belief that what has happened in this decade  in  the  US will occur in the next decade in the rest of the world. The  difficulty  is  that  as  far  as much of the West is concerned it has probably already happened.

I also think he is right to speak of the remarkable transformation which is occurring in the Communion. We can see this in the communiqu? of the Global South  Provinces  after  a highly significant meeting in Kigali Rwanda this September.  These  Provinces,  which represent over 70% of active Anglicans
have  issued  what  I  judge  to  be  a  strikingly  important document. It illustrates  a  new  sense  of  maturity and independence from the West - a desire  to  find  their  own  way forward in matters to do with evangelism, social  action and theological education. The conference was definitely not a one issue event.

It  is  almost  palpable that in the last five or so years, these Anglicans have  grown  in assurance and capacity for independent activity and action. All  this  flows  from  their  observation that the western churches cannot discipline their own for deviations from the teaching of scripture and that they  of  the south must take responsibility for themselves and for others.

Frankly it is breathtaking. I am not able to do justice to this communiqu?. Allow me to say this: It is firmly Bible based.  It is committed to maintain links of fellowship with those  in  the  west  who  remain faithful to the scriptures: 'we will work together  to  recognise  the Anglican identity of all who receive, hold and maintain  the Scriptures as the Word of God written and who seek to live in godly fellowship within our historic ordering.' It is prepared to put truth before order.  It recognises the need for orthodox networks within western churches which have lapsed from the truth. It notes that various of the Primates will be unable to have fellowship with the new American Presiding Bishop  when  the  next  meeting  of  Primates  occurs next February. It is enthusiastic about the idea of a covenant, which will enable a clearer orthodox identity to emerge within Anglicanism.

Does all this amount to the break-up of the Communion? I do not think so. I do not talk of a split, for example. Nor  have I been one to talk of schism and  the  break-up of the Anglican Communion. I have always said that it is more  likely  that  we  will see its devolution into a looser federation of churches, networking across old lines in new ways. Indeed I think that this has now begun to occur. As a consequence, I do not think that the office of the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, while of course very important, will quite regain  its old place, it remains to be seen what is going to happen to the Lambeth  Conference, and there is even talk of a two tier membership of the Communion. Things have changed forever in the Anglican Communion.

As  far  as  Australia  is  concerned,  it  may perhaps be thought a little strange  that  the Communion troubles have not afflicted us in Australia in the  same  way  that  they have in Canada and the UK. On the whole, I think that  the Australian Anglican Church is relatively conservative and that we are  careful  to  talk  to  each other. My hope is that we will continue to maintain  the  current level of unity of the Anglican fellowship across the nation.
What  of ourselves? I am somewhat loathe to travel outside  the Diocese and feel  always  that  my first obligation is here, especially in the light of the  Mission. However in the 6 months from October last year I journeyed to various  parts  of  the  world  for  ministry  reasons.  The trips involved preaching and pastoral ministry of the sort that every Archbishop of Sydney will  do.  We  have  a  role  in  encouraging evangelicals elsewhere and my journey certainly fitted in with that task.

I  had planned to go to the UK, Africa and New Zealand. As it turned out, I was  also invited by the Global South to go to Egypt for its 2005 Encounter on the Red Sea. It was a very great privilege to have been asked. I went as an  observer.   Overall, this travel meant that I had lengthy discussions with key leaders  in  the Anglican Communion (including the Archbishop of Canterbury), during that six month period. In particular, I saw many of the conservative evangelical leaders. Likewise Peter Tasker has kept in touch with people, and we have had the privilege of visitors here to Sydney, not least Archbishop Orombi of Uganda, Archbishop, Archbishop Fearon of Nigeria, Bishop Albert Vun of Sabah and Bishop Zavalas of Chile, and of course Archbishop Chew from Singapore who is here with us tonight.

Starting with Egypt, in each trip there were conversations and prayer about the  state  of  the  Anglican Communion. One thing that I wanted to test in particular  was  the  suggestion that we are making too much of this issue, that  it  is  not  important enough to make a fuss about.  I suppose what I wanted  to  know  in particular was whether we had become unbalanced. Is it causing  a neglect of other life and death matters which should be on every agenda instead of human sexuality?

As  you know, I have taken the view from the beginning that the crisis over human  sexuality is a very deep one indeed. The idea that we are somehow to blame for making so much fuss about sex is ludicrous. Human sexuality is so powerful  a gift and so basic to our human nature, and so fraught with both good  and  ill,  that  it  is bound to occupy a large part of our thinking.

Indeed  it  is all part of our cultural reappraisal of the roles of men and women,  with  vast consequences for the quality of family life and the good of the begetting and nurturing of the race. In the end, it is also a crisis over  biblical  authority and its clarity; hence the importance of Biblical Theology. Here is a crucial sticking point.  To accept various contemporary ways  of  reading scripture will leave us vulnerable at all points. We will not  defend  the  uniqueness  of  Christ,  if  we will not defend the plain teaching of scripture on human sexuality.

This  was  at  the heart of the discussions that I  shared in public and in private  with  our fellow evangelicals and indeed with others.  At the same time we have had contacts with others in Asia, Canada and South America. I have  to  report  that  there  was  virtually universal agreement about the significance   of  this  issue.   Our evangelical and other Bible-based colleagues agree that deviations from biblical teaching on human sexuality is  not a matter which can simply be allowed to pass without strong protest and  appropriate  action.  We are by no means alone in this area. These are matters, which affect our humanity itself. It is widely agreed that we must make as clear as possible  and amongst as many as possible that we have reached the limits of tolerance when it comes to the teaching of scripture. Furthermore,  it is for the good of the gospel and thus in the interests of the  Diocese  and  that  we  support others with the same views and receive support from others likewise. This is where true unity lies.

Already brethren are calling upon we elsewhere who do not enjoy our freedoms and our resources to stand with them and offer them protection and support.  Thus, if a parish church, such as St John's Shaunessy in Vancouver, where David Short is the Rector, sees the need to withdraw at some level from its Diocese as it has, who can it form an association with? Some may be scandalised at such a question because of the high value they put on ecclesiastical unity and the need to keep boundaries intact. So do we.  Disorder often opens the door to evil. That is why we must be sure of the significance of this issue and we should avoid inflammatory speech. But I have to say that I remain convinced that we are dealing here with something of that order of significance, and one can also say with some justice that those who have innovated. By introducing new practices, are the ones who initiated the disorder that they are now seeking to contain by institutional means.

Calls  for help are likely to intensify in the years ahead. We may even see a  giant shift in loyalties and a new world-wide fellowship emerge. I think that  we would be fooling ourselves to think that we will have a major role in  such  a seismic shift; but we would be equally foolish to think that we will  not  be involved at all. Only today I have received another anguished letter  from  an  evangelical minister overseas seeking to bring his church into  the  membership of this Diocese. It is not the first I have received.

My  response has always been that the difficulties are best met at as local a level as is possible. The closer to the problem, the better the solution.

Why us? Because Sydney is one of the few places in the Anglican world with a concentration of evangelicals and a concentration of theological scholarship.  There are numerically more evangelicals in the UK than there are here, but they are scattered and frequently embattled. It is difficult for  them to combine; difficult for them to think that they amount to much.

Typically, also, they have been so pastorally involved that they have not been as active as they should have been at the level of Diocese and General Synod. In fact their political successes are few and far between. They lack confidence and they lack organisation. The same is more so in New Zealand, far  more so in the South Africa (in CPSA), more so again in Canada and far more  so in the USA. The fact that we exist and can speak up brings comfort to thousands of people around the world.

The motion we will pass tonight will go around the world and will be a beacon of hope to many. I am telling you this now because I have to warn you that we may be only at the beginning of the disturbances which will lie before us and the effort which we will be called upon to make. The two areas which I see us making our contribution in are helping to call people together and networking them when they are in minority and threatened positions, and in offering Biblical Theology, especially as the basis of theological education. I had a conversation with an African Archbishop over the role of our Diocese.  It was helpful because he neither exaggerated nor decried our influence.  His point was this: for us to teach very clearly what the Bible says about human sexuality and to offer clear support to people like David Short in Canada has a powerful effect in many places, precisely because we are  from  the  west.  It shows that this is not a battle between west and south, but a conflict over the scriptures and the right way to live, shared by us all. In particular he also mentioned the contribution we can make to a theological education, which is both biblical and modern. He agrees with me that the orthodoxy of the South is fragile, despite appearances and we will  need  to be active and committed in this generation if we are to help sustain it.

What  part  are  we to play? We must be peaceable and reconciling; I do not doubt that. We must cherish unity with our fellow Christians at the highest level possible; I do not doubt that. We must pray and work for the unity of the Communion bearing in mind all the good it can do; I do not doubt that. We  must  be  concerned for and pray for the Archbishop of Canterbury; I do not  doubt  that.  We  must pray for and work for the unity of the Anglican Church of Australia; I do not doubt that.

But there  is  no  short  cut  to  such  unity.  We will be marginalised, misunderstood and maligned. Indeed it has already happened. We will serve the cause of unity best, we will serve all these great causes best, by steadfastly testifying to the truth that the scripture is God's word written, and that we accept and respect its authority. Likewise, we will co-operate with and stand with those who seek to do the same. In the end, speaking the truth in love is the path of true unity and it will help foster the unity that is an essential characteristic of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

By Dr Peter Jensen, Archbishop of Sydney