Anglican Communion News Service

Given at the 'Healing Leaves' Conference in Berkeley, California on 20th January 2000

Acknowledgement

I would like to begin by thanking you for inviting me here to take part in this Healing Leaves Conference. It is a great honour and joy for me to be here with you all. I must confess, and perhaps some of you already know, that I am not a complete stranger to these shores.

In 1990/91 my family and I made a temporary home here while I was on sabbatical. At the time I was Chief Executive Officer of our church under Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Shortly after I returned to South Africa I was made Bishop of Kimberley and Kuruman and, about five years later, stepped into Archbishop Tutu's shoes as Archbishop of Cape Town. So you may well believe that there is something special in the air of this Bay area.

When I succeeded Archbishop Tutu many questions were being asked as to how this relatively unknown young man was going to fill the shoes of such an effulgent personality. This was captured in a cartoon in one of the national newspapers. It showed me standing by the church door at the end of a service with a mitre almost covering my ears and my eyes. A parishioner was shaking my hand saying sympathetically: "Your Grace, it will fit in time".

The theme for my address is:

Scripture: What is at issue in Anglcanism today?

Introduction

If we reach the end of this address with more questions than answers, I shall be well satisfied. In my own exploration of this topic, the more I have delved into the questions, the less sure, I feel about any of the answers. That for me, is good theology. But it should serve as a warning to those who want sure and certain truths, that, I am not going to meet that need here.

There are two ambiguous words in the title we are set to explore: scripture and Anglicanism. Superficially, we assume we know what they mean, but I do not think it is all that clear. For example, when we talk of scripture, do we mean the old and new testaments? the apocrypha? the non-canonical texts?, commentaries on and interpretations of the aforegoing? Then there is the tricky question of what is meant by Anglicanism. What is its essence? Is there something definitively "Anglican"? Can we even point to varieties of "Anglicanisms"? Anglicanism, as we are all aware, grew out of the Reformation in England. In other words it was formulated and developed in a particular context. Though the context remained quite similar for several centuries there has now been a radical shift from Anglicanism's roots. One used to be able to point to the prayer book as the central essence, but in the last 40 years or so there have been many new translations in various parts of the communion, as we attempt to inculturate the prayer book and translate it into languages other than English. Inculturation has diluted or removed altogether the colonial English church. I am not suggesting this is to be deplored. Far from it. But it raises questions as to what is definitively Anglican. Are we simply to acknowledge that anyone who wishes to be called Anglican should be recognised as such? This is the debate surrounding the so-called "continuing" Anglican churches, which oppose women's, ordination.

As if these questions were not difficult enough, we are faced with our rapidly changing global context. Though the church is slow, even loathe to recognise it, our context is now post-modern and that influences our attitudes to the reading of scripture and the question of authority - issues we will examine in more detail.

Then there are issues, which are peculiarly, twentieth century phenomena and which have, depending on one's perspective, revolutionised, reformed or severely harmed the church. I speak of the feminist movement, the growing recognition of the place of inter-faith dialogue and the issues debated most fiercely by the last two Lambeth conferences, namely the ordination of women and the place of homosexual people.

Let us start though, by looking at scripture and its place within the Anglican Church.

Scripture

The place and role of scripture within the Anglican Church, as an authoritative directive on issues of church order and Christian conduct came under the spotlight at the recent Lambeth Conference, more specifically in relation to the debate around homosexuality. The place of scripture presents us with important questions to be explored. In this section I will be looking at the place and role of scripture within the Anglican tradition particularly as it relates to the issue of authority.

Throughout the history of the Anglican Church, scripture has played a pivotal role in the church's theological discourse and liturgical practice. The Constitution of my own Province, that is the Church of the Province of Southern Africa (CPSA) states that it "receives and maintains the Faith of our Lord Jesus Christ as taught in the Holy Scriptures". This underlines the fact that the importance of the scriptures cannot be disregarded. In fact it is regarded as a primary source for doing theology, along with reason, faith, culture, experience and tradition. However, although this is the formal position of the church - namely that scripture is one source amongst several others - it is certainly not reflected in terms of practice, where weight tends to be given to scripture. For instance, in the case of the debate around homosexuality, scripture was used as the predominant standard over and against which the different positions in the debate were measured. A significant number of bishops (arguing both for and against the acceptance of homosexuals) based their arguments upon the Old and New Testaments where, prima facie, homosexuality is condemned.

This debate has focussed attention on fundamental questions relating to scripture, its authority and its interpretation. It is these questions to which we now turn as we search to find the significance of scripture for us today.

1. What constitutes scripture? This is not a simple question. There is no agreement, even amongst Christians as to what constitutes scripture. For example, what is the position of the Apocryphal writings? What is the position of those writings not generally even included in the apocrypha such as The Story of Norea, the daughter of Eve; and the Gospel of Mary, which present us with alternative interpretative frameworks?

2. Can the liberating social-cultural ethos out of which the writings emerged and in which they served as a directive for its contemporary readers and hearers be appropriated in our contexts today in a way that is liberating?

3. How and who determines whether scripture is authoritative or not in relationship to contemporary challenges facing us such as gender and sexual orientation?

4. Which interpretations of scripture take precedence today in the church? The traditional interpretation of theologians and clerics? The current contemporary interpretations coming from marginalized groups (based on gender, race, culture, social-economic, sexual orientation)?

There are, in broad terms, three different positions, which are upheld within contemporary Anglicanism with regard to calling upon scripture as a source of authority.

Firstly, there are those who see scripture as the authority - the one and only source of authority. Here the text is used as a proof-text. This approach is aptly demonstrated by the story told by a priest who knew a woman who believed giving birth almost yearly was her response to God's injunction to increase and multiply (Gen.1.28)

Secondly, there are those who see it as one source amongst others. In other words they see that scripture is not authoritative on its own. We need to place scripture alongside experience, reason, culture, faith, and tradition etc. For example, if one were to place these sources on a continuum, ranging from scripture on the one hand, to tradition on the other - one would then have the different variables placed in between (experience, reason, culture, and faith). For feminist theologians who use the oral and written experiences of women as the predominant sources for doing theology, the continuum might begin with experience, then faith, and somewhere down the line, scripture will appear. For feminist theologians what may be more important is interpretation of praxis over and against/ in light of scripture.

Thirdly, there are those who do not see scripture as the authoritative source at all. It is simply another text to be considered. For example some Christians outside the Western world, with their own cultural orientation, scripture is no more authoritative than other religious myths, gods/goddesses, and legends.

Are these three positions mutually exclusive? If one chooses one position, does this mean that one has nothing to say or hear from those who adopt different stances? I think this will depend on the position one adopts. If one takes the first position, namely a literal reading of the scripture as the authoritative source for doing theology (what we would loosely call fundamentalism) one would not countenance the views of those who took the second and third positions. In other words dialogue would not be possible. However for those who see scripture as one source amongst others, whatever weight one gave to scripture, there would be a basis for some sort of dialogue. The relationship between these three stances and the possibility or otherwise for dialogue becomes important as we move to consider the issue of authority.

Before I consider the issue of authority, I would like to conclude this section on scripture by saying that we have to recognise an essential and continuing tension between (1) the witness of scripture, and (2) the church's context, life and teaching. It is this that gives vitality both to the church and to scripture. Many writers have stressed the existentialist position that the context and attitude of the interpreter have a deep effect on the meaning of the text. The African in a situation of poverty gives a different meaning to the text from that provided by an affluent believer in the U.S.A. The meaning does not reside simply in the text but in the reader's view of the text. Is one more correct than the other?

The importance of the bible is that it provides a common reference point for all Christian people. It is a guide to life (not a law-book), and its meaning and authority has to be worked out by the local Christian community. In this sense the authority of the church and that of the bible go hand in hand, and its authority has to be FREELY accepted.

The Question of Authority

One of the interesting side effects of the Lambeth debates on the ordination of women in 1988 and on homosexuality in 1998, has been a re-look at the question of authority in Anglicanism. In those Provinces where there is a disagreement with the majority stance taken on the homosexuality issue, people have been at pains to stress that decisions taken at Lambeth have no binding authority on any bishop or Province in the communion. Those bishops in the majority have not argued to the contrary. However some, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, have urged bishops to display unity and not to "go it alone". The issue is of course much broader and deeper than simply the debate on homosexuality. It goes to a fundamental question within Anglicanism: the nature and extent of authority. That is not a new question.

The Nature of Authority

Authority "refers to the capacity someone has to commend free assent to another" (Yarnold 1981;168) Yarnold stresses that the word "free" is essential, and for this reason authority is not synonymous with power. However, the two cannot be divorced. Authority suggests the legitimate use of power. Legitimization may arise from agreement between those who have power and those who do not; or it may arise in a less mutual way. What is important is the recognition that authority implies relationship and is a dynamic process rather than a static rule. That this is so is evidenced by the changing attitudes towards all forms of authority (both ecclesial and secular) in the past 20 years.

The Lambeth Conference of 1948 argued that authority is grounded in the life of the Trinity, and that all other authority is secondary. I have recently come across a model proposed by David Cunningham, in his book on Trinitarian theology: These Three Are One. On the basis of the Trinitarian relationship he suggests a relationship of persuasion rather than power, or coercion (Cunningham 1998;304). Cunningham distinguishes persuasion (which is committed to non-violence) from coercion, or compulsion, with which he associates violence, oppression and force (Cunningham 1998;307).

The 1948 Lambeth Conference went on to argue that secondary authority is distributed interactively between a variety of elements including scripture, reason, tradition, the creeds, ministry, the witness of the saints and the consensus fidelium, thus excluding any one of these secondary authorities claiming primary status. Such understanding furthermore reinforces the understanding of the dynamic, relational nature of authority. An interesting observation on this dynamic interaction is made by Stephen Sykes who suggests that conflict is a probability in such a persuasive, inter-actional model of authority.(Sykes 1978;87).

Cunningham's model of persuasion is, I want to suggest, peculiarly apposite for the Anglican situation. The Anglican Church, unlike the Roman Catholic Church, has no formal teaching authority. There is no one body or organ charged with maintaining "sacred doctrine". Indeed it is a moot point whether there is any such thing as "core doctrine" in Anglicanism (See for example Hefling On Core Doctrine in Anglican Theological Review Vol. LXXX No2. 1998;233). On the other hand, unlike some of the other Protestant churches, the Anglican Church does not recognise scripture as the only authority. With multiple authorities (as recognised above) there are three possibilities: coercion, ostracism or persuasion.

If this Trinitarian model of persuasion were to be adopted, what would some of the consequences be for the way we are church? Cunningham suggests three significant consequences: Firstly, multiple voices would be heard. Secondly there would be an "interweaving" of the lives of those in authority with others. Thirdly we would recognise the need for holding a space for particularity or difference.

The Question of Episcopal Authority

The place of episcopal authority has come under the spotlight more recently with the ARCIC statement on the Gift of Authority and the ACC has referred the ARCIC document for study and discussion over the next 5 years. The document however, operates from the assumption that authority and power are synonymous. The authority referred to in The Gift of Authority is primarily the authority of the Pope. What though, would Cunningham's model of persuasion suggest for episcopal authority? I believe our current model, and the model presupposed by the ARCIC document, is challenged by Cunningham's vision of persuasion. However, Cunningham's vision does not exclude episcopacy. What is excluded is the model of authority that suggests the church speak with "one voice" from a fixed foundation of "truth". What is also excluded is the model of authority which gives power to one who is removed (either geographically or relationally) from the local context.

As we go on to examine some of the issues facing the Anglican Communion, namely inculturation of the Gospel and human sexuality, we will use the model of persuasion as a basis for considering approaches to those issues.

Inculturation

One of the key issues for, not only the Anglican Church, but also the church in Africa generally, is the issue of africanisation.

The need for the indigenisation and africanisation of the church in Africa has long been realised. It has been felt all the more since most of the African countries have been decolonised and since South Africa held its first democratic election in 1994. Earlier African theologians began by condemning missionaries' involvement in colonial rule, denigration of traditional rites and customs, attitudes of racial superiority and of paternalism, and an unhappy desire to keep the African church for as long as possible under European rule. Some African theologians have proceeded in the search of African expression of Christianity in terms of the need for Christianity to free itself from the influences of the colonial and apartheid eras. Thus they grapple with the relationship between Christian faith and political power. The liberation approach became a dominant model in this regard, and was popularised especially by theologians from the South. Other African theologians like John Mbiti sought to relate the Christian faith to African culture and tradition. In theological circles inculturation or indigenisation has become the defining aspect of this approach. Yet others have argued for a symbiosis of both approaches. In all approaches the use of scripture was of significant essence, albeit approached differently.

The Use of Scripture to Legitimate/Validate approaches to the Africanisation of Christianity

Early attempts towards the africanisation of Christianity using the inculturation model used the methods learnt from the early missionaries and colonialists, viz., the use of scripture as a primary text. All things to be included in the Christian fold had to be justified on scriptural grounds. Theologians who have used this approach include John Mbiti, Edward Fashole-Luke and Kwesi Dickson. Fashole-Luke for example believed that biblical categories had to be "translated into the social milieu and thought forms of the African continent". The major weakness of this approach towards indigenisation is that it sought to dress Christianity in African culture while maintaining its foreignness in terms of symbols, thought forms and value systems. In practice this implied the adaptation of the European practices and thought patterns to the cultural life of the people of Africa.

Even more objectionable is the assumption that scripture has independence from the culture in which it is read, and therefore has authority over African traditions and values. The use of scripture to legitimate africanisation of Christianity was an attempt to impose European domination and control upon Africa. It echoes the prevalent but unacceptable presumption that the north knows better what is best for the south. Scripture became a tool of domination in the sense that African Christians could not escape the colonial models of being Christian. All models of Christianity came from outside, rather than inside Africa. The approach was intended to maintain the status quo even though the model was used by the African theologians themselves. Oppression through colonial domination had been internalised. Models of being church remained hierarchical and colonial.

In an article entitled Is there an African Democracy? Herbert Vilakazi, a South African academic and member of the Independent Electoral Commission, reminds us that a similar uncritical incorporation of Western-style government has resulted in post-colonial African governments slavishly following western models rather than drawing on truly African understandings of community and government.

Theologians who took expression of local cultures as the primary source

Another shift took place wherein African culture and tradition were treated as the primary source alongside the bible largely due to the influence of liberation theology in the 60's. Theologians such as Parratt, Mosala and Manas Buthelezi exemplified this shift. This shift opened the canon of scripture to include the stories and myths of African people. This new method used such stories and myths as valid and authoritative texts for doing theology in Africa.

The value of this model is that it began to undermine some of the colonial models of being church, for example by assuming that one does not have to go via England in order to come to Africa. The weakness of the model is that it continued to maintain patriarchy in the sense that it was unable to critique patriarchal models and so it was self-defeating. Leadership in the church in Africa has remained almost exclusively in the hands of men. This is well illustrated by the example of the debate at Lambeth 1988 and 1998 on the issue of polygamy. Here was an attempt to re-incorporate an aspect of many African cultures, without any regard at all to the voice of African women.

Feminist Critique of the use of Scripture

Significant contributions by women in the church in Africa began to be realised in 1990's. Previously women were not only excluded from theological discourse but they were even excluded from theological education thus denying them a voice. Having entered the debate though, the feminist critique reminds us trenchantly of how patriarchal are our models of the interpretation of scripture. The feminist call for a different way of being church and looks towards inclusivity.

Who does inculturation?

Whereas the colonial models, which intended to entrench control, were mono-cultural and exclusive, inculturation has come to mean not so much the revocation of non-African ways of being, but rather the inclusion of the tradition of the church whilst at the same time rooting its practice in the symbols and traditions of Africa. For example, the Christian symbol of the cross, whilst not especially African, is central to Christianity and stands at the centre of African Christian worship. Where contexualisation has taken place is in the replacing of Caucasian-featured Jesus on the cross, with an African figure.

During the colonial period those who were the principal actors were the foreign missionaries. They were followed by Africans who still used the European way of doing things. This then gave way to a model which moved to an African way of doing things,. In turn this model was criticised by the feminist theologians who pointed out that women were excluded from the circle. If we are to be truly inclusive, we need all these voices, together, rather than replacing of one set of actors by another.

If we revert to Cunningham's model of persuasion we might note the following:

1. All the voices of Africa - including missionaries, local people, women and men are needed in order to develop a truly African Christianity.

2. Both the tradition and contemporary symbols and interpretations are needed.

3. There is no single definitive version of contextualised Christianity. There will be many variations as there are many influences and voices.

The next issue to which we turn, like the issue of inculturation, is not an issue peculiar to the Anglican church. It has however, been given added prominence in the Anglican communion since the last Lambeth conference. No-one who took even the remotest interest in the 1998 Lambeth conference can fail to have observed that one of the major issues of this conference was the issue of homosexuality. The discussion centred on the place of homosexual persons in the church and the way the church should respond to homosexual persons in their chosen lifestyle - for example those who seek the church's blessing of their union, or those who seek ordination.

I do not want to rehearse the debate again. However, those debates offer three significant insights in the context of this paper:

1. Firstly we might note the reliance on scripture to support a position condemning homosexuality per se, or homosexual activity specifically. Those who are convinced that homosexuality is sinful, or at best a lamentable condition which requires of homosexual persons a commitment to life-long celibacy, point to scripture as self-evidently clear on the issue. Biblical texts were seldom examined in their context. The understanding of homosexuality in biblical times was not explored, or even questioned as being different from our own understandings. In the light of the three positions identified when we looked at the authority of scripture, this acceptance of the Biblical position falls into the first or second of the two categories: namely, that scripture needs no interpretation: or secondly, that it needs interpretation and those condemning homosexuality have the authority to interpret the scripture in the way they have done so. In other words, it was assumed that the Bible spoke clearly on the issue and that homosexuality is sinful at worst, or at best, is a condition which calls for lifelong celibacy from those who are homosexual. Given that the scriptures were written at least 20 centuries ago, before the advent and development of our current medical, psychological and sociological studies, this attitude towards scripture might validly be accused of being simply a way to support a particular prejudice.

2. The second insight offered by the Lambeth debates derives from the obvious failure to look towards, let alone rely upon other sources for doing theology - sources such as reason, tradition, culture, and most significantly experience. Most of us are aware of the embarrassing refusal of the Lambeth group tasked with looking at the issue, to listen to the stories of homosexual persons. However, it was not simply that the experience of homosexual persons was ignored. So too, medical and psychological evidence was not considered.

3. Finally, there was no hesitation in assuming that Lambeth had the right (indeed some would say the obligation) to make a pronouncement on the issue. In other words, it was simply assumed that the bishops of the Anglican communion had the right to make a decision as to how homosexual persons are to be received (or not, as the case may be) within the communion. Unlike Cunningham's persuasion model, there was no consultation with the wider church, no engaging in debate with local congregations on their experiences.

In this emotive issue, as in similar issues there appears to be a conscious or unconscious weighing in favour of the Bible as the primary source, an acceptance that "ultimate truth" is to be discovered in the scripture. This, despite the Anglican assurance that theology is derived from a number of sources.

As we grapple with these issues perhaps we need to take note of what Canon John Suggit says in his book The Word of God and the People of God, where he suggests that we need to discover the leading themes of the scriptures which can help control our interpretation. Canon Suggit suggests that these are the loving faithfulness of God, and God's righteousness, resulting in effect in the supremacy of the two commandments of Love of God and Love of others. Others have suggested such themes as liberation and mercy as providing the key to interpretation. In this way we may be helped to let the local context become so important as to negate the universal appeal of scripture.

No doubt we have to be aware of the danger of allowing such diverse interpretations of scripture as would render the faith of one Anglican Province so different from another as to be unrecognisable. That was the problem in the early church which led to a definition of heresy, and which put the church's faith into a strait-jacket.

Conclusion

How has the Lambeth decision impacted on the Anglican provinces around the world? At a world-wide level it has highlighted divisions in the communion. The pleas by a number of bishops for unity in the communion, evidence the recognition of this division. In my own context in the Church of the Province of Southern Africa, the decision has similarly divided people. Some are pleased that the church has taken a "strong stand" against homosexuality. Others feel that an injustice has been perpetrated. More than any other issue of our time, this one has served to illustrate the wide difference between us in theology, in theological method, in the use of scripture, in our response to authority and how that authority is defined.

The issue of homosexuality, is not alone though, in highlighting our differences. The debates at Lambeth in regard to inter-faith dialogue, for example, have similarly exposed our very different approaches.

Underlying these differences is the unspoken, but ever-present challenge to examine what exactly we mean by authority in our post-modern context. I am not suggesting a movement into anarchic anti-authoritarianism, but a critical questioning of what Cunningham describes as fixed foundations of truth giving rise to one voice. We are coming to recognise more and more that institutional authority is never independent of those who invest a person or body with that authority. To put it bluntly, bishops are authoritative in the church as long as the members of the church assent to allowing that authority to persist.

Does this suggest that Cunningham's model of persuasion is not just a nice alternative, but indeed the only viable model if we are to hold onto one another in our differences? Is the challenge to us, with all our differences and questions, to seek out in conversation with one another, that which is good, healthy and life-giving, with all the risk that, that implies in having to let go of old securities? If this is our challenge it is indeed a radical one; but so too of course is the gospel.

Bibliography:

Arcic Statement: The Gift of Authority 1999
Cunningham, David These Three Are One 1998 Oxford Blackwell
Hefling, Charles On Core Doctrine in Anglican Theological Review Vol LXXX No. 2 1998:233
Mbiti, John New Testament Eschatology in an African Background SCM
Suggit, John The Word of God and the People of God 1994 The Celebration of Faith, Cape Town
Sykes, Stephen The Integrity of Anglicanism 1978 London Mowbray
Yarnold, Edward Teaching With Authority in The Way 1981; 103