'This is a fundamental issue'

On October 16 the Anglican Primates issued their Statement in response to the potential consecration of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. On November 2 he was duly consecrated. What should Anglicans make of the Statement? And how should they act in light of the consecration?

First, the Anglican Primates' Statement:

Realistic. The Anglican Primates' Statement was realistic. It recognised that the consecration of Gene Robinson will mean that 'the ministry of this one bishop will not be recognised by most of the Anglican Communion worldwide'. It also foresees that his consecration 'will tear the fabric of our Communion at the deepest level and ƒ may lead to further division ƒ as dioceses have to decide in consequence whether they can remain in communion with provinces that choose not to break with the Episcopal Church of the United States of America' (ECUSA). This is a realistic assessment of the realignment that is already well under way in the Anglican Communion.

Characteristic. The Anglican Primates' Statement was characteristically Anglican in its setting up a commission! To that extent the Statement is only an interim measure, and it serves the purpose of buying precious time as the Primates seek to work out how to formalise the separation that has already occurred. They appeal for Provinces 'not to act precipitately' but to take time for 'reflection and to consider their own constitutional requirements'. Evangelicals will be rightly frustrated at further procrastination over theological issues which were agreed at Lambeth in 1998. However, there are real constitutional questions that need to be worked through by the Provinces, and the 12-month period will provide vital time for this work.

Optimistic. The Anglican Primates' Statement calls on the Diocese of New Westminster and ECUSA to 'make adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their area...'. It remains to be seen whether the liberal authorities within these Provinces will pay attention to the Primates. To date they have been ruthless in their attempts to overturn the theologically orthodox dissenters. In New Westminster they have brought canonical charges against seven rectors, they are attempting to depose Bishop Terry Buckle, and they are threatening legal action to remove the assets of individual parishes.

However, the Primates were concerned in their Statement with Provinces, not individual dioceses and parishes. The Statement treats the problem as essentially transatlantic. Therefore, inevitably, it does not succeed in addressing the immediate issue of concern for us in England. There is no doubt that in due course some form of alternative structure will emerge within the Anglican Communion. It is already doing so.

Time for action

But, secondly, how should we act in the meantime?

Regardless of the situation in the wider Anglican Communion, the situation in the Church of England over the coming months and years will be both messy and fluid. There appear to be five basic principles emerging that should help to guide our actions:

This is a fundamental issue, not a secondary one. We need to be clear that the presenting issue of homosexual practice is a fundamental issue. It is not, as the Primates' Statement suggests, a matter that is open to a 'legitimate diversity of interpretation'. The Scriptures are clear, and to deny the plain teaching of Scripture on this issue is to refuse to acknowledge the centrality and authority of Scripture.

Resolution 1:10 from the Lambeth Conference of 1998 supported this understanding. The decision of the General Synod of the Church of England in 1987 was similarly clear. The broad coalition that emerged in Oxford recently is evidence of the continued conviction of many within the Church of England that this is a fundamental issue. It is not helpful to pretend that further discussion and debate will do anything other than generate more confusion and more disunity. Of course we must continue to show compassion for those who struggle to remain faithful to Scripture in this area - theirs is the experience we should especially be listening to in this debate. But refusal to recognise the plain teaching of Scripture is a refusal to recognise and bow to the authority of Christ over his church. It is a fundamental issue.

Discipline is essential

We need to be clear that diocesan bishops who refuse to exercise episcopal responsibility for disciplining those who persist in acting and teaching erroneously in this area are failing. Furthermore, we ought not to recognise the ministry of bishops or archbishops who themselves either act or teach contrary to Scripture on this matter. Already there are a number of bishops who have declared themselves through becoming public signatories to the letter in support of Canon Jeffrey John. Jeffrey John continues in post at Southwark Cathedral with no apparent diocesan disciplinary procedure in operation.

Those of us whose diocesan bishops are standing firm on this issue must continue to encourage them to hold fast. However, others of us ought to be moving our church councils towards declaring impaired relationship with diocesan bishops where they wilfully continue to teach and allow error. This will take longer for some than others, and those of us in churches where there has been a long history of clear biblical teaching should remain patient with those who have had a less privileged recent history. Nonetheless, we ought to be moving in the same direction. The shape of an impaired relationship will vary from area to area, and evangelicals need to be working together in the regions to think through what it might look like.

Secession?

I believe secession is not an option. It is altogether wrong that those of us who hold to the biblical position on this issue should be forced to secede. To quote a letter sent to the Primates before their meeting: 'It seems unconscionable that any part of the Anglican church should be surrendered to a revisionist minority'. We must hold our ground and refuse to secede. Declaration of an impaired relationship with a diocesan bishop is not a statement of secession. It is recognition of a temporary failure on the part of the present bishop in the ministry with which he has been entrusted.

Similarly, a non-territorial 'Third Province' will not meet the needs of those of us who are seeking to maintain the historical, orthodox and biblical beliefs of Anglicanism. A Third Province may in time emerge. But for now it is not only wrong to be driven out into such a Province, it would also inevitably result in our handing over resources and assets that have been entrusted to us in good conscience by our orthodox forebears.

Continued gospel work

This is essential. We must continue to work, in partnership with other gospel-minded churches of whatever denomination (or none), who seek to sit under the authority of Scripture. Already such partnerships have begun to emerge in the North West, the North East, the East and the South East. God does appear to be raising a new generation of church workers, and new congregations and fellowships are springing up around these partnerships - frequently with great opposition from Anglican authorities. A small group of Free church and Anglican church leaders from the South East Gospel Partnership were recently able to identify over 150 young trainees, in apprenticeships and similar schemes in 2003 in the South East alone. We must now work together in the regions to raise up a new generation of workers and to plant new congregations as a matter of priority. Those who come forward from within the Anglican churches will need to be ordained and deployed in a recognisably Anglican way. For those churches which have declared impaired relationship with their diocesan bishops this will mean a form of irregular oversight.

Impaired fellowship

Irregular oversight is inevitable. Increasingly, churches which have declared themselves to have an 'impaired relationship' with their diocesan bishop will need to look for 'irregular oversight' from elsewhere. This is where a good deal of work still needs to be done. However, while we refuse to secede or to be driven out into a 'Third Province', we will find ourselves looking for irregular oversight in order to guarantee the Anglican Orders of those whom we put forward for leadership. There will be many of us who do not wholeheartedly agree with the need for an Anglican bishop to lay hands on our workers. However, through a widespread exercise of irregular oversight we will ensure that the rightful heirs of the orthodox, biblical, Anglican tradition continue to be able to exercise ministry within the system.

William Taylor,
St. Helen's, Bishopsgate, London

© Evangelicals Now - December 2003
Please consider supporting this ministry by subscribing.