The Lambeth Conference 2008
a review after six months
by Nick Baines, Bishop of Croydon
After I posted my final Fulcrum blog of the Lambeth Conference I was asked if I would offer a considered (but brief) review six months on. Well, here it is. But I need to begin with a bit of contextual stuff.
I agreed to blog the conference because I didn’t want people simply getting information from a media that only had one script in two parts: (a) the Anglican Communion is obsessed with sex and (b) is about to collapse. I tried to write each day with candour, not only to inform the reader, but also to give a flavour of how it felt to be in the hothouse itself, not always knowing what was likely to happen next. Returning to the blog for the first time since the end of the conference, it has been instructive to review not only the content, but also the conviction of what I wrote and how I wrote it.
It is clear to me that the conference was successful – not in resolving contentious issues to everyone’s satisfaction (an impossibility as well as not the purpose of the conference in the first place), but in taking seriously the ministry of reconciliation committed to us by the God who has come among us in Jesus Christ. Had the conference lasted only a few days or a week, it would have ended in a degree of acrimony and with some people’s prejudices reinforced. But two weeks of gracious listening, talking, wrestling and trying to establish relationships that took the Gospel seriously paid off. Those bishops who stuck with it discovered that simply walking away is not a Christian response to tension – after all, the Church is called to reflect the nature of the God who refused to walk away from those who even crucified Jesus. This tougher option was worth it.
And the absence of bishops from
Now, I realise that this opens up a further question to which I have given much private thought and prayer: my criticism of GAFCON and particular people at Lambeth who I regarded as manipulative, devious and ‘unbiblical’. Have I changed my mind and should I change it? Was I unduly critical – even if the expression of my criticism might be forgiven because of the pressure under which I was writing? My answer will be disappointing to those who think I should repent. To put the point concisely: I do not believe that people can claim biblical or moral high ground while behaving in ways that are in and of themselves unbiblical. I am still haunted by John 5:39 and the tendency of the ‘biblically-minded’ to miss the point and remain closed to the challenge of the Scriptures. So, misrepresenting those with whom disagreements are serious is not on. Manipulating people in order to achieve one’s own political goals is unacceptable. The end do not and cannot justify the means and subterfuge cannot be justified biblically even if some feel (as more than one person has put it to me) that ‘any means are justified when you are fighting a war’.
I do not know what will come of GAFCON and FOCA. I still remain deeply sceptical of its medium- or longer-term viability simply because there are too many fault-lines between the parties. Forgive me for being pointed, but I can only assume that the gay contingent at GAFCON remained silent about their nature in order to maximise their coalition on other ecclesial issues. I fail to be convinced that the nature of leadership exercised by certain autocratic bishops is likely to be embraced by others who are content with a ‘strong lead’ when expedient, but will resent it when deemed ‘inappropriate’. Now, this is not intended to be a criticism; rather, I am trying to make an observation on the viability of a grouping that has serious divisions within it, but that maintains its cohesion merely by avoiding discussion of the very issues that might divide it.
And so to the aftermath of the conference and the future of the Communion. I still believe that despite the media obsession with sex and conflict (from which most people get their news and on which most people base their opinions), there is something right about the Communion being open about difference and not being afraid (as I put it in my blog) to hold out its wounded hands to a world that knows there are no easy solutions to conflict. There is something godly about a Church that displays to the world a way of engaging with difference that takes the issues utterly seriously, but does so in a way that strives to keep the relationships Christian. It simply will not do to refuse to engage with those from whom we differ.
I believe the Archbishop of Canterbury is right to take time in moving the Anglican Covenant forward, refusing to be blackmailed or rushed into premature decisions. I wish the Covenant wasn’t necessary, but I think it is needed and I expect I will ultimately support it. It will compel provinces – particularly TEC – to take their ecclesiology seriously and decide where they stand and with whom. It will also compel provinces to grapple with what became most obvious at Lambeth: that a bishop is not a bishop is not a bishop. I will not quickly forget the incomprehension of two African bishops at my claim that I simply cannot dismiss any clergyperson who upsets me or does something wrong. A Tanzanian bishop is not an American bishop is not an English bishop. The differences need to be worked on and it will take a long time, but the journey began in
My faith is not in a system or even in a Covenant (and I do refer readers back to the powerful address at the conference by Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks on ‘covenant of fate and covenant of faith’). Christian hope is not rooted in theology or dogma or even ethical consistency. Christian hope is rooted in God – the God who holds up wounded hands in a resurrection body and refuses to let death, destruction, manipulation, misrepresentation, conflict or anything else have the final word. I think
__________________________________________________________________________________
The Rt Revd Nick Baines is Bishop of Croydon and writes on ‘Nick Baines’s Blog: musings of a restless bishop’.
These posts are by guest authors for Fulcrum