Following the controversy over the text of the Lambeth Calls to be considered at the Lambeth Conference that starts today (see the many links and comments on my earlier post here), a revised version of the Calls was issued today. The press release is copied below. The original Lambeth Calls Guidance and Study Documents is here.
Text of Calls to be discussed at Lambeth Conference published
The Calls which will be discussed by bishops from around the world at the Lambeth Conference 2022, which begins in Canterbury this week, have been published.
The document Lambeth Calls includes revisions to a number of draft Lambeth Calls which were released last week as part of Lambeth Calls: Guidance and Study Documents.
It includes revisions to the Call on Human Dignity, agreed by the drafting group following consideration of widespread responses from bishops and others.
There are also revisions to the draft Calls on Discipleship, Mission and Evangelism and Inter Faith Relations.
Bishop Tim Thornton, Chair of the Lambeth Conference’s Lambeth Calls Subgroup, said:
“We have listened carefully and prayerfully to what bishops and many others have said in response to the draft Calls, especially that on Human Dignity. Archbishop Justin has invited the bishops of the Anglican Communion to come together as a family to listen, pray and discern – sometimes across deeply-held differences.
It is our prayer that these Calls can offer a basis for those conversations – and that all of our discussions will be marked by the grace and love of Jesus Christ.
Please continue to pray for us that we may continue to listen, walk and witness together.”
Please click here to view the Lambeth Calls document.
Notes to Editors:
During the conference bishops will consider each of the Calls together and will then be able to respond with one of three options:
Calls chosen by the bishops at the conference will be formally issued in the report of the Lambeth Conference 2022.
There is now a revision to Human Dignity 2.3. Let’s call it the “first revision.” The first revision still cites 1998 Lambeth I.10 twice. Some will, quite rightly, object even to these citations. Note, furthermore, that 1998 Lambeth I.10 could sneak in under two other sections of this first revision. These sections appear unchanged from the original draft; one of them mentions Lambeth I.10 specifically. First, first revision Human Dignity 3.1 would establish an “Archbishop’s Commission for Redemptive Action.” Even the name is offensive–this work does not belong to one archbishop alone. But putting the label aside, this ACRA “will… Read more »
Regarding the Archbishop’s Commission for Redemptive Action – Given the proposer is the Archbishop of the West Indies, this is very specifically concerning the revelations of the depth of ties between the C of E and money from slavery (Queen Anne’s Bounty etc). It is about ‘reparations’ without using that word. The ACRA is intended to be led by ‘a leader from a community that experienced colonialism and slavery’. The aim is to hold the key Archbishop (rather than Archbishops) – the Archbishop of Canterbury (not as a person, Justin did not enslave anyone, but as a role) to account.… Read more »
I’m not sure that the identity of the proposer or the “reparations” purpose of the proposed ACRA makes any difference to my point. Archbishop Howard Gregory may have relatively liberal views–apparently much more liberal than those of Drexel Gomez?–but that does not mean that work proposed by him cannot be hijacked by others. And if this section is about reparations, without even saying so, then that proves that the proposed ARCA may have within its remit subjects that are not explicitly mentioned in the text. In other words–hardly reassuring!
So they responded to the complaints about the absence of anything resembling an outright rejection of the “call”. Good
Of course it should never have been needed but thank you to those, under great pressure, who produced a really good revision.
It’s possible that this was the original version before someone inserted the false unity piece. It is thoughtful and well done, and an accurate portrayal of the varied “mind” of the AC. It’s much more in keeping with the rest of the document.
I agree that it was a really good revision, and appreciate the people who worked on the changes. That said, I imagine the raised hopes of some in the Global South and elsewhere (that I:10 would be pinned down) will result in hard feeling in the other direction. The main positive (if there are no wrecking amendments) is that the rest of this ‘Call’ is very constructive. However, the insertion of the ‘re-affirmation of I:10’ was not and is not a small matter. It was justified by the lead organiser because I:10 “is not just about marriage between a man… Read more »
Well said.
Good reflection from Marcus Green:
https://possibilityofdifference.blogspot.com/2022/07/give-me-my-agenda-or-give-me-death.html
Like Marcus I am a gay man but unlike him I would like to know who is responsible for this crass episode. It is precisely because I’m not prepared to be a victim that I want accountability.
Right on !
I think we need to know in case the same person has a role in LLF.
I am going to bow out of that discussion. Obviously it’s none of my business.
I’ve always found it most effective to confront bullies energetically. Not to thank them.
We have here not only spiritual abuse of LGBTQ+ people, but also bureaucratic malfeasance and, frankly, underhandedness.
If this episode is not to be repeated, it needs to be clarified and remembered. Truth before reconciliation.
Forgiveness is important but so is penitence, partly so the same mistakes are not repeated. If the wording of this important section of the document was twisted partly to suit the wishes of a handful of people seeking to undermine the possibility of change, including in the Church of England, it would be useful to know. Also if some believe that ‘Human Dignity’ has little to do with equality, provided there is cordial conversation which includes some of those who have been denied the opportunities others enjoy, further discussion is needed. It is almost 55 years since the official process… Read more »
Yes, it is good to see there is action on a revised text for ‘Human Dignity’ although that is probably bound to fall short in many ways: and excellent that now bishops can explicitly ‘not-vote’ electronically (my understanding being that this procedure is ‘not voting’) with the addition of a 3rd option: ‘This Call does not speak for me. I do not add my voice to this Call’. The difficulty as ever is that the spectre of Lambeth 1998 1:10 looms like Banquo’s ghost over the feast. Although the intention to reaffirm it is now gone, it still shines its… Read more »
The Anglican world outside of the Global South is looking forward to the rejection of Lambeth 1:10: which was a blip on the radar of Anglican Life, that advertised a long-outdated culture of former homophobia and sexism. Prayers for enlightenment in a dark world of prejudice and injustice towards a significant minority in our Church
Dividing Anglicanism into global south and global north is simplistic and unhelpful. Brazil (global south) although small has amended the marriage liturgy to remove all gender references. Equal marriage. Singapore is in the global north as is Sydney and with bishops in the c of E oppose equal marriage. Same gender couples can have their marriages blessed in one of the Cape Town dioceses but not in England
I think the idea that a Lambeth conference will reject I.10 en masse is a rather forlorn hope, Ron.
I read the comment that Marcus made and Tim linked to (above), but I don’t share his view. There should always be forgiveness, and Marcus is right to encourage people to keep things in proportion. But I agree with Father Dean and Jeremy, that this was NOT a good incident, both from the point of view of LGBT people, and from the point of view of those seeking shared values and objectives at the Conference. Yes, there are so many other pressing needs. Yes, as LGBT people we cannot exist in perpetual self-pity. But it is possible to be concerned… Read more »
I agree, Susannah. And I think the responses of Bishops Emma Ineson and Sarah Mullally indicate missional and theological weaknesses widespread in church leadership circles which should be addressed.
I haven’t heard anything Sarah has said on the subject, Savi. I respect that Emma is theologically opposed to gay sex, but I did not find her defence of 1998 I:10 being in the ‘Call’ convincing. Personally I regard it as unconvincing when someone suggests gay sex is wrong, but defends I:10 because it also says some nice things on behalf of gay people. No. When 1998 I:10 vilifies gay sexuality, don’t try to be an apologist for it, by saying ‘yes but we want to be nice to gay people’. Fundamentally it consigns gay and lesbian people to lifelong… Read more »
“Emma’s views (she can correct me if I’ve misrepresented) are – to be clear – theologically coherent, and a position that plenty of people hold in the Church of England. They have a right to those views.”
Reading the Bible literally like that leads to things like male headship and the impossibility of female ordination. So, while a view that homosexuality is wrong is possible, I don’t believe it is a coherent position for a woman bishop to take.
Susannah, I was referring to the statement by the Living in Love and Faith Next Steps Group, which is led by the Bishop of London. For instance its mention of ‘respecting the dignity of every human being by creating space for dialogue’ appears to imply that, say, excluding members of a minority from the opportunities open to others does not affect human dignity, provided dialogue is enabled. I find this unconvincing. And Emma Ineson’s apparent belief that the view of a majority of bishops at a gathering (or in general) represents the mind of the Anglican Communion as a whole… Read more »
Well people are entitled to their views, and I’m mainly interested in the issues rather than individuals and their personal consciences. Emma signed Ian Paul’s letter in 2016 asking all the bishops to uphold the principle of only straight men and women marrying or (consequently) having sex:
https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/letter-to-the-college-of-bishops/
“The Bible is clear that God has given the marriage of one man with one woman as the only context in which physical expression is to be given to our sexuality.”
Of course, people’s views can change.
On the Next Steps Group, they issued a statement yesterday, welcoming the revision of the Human Dignity ‘Call’ in these words: “The Living in Love and Faith Next Steps Group is grateful for the revision to the Lambeth Call on Human Dignity. Genuine dialogue that enhances human dignity can only begin when we are open and honest about our disagreements and differences, and the pain that these can cause. The revised Call’s acknowledgement of the different perspectives that exist in the churches of the Anglican Communion about sexuality and marriage is welcomed.” The language feels like it is sort of… Read more »
It’s pretty distressing to hear that the leader of LLF’s Next Steps believes that exclusion doesn’t impact human dignity. Wow. “You’re too disordered to allow you the sacrament of marriage. Here, have a seat at the table where we can pretend we’re all in ‘unity’ while you silently cry your eyes out. Kumbaya.”
I’m not really sure that’s what the Next Steps Group thinks, to be fair.
The harm of the present exclusion from marriage is definitely real, but if this process leads to change then the discourse will be worth it.
Obviously that has yet to be demonstrated.
Maybe now, the Trojans have closed the doors…
(I rather liked this picture today posted by Hannah Wilder)
It seemed to sum up what unknown people had been trying to do.
If the change in the Human Dignity call is the Trojans Shutting the gate then are the “Global South” group outsiders?
They will feel they are, John. One of the worst aspects of this Lambeth I:10 fiasco is that their demands for its inclusion had been met – and they’d pressed hard for it – and now it’s been snatched away from them. It’s as if the Trojan Horse was let in to Troy, but before the soldiers could jump down, it was dragged back outside again.
This will probably exacerbate things. I wouldn’t be surprised if amendments are attempted to let the Horse back in a second time.
Friday evening: think I might have been right there…
[1 of 2] A comment by Susannah Clark pointed me to Mark Michael, “‘Lambeth Calls’ To Consider Sexuality, World Crises, Mission,” Living Church (July 19, 2022). That article describes a panel discussion about the calls. Of the panelists, it quotes only Rev. Emma Ineson as supporting the original language about 1998 Lambeth I.10. And as Susannah wrote, Rev. Ineson is quoted as saying, ““The restatement of Lambeth I.10 is a restatement of fact. It reflects the majority of the Communion, the mind of the Communion.” Let’s take these two sentences apart, shall we? First sentence: “The restatement of Lambeth I.10… Read more »
I presume the “fact” in question is that I.10 reflects the most recent pronouncement of the Lambeth Conference on the subject and is in that sense the position of the Conference on the subject. That will continue to be a fact until it is replaced by another pronouncement on the same subject, as may well happen this week. On the other hand, the 1908 pronouncement on birth control does not represent the latest position: it was overturned by 1958.
It might be better to say that the Lambeth 1998 statement was a reflection of the majority at the Conference. There is no foundation for assigning Lambeth the capacity to speak the “mind” of the Communion. It is not a synod, but a conference. It does not issue canons, but it does make statements. Some are allowed to pass away in desuetude, while others are revisited. Two facts need to be noted: The 1958 resolution (115) on contraception (“family planning”) simply ignores the existence of the pungent denunciations of 1908. Moreover, the real change came in 1930 (Resolution 15) again… Read more »
I don’t know about Emma Ineson but I think many English conservatives are/were hoping that the Lambeth Conference would ostracise provinces which have accommodated same sex marriage. That could then be used as a stick in LLF to suggest that the same would happen to the Church of England if it took a progressive approach.
It’s quite likely that if Lambeth 1998 I:10 does in the end get re-affirmed (which may happen by majority support for amendments?)… then that Communion ‘decision’ may well be used here in England to argue against change after LLF “because otherwise we will wreck the Anglican Communion, and we are part of a worldwide organisation that affirms orthodoxy.” This argument gets frequently deployed. “For the sake of the Communion, we cannot break with orthodoxy on sexual issues, because it would lead to schism of a Communion that does so much good.” In short, “We may have to sacrifice the hopes… Read more »
[2 of 2] “Mind”: And in the ensuing 24 years, what happened? The liberals advanced to same-sex marriage, in a handful of provinces, while conservatives have continued to support criminalisation of same-sex conduct. “Mind” would seem a very wrong word here, because a psychologist would diagnose the situation as obviously dissociative, perhaps even schizophrenic. And of course the CofE has been denying and delaying. There is no healthy “mind” in this situation. The term is unhelpful and inaccurate. “Majority”: This of course is the kicker. Majority rules, don’t you know? Except that the Anglican Communion is not governed in any way… Read more »
A rhetorical device. Some have, indeed. But most have not.
In 1998 the Conference specifically acknowledged there was no common mind among the bishops. Lambeth 1998 I:10 was never presented as the common mind of the whole Communion. Difference of views was acknowledged then, and 24 years on, those differences are still present, demonstrably. The Communion does not have one mind, it has many. People can ‘re-affirm’ what they like, but it has no traction on individual national Churches. Decisions rest with the individual Churches like the C of E itself. The whole direction of LLF is towards recognising there are diverse views on sexuality and moving towards ways of… Read more »
In response to claims that Lambeth resolutions “hold” until expressly repealed, and brought up 1958’s rejection of the former “ban” on contraception from 1908, I noted the following: It might be better to say that the Lambeth 1998 statement was a reflection of the majority at the Conference. There is no foundation for assigning Lambeth the capacity to speak the “mind” of the Communion. It is not a synod, but a conference. It does not issue canons, but it does make statements. Some are allowed to pass away in desuetude, while others are revisited. Three facts need to be noted:… Read more »
I think the answer to the question “who is responsible”, which has so exercised these discussions, is simple. The answer is Justin Welby. I don’t mean that he personally inserted the complained-of wording in the texts, but that this is his programme and it is for him to stand up for what has been done in his name. If he accepts it, he can take the flak: if it is unacceptable to him, he can say so, apologise, and arrange for it to be changed. Letting his staff take the blame is unworthy of a church leader.
So after 13 years of planning, ample time for the ABoC to gauge the mood of the Provinces, the Lambeth Conference has descended into a confrontational encounter around statements which can be altered by any group which shouts loud enough. The last minute expanded choice of yes/no/maybe only amplifies the false impression that the Calls have a bearing on the life of the Provinces. Any group squabbling for control of the outcomes of this currently discredited instrument of communion will find it a hollow victory. Anyone with energy and an agenda for change needs to invest in their Province. In… Read more »
I agree that the ‘authority’ of the Communion over individual provinces is a fantasy (see Mark Hill’s article posted here July 27). At least, that’s the reality at present – some may press over time to extend that authority and impose uniformity covenant-style but that is not the reality right now. However, Stephen, I’m not sure the insertion of Lambeth 1998 I:10 was “13 years in the planning”. It seems more likely it was a bit of a rogue last-minute action, possibly in part due to loud voices from the Global South in the weeks before, who were demanding it… Read more »
I was thinking more of the 13 years the ABoC has had to decide what format the LC would take. There are lots of useful ways that bishops can spend 10 days together. One potential lesson that could be learned is to have the LC at the beginning rather than the end of the tenure of the ABoC. The ABoC could then lead a process of discerning vision, priorities and a model of Communion with the bishops and then work together to implement that shared consensus over the next ten years or so. The existing timing of the LC acts… Read more »
I’m following my bishop on social media. He’s usually pretty honest, and was very up front about his disquiet about the original draft of the calls. But he appears to be enjoying himself, and so far there is no sign of the ‘confrontational encounter’ and loud shouting you’re talking about.
Greeting Tim. That’s good to know. Perhaps confrontational was too strong. But news is trickling out on social media, and it sounds like there will be pressure from all sides to address the future of I:10 and that some see recent developments as an obstacle to sharing Holy Communion.
Given that electronic voting has now been replaced with ‘voice voting’ I think the shouting match is back on.
I strongly disagree. Lambeth I.10 gives homophobia a sprinkling of legitimacy – ‘See, this worldwide group of bishops think homosexuality is immoral’. Well beyond church politics, it is an incredibly dangerous resolution in fuelling anti-LGBT attitudes and behaviours.
It’s been pretty strongly argued that the LC cannot speak for the global Anglican Communion. I’m confused now as to whether the outcome of the LC can make a difference either way on any of the topics it discusses.
It really all went wrong back in 2013. ++Sentamu should have been translated to Canterbury, but the reasons why he was not are not for sharing here. ++Welby was the person to try to fix the Church of England, and should have been translated to York. Had ++Sentamu been nominated, the Lambeth Conference would have been in 2018 and not postponed. But the CofE has no processes for strategic succession planning. It’s chaotic and there is no prospect of that changing. ++Welby has enjoyed the Anglican Communion (rather too much). When home affairs are challenging, many politicians turn to foreign… Read more »
Given we are still an established church what exactly are the constitutional constraints on the appointment of the next ABC. Presumably s/he must be a British citizen, able to swear allegiance to the Crown, sit in the H of Lords etc, probably crown the next monarch etc. Where is this spelt out?
One wonders whether such questions were considered when this change was mooted. Wasn’t it traditionally the case that the Crown appointed, latterly through the Prime Minister, a person with all the necessary attributes? I haven’t seen (maybe I have just missed it), any discussion of the Archbishop’s position within the Constitution, more particularly, his/her precedence in England next after only the Sovereign and senior members of the Royal family.
You must not be under 21 years of age, and it helps not to have been a bankrupt or convicted of treason! Regarding aliens, by the Act of Settlement 1701 “no person born out of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland or Ireland, or the Dominions thereunto belonging … (except such as are born of English parents)” may be a member of the House of Lords. By virtue of a modification contained in the British Nationality Act 1981, this provision does not apply to Commonwealth citizens or citizens of the Republic of Ireland. Under the 1981 Act, “Commonwealth citizen” means a… Read more »
“++Sentamu should have been translated to Canterbury”
Oh, no. He was bad enough as Ebor.
As for the Canterbury CNC change, I agree with you, because it’s an obvious attempt to give Canterbury more interprovincial authority. Which is nonsense.
But Synod agreed the change. An enormous mistake.
As I point out above, there are also constitutional issues if a non-UK citizen were appointed to Canterbury; in fact I wonder whether it is even constitutionally possible. We need advice from both a canon lawyer and a constitutional one. Ebor similarly has considerable constitutional precedence: Cantuar and he both rank before the Prime Minister. Some decisions in the C of E seem to be made ‘on the hoof’; another example the ‘ad hoc’ revisions of ordination during Covid lockdown, and whether those were meant to be permanent (as was widely assumed at the time) or purely a temporary expedient.… Read more »
That should have read episcopal consecrations rather than ordinations.
‘As I point out above, there are also constitutional issues if a non-UK citizen were appointed to Canterbury; in fact I wonder whether it is even constitutionally possible.’ There are other ways to ensure that the leader of the Anglican Communion is not always from the UK. The post could be disconnected from Canterbury, for instance. If we stick with having the Archbishop of Canterbury as the international leader of Anglicanism, and if the Archbishop always has to be a UK citizen, then we are stuck forever in the colonial anachronism of having everything run by someone from the UK.… Read more »
I agree with you, Tim. The post should be disconnected from the primate’s role of oversight in the Church of England. That seems so clear that I’m surprised that anyone would think otherwise in this day and age, especially in the context of colonialism. I listened to Justin give his keynote address last night (video starts at 39:00 because it was a late start) and it was as thought-provoking speech, skirting around the problems with the Human Dignity ‘Call’ but with a lot to think about. And I found it especially moving that over 400 people logged on to it… Read more »
When Michael Ramsey left Canterbury, I recall discussion about who might succeed him. In that discussion it was accepted that a non CofE bishop from a country which retained the role of the crown — specifically, Canada, Australia and New Zealand as well as some other countries not named, would be acceptable as such a bishop, a citizen of his country, had already implicitly sworn allegiance to his monarch who happened to be also the monarch of the United Kingdom (“happened to be” is not strictly accurate but it serves.)
‘as such a bishop, a citizen of his country, had already implicitly sworn allegiance to his monarch’
Well, implicitly, perhaps, but definitely not explicitly. Very few who are born citizens of Canada have had to swear allegiance to the Queen. Only a person who becomes a Canadian citizen after immigration – or a person who undertakes some public offiuce such as MP, MLA etc. – has to do that. Nor does any bishop, priest, or deacon of the Anglican Church of Canada have to swear allegiance to the Queen at their ordination.
I think I read that the 5 reps from the Anglican Communion are chosen by the Anglican Consultative Council. If so it’s there that the power to influence the choice of the next ABoC resides.
Not quite. The 5 reps are to be “chosen by the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates Meeting of the Anglican Communion and the Anglican Consultative Council”.
Thanks for clarifying and doing a great job of covering the LC.
Andrew Goddard today critiques both the original version of the ‘Call’ and the revised version. His analysis in intelligent and quite acute, although I don’t share his views. I think he correctly identifies why those who want a more conservative and authoritative enforcement of doctrine on all Provinces will feel concerned at the shift: “The refusal to make any attempt to reaffirm Lambeth I.10 or to follow through on the logic of Windsor, the covenant and the 2016 statement means that if accepted the call effectively embeds within the Instruments the conviction that each province determines its own actions within… Read more »