Two recent news reports from Kenya:
Anglican Bishops Extend Special Gesture To The Kenyan Gay Community
Anglican Church of Kenya (ACK) Bishops on Sunday welcomed gay worshippers to fellowship with them but held on to the principle of not officiating their marriages in church.
This came after the high court ruling that declined to repeal sections of the penal code that criminalized same-sex relationships…
ACK Church shuts doors on gay marriages but welcomes gay worshippers (emphasis added)
The Anglican Church has declared it will not officiate same sex marriages.
The stand comes just weeks after the High Court in Kenya declined to declare unconstitutional some parts of the Penal Code which criminalises same sex relationships.Today, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby from the Church of England said the Anglican Church believes in the biblical definition of marriage and relationships. He however noted that with the modern world, Christians should learn to respect each other’s differences in order to preach God’s word.
He said there exists so many differences in the world that the church has to deal with.”My own view of the Christian marriage is the traditional marriage (between a man and woman),” said Welby who is in the country for a visit. Welby steered clear of the Kenyan court ruling, which is the latest upset of the global gay community saying he is not fit to directly comment on it.
“But just so you know in England, it is not currently possible to have same sex marriage in the church,” he said. Same sex marriage is however legal in England…
The Anglican Church of Kenya has published this video recording of a Press Briefing by the Archbishop of Kenya And the Archbishop of Canterbury at All Saints Cathedral, Nairobi. So you can see and hear for yourself exactly what the two archbishops actually said.
To understand how all this is.viewed from a GAFCON perspective, you need to study this lengthy article by Phil Ashey whose formal position is President & Chief Executive Officer of the American Anglican Council and leads the GAFCON Lawyers Task Force.
Walking In The Light: A Study In Contrasts
He refers to the video recording:
At about 3:00-3:37 in the video you can listen to what Archbishop Justin Welby says about the upcoming Lambeth Conference 2020. He says that the Lambeth Conference of Bishops has always been marked “by controversy” since it began in 1867. He notes that the Lambeth Conference scheduled for 2020 has not met since 2008. He notes that “When we are able to meet together rather than…not communicating, not meeting together we are able to listen to each other. And so we will see what happens in the Lambeth Conference when we get there.”
And further on he continues:
Beginning at 3:56 Archbishop Welby says “the Bible is clear,” and that “my own personal view, which I have stated on numerous occasions in public…is the traditional view of Christian marriage…which has always been the view of Christian marriage…”
But note what else he says and what he does not say:
- That he is also “deeply torn” on the traditional definition of Christian marriage as between a man and a woman for life, and that he confesses publicly that “I am equally convinced that it may be that I am wrong… and that “Anglican theological methodology never closes things down.“
- That, therefore, he believes that Marriage is a secondary issue over which Anglicans can agree to disagree;
- That he would approve the Church of England’s blessing of same-sex “unions” as a way to gain traction within English culture;
- That he approves the public, liturgical celebration of “gender-transitions” in rites approved by the Bishops of the Church of England that are almost identical to baptism;
And there is a lot more about what is wrong with the Church of England and the Lambeth Conference which you can read for yourself.
But earlier in the article Ashey says this about Archbishop Ole Sapit:
With regards to the question about the Kenyan Supreme Courts recent decision against legalizing same-sex marriage, he applauds the Supreme Court for upholding the traditional view of marriage as between a man and a woman for life, for not introducing into the laws of Kenya a redefinition of marriage contrary to the teaching of the ACK;
The recent Kenyan Supreme Court decision was not about same-sex marriage per se, but about retaining the criminalisation of homosexuals generally. It seems nobody is prepared to comment on this, although the primates of the Anglican Communion have previously spoken quite clearly.
“The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, who spoke at a morning service at All Saints Cathedral in Nairobi, stated that the Anglican Church believes in the biblical definition of marriage and relationships.” Wrong! There is NO ‘Anglican Church’. There is an Anglican Communion of many provinces, some of which do NOT share what Justin means by ‘the biblical definition of marriage and relationships’. This extends even to half the membership of Justin’s own Church – the Church of England. “The Bible is clear,” he said. Well that contradicts what he has said here in the UK, to the effect that… Read more »
Spot on, Suzannah. Archbishop Welby goes to a country whose supreme court refused to overturn the criminalization of sex between men (and possibly women, depending out how the law is written and interpreted) and has a history of persecuting gay people — and talks about same-sex marriage, thus appearing to reinforce the marginalization of GLBT people in Kenya. If he was unwilling to comment on gay people being imprisoned, he should have also avoided adding fuel to the flames in other areas. If I can badly bend a common metaphor, it wouldn’t be the first time a religious leader has… Read more »
Thank you for this report, Simon. I have been following various reports of the high court ruling that declined to repeal sections of the penal code that criminalised same-sex relationships. Changing Attitude continues in Kenya and the Facebook group has over 1000 members. The group is almost paralysed by the environment in Kenya, with all but a tiny number of members reluctant to reveal their identity. The high court ruling is depressing for them, as are the comments made by Archbishop Jackson Ole Sapit that the gay community should come and be preached to that what they are doing is… Read more »
The Labour Party is headed for electoral oblivion because the old (in age, but more in attitude) leadership haven’t yet cottoned on that in the 21st century you can longer tell different audiences different stories. So they are in the awkward position that Brexit voters believe they are a Remain conspiracy, and vice versa: the attempts to wiggle and obfuscate and say nothing committing to offend either group ends up convincing both groups that Labour are their enemy. Similarly, Justin Welby is now seen as a godless enabler of gay perversion by GAFCON, and as a panderer to homophobic bigots… Read more »
The Tim Farron who voted repeatedly for gay rights. Setting his personal views aside to support gay people’s civil liberties is the opposite of the Gafcon crew. He took a classically liberal position, but unfortunately for him, those days are gone.
Archbishop Sapit’s comment that GLBT people should come to ACK(!) churches “and be preached to” confirms my suspicions that, for a lot of conservative Christians, GLBT people are welcome in the pews — so long as they are on their knees in recognition of their status as abject sinners and with their wallets open.
I have a memory that there is some sort of statement from the Church of England (and/or AC, Lambeth?) calling for the decriminalization of homosexuality? Is that right? There is certainly a Lambeth Conference resolution (1978?) calling for the end of the death penalty, despite the fact that the 39 Articles takes a permissive stance towards it. Perhaps another TA reader can cite chapter and verse. Meanwhile, this piece of research from the London School of Economics, just a few years old, which didn’t get the traction it deserves, is worth reading.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/business-and-consultancy/consulting/assets/documents/Anglicans-and-Sexuality.pdf
Judith, You are probably remembering this from the 2016 Primates’ Meeting: ‘The Primates condemned homophobic prejudice and violence and resolved to work together to offer pastoral care and loving service irrespective of sexual orientation. This conviction arises out of our discipleship of Jesus Christ. The Primates reaffirmed their rejection of criminal sanctions against same-sex attracted people.’ https://www.anglicancommunion.org/media/206035/Communiqu%C3%A9_from_the_Primates_Meeting_2016.pdf What is dismaying is that Archbishop Ole Sapit was one of the Primates who spoke to that at the Press Conference. I also assisted Chris Newlands in convening a group (including Colin Coward, Giles Goddard and Andrew Goddard) who drafted a statement called… Read more »
The Archbishop’s equivocation communicates to this gay man that he is of the opinion that we are expendable. If some of us are incarcerated, queer bashed or sent for ‘re-education’ this is a price worth paying if it holds the dysfunctional Anglican Communion together for the duration of his tenure. It all feels cynical and unworthy of a priest and bishop. If I were to be generous I would say that he’s driven by desperation, and that is certainly part of the dynamic, but weighed in the balance his lack of courage when faced with homophobic bullying means history won’t… Read more »
Agreed, and very well said.
It is indeed very hard to see any workable way forward, if the ABC means to retain some kind of role alleged to belong to a self-understanding of Anglicanism, such has been operative. It is all well and good to say the AC is not a Church; or it is a federation of independent provinces and nothing more. But if that were genuinely the case, no one would turn to him and ask his view when in Kenya, and in turn he would properly say, ‘not to do with me, mate.’ Here we can see the difference with something like… Read more »
I see +Welby made this comment at the last ACC meeting, in the context of confessing very bad feeligs about the colonialism of past English life. “I would hope that, at some point in the future . . . I hope sooner rather than later . . . it would be possible for people from outside the British Isles to be Archbishops of Canterbury. That’s quite a big change for the way the Church of England does things; so it’s a long and complicated process, and there’s no point in rushing these things. Rushing into it, it would be very… Read more »
In what way is it not currently possible for someone from outside the British Isles to be appointed? It is curious that he said British Isles rather than UK, as I’d have thought there would be more of a problem with the Republic of Ireland than with Canada, for example, the Archbishop needing to be a subject of the Queen.
“…the Archbishop needing to be a subject of the Queen” — this is yet another way in which the suggestion (confusing as it is anyway) in unclearly resolving of anything. Why would having someone from outside the British Isles, who is otherwise needing to be a subject of the next monarch, represent a positive development? If the problem is the legacy of colonialism — this might be one way to understand +Welby’s remarks — how does finding someone capable of being subject to the British monarch , and not someone else, move things away from his concern?
The bishops of Canada, Australia and New Zealand at least — and perhaps those of the province of the West Indies are subjects of the Queen, as citizens of their respective countries, and would be eligible to be ABC as it stands. What is required is an oath of allegiance upon appointment, and there is no reasons why those bishops would not be able to swear. Scotland as well, of course. In the early 1970s when a new ABC was being sought, the name of Archbishop Scott of Canada was in contention (in the press) enough that the matter was… Read more »
Yes, these would be eligible. And lots of others would not be able to take such an oath (as I could not when licensed in the CofE).
And this helps the Communion, the CofE, or the concerns about colonialism re: Welby in just what way?
I think you’d find a fair few Scottish Episcopalians would have reservations about swearing an oath of allegiance to the Queen as well. Such things are the stuff upon which the distinctive history of the SEC rests.
Or, does he mean an Archbishop of Canterbury who is otherwise located in the larger AC, outside of the CofE? I just wonder where his thinking is headed on this.
Homophobia is a terrible factor in the lives of lesbian and gay people. It exposes decent and loving people to abuse, and in worst cases to violent attack. This is not just a phenomenon in far away countries. It exists day to day on our streets here in the UK, so that if I am out hand-in-hand with my girl, or expressing affection, I can never be sure when abuse or attack may occur. The problem with a state Church that continues to outlaw gay sex – not even to allow individual priests and churches to follow conscience and radically… Read more »
The High Court decision was to reject a claim that the colonial laws criminalising consenting same sex intimacy were incompatible with commitments to equality in the Kenyan constitution. Anglican Primates formally committed themselves to decriminalisation and so it is shocking that one of the Primates who presented the 2016 Communique at the press conference is opposing it now. He seems to be doing so because he believes the issue is equal marriage, but that is not the case. The issue is the right of women and men to live without fear of prosecution. It is perfectly possible to reject equal… Read more »
There is much talk about allowing all Anglican ministers and bishops to follow their individual consciences yet, when some do, people are up in arms. This is what freedom of conscience looks like. It doesn’t work. It cannot work. How can lesbian and gay Christians feel at all welcome in the Church of England if the Archbishop of Canterbury says things like this? Yet, if freedom of conscience is going to be part of the package then he will always be free to say things like this. This is why freedom of conscience cannot work and why imposed equality is… Read more »
Am I alone in seeing the word homophobic as a total misnomer? Those to whom this refers, do not fear gay people, (phobos – Greek fear) they ‘hate’ them. So on the the parallell of misogyny, we ought to coin the word ‘misohomo’ or some such thing. Far more honest. I long for the day when like the various signs in I Corinthians 13, all labels will cease.
Wittgenstein: ‘the meaning of a word is its use’. In use, the term ‘homophobia’ means hatred of gay people. This etymological chestnut (the ‘it’s not fear’, far from being a lone view is brought up a lot) is a red herring. Everybody knows what they mean when they say ‘homophobic’.
Besides which, hatred is often rooted in fear… fear of the other, stemming from internal fear of one’s own self-loathing, shame, insecurity, guilt, inadequacy… projected on to the ‘other’ to offset it from oneself. Hatred and anger towards LGBT people often stems from one’s own insecurity and fear. The ‘others’ become objects of fear, because they are the objectified targets into which your own fear of yourself is hurled like a projectile to get it away from yourself and your own consciousness. LGBT people become fearful objects to the hater, because the conduit along which their own fear flows is… Read more »
The problem is the opposite. The problem is not that Justin believes gay sexuality is wrong. The problem is that he continues to overrule the consciences of local church communities and priests who, reflecting the prevailing acceptance in UK society, believe the imposed status quo in the Church of England is harmful to gay people, harmful to the Christian witness in our society, and contrary to what half the Church of England believes in faith and conscience. Change has to come. The present mandating of LGBT condemnation is simply not acceptable to large swathes of the Church of England. It… Read more »
Surely the issue pressing on +Welby is the role he feels he has been given in respect of the Communion as a whole. In Hong Kong he even indicated that a different model would in time come to be, confusing though his remarks were to some. Until that issue is addressed, one will continue to see the matter as having to do solely with established church realities in one province of the AC, as you apparently do. His role makes that impossible for him, as he sees it. He says as much when asked in Kenya — asked because he… Read more »
I know we disagree on a lot, but I recognise the thrust of your ‘big picture’ argument: that the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury creates anomaly. In the UK, he speaks one language… “I just don’t know if gay sex is a sin”… in his capacity as an Archbishop in the Church of England. In Kenya, and very much with GAFCON, and Communion coherence, in mind, and of course the specifics in Kenya where exposed Christian churches risk losing followers to Islam if gay sex is endorsed, he speaks a different language… “the Bible is clear.” The reality is… Read more »
“I am not sure one can be Archbishop of the English Church, responding to English culture and theological diversity… AND…” maintain a role thought to inhere with the catholic position represented by the See of Canterbury, at the time of the Reformation, as such and in relationship to provinces of the Anglican Communion. You also use language like “rigid uniformity” when of course one could equally say, the traditional account of the goods of Christian marriage, shared not long ago across the entire AC, and held to be so still in the Global South bloc of 65% of provinces. The… Read more »
‘Rigid uniformity’ is a problem in a fracturing Church or Communion. We could follow the Scottish model, and live and let live with each other, and find our unity in diversity, but Bishop Rod (nice man though he is) won’t accept that. There *has* to be uniformity on sexuality as far as he is concerned. It’s a salvation issue. We could focus on love for each other, in all our differences, but GAFCON won’t have that. They require uniformity their way, or it’s walk out from communion. The Primates threaten sanctions if provinces break uniformity. Priests and ordinands in England… Read more »
Remaining in continuity with Christian teaching and rites on marriage isn’t ‘rigid uniformity’; it is remaining with Christian teaching and rites on marriage. If one departs from this, and then uses language like “rigid uniformity,” it is because one has actively chosen to depart from the tradition of the church, not because anyone is demanding “rigid uniformity.” As for the situation in the SEC. Having experienced the church personally, I will withhold any opinion about whether this will wear well over time — we have now several big churches leaving what is a very small chuch already. Will there be… Read more »
Although he is asked because of his position as ABC, the motivation seems quite opposite to the way an RC bishop might ask the Pope. They are not so much seeking authoritative guidance from the ABC, as trying him for heresy. It seems Archbishop Welby was suggesting some sort of international primus but as you say, all very unclear. Perhaps he thinks people will accept the ABC to that role more if he is chosen by, and from, Anglicans worldwide.
“…if he (sic) is chosen by, and from, Anglicans worldwide.”
This has of course been suggested. A genuine conciliarism, not unlike the Orthodox churches. Antioch and Alexandria were once the historic sees. They ceased being so. Time marches on.
What is odd is the idea of the See of Canterbury, inside an anomalous polity of established church/ subject to monarch (for how long?), being proposed as an ongoing centre for someone ‘outside the British Isles.’
Trying him for heresy? or questioning the polity in a larger sense, given the constraints on the ABC manifestly in place.
“an anomalous polity of established church/ subject to monarch”… that’s not anomalous… that is authentic Anglicanism. It always has been. Church and State interwoven. That’s been a conduit of grace for most of 500 years, and stopped the Church of England becoming a puritan sect or a quasi-fundamentalist protestant institution as some would like it to be. The Church of England, by name and very nature, is the original Anglican Church. It can hardly be anomalous to itself. If other provinces want to apply the name ‘Anglican’ to themselves, all well and good. Free world. But the English Church is… Read more »
Of course compared with every other province of the anglican communion, it is anomalous. This obviously makes it subject to the wishes of a nation unlike every other case. “Authentic anglicanism”? Wittgenstein was quoted above. “The Anglican Church of Kenya” is a church whose roots go back to missionary work based in England. Other parts of the Anglican Communion go back to other roots. The Anglican churches of the AC use the word in the same way. “I think people overstate the whole Anglican Communion thing. It is a network of self-operating Churches in a couple of dozen provinces.” That… Read more »
“The ABC is ‘the boss’ who invites people to Lambeth Conference”. If the definition of “boss” is as you state, why are some provinces not accepting the boss’s invitation (and free to do so)?
This is not very difficult. Someone used the term “boss” so as to exaggerate. That is why it is placed in scare quotes above. Thank you for citing it accurately via copy and paste. The ABC controls membership at the LC. Is this in doubt? Not accepting an invitation of course diminishes one iota the point at issue, having to do with the singular role of the ABC. If 65% of provinces are in communion with an anglican body not recognised by the ABC, what this shows you is that even a position presumed to be in place is not… Read more »
Couldn’t agree more, which, I suspect puts me at odds with an increasing number on the pro-equality side. I totally get it since, by instinct, I sway towards their position; but I force myself to be liberal, ’cause I see the alternative leading to a vicious cycle of revenge that helps no-one. But the more traditionalists trample my conscience while demanding theirs be held sacrosanct, they harder this internal battle becomes.
Let me make sure my comments are properly placed in context. 1. I am not in theory opposed to a continuation of the idea of a special role for the ABC, vis-a-vis the AC, but with these caveats: 2. The rationale needs theological/historical grounding: is the argument that the See of Canterbury is a guarantor of something like the catholic claims of anglicanism (over against Rome, and over against other forms of continental reformation churches)? 3. when the claim was made, there was no Anglican Communion, so how does this line-up with present realities, where as noted, a new role… Read more »
“the idea of a special role for the ABC…” Please could you define that more clearly, otherwise we may not know what you are talking about. Why does there need to be a hierarchical ABC at all overseeing the ‘Anglican Communion’? The Archbishop of Canterbury’s responsibilities as primate in England are to attend to the needs of the Church of England, and the needs, communities and cultures of English churches and English society. The ‘Anglican Communion’ is a loose network of provincial Churches, and that network should remain loose to allow as much flexibility of practice and doctrinal focus as… Read more »
Susannah, Your question/s causes me to wonder how much you know about the Anglican Communion. This may explain why you do not respond to the points raised but return to your favorite themes. 1. The ABC “gathers” the Primates of the 40 provinces. He alone calls Lambeth Conferences, issues invitations, decides the agenda. He presides over ACC meetings. No one else does these things or has this special role. 2. I see you have an opinion about what the ABC should do inside the CofE. It is an opinion and summarises the things you hold dear. 3. The points I… Read more »
But what are you actually proposing? What “future functioning of the Anglican Communion” would you like to see? “You may google me if you want to know my professional life.” I’m only asking if you prefer to be addressed as ‘Christopher’ (like you call me Susannah), or Dr Seitz, or Professor Seitz. I hope you don’t mind me asking a simple question that is well-meaning and an attempt to respect your wishes. As for googling you, I did that ages ago. I’m a St Andrews graduate myself. My daughter did post-graduate theology there. And it’s a wonderful university – an… Read more »
You complain about “why you do not respond to the points raised… important matters for resolution. The way they are addressed, or not, will say a lot about the future functioning of the Anglican Communion.” My response: how can one seriously explore the future role of the Archbishop of Canterbury in relation to the ‘Anglican Communion’ without first exploring and trying to discern the future nature of the Anglican Communion. I’m having to do guesswork here, because you haven’t really told me what you think, but surely you can see in logical terms that ‘the future nature of the Anglican… Read more »
You made the extraordinary statement that “no special role” is exercised by the ABC. This is so far off the mark it cautions one not to assume too much or waste time unnecessarily. Do you not understand the role of the ABC vis-a-vis the AC at present? You constantly hypothesize about things you might prefer, but they are not realities. “I think the title of ABC is a point in question, but only if there is an ‘Anglican Communion’ to be ABC of. Personally I would prefer no ABC at all, except in the capacity of the primate’s role in… Read more »
“Suddenly we have a federation of independent churches which, if so, do not need his view on anything anyway. This is just not a good way forward.” Why isn’t such a federation a good way forward? And what do you mean by ‘independent’? If independent means a Province can ultimately determine its own path and doctrine, in flexible mission response to the actual communities and culture within which it operates, then that would be one meaning of ‘independent’. But equally, ‘independent’ does not mean isolationist. Independent churches in a federation could still actively seek points of solidarity, points of alongsideness… Read more »
Read the sentence. “do not need his view anyway.”
The point had to do with *the role being exercised by ABC.*
If there is a pure federation, his role is otiose. If you want that, go for it. It dismantles what has traditionally been a catholic anglican claim.
Why did there have to be those opposing Marcion? or those opposing Arius? Why couldn’t they just be friends? A loose federation?
These questions have a *direct pertinence* for the Church of England as such, given the ABC’s role. That is why I pose them. I am not a member of the CofE and I do not have to operate in a system where the role being exercised comes from a certain understanding of Anglicanism at its origins as a “church catholic” separated from Rome. Do CofE members understand and accept this definition? If they wish to restrict the role to the CofE, why and how? If they wish to defend the role in respect of the AC, how and why? A.… Read more »
I’m afraid I do not understand what is meant by a church Catholic understanding of Anglicanism or how it might affect the Archbishop of Canterbury’s role? Is there something that explains this?
Why does the ABC have a role vis-a-vis the AC? Why doesn’t the AB of SE Asia (or ____) call Primates Meetings, chair the ACC, invite to Lambeth? I am happy for anyone, especially in the CofE, to provide a rationale. J Jewel famously defended the catholic character of the CofE and the ABC within that context. If this is not the reason for an extension to the AC as a catholic body, then what is it?
I think I understand the point CRS is making about a church Cathoiic understanding of Anglicanism though it is rather compressed. Could not the claim to Catholicity be better expressed as the profession of the essentials of catholic faith and order ( Scripture, Creeds, sacraments, Episcopate ) in unity with other catholic churches. This is somewhat akin to
Gallicanism but fits in with the legacy of conciliarism found in 16th and 17th century english theologians. A rethinking of Anglican ecclesiology along these lines might help…though how far given our fractured state is perhaps moot.
The topic has been about why the ABC exercises a specific role vis-a-vis the Anglican Communion, and why he does this and not someone else. Does it derive from an understanding of the See of Canterbury as maintaining the apostolic and catholic faith in a manner distinct from the Roman See? If not, why does the ABC have a role such as he exercises it vis-a-vis the AC? Clearly many feel he should attend to the wishes of a national church membership as wide as the nation. That is a different understanding of the role of the ABC. You may… Read more »
When dealing with human rights, it is really, really dreadful to give any impression of affirming, or giving comfort to the oppressive side or to help them deflect from the hideous issue of criminalization with marriage. Welby disgusts me yet again.