24 September 2015
Schism?
Can the differences between the African and American churches be resolved?
By John Watson
In the eighteenth century the Church of England was described as the Conservative party at prayer, but at the moment it probably has more in common with Labour. That is not just because the Archbishop, a man who keeps his political allegiance to himself, is not afraid to challenge government policy but because the two organisations have something else in common. They are both on the brink of schism.
There has been plenty in the press recently about the divisions of opinion within Labour and how they might result in members of the party going their separate ways. The possible schism within the Anglican community has attracted fewer column inches. Nonetheless it is important, not least because of the number of people involved.
The difficulty is that Anglican churches in different places believe different things. In particular they have different approaches to homosexuality, which the Nigerian church would make a crime and the Episcopal Church is prepared to tolerate to the extent of admitting a practising homosexual, Gene Robinson, as Bishop of New Hampshire. To those outside the church this might seem like a storm in a teacup. After all, there must be many things upon which church members disagree and why should a disagreement over homosexuality be something special? There are two answers to this.
The first lies in the thirty-nine articles of the Church of England which can be found at the back of the prayer book and have been there since the days of Elizabeth I. Article 6, entitled “Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation” states that the books of the Old Testament are authoritative, specifically including the book of Leviticus in chapter 18 of which the Lord lays down to Moses what is to be allowed by way of sexual relations. Judging from the Authorised Version of the Bible, homosexual relations between men are definitely out.
The Lord, when speaking to Moses, did not address him in English, so the words in the King James’s version are those of the translator. There is thus plenty of scope for argument as to exactly what was meant and I certainly would not presume to have a view on it. Still, whatever the merits of the arguments it seems unlikely that either side will be talked round to the viewpoint of the other.
The second is a little different. Just at the moment matters concerning sexuality have assumed a particular importance. Perhaps that is because recent liberalisation has kept the matter in the public mind. Perhaps it is because we see our liberalism in such matters as a measure of our superiority over other cultures. Whatever the cause, the result is toxic. Those who do not share our views on such issues become primitive or misguided people and not simply people who think differently. I suppose that Victorian missionaries took a similar view of their ancestors.
Anyway the upshot of all this is that the sinfulness or otherwise of homosexuality is seen as a central issue for the faithful and not merely a detail on the sidelines. That is why there is a danger of a split. As mentioned in this week’s “Week in Brief” a number of bishops boycotted the last Anglican conference because of concerns that Rowan Williams, then archbishop, was too liberal. It is a small step from that to the church actually splitting.
The Archbishop is summoning all parties to a conference in January to try to resolve the issue. Like the skilled negotiator he is, he already has a compromise proposal. The idea seems to be that the Anglican Communion should change in nature so that the cement which holds it together will be the link of each church with Canterbury rather than the links of the churches to each other. Perhaps that will work to hold things together – and if it does so until the issue begins to fade from eveyone’s consciousness the battle will be won. Perhaps the gap is unbridgeable. One thing however is sure. If Justin Welby brings this off he will go down as a very great Archbishop of Canterbury.
