You would have to be living on the dark side of the moon to avoid the publicity which has centred on the forthcoming Lambeth Conference - the conference by which traditionally the Archbishop of Canterbury - as the first amongst equals - invites the bishops from throughout the Anglican Communion - our world-wide family of over 80 million fellow communicants.

ANGLICANISM HAS BEEN A WIDE UMBRELLA

The Anglican tradition has always provided a fairly wide and generous umbrella for people to shelter, to feel at home. It has never been a homogenous group. It tends to talk about frameworks rather than line - toeing despite historic statements like the 39 Articles. In its breadth it has encompassed Anglo-Catholics - some of whom at times could have given the impression that they were farther up the candle than the Pope, and evangelicals who could give a Billy Graham a run for his money. And in between there have been the quirky rest of us.

According to the standard script, the current war in Anglicanism over sexuality, scripture and authority is one between 'traditionalists' and 'revisionists', 'liberals' versus 'evangelicals'.

However, we have held together - mainly through our common form of worship and our mutual regard for each other - including those with whom we may not have agreed fully in matters of theology or in details of liturgical practice.

We have given ourselves and others party labels: High Church, Anglo Catholic, Bible churchmen and Evangelicals. There have always been tribes within the comprehensiveness of Anglicanism.

I would warn against  a readiness to stick labels on the current issue. I tend to agree with the point of view that the current 'Anglican wars' are about power as much as sex, and that evangelicals and others are to be found on all sides of the debate rather than just one.

And whilst these labels and tribes they have been represented in the Church of Ireland, many of us have refused to identify with any party because we have felt that in a church of our size, we could not afford such luxuries of division - and especially when we had to witness to a sectarian riven society both north and south.

In this the C of I’s form of synodical government has served us well keeping the balance between laity and clergy, between bishops and others. We could not be accused of being rash - but in some issues we worked out an answer without the divisions which these have produced elsewhere - for example, that those women who were ordained priest could also be elected bishops.

However, international movements in our communion may well impact upon the unity of this Church of Ireland. In the C of I Gazette of last week, there was a report on the Down and Dromore Synod at which Bishop Harold stated he had actually considered not going to Lambeth.

THE ARGUMENTS ARE WIDER THAN ANGLICANISM

I am of the opinion that the arguments prefiguring the Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops in July 2008 are not just a family squabble and that they are wider than Anglicanism.

They are about:
-     the nature of Christianity in a fast-changing contemporary world,
-     the dangers of simplistic readings of the Bible,
-     the historic threat of authoritarianism,
-     the challenge of human rights,
-     and the tension between the establishment instincts of many              Christians institutions and the radical roots of the Gospel.

The scale of the disagreement in the Communion is significant. The meeting of bishops in Jerusalem brought together those who objected to the ordination as bishop of an American priest, Gene Robinson who lives in a long term homosexual relationship. But as Bishop Michael Mayes points out in a letter in this week’s C of I Gazette, the people of his diocese knew his ministry over many years and they elected him.

Those who object to this development are led mainly by four bishops: the Archbishops of Sydney, Nigeria, Uganda and the Southern Cone of America. In the USA and Canada there are already breakaway parishes and dioceses who are looking to African bishops to provide them with episcopal leadership.  There also have been major flows of American finance to this grouping.

Having watched this group develop, I feared for the outcome of their deliberations in Jerusalem where there were comments made about the colonial attitude of the Lambeth Conference - but an Archbishop less likely to be colonial is Rowan Williamson. These GAFCON folk are of the strong opinion that the Anglican churches in the USA and Canada have placed themselves outside the pale on the issue of homosexuality.

Others have countered that the bishops in Nigeria and Uganda have been very silent on the issue of the persecution of gay people. Indeed the leader of the Church Army which has a significant evangelical constituency, in a personal comment last week expressed his distress at the failure of these two Anglican archbishops to clearly condemn violence against gay people.

The statement issued from the Jerusalem conference last week is on the whole more moderate than one had feared but it does contain recommendations about Primates’ conference as an alternative to Lambeth, which many including myself and Archbishop Rowan are not be happy with. There is still a long way to go, and it may not be possible to reconcile the parties involved. We will need to continue to pray - and especially for Archbishop Rowan and our bishops. This issue is not going to be resolved easily - if at all.

HOMOSEXUALITY IS THE PRESENTING ISSUE - THE REAL ISSUE IS THE NATURE OF SCRIPTURE AND THE LIMITS OF MEMBERSHIP OF THE CHURCH

The issue of homosexuality and the ordination of homosexual people from where I stand is “the presenting issue”.

The real issue is  the nature of scripture, how it was delivered, how it was and is assessed as being the Word of God. Is it once revealed for all time, or can it be reassessed, re-evaluated in the light of later insights not only in biblical scholarship but from other areas such as genetics? Is the Bible the Word of God fixed, or does it contain the Word of God parts of which may be interpretable in later ages and different social contexts?

It also has to do with who is regarded as being in the church, and who is out? What are the basis and the limits of inclusivity? If a child is baptised is that child’s future in the church to be determined by its gender or sexual orientation? Can a woman not be a bishop? Can a homosexual not be a priest? Can gay and lesbian people live in faithful relationships and also be members of the church and its clergy?

Opinion on the later issue would seem to be extremely varied. There are those who would state that the Bible is against homosexuality... and if a person is a homosexual, they cannot be a Christian let alone be ordained unless they commit themselves to be celibate. As one who could not live as a celibate, I find that point of view difficult to accept indeed.

A lot depends on where you have been on your journey. I first became aware of a wider variety of gender than simply male and female when working in a special care hospital over 45 years ago. I hadn’t exactly had a sheltered upbringing but it was the start of an awareness which led eventually to a period of intense study with one of the foremost Christian ethicists in this area in the USA.

There are a number of issues for anyone wishing to deal fairly and seriously with this area. And ultimately they are theological - God related - issues. If we really believe that God gives life to all human beings, what does that say about people who have gender differences, and what does it say about God?

If we baptise children and accept them unconditionally into our Christian fellowship and state that they are with us members of the body of Christ, what do we do to baptised people who know they are gay or lesbian if we do not include them in our fellowship - or impose terms upon their lifestyle and relationships which are different to those we apply to faithful, loving, and committed heterosexual relationships?

What do we say to their parents? How would you wish your church to treat your son or daughter if they were gay or lesbian?

The answers to these questions sit at the heart of the issue as far as I am concerned. The son of two people who are very dear to me has lived in relationship with his partner faithfully and devotedly for several decades. Their stability and quality of relationship is perhaps better than many heterosexual couples. They are both committed members of their Anglican church.

Anglicans have always emphasised Scripture, Tradition and Reason.

Saint Augustine’s view on scripture is pertinent, ‘Whoever thinks he understands divine scripture or any part of it, but whose interpretation does not build up the twofold love of God and neighbour, has not really understood it." ...

I agree with the analysis that the theology promoted by GAFCON is not straightforwardly ‘Bible-based’, or ‘conservative’ in the sense of conserving the past. What they are presenting as Anglicanism is radically different in some ways from that practised by many congregations half a century ago. Despite the intention to be faithful to the text, their theological approach also involves selection and interpretation of Scripture, and chooses from and/or rewrites the past to fit present priorities. Indeed their denial that human choice is involved, and the claim that divine authority – as discerned and verified by the church through the ages – underpins this particular viewpoint, makes it harder to probe whether there are more fruitful approaches based on the Bible and tradition.

HOOKER ON SCRIPTURE

That is precisely why I am glad that the Archbishop of Armagh last week in a key note speech reminded us of Hooker’s “Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity” - even though his argument was sensationalised and misrepresented in the press. Hooker’s “Polity” is not the most cuddly tome to take to bed - but it is central to an Anglican response to this issue... if we have humility before each other and God...

Anglicans have always claimed that our faith is centred on Christ, that our Faith is supported by Scripture, as interpreted by tradition and understood through reason.  This approach is rooted in the understanding of Richard Hooker, the "father of Anglican theology", who lived from 1554-1600.

He wrote, “What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth.  That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason over-rule all other inferior judgments whatsoever”
(Laws, Book V, 8:2; Folger Edition 2:39,8-14). 

Hooker also cautioned us not to impose too much on Scripture: [paraphrase by Paul Gibson, in Discerning the Word] "Just as exaggerated praise may actually undermine the reputation of those to whom they are offered, so we must be careful not to attribute to Scripture more status than it can enjoy lest our exaggeration of its importance results in people treating it irreverently."

USING SCRIPTURE INVOLVES PERSONAL DECISIONS

Each one of us, with God's help, makes a decision about how we use tradition and Scripture in our lives. The gift of reason allows us to “hear what the Spirit is saying” in texts that were developed in very different times and cultures, and apply those messages to the modern context.

So, for example, using reason, it took time for Christians to understand how opposed Jesus was to slavery, even though some biblical texts might seem to condone it. Similarly, it took time and reasoned debate to realise that Paul’s apparent negative attitude to women was a reflection of his desire, in a very patriarchal society, to divert official attention from his mission, but was not an authentic reflection of Christ’s teaching about the place of women in his Kingdom.

Both of these insights have in part grown out of our growing knowledge of the dynamics of the Greek and Roman worlds. Likewise, the modern understanding of the physical world that has emerged from the practical application of reason is not seen as a contradiction of the world of Faith. The Biblical writers had a very different understanding of the nature of physical reality, and they voiced their insight within that context.

Our “job” is to understand the insight, and apply it to the world as we understand it. That Scripture merits this intensive analysis and study, rather than mute acceptance, reflects the very high priority it is given by the Church. Scripture comes alive with its full historic, metaphorical and sacramental significance restored. This approach makes Scripture relevant to our lives today in a way that an ancient artefact cannot be, so that it can be “taken seriously” by a modern seeker.

We seek to value the life and story each person can bring to the community of faith. As in a multi textured tapestry, each person's offering is woven into the life of the whole, making it stronger and more beautiful.

That to me is what being in communion is about. It is about relationship with Christ - and pertinent to me is the question - can I break off communion with someone who is in communion with Christ, and remain a Christian myself? Australian priest and author Dr David Wood, says in a recent publication "The table of Christ demands that we grow up, and growing up means learning to live with those we find awkward and uncongenial as well as those we warm to naturally."

Christians caught up in endless internecine strife and politics are not furthering their message in the wider world. Simon Barrow stated in the same publication recently, “Organised Christianity is dying in some places not because it isn't judgemental enough, but because it doesn't seem to make a positive difference to people's lives. Similarly, a lust for certainty will not touch the hearts of the great majority.... The Christendom church models its procedures on the standard political culture of confrontation. That's why it's tearing itself apart."

For myself, over and beyond all this dispute and the time and money it has involved, is an over-riding concern that the mission of the Church is being neglected, and that at all time should be the number one priority for all of us in our Anglican Communion.