To the Laos - To the People of God: Tensions in the Communion?

January 29, 2016

Dear People of God

Welcome to 2016! My focus in this letter is on the meeting of Primates from across the Anglican
Communion which we held in the precincts of Canterbury Cathedral this month, and on the
communiqu we issued afterwards, dealing with a number of issues but attracting most attention
because of the differences among us over our teaching on matters of human sexuality.
Context is always important in comprehending text. The communiqu was penned after a
rhythm of morning and evening offices coupled to daily Mass and the sharing of meals together.
We were constantly reminded of where we were by the intermittent chiming of the cathedral bells.
All of this was accompanied by the robust reflections we exchanged in plenary meetings and in
small groups.
There was consensus in the meeting that the resolution on Human Sexuality which was
adopted at the Lambeth Conference in 1998 is not contestedespecially that part of it which
requires that we minister pastorally and sensitively to all people, irrespective of sexual orientation.
(You can read the full text of the resolution on the Anglican Communions website.) Lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) people are Gods people, present in all Anglican Provinces
across the world, and we are to be just and caring towards all. I shared with my fellow Primates that
we have numbers of LGBT people in the Province of Southern Africa and that although different
countries in the Province have different laws, in South Africa there is legal provision for same-sex
civil unions.
On the issue of human sexuality, the questions at hand in Canterbury were these: When the
General Convention of The Episcopal Church in the United States last year authorised new rites
allowing same-sex marriages in church, did it do so ignoring the Communion-wide moratorium on
the issue and in breach of Catholic unity? If it did, what consequences if any should there be for The
Episcopal Church? Our answer was that the church had decided to walk alone and our
recommendation was that there must be consequences for doing this. These are outlined in the
communiqu. Our recommendation was made to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who will act with
the Anglican Consultative Council, a Communion-wide body representing lay people, priests and
bishops from every Province in the Communion, and with the next Lambeth Conference.
No written text and no individual can convey fully the meaning and feelings involved in the
proceedings of our meeting or its culmination. We were deeply conscious of our need for sufficient
grace from God as we decided on the recommendations. In our own Church, when I conclude a
synod and promulgate its Acts, I am always torn by the prayer which implores that no harm should
befall Gods church because of our decisions. In that spirit, and in the presence of the Presiding
Bishop of The Episcopal Churchwho shared with us his pain for the Church and his love for
Catholic unitywe offered to God the consequences of how we chose to order our common life.
Of course, each of you will have different views and feelings, different conclusions based on
what we discussed or should have discussed. At this stage I dont wish to comment on these, save to

reflect on the tensions that I think are at stake here. After the meeting I drove to Heathrow Airport
with the primates from Scotland, the Middle East and Horn of Africa, New Zealand, Brazil and
Australia. We shared diverse views, during which more tensions came into play, and I wish briefly
to share these:

Unity and diversity: Our recommendation on The Episcopal Church appears to have
punished diversity at the expense of ensuring unity at all costs. It would seem that for
the sake of holding onto unity, we were content with playing a zero sum game. What
are your views on the degree to which sacred law and doctrinal statements can be
altered? Who should alter these and how should we go about doing this? Are doctrinal
formulations to be agreed upon once and for all, or may Jesus the Holy Spirit reveal
new truths and formulations? If we accept that there are such revelations, how are we to
decide to receiveor not to receivethem in such a way that the unity of the church
catholic is not compromised. Is this a matter for the Anglican family only, or do we
need to consider the whole church catholic? Immediately after the meeting, I came
home to meet with fellow South African church leaders in an ecumenical think tank.
There I was struck by the fact that all the churches, including the Zionists, are wrestling
with the challenge of same-sex civil unions, and we are all trying to work it out
separately, operating in silos and in fear. Although one South African church has moved
ahead to accept same-sex marriages and another took the matter to the secular courts,
we agreed at least in the ecumenical Southern African context to walk together, and to
hear the experiences of LGBT people as we seek clearer revelations on doctrinal
matters.

Interdependence and autonomy: The Anglican Communion is made up of 38 unique,

interdependent bodies, viewing itself as being bound together by unwritten, invincible
bonds. We cherish our polity, in which we hold in tension both our autonomy as
Provinces and our interdependence. How do the Primates recommendations respect
this polity? Since our polity also allows individual Dioceses within Provinces
considerable autonomy, the Primates recommendations have far-reaching implications
for the limits, or lack thereof, that a Province can impose on a Diocese. There is no
single Communion canon law; rather our communion-wide canon law is the sum of the
canon law of the individual Provinces and the exercise of jurisprudence on the basis
of mission realities. Do our recommendations imply a move in the Communion towards
centralisation of authority, and therefore towards imperialism or the kind of autocratic
leadership we see in the secular sphere in some of our countries? Within our own
Province, these questions arise all the time in litigation over the implementation of our
disciplinary canons, resulting in the formation of a standing committee called the Canon
Law Council to advise us on them. As the Church in Southern Africa, we have canons
which spell out consequences and disciplinary action for infringements relating to
doctrinal and moral matters. We dont have those at a Communion level. The question
our communiqu seeks to address with respect to The Episcopal Church is whether the
extension of such provisions to the Communion is desirable.

Individuals and the Communion: In trying to balance the tension between concern for
the lives of individual Christians and the interests of the Communion, my sense is that
we as Primates elevated issues of doctrine, rules and polity above those of love and of
respect for the uniqueness of individuals within the body of Christ. Why did we do that?
What should we have done? What are our limits as a collective in such matters? When
can we err together for the sake of our traditions? When can we trust God the Holy
Spirit to take charge and not control everything, including doctrinal matters? Might the
Pauline understanding of rules, the law and the Body direct us as we further reflect on
future consequences and doctrinal matters, especially in the area of human sexuality?
No one has triumphed from the outcome of our meeting in Canterbury; we finished our
meeting limping together towards God in Jesus Christ in the power of the Spirit,
needing to have our feet washed and to wash our neighbours feet. The issues around
human sexuality have been with us and will remain with us for a long time; there is no
cut-and-dried solution and we should not try to advance a technical solution. People on
both sides of the matter are pained, and we must journey together, deciding on a path
which will order our journey.

I have received calls and written messages from LGBT clergy and laity, pained by our
indecision. I have received notes from others who differed from them. All have humbled me as they
have assured me of their prayers for this journey. I have received requests from the media to
comment on the matter but have felt constrained in doing soI dont comment well whilst in
desolation.
The rhythm of the Primates meeting, the ecumenical think tank at home, and the funeral
service I attended upon my return, for 20-year-old Njabulo Mathebula, who took his life last week,
reminds me of the fragility of life and how we are all carried by grace as we wrestle with the
question: what is the goal of life in Jesus Christ in the here and now? The Synod of Bishops, which
meets in February, and Provincial Synod, which meets in September, will guide us on these matters,
and on other missional issues that the Primates meeting discussed: climate justice, extremism and
the sustainable development goals. I look forward to your responses and reflections on our draft
ACSA pastoral guidelines.
God bless you,
Thabo Cape Town