wfn.org | SPEECH BY ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

[a.whitefield@quest.org.uk]

July 17, 1997 
ANGLICAN COMMUNION NEWS SERVICE
Canon Jim Rosenthal,Director of Communications, 
Anglican Communion Office
London, England

ACC 1286

(ACNS) THE MOST REVEREND AND RIGHT HONOURABLE DR GEORGE CAREY
ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

General Synod York, July 1997

ARCHDEACON OF WANDSWORTH'S PRIVATE MEMBER'S MOTION
SPEECH BY ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY
   Part 1 of 2

I am most grateful to the Archdeacon for giving Synod this opportunity
for debate.   I want to concentrate on the question of homosexual
practice, fully realising that the Motion goes much wider than this. 
But it is an important issue, which raises deeper questions about how we
do our theology and how we live with differences of opinion.  I also
often remind myself that it is not merely a 'matter', an 'issue' or a
'problem' that we are discussing but real people, loved by God, made in
his image and likeness. I want to contribute briefly to this debate
mainly from the perspective of the wider Anglican Communion.

The picture formed by many outside the Church is that the Anglican
Communion is hopelessly divided and rent asunder by furious debate about
homosexual practice.  I urge Synod, indeed, all members of our Church to
treat this description with great scepticism.   

As part of the preparations two years ago for the Lambeth Conference,
nine Regional Conferences of Bishops representing every Province of the
Communion were convened to draw up the priority issues for the Lambeth
Conference. Four of them did not include sexuality at all.  The rest did
not give it high priority.   Issues such as international debt and
relationships  with Islam were regarded as far more pressing priorities.

However, there will be study and discussion concerning human sexuality -
not just homosexuality - in one of the four Sections of the Lambeth
Conference.   The Conference will, for example, consider a suggestion,
supported by the Primates, in their Jerusalem meeting that an
International Commission should be set up to examine the matter, along
the lines of the Eames Commission on Ordination of Women to the
Episcopate.   But this will take its place among debates on many other
topics.

We know that in the Anglican Communion there is a strand of opinion
challenging the traditional understanding of the Church.  We know that
the great Desmond Tutu, a personal friend of mine,  is an eloquent
exponent of that opinion.  But it remains a minority view.  Let me
remind Synod that, under his successor Archbishop Ndungane, the Bishops
of the Province of South Africa have agreed a Statement which - though
pastorally sensitive - includes this reaffirmation that "sex is for
life-long marriage with a person of the opposite sex, for the purpose of
companionship, sexual fulfilment and procreation".

When the Primates met in March this year, it is true that a number of
differing views about homosexual practice were expressed very
vigorously, and it was suggested that a number of Provinces might feel
so strongly about the issue that they would find it difficult to remain
in communion with Provinces that decided to ordain practising
homosexuals or welcome 'same sex' marriages.   However, I discovered
from careful enquiries of my fellow Primates that homosexual practice
was simply not on the agenda of over two-thirds of the Provinces as a
live issue;  and even in those Provinces which were discussing it, no
imminent legal changes were envisaged, whatever more subtle, non-legal
changes might be afoot.

I mention this to take some of the heat out of the debate.   There are
some who want to 'talk up' the matter and make it a symbolic test of
faith. Ironically, some of those most opposed to the ordination of
practising homosexuals seem to be among those most concerned to talk it
up!

Nonetheless, it is an important subject which can and does give rise to
much anxiety, pain and division.  It will not go away and it is no good
pretending that opposition to, and acceptance of, homosexual practice
are reconcilable options.   We are therefore left with two subjects for
continuing dialogue:  firstly, what is God's will?   And secondly, what
do we do as members of the Church when we disagree about what God's will
is?

Anglicanism with its rich theology of comprehensiveness should be a
wonderful context in which to wrestle with these two questions honestly
and openly.   Neither question can be settled by campaigning tactics or
soundbites.   They need prayerful, respectful dialogue.