ON WHAT BASIS COULD HE SAY THAT?
The Archbishop of Canterbury has stated that he has “no problem” with homosexuals being bishops. That is what he has said in an interview published and commented on in Saturday’s Times (25/09/10). The reason he has not supported change and has resisted appointing a homosexual has been due to church politics. He explains his decisions by saying, “It’s about the fact that there are traditionally, historically, standards that the clergy are expected to observe.” That argument is very significant.
In commenting on this, the editorial in the Times called for the Archbishop to give a moral lead by affirming that justice should take precedence over politics. To defend this argument the writer says that it is nothing to do with choosing a “modern mores over biblical authority”. He claims that Anglicans have long understood that the interpretation of Scripture lies in the hands of the church. So if the culture dictates that homosexuality is acceptable moral behaviour then the church is at liberty to change their stance to accommodate to the cultural perspective. Justice, according to the Times, demands that discrimination against homosexuality is wrong. To substantiate this argument the writer of the editorial quotes 2 Peter 1:20 from the Authorised Version which says, “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation.”
The approach of the Times finds endorsement by Peter Tatchell, the so-called human rights campaigner. It should be noted that Mr. Tatchell’s primary campaigning is for wider gay rights, and most recently for the lowering of the age of consent. Mr. Tatchell refers to those who oppose homosexual bishops as “some of the most hateful Christian homophobes in the world.”
There are a number of issues that arise from what the Archbishop has said, but the primary one is not the question of homosexuality but the ancient, and very modern, question of authority. Even the Times recognises that biblical authority is a significant issue and feels the necessity to misuse the verse from 1 Peter 1.
What we have then in the Archbishop’s statement is an emphasis on tradition as being a directing force while Scripture may be culturally manipulated. Whilst many of the things the Pope said in his recent visit would elicit our agreement, many other things he said would be unacceptable because they were also the promotion of a tradition, and have no foundation in Scripture. We are back to the Reformation issue, and the constant issue in regard to culture, of the authority of Scripture.
This is where the verse quoted by the Times editorial writer is so significant. Peter is actually teaching that Scripture is God-given. If you read both 1 Peter 1:20 and 21 then it becomes clear – “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” Peter is looking at the origins of prophecy (Old Testament Scripture). The prophets did not speak out of their own understanding or interpretation of the world and its events, nor did they give their own take on what God was saying. Not at all! They were enabled and enlightened, instructed and informed by the Holy Spirit. Scripture is of Divine origin and carries its own intrinsic authority. It is true in an absolute sense and therefore culture transcendent.
If we accept that truth about Scripture then we will have a certain and unchangeable point of reference by which to handle issues such as homosexuality, women in spiritual leadership and all the other challenges posed in the twenty-first century.
The Archbishop’s statement raises some very difficult problems for Evangelical Anglicans. There are some very godly and very able men within Anglicanism. We should honour and respect them for their adherence to Gospel truth. There are some to whom we are indebted and who have very important ministries to fulfil. They need our prayers and sympathetic support. There are likely to be repercussions from Africa to this latest statement from Dr Williams. The possibilities of division loom large. Difficult decisions have to be made. Our brethren need our prayers.
The whole debate raises questions for us as well. If Peter’s view of the Bible is right then we should have great confidence to stand for what it says. That means in discussions at work and with non-Christian friends we need to be bold to stand on the biblical teaching. That may pose difficulties in answering questions since what we say will not be popular. But let us not be afraid to declare the Bible to be the Word of God that has unchanging authority in God’s world.
But the issue of the authority of Scripture goes even further because it challenges us in our personal values and conduct. If the Bible is so authoritative then it must direct all our thinking and living. We do not hold to the Catholic idea that the ordinary believer cannot safely interpret the Scriptures without the wisdom of mother church. Rather we believe that with the help of the Holy Spirit we can understand the Bible for ourselves. We do not devalue the role of teachers who instruct in the truth, they are essential to us. But we do believe that every one of us has a duty to study the Scriptures and to work at understanding it for ourselves.
It is one thing to maintain that we hold to the absolute authority of Scripture. It is quite another actually to live in accordance with it. But that is what our culture needs to see and hear. May God grant us to be truly Bible-believing Christians. It is the Word of God for today - let us prove it to be so.
Roger Hitchings
25/09/10