Archbishop Beach (ACNA) writes about Anglicanism in Australia

I am wondering if anyone else had read the public notification that Archbishop Beach , of the ACNA, had written a letter to Archbishop Welby, after the recent Lambeth Conference, about Anglicanism in Australia? https://anglicanchurch.net/beach-writes-welby-about-australian-anglicanism/

Any thoughts?

 

I can only imagine the grinding of teeth that accompanied Abp. Welby's reading of that letter!

This letter's subtext is as important as the text: this is Abp. Beach speaking as an equal to another archbishop, offering fraternal greetings and guidance. Everyone knows that Welby doesn't deign to acknowledge Abp. Beach -- in fact it wouldn't surprise me if Abp. Welby immediately round-filed the missive upon receipt.

Abp. Beach's appeal to former Canterbury Archbishop Rowan Williams is an interesting gambit, though I think Abp. Beach overestimates the esteem in which Williams is held among institutional CofE'ers these days.

However, this statement is the point of the dagger: "I implore you to call us all to repentance and to return to the Apostles’ Teaching of the Bible." This, it seems to me, is a direct rebuke of Abp. Welby for (essentially) abandoning his own responsibility as upholder of the Four Instruments of Anglican Unity and allowing western Anglicanism to drift away from Apostolic teaching. But in using the "call us all" formulation, Abp. Beach strives to include all the Anglican strands, not just the wayward ones.

As I said before, I doubt very much if Welby will even receive this letter, and even if he does, it will meet the same hostile response that all other overtures of this kind have gotten. Welby's managerial style comes out of his years as an executive in the British oil industry, and he has the managerial arrogance that comes along with that history. His managerial style has always been rather high-handed and insular; he doesn't like being lectured to, and I suspect that this letter would make him angry rather than prompt any self-reflection. Welby is a company man, an organization man, and he does not like advice from outsiders. To Welby, Abp. Beach is not a brother and fellow Archbishop -- rather, Abp. Beach is a poseur, an impostor, someone of suspect provenance and invalid ordination.

Abp. Beach knows all of this very well. So I think ultimately this letter is what Dune fans will recognize as one of the Forms of Kanly -- a peace gesture that was fully expected to fail.

 

Welby rose rather quickly to an executive office at the petroleum company. Then, after 18 years as a priest and just 1 year as bishop, he was elevated to the archbishopric. Very curious. I'd say either he exhibits an abundance of innate leadership qualities or else he knows the right people. After reading his lineage through his mother's side, I tend to suspect the latter.

 

He's an Eton-and-Cambridge man, to be sure, which in England is still a ticket to success in many ways (much as a Yale or Harvard degree is here in the States). Welby is competent enough in his own way, but he's an administrator, not a leader. He is what people in my circles call a "spreadsheet guy". Now, there's nothing wrong with that -- the Church needs such people to keep things on track. And I don't doubt his personal faith; one does not go from being a highly-paid oil executive to being a cleric without having at least some amount of personal conviction.

I've always rather suspected that Welby was elevated to Archbishop because he is the sort of person he is. He was chosen to manage the decline of the national church, not to lead it into a bold new world. His job is to keep the peace (as much as possible) within the Communion, manage the properties and bank accounts, make sure the pension funds are topped up, and play his specified role in public and governmental affairs. He was not called to rebuild or evangelize or be a visionary for a revitalized Church -- Welby is not at all that man.

While Queen Elizabeth II lives, the Church yet holds a prominent position in English government and society. But Charles waits in the wings, and Charles views on religion are, shall we say, more eclectic than those of his mother. Once he ascends to the throne, I expect the institutional CofE to decline precipitously (even more so than it already is). Charles is one of those Boomer elites who dabbles in all sorts of mysticism and religious observance -- many wonder aloud if he's a crypto-Muslim, but I think he's just one of those people who flit from religious branch to branch like a hummingbird. One week he'll be rubbing crystals and meditating inside a plastic pyramid; the next he'll be feting Eastern Orthodox bishops; the week after that he'll be prostrating himself in a Sunni Mosque. I'm sure he describes himself as "spiritual" as so many of his era do, but he clearly does not care for the Christian Church except insofar as it is a lever of political power...and that power fades with every minute that goes by.

So Welby under King Charles will basically be a caretaker CEO, someone to keep the books in order, sell off underperforming properties, avoid (or smooth over) any political scandal, and make an appearance at ceremonial events. That is the role Welby has trained for his entire life, it's what he's good at, and it's the task his political masters will expect of him. He's the perfect man for the job, seen in that light.

 

The letter is empty of substance.

I've yet to hear what the great departure of the Anglican Church in Australia was that justified this schism? What was the flashpoint?

It seems to me like they had set the ball rolling to schism, brought their ideas to General Synod to justify themselves and then...won. The Church reaffirmed traditional marriage, agreed in principle with the conservative position, and defended the autonomy of church bodies (such as religious schools) to institute exclusionary policies. And then they spun a narrative that winning 90% of the battles wasn't good enough, and launched a schismatic church anyway.

If it was justified now, why not three years ago? Why not 10 years ago? What is different today from yesterday? This isn't an ACNA/Episcopal split. It's like getting a divorce after 50 years of faithful marriage because your partner accidentally left the milk carton out.

 

The fact that you think this division is of no more consequence than leaving a milk carton out simply illustrates how wide the gulf really is.

They should engrave this meme on the doors of the last liberal Anglican church to close:

 

The division is, ostensibly, on if the Church can bless a secular same-sex union. The church maintains the traditional teaching that their union is not marriage and that marriage can only be between a man and woman. It also maintains the traditional teaching on what a blessing is, and doesn't try to elevate a blessing to something new that could create moral hazard for things the Church has blessed for 2000 years that don't perfectly align with Christian teaching.

People get their pets blessed. People get their houses blessed. People get ships of war blessed.

A blessing is not an endorsement of everything that thing is or does. Blessing a ship of war is about asking God to protect the faithful who serve on those ships, and give them the wisdom and courage to commit to God no matter what dark waters that ship takes them to. It's not an endorsement of everyone the state chooses to kill with that ship. Likewise, blessing a same-sex union is blessing the promises of fidelity, love, happiness, and a commitment to something greater than themselves, without necessarily endorsing any non-Christian practices in that union.

This isn't the stuff Schism is made of. The church has had an easier time resolving much larger problems than this - so what evidence is there that this disagreement cannot be reconciled and must result in schism? Schism is an extremely grievous sin. The moral hazard of divorce from the Church if the reasons are not just is far greater than tolerating some clergy in churches you've never been to blessing something you wouldn't.

 

.............. Likewise, blessing a same-sex union is blessing the action of sinful sex, the union that goes against scripture, and a commitment to live in a sinful life style and a practice that is against scripture. I fixed that for you

Blessing a home, dog, or boat does not entail blessing anything that is objectively sinful like homosexual marriage. I don't really keep up with the Church in Australia because it is literally a world away but I don't see how anyone can justify blessing homosexual marriages with a straight face

 

Oh come on now. When you ordain homosexual clergy, announce LGBTQXYZBBQ+++ support from the pulpit, fly pride flags in front of your churches, and affirm mutilation of children in the name of transgender rights, you lose whatever already-thin justification this argument ever had. This goes from being a misstatement into being an actual lie. Yes, not every liberal Anglican church does these things; but many if not most of them do to some degree or other -- at minimum, even if they don't engage in active display of these practices, they affirm those who do. And they do this in direct contravention of Scriptural teaching.

There is an old adage among hereditary Anglicans that the only heresy is schism, and I see the truth of this every time we get into arguments like this. I cannot fathom this idea that no matter how far a church drifts from the orthodox Gospel, believers are somehow constrained to stay no matter what in hopes that things will change. This mindset is what has allowed the problem to fester for decades, and has led (at least in part) to the dramatic decline in the denomination we have seen over the past 30 years or so. And the cruel irony of it all is that the congregations themselves never asked for any of this -- it was the liberal priests and bishops who foisted it upon them, and continue to do so to this day.

GAFCON and its affiliates have decided that the best course is to start a different Anglican strand: one focused on the faith passed down to us by the Apostles, and founded upon the centrality of Scripture and the historic Anglican creeds and confessions. After Lambeth, I expect many of the African Anglican churches to either align with GAFCON or at least have some sort of Communion with them -- it's clear that theologically, global Anglicans are far more orthodox than their Western peers. So the fact is that the majority of world Anglicans are orthodox, not liberal, and to claim that we are schismatics for adhering to the traditional faith amounts to a calumny. It is the liberal churches who drifted away, not us.

Healing the breach would be simple enough, were liberals remotely willing to do it. Repent, re-commit to the traditional orthodox Anglican teachings, and rejoin your global Anglican brethren. I suspect that this would require removing about 50% of your bishops and priests (if not more; the sickness has spread apace), and there's the rub -- the congregations of these churches have no say in the administration of their church, so the only real option they have if they disagree is to leave. In former times that meant leaving Anglicanism entirely, but now orthodox believers have an orthodox Anglican alternative in structures like the Diocese of the Southern Cross. But the liberals, rather than celebrate believers staying in the Anglican fold, call them schismatics (or worse).

The exodus from liberal Anglican churches is not a schism. It is simply a transposing of leadership from Canterbury to Africa (where most global Anglicans actually live), and giving orthodox Anglicans a way to build a firewall between them and the liberal rot infesting the western church. It is also a reminder that the "church" is not a building or an organization but is instead a group of believers (Matt. 18:20). Liberal Anglicanism is a small percentage of the global whole, and the orthodox Anglicans are done with letting this minority continue to call the tune for the rest of us. As far as we're concerned, traditional Anglicanism -- Scripture, tradition, reason -- resides with us. We carry the good doctrine handed down to us by the Apostles through the authority vested in them by Jesus Christ our Lord. We contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

We must live in the world, but we must not be of the world (John 17:14, 1 John 2:15). This is a command all Christians must remember and live by. We live for the world to come. We live for God's glory, not man's approval. If we live as taught by Scripture, the world will hate us as it hated Jesus (John 15:18). We are called to be slaves of Christ -- we proclaim him both Lord and King. Our allegiance to any other person on earth -- priest, Bishop, wife, husband, father, mother, even our selves -- must come after our obedience to Christ. You cannot claim to follow Christ if you do not follow his commands (Matt. 7:23, Luke 14:25-33).

 

I suspect in the same way that clergy can bless a missile with a straight face. In the same way they can bless a bank with a straight face.

Because blessing a union is not an endorsement of everything that happens in that union. This is how blessings have worked since time immemorial. We've blessed millions of things in the past millenia that have been used for sin, if we create a new standard that "this is what a blessing means", then we open ourselves up to all sorts of endorsements of past sins.

 

Are you talking about some different Anglican province? The Australian Synod have not affirmed any of those things.

Or perhaps people opposed to schism just think we should accept every teaching in the bible, not just the ones that are easy because they don't affect us.

Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you should be in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you should be united in the same mind and the same purpose. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters. What I mean is that each of you says, ‘I belong to Paul’, or ‘I belong to Apollos’, or ‘I belong to Cephas’, or ‘I belong to Christ.’ Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
~ 1 Corinthians 1.10-13

But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. After a first and second admonition, have nothing more to do with anyone who causes divisions, since you know that such a person is perverted and sinful, being self-condemned.
~ Titus 3.9-11​

Schism is no small crime. The church is called to be broad, lest we all become pharisees. What were the attributes of the Church in the time of Christ? Divided against each other, turned into factions - Zealots, Pharisees, Sadducees, etc. - All so focused on being right that they missed God was standing in their midst, and crucified Him for teaching something uncomfortable to them. Imagine how differently it might have gone if there was a culture of unity-first, and an honest centuries long attempt to come to a mutual understanding of what is actually true without compromise.

This schism is the result of a minor disagreement, in the midst of otherwise near unanimous agreement, a few months after the Synod - not a core Salvational issue after years of comprehensive attempts at reconciliation. It's a move driven by politics, not theology. If the Synod had overturned the traditional teaching on blessings then there would have been some other cause for schism they would have found. They were determined for divorce, expected the Church to move its position on gay marriage, and when it didn't they decided to pull the trigger anyway with a weaker justification. That is a worse crime than blessing a gay union, because think of how many people will never be welcomed into the house of God now that our resources are divided. Think about how much time we will spent arguing with each other, and legally manoeuvring against each other, instead of evangelising and glorifying God. Think about what force might whisper in a person ear to drive them to that kind of behaviour, to do all this when it is wholly unnecessary.

 

The difference and that is what you even yourself picked up on is that they can be used for sin but they also have not sinful uses also. Blessing a homosexual marriage is blessing something that is inherently sinful. There is nothing not sinful about it. The whole thing is an abomination and sinful and that is what is being blessed.

 

Just curious what is the current state and practice of the Australian Church? As I said I am not familiar with it. I am just arguing against blessing homosexual marriages being ok.

 

Oh, I'm sure -- they just wink and nod and smile and allow the priests and bishops to do what they want. It's this nonsensical idea that unless something is actually written down on a parchment and signed by everyone, it's not "real". It's a fig-leaf that the liberal churches wear -- like the CofE saying that resolution 1.10 is still "in effect" though in practice it is being routinely flouted everywhere. You can redefine "affirmation" to mean whatever you like (it's something liberals routinely do -- redefine words to mean something else more palatable to them) but the rest of us see it for what it is.

If the Synod will not sanction bishops or priests who violate canon law, then what pray tell me is the use of canon law, or of the Synod itself?

It boggles my mind that you can't see that this separation did not fall out of the clear blue sky. It is rather at the end of more than a century of leftward drift in the Anglican church. The orthodox are not fleeing from the historic Anglican faith; we are fleeing back to it. Final authority does not rest in the Church, or in your local Bishop -- it resides in Scripture. A believer is not bound to follow any teaching that deviates from Scripture. Anglicans espoused this concept in their 39 Articles of Religion, Article VI: "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation."

Also see Article XX: "The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation."

As to blessings, only by the most extreme mental gymnastics can you say that a "blessing" is not an "affirmation" -- in fact the Koine Greek word for blessing, eulogia, is used specifically to mean "praise or adulation". And if the word "Amen" is said at the end of the blessing, it is explicitly an affirmation as amen is an emphasis word that means "let it be so" or "truly". I cannot imagine any "blessing" of a homosexual union that would not be in direct contravention of Scriptural teaching. God would never bless such a union.

EDIT: I suppose we should use "benediction" rather than "blessing" in this context (Greek eirene) which is a wish of peace and harmony. But even so I still think it is inappropriate for a homosexual union.

 

A vow of fidelity and commitment to another is not intrinsically sinful. Here's a simple example:

Suppose one queer person goes out partying and drinking every weekend at a gay bar, and picks up a new sexual partner several times a week. They live a life of devout hedonism, existing solely for their own pleasure.

Suppose another queer person who has one singular sexual partner. They commit to that person not merely out of personal pleasure, but also love. They regularly sacrifice in their own life to give happiness for their partner.

Is the first person not further distanced from God than the second? So suppose there was some practice, some vow of union, that drove a gay person to be more like the second person than the first. Would it not be reasonable to bless that thing that brings someone closer to God, even if they are still distanced from God? One can pray to God for multiple things. "I pray these people find joy and fulfillment in obeying Your law. I also pray these people are never again tempted into the excesses of their former lives". The second prayer is not endorsing sin, because being silent on their current lives is not an endorsement of their current lives. It's being pastoral.

• They affirm marriage is between a man and a woman.
• They refuse to affirm same-sex marriages on the basis that it is not in accordance with the teachings of Christ
• In order to enable Anglican Religious Bodies (e.g. schools) to avoid anti-discrimination lawsuits for excluding individuals in gay marriages, they expressly made a statement that opposing gay marriage "conforms to the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of [our] religion"
• The ecclesiastical court (appellate tribunal) investigated the lawfulness of clergy blessing secular same-sex unions performed outside the church by the state and found, contingent on how the blessing is conducted, it could be lawful to bless a same-sex union without affirming the union itself.
• The Houses of Lay people and Clergy at the Synod voted to overrule the court and claim a same-sex union blessing could never be in accordance with the teachings of Christ, regardless of the context it is given.
• The House of Bishops at the Synod voted against overruling the court, noting that “with pain we recognise that there is not a common mind on these issues within the House of Bishops.”.
• Synod requires all three Houses to be in agreement to make a statement of doctrine.

The Synod said all of this in May. And in August GAFCON decided to schism anyway. If you have a position that we should not permit clergy to bless gay unions, then that's fine. You're in the majority of lay people, clergy, and almost the majority of Bishops in Australia. Spend some time educating people, making a better case for why the historic practice of the church on conducting blessings is wrong, why this issue needs to be treated differently to avoid any confusion in the modern world, and come back next year. This is the literal definition of an issue of minor disagreement, and one that can clearly be worked out and agreement found. Everyone is clearly on the same page principally about marriage, the division is over a legal argument about "what does a blessing actually mean". Is it just a prayer, or is it something more? That is not cause for schism.

It's also certainly not what GAFCON expected to schism over. They didn't set this up in 3 months. They began setting this up in 2020. Glenn Davies retired from the Anglican Communion in 2021. They expected the Province to shift on marriage, and when it didn't, they decided to start their own thing anyway, pretending like a disagreement on the nature of blessings amounts to "unbiblical and immoral practices" and that if they didn't set up a parallel province then clergy and congregations wouldn't have a pastoral home. I've seen deeper disagreements amongst ACNA congregants on this forum before about things that actually matter like the nature of the Eucharist and you all still manage to be a happy family without "needing" some other body to come along and offer you a pastoral alternative to save you from the "unbiblical and immoral practices" of people who think something different on something you only formed an opinion on a few months ago.

 

Are you talking about another Province again? Which Anglican bishop in Australia has violated canon law?

 

The Bishops of Perth, Gippsland, and Brisbane come immediately to mind.

But I suppose you'll rush to say that ackshually they haven't violated the letter of canon law, while I will say they trample all over the intent of it, and there the issue will rest.

 

This is akin to saying that a person who murders only one person is closer to God than one who murders a dozen.

The exact same argument you just made can be repurposed for pederasts, and for those who engage in bestiality, and to those who practice incest. If homosexuality is acceptable, why not pederasty? Why not incest? If love is the only metric, what's the problem?

You are describing eros and not agape -- agape love for others would never involve them in something that would condemn their eternal souls. Eros is often a fallen and corrupted human emotion that ties us to the world rather than separates us from it. That's why God ordained heterosexual marriage as the only acceptable outlet for sexual love: God created us as sexual beings so that we could reproduce ("be fruitful and multiply"), and so that husband and wife could both literally and symbolically unify ("become one flesh"). There is no homosexual sexual expression that is permitted. Proper male love is expressed in agape (which Jesus had for all humankind), or philadelphia, what we would call friendship.

Homosexual relationships are forbidden because they go against God's design for human beings upon this earth. Homosexuality is innately sinful. It cannot be conducted in any acceptable way in God's eyes. If homosexuals truly love one another, then they would commit to a life of singleness and celibacy. They forego pleasures in this life for the certainty of Heaven thereafter. It's a hard road, no doubt, but Christ never promised us that our faith would be easy.

In salvation, a miss of an inch is the same as a miss by a mile. You're still on the wrong side of the door to the kingdom of God when the judgment trump sounds.

 

​

Obviously, at this stage, we do not know where this is going. To date, they have one congregation that meets in the Beenleigh RSL (photograph above). Clearly, there is more going on than this, however, that seems to be the only congregation currently established. The circumstances of the Australian Church are very different to the circumstances of the Church in North America. As best I can see this new Church has given no indication of wanting to be a Church of the tradition of the Elizabethan Settlement, but a Bible Believing Evangelical Brigade. I have no doubt that the real blues will be fought over Buildings and Banks Accounts in due course. I have no doubt that both sides will be lawyering up as we speak. The Australian Church is not a homogenous whole, but rather 24 Dioceses which all have their own character and flavour, and much of the origins of this go back to the foundations of the Sees. Sydney which is the remnant of the Diocese of Australia has the bulk of the cash was founded during the Irish Potato Famine and represents a decidedly more reformed tradition, however, next door is the Diocese of Newcastle which was founded during the rise of the Oxford Movement and has displayed the moire Catholic Edge of the Anglican Church. These stories are repeated. From the 1980s the Church in Sydney began to embrace neo-Calvinism and the hard edge of propositional revelation and the arrogance of you interpret it your way and I interpret it God's way. What we don't know is how all this is going to play out in the long run. For a long time, there has been the suggestion that the evangelicals are holding a gun to the rest of the Anglican Church, which was why I found this image above interesting/amusing.

There ought to be a better way, and I still pray that we all may here, despite the clamour and the claims, the still small voice of calm.

 

What have they done to trample over the intent of Canon Law? I legitimately have no idea what you're talking about.