I sat in the public gallery to observed the plenary session debate on resolution 1.10 at the end of the 1998 Lambeth Conference. It was one of the very few occasions during the three weeks of the conference when 'outsiders' were allowed access to what was going on 'inside - with the bishops. The subsequent reports fail to capture the intense, hostile anti-gay aggression that marked what was supposed to have been a rational debate about the report presented by the section of bishops who had been exploring human sexuality. After the marathon, sometimes chaotic, frequently ill-tempered debate, my bishop, Peter Selby, bishop of Kingston, commented that it had felt like being at a Nuremberg rally.
The trajectory towards this incredibly unpleasant three hours had begun in Kuala Lumpur in August 1997 at a meeting of Global South bishops. The entire Kuala Lumpur conference was devoted to forming an anti-gay presence at Lambeth.
My involvement had begun on Sunday 23 November 1997 when I worshipped at Southwark Cathedral. The bishops forming the planning group for next year’s Lambeth Conference occupied the front four rows of the nave. Bishop Rowan Williams preached. A group of demonstrators from OutRage! interrupted the service. I rose and objected to what one of them said. At the end of the service I was introduced to Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane of Cape Town, chair of the section that was dealing with human sexuality. He asked me to meet him the following morning and invited me to come to Canterbury to speak to the bishops in the human sexuality sub-section. I agreed, on condition that we came as a group. In the event, a small group met every month at St Martin-in-the-Fields to develop our ideas and we were joined in Canterbury by members of Integrity USA.
The Changing Attitude and Integrity USA group was present in Canterbury for the whole conference. Despite the attempts of Bishop Duncan Buchanan who chaired the sexuality sub-section at Lambeth, the bishops refused to allow a meeting with us, LGBT representatives. Eventually we organised an open event to which a number of bishops came, but we never got to meet the sub-section bishops.
The Global South bishops, with conservative allies from North America, established an operations unit in the Franciscan centre on the University campus. Rumours about what they were doing spread. I was intimidated by their presence and avoided the Franciscan building. One of their contingent, Nigerian bishop Emmanuel Chukwuma, thought it appropriate to try and exorcise in public the demon of homosexuality from Richard Kirker, chief executive of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement.
Lambeth Resolution 1.10 plenary session
Towards the end of the two weeks Archbishop Njongonkulu, who headed up Section I which dealt with human sexuality reported that there would be no resolution on human sexuality as they did not believe the Communion was ready to agree such a resolution at that time. They had prepared a report which summarised the range of the discussion and the journey so far. Resolution 1.10 did not originate from the bishops in the section where the discussion on human sexuality issues took place.
On the final Friday morning of the Conference a three hour plenary session was timetabled.
At the beginning of the session Archbishop Njongonkulu, introducing their report, said: "It is an under-statement to say that the sub-section on sexuality has been far from straightforward." Through there had been "much careful listening," the sub-section was able to agree unanimously on the report as a way to "represent where the Communion is."
The report attempted to stake out a middle ground position, affirming past Lambeth Conference statements on the sanctity of marriage but also opposing homophobia and "any discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation." While affirming marriage as the only acceptable means for sexual expression, the report recognized that gays and lesbians are loved by God, and that all baptized members of the church, regardless of their sexual orientation, "are full members of the Body of Christ."
A significant number of amendments to Resolution 1.10 had been submitted, some wanting to strengthen the anti-gay language, others attempting to moderate the tone. Each of these was debated and argued over in the course of the following three hours. Some motions failed, some were accepted. The final form of resolution 1.10 is incoherent, both toxic for LGBTQIA+ people while at the same time offering tokens of affirmation. The subsection's careful work was steadily eroded by the amendments. A contemporary and much more detailed account of the plenary session can be found on Thinking Anglicans.
Archbishop George Carey intervenes
Immediately before the vote, Archbishop George Carey intervened. His intervention reinforced the hostile mood of the bishops against any accommodation of homosexuality. I remember being shocked at the time, aware that he was encouraging any waverers to vote for a deeply homophobic resolution. He warned the bishops not to make sexuality the defining issue of the conference but said that nevertheless he stood "wholeheartedly with the traditional Anglican orthodoxy. I see no room in Holy Scripture or the entire Christian tradition for any sexual activity outside matrimony." "If this conference is known by what we have said about homosexuality," he said, "then we will have failed."
The resolution was adopted by 526 to 70 with 45 abstentions. The conservative bishops emerged victorious with a resolution that upheld the biblical understanding of marriage and rejected sexual activity by gays and lesbians as "incompatible with scripture," opposed the recognition or blessing of same-sex unions and the ordination of non-celibate gay men and lesbians.
After the plenary session
At a press conference organized by the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement immediately following the plenary session, several bishops shared their disappointment and resolved to stay in dialogue but questioned whether their conservative colleagues were equally committed. A number of American bishops circulated a supportive letter that was eventually signed by 130 bishops including Rowan Williams.
Lambeth 2022 and Living in Love an Faith
Nearly a quarter of a century later homosexuality threatens to dominate the media coverage of Lambeth 2022. In 1998 homosexuality was the issue that haunted every day of the conference, undermining the hopes of those like me who dream of a Church focused on a Christian vision that is recognizably committed to justice, truth and unconditional love, the values and qualities that can nourish and enrich life in all its fulness.
This year two documents continue to impact the lives of LGBTQIA+ Anglicans in England – Issues in Human Sexuality (1991) and the 1998 Resolution 1.10. Both documents are hostile to our spiritual, emotional and relational well-being and need to be binned. Whoever restored Lambeth 1.10 to the agenda for Lambeth 2022 has made a huge tactical mistake. LGBTQIA+ activists and allies are motivated for action in a way I have never experienced before. After years in which we have been denied change and transformation, our anger has been unleashed.
Andrew Nunn, Dean of Southwark, writes:
“What really angers me is not the homophobia apparent in all of this, I am used to that, sadly. What gets me is the scandalous way the ‘church’, whoever, whatever that is, displays such a lack of openness, transparency and honesty with the rest of us who are the church.
“Those who call the church to ban Pride, to ban celebrating our reality as human beings loved and created by our inclusive God are obviously supported by the Lambeth Conference even before it gathers. If I was a bishop of the Episcopal or Canadian Church I would get straight back on the plane and return home.”
Bishops of the Church in Wales issued a statement saying the draft Lambeth Call “undermines and subverts” LGBT+ people.
The Bishop of Arizona Jennifer Reddall said the call “contains a deliberate poison pill”. And it has left a poor taste in my mouth as I prepare for Lambeth.
The Bishop of Iowa, Betsey Monnot, said: “Lambeth Call” about Human Dignity openly and obviously tramples on the dignity of LGBTQ+ humans, even while using language that pretends to uphold the dignity and worth of every human being. Second, it calls into question the entire purpose and process of this Lambeth Conference.
The Rev Charlie Bell wrote In a series of tweets that the decision to include Resolution I:10 was a terrible, damaging unforced error, a deliberate political choice: The Church of England had betrayed LGBTQI people. “Living in Love and Faith is dead”.
Meanwhile, the bishops leading the Living in Love and Faith process issued a statement saying the CofE mirrored some of the disagreement seen around the Anglican Communion world and said its work will continue despite this controversy and it hoped that the LLF process could be used by the Communion. They don’t yet understand that the Lambeth event has changed everything.
The Archbishop of Canterbury issued a statement referencing the growing anger and appealing for unity despite disagreements: “Without ignoring those things on which we deeply disagree, I pray that we will approach this gathering with an even deeper sense of what unites us: the love of Jesus Christ and his calling to serve God’s world”. Late on Monday 25 July Bishop Tim Thornton, Chair of the Lambeth Calls Subgroup, issued a statement announcing that the drafting group for the Call on Human Dignity will be making some revisions to the Call, to be released as soon as it is available.
The future of LLF
The Lambeth Calls fiasco has broken the trust that LGBTQIA+ people had placed in the LLF process. It has shown that we cannot trust the bishops to act honestly and with transparency. It shows why the Church of England needs to change. The bishops of the church need to admit that homophobia and transphobia are endemic, systemically, in the structures of the church and the ethos of the LLF material and process. The bishops need to consult with and directly involve LGBTQIA+ people at every stage of the final months of LLF and as propels for future are developed.
We, organisations advocating for a transformed church where justice, love and truth are papramount, need to devote the remaining months of the LLF process by engaging with and confronting the bishops with the abusive effects of their failure to affirm and protect LGBTQIA+ people and their inability to confront abusive teaching and practice.
LLF will publish in September an analysis of the questionnaire survey results. These will show whether or not the House of Bishops gamble to implement LLF as a church-wide consultation exercise has paid off – but paid off for who?
Archbishops and bishops and especially the Bishop of London and the members of the Next Steps Group have to urgently rethink their strategy for the autumn. Eight organisations are now united in our commitment to work actively for justice and equality for LGBTQIA+ people. They are:
Changing Attitude England
General Synod Gender and Sexuality Group
Campaign for Equal Marriage in the Church of England
Inclusive Church Network
Modern Church
MOSAIC
OneBodyOneFaith
Ozanne Foundation
Changing Attitude England continues to campaign for the full equality of LGBTQIA+ people in ministry and relationships in the Church of England.
We are campaigning for the implementation of the Archbishops’ vision of a radical new Christian inclusion – for LGBTQIA+ people.
To support our campaign pursuing a vision of the Church where LGBTQIA+ people will be welcomed and loved unconditionally you might like to join Changing Attitude England on Facebook.