Homosexual Practice? The Biblical Answer
Christ Church PCC Away Day, Saturday 5^th July 2008

“In the middle of the eighteenth century the state of the Church of England was far, far worse than it is today. In the mid-1750s on Easter Day in St Paul’s Cathedral there were a total of six people. Six undergraduates were sent down from Oxford for reading the Bible. The celebrated lawyer, Blackstone, early in the reign of George III went out of curiosity from church to church to hear every clergyman of note in London. He says that he did not hear a single discourse that had more Christianity in it than the writings of Cicero and that it would have been impossible for him to discover from what he heard whether the preacher was a follower of Confucius, Mohammed, or Christ. Yet over the next century things changed dramatically so that by the middle of the nineteenth century a third of the clergy in the Church of England, it is estimated, were evangelical, the great missionary societies had been founded, the Clapham Sect was achieving great things, and at least three-quarters of the societies that were trying to ameliorate the situation were of Evangelical foundation.”[1]

The last fifty years or so have witnessed an increasingly virulent attack upon biblical truth and biblical morality led liberal Anglican Bishops and Archbishops who should instead have been guarding both… Although it might not have been the first instance of this, we might start with the publication, in 1963 of John A. T. Robinson’s book Honest to God. At the time he was the Bishop of Woolwich. In that book he questioned the doctrine of God and many other elements of classic Anglican teaching. And this was the new thing: that a serving bishop should mount a challenge to the doctrine of the articles and the teaching of the Bible in such a public and unashamed way.[2]

Even before his consecration as Bishop of Newark in 1976, John Shelby Spong, an admirer of J. A. T. Robinson, had been writing controversial books. In fact his controversial views would eventually lead to charges of heresy, which were dismissed in 1987. In 1986 he published Beyond Moralism: A Contemporary View of the Ten Commandments. Two years later he wrote Living in Sin? A Bishop Rethinks Human Sexuality. A year later he openly and knowingly ordained a practicing homosexual man.

In 1984, the then bishop of Durham, David Jenkins, gained notoriety by commenting in a BBC interview that the belief that Jesus was raised bodily from the grave was ridiculous, an infantile preoccupation with ‘a conjuring trick with bones’.

In 1995 the then bishop of Oxford, Richard Harries, defended his cathedral’s invitation to a practicing Muslim to preach the university sermon on the BBC’s ‘Thought for the Day’. He quoted Jesus’ words ‘Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called sons of God’ and then went on to deduce that since the Muslim concerned was working for peace in his own country he not only came under the blessing of Jesus, but shared the title Son of God with him. When challenged about the uniqueness of Jesus on the basis of John 14:6 he wrote ‘to suggest that Jesus actually said those words is to deny 150 years of scholarship in the Gospel of John.

In 1996, The then Bishop of Bath and Wells, Jim Thompson, admitted to ordaining many homosexual priests. Similarly, Hugh Montefiore, then Bishop of Birmingham and also Robert Runcie, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, admitted doing the same. Runcie said, in a Church Times article, “there have been times in my ministry when I have acted in a ‘don’t want to know and why should I inquire?’ way; and I have never liked the prospect of inquiring into what happened in a man’s bedroom unless he was prepared to tell me.” In 1996, our own Bishop John Gladwin chose to preach at the 20^th anniversary celebration of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement and, together with fellow evangelical ministers in Guildford Diocese we expressed our disapproval in person with him and then in the media but to now avail. He has subsequently expressed his solidarity with the TEC Bishop’s who consecrated Gene Robinson.[3]

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams has also admitted to ordaining homosexual priests, and on the 27^th November, last year, he presided at a “secret” Eucharist for lesbian and gay clergy in the Church of England. According to the Times Newspaper,

“The meeting was organised by the Clergy Consultation, a support group for gay clergy, ordinands and Anglican monks and nuns. Secrecy was so tight that a list of names attending was sent to Lambeth Palace with orders that it be shredded as soon as he had read it.”

In a joint statement Dr Richard Turnbull, chair of the Church of England Evangelical Council and Dr Philip Giddings, Convenor of the evangelical group Anglican Mainstream, said:

“Every occasion for listening pastorally to people is to be welcomed. “However, the Holy Communion is a fundamental symbol of fellowship and an expression of our unity in Christ.” To offer this to those in gay partnered relationships went contrary to biblical teaching and to the teaching by the bishops themselves in their document Issues in Human Sexuality… “The bishop as upholder of the Apostolic faith is held by all Anglicans to provide a focus of unity. Since the Archbishop has apparently proceeded with this service, this makes it more likely that he will become a focus of division.”

But outlandish statements by bishops of the Anglican Communion, undermining the teaching of Scripture and the doctrine of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion are only barely newsworthy these days.

They seem to come with such regularity and disdain for anyone who disagrees with them that only rarely do they provoke controversy. Instead, it’s the orthodox who are the source of scandal as far as the secular press is concerned.

Statements of orthodox Anglican doctrine are often ridiculed and then dismissed. Chris Sugden of the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies, writing in the Guardian this week said, “For five years, the Episcopal church in US, the Anglican church of Canada, and elements of the Church of England and church in New Zealand have acted precisely like the student unions of the 1970s and Militant Tendency in putting facts on the ground and defying the authorities to do anything about it.”

Faithful Confessing Anglicans throughout the world, believe the doctrinal foundation of Anglicanism, which defines our core identity as Anglicans, is expressed in the Articles of Religion and Canon Law. For example, Canon A5 states:

The doctrine of the Church is grounded in the Holy Scriptures and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular, such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal. (Canon A5)

In particular Article 20 says:

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 anything 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 keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation. (Article 20)

Members of the Church of England Evangelical Council, Anglican Mainstream, Reform and Church Society, as well as the main Anglican mission agencies, intend to remain faithful to this standard, and we call on others in the Communion to reaffirm and return to it. Building on the above doctrinal foundation of Anglican identity, we published the Jerusalem Declaration as the basis of our fellowship. I invite you to endorse it on-line as I and other leaders at Christ Church have done.

What makes such a critical moment in the Church of England is because of attempts now being made to officially endorse teaching which is in direct conflict with the teaching of Scripture. And because it is the catalyst for our immediate decisions, I will introduce you to the biblical material pertaining to homosexuality, then trace the official shift of position on homosexuality in the American and Canadian churches. I am not going to dwell on the pastoral implications. We must examine what God has said on this subject in Scripture and then work out how we respond to both those who engage in homosexual practice and those who support them.

I want to emphasize that this controversy is not about homophobia – it is about the rejection of the supreme authority of the Scriptures and the doctrine of the Church of England. Homosexuality is merely the presenting issue. On this subject the Bible is clear and unambiguous. Lets consider the Biblical framework within which to address this issue.

1. Creation

“Then God said, “Let us make human beings in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” ²⁷ So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. ²⁸ God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.” (Genesis 1:26-28)

Genesis affirms men and women as equal in the sight of God, made by him and for him, in his image, male and female.

They were given joint responsibility to steward the earth and multiply. Only through procreation could the earth be filled with human beings created in the image of God. While the Bible has much to say about and on behalf of the single, the widow, the orphan and the eunuch, marriage and procreation is the norm – the means by which this command would be fulfilled.

Genesis 2 elaborates more fully on the complementary roles of male and female in marriage:

^“ The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him… ²⁴For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. ²⁵ The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.” (Genesis 2:18, 24-25)

The function of the two, male and female being ‘united’ and the husband and wife becoming ‘one flesh’ provides the only God ordained relationship for fulfilling sex, the natural means of procreation and the context for raising and nurturing children.[4]

This metaphor is taken up in the New Testament by Paul (Ephesians 5:22-33) where the exclusive commitment of Christ and the church is reflected in human marriage.

2. The Fall

In the Fall, one dimension of the rebellion which led to the breakdown of the harmonious relationship between God and humanity, centers on a conflict between men and women.

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” (Genesis 3:16)

Simon Vibert points out “The most detailed example of the fallenness of human sexuality is found in Genesis 19. So great was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah that Abraham’s pleading in prayer did not have the effect of saving the city but only the one righteous family of Lot.”

“Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. ⁵They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” ⁶ Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him ⁷ and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing.” (Genesis 19:4-7)

Townsend observes, “Our word ‘sodomy’ owes its origin to this incident.”[5] (See also Isaiah 1:7-17; Ezekiel 16:49-50; Matthew 10:14-15; Luke 10:10-12; 2 Peter 2:6-10; Jude 7) True, this act was intended to be one of violence but indicates that homosexual behavior was the norm in the city. Vibert notes:

“In English usage, ‘sodomy’ refers to anal intercourse. The etymology of the word reflects the widely-held conviction that this text deals with homosexual rape of the grossest form. God judges homosexual sex to be abhorrent and worthy of the severest punishment. The sheer fact that the offer of sex with Lot’s daughters did not satisfy, indicates the level to which the people’s sexual depravity had fallen”

3. The Law of God

In the Mosaic Law, God reveals his perfect moral law and the behavior required of his people. Leviticus contains what is known as the “Holiness Code” (Leviticus 17-26) – “Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy” (Leviticus 19:2). People, places and activities are therefore only holy in obedient relationship with God. Chapter 18 contains a long list of prohibited relationships and practices including:

‘Do not give any of your childrento be sacrificedto Molech,for you must not profane the name of your God.I am the LORD.²² “ ‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.²³ “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it.” (Leviticus 18:21-23)

Notice in what is a long list of prohibitions, homosexual practice is listed between pagan child sacrifice and having sex with animals. Two chapters later the penalty for homosexual practice is delineated:

‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (Leviticus 20:13)

While the ceremonial laws and food restrictions are clearly annulled in the New Testament the moral law is not.

“For it doesn’t go into your heart but into your stomach, and then out of your body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean).” (Mark 7:13) As we shall see in a moment, Jesus and the Apostles reinforce the abiding permanence of the moral law of God because it reflects his holiness and perfect character. The Mosaic Law therefore is unequivocal in prohibiting sexual intercourse between two men and describes this behavior as ‘detestable’ and punishable by death.

4. The History of Israel

What are we to make of the friendship between David and Jonathan? After David killed Goliath, we read, “After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself.” (1 Samuel 18:1). The two bound themselves in a formal bond of friendship.

Mark Bonnington and Bob Fyall observe,

“Scripture does recognize and value strong same sex friendships – Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, Paul and Timothy. But there is no evidence that these strongly emotional relationships had anything like a homo-erotic element. David does indeed say of Jonathan, “Your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.’ And Saul is furious at the ‘shame’ of Jonathan’s friendship for David (1 Samuel 20:30). However the context makes it plain that the shame is political rather than sexual [Saul says to Jonathan] “As long as the son of Jesse lives on this earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established.” (1 Samuel 20:31)[6]

The friendship of David and Jonathan was close and affectionate. It was platonic and not sexual. To suggest otherwise is to manipulate the text of Scripture and set one passage against another.

5. The View of Jesus

Jesus upholds the male-female marriage creation order and lays down stricter standards of sexual morality for his disciples, especially on divorce. Robert Gagnon observes, “Jesus appeal to Gen. 1:27 and 2:24 in his discussion of divorce (Mark 10:1-12) confirms his embrace of an exclusively heterosexual model of monogamy.”[7] He goes on to note that Jesus never abrogated the Torah during his earthly ministry. Indeed Jesus insists,

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. ¹⁸ Truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. ¹⁹ Anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:17-19)

Gagnon observes,

“Although Jesus does not explicitly refer to same-sex intercourse… implicit references exist. In Mark 7:21-23, Jesus interprets his saying about what defiles a person as follows: “for it is from… the human heart that evil intentions comne: sexual immoralities (porneiai)… adulteries… licentiousness… All these evil things come from within and defile a person.” No first-century Jew could have spoken of porneiai (plural) without having in mind the list of forbidden sexual offences in Leviticus 18 and 20 (incest, adultery, same-sex intercourse, bestiality).”[8]

6. The Apostolic Witness

God’s moral law as enshrined in the Mosaic Covenant is reiterated in the New Testament. In Acts 15 the Council of Jerusalem declared that Gentiles must also keep the moral law of Moses and “abstain from food polluted by idols, [and] from sexual immorality...” (Acts 15:20-21). There are three passages in which Paul explicitly condemns homosexual practice (Romans 1: 24-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:10-11)

Let’s look at each briefly.

6.1 Homosexual Behaviour is Perverted (Romans 1:24-32)

It is important to see the logical progression of Paul’s argument in Romans 1.

· The wrath of God is his sustained holy revulsion at unrighteousness and unholiness - ungodly conduct and moral infidelity (Romans 1:18)

· The truth is ‘plain’. In the revelation manifested in the created world, but has been suppressed. Men and women ‘know’ God but do not glorify him or acknowledge him. (Romans 1:19-20)

· The result of this corrupt and vain thinking is idolatry (Romans 1:21-23)

· The suppression of the knowledge of God leads to the worship of creation (Romans 1:24)

· On three occasions Paul uses the phrase “God gave them over” emphasizing, Vibert observes, “a downward spiral of degradation as God allows us to reap the consequences of our sin.” On each occasion, as God gives people over, religious and cultural disintegration occurs – which is proof “that God is judging our worst sin”

Heterosexual relationships are degraded

“Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.” (Romans 1:24)

The first stage in this ‘giving over’ this degradation is the twisting of natural relationships between men and women.

Open Homosexuality is practiced

“In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” (Romans 1:27)

Paul uses two words ‘unnatural’ and ‘indecent’. Both have the connotation of perversion. What does Paul mean by ‘natural’ (phusis) and ‘unnatural’? Here as in 1 Corinthians 11, it is the rejection of the natural order of God’s creation pattern that warrants condemnation. C.E.B. Cranfield writes, “Paul clearly means ‘in accordance with the intention of the Creator’.

Vibert observes,

“What is natural is defined by creation, not by culture. In the context of the condemnation on idolatry and the denial of the knowledge of God, the implication is that perverted sex, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is creature worship, rather than creator honouring.”[9]

Gagnon reinforces this by highlighting the parallels between Romans 1:23 and Genesis 1:26. In both verses, words such as ‘likeness’, ‘image’, ‘human’, ‘birds’, ‘four footed animals’, and ‘reptiles’ occur. Paul assumes that “both idolatry and same-sex intercourse reject God’s created order.” The word ‘nature’ then refers to the material creation and the “bodily design of human beings… It is the misuse of what God has created, and not the passions and desires per se, that are against nature.”

Paul is indicating that this stage is worse than the previous one because it goes beyond the abuse of natural male-female sexuality.

Society suffers cultural and ethical disintegration

“Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. ²⁹ They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity.” (Romans 1:28-29)

The total breakdown of society is the third stage of this ever downward spiral. Vibert rightly observes how in our own country we see the devastating effects of this depravity –

· Gender distinctions being abolished

· Gender roles being attacked

· Gender differences being denied[10]

In his letter to the Romans the apostle Paul reiterates the teaching of Leviticus and condemns homosexual practice.

Please not that in all this he is not distinguishing between stable loving faithful ‘natural’ homosexual relations and ‘unnatural’ homosexual promiscuity. This distinction is a modern invention and simply further evidence of a decadent society. No, in Romans 1, Paul is applying the consistent condemnation of all homosexual practice found in Leviticus.

Creation transcends culture, and in this case, condemns it.

6.2 How to Inherit the Kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?Do not be deceived:Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterersnor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders¹⁰ nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlerswill inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹ And that is what some of you were.But you were washed,you were sanctified,you were justifiedin the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

Here Paul is eschatological and defines ten types of people whose characteristic behaviour that, without repentance, will be excluded from heaven. Paul uses two words to describe homosexual acts. Malakoi (meaning ‘soft ones’) and arsenokoitai (compound of two words for ‘male’ and ‘bed’). The latter clearly reflects closely the language of Leviticus 18:22 in the Greek Septuagint.[11] Bonnington and Fyall note,

“Detailed studies of the ancient texts show that malakos could have a broad range of meanings ranging from gentle, through effeminate to a receptive male homosexual. Sandwiched between two other words with sexual connotations, it certainly has a sexual meaning. It cannot therefore have as general a meaning as ‘loose living’ but nor is it likely to have as specific meaning as ‘male prostitute’… it simply means men who make themselves attractive to other men. One explanation is to bracket malakoi and arsenokoitai and see the two as the receptive and insertive partners in anal intercourse.”[12]

6.3 Sound Doctrine (1 Timothy 1:10-11)

“Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. ⁷ They want to be teachersof the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.⁸ We know that the law is goodif one uses it properly. ⁹ We also know that lawis made not for the righteousbut for lawbreakers and rebels,the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, ¹⁰ for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine¹¹ that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.” (1 Timothy 1:6-11)

In his pastoral letter to Timothy, Paul again uses the term arsenokoitai. As always the context should determine interpretation if there is a variety of meanings. The context in this case is verses 8 and 9. Paul explains that God’s moral law found in Leviticus is abiding and universal. Without repentance, there is no forgiveness of sin, but the fearful judgment of God and the eternal fires of hell (See also Revelation 21:8 and 22:15 where unrepentant homosexual offenders are listed along with other unrepentant sinners who wil be excluded from the new creation. The apostle Jude warns of the same:

^“In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrahand the surrounding townsgave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” (Jude 1:7)

To summarise, we can be clear. The Bible is unambiguous.

From Creation, the Fall, the Law of God, The History of Israel, the View of Jesus to the Apostolic Witness, homosexual practice is a sin requiring repentance, without which there can be no salvation. But the good news is – God can forgive. God can heal. God can deliver through repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. That is the good news. Paul writes to former homosexual Corinthians

“And that is what some of you were.But you were washed,you were sanctified,you were justifiedin the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:11). This is not something on which bible loving Christians can simply agree to disagree. It is not merely a question of interpretation. The authority of scripture, the nature of the church, of family life, indeed the very gospel and people’s eternal salvation is at stake.

“Love is often championed as the one principle by which sexual conduct should be guided. But biblical ethics has more than one ingredient… Love, however tender, however faithful, cannot be its own guide. Love, seeking the highest welfare of others, must be informed and shaped by God’s purposes for his creation and his kingdom.”[13]

That is why the position I have presented to you has been the position of the universal Church for 2000 years. There are simply no Jewish or Christian scriptures or early writings of the Church Fathers which even tolerate homosexuality, let alone approve of it. And this is the official doctrinal position of the Church of England.

“From Cranmer to Hooker, from the 239 Articles to the 1998 Lambeth Conferenc, the authority of scripture is a defining mark of Anglican identity” (Archbishop Henry Orombi)

The 1998 Lambeth statement on Human Sexuality is contained in Resolution 1.10.

· in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage;

· while rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture, calls on all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals, violence within marriage and any trivialisation and commercialisation of sex;

· cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions;

That is the position of your Church. But here is a time-line of when the ‘Militant Tendency’ of liberalism began to tear apart the fabric of the Anglican Communion.

1943 Lectionary readings touching upon homosexual practice are declared difficult by ECUSA and removed from the lectionary.

1989 Bishop Jack Spong of Newark openly and knowingly ordains a non-celebate homosexual .

1994 Bishop Spong drafts the Koinonia Statement defining homosexuality as morally neutral and affirming support for the ordination of homosexuals.

1997 ECUSA General Convention defeats a motion to endorse the Kuala Lumpur Statement, which affirmed the Bible’s teaching on human sexuality.

July 1998 Lambeth Conference passes Resolution 1.10 reaffirming the biblical teaching on human sexuality.

1998 Synod of Diocese of New Westminster in the Church of Canada votes to endorse the blessing of same sex unions.

2002 Synod of the Diocese of New Westminster votes for the third time to endorse the blessing of same sex unions, this time with the support and encouragement of the bishop. Some evangelical leaders, including Jim Packer and David Short (serving in the largest Anglican church in Canada) walk out and declare themselves out of communion with their Bishop.

23 July 2002 Rowan Williams announced as Archbishop of Canterbury despite having admitted that he had knowing ordained a homosexual man.

20 May 2003 The Bishop of Oxford announces that Jeffrey John, an advocate of gay rights and himself a non-practicing homosexual, will be the next Bishop of Reading.

7 June 2003 Gene Robinson, a practicing gay man is elected as bishop of New Hampshire.

6 July 2003 Jeffrey John withdraws his nomination as Bishop of Reading after much speculation in the press and a meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

August 2003 General Convention of ECUSA votes to confirm Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. Victor Stock, Dean of Guildford Cathedral tells BBC News,

“The Church of England was being hypocritical. In England we do have gay bishops and gay senior people in the churches but we don't say anything about it because we would rather not, you know, say anything in public. I think the American example is of much more openness and honesty and being sensible and not so hypocritical."

April 2004 retired Bishop Otis Charles ‘marries’ his homosexual partner in Pasadena.

August 2006 Jeffrey John, now Dean of St Albans, enteres into a civil partnership with his long-term partner, the Revd Grant Holmes.

June 2008 Martin Dudley performs a blessing service at St. Bartholomew's Church, London for two male clergy using wording from the Prayer Book Marriage Service.

The roots of this shift in thinking can be seen way back in the 1940s. However, in the last ten years, since the last Lambeth Conference, the onslaught on the official position of the Anglican church has only grown.

Now it is not just a matter of an individual bishop’s heretical opinion, either expressed in private or published for general consumption. This is the institution changing its official position by stealth. This month’s Lambeth Conference will neither discuss the issue or pass any resolutions. Nor will Rowan Williams agree to meet with the Primates, the fellow archbishops of the Anglican Communion to hear their concerns. That is why some 291 Anglican Archbishops and Bishops have decided to act without him.

Let me explain what is going to happen next:

In August the Global Primates Council will meet and decide how to provide pastoral oversight for orthodox Anglicans worldwide. This will probably involve parallel jurisdiction where clergy and parishes are in impaired communion with their Bishops.

In September, Ro, Francis and I will preach a four week sermon series on the issues confronting the Church of England at the moment – namely biblical authority, homosexuality, false teachers and false gospel.

On Wednesday 10^th September there will be a Diocesan Evangelical Fellowship meeting at St Saviour’s Guildford about the Jerusalem Declaration, when Stephen Hofmeyr QC and I will speak and Bishop Michael Nazir Ali has also been invited to speak.

On Saturday 11^th October (mark it in your diary) we will be hosting an all day conference at which we will watch the presentations made by the three Archbishops and Jim Packer at yesterday’s All Soul’s conference, together with further material from the Jerusalem conference. During the day there will also be space for small group discussions and prayer.

Then you will be invited to respond to the Jerusalem Declaration, as will every church in the global Anglican Communion have to, sooner or later. In November the issue has been tabled for discussion by our Deanery Synod, and we hope the Diocesan Synod at some point.

As to the future, we are in God’s hands. But burying our heads in the sand and hoping it will all go away will not do any good. We cannot go back to the way things were. Like a nuclear explosion, the fall out will affect every church within the Anglican communion.

The Global Anglican Future Conference emerged in response to this crisis within the Anglican Communion, a crisis involving three undeniable facts concerning world Anglicanism.

The first fact is the acceptance and promotion within the provinces of the Anglican Communion of a different ‘gospel’ (cf. Galatians 1:6-8) which is contrary to the apostolic gospel.

This false gospel undermines the authority of God’s Word written and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the author of salvation from sin, death and judgement. Many of its proponents claim that all religions offer equal access to God and that Jesus is only a way, not the way, the truth and the life. It promotes a variety of sexual preferences and immoral behaviour as a universal human right. It claims God’s blessing for same-sex unions over against the biblical teaching on holy matrimony. In 2003 this false gospel led to the consecration of a bishop living in a homosexual relationship.

The second fact is the declaration by provincial bodies in the Global South that they are out of communion with bishops and churches that promote this false gospel.

“Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christdoes not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.¹⁰ If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him.Anyone who welcomes him sharesin his wicked work.” (2 John 1:9-11)

These declarations have resulted in a realignment whereby faithful Anglican Christians have left existing territorial parishes, dioceses and provinces in certain Western churches and become members of other dioceses and provinces, all within the Anglican Communion. These actions have also led to the appointment of new Anglican bishops set over geographic areas already occupied by other Anglican bishops. A major realignment has occurred and will continue to unfold.

The third fact is the manifest failure of the Communion Instruments to exercise discipline in the face of overt heterodoxy.

“Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.¹¹ You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.” (Titus 3:10-11)

“I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned.Keep away from them.¹⁸ For such people are not serving our Lord Christ,but their own appetites.By smooth talk and flattery they deceivethe minds of naive people.” (Romans 16:17-18)

The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada, in proclaiming this false gospel, have not only consistently defied the Scriptures but also the official position of the Church of England. Despite numerous meetings and reports to and from the ‘Instruments of Unity,’ no effective action has been taken, and the bishops of these unrepentant churches are welcomed to Lambeth 2008. To make matters worse, there has been a failure to honour promises of discipline, the authority of the Primates’ Meeting has been undermined and the Lambeth Conference has been structured so as to avoid any hard decisions. We can only come to the devastating conclusion that ‘we are a global Communion with a colonial structure’.

Sadly, this crisis has torn the fabric of the Communion in such a way that it cannot simply be patched back together. At the same time, it has brought together many Anglicans across the globe into personal and pastoral relationships in a fellowship which is faithful to biblical teaching, more representative of the demographic distribution of global Anglicanism today and stronger as an instrument of effective mission, ministry and social involvement.

The meeting in Jerusalem last week was called in a sense of urgency that a false gospel has so paralysed the Anglican Communion that this crisis must be addressed. The chief threat of this dispute involves the compromising of the integrity of the church’s worldwide mission. The primary reason we have come to Jerusalem and issued this declaration is to free our churches to give clear and certain witness to Jesus Christ. It is our hope that this Statement on the Global Anglican Future will be received with comfort and joy by many Anglicans around the world who have been distressed about the direction of the Communion. By the grace of God, GAFCON and the new Primates Council of orthodox and godly Archbishops, I believe the Anglican Communion should and will be reformed around the biblical gospel and mandate to go into all the world and present Christ to the nations.

“But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served …or the gods … in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household,we will serve the LORD.” (Joshua 24:15)