The Dallas Statement

A Coherent Orthodox Anglican Witness

We seek to identify the particularity of Anglicanism in the diversities of our cultures. The sources from which we have received our Anglican distinctives are Scripture, prayer, experience, tradition and worship¹ as focused in the Book of Common Prayer, the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Ordinal.² In earlier times, the commonality we shared was imposed³ through our common heritage from the Church of England. In recent decades the process of contextualisation, inherent in the Anglican concept of being a "national church" or "church of the nation" has quite naturally produced increased and increasing diversity. As we seek to express our being as churches which are part of a global communion with orthodox distinctives,⁴ we also seek to affirm our unity in the Anglican Communion.⁵ The question arises how we may express our unity as part of a contemporary and culturally diverse communion. We seek a common, coherent and consistent orthodox witness which takes the diversity of cultures very seriously, and which will strengthen our unity and commend our witness. ⁶

We identify and affirm the following components as contributing to a shared and coherent orthodox Anglican framework for considering these issues and for building consensus.

Jesus Christ is the one Word of God.⁷ He⁸ came in human flesh, died for our sins and was raised for our justification.⁹ In the flesh he lived for us a life of obedience to the will of God; on the cross he bore God's judgement on our sin;¹⁰ and in his resurrection our human nature was made new. In him we know both God and human nature as they truly are. In his life, death and resurrection we are adopted as children of God and called to follow in the way of the cross. His promise and call are for every human being: that we should trust in him, abandon every self-justification, and rejoice in the good news of our redemption.¹¹

The Spirit of Jesus Christ¹² bears witness to the Gospel in the Holy Scripture and in the ministry of the people of God. He directs us in the task of understanding all human life and experience through the Scriptures.¹³ And so, guided by the Spirit of God to interpret the times, the church proclaims the Word of God to the needs of each new age, and declares Christ's redeeming power and forgiveness in mutual encouragement and exhortation to holiness. The Father of Jesus Christ restores broken creation in him. For he himself is its fulfillment: in him the church learns by its life and witness to attest to the goodness and hope of creation. The Spirit gives us strength and confidence to live as men and women within the created order, finding peace and reconciliation and awaiting the final revelation of the children of God.

The Christian creedal inheritance, expressed in these principles,¹⁴ provides Anglicans with the framework in which to address contemporary questions concerning our faith, witness and life together. We identify the following as requiring particular and further reflection at this time in our communion.

1. The centrality of the authority of the scriptures¹⁵ in our understanding and interpretation of the world and the renewal of biblical study at all levels.
2. The importance of the ministry of the obedient¹⁶ Christian community, empowered by the Spirit of Jesus Christ, as bearing witness to the power and adequacy of this understanding and interpretation of the world.¹⁷
3. The share which the whole of the Christian community throughout the world and throughout history has in the interpretation of the world through the scriptures and in the ministry of obedience and witness.
4. The need for faith in the power of God's Spirit of grace to equip and empower the Christian community in these tasks.¹⁸

Moral Reasoning

A Christian moral stand on the issue of international debt and sexual ethics¹⁹ is founded in a biblical ethic that takes seriously the social good and stands against unbridled liberalism.²⁰ It is precisely unbridled economic individualism that has led both to the break up of families and the escalation of international debt.²¹ A concern for the social good of nations to be relieved of debt cannot be separated from a concern for the social good of nations through the promotion of strong healthy families through faithful monogamous heterosexual relationships.²²

Christian moral reasoning must be founded on theological reasoning for Christian behaviour and action and therefore proceed from the knowledge of God given in the gospel. In describing the contexts within which our action is set and the problems which it is to address, we cannot accept a "view from nowhere"²³ as though there is an innocent and neutral account of the state of affairs. We must also avoid merely echoing the views expressed by the culture within which the church finds itself, otherwise the church is in no position to offer or witness to any salvation.²⁴ We must remember our theological categories of sin as an explanation of how the world goes,²⁵ and of the deeper reality of grace as we seek to formulate our Christian obedience²⁶ so that we can as an obedient community see then the transformation the grace of the gospel will bring.

Sexual Ethics

We are grateful for insights we have already gained through regional pre-Lambeth meetings and through the Anglican Encounter in the South in Kuala Lumpur with its concern for the place of Scripture in the life and mission of the church. By recounting these opportunities and obstacles to the advance of the gospel in the south, those at Kuala Lumpur could also see how the integrity of our common witness is called into question because of new teaching²⁷ and lapses in discipline relating to human sexuality occurring in parts of the North. We fully endorse the statement on human sexuality which came out of this conference.²⁸

The Lambeth Quadrilateral speaks of Holy Scripture as "the rule and ultimate standard of faith" From the days of William Tyndale, Anglicans have believed that the Bible is sufficiently clear for God's people to understand those things necessary for salvation in matters of faith and morality. The Church itself is called to expound the Bible's complex harmony and to obey its plain teaching (Articles VI and XX).²⁹ To be sure, some matters are clearer than others in Scripture, and the question of how to harmonize one passage with another may require careful study and reflection.

A biblical theology of sexuality must reckon not merely with specific texts but with the whole biblical story, which tells of God's purposes for human life and identity from creation to new creation. It is not from isolated texts but from the consistent teaching of the whole of Scripture that lifelong heterosexual monogamy emerges as the God-given norm for sexual relationships.³⁰ Scripture offers no positive examples of non-marital sex;³¹ and it contains specific condemnations of fornication and homosexual practice as sin.³² Biblical teaching thus protects the sanctity of sex within the marital commitment and liberates humanity from unrestrained sexual obsession and abuse.³³

In both Old and New Testaments the generational family of father, mother and children is understood as the matrix in which healthy human relationships are formed (Genesis 2:24).³⁴ Full humanity³⁵ has consisted of two genders from the very beginning-male and female. The created order comprises sexual differentiation as God-given and good. Together, both man and woman were given the commission to pass on new life in fruitfulness and to rule over and care for the earth (Genesis 1:28, 2:15). This is why only both genders together can mould the world in a humane way.³⁶ The good society, according to Scripture, is ordered to help families flourish economically, socially, and spiritually (Leviticus 25; Isaiah 61:1-3).³⁷ Although the family may be distorted by the brokenness of sin or become a false priority in the life of discipleship, it derives its graceful potential from the Father, from whom all families in heaven and on earth are named (Ephesians 3: 14-15). The Church as the new family of God must be the place that supports families and those who lead the single life so that each believer may be fully equipped to serve God in his or her particular calling, so that families in turn contribute to the strengthening and healing of society at large.

We thus place the specific issue of homosexuality in the context of God's loving purposes and the distortion of those purposes by sin, which infects all human beings.³⁸ We share in the affirmation that the biblical sexual norm is clear,³⁹ and, in the context of pastoral care and healing it is helpful to people tempted by homosexual desires, by setting limits. Furthermore, we agree that the Church has no authority to set aside clear biblical teaching by ordaining non-celibate homosexuals or authorising the blessing of same sex relationships.⁴⁰

God's dealings with his world is a story of sensitivity and compassion.⁴¹ The church needs to reflect God's love to all people. The story of God's concern offers hope for all of us, that all of us become progressively more human as our lives unfold in response to his grace.⁴² With such encouragement the church must welcome all in pain. The persecution and ostracism of homosexual persons as well as sexual hypocrisy are evils and have no place in the church.⁴³

A distinction must be made between the terms "gay" and "homosexual". "Homosexual" describes a sexual orientation which has been present since ancient times.⁴⁴ In contradiction to most other cultures, Judaism and Christianity did not permit homosexual acts as they were seen to contradict achieving full humankind.⁴⁵ "Gay" on the other hand is a socio-political identity.⁴⁶ It is only one way of dealing with homosexual fantasies and desires.⁴⁷ But it is an ideology not more than a hundred years old which draws from a non-Christian anthropology where in the end our sexual differences, our maleness and femaleness, have been reduced to insignificance. Forgotten by the church were often those homosexually orientated men and women who want to change.⁴⁸ More and more Christian resource groups have developed and many individuals have found with the help of God a way out of a destructive lifestyle. It is not acceptable for a pro-gay agenda to be smuggled into the church's programme or foisted upon our people and we will not permit it.⁴⁹

International Debt

This body realises the concern of God Almighty for all his creatures, especially the poor and needy. We are fully aware of the devastation wrought by poverty, resulting in disease and death, occasioned in a large part by the growing burden of international debt on debtor nations. The progressive impoverishment of debtor nations threatens the harmony, peace and stability of the whole world. We recognise the responsibility of the Church, the body of Christ, to assist her suffering Saviour in the alleviation of the pain and suffering of the poor.

This body therefore wholeheartedly supports the initiative of the Lambeth Conference 1998 to address the issue of international debt and its disastrous consequences for the whole world. Although some of the debtor nations are trapped under the heavy burden of debt because of their "kleptocratic" and dictatorial governments that are accountable to no one, those who suffer are the poorest in these nations.

The issue of international debt must be seen in the light of the globalisation of the world economy. In the globalised economy, the fate of the economy of individual poor nations or even groups of nations has no impact at all on the overall performance of the world economy. It is perfectly possible though reprehensible to have globalisation with no attempt to include nations or even large parts of continents. Christians, rooted in the Bible's affirmation of the call to all to be stewards, and in its concern to protect the poor, must never accept this.

The issue of international debt is one element of a biblically rooted concern that should motivate the church to deal with issues of poverty. It is the poor who continue to bear the harshest burden of international debt. Any process of debt reduction must ensure that it is the poor who are helped and not the "kleptocrats" who are allowed to keep their ill-gotten gains.

Realistic debt reduction must be marked by passion and realism, founded on ethical principles and guided by biblical directions. In order for the poorest nations to overcome their debt, of course, we must do more than simply talk about cancelling that debt. For long-term success we must address the balance of trade issue.

A first step in this process should be that a clear line be drawn under the current indebtedness, and that the haemorrhaging of national economies through debt repayments is staunched. This is the reason for the call for jubilee, cancellation of debt so that stabilisation can take place and a basis for investment for the future established.

We encourage our fellow bishops to engage in dialogue and work with our national political and economic leaders to develop a national debt relief programme that we can bring to Lambeth to contribute to a global plan. The entire Communion should then articulate proposals for massive debt-alleviation schemes to be negotiated with creditors.

Accountability

Accountability, for Christians, begins with the submission of our lives to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.⁵⁰ That submission is the pathway to true liberty (John 8:32).

We are convinced that God has called us to effective mutual accountability. As we seek to make a contribution here to the Lambeth process,⁵¹ we are glad to note that our Primates want to exercise enhanced responsibility and make their meeting a more effective instrument of unity. This need was foreseen in Kuala Lumpur. We call upon the Lambeth Conference to empower the Primates' Meeting to become a place of appeal for those Anglican bodies who are oppressed, marginalized, or denied faithful episcopal oversight by their own bishops. In such situations, a way must be found to provide pastoral support, oversight and formal ecclesiastical relationships for faithful people.⁵²

We look to our own role as bishops to act as leaders who teach, defend and pass on the historic Christian faith together. Accountability and authority include and affirm the doctrinal convictions of the faithful people of God and is not the sole preserve of the episcopate, much less that of individual bishops. Discipline is a necessary corollary of accountability as a means of discipleship and correction.

Accountability also calls us to provide a clear understanding of the bounds of eucharistic fellowship within the Anglican Communion. Those who choose beliefs and practices outside the boundaries of the historic biblical faith must understand they are separating themselves from communion, and leading others astray. Sadly, that reality of broken fellowship can extend to individuals, congregations or even whole dioceses and provinces. Where this happens, we call for repentance and return.

1. Reason is noticeably absent here. Reason is noticeably absent throughout!
2. Nothing at all about the tradition of Anglican scholarship and theology. Surely, an adequate idea of Anglicanism must go further than this to explore the development of such things as Prayer Books, articles of belief, and theology of orders, etc. Remarkable changes have taken place since the 39 Articles were imposed upon the church by royal decree. We need to attend carefully to those changes.
3. The word 'imposed' seems to be quite deliberate here. Is that what these bishops have in mind? How would they like to see this imposition carried out? With stake and broad sword, or in other ways?
4. A Global Communion with Orthodox Distinctives. The word 'distinctives' is both weaker and less definite than 'essentials' or 'fundamentals', but it tries to make basically the same claims. Is this word chosen because of the unfortunate connotations of the other available words for what they intend? Will the word 'distinctives' not have the same unfriendly associations as soon as the bishops endeavour to specify what precisely these distinctives are? The word 'orthodox' itself is a bit elastic. Roman Catholics, Protestants of different persuasions, Orthodox (!), and others would give very different characterizations of what orthodoxy consists in. Are the bishops ready for a bun fight?
5. Perhaps, sadly, this document nowhere shows an understanding of what unity might consist in? Does it necessarily have to be unity (or uniformity) of belief? How is this achieved through the contextualization of belief? Unfortunately, the word 'distinctives' doesn't help out here, for the bishops, aside from questions of sexuality, have not dared to enter into this area which is simply pocked with theological mines.
6. Interesting that in seeking 'a common, coherent and consistent orthodox witness which takes the diversity of cultures very seriously' the bishops are unable to accommodate changes taking place in western culture, especially in the area of sexuality and sexual ethics. How seriously do they take cultural diversity? Why does the developing culture of the west not have a role to play here?
7. Watch what becomes of 'Word of God' in just a moment.
8. This is ambiguous. He (the Word) or He (Jesus)? But if Jesus is the Word of God, then it is in relation to Jesus that we must understand the world, not necessarily in relation to the written Word of the Bible. The ambiguity here is thus more complex and needs to be addressed. Besides, the Word, as this is subsequently understood, includes interpretation as christians thoughtfully try to harmonize passages of scripture. The ambiguity surrounding Jesus/Christ/Word becoming flesh is a much more complicated question than the bishops allow.
9. 'Died for our sins and raised for our justification' is one traditional way of speaking about the atonement. But this is nowhere defined as the only orthodox interpretation of Jesus' life and death. Indeed, in many ways, the model represented here is one of the least satisfactory ways of understanding how Christ's death makes atonement for our sins.
10. Do we really believe that this is the right way of understanding Jesus' death? Does it not bring all the problems of suffering and pain in its wake? Jesus suffered, but is Jesus' suffering a result of God's judgment? Or was suffering the outcome of obedience to the demands of love? As, for example, when people stand up and defy evil and corrupt governments. This leads to a completely different way of understanding the crucifixion, for then it is not God's judgment, but God's sharing our suffering, that is at the focus of the cross.
11. The understanding of sin, redemption and grace represented here is pretty old hat, and as such, no doubt unexceptionable - if we wanted to stay in the 19th century. It is a possible way of understanding our faith in Jesus Christ. There are other ways, and we probably need to have them before us before we are forced (as the bishops would like to force us) to accept this traditional evangelical answer to our faith questions.
12. The Spirit of Jesus Christ - this is certainly a debatable way of understanding 'Holy Spirit'. Indeed, in Orthodox understanding the Holy Spirit flows from the Father. And the New Testament apparently bears this out. For Jesus says that "the Spirit of Truth comes from the Father." (John 15. 26) He asks the Father to send the Spirit in his name. Very different. Importantly different? Perhaps Anglicans do need to look at the filioque again.
13. But there is absolutely no evidence that this is what the Holy Spirit does. In fact, Jesus says that the Spirit will call to mind what he had said to them. (John 14. 26) There is nothing at all about understanding the whole of human life through the scriptures, as though there is nothing outside the scriptures that can contribute to our understanding at all, as this suggests.
14. These principles, as is clear, do not express the christian creedal inheritance.
15. The statement stresses authority, obedience, imposed belief, etc. Indeed, the whole statement is a power play, as the bishops make clear at the end when they say 'We will not permit it.' This understanding of episcopacy is deeply in need of reassessment and revision. If bishops are understood as authoritarian and legalistic, then the church ceases to need bishops. Indeed, the display of arrogance and highhandedness revealed in this document leads one to think that the order of bishops has, in this more democratic age, lost its raison d'etre.
16. Bishops who think they know the answers obviously need obedience. What else could induce someone to agree?
17. Astonishing! Now they say we need the power of the Spirit to understand their understanding of things. Arrogant and irresponsible use of the Spirit.
18. In other words, the claim is being made that - like it or lump it - the Spirit endorses and enables what the bishops believe to be true. Convenient, if so.
19. Notice the singular: 'the issue of international debt and sexual ethics.'
20. This is not defined. Unbridled liberalism is what the bishops oppose, and their opposition is definitive of christian morality.
21. 'Unbridled economic individualism' seems to be equated here with 'unbridled liberalism'. Whatever it is, we can take it that it is bad, but it does not make it any more precise.
22. Aha! Here is the connexion. We cannot separate questions of international debt from faithful heterosexual monogamous relationships. Do they mean heterosexual marriage? Or just faithful relationships? Important question, I think, that the bishops might have addressed more closely. For faithful relationships are found between gay person and gay person, between unmarried man and unmarried woman, and unfaithfulness and abuse often characterizes married relationships. These possibilities have to be taken more seriously.
23. What in particular is being so labeled? A view from nowhere, without reference to anything? Is this what the bishops are opposing? Who has proposed such a view from nowhere? And where have they done it?
24. There are echoes and echoes. Was the church, in revising its estimation of slavery - and the church opposed the abolition of slavery for some time - echoing the views of the society around it - that society assumed to be nowhere of any relevance for christian understanding (since all such understanding comes from the Bible, as we have seen) - or did the church actually find this in scripture? And how did they do that? How is slavery opposed, basing itself on a scripture which takes slavery for granted? This is relevant to the bishops' understanding of homosexuality as condemned by the Bible - an opinion, in their view, that is unrevisable.
25. A world, clearly, that has often invaded the church. Do the bishops know how to distinguish, within christian understanding, what is and what is not holy? The history of the church does not give confidence that this is either easy of discernment or clear. For instance, the holy faith was defended and upheld by inhuman methods. What this holy? The holiness of the eucharist was protected by impugning the holiness of sexuality and family. Was this holy? The holiness of orders was marked off by denying the holiness of marriage. Was this holy?
26. Take note of the word 'obedience' cropping up where it simply has no place.
27. New teaching. The bishops' idea of orthodoxy does not countenance anything new. They would have rejected, then, the abolition of slavery, as new.
28. And no doubt all its errors too! The Kuala Lumpur statement is thus clearly a part of the Dallas Statement.
29. Do the terms 'complex harmony' and 'plain teaching' not compete with each other? As the bishops themselves recognize when the say next that 'the question of how to harmonize one passage with another may require careful study and reflection.' Their confidence is trusting. Do they mean that 'all Anglicans have believed that the Bible is sufficiently clear....', or only some? This is a nice protestant principle, but hardly one that commends itself to those considering the multiplicity of interpretations of the clarity of scripture on matters of faith and morals.
30. It is probably true that heterosexual marriage (if not monogamy) is the preferred sexual relationship of the Bible. That's not very surprising, since marriage and family are nearly universal in human cultures, and homosexuality is not universally, but nearly universally, condemned. Difference and strangeness are almost universally condemned.
31. What about the rule that the brother would have children by a dead brother's wife? Was this marriage?
32. Fornication is not everywhere condemned. Judah had a sexual relationship with Tamar which is not condemned. It is clear too that women taken as booty in war are used for sexual purposes. And adultery is only a sin for the wife. The man has considerable latitude for legitimate relationships outside marriage so long as he does not offend the property rights in a woman owned by another man. Homosexual practice is not forbidden at all, since the Bible seems to know nothing about homosexual orientation. All that is condemned is a man lying with another man as with a woman. Is this homosexual practice? Not unless those who are doing this are homosexual, and it is understood as the outcome of homosexual orientation.
33. The assumption seems to be that any sexual relationship outside marriage, and especially homosexual relationship, is the result of unrestrained sexual obsession and abuse. This is simply false, and the bishops must know this.
34. Father, mother and children, if what the bishops have in mind is monogamous marriage is not the standard biblical family. There is no prohibition of polygamy in the Bible. Bishops are supposed to have one wife, and most men could only afford one, but there is no biblical reason to limit oneself to monogamy, especially if we take the Old Testament as normative for Christians.
35. The meaning of 'full humanity' is unclear here. No one is denying that there are two genders, so far as I know. But if full humanity is achievable only through monogamous heterosexual marriage, then that rules out the single. Is that fair?
36. Only both genders together can mould the earth in a humane way. Well, of course. But two genders in sexual relationship? Always and everywhere?! Even bishops might be expected to blanch at such a thought! But then no one is suggesting that we do away with one or other of the genders, are they? Or are the bishops labouring under a disturbing misunderstanding?
37. Is it clear that this is what the reference passages are about - about the prospering of heterosexual relationships?! The bishops are stretching a point here, surely!
38. There is no basis for that statement in the Bible, period. Even Romans 1 doesn't come close. There same sex passions are a result of idolatry. But homosexuality as an orientation is nowhere mentioned.
39. ³⁹ A clarity that has eluded most intelligent readers!
40. Then the church must go on to insist on the execution of homosexuals, adulterers, etc. Why draw a line when we are consider the plain teaching of the Bible?
41. The reader will know how much compassion is at work in this statement. After all, the law is the law, and evildoers must be punished. What is this about compassion when compared with the plain teachings of the Bible?
42. Since the bishops see so clearly what others must be made to see, they are clearly more human than those who don't see what the bishops do. And if you are more human you clearly have the right to lord it over other less than human beings. It is a disturbing turn of phrase. A number of people this century have been destroyed because they were believed to be less than human. And the bishops to not shrink from this interpretation, clearly, since for them homosexuals are not quite human, are they?
43. After having made a distinctions between grades of human beings, the bishops scarcely have the right to talk about the evils of ostracism. Clearly, what the church has said about homosexuality, as the Bishop of Montreal once said to the Quebec Human Rights Commission, has led to the injustices that homosexuals have suffered and continue to suffer. The fact that the Dallas bishops claim that homosexuality is unbridled sexual obsession and abuse, and that homosexuals are less than human will undoubtedly be cashed in in terms of oppression and abuse of homosexuals. Would it be any wonder?
44. This is an important admission, and the bishops should deduce from it the consequences that homosexual people are as they are, and that that is something about which the Bible knows nothing at all.
45. Notice how explicitly the conclusion is drawn about the diminished humanity of homosexuals. Well, now, we can oppress and persecute them with impunity, can we not?
46. 'Gay' is what homosexuals who won't be treated as less than human call themselves. A socio-political identity. Yes indeed! Is it any wonder, given the mindset of the bishops expressed here, a soci-political identity is so necessary? Gay is what homosexual who refuse to be pigeon-holed by bishops call themselves!
47. Notice the dismissive characterization of homosexuality, as a complex of fantasies and desires, without justification or moral standing. Just fantasies and desires. The bishops' sexuality is then above reproach? Of course it is? They're making the rules. They've already made that clear.
48. The question has to be asked: Why should they want to change? The reason is almost always that being homosexual is intolerable given the way that others regard homosexuality. Who wouldn't want to change under these circumstances? The fact that psychiatry no longer thinks it desirable or possible to change a person's sexual orientation weighs not at all with these enlightened bishops.
49. Bless their hearts, these bishops are so forceful! They will not permit it! Well, here we have the bottom line. They will not permit it! And they know! All the answers! The naked power expressed in this final statement shows the bishops in their true colours. That the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks they have something worthwhile saying, reeks of prejudice and blindness at the top.
50. Jesus said, "But I have called you friends." (John 15. 15) Is submission the best path to friendship? Certainly, Jesus has just said, that "you are my friends if you do what I command you," (John 15.14) but surely this is a paradox, not a straightforward statement, since a friend does not command. So doing what someone commands is not being a friend.
51. Is this process one where a group bands together to prevent what others, perhaps a majority, may want? That's what it sounds like. If so, has not Lambeth outlived its usefulness?
52. Faithful according to whom?

Visit Louie Crew's Anglican pages. Send mail to: lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu

Please sign my guestbook and view it.

Statistics courtesy of WebCounter.