The Diocese of Christ the King
The Rt. Rev. Peter John Lee
78 Daisy Street
Rosettenville 2197
South Africa

from Peter John Lee, Bishop of Christ the King,

Church of the Province of Southern Africa

Dear Bishop John,

You are no doubt aware that your letter of November 12 1997 addressed to the Primates of the Anglican Communion, the response of the Archbishop of Canterbury dated November 24, and your further response of November 27th are being widely circulated in the Communion.

Your 'Message on the Subject of Homosexuality' has also reached us, as has your 'Statement of Koinonia'. Unfortunately the latter document is undated, so that although it is addressed 'to the whole church', the immediate context in which it was issued is unclear.

You have written out of your personal concern, as a diocesan bishop; I am responding from a similar concern and position. I support you in your stated commitment that we should find and do what is right, but I am bothered about your way of doing it.

Your references to the whole church and to collegiality encourage me to put some concerns on the table and make a personal plea to you.

You may not realise how offensive your papers will be to a wide circle of Christian leadership outside your own setting in the 'First World'; many of your episcopal colleagues had hoped that we would not be meeting this kind of attitude at the Lambeth Conference.

Firstly you brand anyone who differs from your own viewpoint as 'ignorant', 'out of touch with the knowledge revolution', 'uninformed'; according to you, 'the overwhelming scientific data available today in the western [sic] world has simply not penetrated the(ir) minds'.

Have you any idea how that sounds outside the so-called 'west'? Is there not some inconsistency in claiming to oppose racism, and then holding in contempt much of the Christian opinion of the southern hemisphere? You will inevitably be heard in the Two-Thirds World as patronising and racist.

I do not understand how this sweeping dismissal of those who do not share your viewpoints squares with wanting 'to continue the mutual respect for our differences that is certainly part of the meaning of collegiality', as your Statement of Koinonia puts it.

I sit on the theological commission of the CPSA where we have spent many hours weighing the exegetical and theological complexities and the widely varying scientific and psychological understandings of homosexuality; we have also received testimony from homosexual clergy and lay people, and tried to engage the people of our church in a serious and sensitive debate. We do not yet agree, but our debate is not uninformed.

I find that bishops in Africa, Asia, India, Pakistan, the West Indies, South America, Australia and New Zealand are also informed in these areas; they have read the literature, listened to the debates, and formed careful theological and pastoral views which defy your characterisation of them as unread and theologically incompetent.

The simple reality is that there is no theological, scientific or ethical consensus, and the Anglican Communion needs to seek one sensitively and without dismissing each other before the debate is joined. I am glad to see your recognition of this lack of consensus in the Statement.

In fact there is also no consensus in the homosexual community, either on some of the issues which you claim to be so clear, or on what that community is asking of the church. If that could be clarified, we would be better able to find our way towards understanding.

Secondly, you demean the South-t0-South process in the Communion by dismissing Kuala Lumpur as 'signed by certain bishops of SE Asia.' You know better than that. The South-to-South process is a vital means of liberation and empowerment for a vast part of the Communion which has often felt itself oppressed by the academic and resources dominance of the 'west'. It is a process properly created by the structures of the Anglican Communion and carefully constituted by democratic and consultative procedures. The two conference held so far were attended by a wide variety of southern hemisphere leadership, duly appointed by their respective provinces.

Whether or not one agrees with every statement emerging from the process, trying to sideline it as some of the media have done is not only to oppress our people but to hold democracy in the Communion in contempt. Statements from South-to-South events are likely to represent quite fairly the views of much of the leadership of the southern hemisphere provinces. This has consequences for collegiality in the Communion.

Thirdly, you strike a sadly discordant note in the Episcopal Church. Many of us have enjoyed rich and deep relationships with individuals, parishes and diocese all over your Church. We have received American generosity but have worked at creating relationships of mutuality and non-dependency. Many of our American friends have been sensitive to the feeling that their part of our church has thrown its weight about in the past, not least at previous Lambeth conferences. They have worked hard to overcome these perceptions and ensure that they are not reinforced in the future.

We have picked up a definite message that the Episcopal Church wants to approach this Lambeth with sensitivity and due humility. It is, after all, a relatively small church with a top-heavy leadership which translates into a disproportionate presence at Lambeth. That ode not matter if the role of the majority churches is recognised and the Episcopal representation behaves with the sensitivity we have come to expect of its bishops.

By contrast, your correspondence suggests that a few of your may be coming with an attitude of superiority and a will to dominate. Please let us not go that way, for it will surely set you against the greater part of the Communion and make it harder for your serious concerns to be heard.

I am one who was invited to Dallas but for various reasons has not signed the conference statement. With many others, I was distressed to hear of the apparent imminence of schism in the Episcopal Church, and more so, of the deep hurts and the low levels of trust and communication which appear to prevail at leadership level. You say that those whom you critisise are 'threatening the Church'; but schism usually takes two.

Those of us who were in Desmond Tutu's episcopal team in Southern Africa during the final demise of apartheid, and who had to handle a whole array of divisive issues (including the ordination of women), learnt that we simply had to go on holding on to each other in Christian love and talk to each other even when we differed profoundly. We disagreed in a framework of commitment to the Body of Christ, where we would watch each other's backs whatever we though of each other's theology.

This has something to do with what they call orthopraxy. It is trying to live it right, even when we do not yet see what believing it right may look like on a particular issue. One thinks of Desmond's recent apology in the process of reconciliation n South Africa, 'lest in the process of being right we came across as self-righteous'.

To an outsider it seems that in spite of the everyday faithfulness of many Episcopal members and congregations, something like this is missing among the leadership. We hear that dialogue over key issues has been discontinued, that some of the actions of General Convention were morally suspect, and that various groups are excommunicating each other with allegations of hatred, heresy or ignorance. This perception which has been shared with us does not sit easily with the affirmation of continuing dialogue in your Statement in Koinonia; indeed, from outside it is not easy to discern koinonia at all.

The Dallas bishops are accused of interfering in the internal affairs of the Episcopal Church; yet your tensions are placing strain on the whole family. You were happy for the Anglican Communion to intervene in Rwanda when our common witness was affected; why is it strange that we should be concerned about a house divided, when those divisions spell danger for us all?

Here then is my plea.

After Dallas some of us tried quietly to see if there were ways in which the allegedly clogged channels of communication in the Episcopal Church could somehow be reopened, preferably by statesmanlike figures of your own, but if necessary with mediating ministry from senior and trusted figures in the Communion. Obviously these suggestions are best pursued diplomatically in private, but it seems that they now have to be addressed in the open.

Clearly there is a fine line between prophecy and interference, and I seek your forgiveness if I have crossed it. I plead collegiality.

I have no further place in this process but to appeal to you and your 'liberal' colleagues (I use quote marks because the appellation calls for debate) to meet with theological conservatives in the Episcopal Church and talk to each other seriously. It would be good to do this now, with an eye to the good of the church at large, before you export your crisis to the rest of us. You can hardly call for 'room for dialogue' if there is no such room in your own jurisdiction.

It would be hugely helpful if you could clear the ground and rebuild some bridges among yourselves before Lambeth beings. Surely we need a wider process too, but there does seem to be an immediate urgency at home in the US, which weighs heavily on the hears of those who love you.

With the assurance of our concern and prayers

Peter John Lee

Sharpeville

9 December 1997

Please sign my guestbook and view it.

Statistics courtesy of WebCounter.