A house divided: God, gays, and the ghosts of empire

The impending Anglican split: Perspectives in conversation with Professor Helen King, Member of the General Synod.

By William Hall

International communities don’t just suddenly fall apart. International churches certainly don’t just collapse; nevertheless, the Anglican Communion is trying it’s best. Over endless synods, conferences, and resolutions, one of the largest non-state networks in the world is trying to combust. In England, where church attendance is continuously falling, year-on-year, and a withering fig tree is the status quo, few seem to know or care. Yet, elsewhere – particularly in regions like Africa, and South-East Asia – the Communion and the Church are still at the forefront of politics and daily life. The split here is vital – it’s about money, schools, hospitals, aid, and the relationship millions have, or don't have, with their spiritual authority.

The world is plagued by global warming, genocide, and populism, yet the diagnosis for the Anglican Communion is, so often, the old Christian grindstone of sexuality. To better understand the history behind this split, the often-complex theological arguments, and the future of the Anglican Communion I spoke with Professor Helen King. Professor King is both Professor Emerita of Classical Studies at The Open University, as well as a Lay Member of the General Synod of the Church of England.

God and Gays

At the root of the current crisis is Christianity’s never-ending obsession with homosexuality –the precipice from which we begin and which many of the ‘Global South’ churches claim is the main issue.

Christianity’s relationship with homosexuality is almost as well known for being negative as it is for being based on at-best-shaky scriptural ground. Very academic and essentially contested debates around the true meanings of certain Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words in the Bible and their corresponding translations abound. Much is often made of the need to translate in context – and with an understanding that not everything is literal. As King points out if we did so we are all eternally sinners because, contra Leviticus 19:19, we like our clothes made of two different fibres. Whoops. Furthermore, scholars stress that we examine references to “homosexuality” in the Bible with the historical record in mind.

‘Homosexuality’ was not a concept developed till at least the 1800s and ‘homosexual’ sex was a regular occurrence in Greco-Roman cultures. Yet, bible-bashers around the world still point to passages in Leviticus and Romans when spewing their hatred.

For King, the deeper issue is “a real distaste about bodies” in Christianity. Those familiar

with Catholicism will be aware of the longstanding disgust in that church for sex, genitals, and the ‘impurities’ of the body compared to the soul. This is normally seen to stem back from passages around the Garden of Eden. Yet, even in supposedly more progressive churches, there remains a “visceral disgust about bodies” that makes certain groups too ‘dirty’ for the Church. For instance, King recounted a story to me about one of the first women to be ordained in the Church of England. When talking to her presiding vicar about giving communion, he suddenly exclaimed “But you’ve got your period!”. Here the vicar found it heretical that a woman could give communion when she is on her period – an attitude that for many years stopped women even receiving communion. Stories like this highlight the general Christian distaste not just for homosexuality but for sex and reproductive anatomy in general. Even the Church of England, quoting Resolution 1:10 of the 1988 Lambeth Conference, affirms marriage is between man and woman, homosexuality is incompatible with scriptures, and those in same-sex couples should not be blessed or ordained. Best to take the log out their own eye, however, as it is a very public secret that these couples are being blessed and that there are quietly gay clergy. This does raise the question - If Christian marriage is between a man and a woman, does being 'bi' while in an opposite-sex marriage cancel out any potential sinning?

The Ghost of Empire

Once the very shaky theology was explained, our conversation turned to the current issue – homosexuality in the ‘Global South’. As such, we started with a brief history lesson, as most humanities students will be familiar with as the perennial ‘review’. This is because Anglicanism’s history is inseparable from the British Empire, especially during the Victorian evangelical period and the Scramble for Africa Today, over 63 million Anglicans – roughly 2/3 of the total communion - live in sub-Saharan Africa.

Even those unaware of sub-Saharan African politics will likely have heard of the notoriously draconian anti-LGBTQI laws. In 2023 Uganda passed a law that further criminalised homosexuality and permits the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality”. The Supreme Court later upheld it. When outraged Western governments and organisations criticised these laws, local leaders and bishops played the colonialism card. They were defending their ‘traditional’ way of life and “cherished cultural norms” against neo-imperial meddling. It is a thin tightrope to walk however. King highlights the importance of monetary benefits from wealthy, dioceses in the ‘Global North’ to poorer (if larger) ones in the Global South. In deciding theology, churches have to constantly ask “Do you want to separate yourself from potential funding?”.

Yet, speaking to Professor King an interesting fig leaf was revealed. Sub-Saharan African politicians and churches who support anti-LGBTQI legislation are actually supporting Victorian-era colonialism. As King notes, “the point where these areas were missionized was a point where Christianity was highly anti-homosexual”.

Thus, these societies have an almost ‘false’ history, a conclusion taken further by recent research which has shown the cultural significance of non-heterosexual relationships prior to Western colonialism. When community leaders talk of “keeping the faith”, it is a Victorian hangover – one which the original missionaries have largely abandoned. Whilst we in the ‘Global North’ churches may still be struggling with LGBTQI in the church, we no longer execute people for wrong-love.

If African churches’ stance on homosexuality is a hangover from Victorian colonialism, so too is the structure of the communion more broadly.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, unlike the Pope in Roman Catholicism, is not the Supreme Head and earthly authority of the Anglican Communion. He instead occupies a very loose primus inter pares place amongst the communion’s bishops. But when 2/3 of Anglicans live in Africa, and further millions in other regions, surely it is therefore untenable for Canterbury to retain its current pre-eminence in the global Anglican communion?

Professor King would say so. In our conversation she identified two currents “happening at the same time, pulling in opposite directions” – both sparked by the recent decision to include five members from the broader Anglican Communion in the selection committee for Justin Welby’s successor as Archbishop of Canterbury. One current – the traditionalists – continue to view Canterbury as spiritually important to the Communion and are supportive of the Five Members. This current tends to be quite conservative on theology. The other current – progressives – view the current situation as untenable, both for the Communion and the diocese of Canterbury, so would rather see a rotating head-role for the Communion or some other compromise. King pointed out that at one point Archbishop Welby was spending “40% of his time on the Anglican Communion” not on the Church of England – which he is in charge of.

Theology or Politics?

By this point we have seen how the two prongs of the Anglican fork influence the debate. Controversial theology provides the fuel for the schism, whilst colonial issues for the ‘Global South’ serve as the spark. Yet, in a minor comment Professor King touched on an important point – who really is the ‘Global South’ in this debate?

The narrative that is told is that this is an indigenous rebellion from churches – located in the ‘Global South’ – resisting the neoliberal and heretical doctrine of decadent Western churches. These churches are presented in an almost ‘Noble Savage’ trope – people (often in poor socioeconomic situations) keeping to the traditional faith against the godless. Yet, looking under the hood it collapses. Take the vanguard organisation GSFA – the ‘Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches’. You see surface representation from ‘authentic’ Global South churches – Uganda for instance. However, looking at the Executive Secretariat scepticism abounds. Nearly all are Singaporean and those that are not, are British – both countries firmly in the ‘Global North’. The presence of Brazilian, Singaporean, and Egyptian bishops on the board makes the organisation even murkier.

King also goes to some lengths to point out the how the ‘Global South’ is being used to

present “very conservative views … as having wider remit than they in fact do.” For instance, groups like GFSA do not highlight that several of their member churches are in-fact not within the Anglican Communion, but are breakaway churches from their nation’s Anglican church. For instance: The Anglican Church in North America, the Anglican Church in Brazil, and the Diocese of the Southern Cross, are all minor breakaway churches, not in the Global South, who claim to represent all the Anglicans in their provinces. Research done by a colleague of King’s – Dr Phil Groves – has further shown that GSFA’s various claims to ‘represent the Global South’, to ‘represent 75% of the communion’ are factually incorrect. Thus, GSFA is not just trying to faithfully represent ignored, underdeveloped communities, but is serving more noticeably as an acceptable mouthpiece for ultra-conservative Anglicans worldwide.

A Pessimistic Future

As we ended our discussion, we moved to the future of the Anglican Communion – a future for which Professor King does not see a miraculous ending.

When asked about the potential of a future reconciliation between the progressive and conservative churches, King was blunt. “No.” The gulf between progressive and conservative Anglicans is simply too wide – no Archbishop of Canterbury will be elected who can appease both. Whilst proposals to change the leadership in the Communion to a rotating primacy might delay this inevitability, the debate will come again – and eventually there will be further splits.

And what will be lost, who will suffer? When asked about the impact of a schism, Professor King talked at length about the impact this will have on church laity, and the global bonds between them. For instance, King’s home diocese in Oxford is linked with Kimberley and Kuruman – a diocese in South Africa the size of Germany – as well as dioceses in Sweden, India, and Jamaica and the Cayman Islands. These links mean; youth and clergy exchanges, training days, environmental coordination, prayer meetings, pilgrimages, school visits and more. More broadly, these partnership links provide a “real opportunity to understand lives in other parts of the world that comes through this shared experience of being Anglican”. They encourage and support Christian development agencies, and other humanitarian NGOs to visit places often ignored by state-level government. And if churches in the conservative Anglican movement were to fall out of communion with Canterbury, it is likely these links will wither – further pushing the isolationist trend worldwide.

King also highlighted the role the obsession with homosexuality has in stifling other

important concerns – becoming a litmus test, a “proxy for almost any debate”, that ruins any chance of a meaningful conversation on shared issues between progressives and

conservatives. It is almost farcical how much oxygen is devoted to debating exactly who can and who can’t love who, whether the fact that X is gay means he is destined to the lowest circle of hell despite all his good work – when there are real people in poverty and suffering. In the meantime, conservatives – even in the Church of England – are standing up saying that “if you just went to conversion therapy, it would all be fine, and everything would be great” and ignoring climate change.

So what now?

My conversation with Professor King highlights that the present crisis in the Anglican

Communion is not simply a Medieval dispute about doctrine, but a complicated web of theology, history, and politics. What is at stake is both a spiritual authority before millions, but also real lived experiences. Long-standing diocesan partnerships, clergy and laity exchanges, training programmes, and important local development and humanitarian projects, are perhaps pushed under the rug – the very human experiences of those who dare to love differently. A rupture therefore would not only be symbolically damaging, but physically injure a whole host of communities. If Uganda were to leave the Communion fully, that is just one more barrier standing between LGBTQ people and the death penalty that would be lost?

Two ironies run through our conversation. Firstly, those who argue most strongly from the anti-colonial standpoint are simultaneously those who are most beholden to it. The defence of anti-homosexual Victorian missionary activity by those claiming falsely to be from the ‘Global’ South, and to act on behalf of those who live there, lies in opposition to many who really are from the Global South. For instance, Cape Town Archbishop Makgoba who pushes for the Indaba Way – where churches resolve disputes in their own contexts – and who asks clergy to think first of all God’s people, before drawing lines. Secondly, by focusing on sexuality, the church is both blinding itself to and complicating efforts to address real issues – such as climate change and global poverty.

King’s diagnosis is a sobering one – not full of the optimism one would expect from a

progressive leader in the church. It should serve as a reminder that religious identity is shaped by politics as much as by scriptures – and also that beneath the politics and clergy there are real humans doing real work to forge relationships and promote social justice. The future of the church is likely messy, but we should try and remember and preserve the partnerships hidden beneath.

With thanks to Professor Helen King, Member of the General Synod.

Images: Reuters/Toby Melville