Support the Café

Search our Site

False Gospels?

False Gospels?


by Michael Fitzpatrick


Many of my fellow Anglicans do not seem as excited as I am about the upcoming Lambeth Conference. Much of the lack of enthusiasm seems to hinge on affirming or repenting of a single resolution from the 1998 gathering (Resolution 1.10) regarding the nature of marriage. The past few years have afforded me the privilege of reading some of the many great resolutions over the years at Lambeth, including what used to be the litmus of Anglican identity, the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral-  Resolution 11 from the 1888 convocation – which affirms our unity in scripture, creed, sacrament and episcopacy. Given such a great treasure of resolutions, why does our ability to fellowship together as Anglicans hang on the singular topic of marriage (marriage is deeply important for Anglicans, but it is not the Gospel, and it is not the Lord’s Supper or Baptism)?


If we can share and affirm many other resolutions from Lambeth Conferences past, does this not provide us a wide heritage in common? In his opening address, then-Archbishop Robert Runcie spoke on the question of Anglican unity at the 1988 gathering, proclaiming, “We are not here to avoid conflict but to redeem it…” Conflict, then, far from being an unmitigated evil, is, if handled creatively, an essential part of our understanding of the processes whereby the Church speaks with a living voice today.” Disagreements between Christians are not reasons to refuse to gather together, but precisely reasons to attend, so that through our tensions and disagreements we can better discern the Spirit’s work in our branch of the Church.


Resolution 22 from the 1988 Lambeth conference seems like a much better choice to serve as a hinge uniting bishops attending the upcoming conference. In this resolution, the ‘88 conference:


(a) Recognizes that culture is the context in which people find their identity, (b) affirms that God’s love extends to people of every culture and that the Gospel judges every culture according to the Gospel’s own criteria of truth, challenging some aspects of culture while endorsing and transforming others for the benefit of the Church and society, and (c) urges the Church everywhere to work at expressing the unchanging Gospel of Christ in words, actions, names, customs, liturgies, which communicate relevantly in each contemporary society.


This resolution places the focus back where it should be, on the Gospel and on its relationship to the world. Both liberal and conservative churches can concur with this resolution, despite applying it differently. What matters is not that we do everything the same way, but that we work from the same foundation. Resolution 22 affirms that the Gospel is unchanging, and that the Gospel judges the culture, while simultaneously affirming that God’s love is for everyone and that the Gospel must be clothed in ways that communicate to contemporary society. Resolution 22 provides much common ground for dialogue about how our faith lives out the Gospel.


Out of the hundreds of resolutions that have emerged from the Lambeth Conferences, there are only a tiny number that are in dispute within the Communion, and that means we do have a tremendous foundation for unity and dialogue. It’s this tremendous foundation that has meant so much to me. I grew up in a very conservative Christian community with theology nearly inexplicable to me, whether on evolution or the end times or social morality. When I discovered that Anglicans had found a better way to do theology even before I was born, it was a breath of fresh air! This better way is still the Anglican way.


Sadly, one would hardly know this from recent Gafcon communiques. The G19 gathering in Dubai at the end of February asserts that “Gafcon is a movement for the reform and renewal of the Anglican Communion by faithful Anglicans who find their beloved Communion has been devastated by those preaching and practicing another gospel (Gal 1:6-7).” This accusation of “another gospel” is echoed in the March 2019 outgoing Chairman’s letter in which Archbishop Nicholas Okoh writes that the attendees of the G19 “feel the pain of betrayal when the gospel they love and serve in lives of costly discipleship is confused, undermined and denied in other parts of the Communion.” The accusation of a false gospel being preached is the most serious accusation of all.


This accusation of a false gospel gestures toward Galatians 1. When we look at Galatians 1, and the context surrounding vv. 6-7, we discover that the “other gospel” being denounced by St. Paul is the “gospel” of the Judaizers, those Christians who sought to impose circumcision and other OT laws as conditions for accepting Jesus Christ as Lord (cf. Gal. 2.3-5 and Gal. 5.2-6). A little reflection on the marriage debate suggests, however, that requiring believers to accept a particular view on marriage in order to follow Christ comes closer to the behavior of the Judaizers condemned by St Paul than the behavior of provinces which have expanded their understanding of marriage. The doctrine of marriage has the appearance of becoming a new circumcision.


This is the case even if the traditional understanding of marriage is true. Even if God intends marriage to be only between a man and a woman, nowhere in scripture or creed is acceptance of this doctrine a condition for believing the true Gospel of Christ. To make Lambeth 1.10, or any statement that is not itself about the Gospel, a condition of someone confessing Jesus as Christ and Lord, seems to be what St. Paul condemns in Galatians.


My prayer is that Anglicans will resist proposals that the upcoming Lambeth conference reaffirm or reject Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10. This would both exacerbate the Judaizing problem I’ve described and further distance us from the real work that needs to be done. Instead, Lambeth should have one simple aim: a shared discussion and examination of what the Gospel is. If Gafcon leaders like Archbishop Kwashi are so confident that “we’re seeing some from within the church . . . teaching disobedience to the word of God, violating the very essence for which Jesus came into the world, died and was raised again,” then I invite these leaders, especially the bishops of Nigeria, Uganda, and Rwanda, to attend the Lambeth 2020 so as to demonstrate before all the bishops the differences in the gospels being preached.


Let all the bishops of the Anglican Communion come together to debate and discuss openly what the Gospel is, and what it affirms. If we undertake such work at Lambeth 2020, we will achieve greater clarity on what exactly it is that various provinces think the Gospel is about, and I suspect we will find great unity and shared conviction on that front. This would settle claims about false gospels, and create a shared resource, hopefully a resolution, about what the Gospel is and how it is practiced within the Anglican tradition. By setting forth and resolving a shared conception of what the Gospel is, a much better conversation in the Communion in light of the Gospel becomes possible for discussing marriage or any issue facing Anglicans today.


For me personally, the Anglican Communion is a visible image of what I always dreamed the Body of Christ looking like in its global form. We are a passionate worldwide network of communities united by a common tradition that exemplifies a reasonable form of Christianity, one that is passionate about the Gospel of Jesus, the Gospel that both saves people from their sins and brings the hope of grace to the least of those among us. Anglicans constantly come together to serve churches facing persecution, families suffering from injustice, and communities ravaged by natural disaster. I am so grateful to have finally found my way into this marvelous family. Please, let us join our hands to hold it together in the name of Christ.



Michael Fitzpatrick is a doctoral candidate in Philosophy at Stanford University. He serves as the student president for the Episcopal-Lutheran Campus Ministry at Stanford, and teaches topics on liturgy, theology and the Bible at his local parish of St. Mark’s in Palo Alto, CA.


image: Lambeth gathering, 2008




Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“Resolution 22 affirms that the Gospel is unchanging.”
Begs the question, no?
If a platonically ideal Gospel, ok—and we can disagree as to what that is, and our understandings of it will change.
But there are four Gospels in the world, and they have certainly changed. There was no English language in the year 200.

James Lodwick

Well said!

JoS. S. Laughon

Michael well knows that the issue is not simply of marriage but goes far broader. It goes to the issue of the Church’s authority to interpret Scripture and Her vocation to be faithful to it. To cite Saint Paul’s authority for the recent actions by a small number of provinces in the Communion is truly interesting to say the least.

Cynthia Katsarelis

This isn’t the RC church where there is a central hierarchy with a great deal of authority to interpret Scripture and decide for vast numbers of people what faith is or is not. The Anglican Communion has never been like that and given its Protestant roots, central authority is inherently unAnglican.

As for the “small number of churches” and whatnot, it certainly is worth challenging the idea of democratic churches being outliers and authoritarian churches being the majority. ACC 16 and 17 displayed a vast number of Anglicans who did not want to take up the primate’s culture wars. Vast numbers of Anglicans are not in alignment with their primates. No, a handful of authoritarian men do not get to dictate to me and many others, and that has been rejected by the masses. This argument of the majority is built on sand and used by people seeking to oppress others with their view.

Tom Downs

JoS. S. Laughon: I for one don’t understand what you are trying to communicate. The more I think about it, I find both sides of the marriage argument could think you agreed with them. Was that your intention? This seems to be an inevitable problem with this sort of format.

JoS. S. Laughon

Meaning that, the author is either ill-informed or being disingenuous by claiming that the marriage issue is purely peripheral, as if the Scriptures or the Tradition of the Church have nothing to say on marriage, sex or the body. Casting aside the 2,000 year consensus of Word & Tradition on these issues creates a larger issue about the nature of authority. Citing St Paul, the author of Romans 1, as a reason to do is extremely odd.

RJ Powell

Thank you, Michael. Well said.

Michael Gillum

Probably haven’t read the article well enough.
What about Lambeth 1988 Resolution 26?

Edward Prebble

Having read, at Michael Gillum’s invitation, Lambeth 1988 Resolultion 26 on the subject of polygamy, it seems to me an excellent example of what Michael Fitzpatrick is trying to say.
The bishops expressed in Cl 1 their conviction that the traditional Christian view (marriage is between two people only) still stands, they proceeded to set out in the subsequent clauses some pretty sensitiive pastoral steps that can be taken in such situations.
I dare say that if the same matter did come before Lambeth 2020, the first clause might be softened a bit, but the resolution is evidence that the 1988 bishops (a) affirmed the gospel, and (b) applied the gospel creatively in complex pastoral and cultural situations – exactly the classically Anglican approach that Michael Fitzpatrick is affirming.
Well said Michael..

Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café