Lambeth 1998 and Epistemic Humility

Having been challenged to produce evidence of the Anglican Communion acting outside the constraints of epistemic humilty on the question of whether gay unions should be blessed, I have turned to the language of the resolutions and amendments of Lambeth 1998. While there is much to agree with in Lambeth '98, even in its discussion of human sexuality, there is, sadly, also much with which to be disappointed. In particular, it seems to me that the AC in Lambeth '98 1.10 pretends to be certain where it should not pretend certainty; despite the numerical superiority of the side which endorsed 1.10, that side may yet be wrong. It would have been a mark of intellectual integrity for the language of 1.10 to consistently express the uncertainty under which the resolution must operate--alas, you will look in vain for such consistency.

I. What is epistemic humilty anyway??
According to the doctrine of epistemic humility, Christians cannot have absolute certainty about anything in their dogma outside a minimal core, the kerygma. On everything else, they should always remain open to correction and reversal--in particular correction, that so far as they can know, is intended by God.

Thus, as the ban on gay unions is outside the kerygma, despite centuries of tradition largely behind the ban (leaving aside historical questions about exactly where, in which centuries, and in what sense such a ban was understood), we should remain open to eliminating the ban. We could not have imposed it on our own authority alone with certainty, and God may in his freedom from eternity intend that now, say, we are obligated to eliminate it.

II. Lambeth '98 Operating with Epistemic Humility
Sometimes I think nearly everyone remembers only pet passages from Lambeth '98; who has time to read the study guides concomitant to the resolutions? But go and read the study guide that corresponds to Lambeth '98's treatment of human sexuality--you may be in for a surprise. It breathes none of the condemnation and hubris of 1.10 and the appendices; indeed, the study guide in contrast seems a model of judicious moderation. It distinguished sexual practices considered simply immoral without q."uestion (Way 1) and those simply accepted as legit without question (Way 2) from Way 3, practices about which there is disagreement within the AC, including polygamy, remarriage of the divorced--and, you guessed it, "faithful homosexual relationships."

I quote: In many places, homosexual behaviour is identified simply with paedophilia and promiscuity, whereas in other places there are now many examples of faithful homosexual relationships in society at large and within the Church. At present, there is a clear division of belief amongst Anglicans on homosexual behaviour and, indeed, medical knowledge is still developing in this area. While almost all would agree that promiscuous homosexuality (like promiscuous heterosexuality) is sinful and belongs to Way 2, Anglican opinion on faithful but active homosexuality is divided. Some believe it is sinful and belongs to Way 2; others believe it is acceptable to God and belongs to Way 1. Different cultures and different understanding of biblical texts are important elements in how one decides on these issues. (57b)

In other words, the study guide does not impose an unqualified moral norm; it honestly recognizes differences of theological opinion, while searching out areas of moral overlap. There is nothing inflammatory in it, nothing to set the wheels of schism in motion. The study guide respects the constraints of epistemic humility.

III. Lambeth '98 Operating outside Epistemic Humility
On the other hand, have a look at the language of the resolutions and appendices; we enter a land of make believe, where human beings, bishops even (and quite a few of 'em!), decide to arrogate for themselves knowledge of good and evil, not merely educated opinion or qualified inference:
This Conference:
...
d)
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;
(e)
cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions;
(1.10.d, e)

And more, alas:
Resolution V.1 from Central and East Africa Region
This Conference:
...
(c)
noting that the Holy Scriptures are clear in teaching that all sexual promiscuity is a sin, is convinced that this includes homosexual practices, between persons of the same sex, as well as heterosexual relationships outside marriage;
Note: This Resolution was put to the Conference in the form of an amendment to Resolution I.10 and was defeated.

Resolution V.35 from the West Africa Region
This Conference:
(a)
noting that -
(i)
the Word of God has established the fact that God created man and woman and blessed their marriage;
(ii)
many parts of the Bible condemn homosexuality as a sin;
(iii)
homosexuality is one of the many sins that Scripture has condemned;
(iv)
some African Christians in Uganda were martyred in the 19th century for refusing to have homosexual relations with the king because of their faith in the Lord Jesus and their commitment to stand by the Word of God as expressed in the Bible on the subject;
(b)
stands on the Biblical authority and accepts that homosexuality is a sin which could only be adopted by the church if it wanted to commit evangelical suicide.
Note: This Resolution was put to the Conference in the form of an amendment to Resolution I.10 and was defeated.

I have put language outside the constraints of epistemic humility above in bold to isolate it for discussion. The bold-faced stuff has in common that a claim is made without qualification; there is no hint of doubt, no hesitation from the limits we must operate under in discerning such matters as mere sinful humans--no recognition of the possibility even, however remote, that even the long-standing condemnation of gay unions--yes, even this, even this--in the church might itself be a symptom of mere human sin, to be finally extricated from the body of the Christ. After all, the heart, we are told, is deceitful above all things--who can know it?