"A constant subtext in the debate had to do with the authority and interpretation of scripture," wrote the Rt. Rev. Frederick H. Borsch, Bishop of Los Angeles, in his post-Lambeth Conference reflection on the sexuality discussion. "For some this was, they held, the larger issue."

Later, at Los Angeles' diocesan convention in December, he added: "In my view they [the 526 bishops who voted for the resolution] would need to gain considerable more pastoral experience and engage in more thoughtful study and Christian conversations before I could regard them as well informed and wholly guided by the Spirit on this issue."

Bishop Borsch and I disagree profoundly about the Lambeth resolution. I believe the 526 bishops were indeed led by the Spirit into biblical truth, a living-out of Jesus' promise in John 16:13. Yet Bishop Borsch is right about the deeper issue, the "subtext." Anglicans differ not only on what the Bible says, but above all on how we understand the scriptures, how we deal with their authority, and how we weigh the contrasting claims of Bible and contemporary experience.

Blessedly, our Lambeth fathers and mothers dealt with more than sex. They adopted, among other things, a resolution simply entitled "The Bible" (Resolution III.1). I'm convinced that this resolution, more than the hot-button issue that dominated press coverage, expresses the heart of Anglicanism. For centuries, Anglican Christians have seen themselves as shaped and guided by the Bible. The Book of Common Prayer from 1549 to 1979, the formularies of the Reformation, and subsequent theological reflection all point to the scriptures as the fount of revelation and the ultimate Anglican plumb line.

The debate surrounding Lambeth's understanding and use of the Bible seems to center on the African bishops, who, some claim, are far removed from the nuanced understanding of the scripture which we employ in the West. "Literally hundreds of bishops in the newly expanded churches," the Rev. Martin Smith, SSJE, said, "have had no more theological education than a few months of Bible school, and the only form of discourse they know is a very simple form of biblical literalism. I overheard a primate use the phrase 'Pentecostalists in mitres'." I should note that Fr. Smith's analysis is flawed: The Lambeth Directory reports, for example, that 3 percent of the bishops eligible to come to Lambeth from the U.S. hold academic doctorates, compared to 15 percent of the Nigerian bishops and 22 percent of the Church of South India's.

Perhaps it is we in the West, on the other hand, who need to learn from our brothers and sisters in the Two Thirds World. I have taken part in three short-term missions to Uganda, the most recent this past spring; and from these experiences I draw two conclusions. First, African leaders are fully aware of modern biblical criticism. They can tell you about the synoptic problem, the documentary hypothesis, the Jesus Seminar. Second, African leaders realize that there is more to reading and understanding the Bible than analyzing sources. They come to the Bible predisposed to believe and to obey. The primary difference between the West and the Two-Thirds World can be found in the attitude, not our hearts. Westerners tend to be skeptical, our faith tentative, cool to the touch. Our friends in the developing world, on the other hand, read the Bible with the expectation that they will meet and hear the living God. And they do.

All this leads me to the Lambeth resolution on the Bible. It teaches us three things:

1. Anglicans believe that the scriptures reliably unveil the heart of God. The Bible had "primary authority," says the resolution, supported by its own testimony (see 2 Tim. 3:16-17) and the "historic formularies" of our Communion (one thinks of the oath of conformity in the Ordinal: "I solemnly declare that I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation"). Demonstrate that we are teaching something unscriptural, Anglicans have said through the centuries, and we will stop teaching it.

Classical Anglicanism makes the same point. Richard Hooker, theologian of the via media, rhetorically asks whether we should seek revelation outside of scripture, whether human traditions can supercede biblical revelation. "Our answer is, No" (Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Book I, Chapter 13). This is not mindless literalism. On the contrary, the Lambeth resolution tells us that we should handle biblical texts "respectfully, coherently, and consistently, building upon our best traditions and scholarship." But our scholarship rests upon an a priori assumption: That in these pages God opens his heart to us and reveals his character and his purpose. Whether the issue is sexuality, religious pluralism, or international debt, Anglicans begin with scripture.

2. Anglicans read the scriptures with the church. The resolution reminds us not only of the "historic formularies" (which connect us with the church's history of biblical interpretation), but also of contemporary encounter, "biblical study programmes which can inform and nourish the life of dioceses, congregations, seminaries, communities, and members of all ages." In other words, Anglicans never read the Bible alone. We are accountable to the body of Christ, past and present. Some Christian churches affirm the right of every believer, reading the Bible, to interpret the scriptures as he or she chooses. This is light years from classical Anglicanism. Anglicans read the Bible, for example, through the eyes of Nicaea and Chalcedon. In the Bible we meet the Triune God; in the Bible we meet the Incarnate One. We are not free, as Anglican Christians, to read the scriptures as though we were Unitarians. We take the consensus of the faithful with utmost seriousness.

A recent correspondent to The Living Church pointed out that we do not create doctrine; we receive it. What a humbling reality! The starting point in all our discussions is the "doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them" (prayer book, p. 526), doctrine which rests on the foundation of 2,000 years of biblical understanding. Contemporary expression? Yes, of course. A hallmark of the Anglican Reformation was intelligible liturgy, accessible scriptures. Doctrinal novelty? No. For Anglicans, the limit of theological exploration is the received faith of the church.

3. Anglicans approach the scriptures as learners, committed to obedience. The Bible "must continue to illuminate, challenge and transform cultures, structures, and ways of thinking, especially those that predominate today." We must not come to the Bible looking for confirmation of our prejudices and opinions; rather, we must approach the scriptures ready to be confronted by the living God. The Rt. Rev. William E. Swing, Bishop of California, recently commissioned a Bible study throughout his diocese for the purpose of refuting the Lambeth sexuality resolution. This is the wrong approach; precisely backward, in fact. In the 1960s, a seminary professor of mine, Merrill Abbey of Garrett Theological Seminary, wrote a book entitled The Word Interprets Us. Now that's the right order! We should not be surprised when the Bible is decidedly counter-cultural; when it overturns our assumptions; when it offends us. That, if I may put it so boldly, is the Bible's job.

Mark Twain was once asked about the incomprehensible sections of the Bible. It's not the parts I don't understand that trouble me, Twain replied It's the parts I do. Indeed, there is much in the Bible that's opaque, obscure, impenetrable. We all know that. The heart of the message, however, is clear. Lambeth reminds us that we must read the scriptures with a commitment in advance not only to listen, but above all to obey. For our friend in Africa, the Bible's message may challenge traditional structures of polygamy and the marginalization of women. For us in the industrialized world, the challenge comes elsewhere: To our materialism; to our reliance on power; and yes, to our acquiescence in our culture's views on human sexuality. Do we dare allow the Bible to speak into the structures of our culture, into the darkness of our hearts? When the Bible speaks with clarity, will we obey?

The Very Rev. Edward S. Little II is the rector of All Saints' Church, Bakersfield, Calif.