Christchurch vicars were recently interviewed by The Press newspaper about the GAFCON conference in Jerusalem and the future of the worldwide Anglican community. A lengthy news report was published.

Click and read the interview here.

A Response to the Joint Standing Committee's Report

In my view, the Joint Standing Committee's Report has not adequately identified the actual position of the House of Bishops and therefore has underestimated the distance that remains between TEC and the rest of the Communion.
Revd Malcolm Falloon

A Response to the Joint Standing Committee's Report

In my view, the Joint Standing Committee's Report has not adequately identified the actual position of the House of Bishops and therefore has underestimated the distance that remains between TEC and the rest of the Communion.

Same-sex Blessings

In regard to Same-sex blessings, the Primates were seeking to clear up an ambiguous situation between the authorisation of Public rites and tacit permission at the local level for same-sex blessings to continue. As the Primates wrote, "It is the ambiguous stance of The Episcopal Church which causes concern among us."

The Report indicates that this request has been met. However, the House of Bishops themselves state that a significant minority of Bishops, while not authorising such rites, do make "allowance" for such blessings. In their words, "the majority of bishops do not make allowance for the blessings of same-sex unions." This clearly implies that while most "do not" a significant minority indicates that there is no new move from the House of Bishops to withdraw permission for such rites or to discipline any fellow bishops who make "allowance" for such blessings.

The Report sees this as acceptable under the provision of "a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care." quoting the Primates own words. However, this is exactly where the House of Bishops needed to clarify their position. Do they see "individual pastoral care" as involving same-sex blessings, or not? In addition, the Primates in no way intended "individual pastoral care" to involve the local provision of same-sex blessings. Instead, along with the Windsor Report, they called for a moratorium on all such public rites.

Consequently, the Report has failed to identity that a most serious division remains between the House of Bishops and the rest of the Communion.

Consecration of Bishops in sexual relationships outside of marriage

In regard to the consecration of Bishops, it is frustrating in the extreme the way in which the House of Bishops first hides behind the constitutional requirements of their General Convention and then, when it suits, to stand on the freedom of their episcopal consciences to follow the truth as they see it. As an example (and perhaps the true source of all our present Communion issues), the Bishops were happy to ignore the General Convention in 1979 when the Convention decided that the ordination of practising homosexuals was "inappropriate". Instead, the Bishops deliberately flaunted the General Convention declaring that it was their "apostolic leadership and prophetic witness" to do so.

In regard to the present situation, the House of Bishops had plenty of opportunity to consider wording that would have unambiguously complied with the Primates request, but choose not to do so. Instead, they have retained the right to act prophetically should they deem it expedient.

Therefore, I have no confidence that the House of Bishops have responded adequately to the Primates and the Report is wrong in its conclusion that they have "clearly affirmed" the request of the Windsor Report.

Pastoral Issues and Incursions by Uninvited Bishops

The House of Bishops have refused the Primates offer to provide pastoral support for dissenting congregations and dioceses. Yet they still aggressively pursue congregations through the civil courts. I believe it is highly one-sided on their part to call for an immediate end to such interventions while not adequately making provision for dissenting groups within TEC. This shows an unwillingness to accept any accountability from the wider Communion. The Report looks to downplay the significance of this issue in a way that ignores the reality of the local situation.

Is there common ground?

The most unhelpful statement in the Report is its view that some common ground is emerging throughout the Communion. They quite wrongly conclude,

"The Communion seems to be converging around a position which says that while it is inappropriate to proceed to public Rites of Blessing of same-sex unions and to the consecration of bishops who are living in sexual relationships outside of Christian marriage, we need to take seriously our ministry to gay and lesbian people inside the Church and the ending of discrimination, persecution and violence against them."

This "position" is not supported at all by the House of Bishops' statement. For they conclude their statement by declaring,

"We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church."

While the Report speaks of "ministry to", the House of Bishops proclaims, "participants in". This is, of course, the very issue that is dividing the Communion! To imply that they are in any way equivalent statements is most unhelpful. It most certainly does not justify the confidence of the Report that the "Communion seems to be converging around a position". In my view we are as divided as ever.

Conclusion

The House of Bishops continues to insist on governing its life on theological principles that are contested by the rest of the Communion. What the Communion seeks is an opportunity to openly discuss and critique these principles. That cannot happen while TEC proceeds with blessings, ordinations and consecrations of persons in same-sex relationships. The Windsor Report is essentially a call for actions to stop so that dialogue may begin. The Primates have valiantly tried to clarify with TEC whether they are prepared to follow this course. The Report says that they have and that the "Communion should move toward closure on these matters". However, the statement of the House of Bishops does not support this conclusion. Nor does it support the view of the Report that common ground is emerging between TEC and the rest of the Anglican Communion.

Revd Malcolm Falloon Warden
Latimer Fellowship

On Tuesday, 19 December 2006, Bob Robinson and Malcolm Falloon from Latimer, and Michael Hewat and Max Scott from Anglican Mainstream, met with Archbishop David Moxon, and Bishops David Coles and Tom Brown. The meeting was from 10.00am to about 2.00pm, and took place in the Koru Lounge at Wellington Airport.

Our meeting began with prayer and a Bible Study on Luke 3:1-20, led by Michael Hewat.

Each of us spoke about our perception of the situation in New Zealand. We told the bishops of the seriousness that the church was in, how people were already leaving and some parishes were considering whether or not they can remain in the Church of the Province. The silence from the Bishops' meetings was perceived by many as a tacit agreement with the actions of the Bishop of Dunedin. The bishops were told of the difficulties that have arisen over the ordination and licensing of a person in a same-sex relationship in the Auckland Diocese, and of the difficulties that these actions have caused for some involved in outreach, particularly to people of non-Christian faiths. The reasons for the 'protest' at the Ordination Service in the Dunedin Diocese were explained. We also explained to the Bishops our view of the Canon on Discipline and our understanding that the ordination and conducting of civil union ceremonies for same-sex couples was a departure from the Doctrine of the Church concerning marriage and the right ordering of sexual relationships. We also commented on the inadequacy of the statement that Bishops had released in addressing the issues facing the Church.

The bishops listened to our presentation with deep and respectful interest. They acknowledged the difficult situation that we saw ourselves to be in. They informed us that a number of Bishops had engaged one another 'robustly' on some of these matters with regard to the ordination of a person in a same-sex relationship. However the Bishops as a whole believed that they were unable to exercise any legal authority in this matter and had decided, as a group, not to make any public statement other than the general one that had been issued, although some Bishops had informed their clergy, or some of their clergy, of their disagreement with Bishop George going ahead with the ordination.

The Bishops then informed us of the process that they wish to follow. First they would like restraint exercised by all. They did not want the discussions to take place through the public media or through the internet. They preferred a process that involved face-to-face meetings with people or groups of people. On our part, we would assume that this would include restraint by Bishops in the matters of ordination and licensing, although this was not guaranteed. It was pointed out that this restraint was not a legal imposition and that there may be people already in the process for ordination who were in a same-sex relationship. They assured us the Bishops had agreed that those entering the process towards ordination would be informed of the current general position of the Church on the matters of marriage, chastity and celibacy. We would expect this to conform to the resolution on human sexuality passed at the 1998 Lambeth Conference and subsequent statements made by the Primates Meetings, etc.

This period of restraint would last until General Synod 2008, at which time the General Synod would consider whether to extend this time or proceed with some other action. It was made clear that there can be no provision of doctrine in regard to sexual relationships for clergy unless explicitly enacted by General Synod.

In 2007, there would be a 'Hui on Hermeneutics'. It was indicated that Latimer and Mainstream would be consulted about the Hui.

They indicated that they had been considering a draft covenant produced by the Church of the Province of Australia and they would be inviting comprehensive study of this covenant.

Our impression was that this meeting was a beginning of an ongoing discussion. We believe that the Bbishops were seriously interested in such discussion, but that unless we continue to press for it, it might not occur. However, we are grateful for the Bishops' initiating of this discussion at this moment. We would have desired a public assurance of a halt to all licensing and ordaining of those in a sexual relationship outside of marriage. This was not given, but we were also assured that no tacit approval was being given to licensing or ordaining people in such relationships. For us this is not a satisfactory situation and we will continue to make clear our belief that such actions are contrary to Scripture, involve a change a doctrine of the Church with respect to marriage and break that Disciplinary Canons on chastity. We are disappointed that the bishops have not been able to say more clearly that the Dunedin ordination is simply wrong - wrong biblically, wrong theologically and wrong constitutionally.

In Summary:

1. We are grateful for the personal leadership that Archbishop David Moxon is bringing to this situation as the tikanga Pakeha Archbishop and would want to do all that we can to support him in this. However, we consider this issue of vital importance for the whole Province of Aoteroa, New Zealand and Polynesia and therefore of concern to all three tikanga. Therefore we urge all the Bishops of our church to be actively engage in ongoing dialogue.
2. We acknowledge and support the call for a 'Windsor space' to allow for appropriate discussion by the whole church on the ordination of persons in sexual relationships outside of marriage. We are further thankful that the Bishops have given an undertaking not to intiate any further ordinations of such persons until these discussions have been completed. We believe that these discussions are only at their earliest stages and have been seriously damaged by recent events. We have also heard the Bishops' requests that these discussions do not take place through the media and via the internet. We agree that discussions through the media may cause misunderstanding and may create a false impression of the church's position. We do not intend to initiate discussion through the media, nor do we expect 'liberal' bishops to use the media to air their own personal views.
3. We welcome the acknowledgement of General Synod as the appropriate body for deciding matters of order in our church and that so-called 'local practice' can not override the traditional teaching and order of our church. However, given the imbalance of theological representation at the last General Synod and the needlessly provocative nature of a number of its decisions, we ask that the church at all levels work hard at ensuring that all viewpoints are allowed to be heard in this debate without being labelled, marginalised or silenced.
4. We have a pastoral concern that the house of Bishops felt unable to make a public statement as to the policy they have agreed to follow and have chosen instead to express their collegaility through personal responses. We note that the Bishop of Dunedin and his Diocesan Council have made a public statement as to their stance, as well as statements that have been quoted in the news media. This has created a pastoral crisis for many laypeople in our church, who will not have the benefit of direct contact with their Bishop. We will do our best to convey to our membership as truthfully as we can the position that the Bishops wish to adopt, but are concerned for the many orthodox Anglicans with whom we are not in contact. In the past the Bishops have been very willingly in their public statements to give reassurance to the liberal wing of the church. Why are they not free to do the same for those of an orthodox viewpoint?

We will continue to engage the bishops 'robustly', and make public such discussions (except where a request is made for an aspect of the discussion be treated confidentially). We urge all anglicans to take up the invitation of the Bishops to discuss in person this crisis with their respective diocesan bishop(s). Please pray for the Bishops and for ourselves that the outcome of all of this will be a church that is biblically orthodox in its mission and its behaviour.

10 November 2006

Dear Archbishops,

I write this letter to you and the House of Bishops for two reasons. Firstly, to explain to you the nature of our protest in the Dunedin Cathedral during the ordination service of November 4. Secondly, to outline for you how this present crisis in our church is related to the wider Communion crisis as detailed in the Windsor Report (2004).

Firstly, the nature of our protest.

Although it was widely known that Juan Kinnear was in a same-sex relationship, there had been no public admission of that fact from the Bishop of Dunedin until his Statement on Friday November 3. Even as late as Wednesday afternoon (November 2), the Bishop of Christchurch, in a public meeting, expressed his lack of knowledge of the circumstances of the ordination. This suggests that either the Bishop of Dunedin had withheld important information from the Bishops during their conference call of Friday (October 27), or a number of Bishops (including my own) were deliberately withholding from the church significant information about what was to take place. Both scenarios are extremely serious and damaging to the integrity and openness of our church. In our view they warranted the public protest we made.

This being the case, we determined to respond truthfully and faithfully to the liturgical question, People of God, are you willing that Juan should be ordained deacon? We attended the Service in Dunedin in order to answer, No, we are not! We made this response to draw attention to the fact that this ordination was taking place without the necessary consultation having occurred and in spite of the failure of the Bishops to address the very serious matters we had raised with them.

We offered to present a Statement of Protest to the Bishop, but he simply ignored our voices and continued with the liturgy as if nothing had happened. This, in itself, I considered an ungracious response to our objections and emptied the liturgical words of all meaning. This is particularly so when the liturgy requires the Bishop to declare, Our authority is in Scripture and in the Church′s continuing practice through the ages. In the case of Juan Kinnear this is not true.

In terms of our own church rules, this issue of ordination cannot be separated from the blessing of same-sex unions. And how can it be otherwise given the exemplary nature of ordained ministry. To ordain a person in a same sex relationship is already to have declared that the sexual relationships of that person are chasted (that is, rightly ordered) and an example for others to follow (that is, exemplary). This is clear from a consideration of the Canons of our Church.

Secondly, I would like to draw your attention to the following points relating to the Windsor Report and the crisis in the Anglican Communion.

We are facing the same failure to properly consult that the Communion faced when it commissioned the Windsor Report in response to actions taken by the North American churches — actions which, in the words of the Primates, caused a deep tear in the fabric of the Communion. The Windsor Report criticised the North American churches for acting unilaterally and failing to observe the Fundamental Principles, underlying the Communion (see especially paragraphs 67-69 and 93-94). This same failure is seen here in New Zealand in the unilateral actions of the Bishop of Dunedin. Our protest was not that of a radical special interest group, but one of faithful Anglicans who did not want to see the same mistakes repeated here that have been made overseas.

It is commonly argued in our Church that the Windsor Report says nothing about the ordination of people in same-sex relationships. However, this is wrong. Paragraph 23 of the Report rightly places this very issue between the two presenting issues of same-sex blessings and the consecration of a gay Bishop:

Two sets of interrelated questions have arisen in several provinces of the Communion: whether or not it is legitimate for the church to bless the committed, exclusive and faithful relationships of same sex couples, and whether or not it is appropriate to ordain, and/or consecrate to the episcopate, persons living in a sexual relationship with a partner of the same sex.

The use of and/or within a dependent clause makes it plain that ordination in general is referred to, as well as the consecration of bishops in particular (as does the description of sets of interrelated questions). This is as it should be, for by doing the greater (i.e. consecrating a bishop) then the lesser is also covered.

I feel the need to spell this out in order to correct what appears to be a misconception among the House of Bishops about the Windsor Report. In a Pastoral Letter from the Bishops, following the release of the Windsor Report, they wrote, We also note that this report does not address the issue of new ordinations of gay and lesbian people.

This is a misreading of the Report and goes against both the letter and the spirit of the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference, reiterated, as they are, by the Primates′ Meeting. (paragraph 27). Lambeth (1998) clearly warned against proceeding with the ordination of persons in same gender unions and the Primates further re-affirmed this position as having moral force and commanding the respect of the Communion as its present position on these issues (paragraph 25).

Moreover, it is clearly contrary to the letter and spirit of the Windsor Report for the House of Bishops to maintain that the Bishop of Dunedin can conduct such ordinations as he and his Diocese sees fit. When the Bishop states that, The Bishop and the Diocesan Council are satisfied that this ordination is consistent with the rules of our church and with the past practice of this diocese. and does so without any reference to the wider church, he is in effect declaring the matter to be a local option.

This is the same faulty logic for which the Windsor Report criticized the North American Churches, for the Communion-wide reaction clearly undercuts any argument that such decisions are purely local (paragraph 24). It is also in defiance of Resolution 34 of the ACC-12 (Windsor Report, Appendix page 8) that calls upon diocese and individual bishops not to undertake unilateral actions or adopt policies which would strain our communion with one another without reference to their provincial authorities. The Bishop of Dunedin decided to proceed with an ordination based solely on a local interpretation of the rules and supposed local past practice, in spite of clearly stated local and national dissent from such ordinations. That decision ignored completely the wisdom offered to us by the Windsor Report.

For these reasons, it is surely clear that the ordination conducted by the Bishop of Dunedin on November 4 was against the Constitution and Canons of our Church and in denial of the spirit and letter of the Lambeth Bishops, Communion Primates, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Windsor Report itself.

I know that, as Archbishops, you have wished for more time to be able to carefully consider matters raised by the Windsor Report. But I fear that the Bishop of Dunedin′s actions have robbed you of that option. I cannot underscore enough how seriously many of us consider this matter to be for the on-going health of our church. As the Archbishop of Canterbury wrote in his pastoral letter of June 2006, An isolated local Church is less than a complete Church.

Therefore, we appeal to you as Archbishops and Bishops, as guardians of the Church's discipline, to break your silence. As the Ordinal (NZPB 1989) declares, bishops are called to promote peace and unity among all God's people, and so we ask you to keep the Church true to its faith by publicly dissenting from the Bishop of Dunedin′s actions. For not to do so will give tacit approval to his actions and will deepen the present crisis even further, both in New Zealand and across the Communion.

Revd Malcolm Falloon
Warden of the Latimer Fellowship