Rev David Pickering,
101a Harewood Road
Christchurch 8005
phone (03) 354 4981

e-mail:d.pickering@ext.canterbury.ac.nz

An open letter to

The Bishops of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia
c/- The General Secretary
GenSec@hb.ang.org.nz

November 8 2004

Dear Bishops,

In response to your recent Pastoral Letter.

I believe that it was Thomas Merton who said that "One of the moral diseases we communicate to one another in society comes from huddling together in the pale light of an insufficient answer to questions we are afraid to ask."

I appreciate the pastoral intent behind your recent letter; you are sincerely trying to hold the church together in the best way you can. However, I sense a degree of Merton's description in your approach, which begs questions and reveals major inadequacies. I will attend to just two matters in this response.[1]

(1) In electing to highlight the impropriety of bishops interfering in the dioceses of
other bishops you overlook the fact that this has been going on for many years. In the 1960's when the Bishop of Woolwich published his "Honest to God" book his interference in the New Zealand church was substantial. As a vicar in the 1970's I had to contend with the effect of this work. When a past Bishop of Durham made known his reinterpretation of the Resurrection of Christ people in NZ left our churches, and a substantial proportion of those who remained waited in vain for a rebuttal from the NZ bench of bishops. When Bishop Spong visited our shores comparatively recently the silence of the bench of bishops in correcting his heresies was deafening. And when he was invited to propagate his theories in a cathedral it seemed that his interference was welcome.

You may respond that you are talking of structured interference, whereas I am talking of occasional intellectual dissent. True; but I would argue that the latter is infinitely more damaging to faith. I consider that bishops who let Spong's opinions go unchallenged singularly failed in their God-given duty to defend the faith. When those who have failed in theological defence of the Gospel come down heavily in the administrative niceties of church order, which by its very nature is constantly changing, I cannot but question their priorities.

Staying with the interference question; I noted at the time that NZ Bishops gave wide circulation to the Archbishop of Canterbury's reaction to the irregular consecration of Bishops for ministry in America, but failed to publish in like manner the reply given by those bishops who did the consecrating.[2] The action of the "offending" bishops was one of final resort in response to the heart-felt appeal of Anglican Christians who needed/wanted care from the wider church. Because these details were not widely published a fair balance was not presented. When Maori members of the NZ church wanted a degree of autonomy ways were found to accommodate that wish. It is not beyond human imagination to facilitate a parallel way forward in the American situation.

(2) My second concern is that you beg the question in your use of the word "unity". How can you expect us to understand a concept of unity which you do not spell out? What is unity?

I don't regard unity as "uniformity" any more than you do [3]; it is rather to do with unity of purpose built on a common foundation. It has a historical depth as well as a contemporary geographical spread. For it to be a true Christian unity it must reach back to the teaching of Christ and his appointed apostles who form the foundation on which the church is built. What disturbs me is how far that historical feature of unity has been broken already, and will be further wrenched if some of the writers in the latest issue of Taonga get their way. I see no possibility of unity in the Gospel with such persons. Certainly we could put up a united front on some issues; but beyond these we would be poles apart. It all comes down to the foundation on which we build, our epistemology. In a nutshell, it is the difference between people who merely see some value in scripture and those whose lives depend on scripture.

With reference to the matter which brought things to our present crisis point, it has been implied that the wish to celebrate homosexual activity is of the same order as that of the ordination of women. The comparison is preposterous. One is a matter of church order, the other one of morality. If the bench of bishops cannot see that, then, with due respects, we have a case of "the blind leading the" not-so-blind. Some of us have no intention of "falling into [that] ditch".

During the hefty debates on Church Union in the 1960's and 70's a major article appeared (was it in Church and People?) in which the writer pointed out that in reality the churches are "umbrellas" under which people of a number of different viewpoints shelter. In the Anglican case our relationships have been built because of our foundation in scripture, our appreciation of the spiritual experience of the past, and our common delight in liturgical worship. However, the relationships holding folk together under each umbrella are fragile. New alliances outside a given denomination could readily be formed if unhappiness within it get too great. We knew at that time we could easily have ended up with more churches than we started with. I still don't know if we did the right thing.

I sense that we are on more dangerous ground now than we were then. Those who are pushing to make radical amendment to the Christian understandings which reach back to the Bible have provoked a precipitous situation. There are many of us who would more readily change the structure of the church than the theological and moral teaching of the church. Not something we would want, but something we would do if it was forced on us. My appeal is that the bishops in NZ will recognise this and defend our historical faith before the church they claim to serve falls down round their ears.

(3) I have said enough to express my thoughts, echoed in the thoughts of many others. It was said when the Windsor Commission was set up that the church will never be the same. I pray you will find ways forward in which the church will be recognisably part of the historical Christian tradition in which those of us who stand with the scripture may be able to live happily.

David Pickering.

[1] My concern throughout is with your letter rather than with the Windsor Report itself. back to text

[2] I tried at the time to have this revealing response circulated through diocesan channels, but my request was ignored. The opportunity for objective consideration by the laity and many clergy was thereby hindered. back to text

[3] I was privileged to have a deep experience of unity without uniformity when I taught biblical studies at College House. An Oxford historian from the Anglo-Catholic wing of the church was brought out deliberately to give balance to my evangelical approach. We were totally different in personality as well as in theological emphasis, but it wasn't long before we recognised a unity in the Gospel as we both tried to live and teach the Scriptures. We found ourselves time and again shoulder to shoulder in our tackling of some of the tough issues of the time. What a blessing my friend Stephen was. More recently I have had the same blessed experience with Pentecostals in classes I have taught for NZ Bible College. Nothing like uniformity; but a great experience of unity. back to text

David Pickering
Latimer Fellowship of NZ Trustee