In response to the Pastoral Letter from the Bishops of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa.

Thank you for your Pastoral Letter, eagerly awaited as I’m sure you can imagine. Let us pray that we can remain in the ‘bonds of affection’ and in ‘unity’ with the rest of the Anglican communion worldwide. However as Archbishop Robert Eames, the head of the Lambeth Commission says today in the Irish Times ..

“The truth is that with no strict constitutional provisions to regulate relationships within the communion, Anglicanism depends on “bonds of affection", agreements and a desire to be in special relationships with its diverse parts. The vast majority of submissions to the commission expressed a genuine desire to see the Anglican Communion continue as a viable part of the Body of Christ.

When the crisis arose it was not to law we turned but to basic questions about relationships. Between now and the meeting of primates next February, reactions to the commission’s report will be received and analysed. It is a time for heart-searching for the communion. Many theories are already becoming clear.

A federation of churches rather than a communion?

A communion which can paper over the cracks but retain some semblance of agreement to differ?

A realignment which owes more to cultural and political difference than to a common ecclesiology?

Whatever emerges, the Anglican Communion can never be the same again.

The historic centrality of Canterbury may remain the point from which the Anglican journey stems and the point at which diverse roads meet, but the numerical strengths and much of the focus of international expressions of Anglicanism is now somewhere south of the Sahara. The vitality of the global south challenges the traditions of the north and west in ways of which cultural diversity is but one part. Anglicanism has always avoided a central curia. Interdependence has been at its core. Now Anglicans may well ask how much they are prepared to pay if schism is to be avoided. Does consensus inevitably mean some surrender of truth?

The machinery of this communion needs fixing. Is there going to be agreement on how we do it?”

Archbishop Eames is warning us that a great deal of care must be taken as we approach this report .. our future is in jeopardy! So although I welcome our Bishop’s response, I was disappointed in the ‘slant’ that was put on the Windsor Report itself. There is a certain ‘spin’ within your response, which seems to indicate that ‘minds have been made up’ and listening is not going to be part of the procedure.

For ease of comprehension, extracts from your pastoral letter will be printed in bold. My comments in normal font and quotes in italics.

The Windsor Report from the Lambeth Commission on Communion reached the media before the Church it was written for had read it.
And ..
We have yet to hear how those directly addressed by all these calls will respond.

Certainly there was much speculation in the media as to the content of the Windsor Report before it was made public .. but it is not true to say that we have not heard how those directly addressed will respond. Archbishop Frank Griswold, who obviously had the report before the rest of us, responded while the rest of us were still reading it. We have now had many, many responses from all sides but we can be quite clear from both ECUSA, and New Westminster .. that while they express ‘regret’ that they ‘upset’ others in the communion, they do not intend to heed the Report’s call for a moratorium. They are in fact determined to continue on the path that will according to our Archbishop of Canterbury, “tear the fabric of our communion.”

Our own General Synod in May 2006 will need to address the outcome of this international consultation process and discern what decisions are appropriate for the life of this Church.

In view of the long discussions about ‘autonomy’ and ‘unity’ in the Windsor Report. I suggest we need to be careful of any discussion that refers to the life of ‘this’ church .. which may seem to be saying that we are in some way separate from the rest of the Anglican communion. It is my firm conviction that the bulk of the members of the Anglican church of Aotearoa, wish to remain as part of the Anglican communion worldwide.

The strongest recommendations address the Episcopal Church of the USA, and invite that church to express regret for ordaining the Bishop of New Hampshire without sufficient consultation with the rest of the communion.

I believe this is called ‘spin.’ In fact the Windsor Report makes clear that ECUSA ordained the Bishop of New Hampshire without ANY consultation with the four instruments of unity that we have within our communion .. that’s quite a big difference. I quote from the report ..

33. The first reason therefore why the present problems have reached the pitch they
have is that it appears to the wider Communion that neither the Diocese of New
Westminster nor the Episcopal Church (USA) has made a serious attempt to
offer an explanation to, or consult meaningfully with, the Communion as a
whole about the significant development of theology which alone could justify
the recent moves by a diocese or a province.

35. The second reason we have reached the present impasse is that neither the
Episcopal Church (USA) nor the Diocese of New Westminster, in deciding and
acting as they did in 2003, went through the procedures which might have made it possible for the church to hold together across differences of belief and practice.

37. The third reason therefore why the present crisis has arisen is that many within the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Diocese of New Westminster hold to the opinion, at least by implication, that the questions they were deciding were
things upon which Christians might have legitimate difference, while large
numbers of other Anglicans around the world did not regard them in this way.

39. The fourth reason for our present problems is thus that it was assumed by the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Diocese of New Westminster that they were
free to take decisions on matters which many in the rest of the Communion
believe can and should be decided only at the Communion-wide level.

Bishops were urged not to proceed with approving rites for the blessing of same sex unions. More biblical and theological study of the issue was encouraged, including a need for clarity about the distinction between same sex union and same sex marriage.

The full sentence you refer to reads ..

145. We urge all provinces that are engaged in processes of discernment regarding the blessing of same sex unions to engage the Communion in continuing study of biblical and theological rationale for and against such unions. Such a process of study and reflection needs to include clarification regarding the distinction, if such exists, between same sex unions and same sex marriage. This call for continuing study does not imply approval of such proposals.

Again, 'spin’ that I do not consider helpful if we are to move forward in this debate. Your sentence reads as if such a distinction exists, whereas the Windsor Report makes it clear that it may not.

The report is very valuable in the advice it gives on maintaining dialogue across deep divisions which can so easily be jeopardised by precipitous action and demeaning the oversight role and authority of the bishop.

I don’t want to get sidetracked with issues that are not central to the problems we are facing as a church, but feel I must state as a result of the above paragraph, that you are not putting the whole picture here. There is a careful analysis of the role of Bishops in our communion, in particular their ‘teaching role,’ in the Windsor Report. If we are not extremely careful in our wording of such a sentence as yours above, many in our communion will feel completely disenfranchised. It appears to deal only with those who are seeking alternative oversight .. and NOT deal with those who feel their Bishop is taking unilateral action on their behalf .. but against their will. If I may remind you, the Windsor Report states ..

150. In these circumstances we call upon the church or province in question to
recognise first that dissenting groups in their midst are, like themselves, seeking
to be faithful members of the Anglican family; and second, we call upon all the
bishops concerned, both the ‘home’ bishops and the ‘intervening’ bishops as
Christian leaders and pastors to work tirelessly to rebuild the trust which has
been lost.

We also note that this report does not address the issue of new ordinations of gay and lesbian people.

I beg to differ with your above statement, the Windsor report quite clearly calls for a moratorium ..

141. The clear and repeated statements of the Instruments of Unity have also been to advise against the development and approval of such rites. Whilst proponents of actions in the Diocese of New Westminster and the Episcopal Church (USA) may argue that such advice has only moral authority, we believe that it must be recognised that actions to move towards the authorisation of such rites in the face of opposition from the wider Anglican Communion constitutes a denial of the bonds of Communion. In order for these bonds to be properly acknowledged and addressed, the churches proposing to take action must be able, as a beginning, to demonstrate to the rest of the Communion why their proposal meets the criteria of scripture, tradition and reason. In order to be received as a legitimate development of the tradition, it must be possible to demonstrate how public Rites of Blessing for same sex unions would constitute growth in harmony with the apostolic tradition as it has been received.

142. Whilst there have been the beginnings of such demonstration, at present it would be true to say that very many people within the Communion fail to see how the authorisation of such a rite is compatible with the teaching of scripture, tradition and reason. In such circumstances, it should not be surprising that such
developments are seen by some as surrendering to the spirit of the age rather
than an authentic development of the gospel.

143. We believe that to proceed unilaterally with the authorisation of public Rites of Blessing for same sex unions at this time goes against the formally expressed
opinions of the Instruments of Unity and therefore constitutes action in breach
of the legitimate application of the Christian faith as the churches of the
Anglican Communion have received it, and of bonds of affection in the life of
the Communion, especially the principle of interdependence. For the sake of our
common life, we call upon all bishops of the Anglican Communion to honour
the Primates’ Pastoral Letter of May 2003, by not proceeding to authorise public
Rites of Blessing for same sex unions. The primates stated then:
“The question of public rites for the blessing of same sex unions is still a
cause of potentially divisive controversy. The Archbishop of Canterbury
spoke for us all when he said that it is through liturgy that we express
what we believe, and that there is no theological consensus about same
sex unions. Therefore, we as a body cannot support the authorisation of
such rites.

This is distinct from the duty of pastoral care that is laid upon all
Christians to respond with love and understanding to people of all sexual
100 For example, Lambeth Conference 1998 Resolution 1.10 Human Sexuality; the statements of the Primates’ Meetings in March 2000, May 2003 (quoted in paragraph 142) and October 2003

144. While we recognise that the Episcopal Church (USA) has by action of
Convention made provision for the development of public Rites of Blessing of
same sex unions, the decision to authorise rests with diocesan bishops. Because
of the serious repercussions in the Communion, we call for a moratorium on all
such public Rites, and recommend that bishops who have authorised such rites
in the United States and Canada be invited to express regret that the proper
constraints of the bonds of affection were breached by such authorisation.
Pending such expression of regret, we recommend that such bishops be invited
to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from
representative functions in the Anglican Communion. We recommend that
provinces take responsibility for endeavouring to ensure commitment on the part
of their bishops to the common life of the Communion on this matter.

145. We urge all provinces that are engaged in processes of discernment regarding the blessing of same sex unions to engage the Communion in continuing study of biblical and theological rationale for and against such unions. Such a process of study and reflection needs to include clarification regarding the distinction, if such exists, between same sex unions and same sex marriage. This call for continuing study does not imply approval of such proposals.

146. We remind all in the Communion that Lambeth Resolution 1.10 calls for an
ongoing process of listening and discernment, and that Christians of good will
need to be prepared to engage honestly and frankly with each other on issues
relating to human sexuality. It is vital that the Communion establish processes
and structures to facilitate ongoing discussion. One of the deepest realities that
the Communion faces is continuing difference on the presenting issue of
ministry by and to persons who openly engage in sexually active homosexual
relationships. Whilst this report criticises those who have propagated change
without sufficient regard to the common life of the Communion, it has to be
recognised that debate on this issue cannot be closed whilst sincerely but
radically different positions continue to be held across the Communion. The
later sections of Lambeth Resolution 1.10 cannot be ignored any more than the
first section, as the primates have noted. Moreover, any demonising of
homosexual persons, or their ill treatment, is totally against Christian charity and
basic principles of pastoral care. We urge provinces to be pro-active in support
of the call of Lambeth Resolution 64 (1988) for them to “reassess, in the light of
… study and because of our concern for human rights, its care for and attitude
toward persons of homosexual orientation”.

It is misleading to say, “that this report does not address the issue of new ordinations of gay and lesbian people.” When the Report states, “ministry by and to persons who openly engage in sexually active homosexual relationship,” it is quite clear that this moratorium is not confined to Episcopal ordinations only.

My immediate concern for the Anglican Church in New Zealand in view of the Windsor Report, is that we have done, in principle, exactly what ECUSA have done. Bishop John Bluck, acting unilaterally and against the principles of the Lambeth resolution 1998, has sent an openly gay person for ordination training with the obvious intention of ordaining him to the priesthood. Just as importantly, St. John’s College have accepted him, and I understand, his partner. This is a very provocative and potentially divisive move by Bishop Bluck. If we are to adhere to the spirit of the Windsor Report, then both Bishop Bluck and St. John’s College should apologise and put it right before others follow suit.

As I have personally warned our own Bishop here in Christchurch, if this situation is not addressed, it will create conflict of the kind we have witnessed in the worldwide Anglican Communion. Although no action has been taken up to now, I can assure you there will be, if a blind eye continues to be turned to what Bishop Bluck has done. Please allow me to be clear .. it is this sort of action which will cause disunity, not any action we may take as a result of it.

Those are my concerns, and they will be the concerns of many faithful and loyal Anglicans in New Zealand.

Revd Wally Behan