The TV1 news last Sunday night (02/02/05) contained the astounding revelation that the Revd Hugh Kempster of the Auckland Diocese is determined to register as a Civil Union Celebrant come 26 April and fully intends to solemnise gay and lesbian unions. What is even more astounding is Mr Kempster’s claim that he has his Bishop’s (John Paterson) permission – as long as he does it in his private capacity and away from church buildings. Read the transcript on the TV1 webpage

This raises a number of very serious questions indeed! The first (and probably the most important) of which is this: did Bishop John Paterson ever give such permission?

If he had, the situation needs to be immediately remedied. For, as a member of the Lambeth Commission, Bishop John of all people should know the implications of such a concession. For while the Windsor Report calls for “processes of discernment regarding the blessing of same sex unions” (§145) and for an “ongoing process of listening and discernment” (§146) it is clearly set alongside a call in §144 for a “moratorium on all such public rites”, for dissenting Bishops to “withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion” and 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.”

I do not think that Mr Kempster can be quite aware of what he is asking of his Bishop! It is a total disgrace that Mr Kempster should attempt to force Bishop John into such a precarious position, especially given his roles as a former primate of this church, a Lambeth commissioner and the Chair of the Anglican Consultative Council.

A second question is this: on what possible grounds does Mr Kempster imagine that as an ordained member of our church he can claim to be acting as a “private individual”?

The notion is totally bizarre and is completely at odds with the understanding of our church.

Title D Canon 1.1 states:
Men and women accepting the distinctive calling of ordained Ministry, and Office Bearers in this Church must recognise they are not simply exercising a function or role. They also exercise a representative Ministry and are expected to lead an exemplary way of life.

and 1.10:
Ministry by any Minister is as much a function of what a Minister is as of what a Minister says or does.

In addition, Canon 1.11.6 of Title D states that Ministers shall:
Teach only doctrine and interpretation of the Faith that are in conformity with the formularies of this Church, and not teach private or esoteric doctrine or interpretation in contradiction of those formularies;

The Revd Dr Bryden Black makes the following helpful comment (quoted with permission from private communication with the present author):

Malcolm; we need to be quite clear and specific, I feel. You and I are on the government's list of marriage celebrants, not because we are nice chaps - which we might be?! - but because our church, in which we are office bearers and officiants and to which we belong as such, have placed us there. Only as such have we warrant to celebrate the Church's sacrament(al) of marriage with a man and a woman who come before us, who themselves are the ministers of the covenant performed on the day. So within that scheme, what does Hugh think his role is?! The moment he offers himself as a private citizen to be a civil union celebrant, the bishop should immediately pull his diocesan license. Hugh simply cannot split off his priestly persona from his private capacity when conducting a rite of any sort. Being 'a priest of the mysteries' is part of his identity, I venture to suggest. Nor do I necessarily have to believe as Cyprian did in a whole host of sacerdotal stuff to so describe him. Quite simply, he belongs to the Church as (one of) its priest(s). I too belong to that Church within the jurisdiction of ANZ & P. We are both beholden and mutually accountable to that entity. So neither of us are capable - we do not have the sheer capacity - to bless, in the Name of the Church nor her God, unless we are so authorized. And no-one (as yet) has granted us such authority with regards to civil unions. For finally, any grant of authority in such matters is clearly a collective affair, one that necessarily involves General Synod, our supreme ecclesiastical source. For even single bishops may not on their own account warrant any such rites, or their officiants to so act. Period!

Revd Dr Bryden Black (Christchurch)

To finish, let me express something of my own bewilderment over this whole affair. Does Mr Kempster seriously believe that this is the best way in which to bring about a consensus within the church on this matter?

Had he thought of establishing a diocesan study group? Maybe a clearly worded motion to a synod? Was he gracious enough to ask his Bishop’s advice as to an appropriate course of action? I very much doubt it! Mr Kempster’s ‘prophetic’ actions resonant with all the over-confidence and immaturity of radical student politics. He clearly has no intention of listening to what anyone else has to say – no doubt people such as myself will be dismissed as homophobic bigots! If this is an example of how dialogue and consultation operates within our church, then it stinks!

However, a far more serious danger faces our church if the house of bishops is seen to be silent in the face of such a defiant challenge. For then the worst fears of the Windsor Report’s last paragraph could very well be realised in our midst:

There remains a very real danger that we will not choose to walk together. Should the call to halt and find ways of continuing in our present communion not be heeded, then we shall have to begin to learn to walk apart. (§157)

Revd Malcolm Falloon
Warden