« March 2005 | Main | May 2005 »

April 25, 2005

Civil Unions in Auckland Diocese?

Will two Anglican priests within the Auckland Diocese be amongst the first to conduct civil unions come April 26? There are implications here not only for the Auckland Diocese, but also for the rest of the province and even for the whole Anglican Communion. How so? Because one of the priests has announced his intentions in the most public of fashions – national TV (read my blog on the issue). The other Priest holds a position of provincial responsibility at St John’s College (the main training college of the province). And the Bishop of Auckland happens to be the chairman of the Anglican Consultative Council.

April 26 marks the first day on which couples (same-sex and mixed-sex) can apply to have their relationship registered as a Civil Union under New Zealand law. The Civil Union legislation simply mirrors the requirements that exist for tradition marriage and is little different, in effect, to ‘gay marriage’. See my discussion of the issue in Civil Unions and the Church.

As far as Latimer knows, there are only two Anglican Priests within the Auckland Diocese who have registered as official Civil Union celebrants and are listed on the government’s website. This is clearly in open defiance of their Bishop, John Paterson, who in last year’s charge to the Auckland synod declared “I … wish to make it clear that a licence from me does not authorise clergy to be involved at such ceremonies.”

One of the priests, Hugh Kempster, went on national TV to declaring his intention to be among the first to conduct a same-sex Civil Union and further claimed that he had his Bishop’s consent to do so as long as it was in a private capacity and away from church buildings. Latimer understands that Kempster is incorrect in his claim to have the Bishop’s approval.

The other is Philip Culbertson, who is a lecturer at St John’s College Auckland, the main training institution for clergy in the New Zealand Province.

There is a third person, Keith King who claims to be an Anglican Priest within the Waikato Diocese, but Latimer understands that he does not in fact hold a bishop’s licence.

These events are of more than a local interest for three reasons. Firstly, Hugh Kempster claimed publicly in his TV interview that he did indeed have his bishop’s approval – albeit in a restricted private capacity. While Latimer has received assurances that this is not in fact the case, no public statement has been released from the Bishop’s office. There is a strange dichotomy happening here: Kempster has ‘publicly’ stated his ‘private’ intentions, to which the Bishop seems to want to deal with ‘privately’ away from ‘public’ gaze (and who can blame him?). But will it be a sufficient response to what is a deliberately public act? The mere fact that Kempster is now listed as an official celebrant would indicate that it is not.

Secondly, what does Philip Culbertson think he’s doing taking such schismatic action while holding an important position of trust at St John’s College? I would have thought that, despite his radical liberalism, he would have seen his role within the wider church as precluding him becoming a Civil Union celebrant!

Let’s be quite clear on this issue. It’s the fact that Kempster and Culbertson are registered at all that causes such great offence to the orthodox members of our church. Whether they then go on to perform a civil union or not, or whether orthodox groupings such as Latimer get to hear of such ceremonies, is largely immaterial. They should not be listed in the first place – that is the actual breach of the church's discipline! It’s a matter of public record now and the church must act if its well-being and integrity is to be maintained.

The third reason why this event is of more than local issue is because it affects the international Anglican Communion. For, Bishop John Paterson exercises an important role as chairman of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC). The Council is meeting later this year to consider further the controversy caused by the North American Anglican churches over homosexuality, and among the many issues, that of same-sex blessings. I’m not sure whether many in the Global South would accept any subtle distinctions between same-sex civil unions and ‘gay marriage’ (nor should they).

The whole affair places Bishop John in a simply impossible position. How can he be expected to successfully chair the ACC in its highly charged discussion of same-sex blessings, while at the same time struggling to contain two renegade priests within his own diocese - priests who will be seen as taking the even more controversial step of celebrating ‘gay marriage’.

What is to be done in this matter? While no one wants to give these two schismatics the satisfaction of becoming martyrs for their cause, they do need to be accountable for their actions. They must chose between being a registered civil union celebrant (and nb, it makes no different whether it involves same-sex or mixed-sex couples) and holding a bishop’s licence. For, as Bishop John stated in his synod address, “Our Church has not officially accepted any theological or doctrinal or biblical scholarship that would support Anglican priests being involved in the provision of priestly ministry at civil union ceremonies.” The choice is theirs - it’s a free country – but Bishop John should equally be free to choose to withdraw his own licence, once it is clear that Kempster and Culbertson have chosen to ‘walk apart’.

Malcolm Falloon
Warden

Posted by latimer at 02:23 PM | Comments (0)

Anglican Priest Determined to become Civil Union Celebrant

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

Posted by latimer at 02:03 PM | Comments (0)

April 14, 2005

From The US Episcopal Church Executive Council: A letter to Bishop John Paterson

A letter to the Rt. Rev. John C. Paterson, Chair of the Anglican Consultative Council, from the Most Rev. Frank T. Griswold and the Very Rev. George L. W. Werner on behalf of the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church.
http://www.americananglican.org/News/News.cfm?ID=1370&c=21

Posted by latimer at 12:05 PM | Comments (0)