Latimer: Civil Unions Archives

Home About Latimer Fellowship Join us - become a Member Issues and discussion News and upcoming events Free weekly newsletter Books and DVDs for sale Contact us

« | Back to main page | »

May 04, 2007

Canadian Anglicans balk at gay blessings

04.05.07 Canadian bishops' surprise move leaves U.S. church alone on same-sex marriage

Anglicans balk at gay blessings
Canadian bishops' surprise move leaves U.S. church alone on same-sex marriage

May 02, 2007 04:30 AM
Stuart Laidlaw
Faith and Ethics Reporter Toronto Star
www.thestar.com/article/209546

Canada's Anglican bishops are rejecting same-sex marriage blessings in this country, leaving the U.S. church alone in a fight that has pushed the international communion to the verge of schism.

The surprise move came in the form of a pastoral letter issued early yesterday by the church on behalf of its bishops.

The church had no one available to comment yesterday. The office of Edmonton Bishop Victoria Matthews, one of the architects of the letter, for instance, said she is out of town for a few days and could not be reached for comment. Matthews is a top candidate to be the next primate of the church.

Chris Ambidge, a spokesperson for the gay Anglican group Integrity Canada, said yesterday the situation is incredibly frustrating and reveals a lack of leadership among the bishops.

"My patience has expired," he told the Star.

The bishops' statement comes just two weeks after Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, spiritual leader of the church worldwide, visited Toronto and urged the Canadian church to consider the unity of the church internationally when deciding whether to bless same-sex marriage.

While in Canada, Williams also met privately with the House of Bishops as they grappled with the issue of same-sex blessings during a retreat in Niagara Falls.

Yesterday's pastoral letter says a priest can celebrate the Eucharist with a gay couple married in a civil ceremony, as long as the local bishop approves, but cannot bless their union.

"The doctrine and discipline of our church does not clearly permit further action," the bishops said in the letter, which calls for three more years of discussion before proceeding any further.

As well, the bishops said they "hope" no child would be denied baptism "as a way of imposing discipline on the sexual behaviour of the parents."

Ambidge said the bishops have the power to do more than simply hope, and should have issued a stronger statement requiring that no child be turned away because of the sexual orientation of the parents.

"That is something under their direct control," he said.

In March, the U.S. House of Bishops voted to support the blessing of same-sex marriage and the ordination of gay ministers, despite an ultimatum to change its policies by Sept. 30 or be expelled from the international communion.

In issuing the statement, the American bishops said they knew the move could hurt the unity of the church, but that their reading of the scriptures compelled them to support gay rights.

The Canadian bishops, however, are calling for further study, and want a report prepared by 2010 on the theological issues surrounding same-sex marriage and the impact that extending gay rights in Canada would have on the unity of the church, both nationally and internationally.

Ambidge said the church has been grappling with the issue for more than 15 years and the time has come to make a decision.

"Quite clearly what they want to do is derail the thing yet again," he said. Ambidge said he wished the Canadian bishops would show the courage of their U.S. counterparts.

The Canadian bishops acknowledged in their letter that supporters of gay marriage blessings will find the position "inadequate or insufficient," but said others might feel it goes too far in allowing gay couples to celebrate their union in a church, albeit in a limited manner.

The bishops approved the statement in an email vote after failing to agree during their Niagara retreat. The letter will now be sent to delegates to the church's general synod next month in Winnipeg, where a vote will be held on allowing local churches to decide for themselves whether to bless same-sex marriages.

A positive vote there would effectively overturn the letter.

The bishops' letter mirrors a recommendation to the Niagara meeting from Prairie bishops calling for the same-sex blessings vote to be delayed for further study, essentially rejecting the proposal for the time being.

Gay rights have become the focus of a growing split in the worldwide Anglican communion between conservatives, dominated by churches in developing countries, and liberals in North America and Britain.

Several U.S. congregations have broken away from the Episcopal Church, as Anglicanism is known in that country, to align themselves with the church of Nigerian Bishop Peter Akinola, who has emerged as leader of the church's conservative wing.

On Saturday, Akinola will be in Virginia to install a bishop to oversee breakaway churches. The move has been met with harsh criticism from the head of the Episcopal Church, who says Akinola is overstepping his authority by installing bishops in another country.

"Since the fourth century (it has been) expected that bishops minister only within their own churches, except by explicit invitation from another bishop," U.S. Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said in a statement. "This action would only serve to heighten current tensions, and would be regrettable if it does indeed occur."

A vote to allow same-sex blessings in Canada would almost certainly lead to sanctions similar to those imposed on the Episcopal Church.

Akinola and other conservative leaders are already advising Williams not to invite Canada and the U.S. to next year's international meeting of the church in Lambeth, England.

Also yesterday, a frustrated Saskatoon priest quit rather than recant his intention to bless same-sex marriages, as he was instructed to do by his bishop.

Instead, Rev. Shawn Sanford Beck resigned his position with Saskatoon Native Ministry, saying in an open letter the church's ban on same-sex marriages and blessings "is theologically problematic and fundamentally unjust."

Posted by latimer at 12:11 PM | Comments (0)

October 25, 2006

Head of US Episcopal Diocese Enflames Anglican Divisions by Granting Same-Sex Blessings

The controversial head of the Diocese of Connecticut has enflamed the divisions within the Anglican Communion this week, after he announced that Episcopal Church priests in the diocese may give pastoral blessings to same-sex unions in church ceremonies.
http://tinyurl.com/yblk38 ChristianToday
For full text of Bp Smith's address to the 222nd Diocese of Connecticut Annual Convention www.anglican.tk/?page_id=773

Posted by latimer at 02:25 PM | Comments (0)

December 08, 2005

Former Bishop of Durham gives backing to clergy civil partnership

On the first day homosexual couples will be able to ‘marry’ legally in the UK, the former Bishop of Durham, the Rt Rev David Jenkins, will publicly support a blessing given to a priest entering into a civil partnership.
CofE Newspaper: http://tinyurl.com/anx9b

Posted by latimer at 11:13 AM | Comments (0)

September 07, 2005

Archbishop deposes 35 clergy to oust evangelicals

The Anglican Church of Brazil has deposed 37 members of its clergy in what observers claim is a bid to “to exterminate” the only evangelical diocese in the province.
See 'Continue Reading' for: "Statement of the Recife 32 so that the world may know" and the Church of England Newspaper report: http://tinyurl.com/c33x8

STATEMENT OF THE RECIFE 32 SO THAT THE WORLD MAY KNOW
We, 32 clergy from The Anglican Diocese of Recife, received with shock the decree issued by the suffragan bishop, Filadelfo Oliveira, who has been designated as Episcopal Authority. We are dismayed by the improper and illegal way that this decree has been issued. We have been excommunicated without being accused of anything, without following any official process, without being judged or convicted, without having the right to defend ourselves, and without the opportunity of any appeal.

We understand that this is an unique act in the history of Brazilian Protestantism and it demonstrates that the IEAB (Episcopal Anglican Church of Brazil) has strayed far from the Anglican practice and tradition of dialogue. We have been excommunicated whilst waiting for the result of the appeal our diocese made to the Panel of Reference, created by the Archbishop of Canterbury to judge cases of dioceses and parishes that find themselves out of communion with their provinces or dioceses for reason of theological liberalism and a lack of fidelity to the Holy Scriptures.

We represent 40 parishes, missions and preaching points, hundreds of ministries, and thousands of people.

We continue to be fully involved in the exercise of ministry, leading our congregations and doing mission.

At no point have we abandoned the communion of the Anglican Church, but we have broken fellowship with the provincial leadership for the reasons already explained above.

At no point have we broken any of the Diocesan or General Canon Laws.

At no point have we broken our ordination vows.

Therefore,

We appeal to the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams.

We seek protection for our churches and for our people.

We request the prayers of the whole people of God.

Rev. Côn. Fernando Acosta Rodriguez
Rev. Marcus Throup

Rev. Côn. Washington Franco
Rev. Marconi Alves de Oliveira

Rev. Antônio Costa de Oliveira
Rev. Maurício R. Fernandes Coelho

Rev. Cézar Romero Leal Vieira
Rev. Quintino José Orengo da Silva

Rev. Daniel Barbosa da Silva
Rev. Raniere Almeida de Oliveira

Rev. Décio da Silva
Rev. Tibério Marques da Silva

Rev. Elias Leôncio de Brito Filho
Revda. Juciara Maria do Nascimento

Rev. Estevão Menezes Chiappetta
Revda. Nadja Maria Lins da Silva

Rev. Fred de Melo Souto Lima
Revda. Siméa de Souza Meldrum

Rev. Geison Sávio de H. Vasconcellos
Revda. Solange Cristina Pereira

Rev. Henrique César de Almeida Lacerda
Revda. Veralúcia Lins Silva

Rev. Ian Meldrum
Revda. Vera Lúcia Melo do Nascimento

Rev. Josias Pereira de Souza Júnior
Revmo. Arc. Deão Luiz Souza de França

Rev. Manoel Nunes da Silva Neto
Ven. Arc. Rev. Evilásio Tenório da S Júnior

Rev. Manoel S. Moraes de Almeida
Ven. Arc. Revda. Maria Gorete C.M. Silva

Rev. Márcio Medeiros Meira
Ven. Arc. Rev. Miguel Uchôa Cavalcanti

Posted by latimer at 04:10 PM | Comments (0)

August 09, 2005

Christian Liberty: No Excuse for Immorality

We must glorify God with our bodies. We must flee immorality. We must not give up our freedom in Christ to become enslaved once again to sin. By Dr. Paul J Dean
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/dean/?adate=08/04/2005#1344016

Posted by latimer at 03:17 PM | Comments (0)

Statement on the Church of England response to Civil Partnerships by the Primate of All Nigeria

"I read with utter dismay the pastoral statement recently issued by the Church of England House of Bishops with regard to the Civil Partnership Act scheduled to come into force on 5 December 2005." by Most Rev. Peter J. Akinola CON, DD

I read with utter dismay the pastoral statement recently issued by the Church of England House of Bishops with regard to the Civil Partnership Act scheduled to come into force on 5 December 2005.

While I was pleased to note the reaffirmation of the Church's historic teaching on both marriage and sexual intercourse [1], [4] I was sorely distressed that these words are not matched by corresponding actions.

The language of the Civil Partnerships Act makes it plain that what is being proposed is same-sex marriage in everything but name. This is even acknowledged in the statement [10]. I find it incomprehensible therefore that the House of Bishops would not find open participation in such 'marriages' to be repugnant to Holy Scriptures and incompatible with Holy Orders.

The proposal that the bishops will extract a promise from clergy who register that there will be no sexual intimacy in these relationships is the height of hypocrisy. It is totally unworkable and it invites deception and ridicule. How on earth can this be honoured? For the Church of England to promote such a departure from historic teaching is outrageous.

I also note with alarm that the statement encourages the church to ask nothing of lay people who become registered same-sex partners before they are admitted to baptism, confirmation and communion. [23] This not only dishonours the laity and the sacraments of the Church - it also makes it obvious that the bishops of the Church of England are proposing a deliberate change in the discipline of the church.

It seems clear the House of Bishops is determined to chart a course for the Church of England that brings further division at a time when we are still struggling with fragmentation and disunity within the Communion. Let it be known that it is not a path that we can follow. It is also a path that is clearly at odds with the mind of the rest of the Anglican Communion.

May I remind the Bishops of the Church of England that, when faced with similar decisions on the part of the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada, discipline was imposed. While I have great affection and respect for the historic role that the Church of England has played in all of our lives, no church can ignore the teaching of the Bible with impunity and no church is beyond discipline.

I call on the House of Bishops of the Church of England to renounce their statement and declare their unqualified commitment to the historic faith, teaching and practice of the Church. Failure to do so will only add to our current crisis.

I am, by this statement, asking my brother Primates, their bishops and all the faithful in our Communion to remain calm in the face of this new provocation as we look forward to our next meeting. I also call on all those who cherish and uphold the integrity and sanctity of the Word of God to pray for our beloved Church.

Source: Anglican Communion Office

Information.

*Note the bracketed numbers refer to the paragraphs in the pastoral statement issue by the House of Bishops.
The actual statement can be found here: http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/pr5605.html

The Civil Partnerships Bill can be found here:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200304/ldbills/053/2004053.htm

Archbishop Akinola's statement can be found on the Church of Nigeria's website here:
http://www.anglican-nig.org/prmtstmt_civilprtship.htm

Posted by latimer at 02:40 PM | Comments (0)

August 03, 2005

Peter Akinola reminds the Angligan Communion what the Bible says about sex

The Archbishop of Nigeria, the Most Rev. Peter Akinola believes there are Scriptures that the church must adhere to and follow if it is to be obedient to the 'faith once delivered to the saints.' In Nottingham, England recently, the archbishop gave VirtueOnline two pages of Scriptural texts and comments that he believes are vital and crucial if theological integrity is to be maintained in the Anglican Communion if we are continue to walk together.

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2841

Posted by latimer at 03:23 PM | Comments (0)

June 02, 2005

Church to Let Gay Clergy ‘Marry’ but they Must Stay Celibate

Homosexual priests in the Church of England will be allowed to “marry” their boyfriends under a proposal drawn up by senior Bishops, led by Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury. By Christopher Morgan, Sunday Times, UK

The decision ensures that gay and lesbian clergy who wish to register relationships under the new “civil partnerships” law — giving them any of the tax and inheritance advantages of married couples — will not lose their licences to be priests.

They will, however, have to give an assurance to their diocesan Bishop that they will abstain from sex. The bishops are trying to uphold the church doctrine of forbidding clergy from sex except in a full marriage. They accept, however, that the new law leaves them little choice but to accept the right of gay clergy to have civil partners.

The decision is likely to reopen the row over homosexuality that has split the worldwide Anglican communion. It may also overshadow an international meeting of senior bishops next month designed to heal rifts between liberals and conservatives over the issue.

The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement estimates that within five years 1,500 homosexual Anglican clergy will have registered under the new law, which comes into force on December 5.

The Church of England proposal is contained in a draft Pastoral Statement on Civil Partnerships, drawn up by Graham James, the Bishop of Norwich. It was discussed at length and provisionally agreed at a meeting last week at a hotel in Market Bosworth, Leicestershire.
A final draft with some amendments will be produced for approval by the House of Bishops, the upper house of the church’s General Synod. Under the proposal, a priest intending to register a civil partnership would inform his or her bishop in a face-to-face meeting. The priest would then give an undertaking to uphold the teaching of the Church of England, outlined in the 1991 document issues in Human Sexuality. This paper prohibits sex for gay clergy.

Although no sanctions are included in the new proposal, it is expected that a breach of the rules may lead to disciplinary action or the possible suspension of clergy.

Some bishops, however, are uncomfortable about subjecting their priests to the proposed interviews.

One said this weekend: “We all have clergy in gay partnerships in our dioceses and there is a genuine reluctance on the part of a number of us to make their lives more difficult.”

Some clergy in other churches have already made their intentions public. Last week, it emerged that Debbie Gaston, a lesbian minister from Brighton, and Elaine Cook, her girlfriend of 16 years, intend to register a civil partnership. The couple, originally Baptists, now belong to the Metropolitan Community Church, whose members are largely gay and transsexual.

The bishops have also agreed to a government request to change ecclesiastical law to favour civil partners. A change to the Pluralities Act of 1838, for example, will enable gay partners to occupy vicarages for up to two months after the death of a priest.

The Anglican Consultative Council is meeting in Nottingham on June 21 to try to heal the rift caused by the American church’s decision in 2003 to ordain the openly gay Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. It led 22 Anglican provinces, mainly in Africa and Asia, to break off relations with the American church.

The most entrenched conservatives include Peter Akinola, Primate of Nigeria, who has called homosexuality an “aberration unknown even in animal relationships”.

Williams, who was enthroned as archbishop in 2003, has been dogged by the issue of homosexuality. He withdrew his initial support for the appointment of Jeffrey John, a gay priest, as Bishop of Reading after the furious reaction of conservatives and evangelicals and angered gay rights activists.

Additional reporting: Tak-Sang Li
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1632517,00.html

See Church of England Newspaper website article:
http://tinyurl.com/8nynd

Posted by latimer at 11:43 AM | Comments (0)

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)

February 24, 2005

Anglican Priest determined to become Civil Union Celebran

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?

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)

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 08:55 AM | Comments (0)

December 10, 2004

Civil Unions and the Church

The following is an article which first appeared in the Anglican Taonga Magazine (Spring 2004) concerning the impact that the proposed Civil Union legislation would have upon the New Zeland Church. Now that Parliament has passed such a law, it is important to establish the status of such unions within the life of the church.

If anyone had any doubt as to the significance of the Civil Union legislation for the Anglican Church in New Zealand, they need only to have listened to Linda Clark’s Nine to Noon talk show on National Radio, Monday, 21 June. Her guests that morning were Bishop John Bluck, Diocesan Bishop of Waiapu and the Rev’d Hugh Kempster, Vicar of Grey Lynn in Auckland. In the course of the conversation, Mr Kempster announced his determination to be among the first to register as a civil union celebrant when the new law is passed, so that he could solemnise same-sex civil unions within his parish church and follow it by a service of blessing. “I want to ‘test’ the Church on this,” Mr Kempster declared.

Space prevents me from addressing the supposed authority on which Mr Kempster wishes to base his unilateral action. Instead, I wish to focus on what response the Church should make to this new category of ‘civil union’ in the event that the two bills before Parliament become law. Should the Church, following the ‘prophetic’ voice of Mr Kempster, register its clergy as civil union celebrants as well as marriage celebrants? In the future, will couples approaching the Church wanting to enter into a public and exclusive relationship, be offered a choice of civil union or marriage? Should the Church recognise and ‘bless’ same-sex civil unions? The answer to all three questions should, in my view, be no!

For it is my contention, that although the church would want to respond with compassion to all who sincerely wish to commit their lives to one another, nevertheless there can only be one service of marriage that the Church publicly offers and that any priest in licensed ministry who becomes a civil union celebrant should be subject to discipline. In addition, that if the civil union bill becomes law, the Church should continue to distinguish between heterosexual and homosexual unions. For while the Church can do nothing less than recognise heterosexual civil unions as sharing the same status as marriage, the same argument cannot be applied to homosexual unions. The reasons for holding this view do not depend on some adverse psychological state, or on a literalistic interpretation of the Bible. But rather, I believe, they turn on a deeper understanding of the essence of the marriage relationship as the Christian Church understands it.

For marriage must be considered a ‘social’ act, before it becomes a ‘religious’ or ‘political’ act. By this distinction I simply mean to point out that the essential character of marriage is established independently of the offices of either the Church or State. The State may ‘register’ a relationship (and name it whatever they choose – whether marriage or civil union), the Church may “witness…celebrate…pray” (NZPB, pg 780), but in the end, the ‘social-family’ context is primary. The essence of marriage consists of a man and a woman, publicly declaring their intention to live together as husband and wife (whatever their particular cultural understanding of what this might entail). The Church may wish to teach a particular view of ‘Christian’ marriage and invite couples to acknowledge the spiritual significance of their action. The State may wish to ‘register’ that relationship for the good ordering of society. But in the end, while the Church celebrates and the State legislates, neither is essential for the marriage bond itself.

This distinction is clearly implied in the thematic text of Genesis 2:24 as well as from the church’s practise down through the centuries. In Africa today, if a couple are married according to tribal lore, they are not ‘remarried’ by the Church but simply ‘blessed’. So, it matters not whether the State wishes to use two registers, a civil union register and a marriage register, the Church is bound by its understanding of creation to recognise both as referring to the same social contract, which the Church traditionally calls ‘marriage’. Therefore the Church cannot offer two services of blessing, as if a civil union was of a different order to that of marriage, without doing violence to the meaning of one or the other.

As a consequence, it is inappropriate for Anglican priests to conduct civil unions, for by doing so they are failing in their duty to uphold the Church’s understanding of Christian marriage. This is also why the Church cannot allow the blessing of same-sex civil unions. Because the equation ‘civil union’ plus ‘blessing’ is marriage! The State, in its wisdom, can choose to ‘register’ any manner of relationships and homosexual relationships may be one of them. But that does not then force the Church to alter her understanding of marriage.

The Church’s understanding of marriage remains founded on the complementary union of a man and a woman, and as a consequence the Church can only recognise heterosexual unions as marriage. And I believe that this conclusion can be arrived at quite independently of the (albeit related) question of how one regards the morality of homosexual sex. The pastoral instinct that wishes to affirm homosexual civil unions quite independently of careful theological reflection is, I suggest, ultimately misguided and unhelpful. Therefore, heterosexual civil unions, if New Zealand law allows it, can be recognised within the Church without the need for re-marriage, though a service of prayer for God’s blessing may well be appropriate. Whereas, homosexual civil unions must continue to be unrecognised by the church if we are to remain true to our Christian heritage.

Rev’d Malcolm Falloon

Warden

Posted by latimer at 12:02 AM | Comments (0)

September 24, 2004

NZ Presbyterians reject Liberal ‘gay’ Agenda

While we Anglican evangelicals hold our collective breath awaiting the Eames Commission’s report (due 18 October), our Presbyterian cousins have been facing their own ‘make or break’ issue on the floor of the 2004 General Assembly. And they have succeeded against all odds!

The debate in the Presbyterian Church over homosexuality has threatened to tear the church apart for almost ten years now. But things looked fairly bleak last year in October when the church’s highest court, the 5 member Judicial Committee, overturned previous hard-won decisions in the General Assembly and declared that practicing homosexuals could be trained for ministry within the New Zealand Presbyterian Church.

Presbyterian evangelicals were gob-smacked. “Absolutely unacceptable” was the headline on the Presbyterian Affirm website. “It is all so tragic, so contrary to all the good and encouraging things that have been happening, so defective a decision-making process, so remote from what the vast majority of Presbyterians want, so sub-biblical, so wrong.”

But there was a determination to continue the fight. Evangelicals were urged not to “walk” but to sign up for a new grouping, the “National Association of Presbyterian Evangelical Churches” (NAPEC).

There was one last chance to save a sinking ship – the next General Assembly in September 2004. The liberals may have used back-room legal manoeuvres to push their minority views, but a clear decision from the 2004 General Assembly could over turn the judicial committee’s ruling – but they needed a 60% margin on the floor of the Assembly.

And they have done it! Yesterday, the General Assembly voted by 63% to bar from ordained ministry anyone in a sexual relationship outside of marriage.

Conservatives had to first defeat a Report recommending a compromise solution that would leave the decision on ‘gay’ ministers to the local presbyteries. That’s great for the likes of the liberal Wellington Presbytery that has been pushing the issue but total disaster for conservatives. It was a tactic that could have fooled a good many soft-headed Anglicans – but these Presbyterians are made of sterner stuff.

In the end the Assembly “ruled that the church would not accept for training, license, ordination or induction, anyone involved in a sexual relationship outside the faithful marriage between a man and woman; they voted to make the ruling effective immediately.”

And the lessons for us Anglican evangelicals? There are many, but the chief lesson is the one on the Presbyterian Affirm website: “PRAY! We can – as individuals and churches - get serious about praying for our church. It desperately needs it. Only God can turn the situation around.”

Malcolm Falloon
Latimer Warden

Posted by latimer at 08:59 AM | Comments (0)

June 16, 2004

Interview with Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright of Durham, England

Anglican Bishop N.T. (Tom) Wright of Durham, England, is one of the world's leading scholars on the New Testament, and especially on the letters of Paul. He is also a member of the Eames Commission currently pondering the crisis within Anglicanism caused by the consecration of an openly gay bishop in the United States.
http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/wright.htm

Posted by latimer at 09:14 AM | Comments (0)