Archbishop Carey's Presential Speech to ACC Deplores ‘Local Options’
In related stories, The Archbishop of Canterbury pleads for
unity and receives a response from the Bishop of New Westminster,
while other bishops meet with Canadian dissidents
In his final Presidential Address to the Anglican Consultative Council, George Carey, Archbishop of Canterbury, shared his ‘greatest worry’ with the ACC members.
“I must point out my greatest worry,” Archbishop Carey said. “I would be failing in my duty if I recoiled away from it out of an assumption that silence is the safer option.
“In short, my concern is that our Communion is being steadily undermined by dioceses and individual bishops taking unilateral action, usually (but not always) in matters to do with sexuality; and as a result steadily driving us towards serious fragmentation and the real possibility of two (or, more likely, many more) distinct Anglican bodies emerging. This erosion of communion through the adoption of ‘local options’ has been going for some thirty years but in my opinion is reaching crisis proportions today.”
The Archbishop declined to discuss the issue [of same-sex blessings] that has led some clergy in the Diocese of New Westminster [Canada] to rebel against their bishop and their diocesan Synod.
“I respect the sincerity of Bishop Michael Ingham and his diocesan synod, and I do not doubt that they believe that they are acting in the best interests of all, as they see it,” Archbishop Carey said. “But I deeply regret that Michael and his synod, and other bishops and dioceses in similar situations in North America seem to be making such decisions without regard to the rest of us and against the clear statements of Lambeth ’98.”
Archbishop Carey said this matter also has serious ecumenical implications. “I have had countless conversations with leaders of other Churches who have spoken gently but sternly of our internal disorderliness on issues such as this. It is viewed as a major stumbling block to the unity we claim we seek with the universal Church,” the Archbishop said.
But it is not just matters of sexuality that are of concern. Archbishop Carey says the resolution he has put in for consideration by the ACC can also be seen to entreat “the Diocese of Sydney on the issue of Lay Presidency to submit the matter to its Province and to have regard to the effect of any decision it makes on the wider Communion to which it belongs. He also pointed out that his resolution was relevant to the deposition of Fr David Moyer by the Bishop of Pennsylvania which has consequences for the whole Anglican Communion.
Yet the greater part of this wide-ranging Presidential Address turned towards the issues confronting the witness of the Anglican Church in the world today.
He instanced the tension between globalisation and fragmentation, the tension between our longing for peace and the threats that undermine it, the tension between an Inter-faith World and the clash of religions, and finally the tension and clash between cultures.
He mentioned the increasing understanding of the importance of the Communion, while at the same time, there is an awareness of the “disconnectness between the independent Provinces” that cannot be the future of the Anglican Communion.
He urged Anglicans around the Communion to remember they are called to carry forward the work of Christ, not to waver in the commitment to mission in action, and to honour the Communion’s heritage of faith. In his conclusion Archbishop Carey emphasised his confidence in the strengthening of the Communion’s bonds of affection and its commitment to mission in action.
“As I re-imagine the Communion I am confident that as long as we focus on strengthening the bonds of affection and deepen our mission to the most vulnerable, the very poor and those without hope in Christ, we shall grow stronger and fulfil the enormous potential of which we are capable,” Archbishop Carey concluded. ACC members gave their President a standing ovation.
from the ACC News team: Dan England, Margaret Rodgers, James Rosenthal
A Response to the Archbishop’s Address
by the Bishop of New Westminster
I recognize the Archbishop of Canterbury’s concern for the unity of the Communion. Indeed I share it, along with all other bishops. I think he sincerely believes his remarks today will further our unity. My expectation is that they will do the opposite.
Is it an appropriate use of the Presidential office to comment on complex matters in individual dioceses in highly selective ways? Is it ethical to name individuals and personal situations in a primatial address of this nature? Bishop Bennison of Pennsylvania and a priest whom he has disciplined are both named today, yet neither the bishop nor the priest is here to respond, and the Council itself has no access to the facts of the case.
His remarks about the Diocese of New Westminster fail to honour the careful way both the synod and I have made decisions about the blessing of same-sex unions. The archbishop refers selectively only to those clergy in rebellion against their bishop and synod, and makes no mention of the pastoral provisions made by the bishop and synod for those same clergy. This oversimplification does a great disservice to truth, and to the great majority of clergy and parishes—including the traditionalist ones—who remain loyal to the bishop and synod.
It is not correct to say that New Westminster has acted “without regard to the rest of us.” In fact, the position of the bishops at Lambeth ’98 has constantly been before the diocese and its synod members. I have twice withheld my consent to same-sex blessings in part because of the potential impact on other areas of the Communion. However, bishops are responsible not only to the Communion but to their own dioceses. Bishops in our province, as in most, are elected by synods and are accountable to them, as well as to each other. Lambeth resolutions are not binding on diocesan synods.
It remains to be seen what the Council wishes to do with the archbishop’s resolution on “deference to superior synods.” The subordination of synods to higher bodies is, in fact, a matter for provincial authorities to determine. In any case, New Westminster has acted consistently within the legal and canonical authority of a diocese within the Canadian church and in deliberate consultation with its national House of Bishops and General Synod.
We are of course not dealing simply with matters of constitutionality. There are questions here about both unity and justice. Unity is not a matter of uniformity. Nor can members of the Communion be compelled to act against their conscience in matters of justice. The Diocese of New Westminster believes that Christ died for all humanity, and that the unity of the church cannot be built on unjust discrimination against minorities, such as homosexual Christians.
I regret the archbishop’s remarks today will confirm and deepen the impression that he has not heard the cry of these, his own children in the church. Until all voices are heard, the unity we all seek will remain elusive.
New Westminster Dissidents Take Case Behind Closed Doors
(ACC) The normally public dealings of a group of Anglicans opposed to same-sex blessings in New Westminster were moved behind closed doors on the say-so of a Texas priest.
From August 30 through September 3, the Anglican Communion in New Westminster (ACinNW), a coalition of eight parishes and 12 clergy who walked out of a June diocesan synod after hearing that same-sex blessings could go ahead in the diocese, held consultations with sympathetic foreign primates and bishops, but the meetings were private.
The Rev. Ed Hird, a spokesperson for the coalition, said in an interview that if it were up to him, the entire gathering would have been open. Indeed, Hird’s coalition had made public much of its correspondence with primates and bishops of the Anglican Communion, even before the diocesan synod.
It was not the coalition that declared the consultations closed, but the Rev. Bill Atwood, a Texas priest and head of a conservative international mission organization called Ekklesia, whose membership is largely made up of conservative primates, archbishops and bishops. Atwood, who is serving as a booking agent of sorts for the primates, wrote in a pre-meeting e-mail, “The archbishops have not made a final decision about whether or not to have any press briefing, but I would be surprised if they do. The archbishops I know do not like to comment to the press about ongoing conversations.”
Atwood, Hird, and the diocese all refused to name the consulting bishops, but a Sunday bulletin insert for ACinNW parishes identified them as Archbishop Bernard Malango of the Province of Central Africa; Archbishop Yong Ping Chung of the Province of South East Asia; Bishop Peter Njenga, representing Archbishop David Gitari of Kenya; and Bishop Andrew Fairfield from North Dakota.