Anglicans Continue to Sort Out Implications of Consecration in Singapore
Episcopal News Service. March 9, 2000 [2000-049]
(ENS) Anglicans around the world continue to sort out the implications of the consecration of two Americans as "missionary bishops" by the primates of Rwanda and South East Asia.
The January 29 consecration of John Rodgers, Jr. of Pennsylvania and Charles Murphy of South Carolina is meant to help "reestablish the unity that has been violated by the unrebuked ridicule and denial of basic Christian teaching" in the Episcopal Church, according to an initial press release.
Presiding Bishop Frank T. Griswold said that he was "appalled by this irregular action and even more so by the purported 'crisis' that has been largely fomented by them and others." Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey said in a February 17 statement that the consecrations did not follow the proper procedures and that he "cannot recognize their episcopal ministry until such time as a full rapprochement and reconciliation has taken place between them and the appropriate authorities within the Episcopal Church of the United States." Lambeth Palace later said that the consecrations were "valid but illegal," meaning that Rodgers and Murphy were bishops but lacked legality because of shortcomings in the consecration process.
Archbishop Moses Tay of South East Asia and Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini of Rwanda defended their action in a January 30 letter to Carey. "Far from being an attack on the Communion, this action is an affirmation of the unity of Anglican doctrine and faith which has been frequently and flagrantly violated in the ECUSA." They described the consecrations as a "pastoral step" and an "interim action" that "simply gives pastoral care until faithful doctrine and ecclesiastical discipline has been restored."
Reaction has varied widely, and does not split neatly between liberals and conservatives.
The bishops of the Province of Southern Africa issued a statement March 1 saying that they are "deeply shocked" by the consecration, agreeing with Carey that they are "totally irregular and irresponsible. The action taken is thoroughly anarchic and undermines proper order in the Church of God."
The bishops also agreed with comments by Archbishop Michael Peers of Canada that the local church chooses bishops, adding that the consecration "actually makes a mockery of the church's sacrament of episcopal ordination." They recommended that the meeting of the Anglican Communion primates in Portugal in March should condemn the consecrations, declare the bishops out of communion with Canterbury and the other provinces, support the Americans in a search for reconciliation and call for repentance from "those who have erred so grievously."
Peers called the consecrations "a sorry affair" in a column in the Toronto Globe and Mail. "There simply is no mandate for these ordinations...It was an act designed to divide a church that is prayerfully seeking to grow in unity in the midst of real differences on a variety of issues. These ordinations have nothing to do with the unity in Christ of which a bishop is to be a sign and minister," he said.
Bishop Paul Marshall of Bethlehem sounded a similar note when he said, "To consecrate bishops intending to create a fifth column in a place where the sacraments are already celebrated is to deny directly the nature of the episcopate as a sign of unity and the church as the context in which Holy Orders have meaning." While he agreed that "liberal bishops could be more accommodating to conservative parishes," consecrating "missionary bishops" suggests that there is no church in America.
The new primate of the Anglican Church of Australia, the Most. Rev. Peter Carnley, described the consecration as "wicked" and said that such "vagrant" bishops are irregular and unlawful within Anglicanism.
But three conservative archbishops from different parts of the world, who "share in a deep concern for Anglican orthodoxy and where it is being eroded, disagreed. "We regret that pressures upon traditionalists within the Episcopal Church in the U.S. should have accumulated to the point at which two primates, whom we hold in esteem, felt compelled to take this present action on their own initiative and contrary to what was agreed in a meeting in which they shared in Kampala," said Archbishops Harry Goodhew of Sydney, Donald Mtetemala of Tanzania and Maurice Sinclair of Southern Cone.
Last November they participated in a meeting where conservatives from the American church pleaded for bishops of their own but were given little encouragement. Yet several of the primates held out the possibility that they would take some action before the Portugal meeting of primates.
Bishop James Stanton of Dallas, who participated in the Kampala meeting, agreed with Carey's response as "both reasonable and appropriate" because the archbishop of Canterbury "upholds the traditional understanding of the office of bishop and points out the dangers inherent in bishops acting unilaterally for any cause." He concluded, "We in the West, and in the American church in particular, need to be reminded of the collegial and accountable nature of the episcopate."
Bishop Claude Payne of Texas said that acting independently is not a solution. The consecration does not encourage Christian community but is "a reaction by conservatives who are frustrated by the continued lack of due process in gaining consensus before decisions are made."
Bishop Dorsey Henderson of Upper South Carolina argued that the consecration "strikes at the very heart of Anglicanism, the polity and order of the church" but he agreed with Bishop Ed Salmon of South Carolina that more anger would not help the situation. He hoped that there would be time "for wisdom to be discerned, for a godly solution to be reached. Further disunity and division is to be avoided if at all possible."
That may not be possible, according to Rodgers. In an interview with the Living Church, he said that over the years parishes which found themselves caught in dioceses "departing from biblical teaching and morals" actually considered leaving the denomination. "Every one of these congregations wanted to be part of the Anglican Communion but did not believe that they could remain in the diocese of the Episcopal Church in which they were located, with good conscience," he said.
In a series of pre-Lambeth meetings he talked with church leaders in other provinces "to see what possibilities might lie for their oversight."
When asked what he hoped to accomplish, Rodgers said that "we hope just to draw the attention of the whole Communion to the importance of biblical faithfulness." And he hopes that the primates "will see in this the depth of the issue. It just simply cannot go on the way it's been going on -- the differences are too profound and deep..."On the touchy issue of respecting diocesan boundaries, he said that where a diocese honors all the resolutions of Lambeth -- on the authority of Scripture and human sexuality -- "we will be happy to respect the boundary resolution on diocesan structure."
In an attempt to place the controversy in context, Bishop Rogers Harris said that he has seen the church's unity "tested sometimes by raging controversies such as whether women can truly worship God without wearing hats. We have been threatened by schism over the civil rights movement, Prayer Book revision, the role of women in the church and much more. In my opinion," the retired bishop of Southwest Florida asserted, "we have never been more united in the mission of Christ than we are now." While not glossing over differences of opinion, Harris said that "the way we are handling these differences is constructive and conducive to real unity."