BISHOPS WITHOUT BORDERS

In February two priests of the Episcopal Church of the United States (ECUSA) were consecrated as Bishops by six other bishops who served Dioceses in Asia, Africa, North and South America. The newly consecrated Bishops, Charles Murphy and John Rogers, are to serve only at the request of parishes which cannot accept what they consider violations to Anglican theology and tradition happening under the direction of some ECUSA Bishops. This is an obvious and serious breach of the polity of the Anglican Communion. Anglican Bishops do not act in the territorial authority of another bishop without their consent. The North American response to this illegal action was aptly described by the Anglican Journal in its headline "Consecrations Spark Outrage". The purpose of this article is to give a more balanced and sympathetic view of the proceedings.

The consecrating bishops are not known to be rebels. They have never before defied the polity of the Anglican Communion. They are experienced orthodox bishops, great leaders, exceptional teachers of the faith, persons of prayer who have loved many into the kingdom of God. Under normal circum-stances such persons would not create confusion by sending Bishops into another Province of the Church.

Such a unilateral action would simply put the autonomy to which all bishops and Dioceses are entitled, including that of their own Province and Dioceses, at great risk. Only a very serious provocation could move these bishops to such unusual measures. In reflecting on the reasons for the recent consecrations at Singapore, we can note the inappropriateness of the rage expressed against the action of the consecrating bishops, and even find some strong sympathy with their cause.

The Singapore consecrations did not happen as a spur of the moment decision. Last year a group of bishops, including the two arch-bishops, wrote a letter to the pre-siding bishop of ECUSA protesting the teaching and actions of some bishops in the Episcopal Church. No discipline was exercised, no changes were forthcoming or considered in any large forum. In response, Archbishop Frank Griswold of ECUSA invited an international inspection team to visit the United States to consider the condition of its Anglican church life. The commission toured the United States and the report they issued was very critical of the Episcopal Church. They stated that ridicule and denial of Christian faith was going unrebuked.

Nine of the thirty-eight Anglican Primates met at Kampala in November. They informed the Communion that in response to pleas from Anglicans in the United States actions might be taken by bishops outside the United States. To those requesting help the Primates stated, "We declare our solidarity with you first of all in prayer. Together we have seen that God’s Church is healed only through God’s grace, mercy and power. We assure you, too, that among us are those ready to respond to specific and urgent situ-ations which may arise in the months before (italics mine) the Primates’ Meeting in Portugal from 23rd to 28th March. Parishes and clergy under threat because of their loyalty to the Gospel and to Anglican standards must be supported and we will play our part in such support." Generally speaking the church did not take their words seriously.

There are Archbishops and Bishops who regret the action taken in Singapore knowing full well that the Archbishops Tay and Kolini could have and ought to have had greater support from Bishops around the world. In my opinion such an action might have resulted in greater confusion for all involved. The degree of secrecy employed will probably allow the Communion to gradually realize that when the leadership of the church moves the boundaries of Christian faith and ethics beyond recognition, there are those who will assist the faithful when they request help. To have gone farther could have been unwise.

In writing to the Archbishop of Canterbury to account for the consecrations, Archbishop Tay first refers to the broken boundaries of Christian doctrine in the "The Twelve Theses". Let me develop his concern briefly. Imagine how difficult it would be to live in a Diocese where a Bishop who thinks of himself as no one less than Martin Luther, nails his theses not on a door but on the Internet. The Theses include such statements as the following: "Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bank-rupt." "Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way." "The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed." The bishop in question has taught, "the image of Christ as rescuer is an image that must go! Jesus’ ability to maintain his creative loving selfhood under highly stressful conditions was a characteristic which led many to believe that the life of Jesus went beyond the boundaries of normal human life…; Where Jesus differs from other people is not by being a hybrid mix of divine and human, but in the higher degree of his con-sciousness of God."

This kind of teaching, which claims that Jesus is no more than a good man, is not the faith passed on to us by the saints. There is no life is such teaching! If ARM Canada was to follow this teaching they might as well close shop. As time passes an increasing number of people are unwilling to stay in the Anglican Church to oppose these contentious issues. Some have joined other denominations or one of the "Continuing churches" which consider themselves Anglican, but are not recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Neither of these options appeal to most Anglicans. You can appreciate why loyal Anglicans are frustrated and look to other Provinces to support them. We need to remember that in the long run the unity of the church depends on unity of doctrine more than on correct polity. When Jesus was faced with a decision based upon polity as opposed to truth and caring, in every instance the New Testament records that Jesus opted for the truth and caring.

Secondly, the Singapore bishops were attempting to react to the continued rejection of the Lambeth Resolutions on sexuality by a number of bishops in ECUSA and a determination by other bishops to sit loose on the issue. By a vote of 526 to 70 the Lambeth Bishops rejected the ordination of practicing homosexuals and the blessing of same sex unions. As there were 132 Bishops from ECUSA present at Lambeth, and as those opposed to the motion included bishops from other provinces, a large majority of American bishops voted against or abstained from voting for same sex unions. Despite all this there has since been increasing actions in defiance of the Lambeth resolutions by ECUSA bishops. These American bishops acted on a basis of individual conscience without first having obtained a degree of consensus in the Diocese, the Province, or the national Church. The Singapore bishops are not only motivated by individual conscience but also by a desire to be loyal to decisions taken by the world wide church as represented at Lambeth.

Many in the society will see the actions of the Singapore bishops in opposition to same sex unions as insensitive and cruel. Nothing could be further from the truth. The society does not understand that the church must act, and teach others to act, out of love and care for homosexuals. There is no gene which produces homosexuality; people are not born homosexuals. There is growing evidence that homosexuality arises in the early formative years, from three to six years. In childhood a boy may believe deep inside, often without being able to express the horrible thought, that he is not loved by his father. As the years unfold the father love which he needed will be sought in other males. Frequently it is only one child in a family; who will feel this way. His assessment of a non-caring father may be accu-rate, or just perceived as such. The same principles applies for girls and mothers when girls become les-bian. Homosexuality is not some-thing they knowingly choose. Christian psychologists and coun-sellors find that through the healing of memories and of relationships persons can be helped to move out of the homosexual desires. It is not easy, but it can and does happen.

I was surprised to find in the February 2000 issue of the popular magazine, Redbook, the story of John and Dena Wescott a former gay man and former lesbian who overcame their homosexuality, fell in love, and are now a married couple with two children. Considering the power of the gay lobby it took courage for the magazine to publish the article. There is a growing number of church ministries which are reaching out to help homosexuals regain their true identity. It is very sad to realize that there are persons who will miss the great joy; of sharing in the creation of a child because of missing the love of a same sex parent when they neeeded it most in early childhood.

Homosexuals must be welcomed in the church like everyone else, and like all of us, be invited to share in a ministry which leads to wholeness.

The actions at Singapore were designed to discourage the church from providing same sex unions which would be a denial of the church’s ministry to those in brokenness.

Since the fourth century, territorial integrity has been central to maintaining episcopal order and collegiality. The consecrations in Singapore have broken with the polity of the church.

Historically church polity has been breached many times, especially in regards to the exercise of authority by the Bishop of Rome, and other European Bishops with political power. Some would argue that had three bishops in the time of John Wesley broken the polity of the church and consecrated bishops for North America, the withdrawal of the Methodists from our Communion might have been avoided. Even in North America the polity of the Church was breached when some bishops ordained the first seven women to the priesthood in Philadelphia in 1974. I believe our church will sur-vive this present Singapore crisis, and again it will be through the Anglican way of prayer, study and dialogue. It serves little purpose at this juncture to simply react harshly to the Singapore bishops without giving attention to the causes which motivated their action.

The American Church is gener-ally seen to be a powerful member of the Anglican Communion. It is a church of great wealth and its outreach to the needy of the world is truly heartening. The power of the American nation around the world also gives ECUSA an image of power. At Lambeth the American church is represented by 132 bishops, almost 20% of the bishops in attendance. The membership of ECUSA, at something over 2 million people , comprises only 3% of the 70 million Anglicans around the world. If the ratio of bishops to church population found in the United States were applied throughout the Communion, there would be 4600 Anglican Bishops rather than the 750 presently holding office!

Considering these factors one might expect to find in the smaller entity a strong degree of reticence to move unilaterally. Yet the fact is an increasing number of Diocesan Bishops in ECUSA aggressively pursue a course opposed to the express will of Anglican Bishops around the world.

There is an organization called "Doctors without Borders". These doctors are concerned to help persons across national boundaries while ignoring the politics of the governments in question. It is not unusual for these doctors to receive criticism and even persecution from the authorities of those they wish to help. The two bishops without borders who feel called to minister to those who feel uncared for, with no place to go, can expect to have their motives misunderstood and to be maligned.

There are many serious irregularities and problems associated with the consecration of bishops who travel upon request. We can expect further turmoil and unhappiness. The Singapore Bishops are trusting that the Episcopal Church will make local arrangements to care for those who wish to follow the theology and ethics of the vast majority of the Anglican Communion, so that this "interim" solution can be discontinued. But we should note with care and concern that the word ‘interim’ may also be applied to take further action in relation to the direction taken by bishops in the United States. At this juncture I would rather not reflect on the consequences which might ensue. In my estimation the so called "revisionist" bishops of ECUSA will not be influenced by any who disagree with them and will press on with their theological and ethical agenda.

Pray earnestly for the peace and unity of our church as it struggles with discernment of truth.