Anglicans need more jaw and less war -Apr 27, 2006

By David Wood

On Easter Day an Open Letter to the retired Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, signed by 135 concerned Anglicans from around the world, was published by The Sunday Times newspaper in the UK. A media furore ensued. So what is all the fuss about – and why should this ecclesiastical storm in a tea cup be of interest to those within and beyond the Anglican Communion?

The nub of the matter, say the signatories, is that Bishop Carey (in the UK, Lord Carey) continues to involve himself in highly controversial and highly politicised situations which undermine his successor’s attempts to bridge the ongoing argument within the Church about human sexuality.

Those who have endorsed the letter believe that the ex-Archbishop’s actions are fuelling division at a time when the Anglican Communion faces difficult decisions about its future. They are concerned that a disagreement among fellow Christians is being deepened in a way which does serious disservice to the message of love which lies at the heart of the Gospel of Jesus.

No doubt Bishop Carey is perfectly sincere in believing he is supporting rather than hindering the current Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, in his task of holding a family of independent national churches together.

At no point do we presume to question Bishop Carey’s integrity. We do, however, raise questions about his judgement and about the effect of his words and actions. Is he not effectively offering himself as an alternative centre of unity, or to put the question more sharply, actually providing a focus for discontent?

In the Open Letter we raise two recent examples to demonstrate our concern. First, the confirmation of hundreds of disaffected Anglicans in the Diocese of Virginia. These confirmation candidates come from parishes where the sacramental ministry of the Bishop of Virginia is rejected. Why?

The Bishop of Virginia’s only crime is to approve the election of Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire – a well-respected pastor who happens to be gay, and who has been living in a long-term partnership.

Faced with this situation, Bishop Peter Lee’s pastoral policy is to invite another bishop to minister where he cannot. We might expect him to invite an American bishop acceptable to himself and the congregations concerned. Indeed, the American bishops have a protocol which specifies that one of their own number should be approached in such delicate situations.

Instead, Bishop Lee invited Bishop Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, to undertake the task. In accepting, Bishop Carey inevitably attracts publicity, further fanning the flames of dissent and conflict.

We suggest that Bishop Carey should decline such invitations out of courtesy to the Archbishop of Canterbury and to the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, encouraging the Bishop of Virginia to find suitable alternatives.

Our second example is Bishop Carey’s involvement with a group calling themselves Concerned Episcopalians. He is reported as assisting them in a survey of American bishops, and once again this boils down to how they voted about Bishop Robinson.

On this occasion, no one can be said to be in need of pastoral care. Harking back to the decision to approve Bishop Robinson’s ordination at General Convention 2003, this is straightforward politicking by one particular faction as the Episcopal Church gears up for another General Convention in June 2006.

Surely it would have been wiser for the high-profile former head of the Anglican Communion to refuse to be drawn into this? However he justifies his actions, the fact of the matter is that Bishop Carey inevitably appears as disloyal to his successor.

The authors and signatories of the Open Letter believe these are important questions to raise, because Christians can never accept that the end justifies the means. How we conduct ourselves in our relationships with one another matters, and “the bonds of affection” holding Anglicans together should not be further strained by someone rightly esteemed as a former head of the church.

Our aim in writing first to Bishop Carey, and subsequently allowing publication of the Open Letter, is to ask that he reconsider his position and desist from further intrusions into contentious situations. Sadly, in refusing this request, Bishop Carey comes out fighting – dismissing the Open Letter as slanderous and unfair, while damning the signatories as ill-informed, mischievous, and un-Christian.

In the first place, we believe that Bishop Carey needs to take responsibility for his own actions. The Bishop of Virginia is well within his rights in inviting George Carey to function as a bishop within his diocese. It may also be the case, as Bishop Carey informs us, that Lambeth Palace was aware of these events before they took place.

In retrospect, perhaps it would have been better for the Lambeth authorities to dissuade Bishop Lee from issuing the invitation, and cautioned Bishop Carey against accepting. No one seriously suggests, however, that they could have done more than this. They have no power, after all, to insist that either bishop pay them any heed.

In the event, however, and regardless of what went on behind the scenes, responsibility for going ahead rests solely with Bishop Carey. His claim that the only alternative to him was a Ugandan bishop intruding in Virginia is surely at variance with the options available. And was he unaware of the publicity his decision would attract?

In the second place, in a highly charged atmosphere, the ex-Archbishop’s involvement with Concerned Episcopalians is wide open to misinterpretation. Why, then, did he go ahead? Perhaps because Bishop Carey believes the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson is an heretical act? How this can possibly be so remains unexplained, though it appears to be the case given his actions.

Who can or cannot be ordained in the Anglican Communion is hardly a life and death matter striking to the heart of the faith, let alone touching a dangerous and hurting world. Church order is hardly on a par with essentials such as the revelation of God as Trinity, the humanity and divinity of Christ, or the reality of the resurrection.

The election and confirmation of Gene Robinson was lawful and proper, and those responsible in the Diocese of New Hampshire and in the wider Episcopal Church are convinced they were doing the will of God.

Some may argue that Bishop Robinson’s appointment is irregular, breaking with two thousand years of Christian tradition, threatening relationships with Rome and Constantinople. Equally, others may claim that the Episcopal Church is making history by acting prophetically.

No serious theologian, however, calls this action heresy. Invoking such a word suggests that this is a highly emotive issue for George Carey, sufficiently so that he feels somehow impelled to act.

We would like to suggest to Bishop Carey that we are not the enemy here. Actually, we are concerned Christians who love the church, expressing our concerns respectfully as responsible adults. And it must be said that our hope in so doing is really quite modest. Michael Ramsey and Donald Coggan and Robert Runcie and John Habgood and David Hope demonstrate that it is possible for archbishops to retire gracefully. We would like Bishop Carey to do the same.

Dr David Wood coordinated the Open Letter to Lord Carey. He is an Anglican parish priest of Grace Church Joondalup, chaplain to Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia, and biographer of the late Bishop John V. Taylor, one of the most noted mission theologians of the twentieth century.