A Response from Canon Peter Carrell to
An Open Letter by Archdeacon Glynn Cardy
15 July 2008
Introduction
On June 25, 2008 Archdeacon Glynn Cardy responded with an open letter to a pastoral letter by Archbishop David Moxon and Bishop Philip Richardson to the Diocese of Waikato.
The pastoral letter of the two bishops, while not an open letter to our whole church, received a wide distribution.
It is not the purpose of this response to make comment directly on either the episcopal pastoral letter or the specific circumstances which gave rise to it. This response is prompted by concern that a number of the points in Archdeacon Cardy’s letter pertaining to the general question of the blessing of same sex partnerships are contestable, and that without contesting them in an open manner, readers of his letter might be tempted to accept that his conclusions are correct.
[NOTE: The following appears in the e-circulation, but does not pertain to the posting here] Archdeacon Cardy’s letter is provided in full below, in Times Roman font, and black typeface. I have added numbers within parentheses which correlate with my responsive comments printed below the letter in Verdana font, and blue typeface (with relevant excerpts from Archdeacon Cardy’s letter in Times Roman font, and black typeface).
I appreciate Archdeacon Cardy’s encouragement for my response to be a public one.
Peter Carrell
Diocese of Nelson
June 25, 2008
Dear Archbishop David and Bishop Philip,
Your recent pastoral letter to the Diocese of Waikato regarding same-sex blessings has been circulated around the Province and I wish to make a response.
Early on you state that all licensed ministers in our Church are accountable to the Canon Law of General Synod/Te Hinota Whanui. That of course is true. However ministers also have other accountabilities. Our baptismal vocation is one. For the ordained there are also ordination vows. In particular these accountabilities impact on services of blessing of gay/lesbian couples in two regards. Firstly, in the name of Jesus a number of Christians have over the centuries worked for human rights and continue to do so. It is not a case of being ‘conscious of our responsibilities under NZ Human Rights and Privacy Laws’. Human rights are a gospel imperative. (1)
Secondly, prayer is at the heart of the Christian vocation. When Canon Law prohibits a minister praying with people maybe it is the Canon Law that needs to be revised or ignored. (2)
My first point is therefore that licensed ministers need to be accountable in a variety of ways, and so does Canon Law.
In your letter you then proceed to comment on the Canon on Marriage. I am not aware of anyone in this Province involved in services of blessing for gay/lesbian couples who is justifying their actions by reference to this Canon, or who wish this Canon to be altered or amended. (3)
My second point therefore is that the Canon on Marriage is for heterosexual couples and is not relevant to the debate on same sex blessings.
You then talk about the Canon on Forms of Worship and state that ‘we agree to use only the authorized forms of service approved by the General Synod’. You seem to think that the authorized forms are parameters on what is permissible for worship. Another view is that the authorized forms are guidelines for relevant, creative, and pastoral expressions of worship. On your reading it would seem no minister can use prayers other than those in the NZ Prayer Book or contemplate leading worship in a situation not stipulated in the Prayer Book. In my experience most clergy draw on a range of resources outside of the Prayer Book, or write their own. Indeed it is often from this creative work that revisions in time are made to the authorized forms.
It is worth noting that even in the Church of England a minister is entitled to use non-authorized material when there is no existing form of worship that fits the situation.
I am also aware that the Revd Bosco Peters of the Christchurch Diocese has mounted an argument that there is provision within our authorized forms for a blessing of a relationship.
My third point therefore is that the Church in this Province is not of one mind regarding the role of the authorized forms of worship in determining what is permissible. (4)
In your letter you go on from the Canons to state as your second point that due to current state of the Anglican Communion all Provinces are ‘encouraged to exercise deep care and restraint’. This seems to imply that conservative disquiet over Bishop Gene Robinson’s election and the authorized services of the Diocese of New Westminster are reason to suddenly deny the New Zealand gay and lesbian community ministries that have been offered to them for many decades. Priests for three decades at St Matthew-in-the-City, Auckland, have prayed with and blessed gay and lesbian couples. Priests in other parishes have done so too. Conservative reaction in other Provinces should not be a reason to deny pastoral ministries with a minority in our land who have suffered a huge amount of discrimination and abuse from the Church over the centuries. There is truth in the maxim ‘justice delayed is justice denied’. I am also concerned that the two specific issues of electing a gay man in a committed relationship to the episcopate and the authorizing of a rite for gay blessings are being used as a reason to be overly cautious about any gay/lesbian ministry and the selection and appointment of gay/lesbian deacons and priests.
My fourth point therefore is that ‘deep care and restraint’ does not need to be interpreted as stopping ongoing ministries and directions of our Church. (5)
Regarding the word ‘blessing’ it seems that in many people’s minds the word is understood to be an endorsement e.g. in a marriage the Church is endorsing the couple's relationship. In other words a ‘blessing’ is merit-based: it is the good character or act of the couple, or the good character of the marital/civil union institution, that is being endorsed. I think this is a theological misunderstanding. Rather I think a blessing is a declaration of God's unconditional love for us. It is that love/blessing the priest is declaring. It is not based on the merit of the couple, the institution or the priest - but solely on God. The blessing says in effect: God loves you, has always loved you, and will always love you no matter what lies ahead. The church is not endorsing, by means of the priestly blessing, marriage, civil unions, heterosexuals or homosexuals.
My fifth point therefore is that in any service the blessing is not an endorsement but a declaration of God’s love. (6)
Lastly, I am concerned that you did not share your views with the recent General Synod/Te Hinota Whanui. In particular as one of our archbishops David you had the power to initiate a discussion and clarification on these important matters.
My final point therefore is that theological and legal opinion across the whole Church needs to be brought to bear on your view.
Yours faithfully,
Archdeacon Glynn Cardy,
Vicar of St Matthew-in-the-City,
Auckland.
Response from Peter Carrell
(1) “Human rights are a gospel imperative.” (Cardy)
Comment: ‘Human rights are a gospel imperative’ is ambiguous. It could mean that securing all human rights is an obligation for gospel people. It could mean that securing some rights (for instance, basic, universal rights to food, water, shelter, and dignity) is an obligation for Christians. The former opens a large discussion on the extent of human rights, on which there is not universal agreement (e.g. does a human embryo have a right to life? Does any human being have the right to any conceivable medical treatment, no matter the cost? Does a terrorist suspect have the right not to be imprisoned on mere suspicion?) It is simply not true that the gospel can be interpreted as providing an imperative to secure all possible human rights. The latter –securing some rights - arguably is a gospel imperative (I would so argue, but some would not), but it is quite unclear that basic, universal human rights includes the right to have a relationship blessed by the church.
(2) “Secondly, prayer is at the heart of the Christian vocation. When Canon Law prohibits a minister praying with people maybe it is the Canon Law that needs to be revised or ignored.” (Cardy)
Comment: This is disingenuous. Prayer is at the heart of the Christian vocation, but that does not mean that prayer cannot be constrained by canon law. Are licensed officers of the church free to pray for members of the Klu Klux Klan, that they might have a good night out persecuting? Is it permissible to pray for demons to be expelled from people who are psychiatrically ill? Might one pray for God’s blessing on a son or daughter determined to take the law into their own hands and hasten an elderly parent’s death? I offer these examples not to equate praying for people in partnership with any or all these situations but to make the point that constraint of prayer ministry by canon law (here I think of Title D on the Maintenance of Ministry Standards) does not necessarily imply canon law needs revision or ignoring.
(3) “I am not aware of anyone in this Province involved in services of blessing for gay/lesbian couples who is justifying their actions by reference to this Canon, or who wish this Canon to be altered or amended.” (Cardy)
Comment: That is a helpful clarification on a matter which may not be obvious to all observers.
(4) “You seem to think that the authorized forms are parameters on what is permissible for worship. Another view is that the authorized forms are guidelines for relevant, creative, and pastoral expressions of worship. On your reading it would seem no minister can use prayers other than those in the NZ Prayer Book or contemplate leading worship in a situation not stipulated in the Prayer Book. In my experience most clergy draw on a range of resources outside of the Prayer Book, or write their own. Indeed it is often from this creative work that revisions in time are made to the authorized forms. […]
I am also aware that the Revd Bosco Peters of the Christchurch Diocese has mounted an argument that there is provision within our authorized forms for a blessing of a relationship.
My third point therefore is that the Church in this Province is not of one mind regarding the role of the authorized forms of worship in determining what is permissible.” (Cardy)
Comment: Again, I think this is disingenuous. The question we are engaging with here is whether or not clergyperson A is authorized to lead a formal service X in respect of context Y. I shall return to this shortly.
The law of the church is that we are required to lead services according to authorized forms or as allowed by lawful authority. (“In public prayer and administration of the sacraments I will use only the forms of service which are authorised or allowed by lawful authority.” (Title A Canon II Declaration)). Nowhere is this law formally granted the ambiguity that some may treat ‘authorised forms’ as ‘guidelines’. It is because the ‘authorized forms’ permit flexibility that many services in parishes have the character of ‘relevant, creative, and pastoral expressions of worship’. But it is also true that services are taking place which go beyond the flexibility of the ‘authorised forms’. (Incidentally ‘lawful authority’ is not necessarily the permission of the local bishop to use an otherwise unauthorized service (though there seems to be debate about this). It does refer to the possibility that “Each Tikanga is authorised to approve forms of service not inconsistent with the Constitution / te Pouhere, or with the Formularies of this Church” (Title G Canon XIV Clause 1)).
Thus, in theory at least, canon law provides for the possibility of discipline in our practice: not anything goes. If canon law offers only ‘guidelines’ then anything is permissible.
Reference to ‘an argument that there is provision within our authorized forms for a blessing of a relationship’ requires further explanation which you do not provide. This argument concerns the Template which, in its original state, as approved by General Synod, appeared to offer liturgical ‘carte blanche’; but General Synod has subsequently in 2006 made an addendum to the Template, constraining us back to ‘authorised forms (while underlining the flexibility of these)’.
Where clergyperson A is invited to lead a formal service X in respect of context Y, the obligation under canon law is to ensure that the service follows ‘authorised forms’. Thus, with respect to leading a formal service of blessing for a civil union (whether of a same sex couple or a mixed sex couple), we cannot so ensure since (a) our church has no authorized form (b) neither our Tikanga Pakeha nor any of the other two Tikanga have allowed such forms.
(Where I think a clergyperson could proceed, without further canonical ado, is with offering informal prayers for two people, particularly in a context where people present were not confused as to whether a ‘formal service’ was being offered; e.g. prayers led in a domestic rather than parish church setting).
(5) “My fourth point therefore is that ‘deep care and restraint’ does not need to be interpreted as stopping ongoing ministries and directions of our Church.” (Cardy)
Comment: It is always possible that circumstances arise in which the church recognizes a need to reflect on current practice and evaluate its canonical and theological validity.
It is arguable that the practice Archdeacon Cardy describes above (a) should not have been happening (b) has been so discreet as to be episcopally unnoticeable, but in a context precipitated by events elsewhere is (c) no longer unnoticeable and thus (d) subject to ‘deep care and restraint’ while reflection and evaluation takes place.
It is also arguable that the controversial events elsewhere were the culmination of a series of ‘facts placed on the ground’, similar to the facts being placed on the ground here in Aotearoa NZ, as described above, which were tolerated for far too long.
The ‘yelp’ of the Communion in respect of New Hampshire etc, is the cry of a church whose willing toleration was misjudged in respect of its limits. Here in ACANZP it is timely that we ask ourselves whether there are or are not limits to our toleration, and a time of ‘deep care and restraint’ gives opportunity for that discussion to take place. (Speaking personally: I acknowledge the quiet and helpful ministry offered over many decades by St Matthews-in-the-City etc, as an expression of diversity within the pastoral pragmatics of Anglicanism, as described above, providing it is indeed ‘pastoral’ rather than ‘political’ in character. But any attempt to ‘politicise’ this practice, e.g. by arguing that because it has been happening without objection, so now we ought to be able to (a) publicly and formally bless same-sex partnerships, or (b) ordain people in same sex partnerships, will lead to a ‘yelp’ within our church).
(6) “My fifth point therefore is that in any service the blessing is not an endorsement but a declaration of God’s love.” (Cardy)
Comment: I think there is imprecision in what is said here about blessing/endorsement. Blessing through a priest can be of a general kind (e.g. the blessing given at the conclusion of a service) or of a particular kind (e.g. the blessing of a couple in a marriage service). I agree that blessing of a general kind is neither merit-based nor based on any other requirement. It is a declaration of God’s unconditional love, peace, and joy – though we could note that in formal Anglican services, it is the conclusion of services in which confession and absolution precedes the blessing, which means that the reception of that love, peace, and joy is unmarred by brokenness in the relationship between God and the blessed.
The blessing of a particular kind is different. In a marriage service, for example, the priest blesses a couple on behalf of God on the basis that the church believes that God blesses marriages (having been instituted by God from the beginning of creation; having been endorsed by Jesus). This blessing is not merit-based if by ‘merit’ we mean the good character of the couple, but it is an endorsement of marriage: at the point of blessing the priest does not bless everyone present, s/he blesses the couple who have vowed and declared their lifelong, permanent, faithful, exclusive ‘one flesh’ commitment to each other, and does so on the basis that God is pleased with this particular form of human commitment. Would a priest bless a couple who made conditional or time-limited vows to each other? Would not this particular blessing be withheld on the basis that God does not endorse such relationships?
This line of analysis of blessing-in-relationship-to-marriage (as an example of blessing of a particular rather than general kind) does not mean that a priest cannot declare that God unconditionally loves people. That declaration might be made in a number of particular circumstances: during the course of a pastoral visit, in a funeral service, within a sermon about the love of God, and so forth. But a declaration of God’s unconditional love in some circumstances could be misconstrued by the recipients of the declaration in respect of God’s approval of those circumstances. In particular, such a declaration in the course of a service marking a civil union could be construed as implying God approves of civil unions when in the case of a heterosexual union God might be disappointed that a marriage was not being entered into; and in the case of a same sex civil union God might not approve of such a union full-stop. (Similar analysis applies in the case of the church’s involvement with the armed forces: the blessing of troops before they go into battle is easily misconstrued as implying that God favours their side rather than their enemies)!
In other words, the theology of blessing is highly contextual. I do not think the words here offer a sufficient account of the contextual character of blessing when performed by the church in the name of God.
Concluding comment: beneath the issues Archdeacon Cardy challenges the archbishop and bishop on lies a moral question about the probity of certain relationships. Currently our church is not of one mind on the answer to that question. I share with Archdeacon Cardy a certain curiosity as to why the recent General Synod 2008 did not include an intention to secure some progress on reaching agreement. I presume reasons for that lack of intention include our commitment to a series of hermeneutical hui, and a desire to see what, if any clarity emerges from the Lambeth Conference 2008.
Peter Carrell
Diocese of Nelson
No comments:
Post a Comment