Back on 21 June, I reported under the title who said that? that Jonathan Petre had said in the Telegraph that one of the authors of the paper submitted to the Lambeth Commission by Drexel Gomez was none other than Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester, a diocesan bishop in the Church of England. I expressed doubt about this. At that time, the papers had been published only on the website of “Anglican Mainstream” and carried no signatures.
But the two documents, Called to Witness and Fellowship and The current crisis in the Anglican Communion – what are the ecclesiological issues involved? have now been published by the Lambeth Commission itself and can be found in pdf format here and here.
The argument that Robinson’s consecration is invalid which formed the basis for Petre’s story and the subsequent one in the CEN was contained in the second paper. The first paper says about it:
We endorse and attach the enclosed paper on “The Current Crisis in the Anglican Communion - what are the Ecclesiological Issues involved?” prepared by a group of eminent theologians in the Communion.
That group of eminent theologians turns out to be:
Professor Oliver O’Donovan (England)
Professor Alister McGrath (England)
The Very Rev Dr Paul Zahl (USA)
Canon Dr Kendall Harmon (USA)
Rev Dr George Sumner (Canada)
Rev Dr Andrew Goddard (England)
Canon Dr Chris Sugden (England)
And the signatories of the other paper which endorses what they wrote are:
Archbishop Drexel Gomez (West Indies)
Archbishop Bernard Malango (Central Africa)
Bishop Gideon Githiga ( representing Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi- Kenya)
Bishop Amos Madu (representing Archbishop Peter Akinola - Nigeria)
Archbishop Josiah Idowu Fearon (Kaduna, Nigeria)
Bishop Robert Duncan (Pittsburgh, USA)
Bishop Robinson Cavalcanti (Recife, Brazil - representing Latin America)
Bishop Michael Nazir Ali (Rochester, England)
Bishop James Stanton (Dallas, USA)
Professor Lamin Sanneh (Yale, USA)
Professor John Pobee (Ghana)
Canon Dr Vinay Samuel (India)
Canon Martyn Minns (USA)
Canon Bill Atwood (USA)
Canon Dr Chris Sugden (England)
Dr Timothy Shah (USA/India)
Mr Craig Nauta (USA)
I still find it extremely surprising that Michael Nazir-Ali subscribes to the argument of the second paper. But that appears to be the case.
Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Thursday, 8 July 2004 at 8:36 AM GMT | TrackBackHow then can we be sure of the validity of anyone’s ordination, to whatever order of ministry?
Posted by: simon at July 8, 2004 01:58 PMI am embarrassed to find the signature of my own Bishop, James Stanton of the Diocese of Dallas, ECUSA, amongst those signing the other paper which endorses what they wrote.
Please know that this does not represent the opinions of all Episcopalians in our Diocese…
Posted by: David Huff at July 8, 2004 02:09 PMSimon, with respect, if you are asking this question, it seems to indicate you do not understand the argument of the paper. Clearly the people involved in producing it such as Oliver O’Donovan, one of the finest moral theologians in the world, would not be claiming the kind of case which would make all ordinations invlaid.
What do you understand the argument of the paper to be?
Posted by: Kendall Harmon at July 9, 2004 01:13 PMThe paper’s authors are proposing to seize control of the episcopal selection process by “packing the court” (or perhaps a better metaphor is gerrymandering). The rigor of their argument falls far short of what one might hope for from such a distinguished group.
The authors note that the bishop “holds in unity the local church with every other local church with which it is in communion.” They appear to claim that maintaining communion is among the most important duties of a bishop, and perhaps even the highest duty. Personally I think that puts the cart before the horse, but for the sake of argument, let’s accept the authors’ claim, dubious though it is.
The authors then assert that “[i]n order to function in this way a bishop has to be accepted as a bishop of the Catholic Church by other bishops.” (Sic; emphasis added.)
The paper doesn’t address the obvious, and crucial, next question: Just who are these “other bishops” by whom a putative bishop must be accepted? Do they include Roman Catholics? Lutherans? Retired bishops, or just active ones? Suffragans, or just diocesans? Who decides all these questions?
The paper does not even begin to address these issues, save for a casual remark that “[i]n the present divided state of the Christian Church it is impossible for Anglican bishops to receive universal ecumenical recognition ….” No kidding. Again, just where will we (re)draw the lines of the voting districts, and who will decide this?
(Footnote: Then the paper fails to explore related issues that would inevitably come up. What voting procedures should be required? What should be a sufficient quorum? Should the acceptance vote be unanimous? A simple majority? A supermajority? Again, who decides?)
Unhappily for the authors’ argument, Gene Robinson has already been accepted as a bishop by “other bishops.” The other bishops are, of course, a majority of the ECUSA House of Bishops, duly voting in accordance with ECUSA’s constitution and canons. The authors fail to persuade that a change in the process is in order, let alone their proposed change.
Posted by: D. C. Toedt at July 9, 2004 03:48 PM