At the upcoming Tanzania Primates’ meeting, according to The Living Church, Peter Carnley (the chair of the Panel of Reference) “will brief the primates and respond to criticism that the panel has been dilatory in its work.” It will not surprise readers to know that there is increasing unhappiness across the othodox Anglican world, not just for the tortoise-like pace but (with the notable exception of the Fort Worth report) the inadequacy that generally characterizes the Panel’s reports.
The Panel itself was formed following the meeting of the Primates at Dromantine between 20 and 25 February 2005 where they discussed the finished Windsor Report and, as part of their communiqué, they stated:
In order to protect the integrity and legitimate needs of groups in serious theological dispute with their diocesan bishop, or dioceses in dispute with their Provinces, we recommend that the Archbishop of Canterbury appoint, as a matter of urgency, a panel of reference to supervise the adequacy of pastoral provisions made by any churches for such members in line with the recommendation in the Primates’ Statement of October 2003 (xii).
The Panel was given its mandate shortly thereafter (6 May 2005) and almost immediately received a number of applications from various parties. The Panel itself met in plenary session in the middle of July 2005. Despite this start, as of Christmas that same year the members of the Panel had not received a single reference. Since then the Panel appears to have been nothing but “dilatory” in its proceedings with only 2 actual reports produced; Fort Worth in December of 2006 (PDF) and, prior to that, New Westminster in October 2006 (PDF).
Applications made by the Connecticut Six were rejected by the Chair of the Panel, Peter Carnley because (amongst other reasons) the parties were in litigation. This has, in hindsight, surprised a number of us since in the dispute arising in the Diocese of Florida applications from (received by the Panel on 10 May 2006) and a visit to the various parties (26-29 September 2006) were made while litigation was ongoing1. We understand from a source close to the Panel that this visit was authorised by the chair, Peter Carnley, himself.
Not without reason, then, it might be suggested that those responsible for the running of the Panel are not only dilatory but also inconsistent in the way that matters are handled.
But what of the reports themselves? The dismissal of the Fort Worth report by the President of TEC House of Deputies, Bonnie Anderson, is already on record. The report concerning New Westminster, however, appears to have dropped off the radar, so we thought it might be useful to reacquaint our readers with that situation.
One referer to the Panel, Rev. David Short of St John’s, (Shaughnessy) in the Diocese of New Westminster, is strikingly clear in his assessment of the Panel’s process. Speaking to us he said, “The Panel of Reference has failed the parishes in New Westminster.”
That was quite a bold statement so I asked him to explain what lay behind it.
From the beginning, Short told us, the process appeared to be “managed” by the chair, Carnley, and the Anglican Communion Office (ACO), in particular the Secretary General Kenneth Kearon, recently revealed as being less than unbiased in his handling of the current crisis. They were refused permission to meet with the Panel in London and the whole application was reframed in terms of legal process with the language of “plaintiff”, “applicant” and so on used in correspondence. This is a far cry from the pastoral approach that Short was hoping for.
In between the initial application by St. John’ s and others and the visit of 2 Panel members the ACO was in regular contact with the Diocese but not the other party and, when they finally arrived, they refused to meet with all the appealing parishes, representatives of the then “Anglican Communion Network in New Westminster” (ACNiNW), nor leaders of the congregations. It became quite clear that the Primate of Canada, Andrew Hutchison, was directly involved in the process - all the more so when after meeting with some of the parties over 2 days the Panel representatives then had a lengthy meeting with him on the third day despite his not being a party in the original application. Already it was clear to Short that there was a degree of interference in the process going on that was being allowed and even encouraged by Carnley and the ACO.
When the report was released, Short had mixed feelings about it.
“There are a number of things about the Report that are generally helpful - it recognises that the decisions and actions of the Diocese are one of the sources of the current tension. It also notes their intransigence in not taking on the recommendations of the Windsor Report. It also catalogues the hostile action they have taken against us and recognises that the Canadian oversight provisions are inadequate”.
However, these positive observations were more than negated by the failure of the report to properly understand and tackle the true nature of the dispute. In particular,
- It equated the problem of territorial boundary crossing with that of “doctrinal boundary crossing” whereas it was clear in the minds of Short and others that the latter was of a far greater scale.
- It reframed the whole crisis in the Diocese in terms of “old pals not getting along with each other” in a way that completely ignored the depths of the theological nature of the dispute. Para. 6 of the report spoke of “a temporary breakdown in relationships” and thus deeply underplayed the seriousness of the issue which Short and others had communicated to them.
- There was “not one syllable” calling on the Diocese to comply with the requirements of the Windsor Report, despite previously recognising that non-compliance had, up to that point, aggravated the situation.
- That at the heart of the report is an erroneous understanding of episcopal jurisdiction - namely that it cannot be delegated, (contrary to para. 152 of the Windsor Report).
By producing what Short refers to as a “no-solution” and failing to call the Diocese to account the report,
“...institutionalises schism by supporting the jurisdiction of a Bishop who has, with his Diocese, enacted what is schismatic and against the teaching of the scriptures and the Communion and caused ecumenical embarassment.” and thus “...demonstrates to the Diocese and Bishop that they can unilaterally reverse the teaching of scripture and tradition with absolute impunity”.
What is more than clear is that three is absolutely no intent on the part of Bishop Ingham or his Diocese to reverse their contentious position on same-sex marriage.
The “no-solution” has left Short and his colleagues in great difficulty. For five years they have been unable to employ more clergy and are under constant threat from the Diocese so that they use spend money that would be better spent on direct gospel work in employing lawyers to ensure there is adequate legal protection. Short still spends up to one and a half days a week on these matters. More than that, the Anglican Pension Board of Canada recently attempted to cut them off from medical and pension benefits. Short is not so much concerned for himself in this but for a number of his colleagues this is a real issue. One has a wife in remission from cancer and another clergy wife has a severe lung condition requiring drugs costing around $1,000 per month. These are directly threatened by the Board’s action.
So why, I asked him, with all this trouble does he continue the fight? And why not seek alternate oversight from a foreign bishop as so many others have done? His answer comes quickly and clearly:
- Where else do they go from Anglicanism? What arrangements do they come to? They are, after all, not the ones who have moved. It is the Diocese, not them, that has decided to walk apart.
- They are also trying to act in a way that’s going to help as many people across the country as possible to hold to the gospel. If they race off they may hurt people in other parts of Canada who have very little power, money or publicity for their own persecution. They have, instead, chosen to stand with parishes all across the country in a structure known as the Anglican Network in Canada.
- Short is convinced that part of gospel ministry is contending for the truth, not just proclamation. In their context that means an agonising political stance.
Agonising indeed, particularly since those very structures that were meant to support them have failed in that task.
As the report on New Westminster was being finalised a team from the Panel went out to meet disputants in the TEC Diocese of Florida. Here, again, we have seen evidence of negative interference by Carnley and the ACO. It is our understanding that a final draft report was ready for approval in December 2006 but its release was delayed because of a number of amendments and clarifications requested by Carnley that could have been suggested much earlier, and by input from a senior member of Canterbury’s staff, again at the express request of Carnley and Cameron.
Not only this, but it appears that deliberate attempts are being made to change the tenor of the report. We have been provided with copies of both the draft report from the end of December and also the draft narrative section of that report which was sent in January to both sides in the dispute for their agreement. Missing from that second draft was a key paragraph in the section outlining the wider context of the dispute. That deleted paragraph reads as follows:
In a considered response to the ongoing crisis the Archbishop of Canterbury delivered in June 2006 a statement to the Anglican Communion entitled “Challenge and Hope”. He endorses the proposal for establishing an Anglican Covenant and anticipates varying responses to this development. He foresaw “a situation where there were ‘constituent’ Churches in covenant in the Anglican Communion and other ‘churches in association’, which were still bound by historic and perhaps personal links, fed from many of the same sources, but not bound in a single and unrestricted sacramental communion, and not sharing the same constitutional structures”.
In the context of the report the purpose of the paragraph is clear. It signals that there is to be a change in the future structure of the Communion that will have a direct bearing on the proposed solutions contained later in the draft report. Removing the paragraph eliminates this sense of trajectory and undermines the solution more likely to be favoured by the parishes in the dispute. That solution seeks to provide adequate structures while both parties await “a new situation linked with a Communion-wide resolution of the controversy”.
To remove the paragraph, then, is to underplay deliberately the almost inevitable realignment that is occurring around us.
In mid-February Peter Carnley will have to explain to the Primates (who he previously sat amongst) why the Panel of Reference, set up “as a matter of urgency” appears to be operating with anything but a sense of urgency, and its leadership show every sign of being biased in their important task. More than that, our sources tell us that there is growing anxiety amongst members of the Panel at these issues and an unhappiness with the way Carnley has facilitated matters (or not, as the case may be). We thought it best that there should be transparency in this so that a full and frank conversation might be had between the Primates, Carnley, Kearon and others.
1 The Diocese commenced civil proceedings 27 March 2006, Case No:16-2006-CA-2361.Division: CV-B, Circuit Court, 4th Judicial Circuit, Duval County, Florida
74 Comments •
The way the faithful parishes in New Westminister and Connecticut have been hung out to dry by the Panel of Reference is shameful.
The Archbishop of Canterbury bears responsibility for this. He certainly did not treat the appointment of the Panel as very urgent. And when he finally got around to it, he made poor appointments.