Bishop Philip Richardson – Gays and The Church

White collar crime?


Bishop refutes “white collar crime”

Refer to the web site of Auckland’s St Matthew-in-the-City and you will be immediately confronted by a striking graphic. There you will see a black silhouette of a bishop wearing a white collar set against a pink background. Across the graphic is the headline “Stop white collar crime”. Visitors to the site are invited to “ask NZ bishops to end their discrimination against gays and lesbians” by signing an on-line petition.

According to the petition’s preamble, bishops are accused of giving “offence to the Gospel” and of hypocrisy by refusing to select or ordain “any gay and lesbian candidates unless they are committed to permanent celibacy.” Concern and criticism come from across the spectrum of this debate.

A correspondent recently accused me of failing to “uphold biblical standards of holiness of life” by not declaring unequivocally and publically that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful and a denial (the words in the letter were somewhat stronger) of God’s intentions for human beings.  The writer argued that I should be prepared to exercise the “judgement I was ordained to exercise  – for the good of the Church”.

But let’s go back to the St Matthew’s website – because there is also an assertion there that the Archbishop of the New Zealand Dioceses, David Moxon, has been justifying discrimination of gay and lesbian people on the basis of not wanting to offend other parts of the Anglican Communion. Furthermore, elsewhere on the St Matthew’s site we read that ‘newly elected bishops’ have been urged to toe the line on these issues.

Meanwhile, another personal correspondent recently observed to me that our bishops are sitting on their hands, failing to act or to speak collectively and decisively on this matter:  Clearly, they said, this was a tactic to “wear the conservative  position down with delaying tactics in order to facilitate your transparently obviousliberal  agenda”.

So: Judgement avoided? or Justice denied? Neither, in my view.

By virtue of my office I am called to exercise judgement in accordance with the constitution and canons of this church which I am required to uphold. Both are silent on the issues concerned here.

Equally as a “white, straight male” bishop there is an argument to be put that I have little or no experience of marginalisation and oppression and therefore cannot know its impact or cost. That may be true. However, as a bishop I do have a responsibility to ensure that justice comes fulsomely, unequivocally and constitutionally. I believe that it is for the whole church, and not bishops – either individually or even collectively – to determine the doctrinal position of this church on any matter.

It is my view that what is required is General Synod agreement around a doctrinal position on a) sexual orientation, b) the blessing of committed, monogamous same-gender relationships, and c) the ordination of those in such relationships. Only on this basis can good judgement be exercised and full justice offered.

As an aside, there is a range of views about the degree to which our understanding of the autonomy of each bishop is moderated by our relationships. Let me offer two further comments on this.

When a diocese moves to choose a new bishop they gather in an electoral college. The purpose of that electoral college is to nominate a person to be confirmed by  the whole church  as a bishop for  the whole church . Equally, when a person is presented to a bishop for ordination as a deacon or a priest, they are presented by the church to the bishop to be ordained as a deacon or priest in the church of God not in or for a particular diocese.

There is much discussion at the moment about the degree to which our constitutional inter-relationships within this province  should or should not be taken into account by any individual diocese or hui amorangi. In other words, it is argued that we are constitutionally required to take seriously the diversity of views between dioceses and nga hui amorangi even if we are not persuaded that such considerations should extend between provinces of the Anglican Communion.

Archbishop Moxon has argued that such considerations are important and need to be taken into the debate on the proposed Anglican Covenant. But he has never suggested, in my hearing at least, that such considerations should be determinative in this Church reaching an agreed doctrinal position on sexual orientation, the blessing of committed, life-long, monogamous same-gender relationships and the ordination of those in such relationships.

I believe that General Synod needs to reach an agreed position on these three inter-related issues, in the following order:

First, whether sexual orientation towards those of one’s own gender is a consequence of wilful human sinfulness, or an expression of God-given diversity. This in itself requires the process of collective biblical exegesis, prayer and discussion and debate which we are engaged in.

Secondly: Depending on our collective answer to the first question, the church might then  be in a position to move to the development of a formulary for the blessing of committed, life-long, monogamous, relationships other than marriage.

It is worth making the point that as bishops of the Diocese of Waikato and Taranaki we have suspended the licenses of heterosexual ministers living in relationships other than marriage (for example, in civil unions) for exactly the reason that there is no agreed position in this church on the status of committed relationships other than marriage.

Thirdly,  the church could agree that such relationships so blessed and formally recognised by the church meet the standards of holiness of life that is the call on every Christian life, and is required to be reflected in the lives of those called by God and affirmed by the church to holy orders.

This kind of thorough-going process happened with the ordination of women. So when I was accused of apostasy by an Australian bishop a few years ago because I was part of a Church that ordained women, I was proud to be so accused.

I was secure in the knowledge that my church had done its homework and had agreed at the highest level of authority, our General Synod, that such ordinations were valid and had been rigorously tested by our processes over many years.

We had studied the scriptures together, we had explored the doctrinal implications together, and we had as the whole Church (bishops, clergy and laity in synod) reached an agreed position under, as we believed, the guidance and inspiration of God’s Holy Spirit.

Even with all that time and care it was possible that we could have arrived at an incorrect conclusion, and my Australian colleague clearly believed we had. But as a bishop of this Church in ordaining women I was doing so in accordance with explicit decisions of our General Synod.

There are those who argue that because the canons of this church and the formularies that order our life are silent on committed, life-long, monogamous relationships other than marriage between couples of the same sex, or heterosexual couples, bishops are free to ordain people in those kinds of relationships. In other words, there is no constraint on their freedom to ordain whomever they please. This is an argument from omission – and one which we did not apply to the ordination of women.

In my view, a bishop is not free to act unilaterally and so individually try to create  the church’s doctrinal position on these matters. Bishops are, as I have already said, bishops in the Church of God, ordaining deacons and priests in and for the whole church.

As a whole church we are required to do the hard, painful work; to explore the scriptures, to work through the doctrinal issues, to look at the legal and constitutional requirements, to pray together, to debate together, and to come to agreement across the dioceses and nga hui amorangi and across the three houses.

Bishops have a particular leadership role in this, and should exercise it. But such leadership does not include pre-empting this process. We are specifically required by ordination vow and canonical assent to uphold the constitution and canons of this church.

What if a bishop was to decide to act without the explicit authorisation of the canons?

It is clear that this could be challenged under Title D.

While I would not presume to predict the outcome of such a case, what is clear is that the process would leave the decision to one or at best three people . So such a decision, and effectively a determination on this church’s doctrinal position on these matters, would in no way be representative of this church.

And if a Title D process found against the bishop, one result would be for a public determination that the ordination in question was invalid. That would be devastating for all concerned. So: Judgement avoided? or Justice denied?

Neither in my view, there are simply no short cuts. We have to do the hard work.

Bishop Philip Richardson, Bishop in Taranaki


May God’s Holy Name be praised! It is good to read, on this Pentecost Sunday 2011, of Bishop Philip Richardson’s response to The Revd. Glynn McCardy’s (Vicar of Saint Matthews Anglican Church, Auckland) challenge to the Church on the issue of the place of the LGBT community in the life and worship of the Church – with particular reference to the Ordination of Gays.

If only ACANZP could begin the process of authentic discernment of the validity of claims made by the LGBT community: that they are the recipients of a God-given sexual orientation, worthy of being considered for inclusion among the ranks of the ordained ministry of our Church – on the same basis as the required integrity standards of the heterosexual community – then there might be hope of a more wide-spread openness to the possibility of a more useful process of dialogue on this matter in the Communion.

Above all, LGBT persons who are active in their Christian Faith and practice, would desire nothing more than that this could happen – first in ACANZP and then in the wider Churches of the Anglican Communion. The fact that this discernment process has already happened in T.E.C. (The American Episcopal Church) – and, to a lesser degree, in the Anglican Church of Canada, as far as Same Sex Blessings are concerned – should not blind us to the fact that even our mother Church, the Church of England (which still has problems over the Ordination of Women Bishops) has not yet come to  a position where they are able to openly accept the candidature of a celibate, same-sex-partnered Gay clergy-person for the role of a bishop in that Church. (The recent debacle over the denial of the selection of Dean Jeffrey John of St. Alban’s, to become Bishop of Southwark, U.K. is a case in point).

Bishop Philip is surely correct when he states that, at this point in time, whatever his own views about homosexuality and it’s significance for the doctrine of our Church, he is bound by his terms of appointment as a Bishop in ACANZP to abide by the Constitution. This is a reality in the life of our Church in Aotearoa/New Zealand, and until such time as the Church elects to  come to a common agreement on the issue of sexual-orientation and it’s concomitant doctrinal implications through a determination of General Synod of ACANZP, the Bishops are constrained against any action that will run counter to the status quo.

In the light of this, it will be important, in the interests of justice in the Church, to speedily convene the appropriate discernment groups to examine the scriptural, traditional and evidential aspects of the issues of sexuality and gender, as they are encountered in the Church and the World of today, in order that the claims of the LGBT membership of the Church might be thoroughly heard and investigated. It would be wholly good if ACANZP could be one of the catalysts in this area of the hermeneutical process, bringing these particular issues, and the need for further discussion and agreement on them, to the notice of the A.C.C. and other Provinces of the Communion, by it’s timely action.

Father Ron Smith, Christchurch (Thanks to ‘Anglican Taonga‘ for the article)

About kiwianglo

Retired Anglican priest, living in Christchurch, New Zealand. Ardent supporter of LGBT Community, and blogger on 'Thinking Anglicans UK' site. Theology: liberal, Anglo-Catholic & traditional. regarding each person as a unique expression of Christ, and therefore lovable.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Bishop Philip Richardson – Gays and The Church

  1. Joe O'Leary says:

    kiwianglo, your patience is angelic — reminds me of the Irish waiting to be granted Home Rule a century ago.

  2. Gail Young says:

    General Synod has NO authority over Doctrine. Where is your leadership Archbishop Richardson. . Resign now if you can’t uphold your ordinal vows.

    • kiwianglo says:

      I think you will find, Gail, that our General Synod has authority over the way we ‘handle’ doctrine in ACANZP. My prayer is that our Church will begin to welcome the sort of people that Jesus welcomed – and that means everyone. I have personal experience of Archbishop-Elect Philip’s commitment to Christ and The Church, and I trust him. Blessings!

      • Gail Young says:

        The Anglican Church in Aotearoa NZ & Polynesia was formed by the revision in 1992 of
        the 1857 Constitution which established the branch of the Church of England in the colony of New Zealand. In that Constitution there are six fundamental provisions which
        General Synod or any of the other Synods cannot change. Clause 1 of the Fundamental
        Provisions defines the Doctrine of the Church NZ. It is clear that the Doctrine of the Church NZ is the Scriptures as explained in the Book of Common Prayer and the 39
        Articles. Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the Fundamental Provisions were revised by Parliament (NZ) and the Church of England Empowering Act 1928. Article 20 of the 39 Articles makes it quite clear that General Synod has powers over the governance of the Church.
        In regards to questions of Doctrine of the Church, the Bishops and the Bishops alone have authority. The Constitution and Canons require all Ministers from Bishops down to
        adhere to the Doctrine of the Church. The ordination of people living in same-sex
        relationships and the blessing of those relationships cannot be considered within the
        terms of the Constitution. Any priest or Bishop who cannot accept the Doctrine of the
        Church should consider whether their inward call to serve God is really in the Anglican
        Church of Aotearoa NZ & Polynesia.

  3. “The ordination of people living in same-sex relationships and the blessing of those relationships cannot be considered within the terms of the Constitution'” – Gail Young –

    Well, Gail, I guess your assertions will soon be tested. Obviously, you are not in favour of any change to the Constitution of ACANZP. However, it is both the charge of General Synod AND the Bishops of the Church who decide these things – not minority advocates of either persuasion.

    • Gail Young says:

      It certainly will be tested if General Synod utilises any powers or provisions in the Church of England Empowering Act to alter or diminish the Doctrine of Clause 1; Sec. 7. of that Act provides for the issue of whether it is a bona fide exercising of those powers in the Act by the High Court NZ. Also, if the attempt to alter or diminish the Doctrine is undertaken through any powers in the Constitution itself; it becomes unconstitutional and therefore a breach of civil law. There is legal precedence concerning churches which have tried to change their Doctrine. It was held that they forfeited all rights to their assets property and pension funds. We certainly don’t want to follow the debacle which the presiding Bishop has allowed to occur in the Episcopal Church in North America where it is alledged they have spent $22,000,000.00 litigating against orthodox parishes.
      We certainly object to the perceived injustices and discrimunation against the gays being
      used as a trojan horse to entrench post-liberal and post modernistic doctrine into the
      Church unconstitutionally.

  4. Gail Young says:

    typo : “discrimination”

    Also, the Anglican community take issue with the fact that Clay Nelson and Glynn Cardy are trying to drag OUR Anglican Church NZ into their Unitairan Universalist views. St Matthews Church in Auckland is not Christian as they deny Christ’s Divinity and physical Resurrection. The Bishop has every right to remove these priest’s licences. The Auckland Bishop and the newly appointed Archbishop are men of compromise – and we know what Saul said to Samuel when he repented , that he was afraid of the people and listened to their voice.
    The Easter banner at St Matthews may be an omen for these two priests. Bring on their resignation! They have every right to initiate a fund to build a church of their own. In their departure they would be leaving a beautiful historic church to be used for the worship of a
    Glorious Trinitarian God.

  5. I am just going to reply to this latest of your assertions, Gail, and then leave you free to set up your own web-site – oppositional to the provenance of ACANZP – which is your position.

    Your view on the theology of Saint Matthew’s in the City, in Auckland, is one that many fundamentalist, conservatives in the Church might agree with. However, it is not necessarily the view of many other Anglicans – who see the need for a radical shift in attitudes towards Women and the LGBT community among us as a part of Jesus’ challenge in the Gospel. Jesus was persecuted by the religious powers for his openness to Sinners – like you and me.

    Jesus, in his treatment of women, for instance, was radical in his time, speaking to a several-times married Samaritan woman at the well, and sending Mary Magdalene to tell the male disciples about the reality of His Resurrection. Because of the .’women-subordination’ ethos of the time, they did not believe her.

    Jesus’ only mention of what might be considered to be his attitude towards Gays in the Church, comes in his talk about eunuchs, in Matt:19:11-12 where , in the context of other relationships, he speaks of 3 types of eunuch (unable, or unwilling to procreate). The first of these was: “eunuchs who are so from their mother’s womb”. Who do you think these might be? And how does the Church treat them? These are issues which, in the Church of today, with its access to modern biology, sociology, up-to-date hermeneutics and enlightened theology, has to address more realistically.

    Jesus was crucified for his outrageous love and acceptance of people on the margins. Our Church in Aotearoa/New Zealand/Pacifica is doing its best to emulate Jesus’example.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.