Today is a sad day for the Anglican Communion ~ 4th November, 2006.

On the same day that Mrs Katharine Jefferts Schori was ordained Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church in America, bringing with her non-orthodox doctrine and schism within the church, the Bishop of Dunedin went ahead despite protest and ordained a practising homosexual man as deacon within the Church of England in New Zealand. This too flies in the face of orthodox doctrine and further cements schism within the church.

During the ceremony, the Bishop of Dunedin (the Right Rev George Connor) asked the congregation whether the deacons should be ordained. Three people - Rev Malcolm Falloon, Rev Wally Behan and John Bryant, all of Christchurch - said they should not, and when the response of three objectors went unheeded, they left quietly.

The Rev Falloon rightfully claims that the ordination is not consistent with the rules of the church, which had from its first days insisted on marriage or celibacy for its ordained ministers. To proceed with the ordination was also to dismiss calls for a moratorium on the ordination of gay clergy from Anglican leaders worldwide. Most people ordained as deacons are subsequently ordained as priests after a short time. However, the Dunedin diocese has a liberal track record, having in the past welcomed a gay priest to be dean of St Paul’s Cathedral and installing a woman, the Rt Rev Penny Jamieson, as its bishop. The Anglican Church internationally is divided on the ordination of gay clergy, and New Zealand churches are generally regarded as being at the liberal end of the Anglican spectrum.

Statement of Protest at Dunedin Ordination

The following is the letter that the Rev Falloon, member of the Latimer Fellowship, wrote the day before to the Bishop of Dunedin as a last entreaty to stop the ordination going ahead.

November 3, 2006

Dear Bishop George,

I urgently ask you to reconsider your actions in the light of the Statement of your own Diocesan Council. For they plainly state that they are aware of divergent views about same-sex ordinations, yet say they are satisfied that this ordination is consistent with the rules of our church.

Forgive me for being blunt, but since when does a Diocesan Council make decision for the the whole church? Especially when they themselves admit that there are differing views in our Church. Even if you take one particular view on what is permitted, you must wait until proper constitutional process has taken place. To not uphold the discipline and due process as given in our constitution places you in breach of the very canons you are claiming as the basis of proceeding with the ordination.

If it is so clear that same-sex relationships can be blessed and that persons in such relationships can be ordained, why has our General Synod not passed a resolution declaring this to be the case? Why has so much distressed been caused in our church over something that is meant to be plain? The facts are that, at the very least, this has not been tested against our canons and therefore all such ordinations must wait until that process has taken place. In this regard, it is a simple matter of justice for those who disagree with you.

For it places our Archbishops and the house of Bishops in a extremely difficult position. Do they share your view concerning same-sex blessings? If so, why are they unable to say so publicly? If they take different views on the matter (as appears to be the case), then you must postpone the ordination until there is agreement as to what our constitution does and does not permit. Due process is just as much a part of our constitution as the rules themselves.

It also places me and others who share my views in a difficult position. For under Title D we are required to exercise a duty of collaboration with their colleagues in this Church. Since our church has not yet finished its process of discernment on this matter, how can we in good conscience maintain such a duty?

The same paragraph (Canon 1, Part A, paragraph 3) also requires that all ordained ministers have a public duty of ensuring the regulations and Canons of this Church are complied with. Therefore, for this ordination to proceed, it will not only disregard the views of a large section of our church but will also precipitate a constitutional crisis for which there has been no precedence (as claimed by your Diocesan Council).

Ordinations are for the whole church and so it is wrong for the particular opinion of any one Bishop and Diocesan Council to circumvent a process that should involve us all.

Yours sincerely

Malcolm Falloon
(Latimer Warden)

When the Church Loses its Way” - echoes of Bishop Latimer’s 16th century call for reformation.

The liberal faction keeps insisting that we all “listen” to each other, and that this listening process goes on and on and on for an interminable length of time. I am not sure anymore what we are to “listen” to. Is it each other? Or for a change of God’s mind on matters? For centuries now the church has been quite clear about what is God’s mind on matters of sexual immorality and false doctrine, but now it is being claimed that He might have changed His mind - we must listen to hear Him say so - just as our culture changes according to new ideas of mankind. This is not a case of “picking on” homosexuality, but it is a case of a mounted political attack by the gay lobby who has pushed their agenda on all of us. Equally unsuitable for a leadership role in the church would be someone in a committed relationship involving extra-marital affairs, or incest, or paediaphilia, or bestiality, or drug addiction, or burglary, or fraud. We are being pressured to believe that homosexuality is a legitimate lifestyle, not a lifestyle of deliberate sin that the Bible says that it is. And so we must keep listening for God to catch up with the times, to acknowledge that He had got it wrong. Do read Homosexuality and the Great Commandment by The Very Rev. Dr. Peter C. Moore. Well, it is no wonder we are having to listen a long time. But what is this? While listening and listening, the liberals are going ahead regardless? Unable to wait for God, or for conservative Christians to catch up, they are taking the Church down this heterodoxical path away from the narrow gate we are told to go through. By making such choices they are losing the Way.

And a statement from Bishop George Connor, Anglican Bishop of Dunedin, and the Diocesan Council of the Diocese of Dunedin…

The Bishop and the Diocesan Council are satisfied that this ordination [of someone in a committed same sex relationship] is consistent with the rules of our church and with the past practice of this diocese.

They are aware that divergent views are held in the church about such ordinations, and that people of good will and deeply reasoned faith stand on both sides of the argument.

It is in the nature of our sexuality that it evokes deep responses, linked to our sense of identity, and those responses can be polarising: Issues of human sexuality are currently a matter of debate in the world wide Anglican Communion and in this country and diocese.

Bishop Connor and the Dunedin Diocesan Council rejoice at the beginning of these new ministries and pray that the new deacons be supported in their ministry.

They also acknowledge the pain of those who cannot agree with this decision and commit themselves to listening and dialogue and further exploration of the issues.

I am left shaking my head. So much for all this ridiculous “listening” when they take no notice of anything but themselves.