Some thoughts on the New Zealand response to the proposal from Sydney

On 9 May this year the Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia passed a motion at its General Synod (‘Motion 29’) that will allow its bishops to permit the blessing of same-sex relationships, including same-sex civil marriages, in their dioceses.

On 23 August the Archbishop of Sydney, Glen Davies, wrote to ACANZP putting forward a proposal for the future development of Anglicanism in New Zealand and Polynesia in the light of the passing of this motion.[1]

He noted that:

‘….dissenting churches from Christchurch and elsewhere cannot in good conscience remain in ACANZP, despite the gracious offer of alternative oversight from Polynesian bishops. The problem is that these brothers and sisters cannot continue to be a part of a Church which in their understanding has changed its Canons to allow the blessing of same-sex couples living in sinful relationships. Yet these brothers and sisters are still Anglican, and recognised as such by most Anglicans around the world.’

His solution to this issue was to propose that a new Anglican church should be formed in New Zealand to provide a home for these people. This church would co-exist alongside the ACAZNP in the same way that the Diocese of Gibraltar in Europe and the Convocation of Episcopal Churches in Europe currently co-exist alongside each other in continental Europe.

In his words

‘…there would be two Anglican Churches in New Zealand, just as there are in Europe, both recognised by Canterbury as being Anglicans, by their historical connection to the formularies of the 16th and 17th century, and thereby both sharing a common Anglican heritage.’

For this solution to work he said,

‘… the ACANZP would need to allow parishes to decide whether they would leave the ACANZP to join a parallel and overlapping Anglican Diocese/Province. This would include the retention of their property, which would continue to be held in trust for the benefit of the parish. This should be the outcome of the ‘respectful conversations’ that the Motion 29 Report called for in Section H2. Each Anglican expression would recognise the other as having Anglican heritage, despite their significant differences on the issue at hand.’

In his view, if ACANZP were to adopt this proposal it could:

‘… lead the way in expressing generosity of Spirit to those who find themselves unable to accommodate the new consensus. This would be a model not only for other provinces, but for the Anglican Communion as a whole.’

On 13 November Archbishop Donald Tamihere and Archbishop Philip Richardson replied to Archbishop Davies on behalf of the General Synod Standing Committee of ACANZP.[2] In their reply they note that Anglicanism in New Zealand has been shaped by a specific two hundred year history and that:

‘To be Anglican in this land requires that we, led by our Lord Jesus Christ, face into this shared history so that we can help shape a common future for all people based on peace and justice and righteousness.’

They then argue that this means that in order to be ‘committed to that fundamental consequence of being Anglican in Aotearoa New Zealand’ people have to remain in the existing ‘constitutional and Treaty-based relationships’ which were reflected in the passing of Motion 29. As they see it, it would be impossible to recognise as Anglican a body that was not bound by the ‘laws and promises and solemn commitments’ of the current ACANZP.

On this basis they say they are unable to accept Archbishop Davies’ proposal. To an outside observer, however, it is not clear why this should be the case.

It is perfectly reasonable to say that any form of Anglicanism in New Zealand needs to reflect the distinctive history of New Zealand. However, there is no reason why the sort of parallel Anglican jurisdiction proposed by Archbishop Davies could not do this.

Prior to the passing of Motion 29, the version of Anglicanism that existed in New Zealand reflected the history of that country without accepting that it was legitimate to bless same-sex relationships. Why then would it be impossible for there to continue to be a form of Anglicanism in New Zealand that reflected that country’s history while still not accepting the legitimacy of blessing same-sex relationships?

What has historically been unique about ACAZNP is that has been a form of Anglicanism that has given constitutional recognition to the existence within it of three ethnic groups, or Tikanga, the Maoris, the Polynesians and the Pakeha or Europeans. There is no necessary connection between this and the blessing of same-sex relationships.

What if it were possible to develop a new Anglican body in New Zealand that made provision for the constitutional recognition of the three Tikanga as ACANZP currently does while continuing to hold on to an orthodox biblical view of human sexuality? On what grounds would the objection by Archbishops Tamihere and Richardson to Archbishop Davies’ proposal still have force?

What would be interesting would be for someone to develop a proposal for a new Anglican body in New Zealand along the lines just outlined and submit that to ACANZP. Their reaction to such a proposal would make it clear whether the objection was to a jurisdiction that ignored the New Zealand context or simply to any form of alternative jurisdiction outside of ACANZP



5 thoughts on “Some thoughts on the New Zealand response to the proposal from Sydney

  1. The NZ reply was only a pretext – playing the race card, even. In fact, the Pasifika tihanga is against M29. The NZ hierarchy is terrified about losing its strongest churches.

    • Knowing quite a bit of the background to this ACANZP reply, and Archbishop Glenn Davies genuine and warm welcome in accepting the invitation to meet face to face to discuss his proposal, I find this comment by Brian very unhelpful and unworthy. It makes assumptions about motives that God alone knows (and for which we are all accountable), and anyone with a knowledge of the complexity of Tikanga relationships (not ‘tihanga’) would know that these are not pretexts. To suggest they amount to ‘playing the race card’ is massively patronising and reflects a western mindset and assumption. Again, I urge those making comments or reflection to make a better effort to learn more of the bi-cultural context in Aotearoa NZ. In my view, Archbishop Glenn’s proposal is very helpful, but the ACANZP reply is saying that it is similar to what ACANZP is already seeking to do *within* the relational space of the church, not as a stand apart existence over and against the church. Within the existing extended Anglican whanau, not outside it. I also know that the ACANZP will graciously farewell (with sadness) churches that choose to leave, but seek to do so in the context of respectful relationships, not legal intimidation.

  2. With all due respect Martin (genuinely), I believe you have misunderstood the import of the ACANZP response. They are affirming that to be Anglican in ANZ&P is to be *relational*, not just claim a shared history. To be Anglican in ANZ&P is to be whānau (sort of extended family, but much more complex than that), with a continuing commitment to participate and contribute to the Anglican whānau. That is what this shared history creates: a shared identity and common life. It is all embodied in the pōwhiri (welcoming ceremony), which starts with and is shaped around naming and respecting your tangata whenua (host people) history, and culminates in the hongi, sharing the breath of life as a sign of unity.

    I mention all of this not to be critical, but to ask that those of a European background take care to understand this statement from the ACANZP carefully, and to seek further learning in regard to the emphasis here that is grounded in, and continuing to honour, a shared history and the necessarily relational understanding of identity (albeit Anglican). The ongoing ACANZP has intentionally and with genuine concern sought to provide space with integrity for those who do not accept the pastoral blessing of same sex unions.

  3. I find the ACANZP response highly offensive and as a New Zealander whose family is partially Maori and have been in the Anglican church, we have never accepted the three Tikanga structure as scriptural in fact more Maori are represented in the original church.
    Tim Harris response is further attempt to manipulate things in this style of false teaching, and mixing issues that are irrelevant.
    There is an amazing lack of scripture referred to in the ACANZP response and as the bible has ceased to be the foundation of the ACANZP doctrine I have resigned as a synod rep on the Auckland diocese and from my local parish role.
    It’s past the point of trying to appease or negotiate with ACANZP. We need to follow scripture
    ‘Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.,’
    2 Thessalonians 3:6 KJV

    • Exactly, Harold. These are irrelevant things that obscure the truth.
      NZ cultural history is not the issue. The issue is that Motion 7 contradicts the unmistakable teachings of Christ:
      1. He grounded marriage in God’s creation of male and female, the two made one in life-long commitment.
      2. Sexual activity outside of this He called evil, coming from the hearts of men, not from God.
      Some things are disputable, that Christians may hold different opinions about, but sexual morality is not among them. Jesus could not have been more explicit: sexual immorality is to chastity as flesh is to Spirit, and death to life. The implications for the Christian hope of the Gospel should be obvious. Do we gain a share in Christ’s risen life through hearing only – or through hearing and doing? Through faithfulness or unfaithfulness?

      I’m sad to read you have had to resign your position on synod, as the church desperately needs voices like yours, however hopeless the prospect of a change of heart in our leadership is. But they have yet to provide a clearly reasoned, scripturally faithful defence of Motion 7. This is preposterous, and they should be ashamed of themselves. The blessing of homosexual relationships runs counter to clear biblical teachings, and demands a clearly reasoned and scripturally faithful explanation from them. We believers have an obligation, to Christ and the Church, to hold the leadership to account until they provide such a defence. Their position, as it stands, is an admission that they don’t actually believe in Christ at all.

      Christ continues to be despised and rejected, even amongst his own flock, his own shepherds.

Leave a Reply to Brian Cancel 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