Please sign the guestbook and view it.

Louie & Ernest Clay-Crew
Married February 2, 1974


12/21/1974
 
8/17/2006

Urgent Appeal Letter From An Anglican Priest in Hong Kong

FUNG Chi Wood (Rev.) B.Sc., M.Div.,

Full-time priest, Diocese of Hong Kong & Macao (Anglican), ordained in 1982,

Legislative Councillor in Hong Kong (1991-95)

Address: All Saints' Church, 11 Pak Po Street, Mongkok, Kowloon, HONG KONG.

Tel: (Office) 852- 2385 4111, (Home) 852- 2651 7733; Fax (Home): 852- 2651 7733; Pager: 852- 7229 5543; E-mail: fungcwood@hknet.com

Homepage on Internet

Dear Archbishop Carey, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Participants of ACC-10, concerned Anglicans and Friends:

Peace of the Lord be with you.

This is the abridged version of my original appeal letter of about 16 pages long. The original appeal letter could be sent upon request, and it is in my homepage on the Internet.

I. WHY THIS APPEAL LETTER IS WRITTEN

The Diocese of Hong Kong & Macao is scheduled to form a Province in less than ten months. I call on your attention to the unconstitutional acts in our Diocese in the process of forming a Province. The Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) will hold the 10th Meeting in the coming October 10-20 in Panama. I earnestly call on your initiative to request the ACC to add to the agenda the issue of our Diocese to form a Province.

II. THE THREE BILLS GOVERNING THE FUTURE PROVINCE WERE NEVER DISCUSSED AND ADOPTED IN THE CHURCH BEFORE THEY WERE SUBMITTED TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

The three Bills had never been discussed in any committee of our Diocese, not even in the Diocesan Standing Committee. There are still many important quires concerning the three Bills that remain to be addressed. The Diocesan Standing Committee promised the Legislative Council that the three Bills would be tabled to the Meeting of the 42nd Diocesan Synod held in November 1995 and be discussed after the Legislative Council had passed the Bills. But surprisingly this promise is not kept! Why?

Hence the three Bills have been enacted unconstitutionally since they have not been adopted in the Diocesan Synod. Yet the three Bills will be the foundation of the future Constitution and Canons of the new Province.

Anglicans all over the world are strongly urged to ask our Diocese to rectify this.

III. MAIN CONCERNS REGARDING THE THREE BILLS

1. Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Foundation Bill: Church Assets Still Not Transparent

The existing corporation sole the Bishop of Victoria, Hong Kong (the Bishop of Victoria Fund) holds huge amount of assets and money. It is guessed that the Bishop of Victoria Fund is now worth about 250 million US dollars, and is administrated by only one person, that is the Bishop of the Diocese of Hong Kong & Macao. The spending and the details of the Bishop of Victoria Fund were never made known to our Diocese or the public. Despite repeated requests from certain clerics, the Bishop of Victoria Fund is still now not transparent and not accountable to the Church.

Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Foundation Bill, will make the Bishop of Victoria Fund to continue as the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Foundation (the Foundation). The Foundation comprises of about 17 persons. The Executive Committee will be constituted among them, and will perform all duties of the Foundation. If the number of Executive Committee members is small (may be just three or four, this will be decided by the Regulations of the future Province), then the financial power of the whole province will lie in the hands of just a few persons. The assets and moneys remains unaccountable and not transparent to the Church.

2. Church Body Of The Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Bill

By this Bill, the new Church Body Of The Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui will be comprised of about 18 persons, it will replace the existing Church Body Of The Chinese Anglican Church which is constituted by all clerics and two delegates from each parish, to hold the church buildings and the premises of all parishes in our Diocese. An Executive Committee, which may consist of only very few people, will be constituted among the 18 persons to operate the new Church Body. It is strange that even the existing Church Body has not been notified and consulted with this Bill for the great change of structure.

All contents of Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Foundation Bill and Church Body of Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Bill have never discussed and approved in our Diocese, these Bills do not reflect the wishes of our Diocese.

3. The Financial Independence Of The Three New Dioceses Is Under Serious Doubt.

The Foundation will hold the assets and money of the existing Bishop of Victoria Fund, and will NOT be divided among the future three Dioceses. The three future Dioceses could not utilize the resources freely and independently for their works. The new Church Body will also hold all assets of the three new Dioceses.

The decision of not dividing the assets of the Foundation and of the new Church Body is not discussed and accepted in our Diocese, this is not the decision of our Diocese.

4. Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Bill

Although this Bill has least problems among the three, but this Bill is still not adopted in our Diocese. Hence this Bill, same as the other two Bills, does not belong to our Diocese.

5. Province Commission Becomes Redundant

Actually the whole complicated task of the formation of the Province has been entrusted to the PROVINCE COMMISSION which consists of three Committees. But surprisingly, during the two years before last November, only one Committee of the Commission had held three meetings, the other two Committees did not hold any meeting, and the Province Commission held just one meeting in August last year only after the three Bills had been submitted to and were passed by the Legislative Council.

IV. THE STEPS TAKEN TO FORM THE PROVINCE ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

1. The Resolution Of The Diocesan Synod To Form A Province Is Unconstitutional

In the Meeting of 40th Diocesan Synod held on 1st to 5th December 1991, the resolution that our Diocese should form a Province was marginally carried (clergy order: 25 for, 23 against; laity order: 61 for, 17 against). According to the Constitution and Canons of our Diocese, an amendment of the Constitution should be supported by two-third majority votes in two consecutive Ordinary Meetings of the Diocesan Synod in order to be carried. It is very easy to rule that the question of our Diocese to form a Province should belong to the category of Constitution. The formation of a Province would involve a great change of our Constitution. Hence two-thirds majority votes in two consecutive Meetings of the Diocesan Synod should be obtained for the very important resolution that our Diocese should form a Province. But this resolution could only be passed by simple majority (25 to 23) in the clergy order. This resolution of the 40th Diocesan Synod is thereby unconstitutional.

2. The Steps Taken To Form The Province Are Unconstitutional Because They Have Been Conducted By Just ONE Diocese And Not By The Three New Dioceses

The three Bills and the Constitution of the future Province should be the works of the three new Dioceses, not of our existing Diocese. The three sets of new Constitutions and Canons of the three new Dioceses should be drafted by the respective Dioceses, but now it is planned that these will be drafted by the existing Diocese. Furthermore, the two Diocesan Bishops of two new Dioceses have been elected, not of the choices of the respective Dioceses, but of the existing Diocese.

3. The Drafted Constitution Of The Future Province Confers The Archbishop Too Much Power

This makes him the superior over the other Diocesan Bishops and has supervisory power in other Dioceses, a situation that is contrary to usual Anglican practices. Some examples are:

(a) The clergy are guided not only by their Diocesan Bishop but also they "must promise to respect and be guided by the pastoral leadership of the Archbishop of the Province".

(b) "A Diocesan Bishop shall confine the exercise of his office to his own Diocese...unless he shall have been authorized by the House of Bishops or by the Archbishop by his direction, to act temporarily in case of need within any other Diocese...".

(c) "The Chancellor of the Province (appointed by the Archbishop) shall be the convenor of the Disciplinary Board and shall preside at all its hearings." The Disciplinary Board is the disciplinary body to have and exercise jurisdiction over all clergy of the three future Dioceses. Hence it is not the Diocesan Bishop who has the disciplinary power over his clergy, but the Archbishop.

4. The Elections Of The Two New Bishops Are UNCONSTITUTIONAL

At the Third Extraordinary Meeting held on 23rd September 1995, the Area Bishop of Western Kowloon Area and the Area Bishop of Eastern Kowloon Area were successfully elected. Our Diocese is now divided into three Areas, the two elected Area Bishops will become the Diocesan Bishops of the two respective new Dioceses formed from the two Areas. These elections are unconstitutional because:

(a) The provisions and procedures for the election of Area Bishops were adopted wrongly as a new Canon of our Diocese. These should be adopted as a new Article of Constitution of our Diocese. It is obsersed that this is purposely done since in order for an amendment of the Constitution to be carried it has to gain two-thirds votes at two consecutive Ordinary General Meetings of the Diocesan Synod which are held every two years.

(b) The provisions for the elections of Area Bishops could NOT be added into the Constitution and Canons of our Diocese. Our Diocese does not have legitimate power, to adopt new Canon or new Article of the Constitution of our Diocese for the election of Area Bishops, which are not provided by the Constitution and Canons of Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui (Holy Catholic Church In China, the non-existing Province which our Diocese belongs).

(c) It is unconstitutional to elect Bishops or any kind for another Diocese. Each Diocese should elect her own Bishops. The elections by our Diocese of the two Area Bishops who will become the Diocesan Bishops of two future Dioceses are totally contrary to the practice in the Anglican Communion, and are not provided in the Constitution and Canons of the Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui.

V. OTHER IRREGULARITIES IN OUR DIOCESE

1. Licences Of Some Clerics Were Suddenly Revoked

On 10 November 1994 our Diocesan Bishop issued a circular letter to all clergy saying that "I should like to inform you that as from 1st January 1995, all licences to clergy, issued by me or by my predecessors, will become ineffective if the holders of such licences have resigned or have left the Diocese temporarily or permanently or have retired or have reached the age of seventy or have no appointments from the Bishop. However, they are welcome to exercise their ministry in the Diocese. All retired clergy are welcome to attend in the Synod." But a cleric does not have the voting rights in the Synod Meetings if he does not have the licence.

It is questionable whether a priest could perform his duty if he did not have a licence and permit (there was no permit ever given to any priest) from the Bishop, although he is welcome by the Bishop to do so. Could he officiate at the Holy Communion, at the Holy Matrimony etc.?

Some honorary (that is, non-stipendiary) clerics can keep their licences. It is believed that this is because they have appointments from the Bishop. Why some of them could continue their appointments, while the others had their appointments suddenly cancelled?

It is questionable that there should be a sudden change in membership of the Diocesan Synod within the two years (November 1993 to November 1995) of the same Diocesan Synod. Why the change of membership did not happen at the next Diocesan Synod? There were the elections of the two Area Bishops in the Second Extraordinary Meeting of the 41st Diocesan Synod on 9 April 1995, the intention to change the membership of the 41st Diocesan Synod by revoking the licences of some clerics was very obvious.

On 9 September 1995 two new Deacons were ordained. They got their voting rights in the Third Extraordinary Meeting of the 41st Diocesan Synod held on 23 September 1995, although they did not begin their work until 1 October. A cleric who resumed to be full-time priest on the same day 1 October, but he could not get back his voting rights in the same Extraordinary Synod Meeting despite he was ordained in 1982, and has served as a full-time priest for nine years.

2. Endowment Funds Of The Two Newly Elected Bishops Have Not Been Set Up

Endowment funds should have been set up for the two new Area Bishops before their elections. The Consultation Paper of the Diocesan Commission On The Study Of A Province written in January 1991 said that the Commission had already gained the guarantee of the Diocesan Bishop and of the Bishopric Fund Trustee that there will be sufficient resources to cater the extra expenses of two new Bishops and their offices. But according to the drafted Constitution of the future Province, "each Diocese shall be responsible for the stipend of its Diocesan Bishop and Clergy".

VI. WHO CARES THE ANGLICAN CHURCH IN HONG KONG ?

At present, our Diocese is not under any metropolitical authority in the Anglican Communion. Although the Constitution and Canons of our Diocese is under the custody of the Council of The Church in East Asia, but the latter is not a Province and does not have metropolitical authority over its member Dioceses.

There are guidelines for the formation of a Province in the ACC-4 and ACC-5. Our Diocese is now forming new Dioceses and a new Province. How far did our Diocese follow these guidelines?

Therefore, this is the desperate hope in the ACC-10. Please do care and give us a hand! Do request that the formation of our Diocese to a Province to be discussed in the coming ACC-10 !

Please appeal to Archbishop of Canterbury who is the Chairman of ACC, Delegates of ACC-10, and the Bishops.

Please feel free to contact me for more information and sharing.

Hope the very success of ACC-10.

Yours in Christ,

(signed) FUNG Chi Wood, Harwood

Visit Louie Crew's home page. Send mail to: lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu

My pages have been accessed times since February 14, 1996. Thank you for visiting.