SEAD President's statement on the singapore consecrations

Last Saturday reports were issued that two presbyters from the United States were consecrated Bishops for some sort of service in the Anglican Communion. I say "reports" for the obvious reason that, had this been a normal consecration, or even one as unusual as that of Samuel Seabury, the public would have been informed and not surprised in the way that, in the nature of the thing, many were surprised and learned of the event, as only they could have, through varieties of public "reports." Since then, we have been inundated by news and commentary, much of it incendiary, speculative and/or defensive.

Not a week later we learned that one of the consecrated men, John Rodgers, has the full backing of the Bishop where he is resident. Rodgers lives in Pittsburgh. The Bishop there, his Bishop, Robert Duncan, has already accepted another Bishop in his diocese, from Uganda. Rodgers is not a parish priest, but a retired academic with a reputation for learning and prudence. His presence within the diocese will not be precedent-setting, therefore, in the strict sense of the word, but if he crosses into another diocese to serve as Bishop, he will be challenging the present ECUSA system.

A few days ago it was reported that Rodgers said he would perform no episcopal actions until the March Primates Meeting of the Anglican Communion. This was quite a gesture. He could have crossed into regions and acted episcopally and "called for the question," locally and internationally. Instead, it is reported, he will wait until the meeting of Primates, who will have on their agenda (whether it was there earlier or not) an adjudication of the ECUSA situation and now, also, these reported events from Singapore.

It is not clear just what Rodgers is waiting for, and why.

Three major Anglican episcopal figures (Mtetemela, Goodhew, Sinclair) have reported that the consecrations in Singapore did not have their full backing. Forward in Faith US indicates they are concerned about these consecrations. The Archbishop of Canterbury has also said he viewed what happened as irregular, to put it mildly. Is John Rodgers asking for support of the Primates Meeting? If so, is he signalling a conviction that the Primates Meeting has or should have the authority to make such a judgement? This of itself would constitute a major polity assumption. Whatever one makes of the consecration of Rodgers, the question that is most pressing is, Who is in a position to validate, or otherwise, what has happened? By waiting, Rodgers seems to agree with those Primates who wished to wait until March, that their action truly matters, or ought to. Or, for reasons of Christian charity and/or historical good memory, he is prepared to wait. In the balance is a major polity decision.

And what of the Rev'd Mr Murphy? His situation is very different. He is the rector of a church in the Diocese of South Carolina. He remains the rector of this church, from what is reported. He, unlike John Rodgers, does not appear to have such unqualified support from the diocesan Bishop (trusting again in reports, as there was no regular public event of consecration), in no small part, one might suppose, because his situation is so different than what confronts Robert Duncan in Pennsylvania. And, has Mr Murphy agreed to hear what the Primates Meeting concludes, before he goes about the business of being a Bishop?

The answer is not clear, and this has to do, in the nature of the thing, with the Christian public needing to rely on "reports" rather than publically obvious events like the consecration of a Diocesan Bishop. Can a clear answer come from the actual principals in these matters, now that we have heard reports from others? Christian faith has always been public and sacrificial, in the nature of the thing, beginning with a man crucified before all the world.

We need answers to the questions posed by (1) the broken trust, if such it be, (and assumed polity?) of stalwart Christian bishops present at Kampala, (2) the timetable now in place, and/or an assumed "waiting period" until the March Primates meeting, (3) the Rev'd Chuck Murphys actual role as rector-Bishop-metropolitan of some as yet undetermined "holy folk" who have called him to be their Bishop.

Can such questions be asked and answered without charges being levelled of disloyalty in the cause of Christ? These Singapore actions have forced hands, hopefully in the best sense of the word. Now, let those who wish to be seen as bold be bold to give response.

We pray for their ministry in so far as it is the ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Rev'd Christopher Seitz
6 February 2000
St Andrews, Scotland

Other items in this series
Louie Crew's Anglican pages: http://newark.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/rel.html
Louie Crew's home page: http://newark.rutgers.edu/~lcrew
Send mail to: lcrew@newark.rutgers.edu

Please sign my guestbook and view it.

My site has been accessed

times since February 14, 1996.

Statistics courtesy of WebCounter.