20 February 2000

To the Bishops of the Anglican Communion & the United Churches

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

The recent consecration in Singapore of two priests of the Episcopal Church of the United States as bishops by the Archbishop of South East Asia and the Archbishop of Rwanda has placed me in the difficult position of having to write to you, and all our episcopal colleagues, on the matter.

Because the principle of communion by which the Anglican Communion stands promotes the See of Canterbury as the focal point of our relationship one with another, there are many people who are expecting me, as the current occupant of the See, to make my views known on this action, on the implications for the Primates' Meeting in March, and more generally for future relationships between our various Provinces where disagreement on matters of faith and morals exists.

As I write, I have very much in mind the Apostle Paul, who, in the face of profound difficulties in the Church of Corinth, wrote 'Our whole aim, my friends, is to build you up' (2 Cor 12:19). As bishops in the Church, that must be our focus, whether as leaders in our dioceses, or more widely in the Communion.

Let me then turn to the question of the consecrations in Singapore. Archbishop Tay and Archbishop Kolini have indicated to me that they consider this to be 'an interim action to provide pastoral assistance and nurture to faithful individuals and congregations', and that it 'establishes no new entity'. I fear that this pragmatic view of episcopacy does not accord with the tradition of the Church, which has, since the second century, recognised the call to be a bishop as a call from God to a ministry which is fundamental to the right ordering of the Church.

This is a tradition which was reaffirmed in the document known as the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, which was adopted in an amended form as Resolution 11 of the 1888 Lambeth Conference, and which has since become a fundamental document in the Anglican understanding of the Church. Territorial integrity is a most important element of due episcopal order and collegiality. Against the background of different issues over the years, successive Lambeth Conferences have emphasised and endorsed this principle, which itself reaches back at least to the Council of Nicea.

In 1988, we re-affirmed our 'unity in the historical position of respect for diocesan boundaries and the authority of bishops within these boundaries', and stated that 'it is deemed inappropriate behaviour for any bishop or priest of this Communion to exercise episcopal or pastoral ministry within another diocese without first obtaining the permission and invitation of the ecclesial authority thereof' (Resolution 72). Against the background of the discussions at Lambeth in 1998, we specifically affirmed the importance of the principle we had set out so clearly ten years earlier (Resolution V.13).

In order to safeguard this ministry, the Church has developed a process by which that vocation to be a bishop can be discerned, encouraged and authorised. Although the precise details of that process may vary from place to place, nonetheless every Anglican Province contains within its constitution and Canon law, a set of procedures for the appointment of bishops.

In the case of this particular consecration, neither the constitution of the Province of South East Asia nor that of the Episcopal Church of Rwanda, to whose primates John Rodgers and Charles Murphy have sworn an oath of canonical obedience, have been followed. In addition, Anglican polity requires that ordained ministers should be properly authorised to pursue their ministry in the Province within which they wish to work, and according to the Canon law of that Province. It appears that this is not the intention in this case, and it is doubtful in the present circumstances whether such authorisation would be forthcoming.

Therefore, whilst recognising John Rodgers and Charles Murphy as faithful and committed ministers of the Gospel, I have to conclude that I cannot recognise their episcopal ministry until such time as a full rapprochement and reconciliation has taken place between them and the appropriate authorities within the Episcopal Church of the United States.

I must also comment on the claim that this action was taken 'in fulfilment of our own consecration vows to guard the Faith of the church'. I do not question the motives of those involved in the service, nor their own perception that the situation in the United States is so serious that this action could be justified. However, the understanding of episcopal ministry, which appears to have allowed them to act unilaterally, without consultation and in secret, is quite foreign to the Anglican tradition. Bishops are called to act collegially, to work together as one body. The corporate and representative nature of episcopal ministry is one of its greatest strengths. For Anglicans, there is a Communion-wide expression of episcopal collegiality in the Lambeth Conference and the Primates' Meeting. It is difficult to understand how this action can be reconciled with this tradition or how it can be seen to 'guard the Church', without the support or even the knowledge of the vast majority of the bishops of our Communion. Indeed, even those who have worked most closely on these matters were not in agreement over this consecration.

But let me briefly address the more general issues. Over the past few months there has been a growing expectation placed upon the meeting of Primates which takes place at the end of March. It is assumed that at the end of a week-long consultation, we shall produce an authoritative answer to the searching questions of faith and morals which are currently challenging the Communion. That is unrealistic. Perhaps I need to remind everyone that the Primates' Meeting is consultative. Although the 1998 Lambeth Conference suggested developments in the role of the Primates acting collegially, there has been no opportunity for us to explore these proposals in any detail. We have no authority to impose our will on any Province. To talk of the Primates disciplining the Episcopal Church of the USA or any other Province for that matter, goes far beyond the brief of the Primates' Meeting.

Nonetheless, we are certainly well aware of our responsibility to offer guidance to the Communion and to build up the bonds of unity and fellowship which unite us, and the programme for our forthcoming meeting fully reflects the current concerns both on how to handle division, and specifically on attitudes to issues of human sexuality which are clearly at the heart of the present difficulties. I can assure you there will be a vigorous consideration of all these concerns, and I am quite confident that if our meeting with one another is generous, respectful and prayerful, then we will reach a deeper sense of unity, and will be able to offer a constructive lead to the Church.

Let me reassure those who are deeply concerned at the direction in which some parts of the Communion are moving. I understand your fears, your worries and your frustrations. The Lambeth Conference resolution on human sexuality (1.10) provided a text around which the vast majority of bishops could unite. It reflects the traditional teaching of the Church, and that is where my own belief and understanding rests; and I hope that those bishops who have, by actions they have permitted in their dioceses appeared to reject the resolution, will recognise the substantial difficulties they have raised for many of their colleagues around the world.

Nevertheless, in many parts of the Communion, faithful Christians, some of whom are homosexual themselves, are seeking to engage the Church in a challenging reassessment of its teaching on human sexuality, because they have felt excluded from the Church for many years. I believe that it is wholly in the spirit of the resolution, and that is why the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA and I set up an international conversation between bishops of different views, an experiment which was so successful that it will meet again later this year. I have also sought to encourage such conversations more locally as well.

My brothers and sisters in Christ, this situation is a test of our belief in the Anglican way of dialogue, study and prayer. I believe that the precipitate action in Singapore on 29 January has made it more difficult for the Presiding Bishop and his colleagues to respond constructively to the criticisms which are being laid on them. But let us keep this in perspective. We must guard against the risk of allowing one issue to divert all our attention from the primary task of mission to which we are called. In just a few weeks, I hope to be present at the installation of the new Archbishop of Sudan. The struggle in which the Sudanese people are immersed for the fundamental right to exist as people and as Christians in peace and prosperity, is a timely reminder to us all of the urgent demands on our time, energy and commitment.

I believe that, as in the past when we have faced deeply divisive issues, we can emerge from our current debate as a stronger, more Christ-centred Church than before, and that we are actually being given an opportunity to build up the Church, the body of Christ 'until we all attain to the unity of faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ' (Ephesians 4:13).

ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY