Letter from the Rev'd Dr Peter Toon to Archbishop Drexel Gomez

Reverend Father in God, Drexel,

May I share my thoughts with you arising out of the statement from S E Asia
about the consecrations on June 24 in Colorado. I know that you yourself
feel in a greater way than I do the pain of the body to which we belong, the
Anglican Family.

But to do so I must set a context which is that the Anglican Communion has
suffered several blows over the last few years,which may prove to be mortal
blows.

[I cannot see how it can survive as a unified body much longer unless (a)
the Primates’ Meeting is given greater authority to act for unity; (b) the
role of the See of Canterbury is more carefully delineated; (c) there is an
effective way of disciplining erring provinces/dioceses; (d) parallel
jurisdictions are allowed and even encouraged as a means of maintaining
unity in comprehensiveness.]

The BLOWS

Of these, the first is the arrogant claim to autonomy made by the American
Province (ECUSA) in terms of innovations in doctrine, morality, worship and
discipline over the last decade or more. And ECUSA has persistently refused
to do a U-turn back to a semblance of orthodoxy, so that it goes ahead in
and is proud of its innovations [which to others are errors, immorality and
heresy] which it is exporting worldwide with its great wealth.

The second is the refusal or the inability of the Primates’ Meeting and
especially of the Archbishop of Canterbury to make clear, in the most
accessible form of words, that the membership of the ECUSA in the Anglican
Communion of Churches depends upon it repenting of its innovatory spirit and
actions. The way in which the See of Canterbury and most of the Primates
have in the main related to the ECUSA and its Primate in recent years has
been that mild rebukes and then of both “business as usual” and “all is
really OK”. A major cancer is in the Anglican body and no treatment is being
applied. And the cancer is spreading to other parts of the body from
America.

The third is the action of the Archbishops of S E Asia and Rwanda in going
ahead to consecrate American presbyters for the new province in embryo,
Anglican Mission in America. These two godly men acted against not only the
advice of the See of Canterbury but also of that of their conservative
colleagues in 2000 in Singapore. Further, it has never been clear just how
much support they have had from their House of Bishops for their action,
that is until now (June 20, 2001 – see below). The planned new set of
consecrations in Denver on June 24 will further alienate these two Primates
from their brethren and at least in one case from their own House of
Bishops. Thus the Anglican Body suffers further harm and division.

Here is the announcement concerning the division between the Primate and
House of Bishops of S E Asia.


“South East Asia bishops refute Primate's intention

Lambeth Palace has received notice from the Church of the Province of South
East Asia's House of Bishops, that indicates that they do not support the
intention of their Primate, the Most Revd Yong Ping Chung, to participate
in a service as co-consecrator for bishops for the Anglican Mission in
America on 24 June 2001.


The South East Asia bishops have also informed their Primate, by letter,
that they believe his action is a violation of their Constitution.”
====================================================================

The Theological Implications of the refusal of support by S E Asia Bishops
for the June 24th Consecrations are grave if a little complex to unravel.

1. If the Archbishop Yong Ping Chung does take part on June 24 it will mean
that he is acting wholly and solely upon his own authority and against the
advice of his fellow bishops. This raises questions of the most serious
kind concerning not only the nature of the consecration but also the status
of the two men [Weiss and Green?] who are intended to be under his
protection as bishops. Does he have any authority to act in this way? Do
the two men have any basis for being candidates now that it is clear that S
E Asia does not support them at all?

2. Apparently the four candidates [two to be under protection of the
Archbishop of S E Asia and two under that of the Archbishop of Rwanda] were
chosen at Pawley’s Island by the inner councils of the AMiA. But is the
AMiA yet a diocese? If it is not yet a diocese then on what basis can it
choose bishops? The answer until the news from Singapore arrived on June 20
was that the AMiA leadership was acting on behalf of and for the Houses of
Bishops of S E Asia and Rwanda. Now it seems that the AMiA council was not
so acting. It was acting only on the word of the Archbishops themselves.
Thus there is a very serious question as to whether there has actually been
a valid election of candidates for consecration as bishops. Are the four
men – or at least two of them – actually truly candidates according to the
received doctrine of preliminaries necessary for consecration as set forth
in the Ordinal and as practiced in the Anglican Communion of Churches?

3. Even as there are legitimate questions arising out of the fact that the S
E Asia Bishops have separated their House from the planned consecrations on
June 24, so there are other questions arising from whether in fact there has
been anything like an ordered vote and commitment by the small [depleted]
House of Bishops of Rwanda. It may be that both Archbishops are acting upon
an authority which they believe belongs to their very office as archbishops
and primates --- and if this is so then it is new development in Anglican
polity. How can we find out the truth?

4. There is a solemn duty laid upon the AMiA leadership in S Carolina to
provide full explanations of the election process for these four candidates
and of how one can be a bishop in the Anglican Communion if one is elected
by a missionary society [AMiA] and ordained for a missionary society by
bishops who are not acting on behalf of a province but in their own right
only.

There are many other questions and problems raised in my mind but I cease at
this point and look for answers. Meanwhile I feel the deep, lasting pain of
these seemingly mortal blows to the body of which I am one only member.

Yours ever,

The Rev’d Dr Peter Toon June 21 2001