In respect to this issue, a final comment is in order. If the Communion makes provision for individual dioceses to ratify the Covenant, it will prove easier for that to happen in TEC than in many other churches of the Anglican Communion. It will be easier because of the unique character of TEC’s constitution. TEC’s constitution makes no provision for a metropolitan bishop, givens no real authority either to its Presiding Bishop or its General Convention to impose its will on a diocese; and I am convinced it allows for a diocese to remove itself from TEC. If provision were to be made for ratification at the level of a diocese, individual dioceses within TEC would have a degree of freedom in this respect that dioceses in many other provinces would not.
So now we come to the question, “What then shall we do?” For many in TEC a covenant with any real consequences is out of the question. It is likely that they will answer the question “What then shall we do” by refusing to ratify the covenant and forming an alliance with other provinces of like mind. In all likelihood they will continue to claim membership in the Anglican Communion, seeking from within their diminished status, as they are want to say, “the greatest degree of communion possible.” It may well be, however, that in forming such an alliance, they in fact end up by creating another communion altogether. In any case, the forces at play in these circumstances will be centrifugal rather than centripetal.
For others of a more confessional frame of mind a covenant may be a part of their future, but, at present, they are skeptical that the final draft will have sufficiently clear commitments to shared doctrine and practice. For those who have cast their lot with ACNA, their future in relation to a covenant is at best uncertain. At present, only provinces can ratify the covenant. It is unlikely that ACNA will realize its goal of provincial status in the near future. Further, should there be an arrangement for individual dioceses to ratify, there are only three, perhaps four, dioceses now a part of the ACNA group. They might be given access to ratification, though that is doubtful. Even, however, if they were allowed to ratify the covenant as individual dioceses, the majority of ACNA’s membership would not be so allowed because it is unlikely that they would be able to establish diocesan status.
For my own part, these first two options appear fraught with difficulty. I believe that the present proposal of the Covenant Design Group, even though it is surrounded by questions, provides the best way forward for Anglicans if they wish to maintain both communion and catholic identity.
There is no doubt the strength of Anglicanism is also its greatest weakness. This becomes worse as Anglicanism is re-defined that one can believe just about anything whether it is consistent with the Christian Faith, the Creeds, Biblical Morality or not. The hope of the Windsor Report and a Covenant likewise is being re-define or more appropriately re-interpreted by those who believe God is doing a New Thing. As such, the Windsor Report became the Windsor Process and became meaningless because it means whatever anyone wants it to mean. Herein lies the problem with the Covenant. If the Covenant does nothing to clarify what an Anglican Christian believes and defines what Communion means, then it will do nothing to address the present crisis and the crisis will only worsen.
#1 Have you read the Windsor Report and Covenant Agreement? Because in fact they are both articulating a theology and polity of conciliar decision-making (without centralized legislative or propositional governance), in which there is common discernment of Scripture across time; something foundational to Anglicanism. Are they setting limits? Yes in fact they are. The Covenant is not articulating new faith statements, nor is it doing a ‘new thing’, nor are all of its writers of that ilk.
The Covenant is creating a framework that defines what it means to be in relationship for the purpose of carrying out common teaching, decision-making, and mission. Have you looked at TEC’s and the ACoC’s responses to it? Because they in fact are not willing to sign on to it because they believe it limits their autonomy.
This lecture is a waste of words. It is not going to sway any of the revisionists. If the covenant is not edentulous as Aspinall has called for, the revisionists will continue to reject it regardless of how much Rev Turner pleads.
I found this an interesting and thoughtful piece, although I can’t figure out what TSAD stands for. I’m also not sure that there’s anything to “do” in the sense posed by the question in the title of the lecture — I suspect that things will continue to play themselves out as they are.
As with a lot of ACI work, I think there’s too much focus on how things should work in a more perfect procedural world and not enough attention to what is actually happening on the ground in the real Anglican world. As an academic myself I recognize this flaw all too well!
My sense is that regardless of what happens with the covenant, or who does and does not sign on to it, orthodox Anglicans are figuring things out and finding ways to connect and work together – regardless of what the instruments of Communion do or when they do it. Reasserters finally seem to have figured out the strategy of the revisionists and now realize that in the end process matters much less than changing facts on the ground. I totally understand the ACI penchant for working within the processes of the Communion, but, as an ACNA supporter, I think you need more than that.
I certainly don’t advocate totally ignoring the process part of it, but I don’t think that orthodox Anglicans can or should put all of their trust in the mechanisms of the Communion as they currently exist. I strongly support a two-track process ACNA has embarked upon as the most realistic and hopeful path. As the Windsor Continuation Group Report makes plain, the Communion is broken right now and its mechanisms are not working properly, and this explains a lot of the mess we’re in today. It’s going to take a lot of time to fix those mechanisms, and it’s frankly not clear yet if they even can be fixed. I’m hopeful that they can be fixed, and for me the Primates meeting in Alexandria was a very hopeful development, but we’re not there yet. Thus, while I’m willing to keep an open mind about the future of the current Communion, I don’t favor putting all our eggs in that uncertain basket.
I think the ACNA leadership is totally right to start the process of rebuilding orthodox Anglicanism in North America from the ground up, while simultaneously building bridges with traditional Anglicans globally. Being in Communion with others is far more than, and far more important than, any organizational statement or stamp of approval. Acknowledgment by the Primates last week that ACNA is fully Anglican is actually far more recognition than I anticipated at this stage, and I think its a positive development. But the measure of whether ACNA is “truly Anglican” or not is not ultimately something that is going to be conferred on ACNA by any individual or meeting. It’s a reality that ACNA is going to establish, or not, through its own actions.
As I’ve said several times already over the past week, I think it will ultimately be far easier for ACNA to do what it feels the Spirit is calling it to do and walk with the Anglican Communion than it will be for TEC to do what it feels the Spirit is calling it to do and walk with the Communion. Both ACNA and TEC must ultimately be true to what they believe God is calling them to, and both must live with the consequences of what they each see as their prophetic actions. My own analysis is that at the end of the day ACNA will end up in far closer and deeper communion with the world’s Anglicans than TEC will, and that’s what I think ultimately matters most.
For the time being we find ourselves in the reality that TEC and ACofC hold the official Anglican franchises in North America, but they are in broken or impaired Communion with most of the world’s Anglicans. ACNA, on the other hand, stands in an ambiguous relationship with the official institutions of the Communion, but is actually in communion with most of the world’s Anglicans. What’s ultimately MOST important? The reality of communion or the official institutional recognition? Ultimately, of course, both matter, but I firmly believe that in the final analysis the institutional stamp of approval will follow the reality — and the reality does not favor TEC over the long haul.
My hope now is that ACNA will take great comfort from the Primates communique in the confirmation it offers that they are fully and genuinely Anglican. I think they already know that in their hearts, but it’s nice to have it validated by two key instruments of the Communion. If ACNA wishes to build on this important victory, and I certainly hope that it does, ACNA needs to do the opposite of what TEC is doing, ACNA needs to listen carefully to what the leadership of the Communion is telling them and walk as closely with the Communion as possible.
The practical implication of the Primates’ request of ACNA, I think, is that ACNA leadership needs to be VERY careful how it proceeds in terms of recruiting its membership from the current ranks of TEC. I think it’s quite clear that the Communion leadership has indicated that anything that smacks of raiding TEC to increase ACNA membership will not be appreciated by the Communion. Defining what constitutes raiding and what is simply offering protection to exiles seeking help may be complex, but it’s not impossible to figure these things out. If ACNA focuses its efforts on mission to folks who are NOT currently in TEC, I think that would be enormously helpful and will certainly give ACNA plenty of room to work! ACNA needs to avoid the perception that it is merely cannibalizing TEC to grow its ranks.
ACNA also has A LOT of work to do in terms of organizing itself. It currently consists of a very odd mixture of groups, and all of that needs to be sorted out. As the Communion process grinds on slowly, as the covenant evolves, as TEC makes its own choices about walking with or away from the Anglican Communion, there will be plenty to keep ACNA busy, I have no doubt about that.
We need to watch, for example, what the orthodox presence still in TEC (clearly now much reduced, but still very much there) does in response to both the evolving covenant and the further actions of TEC. ACNA needs to constantly remind itself that although it represents a critical part of the orthodox Anglican presence in North America, it does not constitute the entirety of the orthodox Anglican presence in North America. ACNA leaders now need to build and rebuild bridges to colleagues who have remained in TEC, and who may not, in fact, be very happy about the existence of ACNA. It’s my sense that there are a lot of bridges that need to be rebuilt among orthodox bishops in North America and a lot of work needs to be done to restore trust and good will! Humility and charity will be very important for everyone in this process of reestablishing good relations among orthodox bishops, and I hope ACNA bishops will lead the way in extending the hand of Christian fellowship and friendship. We may deeply disagree on how to move forward, but we can’t lose sight that we share a common vision and commitment to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We all need to work together, wherever we find ourselves — and that’s a Gospel imperative!
There are also thousands of Anglicans who have left TEC over the past four decades out there and a much greater effort needs to be made to reach out to them too. What happened with APA, for example? How can we walk more closely with them? Bishop Grundorf’s entire ministry has involved trying to unify orthodox Anglicans, so how can we work more closely with APA? It will not be possible to reach all of the Continuum, but more of an effort needs to be made to reach a larger part of the Continuum.
So, in the final analysis, while I find Rev. Turner’s lecture interesting, I think these issues will be decided in other ways than merely through the slow grinding process of the instruments of Communion sorting things out. Facts are changing on the ground, and the instruments of Communion are reacting to those changes. What is different now is that the orthodox are no longer satisfied to place their exclusive trust in the mechanisms of the Communion, they too are changing facts on the ground and ACNA is proof positive of that fact!
TSAD = The St. Andrew’s Draft. (There are two prior lectures at the ACI site, and this was defined in lecture 2.)
Chris Taylor, are you in the TEClub or the diaspora?
Thanks robroy. I’m in the diaspora — since Nov., 2003. All blessings.
Chris Taylor’s offering has to be one of the finest, clearest, most careful and thoughtful offerings I’ve seen on this subject in months. Thank you. If this quality of thought had prevailed since the Robinson event, the damage to the Church would have been much diminished.
I am very late to this thread, but just a couple quick points. What I hear Phil Turner saying is:
1. A Communion Covenant will be approved, not as crisp as “confessionalists†might like, but too crisp for TEC to sign on to.
2. The Communion will not allow ACNA dioceses to sign on even if they want to because TEC is the only province recognized by Canterbury.
3. The Covenant, presumably with Canterbury’s support, will make provision for dioceses to ratify the Covenant.
4. If TEC forbids Communion Partner dioceses from doing so, these dioceses have the legal right, like the ACNA dioceses, to withdraw from TEC.
5. In that case, TEC itself will be relegated to a secondary rank in the Communion, non-TEC Communion Partner dioceses will be recognized as first-rank Covenant partners of the Communion, and ACNA dioceses will not be recognized at all.
Have I got that right?
Interesting argument, but I think there are some weak chains in it.
“The second question, what if a diocese in a province that refuses to ratify the covenant wishes to do so, is now before us. The Archbishop of Canterbury has indicated that, from a theological perspective, the diocese rather than the province is the primary unit of the Anglican Communion. Nevertheless, the covenant proposal will be sent to provinces and not individual dioceses. There is a conflict here that requires resolution in a coherent manner.”
It certainly does, but I think it overstates the case to say that the ABC has indicated that the diocese rather than the province is the primary unit of the Anglican Communion in a way that has any practical impact. The only evidence we have that he thinks any such thing is a short passage in a single letter to Howe. There is no evidence that the Archbishop intends for that view in that situation to have any impact on the covenant whatsoever. Indeed, he stepped back from that reasoning in his Lambeth invitiations (e.g., uninviting Schofield and inviting Lamb), and his operational mode has certainly been to take advice from provinces, not bishops. If there is any coherent resolution, it would appear to be that insofar as the covenant is concerned, the province’s approval or not applies to all of the theological units within it.
“If the Communion makes provision for individual dioceses to ratify the Covenant, it will prove easier for that to happen in TEC than in many other churches of the Anglican Communion.”
That is a mighty big “if’, and, again, not something suggested would occur by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Either Kearon or Rosenthal, on his behalf, indicated otherwise, did he not?
“It will be easier because of the unique character of TEC’s constitution. TEC’s constitution makes no provision for a metropolitan bishop, givens no real authority either to its Presiding Bishop or its General Convention to impose its will on a diocese; and I am convinced it allows for a diocese to remove itself from TEC. If provision were to be made for ratification at the level of a diocese, individual dioceses within TEC would have a degree of freedom in this respect that dioceses in many other provinces would not.”
Turner may be so convinced. I would agree, were I to be the judge of the question. Unfortunately, such views hold little weight with the Presiding Bishop, her Chancellor and other lawyers, the Executive Committee or General Convention of TEC, or, most of the bishops in TEC have not agreed, or are likely to agree. Those bodies, the PB in particular, believe they interpret the canons and constitution of TEC, without question by such as ACI or any of the Communion Partners, period, full stop. In fact, a bishop of a diocese that thinks otherwise and acts on it is likely not to be a bishop of a diocese for very long once the PB gets wind of it, and this ABC will go along with that as he has before. Problem of accession to the covenant by an individual bishop resolved! Unless an instrument of communion is going to take it upon itself to interpret the TEC canons and constitution on its own, this view will not be enforced. And there is no indication that any instrument will do so.
In other words, in #8’s summary, points 3 and 4 are based on deeply unreasonable assumptions. That is why, though I wish Turner was right, it seems hardly likely he will be.
[i] Comment sent via email from Seitz-ACI to elves. [/i]
Stephen Noll’s response seems provocative, or overly sensitive vis-a-vis the ACNA. The lectures were not about ACNA and our understanding is of mutual support as far as that is possible in the public domain as the Instruments do their work. It is important not to send messages of conflict where there is none, as we endeavour to address the crisis in our respective ways. That said, to address his response:
1. Do ‘ACNA dioceses’ wish to sign a covenant (Noll’s point 2)? ACNA appears to have a different model in view where ‘dioceses’ are only a vestigal part of a different understanding of confessional linkage. Can Noll explain what an ACNA signing a covenant would look like? The lectures do not address this nor do they assume the logic of Noll pt 2.
2. Turner did not speak of legal withdrawing of CP on some analogy with ACNA (Noll pt 4). He did speak about Dioceses’ capacity to sign a covenant. This would obviously affect the character of TEC, if TEC as a body did not want to sign a covenant, and CP dioceses in TEC did.
So, no, I don’t think Noll has ‘got that right.’ We assume that ACNA will continue to work at its own initiatives, maybe following the very positive estimate of ‘facts on the ground’ logic of C Taylor above. These lectures were given in Springfield Diocese and they involved a covenant, not ACNA, and not an ACNA as here being characterised in some very negative way by Noll.
Thank you, Elves and Chris Seitz for the reply. I am not trying to create conflict but understand what vision of the future Phil Turner and presumably ACI have with the passage of the Covenant?
A quick response to Dr. Seitz’s points.
1. I do not speak for ACNA, but I suspect that it might wish to affirm an Anglican Communion Covenant that was adequately orthodox, which I presume is what Phil Turner is hoping for. I do not know what its ACNA’s final government will be like, or what the GAFCON Primates will finally accept, but I suspect it will ultimately be one where geographical dioceses prevail. In any case, if ACNA as a Province signed on to Covenant as Province, that would seem less irregular than the arrangement of a TEC Province not signing and a few of its dioceses signing on.
2. “Turner did not speak of legal withdrawing from TEC…†Well, forgive me then for misreading this line: “I am convinced [the Constitution] allows for a diocese to remove itself from TEC.†And this is an important point, because one can well imagine if a CP diocese did try to seek recognition as a Covenant partner that the PB and GC would threaten to depose the bishop etc., etc. Take this case study, which is almost certainly coming. TEC seeks to enforce its “non-discrimination†provisions in selecting ordinands, vestries, bishops etc. A CP diocese refuses on grounds that it stands with the Covenant in upholding Lambeth 1.10. Surely TEC will not sit idly by but will treat that diocese the same way it has treated the ACNA dioceses.
As I said, I hope this reply, though very late, goes to clarify Philip Turner’s thought further. I am not promoting in-fighting. I am suggesting that the CP position may end up being virtually indistinguishable from ACNA- except perhaps for the magical touch of Canterbury’s wand – and not surprisingly so, as we are agreed on first principles.
The Civil War analogy is contentious, but I think it has illuminating aspects. Among them is that it was the Civil War that really transformed the United States from a collection of states into a nation.
The text of the Constitution describes something not unlike the EU: a group of independent states that mutually agree to a common currency and defense, free internal trade, and a light layer of federal government to oversee those matters while leaving the states otherwise free to do as they please. But under the pressures of the Civil War, the federal government dramatically increased in power; and by the time the dust had settled the United States was a nation with a strong centralized government, divided into administrative regions with little independent power — no matter what the Constitution says.
I see a similar process happening with TEC. It may well be that the Constitution of the Episcopal Church describes a collection of mostly independent dioceses, with a light layer of government on top to coordinate inter-diocesan affairs. But under the pressures of the current brouhaha, it is rapidly becoming a national church with strong central authority.
Now, one may of course have opinions on whether this process is a good thing or a bad thing, either in the case of the U.S. or TEC. But I think it is happening, and while Philip Turner is doubtless right about what TEC’s Constitution describes de jure, the de facto situation is changing as we speak. Unless there is a movement of sufficient power to resist this in the House of Bishops or in General Convention — and I don’t think that there is — TEC is going to be a national church in which dioceses are little more than administrative boundaries, no matter what the Constitution says.
Further clarification to #11. 1. ACI has argued that TEC’s constitution has no understanding of TEC that mandates a diocese cannot withdraw (as in the Civil War). It has not argued that a diocese can form a new legal attachment with other parts of the Communion and create a new understanding via a new constitution. It is also not clear that those serving as attachments can do this according to their constitutions. Do not take this as a provocation or as an ‘attack’ on ACNA. It is not. This is intended only as a clarification or what ACI has argued. 2. As for the fate of CP dioceses, should a provision be given for signing a covenant. All we have argued is that this is a possibility. Gregory Cameron said as much himself in NYC last Spring. RDW has left the door open via his remarks re: dioceses. If the entire ‘covenanted’ Communion observed a major part of TEC not signing, on one side, and CP dioceses joining in with them, on the other, CP dioceses would be in a clear position of strength. I cannot say whether the ‘non idle sitting by’ would have the same character as at present, but I suspect strongly that the answer is No. There would be a significant Communion presence inside the US, covenant bound, and the covenant would have done its job of determining who believes Communion ans accountability go together, as against federalism and autonomy. Will all this ‘work’? One can pray and work. What will happen with the ACNA strategy and work? Again, one will have to wait. But it is a different way to approach the struggle, based upon a different understanding of how things will unfold. Or so it seems from what has been stated.
In comment no. 13, Chris Seitz says:
[blockquote]ACI has argued that TEC’s constitution has no understanding of TEC that mandates a diocese cannot withdraw (as in the Civil War). It has not argued that a diocese can form a new legal attachment with other parts of the Communion and create a new understanding via a new constitution.[/blockquote]
On the assumption that a diocese has successfully withdrawn from TEC as suggested in the first sentence, an argument that it is possible for it to form a new legal attachment as indicated in the second seems unnecessary (the possibility being self-evident). Even without withdrawal, Philip Turner (following Mark McCall) notes that “There is no prohibition of a Diocese entering into communion with a body that is not in communion with TEC†and that “A Diocese is within its rights to be run by its Standing Committee as the ecclesiastical authority. The Standing Committee might then invite a non-TEC Bishop to perform necessary Episcopal actions.†[i] Subversion of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church: On Doing What it Takes to Get What You Want[/i] (November 21, 2008)
[blockquote]As for the fate of CP dioceses, should a provision be given for signing a covenant. All we have argued is that this is a possibility. Gregory Cameron said as much himself in NYC last Spring. RDW has left the door open via his remarks re: dioceses.[/blockquote]
I thought the ACI argued that it was not just a possibility but recommended it as a necessity: “In addition, the Covenant must include the provision that individual Anglican dioceses may also adopt the Covenant separately when their province or national church chooses not to.†[i]True Christian Unity? Reflections on the Lambeth Conference[/i] (August 10, 2008)
Stepping back, I would hope that at the conclusion of the covenant process assuming no adoption by TEC, covenanting TEC dioceses and the ACNA constituencies would join together and seek recognition as a reconstituted U.S. province unlinked from the existing TEC General Convention and canonical structures. (Perhaps something similar might happen in Canada.) For CP dioceses to remain, beyond that point, subject to these legal and canonical structures controlled by a majority will that is unlikely to change would seem to lead to perverse results, both from the point of view of the CP dioceses, not least among the reasons being that TEC would not sit idly by as was observed by Stephen Noll above, and from the ACNA point of view if the existence of a minority of dioceses in full communion within a noncovenanting TEC were used to argue against incorporation of ACNA on parallel province grounds. I think other reasons why such a state of affairs would not be good for CP dioceses can be found in Ephraim Radner’s [i]Truthful Language and Orderly Separation[/i] (September 9, 2008).
#14. Well ACI has been accused of (and berated for) a lot of things, but providing the canonical rationale for the creation of ACNA I did not think was one of them! Civil War withdrawal, e.g., did not entail the formation of a new structure outside the US. It was a form of witness. Witness takes many forms. CP is one of these. Indeed someone argued that if one did not pay any money to the national church (so several CP dioceses) they had really withdrawn anyway! Well, in a manner of speaking, yes; withdrawal can take different forms of witness (our Constitution is being manipulated to a different end — that has been our chief and consistent point). But this is not the same thing as an argument in favor of the necessity of withdrawal meaning de facto a new ecclesial attachment, much less the formation of what some proponents of ACNA call a ‘replacement province.’ Surely Mike Watson you are not saying that ACI was arguing for this — if so we are owed a lot of apologies from those who saw us as attacking ACNA (Radner’s Sept essay, btw, predates ACNA by a long way). I do agree that it would be grand if a possibility became a genuine necessity re: dioceses signing a covenant, and ACI has argued for this and is working for it. I was seeking to avoid the ire of those who judge covenants a waste of time full stop. Indeed, one of the difficulties of having any view at all of ACNA is that its proponents say different things and have different views of what is going on (this is a ‘virtue’ for a pragmatic account of affairs, of course). That is fine. But to be put on defensive re: ACNA because it seemed to be suggested that a covenant signing was only for dioceses, when a replacement province strictly speaking needs no covenant anyway, has a different view of clusters and networks, and many have said that covenants are a wasted effort — well that seems like a moving target. It is not our purpose to speak about ACNA and its aims as we do not know what they are, are not involved, and are not seeking to diminish something that is moving according to its own principles, given our present struggles. Equally, the fate of CP dioceses as covenanted realities, should that transpire, and what that might mean, canonically, is not easy to predict. It is something we have given serious thought to, and we hope to say some things about that at ACI. But of course, things change rapidly and all prognostications are patient of many different changes and chances.
If I jump in here, it is not to try to clarify matters above, since, frankly, I am not quite following all the ins and out of the discussion! Much of it is speculative, after all. One question, it seems, is whether or not CP/Covenant direction is, in the end, the same as the ACNA direction. Well, I suppose if we all end up in one place — which would be nice — it might appear so. But how we get places is a major issue here.
For the moment, ACI has argued for the continued hammering away at the procedures that are on the table, that have been pressed by the Instruments of the Communion, and that cohere with the laws of the churches/church as they are currently laid out, within some sort of theological continuity with Anglican practice as it has developed. There are reasons for this argument, such as those that Philip Turner articulates here, and others that have been discussed elsewhere. There are risks in this approach, mainly practical ones: perhaps they will not give rise to the outcomes we all hope for. But should they move towards such outcomes, they will do so on a steady footing for the long-term health of the church, precisely because they will be based on accepted law and recognized procedure. So we believe. The fact that the outcome is one many of us share, whether or not we share ACI’s approach to it, is heartening. And that there are overlaps in elements of these various approaches is also to be expected.
Were CP dioceses to sign on to a Communion covenant in a way that is recognized by the Communion, while other TEC dioceses (and GC) do not, this might indeed trigger certain realignments of relationship, which in turn and in tandem might make use of certain legal permissions granted to dioceses. How all this would ultimately settle in terms of ecclesial and legal relationships is surely a matter of pure hypothesis at this point. But its settlement would, we hope, be an ordered one, following understandable ecclesial logic from one step to another, given the principles at work, principles that, in the end, we also hope and believe would be in congruence with basic evangelical commitments of decision-making. As Prof. Seitz says, ACNA is constructing something according to another blueprint, whose shape will surey coincide with the above at times, and whose final purpose will do so more permanently, we pray, in the long run.
Thank you Ephraim Radner for jumping in. I substantially agree with all that you say here, with the exception that I may think some things are less speculative than you do, not so much what the outcome will be but the conditions for the outcome to be a good one. What conditions? I find your “Truthful Language and Orderly Separation” resonates strongly. Moreover, I do not see that the force of your analysis there is weakened or altered by developments with regard to ACNA so I wonder why Christopher Seitz makes the point that it was written before some of the ACNA organizational activity.
Professor Seitz, the reason you cast me in #15 as making an implausible argument that ACI was arguing in favor of the formation of ACNA is that you made a jump from arguments about the existence of a legal right to separate, which was what I was speaking about at the beginning of #14 (following Noll’s initial mention in #8 and the back and forth in #s 10, 11 and 13). Obviously whether there is a legal right to do something presents a more limited set of issues than whether doing it is warranted or advisable.
#17 — Well it sounds like we all agree that trying to be clear when at the same time responding to previous points is difficult. My concern was with the direction of the remarks in #8 which seemed potentially provocative at a time when ACNA is finding its way and CP and ACI are trying to work at their own understanding of the way forward.
My modest point about ACNA is that it has its own logic and rationales, and that is as it will be given the situation we are facing. ACI has of course argued as Prof Radner describes in #16, seeking to avoid legal entanglements and also creation of ecclesial arrangements that make a hoped-for Instrumental address fraught (leaving aside that some see these arrangements as ad hoc and temporary; some as exciting and permanent; some as matters of extreme expedience only). Thanks for the clarification.
#18: I think you state a good diagnosis of some of the difficulties of blog discussion. Thanks to you as well.
Some thoughts on separation of a diocese of TEC:
I am no expert on Episcopal Church history at the time of the Civil War and Reconstruction, but I did find an old article on the internet which helped me fill in some gaps and come to some comparisons with our current situation. See The Church in the Confederate States: A History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Confederate States, by Joseph Blount Cheshire, D.D., Bishop of North Carolina. New York, London, Bombay and Calcutta: Longmans, Green and Co., 1912.
It strikes me that the separation and reunion the Episcopal Church from 1861-1866 was due to several factors which do not apply today.
Firstly, the Southern bishops were clear from Day One that the separation of their dioceses was political and not theological. They repeatedly claimed, in line with the Preface of the Prayer Book, that the substance of the faith of both churches remained entire and that the cause of separation was forced upon them by the fact that they could no longer be part of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States.
The Pastoral Letter from their one and only General Council in 1862 stated:
Secondly, there was clearly a strong bond of affection between the bishops of the North and South that was stretched but not broken by the War. Of course, one reason the Northern bishops kept open the Southern sees rather than replacing them was that they refused to recognize the Confederacy; hence in the one Convention of 1862, they simply counted them as absent. There was only one new diocesan consecrated in the South during the War, so that the issue of legitimacy was a minor one. After Appomattox, PB John Henry Hopkins immediately wrote a conciliatory letter inviting the Southerners back. One key point of agreement was that the separation was not to be labeled or considered schism.
I do not see any of these mitigating factors at work today. The issue between the CP and TEC leadership does involve the substance of the faith, and the attitude of the latter is hardly genteel. It is very difficult imagine a return to normalcy, i.e., orthodoxy, in TEC for at least a generation, by which time separation will likely become permanent one way or another. Finally because the divisions today are theological, not geographical, the CP dioceses can offer little succor to stranded orthodox in hostile dioceses. This is why, in my opinion, most of the regional deaneries of the Anglican Communion Network ended up in ACNA.
Stephen is surely right about the doctrinal and disciplinarly coherence between northern and southern Episcopal churches before and during the Civil War. Of course, that raises even more challenging theological/ecclesiological questions. For if any church was on the wrong side of the Gospel, it was a church, such as the Episcopal church of the south and in the Confederacy, that upheld the American practice and institution of slavery. Indeed, this support was part of the “coherence” with the north! The Presiding Bishop at the time — Vermont? — if memory serves, was an anti-abolitionist who saw every reason to go easy on the south. In this he was supported by most (though not all) northern Episcopalians. What are we to make of this kind of analogy? If nothing else, we can certainly see that viewpoints change over time, and with them the relationships of Christian churches. While I would hardly suggest that the commitments of the current TEC PB and the majority of its House of Bishops should be viewed as the future towards which common change will eventually develop — far from it — it would at least seem fair to imagine that ecclesial relationships, on the basis of the Gospel I hope, are not easily predictable, let alone manipulable in the providence of God. One does one’s best to stake out one’s witness, knowing well that events may, and probably will, disclose the constricted nature of one’s calculations.
Touche, Ephraim. In one sense I agree with you that the reconciliation of the Northern and Southern Episcopal dioceses may have been too easily accomplished – at the cost of integrity in the witness against slavery and of winning confidence of ex-slaves. My main point is that such a formal conciliation between CP and TEC – not to mention ACNA and TEC – seems highly unlikely.
I would like to ask another question, if you would. If dioceses in non-Covenant provinces were to be permitted to sign on to the Covenant, how would this work and who will authorize such a provision? Will that be part of the Covenant Draft report or a subsequent action by one of the Instruments? Will it work in reverse, i.e., could a non-compliant diocese in a Covenant province withdraw? Beyond the ABC’s passing reference in his letter to John Howe, I have not heard this option discussed much and wonder what it would mean in a Communion constituted by Provinces.
My only comment had to do with the phenomenon of withdrawal, its possibility, given the Constitution. A reality that took form for political reasons in the Civil War: that is, the concern is Constitutional constraint and Constitutional openness. We have a 815 contingent arguing that there is a strict hierarchy running from 815/PB to General Convention to ‘subordinate units’ called dioceses. This needs to be challenged. It is also the case that ACI never argued for withdrawal entailing reattachment to other parts of the Communion in a form of federal linkage. Mention of the Civil War was made to establish the general point. What we are watching in the arguments published on the web from the legal ad litem in Pittsburgh is disturbing. It is a logic of ‘national church’ that would have struck those in the 19th century and most assuredly in the 18th as un-Anglican/Episcopalian. One can design a new church and call it PB/Gen Conv hierarchical, but there is a Constitution that envisages a different Episcopal Church. +Howe has made this point in his own way, and +RDW has also made it in his.
Chris, I think ACI and ACNA should be agreed at least at the level of legal argument on the right of a diocese to withdraw under the TEC Constitution. This should be the big battle for the moment in the courts in San Joaquin and Pittsburgh. The question of whether a diocese which withdraws can then realign is a matter of Communion order to be settled separately. Like Ross in #12, I think what is right according to the original intention of the framers of the Constitution and how it is construed today by 815 are two different things. And at least in the case of parishes, the courts have been all to ready to bow to the simple “we’re a hierarchical church” argument.
Stephen: on your question regarding signing up as dioceses to the Covenant (and unsigning, as it were). The topic is a lively one among folks discussing this, and will remain so. Certainly I and several others on the Design Group will press for this, within the parameters that are permitted by various provincial constitutions, etc.. At the present there are no impediments for diocesan sign-up within TEC (despite what the Executive council etc. may wish). We can only see what happens with this suggestion/hope/plan. Any Covenant can only deal with relationships between churches internationally, or dioceses, according to each churches’ constitutional permissions. It cannot control internal decision-making within individual churches. Not everyone understands this. But as a result, dioceses who “unsign” from their province’s signup can do so, but any “discipline” brought to bear can only be internal the laws of the province (if that is the entity at work).
#25:
In regards to the specific practices currently under dispute in the Communion — consecration of non-celibate gay or lesbian bishops, and blessing of same-sex unions — these are matters which an individual diocese (at least in TEC) can agree to refrain from regardless of what the national church does; and so it would be possible for an individual diocese to proclaim, and practice, Windsor compliance. To that extent, such a diocese could sign on to the kind of Covenant that seems likely to come out of the covenant design process, even if its parent province does not.
But not all potential matters of dispute can be handled at the diocesan level. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the No-WO faction were to sway the mind of the Communion, such that consecrating a woman as bishop became one of those things that could not be done while remaining in covenantal relationship with the Communion.
Well, of course a diocese could avoid electing a woman as bishop, even in a province that continues to ordain and consecrate women. But who will consecrate the men they do elect? Will the diocese have the option of refusing all women consecrators? Even if they do, will they be able to demonstrate that there is an unbroken chain of male consecrators for their new bishop? Would it, at that point, be possible for a diocese — even with the best will in the world — to maintain its covenantal committments to the Communion so long as it remained in its non-covenanted province?
I don’t think it’s actually likely that the mind of the Communion will turn that definitely against WO. But I offer it as an example of an issue where it could become very problematic for individual dioceses to sign on to a covenant that the rest of their province does not agree to. There may be other examples. I’m curious to know what ACI would say to this — I’m guessing the response would be to cross that bridge when and if you come to it; but I’d be interested in hearing what you think.
Re #25: I agree with Professor Radner that there are no impediments to diocesan sign-up within TEC. The Executive Council’s comment that the covenant can only be embraced on the provincial level could perhaps be read so as to reflect no more than how the St. Andrew’s draft is set up, but it would seem true to form for the EC to want diocesan signing to be prohibited by TEC and perhaps they have said as much.
Regardless, I am interested in the source for any requirement that diocesan sign-up would have to be “within the parameters that are permitted by various provincial constitutions, etc.†Is this thought to stem from ecclesiological principles or some notion of common canon law, or would it be a choice by the Design Group just for the sake of good order? I can see reasons for not wanting to allow an admission to covenant status that is clearly subject to a binding prohibition or is illegal, but there could be other situations. If, for example, you are in a jurisdiction like the U.S., “constitutional permission†is not really the right category, as Mark McCall demonstrates in his paper. And who would decide, in case whether or not the requirement is met is in dispute? The Anglican Communion Office has experts in canon law of all the provinces as well as civil law which in many cases could also be relevant?
Moreover, straining to enforce the canonical structures of a province that has declined to sign on to the covenant with the consequence of preventing full communion with a diocese that is willing to covenant seems less than ideal.
I have to admit that I don’t know enough about the range of how things are set up in the various provinces to have a very informed view of the extent of the problem, but from where I sit, it seems that at some point, one might well say, “These are the requirements. It’s up to you to consider the consequences under local law of moving forward.†If the Communion makes too many things subject to local canon law, paralysis may ensue. See the TEC Executive Council’s comment on St. Andrew’s Draft Section 3.2.4, which comment appears to want to make the commitment to seek a common mind about matters understood to be of essential concern subject to the canon laws of all the churches!
Ephraim, you say:
[blockquote]Certainly I and several others on the Design Group will press for this, within the parameters that are permitted by various provincial constitutions, etc. [/blockquote]
Is it not not now the case, or will it not soon be the case, that a bishop and diocese that upholds Lambeth 1.10 will be judged in violation of the those canons of TEC that prohibit discrimination based on “sexual orientation”?
E.g., Canon I.17, sec. 5:
[blockquote]No one shall be denied rights, status or access to an equal place in the life, worship, and governance of this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, disabilities or age, except as otherwise specified by Canons.[/blockquote]
See also Canon III.1.2, III.9.3(a), III.9.4 and III.9.6.
At one level, TEC “discipline” of such bishops and dioceses seems inevitable whether or not they join the Covenant, but since affirmation of Lambeth 1.10 would be one of the reasons that those dioceses signed on, it would highlight their dissent and force TEC’s hand sooner if anything. And if the Coventant contains no final exclusion clause (see my frequent writings), TEC will have nothing to lose in going after these bishops and dioceses.
Mike lays things out the way I perceive them. The point I was making was simply to say that what a diocese does in signing up will “mean” canonically or legally wil be understood according to the laws (church or civil) under which that diocese operates. That is all. And there are indeed situations in the communion where it appears that dioceses’ own sign-up may have little meaning within the context of their own local ecclesial setups, vis a vis the synods in which they operate. In the case of US, however, I agree that this should not be a problem. That is not to say there will not be disputes about this (!) as is already obvious and as Stephen indicates might take place.
I think it is important to keep a clear head about what this putative ‘going after’ will look like (so #28). It is arguably far, far messier to attack a diocese or bishop who is NOT leaving.
Let’s say GenConv ‘mandates’ the SSB agenda and +Lawrence and SC (plug in W-LA, Dallas, CFL, etc) just say this is not a matter that can be constrained in our Christian conscience. What happens in the light of this? 1) a quicky deposition of the sort we are now seeing?, 2) this is ignored in SC, 3) an effort to create a new ‘real TEC’ diocese is launched in SC, with what kind of effect? 4) courts are brought in to throw +Lawrence out of his office, etc?
These are the kinds of speculations that are probably only marginally helpful, but if they are helpful at all, I suspect they show what a nightmare it is to try to ‘go after’ a diocese that has had good and faithful leadership — and yet this is exactly the kind of road the PB and those with her would end up having to go down, and it would be a real messy PR and legal affair. Often when I read this kind of comment my sense of the real perlocution is ‘one must join ACNA, TEC will eat your children.’ The problem here is the genuine difficulty of trying to throw someone out who has decided NOT to leave. But thanks for raising the issue, as it is frequently stated in just this way.
Re #30:
If by quickie deposition you mean use of the abandonment canon, that seems unlikely in the scenario outlined, and Stephen Noll’s question seemed to assume the charges would be based on an alleged canonical violation. Similarly, it doesn’t seem that creation of a new diocese (element 3) would be regarded to be at issue by either side since (by hypothesis) neither the diocese nor the bishop would have disaffiliated; the issue would presumably be the deposition of the bishop. Perhaps the assumed scenario includes an attempt by the PB to dismiss the standing committee on the grounds of asserted unwillingness to “well and faithfully perform†so that a more complete change in control could be effected, but still this wouldn’t involve a new diocese.
But still, assuming no attempted use of the abandonment canon in these circumstances, I can’t think of anything TEC would be arguing that in some form or other isn’t being argued already. So, without agreeing with any implication from the contrast drawn that Bishops Duncan, Iker and Schofield aren’t “good and faithful leadership†(in contrast to, as it is argued, in error or misguided), it seems to me that if there were to be restraint, it would more likely arise from a view of how more aggressive action on TEC’s part would be regarded by those it isn’t ready to alienate, rather than whether the action would in its view be warranted or how “messy†things would get. I don’t know whether it is correct or not that there would be restraint on the part of TEC, but recent history doesn’t seem to contain a lot of examples of such restraint.
In any case, if disaffiliation is warranted, it hardly seems a good reason not to do it that “they won’t come after us if we don’t.†If we also make the assumption made elsewhere in this comment thread that part of the picture is that SC (or other diocese) has signed on to the covenant but TEC has declined to do so, the ACI view appears to be that at some point disaffiliation from TEC is warranted. See “True Christian Unity? Reflections on the Lambeth Conference†(August 10, 2008), paragraph 4 near the end (dioceses in such circumstances should be free to free to petition the next Lambeth Conference for recognition of their partnerships with other covenanting dioceses as provinces). So (apparently) the issue is one of Communion order and timing. Why the period should extend until 2018 instead of (at the latest) to the conclusion of the proposed mediated conversation and the opportunity given for TEC to sign on to the Covenant is not apparent to me. Aggressive action by TEC should, it would seem, be cause for shortening the period further.