A friend-of-the-court petition filed in the ongoing litigation in Pittsburgh by the Presiding Bishop’s chancellor represents a new, serious challenge to the long-standing polity of The Episcopal Church, according to a joint statement to be issued March 12 by the Anglican Communion Institute (ACI) and the Communion Partner bishops.
“The historic episcopate has long been recognized as an essential, non-negotiable element of Anglican identity,” the statement notes. “The polity of The Episcopal Church, clearly expressed in its name, its constitution and its history, is that of dioceses and bishops meeting in a general convention as equals. The Presiding Bishop and the Executive Council are the agents, not the superiors of dioceses.”
How can ACI claim it is not choosing sides when it asserts that what the CEO of the Episcopal Organization is usurping her authority and the Organization itself is acting in violation of its history and constitution? Statements like ACI’s latest lead me to ask: If the EO and its actions are so flagrantly in violation of its polity, its constitution, and its history, why is ACI not filing an amicus curiae brief on behalf of Duncan and the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh? ACI creates wonderful statements, and it is an honorable institute.
Please eliminate the “what” in the first sentence. Thank you.
Friend Dan,
I’m sure my and our friends the good Dr.’s Seitz, Turner, and Radner will write their own very fine–and much longer–paper soon enough. As per the question of whether to file an Amicus brief: I would say that it is possible to see the egregious flaws in the TEC position without, concurrently, affirming the position of the “realignment.” The Primates in Alexandria commented on what appears to be a deficit in Anglican ecclesiology, and with some clarity that this deficit is starkly in evidence on both sides of the current divide as they mud-wrestle over endowments and jurisdiction. You and I happen to find ourselves on different sides of the stream for the moment, institutionally, although I believe we share pretty substantially in theological perspective. I can’t speak for anybody else, but for me this has been almost entirely a season of choosing between what appear to be two deeply flawed ways forward. This is only to say, the challenge for ACI will probably be how to identify with clarity the flaws in the TEC argument without appearing to support an equally but differently flawed position being argued by the other side. If I could whisper in Judge James’s ear I would suggest that the best solution would be to appropriate all the disputed assets of both parties and distribute them to poor, and then to let both groups go out, free of encumbrance, to preach the good news of Jesus Christ.
Bruce Robison
Amen and again I say, Amen! Of extreme importance here is how the entire polity of the Episcopal Church is being changed by actions of just a few. Will we see attemps to ratify these changes, to a hieracrchy, at General Convention? It would surprise no one.
Sounds good….means nothing. If the ACI and the Communion Partner Bishops are really that up in arms about their Presiding Bishop’s overreaching perhaps it should be addressed in, oh, I don’t know, maybe their House of Bishops? I know that they are not at all happy with the actions of the “realingers” but at least there was/is concrete action. Their unwillingness to take action has led them to a point of watching a tight knit junta erode what was once their legitimate authority and their obligation to be defenders of the faith. Their joint statement asks the following two questions:
(1) do the Presiding Bishop and the central bodies of The Episcopal Church (General Convention and Executive Council) have metropolitan authority over the dioceses and diocesan bishops; and (2) do dioceses have authority under the constitution of The Episcopal Church to sign an Anglican covenant independently of The Episcopal Church as a whole in order to remain constituent members of the Anglican Communion, the sine qua non on which The Episcopal Church’s continued constitutional viability rests.
I believe the answer to (1) is yes due to the unwillingness of many of the TEC Bishops to stand for what is right. They ceded their legitimate authority by their inaction. I believe the answer to (2) is no regardless of the TEC constitutional language. The President of their House of Deputies, with the full support of their Metropolitan, has already indicated that the Anglican Convenant issues will be decided at the provincial level, not the diocesan level….and there’s nothing that ACI or the Communion Partner Bishops can do about it since they are unwilling to take any action in the proper forum, the TEC House of Bishops. It doesn’t really matter, though. The Archbishop of Canterbury has already cemented TEC’s place in the club. Bps. Howe, Stanton and the rest of the Cummunion Partner Bishops are safe….maybe not from their own Metropolitan but at least they’re in the club.
BigTex AC
To BigTex AC,
Just because you have not seen anything out of the HOB from any of the people you mention, it does not mean that they have not stood their ground in the HOB. Several have spoken out and in one case to the meeting of the Primates. Just because some do not feel called to leave TEC but fight for the Gospel within does not mean that any place is secure. Never think that this group is soft on what has happened in our Church. Your prayers and support would mean a great deal however. Never think that the stand that is made is without consequence nor sacrifice. I’m big, I’m from Texas and I’m an Anglican also.
All well and good, friend Bruce, but apparently no one is listening to you in your side’s “surrender or die” approach.
Big Tex, you chose the wrong bishop. But where do you get the “surrender or die” approach. There is too much cynicism in everyone. I ask for prayer and support and I receive snide comments and distain for other people’s approach and needs. I pray you have 1/10th of the integrity of Bishop MacPherson. As the Canons stand, there is nothing that anyone can do in a Diocese without the Diocesan’s permission. It will be different if that changes.
#8
Not sure this comment is directed at me as I didn’t type “surrender or die.” But rest assured, faithful Christians who are called to witness inside TEC are in my prayers.
BigTex AC
Yes, Dan, and I agree that there are so very many departments of life in this world that would run better “if they would only listen to me.” I explain that to my (now adult) children all the time.
Nonetheless, both cars are being driven by the lawyers these days, which we all knew a couple of years ago was going to be the way it was going to end up, much as we would wish otherwise. And both sides doth protest too much. Counsellors Devlin and Booth-Beers are both working from scripts they began to write many, many moons ago, and the grim saga now will unwind to its appointed end. My prayer is that once the lawyers have left the room, and a mid-lent alleluia for that day, and in whatever hands they and the Commonwealth have left the luggage, we will be able to find ways to move forward in Christian charity and generosity of spirit. But the reality is, no way around this process. Only through it, brewing resentment, anxiety, dis-ease along the way, alas. In the meantime, hold on to your hats.
Bruce Robison
My apologies to BigTex. It was about Dan’s statement. If all of us, in or out, but believers none-the-less prayed continuously, the prayers would rise up and as they used to say “smite” the evildoers. Yes, evildoers. To reject Jesus as Lord and not preach His Gospel is to do evil in His sight. I agree with Bruce Robison, “hold on to your hats.”