The Fundamental Structure of The Episcopal Church Is That of a Voluntary Association of Equal Dioceses
Given the constitutional reservation of authority within the diocese to the Bishop and Standing Committee, it is not surprising that the fundamental structure of our Church is that of a voluntary association of equal dioceses.
It is significant that the same term, “voluntary association,” has been used by both the founding father of The Episcopal Church to describe the organization he was so instrumental in forming and by the civil law to describe religious societies and other unincorporated voluntary organizations in general. Our Church’s primary architect was, of course, William White, and his blueprint was The Case of the Episcopal Churches in the United States Considered, published in 1782 as the Revolutionary War was nearing an end. As a result of American independence, many of the former Church of England parishes had become independent churches while others were still organized as state churches under the control of state legislatures. White’s concept, later accepted by others in the former colonies, was that the Anglican churches would first be organized into state churches and then the state churches would organize themselves nationally as a voluntary association of state churches (now called “dioceses”). Pursuant to this plan, White was one of the first two Americans consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1787 to serve in the Episcopal Churches. When The Episcopal Church eventually was duly organized in 1789, Bishop White and Bishop Samuel Seabury, consecrated by the Scottish Episcopal Church, sat as the first House of Bishops at the first General Convention.
Just as the thirteen states were the “independent and sovereign” constituents of the American confederation that existed when the church now known as The Episcopal Church was being formed, the state churches were the bodies that combined to constitute what was initially called the Protestant Episcopal Church.
Ms Russell is all “uptet”. She is trying to make a conspiracy out of this calm and reasoned report: those bad CP conservatives are actually working to increase their influence. We [url=http://www.washingtonblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=25092 ]have this from the Washington Blade[/url] with Ms Russell’s shrill response to the ACI report and a leaked letter from Chris Seitz+:
[blockquote]Russell called the strategy that Episcopal Church officials discuss in the e-mails “a Karl Rove tactic,†a reference to former President George W. Bush’s campaign tactician.
“While purporting to be in favor of reconciliation, what they’re doing is working behind the scenes,†she said. “At the highest levels of the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church, we have conservative operatives who — while professing to be working towards reconciliation — are really working to continue to split the Episcopal Church to make gay inclusion a wedge issue.â€
Russell said she planned to write a public statement “saying how horrified we are and this does nothing but tell us what we always thought about these cretins.â€
Integrity based this suspicion, Russell said, on “years of watching a conservative minority in the Episcopal Church try to manipulate and coerce the continuation exclusion for gay and lesbian people.†[/blockquote]
How about bringing up the non-secret Chapman memo where some conservatives were planning to leave with their property (as if anyone with half a brain would have known). What about a shooter on the grassy knoll?
Historically accurate and verifiable – unless the shriekers can get their hand on every copy of every text on the history of the PECUSA/ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC in every public, seminary, and private library in the world, burn them, and re-issue them pronto. Good luck with that.
I’m thinking they’ll try, though, and certainly am reminded of Charles Williams’ THE DESCENT INTO HELL in the matter of historical revisioning.
Not only historically accurate with regard to the formation of PECUSA, but also in conformity with both patristic and Anglican ecclesiology: the Catholic Church, as St. Ignatius writes, is the local community (diocese) gathered around its bishop.
Disingenuous, dishonest, disgusting.
The outcry is redundant evidence that the Bible is not the [i]sole[/i] subject of their reappraising.
; – )
In addition to the historical comments in the recent statement by Bishops Adams, Beckwith, and others, my reading in the history of the Church of England ministry in the American colonies from before 1607 until 1776 leads me to think that the clergy and congregations were part of the Church of England only as part of the royal ecclesiastical prerogative and not part of any English diocese. The Bishops of London either by custom or by letters patent licensed and took order for the ordination of deacons and priests (and licensed church schoolmasters) but they did so by delegation from the crown. So when the clergy and lay members of the American congregations gathered state by state to organize they were exercising their ecclesiastical as well as their political freedom.
I think Bishops Adams, Beckwith and others have the support of history as well as of canon law. The General Convention is free to organize new dioceses in the area formerly part of the Dioceses of San Joaquin, Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, and Quincy if it wishes to – or to join the parishes in those areas that withdraw from the dioceses that have withdrawn from General Convention to other dioceses. But to pretend that the dioceses that have withdrawn from General Convention have no right to do so is not only silly but wrong.
Simply, more lies and emissions from the leader of “Dis-integrity,” along with a lamentable derogatory reference to helpless hypothyroid children. Consider the source.
The ACI report is spot-on. It exposes the lies and emissions of 815 for all the world to see. Perhaps some judges in property dispute trials will study it carefully, and call some TEC leaders in to determine whether they have perjured themselves in depositions.
More signs that TEC is not dead. Not yet, anyway.
Reply to #4. who said
“Disingenuous, dishonest, disgusting.”
===============================================================
Please explain in factual detail your unsupported adjectives cited above.
Otherwise youe
This is a courageous statement by the Communion Partners. I pray for them and their supporters as they will face the full wrath of the Episcopal left and probably +Schori, Beers & Co. GC2009 could be the end of them all within TEC.
I predict that it will be.
I believe that this is an excellent piece, well argued and impeccably presented. I am delighted with it, as with the list of Bishops who have put their names to it. I took the time to read the hysterical ranting of the “opposition” who are shrill in their rejection of it, the bishops who signed it, the ACI and the good lawyer who put it together. They are even incoherent, such is their frothing at the mouth.
I agree that the signers are brave indeed as the full wrath of Mrs. Schori and her allies will surely fall on them. I am very open to correction on this, but I believe that part of the new proposed disciplinary canon will include something that can be used against those who are perceived to be disloyal to TEC as its leadership may determine. This is indeed more evidence that Lord Carey was correct in his analysis and prophesy that the orthodox would eventually be cleaned out. Therefore all the more kudos to those who take a stand and stay in-spite of what may be done to them in the HOB.
God bless the ACI and Communion Partner Bishops
Are we about ready to hear once again from the P.B. “The crisis is over”? Nothing to see here. Please move along. ACI has better scholars than TEC has lawyers. The cool thing here is ACI made two chess moves at once. They moved their knight to allow for signing on to the Anglican Covenant and it uncovered their rook which helps each Diocese in their respective lawsuits.
Well, it didn’t take long. The Epsicopal left blogosphere already has commentors that are calling for the deposition of the signing bishops, and anyone else involved in the “IRD, Karl Rove, CIA, …” conspiracy.
I know I shouldn’t be astonished when left leaning people organise, plan, meet together, form coalition groups with other like minded organizations, to influence policy and regulations (in this case “canon”) and that is called “activism”. However, when the right does the very same thing, it’s called “conspiracy” or “plotting” and now “teabagging”.
When you look at the “Integrity” website, it’s chock full of things like how to organize, communications through e-mail, blogs, infoletter, briefing papers, sections for donations, etc., etc. If Rev. Russell could please explain to me how it is OK for people to organize through “Integrity” , but for other’s its tinfoil hat conspiracy theory time?
#1. robroy,
And don’t think your comment [blockquote]What about a shooter on the grassy knoll?[/blockquote] went by unnoticed by this pair of eyes. Could you have been referring to the following ideation?
[blockquote]“At the highest levels of the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church, we have conservative operatives who — while professing to be working towards reconciliation — are really working to continue to split the Episcopal Church to make gay inclusion a wedge issue.â€[/blockquote]
Oooh. “Conservative operatives.” Good comment, In Texas. Liberals aren’t “operatives,” they’re “activists.” Ms. Russell has pulled out all the stops with the “Karl Rove” and “cretin” lines. If that’s all they’ve got to counter this well-researched ACI paper, then they’ve got trouble.
My compliments to the ACI, and to the signatory bishops.
And brickbats to the left!
i am curious who will be reading this besides us and them? will it make any difference in the litigation?
I pray this Statement signals a turn about for many bishops, clergy and laity to fulfill their vows to defend the Faith and live the Gospel. May their number increase. I hope and pray many others with join them by signature and proclamation.
This is not just about polity….polity, canon law, theology and sin are all tied together…”sin is lawlessness.” I John 3:4. Where you find one, you find the other.
The problem is TEC just going to do what it pleases, and GC 2009 will be the ultimate display of that. There is slim chance that reason, civility, and true inclusion will enter the mix at this point.
And when push comes to shove these bishops signing this document are the same bishops who signed the Camp Allen Principles, which although recieving a good response in the Communion, were rejected and ignored by TEC as this will be.
There seems to be an attempt to confront the problems in TEC with the same few players under newly titled organizations, all voiced by ACI, but coming to the same non-effect.
Wouldn’t it make better sense at this point that instead of competing with ACNA, to join it?