Another significant section compares the language of the constitution and canons of the General Convention of The Episcopal Church with similar bylaws from other denominations to conclude that the founders of The Episcopal Church intentionally created a church in which dioceses “are not subject to hierarchical control by central bodies whether they be the Presiding Bishop, the General Convention, the Executive Council, or the courts of The Episcopal Church.”
Despite its claim that The Episcopal Church is a “voluntary association of equal dioceses” and that the constitutionally defined powers of the office of the Presiding Bishop greatly limit the ability of the incumbent to intervene in the internal affairs of a diocese, the document is silent on whether a diocese may legally withdraw from The Episcopal Church.
In addition to the 11 diocesan bishops, the document was also endorsed by the Rt. Rev. Paul E. Lambert, Bishop Suffragan of Dallas, three retired bishops, and the three contributing theologians of the Anglican Communion Institute.
There were no lawsuits during the war between the states when half the contingent was not there in that period. Why should there be any now?
[blockquote]Despite its claim that The Episcopal Church is a “voluntary association of equal dioceses†and that the constitutionally defined powers of the office of the Presiding Bishop greatly limit the ability of the incumbent to intervene in the internal affairs of a diocese, the document is silent on whether a diocese may legally withdraw from The Episcopal Church.[/blockquote] The document is probably silent on whether a diocese may legally withdraw because the intent of the document is focused on the role of the P.B. and whether a diocese has the autonomy to sign on to the Anglican Covenant. It goes without saying however if a Diocese is autonomous and has a voluntary relationship with the General Convention of TEC then they should be able to leave if they wish to do so. There has been considerable discussion of the “accession clause” but it seems to me that it would only apply while a Diocese was a part of TEC. It would make sense that to become and remain a part of TEC that a Diocese would agree to the Constitution and Canons of TEC. Does it say (yet) in the Constitution and Canons that a Diocese cannot leave?
#1. Milton Finch,
[blockquote]There were no lawsuits during the war between the states when half the contingent was not there in that period. Why should there be any now?[/blockquote]
The war between the states was a Civil War. This is not.
Is +Tennessee the only CP bishop whose signature is missing from this statement? Does anyone know why that is, or to what extent he dissents from this viewpoint?
Is +Tennessee a “CP Bishop?” I wonder what that means. I suppose it is a bit presumptuous for a mere layman like me, and a poor one at that, to act as though I might comprehend this very insider debate about Episcopal church polity. But, I believe the achilles heal of the “statement on church polity” can be summed up in one word: Communion. Perhaps +Tennessee hints at this in his very recently posted review of Radner’s book: The Fate of Communion: The Agony of Anglicanism and the Future of a Global Church
http://episcopaldiocese-tn.org/bishops-forum/the-rt-rev-john-c-bauerschmidt-book-review
Bauerschmidt calls the current unpleasantness “this present impasse” and says, “The provinces are autonomous only in relation to others, not in some absolute sense.” Autonomous in relation to others. Well, obviously, sir. By definition. And I say that with respect. But, one wonders if +Tennessee has sufficiently defined “Communion” in its worldwide Anglican, or even Catholic, sense? Or is his understanding of Communion limited to the U.S. Episcopal sense?
Dear Elves, I tried to follow the formatting suggestions in post #5’s link, but it’s not working. Can you help fix it?
[i]We fixed the link. It looks like you got the code right, but there’s been some problem with links at both T19 and Stand Firm ever since the server move. If the link isn’t too long, you can just past the address in the comment box with no code at all. If it is long, best to go to tinyurl.com and transform the long link into a shorter one. Sorry for the problems.[/i]
I must confess that I don’t know what it means to be a “Communion Partner” bishop either; I just saw that +Tennessee was identified as such at one time, and that his seems to be the only name missing from this statement.
I do not presume to speak for Bp. Bauerschmidt of Tennessee. However, he is someone I know a bit, and greatly respect and admire. He is indeed a “CP bishop”, in that he is a publicly recognized part of the fellowship of mutual support this group represents, holds a range of concerns that are shared by these colleagues, and is committed to being a bishop ordered within the “Communion” of the Anglican fellowship of churches, as it is itself ordered to the wider Church. As to why his name is not on the statement, I can only say this: there were several CP bishops who either chose not to sign because of their sense of different strategic/prudential goals, or who simply were not able to provide a timely confirmation of their desire before the statement went up. (The latter issue is one that comes up often in these kinds of cross-continental, sometimes even inter-continental, attempts to issue “common” statements; sometimes names get on that should not be on; sometimes names are left off that might not have been. People should be patient to these difficulties.) In any case, one of the fundamental realities that CP bishops and Rectors understand and are more than willing to work with, is the fact that bisohps, dioceses, and parishes within the fellowship have different needs, are located in different contexts, are ordered by different dynamics. This is a fellowship, not a political party or secret society, and there is no demand that people “toe the line” on policy issues beyond basic matters of the faith, communion, and the charity of Christ. I am very grateful, as are many of us, for the steady witness, calm vision, and encouragement that our CP bishops have provided to us and will continue to provide, the Bishop of Tennessee included.
Numbers 5 and 7 above ask a good question: “What does it mean to be a Communion Partner bishop?” The short, but honest, answer, quite frankly is: not much. This is a fairly heterogeneous and loose grouping of bishops who find themselves in each others company from time to time. What can you say about a group that is so tentative that they can’t even publish a full membership list?!!! Some of them seem profoundly concerned about theological issues (such as +Howe, +Lawrence) and others seem more concerned about the fate of the Communion and especially of TEC within the Communion (such as +Wolf and +Henderson). It’s hard to see how some of these bishops will ultimately be able to remain in TEC, with others it’s hard to imagine ANY circumstance that would lead them out of TEC. There is ultimately no overarching consideration that holds them together, it seems to be an ever-shifting partnership of convenience more than anything else. This statement recently issued by ACI is one of the few concrete things they’ve ever been able to accomplish, in fact, and even this they can’t get everyone to sign up to. Given the political realities in TEC, it’s extremely hard to imagine how such a small and nebulous group, with such disparate concerns could have much impact — beyond being a token orthodox presence within TEC (the “loyal and totally overwhelmed opposition”). It’s also hard to see what this statement issued by some but not all CP Bishops will accomplish. The primary purpose of the document seems to be to assert the right of individual dioceses within TEC to adopt an Anglican Covenant in the highly unlikely event that such a document ever comes into being in a form which TEC cannot live with. For this document to have much significance, therefore, you’d have to buy into the notion that a meaningful Covenant will indeed come into existence and that some portion of these CP Bishops would actually challenge TEC leadership by signing onto the Covenant despite TEC’s refusal to do so. Moreover, you’d have to buy into the even more remote possibility that TEC leadership would accept and honor this statement by the CP Bishops. If you’re willing to buy into all of these assumptions, there’s a great bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you! Essentially, then, this statement and the whole fiction of the CP Bishops (now seemingly expanded to Rectors too!) is the response of some very thoughtful and intelligent people (Seitz+, Radner+ and Turner+ of ACI) to the crisis in the Communion. The whole thing has a very academic, egghead sort of quality to it. Will any of it it make much difference in the end? Probably not, but what do I know, I’m just an academic too!
In peril is right. The inclusive, all-loving, “include all the baptized in ordination” (infants too?), tolerant folks like Susan Russell and Mark Harris have fancied themselves wizened and noteworthy and don’t mind disingenuous activities to bear false witness about people like Bishop John Howe. Russell even defends her use of “cretin” (“thou fool”-like talk) to refer to those who don’t uncritically bless her lesbian infatuations. In peril is right. The HOB includes too many theological light-weights like Neff Powell, Marc Andrus, and John Chane who have subordinated themselves to these loud fringe gripers and in the process have led us into follies of pathetic misuse of doctrine and discipline. “In peril”? How about just “sinking fast by the bow” as we enter the sure-to-be-ridiculous General Convention ’09?
Also:
Hear ye, and note well ye revisionists.
With this document there is now a more concerted pushing back against the liberal agenda currently active in the Episcopal Church. Keep foisting the unScriptural intolerant liberal lock-step mantras on these 11 dioceses and you’ll soon find that they will vote to depart. Then you can explain how you’re going to sue nearly HALF of the Church. Dither about and ignore the Anglican Covenant and you’ll likely find that you will be sans-the-11 as well.
Bottom line: After you shove these 11 out with your impossible dream you’ll look like a bunch of whining, impetuous jerks to the rest of the Communion and the leftovers of TEC will be of as much significance as the MCC.
Thank you Rev. Dr. Radner for your comments concerning those known CP bishops whose names don’t appear on the Statement. We in W. Texas believe +Lillibridge to be fully commited to the CP ethos and were surprised not to see his name.
Wow! It took me some time, but I thoughtfully read the whole statement. I encourage everyone to do so. I have read on this blog that +Duncan didn’t contest being deposed by TEC. Some have implied that by not doing so he accepted his fate. Well, not only was the vote to do so out of order, but this document proves that the whole concept was out of order. The faithful laity of the Pittsburgh Diocese, SC were well informed about the difference between faithfulness to God and faithfulness to imposed legal authority. That is why they (including myself) voted at the parish level to agree to realign. I encourage all clergy to prayerfully reflect on what authority they took their vows. How can we, the unsophisticated laity, get it and so many clergy don’t? Maybe because we don’t need to trained in a seminary to understand the Scriptures and God’s Holy Covenant.
I would like to express my agreement with what my colleague (#8) Ephraim Radner has written. Everything he says is accurate. I have known Bishop Bauerschmidt for years. His decisions are always carefully thought out and deserve respect.
Philip Turner
Very good.
Then, let Bishop Bauerschmidt speak for himself.
Fr. Kingsley+
I appreciate Ephraim Radner & Philip Turner’s comments, but with respect I think they missed or ignored (as a form of support for the bishop) the point of my post. I wasn’t saying Bishop Bauerschmidt is a bad man. I suggested that he gave a reason–perhaps indirectly–for not signing, and that it both points to a potential weakness in the CP position (easily answered in my opinion, but nevertheless a weakness) and could shed light on his reticence. I don’t know when the bishop’s review was posted, it’s not dated, but the link from the Diocese of Tennessee’s home page is dated April 23 (2009). (And the book was published in 2006.) So, I don’t think it was posted prominently by accident. I could be wrong. But, I wonder if it’s worth considering what the bishop means in plain language? “The provinces are autonomous only in relation to others, not in some absolute sense” is not plain, to me, but a form of tautology. The statement that something is autonomous is a statement about its relation to others. And obviously the Communion Partners, by virtue of the words they use to identify themselves, understand they are in relation to others as part of a Communion. It’s possible Bishop Bauerschmidt is drawing a line here, and I’d like to know more. And I wonder why we’re so anxious to defend him at this point when we haven’t even heard clearly what his concerns are?
Tired: forgive me for appearing overly defensive on the bishop’s behalf. As I said, I don’t speak for him and don’t plan to. However, in the current context, I don’t think I am off base in worrying that people’s motives are often misinterpreted for reasons of “association” or “non-association” with this or that group. All I was trying to clarify to Justin, who was uncertain, was that the bishop is indeed a member of the CP fellowship. The fellowship itself maybe pointless or silly or vacuous or confusing — based on things said here and elsewhere, this is what some people think (I obviously disagree). And there may be diverse opinions on some matters represented by members, but the fellowship is real enough and the bishop is a part of it. I have not yet read the bishop’s review of our book, but look forward to doing so. I take it from the sentence quoted that he was distinguishing a jurisdictional/legal autonomy (among provinces) from a moral/spiritual autonomy (“absolute”) before the duties of God. If so, I agree with him.
[blockquote]I take it from the sentence quoted that he was distinguishing a jurisdictional/legal autonomy (among provinces) from a moral/spiritual autonomy (“absolute”) before the duties of God. If so, I agree with him. [/blockquote]
Dr. Radner, could expand on that statement for me? Isn’t this bifurcation of moral/spiritual autonomy and jurisdictional/legal autonomy part of the crisis we face in both TEC and the Anglican Communion, in that the two rarely, if ever, intersect anymore?
I guess I’m wondering if the moral/spiritual requirements of God are not what’s missing from the legal arguments being put forth in what is clearly a church (i.e. hopefully spiritual) matter. The phrase strikes me as separating the things and actions of this world from the things and actions of God, and I don’t think that is your intent.
I truly appreciate the clarification; I haven’t been following developments closely enough to know much about the CP fellowship.
I’m sure many people might like to see +John’s analysis of his fellow bishops’ statement, although I suppose we’re unlikely to see something like that.
Here’s something that I’ve been thinking about; maybe someone can set me straight if I’m misunderstanding this. It seems to me that if you say that parishes have a constitutional right to sign onto the covenant (because they have a constitutional right to be Anglican, and they may feel that they need to sign onto the covenant to be Anglican), don’t you open the door to saying that parishes have a constitutional right to realign if their bishop is (in their judgment) not Anglican?
Mike: you’re absolutely right. But I think that’s the point being made. That is, an individual walking down the street may in fact have the constitutional “right” to ignore the cries for help from someone inside a burning house — he cannot be prosecuted for simply walking on; but he does not have the moral right to ignore these pleas. The moral obligation may supersede the legal autonomy, but it does not destroy it. Similarly, a province may have the legal right to ignore the requests for (in the present situation) restraint over some matter — it cannot be coerced. But the spiritual obligations of the Body of Christ supersede these legal rights to autonomy. I think we are saying the same thing.
Justin: I do in fact believe that parishes have even the constitutional right (in TEC) to remain in communion with the Communion, and some fashion of doing so through the Covenant is possible. But that may not, in fact, translate into episcopal “realignment” in any obvious or immediate way. Eventually it might, but only through a legally recognized process — either by simply “leaving” the legal jurisdiction of a given bishop, something that may involve property disputes that would finally have to be resolved in the courts, or by some kind of negotiated and recognized agreement that is implemented over time. My own views about this are well known: using litigation in the courts to resolve these matters is contrary to our Lord’s commands; therefore some other means of dealing with this needs to be found. The notion of “alternative oversight” has been put together as a commonly recognized provisional way to do this, but it must be emphasized that it demands “common” consent among parties, and is, in the end, only “provisional” (although that could be for some time). The covenanting process and order could prove a means of containing and finally resolving, in a number of possible and flexible directions, some of these provisional moves.
From #17: “I take it from the sentence quoted that he was distinguishing a jurisdictional/legal autonomy (among provinces) from a moral/spiritual autonomy (“absolute”) before the duties of God.” That’s a very helpful clarification for me, if I understand it right. Here’s my concern. There are some laws we’re legitimately bound to, some we are not. Where we are not, if we cede authority, bow to something we are not legally or morally required to honor, we can effectively make it law. An example might be copyright “fair use.” Or property boundaries. If you allow someone to camp on your property or tell you what you can and cannot fairly use, you are ceding authority and/or ownership to them. There are definitely boundaries. But, sometimes these boundaries are organic, developing as they are tested over time. It takes courage and sometimes resources to stand your ground and fend off precedent-setting incursions. I see the CP statement as perhaps an attempt to prevent further erosion of the boundaries of polity in the church. There are probably differences of opinion among the bishops/priests who signed the statement, and one has to wonder what’s in the mind of the ones who didn’t. Of particular concern to me would be a bishop who essentially agrees, but because of the political climate in the wider church or diocese feels constrained. It would be particularly disappointing if a the voice of a bishop with a strong mind and heart, with the capability of communicating clearly and with nuance, remained on the sidelines. (Unless I disagree with him, of course!) On the question of whether the CP fellowship and its statement is pointless or silly, I’ve been guilty of cynicism on that score, but I do believe (and hope in my case) God is capable of using things that seem foolish and pointless to accomplish great good. Thanks for taking the time to respond.