8. The autonomy of TEC dioceses has long been recognized as a feature of TEC polity. For example, the standard text on polity when many of TEC’s current bishops were trained was the volume in the widely-distributed official series in the 1950s and 1960s entitled “The Church’s Teaching.” It was written by the long-time sub-dean and professor of church history at the General Theological Seminary with the assistance of an “Authors’ Committee” composed of numerous church leaders. The author, Dr. Powel Mills Dawley, summarized the role of the diocese as follows:
Diocesan participation in any national program or effort, for example, must be voluntarily given; it cannot be forced. Again, while the bishop’s exercise of independent power within the diocese is restricted by the share in church government possessed by the Diocesan Convention or the Standing Committee, his independence in respect to the rest of the Church is almost complete.
9. Moreover, the preamble of TEC’s constitution explicitly identifies TEC as a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, which it characterizes (quoting the well-known Lambeth Conference resolution) as a fellowship of “Dioceses, Provinces and regional Churches.”
10. Thus, in the case of TEC the relevant constitutional procedures for adopting the Covenant include direct adoption by its autonomous dioceses, which are the highest governing bodies within their territory and enjoy a particular constitutional prerogative concerning constituent membership in the Anglican Communion. Indeed, given the autonomy of TEC dioceses, central bodies such as General Convention could not commit individual dioceses to the Covenant over their objection. Thus, when the Covenant is sent to the member churches, dioceses are appropriate bodies to respond at that time under the unique constitutional procedures of TEC.
What if the CP (and ACNA) were to approve the covenant, and then a number of the global south provinces representing half or more of the lay membership of the communion were to sign on contingent upon the recognition by the so-called “instruments of unity” that the CP and the ACNA had signed on. Would that not turn things on their head and require the instruments to choose between recognition of the CP and ACNA as part of the communion or excluding the global south? Of course, I am not unsure that TEC is using the ABC and twisting this covenant process as they did at Jamaica to achieve the latter.
“22. Both ACI and the Communion Partner fellowship have been committed to the revitalization of the Anglican Communion through the working and enhancement of its Instruments. That is a defining feature of our groups. We remain committed to that objective as set out above.”
Unfortunately the instruments are not working toward that same goal…ACC is run by 815, the ABC likes dysfunction, the Primates are not meeting at all due to Rowan not calling them together, and the Lambeth conference is practicing another religion altogether, yabadabadubie or something…so good luck ACI with your plans to give new life to the instruments who are not interested in your efforts…its like trying to get your 90 year old grandmother to start dating again.
The Covenant is another document and it will prove as effective as all the others. Just as the Anaheim statement was made to look ridiculous by having arch-revisionists sign on, so will the Covenant when the TEClub, ACoC, Brazil, etc., signs on which they will be happy to do when Rowan’s revisionist stacked committee removes the teeth.
At some point the Dioceses in Communion Partners are going to have to declare themselves as having signed on to the Covenant regardless of potential consequences. It appears endorsing it is a step in this direction. I don’t share the view of many reasserters that this step is futile, however, I don’t believe it goes as far as will eventually be necessary to ensure “first-tier” status in a Covenanted Anglican Communion.
Unfortunately, (and I hate to say not surprisingly) it appears that the ABC did not come forward with any overt action or statement that would back dioceses signing onto the Covenant even if their national church declined to do so. This leaves individual dioceses to the gracious restraint shown by a national church that does not sign. We’ve seen TEC’s version of gracious restraint in about 2 dozen lawsuits.
The analysis of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church made by the ACI and the CP Bishops is spot on and absolutely accurate. In the current climate, however, the C & C’s are at the mercy of a PB and Chancellor who have declared the C & C’s to mean what they want them to mean. Therefore, a correct case based on the C & C’s will be blissfully ignored.
If, for some reason, TEC were to sign onto the Covenant it would surely then continue to do what it wishes, and the CP Dioceses and Parishes would be covered and could actually really follow the Covenant. I certainly wouldn’t hold my breath for any action to be taken against a Covenant signing TEC as we have seen from the past 6+ years.
However, anti-Covenant sentiment in most of the Episcopal Church is high, and the new leadership is much more “in your face” with their reappraising agenda, and less willing to fudge about it. You can bet that if permission is sought from either the PB or GenCon for dioceses and parishes to sign onto a Covenant that TEC refuses to sign up for, it will not be given. This could trigger an endgame that CP Dioceses and Parishes wouldn’t want to face.
Probably the best course of action would be to set a time soon where the “endorsements” convert over to “signing onto” the Covenant. It would need to be done at one time by all likeminded CP and possibly Anaheim statement bishops. By signing onto the Covenant before GenCon or the PB has an official chance to forbid it, the signers could legitimately claim not to have violated any rules. Even this scenario is not perfect but may be the best course of several unpallitable options.
Any bishop who signs The Covenant without authority from GC or the PB will be defrocked as abandoning communion with TEC, just like those who transferred to another Anglican province or diocese. It will be seen as breaking the vow of loyalty to TEC and they will be defrocked, sure as Bps Duncan and Iker.
Second, AbofC has said previously that he will not offer signatory status to any diocese, without approval of the province of its origin. And as shown by the report from the meeting of 7 with the AbofC, nothing was offered them by the AbofC in the way of invitations for individual dioceses to sign up for first tier status, when its province won’t.
Third, the Covenant either will be changed (if it hasn’t already with the loss of section IV) to suit TEC, and it will sign, or if the ultimate covenant content does not suit TEC, I would predict that TEC will still sign and just ignore whatever the covenant says … as it does with its own canons and constitution and with other AC documents, when it deems it necessary. Words mean absolutely nothing to TEC leadership, except to the extent they can be used to further an agenda, (for example, the word “heresy”).
As we’ve seen since before 2003, but especially at every GC from 2003 on, TEC is now controlled by an oligopoly or oligarchy (take your pick), whose power has been strengthened each successive GC since 2003, to the point in 2009 the loyal opposition simply took the position of “why bother.” And now, one of the few remaining orthodox dioceses, D. of S.C., is making plans to pull up its draw bridges and make itself an isolated island within TEC, as even one of its leading churches undergoes a discernment process as to whether to remain affiliated.
I love reading ACI’s work, but I don’t think any of it ultimately is going to matter. The only question in my mind, is whether us few remaining reasserters in TEC will be able to keep the embers glowing until TEC becomes so bloated, decadent and faithless that it fails of its own weight and new life can begin. And despite our PB’s claim of heresy, this keeping the embers glowing is where much of our individual connection to our Lord is most valuable and needed, even though we also need and want to live in community of true believers. In my area, ACNA, AMiA, and continuing churches abound. I could go to any of them at any time. But before I go to sleep each night, I have to have that individual conversation with Him, as to why I am staying in this church … and He keeps saying, “because this is where I want you.”
To #5: I believe that several dioceses are indeed committed already to adopting the Covenant formally once its final text is given in December (assuming that text is acceptable; and I am relatively confident, contra #3, that it will be, although one never knows for sure).
It is difficult for me to see in what way such diocesan adoption can be forbidden under the current Constitution and Canons, and on what basis — even a deformed one — any diocese and bishop could be disciplined for having done so. Were such an attempt made, I would be among the first to stand with those being so disciplined and bear whatever fate was theirs. Their “fate”, after all, would be to remain loyal to the vows they made at their ordinations.
People have often asked me where my “line” is. This is not so much a “line” as a clear path: I, along with many others I imagine, will stand with the Constitution and Canons, and the theology that lies behind and beneath them, of this church, against any attempt to pervert them. It has become increasingly important to speak clearly to a non-American Anglican world often confused about this particular matter: the leadership at 815, including that of the majority of the Executive Council, is promoting a false understanding of TEC’s polity, and exhibiting a false ecclesial face to the Communion in this regard. The fact that we would oppose it openly does not represent rebellion or disloyalty or a “coup d’eglise”, as members of this leadership have wrongly claimed; rather we believe that we remain loyal Episcopalians over and against those who are willfully subverting the actual laws of our church. For those who are no longer Episcopalians, this discussion is beside the point. But for those of us who are, it is a central matter and its resolution is bound up with the service we give our Lord in the particular place we were called. This place is a church within the Anglican Communion, according to its particular diocesan polity, committed to the historic faith and order given over to this Communion’s stewardship, and which our Constitution and Canons were designed to uphold. All this is not only evangelically, but politically “legal”.
[Comment deleted by Elf. Subsequent comments referring to this one have also been deleted for which apologies]
Dr. Radner, I appreciate your “line drawing,” and your passion. But I don’t think our present PB and the HOB will look any differently at a Bishop signing a Covenant of loyalty to the Anglican Communion than it does for a Bishop to say he is transferring to Uganda, Kenya, or Rwanda Anglican Provinces. Their reasoning will be the same – if TEC does not sign such a Covenant, than any Bishop within TEC is not to do so, and if he/she does, he is abandoning TEC communion, because he/she is “covenanting” to an “organization” other than TEC. Why just performing an act of confirmation in Ohio (admittedly an episcopal) act) in a service for the Bolivian Anglican Diocese got a Bishop defrocked from TEC.
I guess one analogy can be similar to a pastoral directive given by a Bishop to his clergy. If GC and PB tell Bishops not to sign the Covenant for their individual dioceses, and a a Bishop does, he will have abandoned communion with TEC because he went against a directive of PB and GC.
The difference between you and me on this, I believe, is that you may believe that these people in HOB and the PB are more honorable than I do. You may believe they would never defrock someone for signing the Covenant, when TEC refused to do so as a province. As I’ve watched and listened, especially to the dissembling and out right dishonesty as to what their “resolutions” mean and don’t mean, I have come to the conclusion that these people are for the most part simply oligarchists, who will keep the serfs happy by saying whatever they need to say, and coming down with an iron fist on any serfs who dare to raise an issue or rebel. That may be cynical, but I didn’t start out that way. I became that way from observation.
All the talk of fireworks from Ms Schori will be moot if the TEClub signs on, too. The new covenant should be out soon. It is in the hands of a committee that is stacked with revisionists. Talking about the Ridley draft is moot.
Rob Roy…but here is why these historic revelations of personal human behavior matter…not specifically but in general…the conservatives seem to be terribly divided between stayers and leavers, between people who want women clergy and those who don’t…and its all going to unravel with TEC getting away with no serious opposition, because for revisionists nothing much matters anyway. And that is my point. There is a significant division and total distrust among conservatives, that if they don’t get over is going to make all their efforts mute.
There is a significant amount wrong with this, but I’ll try to just highlight what the ACI is trying to accomplish.
The document is pretending to be a simple position paper, but is actually using legal writing techniques to push forth a radical agenda.
It is broken into sections:
Paragraph 1
Prior to the first section addressed, they attempt to establish that even though Section 4 was not recommended for review, that it should be addressed as if it does because of universal Anglican principles.
Paragraphs 2-5
This section claims that non-member Churches are allowed to sign. It says that they are under different rules, but then argues that CP dioceses are under the member Church rules because they are somehow extra-provincial.
Paragraphs 6-12
ACI repeats their flawed argument that TEC is merely a collection of Dioceses. With the obvious flaw being that TEC is recognized as a Province with a Primate. But here is the most incredible part of the section, in paragraph 12
So, as long as there is a single Diocese that disagrees and enters into some action with TEC, the Instruments of Unity must recognize them as member Churches. I magine this reasoning. All you need do is file a civil case and you are a mini Province.
Paragraphs 13-16
This is the launching point for the ultimate purpose of the paper – the dismantling and replacing of any Instrument of Unity that disagrees with Covenant members. Here we begin with: Just because they say there is a process doesn’t mean that there is a process. If we join together then we make the process.
Paragraphs 17-22
Why not simply replace Instruments? This shifts power from Canterbury to us. I mean, we signed, so we get to choose. The ACC is expendable. The implication of course is that ++Canterbury could be replaced as an Instrument by ++York or ++Durham. I mean, they are English, right? So it would still be Anglican. Lambeth could be the York conference of just our bishops. The Primates meeting would be just our Primates and replacement Primates for geographically absent Dioceses,.
In summary
-Provinces aren’t really Provinces
-If we keep disputes alive, no one in the Communion has the right to challenge our status
-the Instruments of Unity have no say in our freedom to contract
-we can replace whoever disagrees-after all, they really aren’t one of us anyway.
And remember, this all relates to a currently non-existent Section of a document possibly to be released in December.
–
#10–O, I get it. Your cheap shot in #7 will restore trust. Robroy is correct, the first comment was irrelevant. The second makes no sense.
zoom…the problem is…its true…and not to name it and correct it or gain some ascendency over it is to be devoured by it in the end.
FaithfulDeparted,
What is true is that they distanced themselves from someone who has been shown to abuse his office and mishandle money. To not do so would have them arrested like the former Father Armstrong and perhaps all of their assets siezed pending court hearings. If you think people should fall on their sword when their friends commit crimes, then I imagine your days as a fre person will be short.
Thank you, elves.
#10–I don’t get your point. TEC is a province, consisting of dioceses. The Presiding Bishop calling herself a Primate is neither here not there in terms of the polity — it is the same in the Scottish Episcopal Church, which also may call its PB a Primate. But the PB has no metropolitical authority. What is at issue, preseumably, is whether the GenConv has authority of a quasi-metropolitical character. Surely you do mean to imply that the PB has such authority, and if so, show where that is indicated in the constitution and canons. As for the authority of General Convention, that too is not genuinely metropolitical. At the last convention the GenConv arguably passed resolutions at odds with the Constitution and the role of the BCP. So of course TEC is a province, whose authority is in the ordinary. As for the Instruments, they called for the development of a covenant. They are not its agents. A good assumption is that if 80% of the Communion covenants, and TEC continues to take its time, evaluate, etc, then the Instruments will continue forward with its covenanted partners. Your other final points are just silly.
I don’t think Williams’ treatment of Schofield of San Joaquin concerning Lambeth bodes well for any position that relies on Canterbury to recognize the authority of a diocesan bishop within TEC over the objections of its Presiding Bishop.
Yet our bishop was told that he is a “bishop in good standing” of the Anglican Communion, since he was…..and still is…..a member of the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church in the Province of the Southern Cone in the Americas, in addition to his post as the Bishop of San Joaquin in the Anglican Church in North America.
zebra
So far only a Province can sign. That means a vote at GC12 or GC15 and a signature. The Archbishop of Canterbury, an Instrument of Unity (unless the position is supplanted by the ACI) has said that he hopes that Dioceses
will be free (granted the explicit provision that the Covenant does not purport to alter the Constitution or internal polity of any province) to adopt the Covenant as a sign of their wish to act in a certain level of mutuality with other parts of the Communion.
The polity and interpretation of the Constitution are decided by the majority as led by the PB. It is what they say it is. Therefore, whatever you or the ACI see in the Constitution and Canons of TEC is irrelevant.
[Edited by Elf]
#15–but this is the very issue. It must be argued, not asserted, that GC12 is the agent of covenanting. ACI’s argument is that dioceses constitute the province, not GenConv. Moreover, the status of GenConv as unclouded, given its actions at G09, vis-a-vis the Constitution is precisely the issue being raised by +SC. So leaving aside the assertion that GenConv is ‘the province’ (which is by no means clear), the last GenConv has put in doubt the relationship of itself to the Constitution. We have a mess. So for reasons of principle and expedience both, and given that TEC wants to take forever to do a simple thing, the dioceses which wish to covenant oughtn’t to be prevented. Where can it be shown that the Constitution (see +RDW’s language) or polity is being altered? These things do not address covenant signing by dioceses.
Sorry–I am en route to Notre Dame for a conference and am switching computers, having trouble logging on. I think I have my name and log-on settled now.
[Please would commenters stick to the subject matter of this important thread and where possible avoid bringing in or responding to red herrings – thanks – Elf]
Elves,
“Your other final points are just silly.”
Is this comment by #12 not unhelpful in creating community and taking each other seriously?
[Comment deleted by Elf. Sorry Prof Seitz it refers to a comment by a commenter who reregistered under another identity and who has now been banned – Elf]
Brian,
Can you cite the article and section of the Constitution or the Title and Canon of the Canons that forbids dioceses from signing the Covenant if they so choose? The Covenant itself does not replace anything in the C&C of TEC. It simply says that we will continue to follow the discernment of the Anglican Communion on issues that the Anglican Communion say need shared discernment. Why are you so upset about that? Why, if you feel it will stop you from changing the faith and practice of TEC, just ask TEC to withdraw from the Anglican Communion – it would only take two General Conventions to change the Constitution of TEC to say it is no longer part of the Anglican Communion.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Brian, what does it matter if you or I or a parish or a diocese signs on? What do you think will happen?
No problems. Thanks for your good work.
Dr Seitz+
ACI’s argument is that dioceses constitute the province, not GenConv.
Even assuming the premise, then you would need a majority of Dioceses to sign on to make the Province a signatory. Under the ACI argument, each individual Diocese holds the status of a Province.
the last GenConv has put in doubt the relationship of itself to the Constitution.
That isn’t possible. Let’s see some of the CP Bishops raise the Constitutionality issue. The PB will answer the charge and there may even be a vote. In the end, the decision of the majority will stand. This is a fact. As I have mentioned before, the reasserter position has continuously been to ignore reality in favor of principle. The argument is always: TEC isn’t allowed to do this, so they did not actually do it. It has no effect. This is the same logic as a person saying that because murder is illegal, the murder victim is not dead. And once we accept the reality, your paper argues that no other Province or Anglican body may intervene in matters internal to a Province – an Anglican Prime Directive 😉
Where can it be shown that the Constitution (see +RDW’s language) or polity is being altered? These things do not address covenant signing by dioceses.
And this is the crux of my problem with this paper. You put Dioceses and their Bishops and Standing Committees at risk because of an idea. It is easy for the ACI to say that they can replace the ACC or that it is not against polity to sign because these are simply words. They are, however, intended to incite action.
Do you truly believe that ++Katharine needs specific wording in the Constitution or Canons to impose her wil? When she does say that it is a violation of the polity and perhaps even starts deposition proceedings against Bishops, what will you tell them? Not to worry, just because you lost your job and pension, she really can’t do it so you still have money in your account?
The ACI is inciting people to action based on principle and that is a dangerous game.
#12 seitz says:
I think one could make an argument that, at least for the purpose of Covenant-based communion, GC has “quasi-metropolitical character”… or at any rate, that individual dioceses do not have it. I would sketch the outlines of such an argument like this:
1) The ABC has said more than once that the key requirement for communion is “recognizability” — that is, for you and I both to be in an Anglican Communion, I have to be able to look at you and say, “Yes, I can see that you are an Anglican Christian, as I am.” (And vice versa, of course.) The current crisis in the AC is a failure of precisely this kind of recognition.
2) The actions that have led to this failure of recognizability have been, and by our C&C must have been, actions of either General Convention or of a majority of diocesan authorities (diocesan bishops and standing committees.) Consenting to the election of ++VGR was an action of General Convention (because of timing; otherwise it would have been an action of a majority of diocesan bishops and standing committees.) Authorizing official rites for SSBs would have to be — arguably already has been — an action of General Convention, as all official liturgical changes must be. In neither case could an individual diocese have taken this action.
3) Since the actions taken to impair “recognizability” have been, of necessity, actions taken by TEC at a level above that of individual dioceses, then the power to be or not be recognizable — which is to say, the power to be or not to be in communion with other Anglicans — also resides at that level, and does not reside with the dioceses themselves.
Many of us are simply confused as to why an incoherently organized and functioning ‘TEC’ would insist through this or that agent, based upon no genuine constitutional warrant, that all must sit it out vis-a-vis the covenant. Turning dioceses into subordinate units is simply untrue to anglicanism and the result, if unchecked, would be to pervert the constitution in the name of creating a US denomination with a CEO. If there is a dangerous game underway, it is this.
[Comment deleted by Elf – Commenters are reminded to address issues on the thread and not to make ad hominem or personal comments directed to other commenters]
Dr Seitz+
This paper in combination with the Bishops’ Statement on Polity shows that there is no confusion as you mention in #25. The point of this paper in combination with the previous paper is to forestall any action by TEC and to incite action on the part of CP Dioceses.
#14 – You and I may think he is, yet Schofield did not attend Lambeth while the TEC bishop of San Joaquin did. Lamb was issued an invitation by Williams at the request of Schori, who said at the time that “it is acknowledged that his [Schofield’s] exact status (especially given the complications surrounding the congregations associated with him) remains unclear on the basis of the general norms of Anglican Canon Law….” Schofield’s nonattendance seems a bit of face-saving to avoid a straight-out disinvitation by Williams, who is hardly the person to have invited Lamb if he thought Schofield was the Anglican bishop of San Joaquin. I’m afraid, rather, that it says rather clearly that Williams does not think that a US diocesan bishop can do anything of which the province of TEC, in the person of its Presiding Bishop, disapproves.
ACI may be correct that that this should not be the law of the church, but it does not change that Williams has consistently acted in such a manner.
ACI believes that, on the basis of the Constitution and Canons of TEC and their historical substance and meaning, dioceses have the power to withdraw from General Convention. We do not deny that there are probably legal complications involved in exercising that power, most of which are untested. But granting this — and defending the constitutional structure that might permit a San Joaquin or Pittsburgh or Fort Worth to withdraw as well as opposing as uncanonical the means by which bishops of these dioceses were disciplined — is not the same thing as approving of specific decisions here and there.
And there is a fundamental difference between what is at stake in CP dioceses adopting the Covenant and the actions of the dioceses mentioned above: in the former case, the dioceses in question would (and should) adopt the Covenant on the basis of their powers as laid out by the Constitution and Canons of TEC itself for its own dioceses. There is no question here of “leaving” TEC, but of TEC dioceses doing what they are meant to do.
Brian seems to think that doing this would cause a free-for-all among anglican churches in the world. But what is at issue is precisely that TEC’s polity is DIFFERENT from the polity of most other anglican churches. And its “provincial” personality exists only according to this unusual, even unique, polity. That personality operates according to individual diocesan decision-making, which either coheres or does not with the collective that is designated by the General Convention. The former shapes the latter, not the the other way around in terms of “hierarchical” powers.
Of course, not everyone agrees with this interpretation of our Constitution. But our argument is that is it not up to the Instruments of Unity to interpret our Constitution and Canons on behalf of American dioceses. Over and over, the Instruments have prescinded from such a task, and on principle. Unless the constituional question is resolved amongst the members of TEC themselves, it will finally be resolved in the civil courts of the United States. That, in fact, seems to be path now being taken.
Until such time, we have two vying interpretation as to who has the “authority” to adopt the Covenant within TEC: we argue that only dioceses can do this, in any final way; others have argued that only the General Convention can do this. No other Anglican Church has in fact exhibited such a disagreement, and none is anticipated given the shape of other churches’ constitutions. Those provinces who do end up adopting the Covenant will finally have to make the decision themselves as to who they will recognize as Covenant partners amongst those American Anglicans who formally express their desire to be party to this Covenant. But nothing now prevents, from a legal point of view, TEC dioceses from such formal expressions apart from General Convention. Nothing. It is not illegal, it is not rebellious, it is not unAnglican, it is not a declaration of war, it is not impertinent: it is rather the exercise of diocesan responsibilities, with its bishop, to remain faithful (as we see it) to the Anglican commitments of its formation and vocation.
We must go further, however. Theologically, the provincial system is itself flawed, or at least many believe it is, and I have argued along these lines recently in my paper “The Organizational Basis of the Anglican Communion”. These flaws are ones that have increasingly been noted within the Communion itself, despite our generally (but not uniformly!) provincial organization. The Christian Church ought properly to be ordered, I have argued, according to what I call “pastoral synodality”, which is episocopally centered and structurally ordered along what amount therefore to diocesan lines. Cultural, regional, and political considerations ought not to define the character of these structures, but rather the persuasive pastoral witness of self-expenditure that discples of Christ provide. There are good historical and theological reasons for seeing matters this way, and the Anglican Communion itself, I would argue, has long been evolving in this direction, and away from the national-provincial structures that were pragmatically and often unthinkingly and problematically adopted in the wake of colonial expansion and then ecclesial and national independencies. I would prefer to see the present turmoil less as a simple matter of a clash of theological commitments, than as the transformational pains of a more faithful adaptation to the Church’s intrinsic order.
It so happens that TEC’s Constitution is shaped more in accord with the character of pastoral synodality than some other Anglican churches! But it is not surprising, therefore, that this very Constitution and its implications is now being subverted by those whose theological commitments demand the justification of nationalistic and/or cultural priority over the authority of particular sanctified witness that pastoral synodality represents. That is, TEC’s leadership is promoting a new understanding of the Episcopal Church, and one that contradicts our Constitution, that demands subservience to a purported cultural revelation that General Convention has arrogated to itself and the PB the power to impose. The subversion is one of political convenience.
Any attempt to defrock bishops or priests who seek to uphold our Episcopal Constitution in opposition to these subversions would be meaningless in substance, and practically so unless and until any court ruled in favor of the defrockers. CP dioceses and bishops should adopt the Covenant when its text becomes recognized, and assuming its acceptability. If other covenanting churches do not wish to receive these dioceses and bishops as full covenanting partners, that will be to their shame.
Radner+
That personality operates according to individual diocesan decision-making, which either coheres or does not with the collective that is designated by the General Convention. The former shapes the latter, not the the other way around in terms of “hierarchical†powers.
Even if we assume this is true, the relationship with the ACC (and the Primates Meeting and the ABC) is based on the collective. So at the point of signing, no action of the collective is taken and therefore the Diocesan signature becomes relevant only as it concerns the collective. It is much like the consent process for Bishops. It can be done individually by bishops and standing committees or at GC if it falls in that time period, but thye only thing that matters is the entirety of the vote.
Those provinces who do end up adopting the Covenant will finally have to make the decision themselves as to who they will recognize as Covenant partners amongst those American Anglicans who formally express their desire to be party to this Covenant.
But here we see the futility of a covenant. It is now, under the argument espoused by the ACI, a Chinese dinner menu.
Pick 5 Dioceses from List A
Pick 8 Provinces from List B
It is a complex agreement that changes nothing about the nature of the Communion as it exists today. Each Province picks who they are in communion with and all are in communion with Canterbury.
But nothing now prevents, from a legal point of view, TEC dioceses from such formal expressions apart from General Convention. Nothing. It is not illegal, it is not rebellious, it is not unAnglican, it is not a declaration of war, it is not impertinent: it is rather the exercise of diocesan responsibilities, with its bishop, to remain faithful (as we see it) to the Anglican commitments of its formation and vocation.
Not yet. But the old saying “Don’t poke the bear” seems to apply here. I asked your associate Seitz+ if he honestly believes that ++Katharine will do nothing? I aks you the same question.
That is, TEC’s leadership is promoting a new understanding of the Episcopal Church, and one that contradicts our Constitution, that demands subservience to a purported cultural revelation that General Convention has arrogated to itself and the PB the power to impose. The subversion is one of political convenience.
I completely agree. And here is where people need to focus their efforts. I have argued before that the acquiescence of the HoB and the HoD have created a golem. This golem is, as is its nature, destroying its creator. We need to look internally for reasons why this happened.
Any attempt to defrock bishops or priests who seek to uphold our Episcopal Constitution in opposition to these subversions would be meaningless in substance, and practically so unless and until any court ruled in favor of the defrockers.
Again this is a question I asked Seitz+. How is this meaningless in prectice? How does this not effect the defrocked? You can not pretend something did not happen. The analogy I used above is that of someone saying “Murder is illegal, therefore, the victim is not dead”
Brian,
ACC does indeed operate according to provinces, by and large. But there are, as we know, exceptions (extra-provincial jurisdictions), and these are quite important as organizational precedent. All that is required is that a diocese have some sort of representation, including at the Primates’ Meeting, and such dioceses could easily be folded into an arrangement such as now exists for the extra-provincials. ABC, on the other hand, generally relates to dioceses,not provinces (hence Lambeth Conference). If, as is the case uniquely with TEC, a diocese’s decision on its Communion relations is made independently of some directive from GC, positive adoption does in fact, and should demand some kind of recognition by these Instruments. The collective in this case exists to further the mission, including the ecumenical/catholic mission, of the dioceses. It is not necessary, however, to that mission, and cannot even from a political/constitutional perspective, ever be so taken.
The worry you have (“Chinese Menu”) over various covenanting churches deciding diversely who they will recognize as partners to the Covenant, puzzles me. Say Australia signs, TEC signs, Uganda signs. We have already indicated that this would be problematic so long as TEC has not shown it is ready to live by the commitments of the Covenant’s already-accepted substance (Sections 1-3). But say TEC doesn’t sign, but the CP dioceses do adopt separately. Australia may decide to “stay in communion” with TEC, with whatever that may entail (it might even entail elements that are in Covenant), but Uganda does not. TEC, in any case, is not a party to the Covenant and to the relationships this involves. But, I take it you are asking, “who will decide if the CP dioceses are commonly accepted as party to the Covenant? What if Australia says “no”, and Uganda says “yes”?” One obvoius way this can be resolved is within the parameters of the Covenant itself: that is where at least a good Section 4 is extremely helpful, although not necessary to a general direction. Australia and Uganda are covenant partners: they (and others) through the means offered them, will do work together to order their common recognitions according to the commitments to discernment and decision-making they have made. Where would this leave CP dioceses in the meantime? Assuming that Australia will not even accept them as represented by some metropolitanical figure already within the Covenant’s framework (ABC, or York or whoever), then they will indeed be in some kind of asymmetrical relationship to various covenant partners.
But this case points up two important aspects that this entire process must not forget:
a. The Covenant is meaningless if the commitments formally made are not taken seriously. This is true of any agreement. But the point of the Covenant, vs. the present, is to spell out these commitments clearly, and to clearly provide a means of committing to them. Currently, Australia and Uganda are NOT acting with one another in a way coherent with the proposed Covenant, in terms of their common work and discernment. And, frankly, itis in Australia and Uganda’s interests as churches of Christ to have partners who will do so, including for that matter, dioceses like CP. If the ground and playing field of relations and counsel does not change as a result of covenanting, then obviously the entire purpose is undercut; but so too are the churches involved placing themselves in horrendous judgment. Cynics will dismiss either the motives and the outcomes here. But that is why their own cynicism is itself a pit in which to fall away from the trust, hope, and transparency that the Gospel demands and promises.
b. The Covenant process cannot be held hostage to the confusions and conflicts and just plain pig-headedness of North American Anglicans. I say this as an American, and recognize that I am hardly the best person to be engaged in this discussion, on my own argument. The TEC and alterntive polities are in shambles with respect to their meaning and practice, and the character of our mutual witness has become so debased as to warrent others turning away. Obviously, any covenant must be able at least in theory to deal with and perhaps even resolve somehow the burdens of North American foibles. But we cannot afford to judge the process and document itself on the primary basis of its usefulness to American interests, whatever they may be. That is to hitch the wagon to a deranged ass.
As for defrocking CP bishops who dare to lead their dioceses to adopt the Covenant: “practically”, they will continue to minister within the material context of their dioceses, and will do so if and until some court either upholds their legal right to do so or throws them out. The analogy to “murder is illegal, therefore, the victim is dead” does not hold: “practically” their material functioning can and will continue until the question of legality is resolved; and substantively (as we already know from other cases) the valid ministry of bishops and priests is not dependent upon the say so of General Convention. This is a theological issue that is quite clearly founded.