I have now to affirm once again my opposition to schism as a method of affording protection to those whose beliefs and ideals were normal in the recent past. The unwillingness of our church to adopt unusual methods to afford safe haven to a disenfranchised and impotent minority, because TEC is governed by a “winner take all” form of governance is in itself a scandal. A simple expedient of the English “flying bishops” idea, adopted by a church which has a real claim to historic and unique territorial diocesan integrity, a system adopted to preserve unity, in that it was rejected by our “denominational” church, only underlines the stubborn and “conservative” policy of our majoritarian leadership. The simple adoption of protective measures to afford a safe haven for those who cannot in conscience submit to current TEC policies would have trumped schismatic schemes which have led to our present divisions. Our church would be lauded for its tolerance and comprehension while free to pursue the ideals of the majority. What would have emerged would have been “comprehension” tailored to years of conflict.
Instead TEC has asked the secular State by its courts to adjudicate not only property disputes but explicitly in is pleadings the doctrinal and structural ethos of what it means to be an Anglican in America.
And Father Clavier’s solution…a revamped DEPO authorized at the next General Convention!
Sorry, but that is simply sad. Surely he knows that?
Did Tony miss a meeting? The road to this “schism” has been paved with the good intentions of offers of alternative pastoral oversight rebuked by those who scorned “things pastoral” in favor of “things powerful.”
Fr. Clavier makes some good points. But would someone please explain why the Great Schism of the 11th century, or the Protestant Schism of the 16th century, or the miriade schisms that followed, are okay? But today it is not? Please! Schism may not be a Protestant doctrine but it is engrained into our psyche and mode of operation.
RE: “The road to this “schism†has been paved with the good intentions of offers of alternative pastoral oversight rebuked by those who scorned “things pastoral†in favor of “things powerful.â€
Let’s rephrase for the benefit of the rest of us. The road to this “schism†has been paved with the [fig leafs] of offers of faux “oversight” [sic] from the heretics, while retaining the real “oversight.”
There. Much better.
My only issue is with the naive innocents who continue to believe that such people as Bishop Bruno et al are actually people of good will, rather than corrupt and deceitful bullies. Such confused naivete allows them to continue to hold out some sort of odd “oversight” solution which is no such thing, and which rather gives false comfort to the bullied.
The problem with flying bishops is that that depends solely on the whim of whoever is in charge – a flying bishop may be withdrawn at any time (didn’t we see this in England recently?) It is a not a plan that would encourage, or even allow, orthodox parishes to grow and orthodox worship to spread. It ignores the need, for example, of training for the next generation of orthodox priests. It’s a crumb from the table given in the hopes that the parish receiving it will die out soon. I’m sorry to be so negative, but I don’t see that that scheme was ever a sustainable option.
Whether it is too late or not it is important to press for relief and pastoral safety for traditionalists.
I might say that every evidence of sourness and bitterness on the part of traditionalists only strengthens the hands of those who assert that “orthodoxy” means mean-spiritness and self-reighteousness.
RE: “. . . strengthens the hands of those who assert that “orthodoxy†means mean-spiritness and self-reighteousness.”
As is probably evident by now, there are many traditional Episcopalians who don’t give a hoot in the holler as to whether revisionist TEC activists think traditionalists to be “mean spirited”.
We think them mean spirited too — and they give not a flying fig either nor should they. We don’t share a similar enough foundational worldview or gospel to be able to agree on the much smaller issues of what constitutes the definition of “mean spirited” or “self-righteous.”
RE: “Whether it is too late or not it is important to press for relief and pastoral safety for traditionalists.”
On another note, I am confused as to what “pastoral safety” means to Father Clavier. I — and so many others — have never seen DEPO as offering “pastoral safety.”
Is there some expanded definition of what DEPO could be if it were to offer pastoral safety?
If as is now advanced, General Convention exercises the metropolitical authority normally vested in a Primate (indeed an extraordinary and novel piece of ecclesiology) then it would be possible for GC to authorize the appointment of “flying bishops”, perhaps one for each “province” of TEC. Such bishops would be authorized to perform episcopal acts in and for diocesan bishops in each “province” in defined instances where parishes have adopted resolutions seeking such oversight. DEPO doesn’t approach such a system.
Now I would expect that if such a method were proposed, we would see many TEC bishops resisting the proposal on the basis that each enjoys total episcopal authority in their diocese and that in fact GC has no metropolitical authority. As there is no articulation in American Canon Law which mentions the office of Metropoitan, singular or collective, it is possible to advance the theory that GC has that authority over dioceses where such authority seems opportune, and not in areas where it is not.
This sort of vagueness only points to the oddness of a form of church government which for instance permits the office of the PB to intervene beyond the canonical definitions of the office, the injustice of the House of Bishops acting as its own trial court and diocesan bishops claiming that they may lead dioceses out of TEC with the advice and consent of their governing bodies in such dioceses. There being no appellate court to judge on the meaning and intent of Canon Law, secular courts are invited in to exercise the form of jurisdiction a “sovereign” church should exercise itself.
Thus the legal system of the United States is ushered in to rule on ecclesiological, theological and disciplinary matters. It was in the light of all this that I wrote this essay.
Tony Clavier
Fr Clavier–if I may advertize: your points are salient, as they pertain to CofE realities that never became realities in what we now call TEC (no ecclesiastical court or judges; irregular extension of a modest mid-20th century PB role to include ‘standing’ — so it is argued — in secular courts, etc.) ACI is hosting a conference in Dallas with experts from the RC church, UMC, PCA, C of England, etc to evaluate the challenges in all this, 5-6 February 2010. I doubt many in the US region know how differently the CofE and other anglican regions handle matters of hierarchy and law. But even judges (forced to in SC with a colonial reality in front of them; alerted in TX) can become students of comparative polity….
Dear Christopher: Feel free to advertise at will!
Sarah’s comments illuminate how Fr. Clavier underestimates the unfortunate hostility between individuals on both sides. I think there were some opportunities for TEC to be more magnanimous, but by and large, reasserters have decided the TEC isn’t a Christian church. Thus, we’re not dealing with a single denomination, but a war between two separate religions laying claim to the same property. In this case, the state has to settle claims.
Fr. Clavier’s central points, however, are provocative and intriguing. It would be fleshed out, I suspect, with more analysis of how different bishops lead and engage clergy.
wvparson,
Thanks for your explanation. But again, it is as I expected. “Such bishops would be authorized to perform episcopal acts in and for diocesan bishops in each “province†in defined instances where parishes have adopted resolutions seeking such oversight.”
That does *not* deal with the two central issues that parishes in hostile dioceses must deal with — rector succession, and bishops sweeping in and declaring a parish a mission for not supporting diocesan activities with parishioner money. Thus such a system does not provide “pastoral safety.”
RE: “but by and large, reasserters have decided the TEC isn’t a Christian church.”
Not the case with me, as I distinguish the leaders of TEC who do not believe the same gospel from TEC itself. The identity of TEC is not congruent with who its leaders are.
RE: “Thus, we’re not dealing with a single denomination, but a war between two separate religions laying claim to the same property.”
True in some cases — but your point is disproven by the recent action in SC. The AMiA parish believes the same gospel and the Diocese of SC does as well and both laid claim to the same property. Justice prevailed . . . and with that justice for that parish, some positively delicious results for the entire state of SC.