ACI welcomes the encouragement given by the Archbishop of Canterbury to the decision by the Diocesan Board and Standing Committee of the Diocese of Central Florida to affirm the first three sections of the Anglican Covenant. As we have previously stated, these sections entail substantial commitments to mutual responsibility and interdependence in the life of the Communion. While it is not ACI’s prerogative to release the full text of the letter, we are grateful for the Archbishop’s recognition that acceptance of the Covenant, in whatever form, is the means by which we declare our “intent to live within the agreed terms of the Communion’s life.”
We also acknowledge that endorsement by dioceses “would not instantly and automatically have an institutional effect (and so would not automatically affect the diocese’s legal relationship with the Province of TEC).” As the Archbishop notes, matters regarding the implementation of the Covenant in the Communion remain to be sorted out. No one can expect that the institutional effects will be felt “instantly or automatically.” But everyone recognizes that such effects, if not instant or automatic, are nevertheless certain.
By Resolution 14.11, the ACC earlier this year asked “the Secretary General to send the revised Ridley Cambridge Text, at that time [at the next meeting of the JSC], only to the member Churches of the Anglican Consultative Council for consideration and decision on acceptance or adoption by them as The Anglican Communion Covenant.” Should the other Instruments of Communion continue to defer to the ACC’s initial distribution of the Covenant (and that is a matter of comity among the Instruments, not necessity), we believe the Archbishop’s invitation to dioceses to “endorse” the Covenant while it is being considered under the ACC’s recommended procedures is welcome. We hope this invitation will be accepted by many TEC dioceses.
The ACI is always loyal to the ABC….but not always seeing how much he does to keep 815 happy (whether most of the AC like it or not)
Well, on that basis, why don’t we all endorse the Covenant?
The ACI must do some deep soul searching. As much as I have deep respect and admiration for the work of this group, they are by and large academics with limited grounding in the real world outside the Ivory tower. As such, they are nurtured in their cocoon, analyzing the problems of the AC with little ability to grasp the impact of these academic interactions upon the soldiers in the field. Meanwhile, the opposition engages in guerilla warfare, undermining all their scholarly and gentlemanly interactions.
While I am still a member of an orthodox diocese, I can’t help but believe that putting aside any political elements surrounding the motivations of those who have formed the new orthodox “province”, the net effect on the spiritual lives of their flock is probably better than the effect of a decision to stay in TEC. I mean this relative to the average Episcopalian who is not necessarily orthodox but faithfully attends services and remains open to hearing the Word of God. Every day that passes and sees another orthodox or Cornelius-like Episcopalian leaving TEC and going nowhere is another day which must weigh heavily on the souls and minds of those leaders called to tend the flock.
These well meaning s
These well meaning scholars diligently and earnestly work tirelessly believing that they can mend the gaping hole in the hull and thereby prevent the sinking of the ship. One day, they will finally come up with the solution only to realize that there is no need for a covenant because the orthodox have left quietly and have made the covenant a mute point
Dear ACI: “……… Rose Colored Glasses….” Glass always half-full?
Why are people not cheering over this “encouragement?”
…Because the[b][i]Political Realities[/i][/b] are that just saying how much we love the Covenant is NO guarantee of anything.
Endorse away. Hope for the day when the ACC lets you sign on as some kind of members.
But those who have been holding their breath for these eventualities have turned blue and fallen over long ago.
This is not criticism of your efforts. It is a plea to wake up to the political realities involved.
I’m still trying to figure out why anyone expects TEC not to sign the Covenant, given that it must get past KJS and the JSC before ANYONE gets to sign it.
I am not sure it is fair to be quite so dismissive of this as some people are being. It is carefully thought through, clear and consistent with the message ACI have been coming across with for some time and presumably since they have seen the letter there has been some contact with the principals.
For the rest of us it is difficult because we are reading a number of book reviews, without having the opportunity to read the book, and goodness they are varied aren’t they?
I don’t see us getting much further until someone or other posts the original letter from the ABC to Bishop Howe. If it was meant to be private then it should not have been released for review and reporting and if it was not meant to be private then it should be released forthwith and bring the confusion to an end. It has been an absolute shambles and left us all more in the dark at the end than at the beginning.
My eyes are dim, I cannot see,
I have not brought my specs with me..
Then again: “it should be released forthwith and bring the confusion to an end” …
Is that a hostage to fortune?
#3
You are quite misinformed about the members of ACI. Dr. Radner has, until two years ago, been a parish priest in TEC. Prior to that he served as a deacon and then priest in Africa. Dr. Turner also spent several years in missionary work as a priest in Africa. They have served faithfully on the ground floor of the Church and their scholarship is informed by the fruit of that service. That they have an intellectual ability to interweave practical experience with wisdom and intellectual rigor is an incredible blessing to our Church. Furthermore, all three members of ACI have served in the capacity of forming and shaping Christians for ministry in a variety of contexts, lay, priestly, and scholarly, and this is very much a labor of ground floor ministry.
I get tired of the ignorant criticisms of ‘ivory tower’ applied to folks such as the members of ACI. If you’re going to attempt to make a substantive argument about their work, at least get your facts straight.
There’s been quite a long discussion about this matter in general (though not the ACI statement) already over at Stand Firm, which I’d encourage T19 readers to check out.
Alas, I think the noble ACI leaders are seeing the ABoC’s letter through far too rosy glasses (ala #5). They didn’t even muster up any criticism of ++RW (no matter how mildly stated) for failing to act in the urgent, clear manner that +N. T. Wright called for a couple months ago. They continue to hope against all hope, and increasingly against all the evidence, that the Covenant will somehow work after all. [i]Wise fools![/i]
As we all know, they are fully committed to trying to salvage the AC as we know it, and working within the system. That’s honorable, but it’s also precisely the problem. It’s too late for that.
What is needed in Anglicanism isn’t slow, gradual, evolutionary change (which we’d all naturally prefer), but radical, sweeping, revolutionary change. Even if that means casting huge numbers of current Anglicans out of the Anglican fold. Not into the outer darkness, naturally, for only the Lord himself can do that, at the end of time. No, I mean casting them out of the Anglican fold by “delivering them to Satan” (as Paul urged regarding a scandalously immoral man in the Corinthian congregation, 1 Cor. 5).
Alas, the attempt to save the current wineskins of the AC is not only futile, but counter-productive. After all, the Master warned us about trying to patch up old, rigid wineskins that are obsolete (Mark 2:22). The patch only inevitably ends up tearing away from the old part, and both the new wine and the old wineskins are lost. It’s much better and wiser to face reality, bite the bullet, and put the new wine of the New Anglicanism into new institutional wineskins.
Just as the FCA/GAFCON/ACNA movement is doing.
The latest ACI statement is just what you’d expect. Well written, logical, and admirable in many ways. But I’m convinced it’s completely naive and wrong-headed. Any strategy based on the Covenant is guarranteed to fail.
Now, of course, the FCA approach may fail as well. But at least it stands a chance. The Covenant approach has no chance at all.
Zip. Zilch. None.
David Handy+
Why does it matter what ACI says anyway? If we are such lame-brains, or Ivory Tower nutjobs, then ignore the statement! The personal cast (in 3,4,5) to everything seems frankly sad or silly. Ivory Tower! What a laugh. When I think about my parish work in Philadelphia, CT, Scotland and Canada–or teaching theology in liberal institutions–and compare it with life in the Diocese of Albany with good Bishop Love, I feel genuinely envious. Or Radner, deported from Burundi. Or Turner in Uganda with Idi Amin. Can’t the elves keep the comments on topic, please? Lumen, if you want to leave because the situation is unbearable, I doubt this is a good place to work through that. I’m sorry, but at times the personal comments just seem detached from anything real.
PS–I hope Dean Munday will not mind my gluing his own comments here (of course he is in an academic context/Ivory Tower not unlike that of ourselves).
**
Folks, after accusing Rowan of Perfidy after the Jamaica ACC meeting and of being like Neville Chamberlain following his response to the actions of General Convention 2009, I am going to say something positive about his latest statement.
Read the second half of the crucial paragraph carefully:
But “I see no objection to a diocese resolving less formally on an ‘endorsement’ of the covenant.†Such an action may not have an immediate “institutional effect†but “would be a clear declaration of intent to live within the agreed terms of the Communion’s life and so would undoubtedly positively affect a diocese’s pastoral and sacramental relations†with the wider Communion, he said.
So, while constitutionally, the ACC can only present the results of its work (i.e., the Covenant) to its member provinces for endorsement, Rowan is saying that dioceses CAN endorse it if they wish, and that such an endorsement will affect their “sacramental relations†with the wider Communion.
**
Is Dean Munday wearing Rose Colored Glasses, too?
I have learned better than to put my trust in princes, bishops, politicians, and bureaucrats of any description. Nevertheless, I believe that that statement is more significant than it might appear on first reading.
As another who has mercifully survived ministry in war-torn Africa, as well as enjoying the benefits of good and godly scholarship offered by English theological institutions, I too wish to toss in my tuppence worth re what might be happening here – and repeat a line taken before regarding history generally.
Depending upon when we see all this stuff commencing and what kinds of ‘lines’ have been crossed (1960s, 1970s with Women’s Ordination, 1994 [I think it was] re baptismal pronouncements by Spong et al, Lambeth 1998 & 1.10, 2003 in New Hampshire, TWR 2004, Dar 2007, GC 2009), history and especially Church history – under God’s Good Providence – seldom matches our own expectations and time-tables. We may rue certain perfidies; we may instigate certain movements of interest groups; we may even play a form of politics (heaven knows, we all enjoy the odd play in the sun and even like to kick a bit of sand …). But when all is said done, Whose Church is it?!
The ABC also sees things ecclesial in long-term time frames. He simply disavows the contemporary flick of the mouse button. Yet too he knows that actions are required: it’s just a matter of leveraging when and exactly how [i]and amongst what other forces[/i]. The speed with which the Working Group was announced by the end of May should have given some signals, as also should have its membership. The next threshold is clearly December 2009 @ JSC. And who knows: there may yet be an ad hoc Primates Meeting called/instigated in the New Year … But meanwhile certain other options are clearly before us all: e.g. http://anglicandownunder.blogspot.com/
Hebrews 11:1 – 12:2 might be a good place for us all to start trying to better assess what our Good Lord is up to here … Even as the dire warnings of the same Letter are not mere rhetoric: it is after all a canonical sermon of the highest degree!
Pax et gaudium, as St Augustine used to say based on Jn 20 – or should that now be Heb 13:20-21!
Professor Seitz and Dean Mundy, let’s not forget the FIRST half of what the ABC said:
“As a matter of constitutional fact, the [Anglican Consultative Council] can only offer the covenant for ‘adoption’ to its own constituent bodies (the provinces),†the archbishop noted.
It seems FAR more critical than the second half of his statement that there’s nothing wrong with dioceses voting in favor of the Covenant. Of course there’s nothing wrong with it, it’s meaningless as they are not constituent bodies of the ACC – that’s simply “a matter of constitutional fact.” You can sign on, I can sign on, but what we do is not relevant, what GC does counts — the ABC could not have been more clear. The spin you are giving it is, at best, wishful thinking. ACI is starting to look like the Flat Earth Society!
Indeed, it is the character of this ‘unique polity’ that is now at the center of negotiation and evaluation. The ACC is not in a position to adjudicate this matter, even as it must face the messiness that this ‘unique polity’ invariably entails. The Archbishop of Canterbury knows that adoption of the Covenant works best at the provincial level, but he does not prejudge whether dioceses can adopt if a province does not because that would be to prejudge the decision of provinces to commit to the accountability demanded by the Covenant as well as the character of the Covenant in its completed form.
This is simply without any sound reasoning whatsoever. Seriously, it is hope at the expense of reason. I am saddened that ACI feels the need to continue down this road. But I suppose “In for a penny, in for a pound” applies. Let’s hope that others do not hitch their star to this fallacy.
#15
You’ve asserted two things but then not provided any reasoning for your assertions. Could you please do so?
Love the name Optimus
I assert that the reasoning is not sound. In their last argument in “Communion Partner Dioceses and The Anglican Covenant,†they tried to convince the reader that TEC’s polity was such that each individual Diocese could sign the Covenant. ++Rowan has now specifically refuted that argument saying that it is false:
“As a matter of constitutional fact, the [Anglican Consultative Council] can only offer the covenant for ‘adoption’ to its own constituent bodies (the provinces),†the archbishop noted.
So yesterday Dr. Seitz+ scrambled on the thread to say that they were only speaking of “endorsing” just like ++Rowan said. This is belied by the heading in the aforementioned document that says “Who Can Sign?”
So last evening they came up with this new document and now argue ‘Well, the ACC really doesn’t have the authority.” Again, I would reference you to the above specific refutation by ++Rowan.
Now, we must look at the history of what the ACI/CP are trying to accomplish:
First, the CP bishops ‘wrote’ an article explaining why there is only authority at the Diocesan level and that the Province is a creation of the Dioceses.
Then, they argued that
-Diocese are constituent parts of Provinces and therefore can sign. -But, they asserted, even if this is wrong, the Instruments of Unity have no authority to decide matters internal to TEC. This is important because;
-If even one Diocese files a lawsuit, then the Instruments of Unity have no recourse but to let individual Diocese sign because they would be ‘interfering’ in the internal working of a Province, which they can not do.
-But even if they don’t buy this-then they don’t really have any say, because the Covenant is completely separate from the Instruments of Unity anyway.
-Then, the final, and perhaps the argument which shows how desperate they are, was that ‘We can always replace the ACC.’
Now, ++Rowan has made a specific and definitive statement:
“As a matter of constitutional fact, the [Anglican Consultative Council] can only offer the covenant for ‘adoption’ to its own constituent bodies (the provinces),†the archbishop noted.
So they release a statement that does not even quote this. Convenient. And here are their arguments:
-He didn’t really mean what he said
-We never said what we said
-The ACC has no authority
-We completely agree with a partial quote.
These are all attempts to take the focus off of the facts. As are the claims of ad hominem attacks and the reference to their service.
[Brian and other commenters please solely address the issues in the thread and deal courteously with other commenters. Derogatory comments about ACI and their presumed intentions will not be accepted – Elf]
Let’s keep this simple #17. Do you genuinely believe that 1) if section 4 is retained, 2) TEC as a province will sign it? (Or, if the GS and CoE sign such a covenant, with section 4, TEC as a province will sign it?) And, if these conditions obtain, that 3) the dioceses that wish to adopt the covenant will not be allowed to? Or, that +RDW’s letter to +Howe was intended to rule out adoption by dioceses at any point in time? And this before section 4 has been reviewed, which allows for such an eventuality? Thanks.
PS, #17, it occurs to me to ask, as I do not know who you are or what view of the Episcopal Church you may have: Is the idea that TEC’s autonomy and national denomination aspirations are so crucial that if a covenant is finalised that calls for the accountability we see in sections 1–3, and TEC as a province decides not to adopt, it is imperative that every church and diocese in TEC be in the same boat? We have posed this kind of question before, to Mark Harris and others, but have never received a clear answer. Is this the view of TEC that you have?
Dr Seitz+
1. I do not believe Section 4 in its current form will be retained.
2. However, if Section 4 is retained as it exists today (or in a substantially similar form i.e. with sanctions), then I do genuinely believe that TEC will sign it.
3. However, assuming that Section 4 is retained and TEC does not sign it, I do not believe that individual Dioceses will be allowed to sign it UNLESS there is such a change in the structure of the AC that allows for Provinces to be “split” on the issue. I do not believe that will occur in the foreseeable future.
I do not believe that ++Rowan’s letter was intended to rule out adoption by dioceses at any point in time. I believe that it states it is a fact that only Provinces can sign. Section 4 in its current form has been rejected. What it looks like in the future is so uncertain that speculation, and especially asking individuals/parishes/dioceses to make decisions based on unfounded speculation, is irresponsible.
This is very helpful, and much appreciated. It is much clearer.
1. Why would TEC sign a covenant with section 4?
2. I agree that +RDW’s letter was not intended “to rule out adoption by dioceses at any point in time”;
3. Section 4 is pending review, and whether it will be rejected is to be seen;
4. +Rowan has encouraged dioceses to review and endorse so as to signal their intention to be in sacramental unity with the larger Communion; I trust that is not irresponsible on his part;
4. Irresponsible is the adjective I would use for what TEC is doing, in the courts, in revising its polity, and in unilaterally acting vis-a-vis Communion requests.
5. We are not speculating; CP has been told it can endorse the covenant; we hope that happens; we also believe that section 4 has a strong chance of emerging unscathed, and have good reasons for that belief; we also believe that the claims of certain leaders in TEC to have a hierarchy are false, and we will do all we can to contest that as historically inaccurate and irresponsible. Speculation plays no role in that at all.
6. Our point in this particular instance is well summarized by your sentence as in 2) above.
I remain curious why you believe TEC would sign a covenant with section 4 or something like it. Why would they do that? I am also unclear how or why the ACC would be unable to accommodate a situation in which provinces did not want to adopt a covenant, but individual dioceses and churches did. +RDW made it clear, did he not, that representation in track 1 life would not logically be open to those with track 2 commitments.
Do you believe that if the majority of the Communion signs a covenant that TEC province does not sign, it will not be able to enable those who wish to covenant to do so? This question was directed to Gregory Cameron in just these terms several years ago in NYC and he answered in the affirmative. He was not speculating. He was making a logical deduction.
Dr Seitz #19
I believe that TEC is a national Church. I believe that it is similar in nature to the Federal government with the dioceses representing individual States. Only the Province as a whole can work on a Provincial level. Our Province, for better or worse, works internally on majority rule. Locally, I believe, a Diocese is free to act in any way which is not inconsistent with Provincial polity. To that end, I have no problem with a Dioceses (or parish or individual) endorsing the Covenant. Nor do I have any problem with a Diocese (or parish or individual) living according to the covenant’s principles. Where I have a problem is when a Diocese tries to create a false impression that they are signatories when they can not be. It is as if a State is trying to convince the world that it has the authority to enter into treaties with other countries. That is reserved to the Federal government and not the States. Similarly,a Diocese can not represent to anyone that it has any authority to sign or adopt the Covenant when only TEC as a whole has that authority.
PS–I am also very curious about your view of TEC and Communion as stated in #19 above. We are not ‘TEC Institute’ but the Anglican Communion Institute. We value Communion and our catholic life in the world. If TEC wants to become an autonomous denomination, what should happen to those in its midst who wish to retain their Communion life? We know what our principled view is on that. It is unclear however what someone like yourself believes. Should TEC be able to constrain all its constituencies should it decline to adopt the covenant? Thanks
Still interested in the question in 23, but thanks for 22. We obviously disagree with your understanding of the historical polity of this church and believe it is false. We accept that some are seeking this outcome. Is General Convention your provincial agent? Can General Convention pass resolutions that contravene the Constitution? Does an individual Bishop anticipate, in your model, a time when he/she will be mandated by General Convention ‘majority voting’? Is this Presbyterian polity or Episcopal polity? You will know that we do not believe this is Episcopal polity and do not accept this modification, undertaken to achieve certain ends. Is it your understanding that the model you argue is episcopal will also mean a constraint placed upon individual dioceses vis-a-vis track one life; as well as the acceptance of ‘majority rule’ imposed upon individual Bishops? Thank you.
#21
1. Because TEC has proven in the past that they are either disingenuous or delusional in their understanding of prior “agreements.” Therefore, I believe they will sign it and “litigate” the consequences well beyond our years.
3. I question your interpretation. Section 4 was presented with Sections 10-3. Sections 1-3 were sent on. Section 4 was not. Since Section 4 can not be sent out in a form identical to that which was not sent on to the Provinces, I would argue that, in that form, it was rejected.
4a. You are changing the language from signing/adoption to endorsing.
4b. I agree that it is the adjective you would use. Whether that is correct or not is certainly open to interpretation.
5. You are speculating as you do not know the actual answer. It may be well-informed, I can not say, but it is speculation nonetheless. And again, you are changing the language. The 7 CP bishops were told they could endorse the Covenant (Sections 1-3). This was done AFTER your publication of an article claiming that Dioceses can SIGN the Covenant and that no one could do anything about it.
6. I answered most of this in #1, but you said:
I am also unclear how or why the ACC would be unable to accommodate a situation in which provinces did not want to adopt a covenant, but individual dioceses and churches did
ACI is on record in several places as claiming that the ACC have no such authority or relation to the Covenant. Only here do you concede the possibity.
If TEC wants to become an autonomous denomination, what should happen to those in its midst who wish to retain their Communion life?
If they became an autonomous denomination, they would have left the AC and those who wanted to could create a new Province and seek ACC admission and enter into communion with the See of Canterbury.
We know what our principled view is on that. It is unclear however what someone like yourself believes. Should TEC be able to constrain all its constituencies should it decline to adopt the covenant?
There is no constraint. Like the Rule of St Bendict or other organizations, you can choose to order your life, both individual and corporate, how you see fit. But this does not make you a Province and therefore you can not sign the Covenant. Show me how you are constrained from living within the bounds of the Covenant and I can answer further, but I simply don’t see it.
Is General Convention your provincial agent?
Yes.
Can General Convention pass resolutions that contravene the Constitution?
No. By definition. Therefore, if the Convention itself determines that resolutions do not contravene the Constitution, then they do not contravene the Constitution.
Does an individual Bishop anticipate, in your model, a time when he/she will be mandated by General Convention ‘majority voting’?
Depends on what is mandated and who the individual Bishop is.
Is this Presbyterian polity or Episcopal polity? You will know that we do not believe this is Episcopal polity and do not accept this modification, undertaken to achieve certain ends.
Neither. It is the polity of The Episcopal Church.
Is it your understanding that the model you argue is episcopal will also mean a constraint placed upon individual dioceses vis-a-vis track one life; as well as the acceptance of ‘majority rule’ imposed upon individual Bishops?
No. “Track 1” is a concept that is undefined. So constraints can not be defined.
#25–I am happy to think that the ACC would be able to accommodate a situation in which provinces did not sign, and dioceses wanted to. Otherwise it would end up like a rogue instrument;
#26–here you are defining the new polity of the “General Convention/PB Church” and not “The Episcopal Church”. That is not new, from what I recall.
a) If this church becomes a reality, and does not adopt the covenant, then you appear to say that it ought not constrain those within it from adopting the covenant. It is just that they must become a “province” first? Is this what you are saying? So then they become a province and so can then adopt the covenant? I just want to understand that this is your view. It just sounds very odd to me. Step one, TEC leaves the Communion. Step Two, dioceses and churches who want to covenant form themselves into a Province. I must say I am glad that section 4 has not chosen to follow this logic, for it would certainly be litigation-arama.
b) On the matter of constitution and General Convention: are you saying that whatever the General Convention does is ipso facto constitutional? Thanks.
Does an individual Bishop anticipate, in your model, a time when he/she will be mandated by General Convention ‘majority voting’? Same sex blessings mandated by the majority vote logic of presbyterianism (without a ‘barrier act’, as in the Kirk) is what I had in mind? Does this clarify the question posed? Thanks
Dr. Seitz,
Thank you for participating persistently in this thread, despite the harsh criticisms leveled at the ACI toward the start. I appreciate your restrained response. If I may, let me clarify that I’m not one of those who accuse you or the rest of the ACI team of being merely academics stuck in some lofty ivory tower, detached and oblivious to the practical realities of life down on the ground in the trenches of parish ministry. I freely acknowledge that ministry in the Diocese of Albany under +Herzog or +Love is a dream compared with some of the hard places you and they have been.
Moreover, you all clearly have the firm support of many outstanding CP rectors of large parishes, who are anything but naive or impractical. You don’t stay at the helm of thriving churches like St. Martin’s, Houston, or Incarnation, Dallas, or St. George’s, Nashville, if you can’t retain the respect of your lay leaders as an effective fellow leader.
So I hereby withdraw the stinging accusation that you and they are “Wise fools” (as I regrettably allowed myself to say in #10). It was rhetorical overkill. Obviously, we take sharply opposing positions on the best and wisest strategy to take in dealing with the vexed crisis within Anglicanism. But you, and the rest of the ACI, remain heroes in my book, and admirable champions of the orthodox cause.
In the end, I guess it comes down to the fact that I think there are worse things that could happen to Anglicanism than for it to break up organizationally. Much worse things, in fact.
Gradual, incremental, evolutionary change simply won’t do. As I tried to say above, and I’ve said here at T19 over and over. I firmly believe that the time has come to unsettle the Elizabethan Settlement once and for all, to scrap its whole Constantinian culture and ethos, and boldly create new wineskins of a radically post-Christendom sort that will serve Anglicanism as well in the third Christian millenium as the old Erastian wineskins did in the second millenium.
David Handy+
Dr. Seitz — here is how I see it:
I think the idea of a diocese signing the Covenant apart from its Province — not the “endorsement” that the ABC speaks of, but what you hypothesize might occur if and when TEC declines to sign the Covenant — raises significant, possibly fatal issues of authority and responsibility.
A diocese in TEC must in some degree acknowledge the authority of General Convenation — I know you dispute that GC acts as a metropolitical authority, but since only GC is authorized to make changes to the Constitution or national Canons, it seems clear that it does have some measure of authority that is binding upon the dioceses and clergy. Would you agree?
But if, in the scenario where TEC declines to sign the Covenant, the diocese is permitted by the terms of that same Covenant to sign on independently — then it is now subject to the authority of that very Covenant, and thereby to the Instruments of the Communion.
And so, suddenly, the diocese has two masters — neither with absolute authority over it, granted, but two masters who are quite likely to make conflicting demands. By being part of TEC, the diocese is subject to, at minimum, the Constitution and Canons of the church as given by GC; by signing the Covenant, the diocese is subject to the rulings of the Instruments of the Communion. Eventually, inevitably, these two alliegances will come into fundamental conflict and the diocese will have decide which one of its masters it actually serves.
I think the ABC is very aware of this possibility, which is why he has clarified that membership in the Anglican Communion is on a provincial basis only — the province is in, or it is out, but whatever it is it is as a unit. He holds out this idea of “endorsement,” I think, to remind dioceses that they can have informal relationships across the Communion, and that “endorsing” the Covenant might be one way in which to solidify such purely informal, non-binding, non-authoritative relationships. (And, I think the subtext is, because you can have these kinds of relationships there is no reason to be jumping ship from TEC.) I would be very surprised if the ABC were to promote the idea of individual dioceses signing on as members of the AC, no matter what TEC does with the Covenant.
a) If this church becomes a reality, and does not adopt the covenant, then you appear to say that it ought not constrain those within it from adopting the covenant.
You are changing terminology again. Only a Province can sign/adopt. Those within a Province can endorse, live according to, etc. The Province has legal standing. Those within do not.
It is just that they must become a “province†first? Is this what you are saying?
TEC must no longer be a Province. In the absence of any Province in the United States, others can apply. While TEC remains a Province, no other institution in the US has standing to sign or adopt.
So then they become a province and so can then adopt the covenant? I just want to understand that this is your view. It just sounds very odd to me. Step one, TEC leaves the Communion. Step Two, dioceses and churches who want to covenant form themselves into a Province.
If TEC is no longer a part of the Anglican Communion, then individuals can leave and fill the gaps. TEC is in the Anglican Communion, so none of these things apply.
I must say I am glad that section 4 has not chosen to follow this logic, for it would certainly be litigation-arama.
I am glad that a completely rejected, and therefore non-existent, Section has chosen not to follow your version of my logic. Although if we do follow your “logic” to its end, why couldn’t individuals form a new Province? As long as they do not steal the property, a non-Anglican Communion TEC would not care.
Does an individual Bishop anticipate, in your model, a time when he/she will be mandated by General Convention ‘majority voting’? Same sex blessings mandated by the majority vote logic of presbyterianism (without a ‘barrier act’, as in the Kirk) is what I had in mind? Does this clarify the question posed?
It depends on the mandate and the Bishop. I don’t know what individual bishops expect. As far as mandates, we can take same-sex blessings. Since heterosexual blessings are not mandated, why would same sex blessings be mandated? What exactly is mandated for bishops? It may be mandated that they consider all candidates for ordination, for example, but it is not mandated that they ordain all candidates for ordination. The “slippery slope” argument doesn’t apply until an actual enforced mandate occurs.
Ross,
[blockquote]A diocese in TEC must in some degree acknowledge the authority of General Convenation—I know you dispute that GC acts as a metropolitical authority, but since only GC is authorized to make changes to the Constitution or national Canons, it seems clear that it does have some measure of authority that is binding upon the dioceses and clergy.[/blockquote]
Authority, that is, the power to order the life of a given ‘state,’ stems from the assent of the constituent members of said state. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, TEC does not have a juridical authority that binds its dioceses to assent. In Anglican polity, it is in fact [i]not[/i] signing the Covenant that has fatal consequences for issues of authority, decision-making in the discernment of Scripture (the fundamental foundation of around which Anglican polity is built), internal and external ecclesial reconciliation.
[blockquote]but what you hypothesize might occur if and when TEC declines to sign the Covenant—raises significant, possibly fatal issues of authority and responsibility.[/blockquote]
This would only be true were we ordered with juridical hierarchical authority since the very structures of decision-making and ordering the life of a juridical church are borne by the integrity of adhering to structural order. Such is not the case in Anglicanism.
[blockquote]But if, in the scenario where TEC declines to sign the Covenant, the diocese is permitted by the terms of that same Covenant to sign on independently—then it is now subject to the authority of that very Covenant, and thereby to the Instruments of the Communion.[/blockquote]
First, it is bound by a moral/Spiritual authority which it enters into, before God. Let us hope that those who freely give their assent in agreeing to adhere to the relationships and means of maintaining those relationships, would in fact believe making a promise to their neighbors before God would demand an integrity of adherence. The Covenant, like the Instruments, are not juridical authorities as you seem to be implying. The Covenant is a framework of relationships into which Churches agree to bind themselves (hence the moral or spiritual authority). The process for resolving potential violations of the relationships as set out in the Covenant section 4, while likely adjudicated by members of a joint standing committee made up of members of the Instruments, is a means of bringing to bear a process known to potential signers beforehand, of bringing Scripture, tradition, and to some degree, experience, in resolving the issue. The dioceses would be subject, through their bishops (and possibly a metropolitan representative at councils much like exists for certain Churches in the Communion at present) to the same conditions that any signatory Church would be.
[blockquote]And so, suddenly, the diocese has two masters—neither with absolute authority over it, granted, but two masters who are quite likely to make conflicting demands. By being part of TEC, the diocese is subject to, at minimum, the Constitution and Canons of the church as given by GC; by signing the Covenant, the diocese is subject to the rulings of the Instruments of the Communion.[/blockquote]
Your point here is taken. Hence, I would posit, the reason ++RW spoke of a two tiered Communion (this would not be consonant with your last paragraph). It is possible that dioceses signing onto the Covenant would ‘sit’ in tier one, while TEC would sit in ‘tier two.’ This it seems to me might be supported by what ++RW stated in his response to the resolutions at GC and what he has spoken of for the last year in terms of a tiered Church. If this sounds ridiculous to some, I would suggest it is in fact, given the state of our divided Church, a means of giving time and space for the renewal of our Communion in which one day, even the Episcopal Church might seek membership.
Why might this two tiered approach be consistent with ++RW thinking? Because he is a theologian and episcopal leader who knows his Church history and understands the providential nature of God’s response to our blindness and to our sight through time. Any ecclesial response to this ontological reality must incorporate into its structures, a means of creating time and space for this nature to play out. In 20 years, who will be left in TEC? Who will have joined TEC? Who will be leading TEC? There are reforms going on now. There is a new generation coming through who are in the Church or who are coming to it not for social status, or for political status, or because it’s a cool place to be – quite the opposite. We (generation Y and younger) are here because we are seeking to know Jesus Christ more deeply and we recognize that this is a catholic matter which finds means in being a part of a catholic Church: the Anglican Communion.
31–several clarifications and a further comment on ‘majority rules’ polity are in order.
1. Section 4 is not non-existent. It exists. It is being reviewed. Your statement above is false.
2. Section 4 could remain fully intact, strengthened through clarification, or altered in some way.
3. General Convention says SSBs are OK; they happen in time; Bishop X says, No; he is sued or otherwise told to comply; this is what mandating means; do you understand? Or candidate X says he/she was not allowed access to ordination because (as in Dallas, e.g.) said Bishop says it will not happen; General Convention/Majority Rules church demands it or said bishop is charged with abandonment. Is that clearer?
4. The point being: this is not an Episcopal Church in which the Ordinary, on a biblical and church historical understanding, has authority; it is a General Convention Church.
5. The logic of your first sentences above came from trying to understand the curious notion that a Church not adopting a covenant is no longer in the Communion and that others would then apply for a provincial status, something that is sure to line lawyer’s pockets and that is not in the stated views of the ABFC, section 4, or anything except your own inventions.
Now as for majority rules churches. Take the Church of Scotland as a model. These form because they are NOT episcopal. Presbyters solemnly vow to conform to confessions. Truly representative government obtains. ‘Barrier act’ prevents misuse by putting it in the thickest possible majority context for referendum.
TEC is none of these, has never been.
In your new church, General Convention is its own constitution. It can mandate behaviors of Bishops. If Bishops do not agree, it charges them with abandonment. There is not ecclesiastical court of judge needed.
This model would shock a Presbyterian. It would not be called ‘majority rules’ but elitist CEOism works the polity in their favor.
Ross–I do not think the ABC has in any way at all declared the logic of section 4 otiose. We shall have to see what the review yields. By its present logic, dioceses (churches) can adopt the covenant. Perhaps what is at issue in your comment is why TEC-province would not choose to adopt the covenant. It is this issue that led to Section 4 being constructed. The wider Communion is surely not expected to see a Province rejecting a covenant and then demanding that those who wish to maintain historical ties to the Communion sever them in consequence, a kind of ‘geographical hostage to fortune.’ If I understand BT19 correctly, if such happens, ‘individuals form a province’ and do not steal property…This makes no sense at the diocesan level. If the Dallas Diocese covenants, it is not handing over its property to do that, and by law probably could not. The idea that a ‘Dennis Canon’ can tie diocesan property to a ‘National Church’ is now being fought in court. Some judges apparently find the notion risible that 815 Second Avenue can claim it owns real property in Texas or SC.
True hierarchical churches have the property deeds in the office of the Bishop, and the hierarchy includes liability. This is precisely the kind of issue that will be discussed in Dallas in February, when Presbyterian, Methodist, RC, CoE and other speakers gives us a primer on comparative polity. You are warmly welcome to attend.
Brian:
[blockquote]You are changing terminology again. Only a Province can sign/adopt. Those within a Province can endorse, live according to, etc. The Province has legal standing. Those within do not.[/blockquote]
According to whom? Certainly not the Covenant Agreement. That has in fact been one of the contentious issues: the term ‘Churches’ has been left vague to enable Churches other than Provinces to sign onto the Covenant agreement. As it stands, there are at least a few Churches on the ACC schedule who are not Provinces who are eligible to sign on. Furthermore, the Covenant takes its authority, a moral/spiritual authority, from those who give their assent to live according to the way of life it makes explicit (one I might add that has been implicit in the life of the Anglican Communion since its beginnings in the 19th century, and in many respects prior to that).
[blockquote]TEC must no longer be a Province. In the absence of any Province in the United States, others can apply. While TEC remains a Province, no other institution in the US has standing to sign or adopt.[/blockquote] Why? Where are you taking this from? We have no Communion wide constitution at present. The Covenant only states that it will not interfere with the workings of a Province. If, in fact, a diocese, by the particular governing structures of that particular Province, has the standing to do so, the word ‘Churches’ used in the Covenant would allow such a diocese to sign onto the Covenant. This might not be the case in Provinces like Ireland and Wales, but it would seem to be the case in Provinces such as Canada and the US.
[blockquote]Although if we do follow your “logic†to its end, why couldn’t individuals form a new Province? As long as they do not steal the property, a non-Anglican Communion TEC would not care.[/blockquote] This point here is not that anyone (except ACNA folks of course) wish to form a new province. What has been suggested at several junctures by ++RW is that we might end up with a two-tiered Communion in which TEC, given its present course, would occupy a second tier. Because of its internal Provincial polity, this opens the door for TEC dioceses to occupy a first tier. As I explained in post 32, this does not close the door to TEC’s first tier status permanently by any means; in fact, having a two tier system creates time and space for reform and renewal should TEC wish, at some point, to live within the bonds of communion called for by the Covenant. The point of the two tier is first to recognize the reality of what is happening on the ground right now in TEC: they do not wish to be bound in Communion. But the second, is that having a two tier system opens the door to the opportunity for repentance and reconciliation: for ecclesial reform, which I would argue is an inherently necessary aspect of a nature that still cannot see God in his fullness.
I am still very curious to have Brian answer this question. If TEC-‘Province’ does not adopt covenant (let province be for this purpose a majority vote in GC), then does this means that Dioceses which wish to retain their historical links to the Communion (see the Prologue to the Constitution and Canons) will not be allowed to do so? Let’s not move this into the odd territory of new province formation, TEC leaving the Communion, etc. Are you saying that dioceses which wish to retain their historical links to the Communion via a covenant ought not/will not be able to do that if ‘TEC Province’ (in whatever form you wish to declare that) declines to Covenant? If the Instruments are able to accept that, why would it be prohibited? (Remember that a) +RDW has already entertained the idea very explicitly, and b) the majority of the Primates will be in favor of this, and c) Section 4 deals with just this iisue). Again, if TEC province declines to adopt, are you saying that under no conditions will dioceses be able to maintain their historical ties to the Communion on terms status quo? Thanks.
On General Convention and Dioceses:
The essential role of dioceses as the constituent members of The Episcopal Church is further reflected in the procedures for dealing with the most important decisions made by the General Convention, which are amendments to the Book of Common Prayer and Constitution. Both require the same basic procedure. For example, Article XII, the provision governing constitutional amendments, requires that an amendment be “proposed†at one General Convention, that the proposal then be “sent to the Secretary of the Convention of every Diocese, to be made known to the Diocesan Convention at its next meeting,†and then that the amendment be “adopted†at a second General Convention by “affirmative vote in each order by a majority of Dioceses entitled to representation….†It could not be clearer that it is the dioceses that are entitled to representation.
Diocesan constitutional changes, in contrast, receive no prior review or approval from General Convention or other central bodies. As already noted, our first Constitution was ratified by the preexisting state (diocesan) churches. There was no review or approval at that time of the constitutions of the state churches. Under the current provisions, a new diocese joining The Episcopal Church ratifies our Constitution when it joins, typically by an accession clause in its own constitution. Apart from an initial review when a new diocese applies for membership in The Episcopal Church, there is no provision for prior review or approval of diocesan constitutional changes, canons or other actions. A diocese within The Episcopal Church, as opposed to one applying to join, has unconstrained authority in terms of its own constitution and canons. This is not merely an inference from silence, but an authority that is expressly granted. See, e.g., Article II (diocese selects bishop “agreeably to rules prescribed by the Convention of that Diocese.â€)
Dr Seitz+
[Edited]
#33
1 & 2 OK, maybe Section 4 will be the same with clarification. Maybe it will be a recipe for French Onion Soup. If it is that important to you, you can have it. Section 4 will now be identical with clarification. This simply does not change your argument in any way.
3. [Edited]
4. As I have said numerous times, this is The Episcopal Church, not an Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church does not hold to traditional episcopal polity. There are any number of history books on the Church that can explain how it works.
5. [Edited]
However, you do return to my argument here:
In your new church, General Convention is its own constitution. It can mandate behaviors of Bishops. If Bishops do not agree, it charges them with abandonment. There is not ecclesiastical court of judge needed.
You do understand me correctly. This is the reality. The problem with the conservative side is that they refuse to acknowledge this. The PB makes a decision, takes it to the HoB. There is an objection. She answers. There is a vote. Bishop removed. That is how it happens. Conservatives would argue that this Bishop was never removed. He was. Check his pension. Check with ++Rowan. By the conservative logic, if we have a murder victim, he is not actually dead BECAUSE the law says you can not murder people.
[Edited by Elf – Please remain courteous and address the thread topic]
#35
If TEC-‘Province’ does not adopt covenant (let province be for this purpose a majority vote in GC), then does this means that Dioceses which wish to retain their historical links to the Communion (see the Prologue to the Constitution and Canons) will not be allowed to do so?
No. Here is exactly what will happen.
1. Covenant vote is called
2. TEC does NOT adopt/sign it
3. Links remain intact for both TEC and its Dioceses
4. Covenant signatory Provinces meet in an “extraordinary” meeting to deal with first Covenant crisis
5. Non-Covenant Provinces hold their own meeting.
6. Covenant Provinces issue a strong statement demanding action
7. Non-Covenant Provinces issue a statement affirming their commitment to the Communion and their Christian love for their Covenant Province brothers and sisters
8. Nigeria issues a statement saying this isn’t enough
9. Covenant Provinces issue a clarifying statement pledging to be in conversation with people who are homosexual
10. Covenant Primates fly to Canterbury for private meeting with ABC
11. Non-Covenant Primates fly to Canterbury for a different Private meeting with ABC
12. Emergency Primates meeting called
13. All Primates proclaim “mutual affection amid serious differences.”
14. Several Lambeths go by
15. Dr Seitz+ and Brian from T19 die peacefully from natural causes brought on by old age
16. “Bridging the Gap: The Covenant and Non-Covenant Process for the New Century” is released
Again, if TEC province declines to adopt, are you saying that under no conditions will dioceses be able to maintain their historical ties to the Communion on terms status quo?
There would need to be a status quo and there has not been since AMiA split.
Brian writes:
“The Episcopal Church does not hold to traditional episcopal polity.”
and
“You do understand me correctly. This is the reality. The problem with the conservative side is that they refuse to acknowledge this. The PB makes a decision, takes it to the HoB. There is an objection. She answers. There is a vote. Bishop removed. That is how it happens…check with +Rowan.”
I believe this charade is now completed.
Optimus
I apologize for being distracted. [Edited]. Here is what I believe to be the case:
According to whom? Certainly not the Covenant Agreement. That has in fact been one of the contentious issues: the term ‘Churches’ has been left vague to enable Churches other than Provinces to sign onto the Covenant agreement. As it stands, there are at least a few Churches on the ACC schedule who are not Provinces who are eligible to sign on. Furthermore, the Covenant takes its authority, a moral/spiritual authority, from those who give their assent to live according to the way of life it makes explicit (one I might add that has been implicit in the life of the Anglican Communion since its beginnings in the 19th century, and in many respects prior to that).
According to ++Rowan. “As a matter of constitutional fact, the [Anglican Consultative Council] can only offer the covenant for ‘adoption’ to its own constituent bodies (the provinces),†the archbishop noted. As for the moral/spiritual authority, any one of us can covenant with another. The determining factor is the effect. If numerous Provinces agree and ++Rowan says that TEC is fine and the ACC says that TEC is fine, then the Covenant is meaningless.
Why? Where are you taking this from? We have no Communion wide constitution at present. The Covenant only states that it will not interfere with the workings of a Province. If, in fact, a diocese, by the particular governing structures of that particular Province, has the standing to do so, the word ‘Churches’ used in the Covenant would allow such a diocese to sign onto the Covenant. This might not be the case in Provinces like Ireland and Wales, but it would seem to be the case in Provinces such as Canada and the US.
I am taking this from the earliest Church Councils. No non-consensual overlapping jurisdiction. Assuming TEC does not sign and that the above statement by ++Rowan is a fact, Dioceses could not sign because it would elevate them to the level of Provinces. Of course, as I have mentioned and ++Rowan maintains, there is no problem with endorsement or living within its constraints.
As far as the “two tier” issue, I believe that it is separate. We are not even certain what this would entail, let alone whether it would be a means to a covenantal agreement
[Edited by Elf – there will be no further warnings]
Brian,
It would appear Dr. Seitz has merely been attempting to clarify his understanding of your position while also offering his response. He is not attacking you personally. Your responding charge of “it is a tactic used by people who can not rely on the strength of their argument,” is over the top and thwarts your ability to be convincing in your own argumentation.
Your argument is beginning to derive out of personal frustration rather than logic and facts on the ground. “OK, maybe Section 4 will be the same with clarification. Maybe it will be a recipe for French Onion Soup. If it is that important to you, you can have it.” Section 4 serves the purpose, one about which most of the Provinces agree at least in principle, of enabling the signatory Churches to attend to issues that challenge the common life to which they have agreed. Having a means of communicating, teaching and adhering to, and dealing with violations of a set of moral principles that define the life of the community are necessary for the sustainability of any community. To cast is off in such a manner as ‘fine you can have it’ is nonsensical and uncharitable toward Churches that have come together seeking a way to heal a tear in the fabric of our Communion.
[blockquote]4. As I have said numerous times, this is The Episcopal Church, not an Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church does not hold to traditional episcopal polity. There are any number of history books on the Church that can explain how it works.[/blockquote] Yes, there are many books about this. The authors of this article happen to have read most of them and then some. One could peruse their numerous writings on their website, in journal articles and in their books to understand that this is so. I would imagine you are aware of this so a suggestive comment that Dr. Seitz simply hasn’t done his homework is not a particular effective tactic. Furthermore, A quick check into something like the Fourth Resolution of the 1867 Lambeth Conference, which the Episcopal Church attended and seemingly, given future statements, assented to, would seem to contradict your understanding of the matter.
[blockquote]You do understand me correctly. This is the reality. The problem with the conservative side is that they refuse to acknowledge this.[/blockquote]
The Episcopal Church may try, but it is not the Roman Catholic Church.
[blockquote]The PB makes a decision, takes it to the HoB. There is an objection. She answers. There is a vote. Bishop removed. That is how it happens. Conservatives would argue that this Bishop was never removed. He was. Check his pension. Check with ++Rowan. By the conservative logic, if we have a murder victim, he is not actually dead BECAUSE the law says you can not murder people.[/blockquote]
First, the issue of pension and the issue of actual juridical force the PB has are not equivalent. Withholding of pension could merely mean the PB has done so illegally (let us hope it does not take a legal case to resolve such an issue). Second, the ABC has absolutely no jurisdiction in the internal affairs of TEC (this is one of the major reasons we are where we’re at presently!).
Brian your list in post 38 of, ‘this is exactly what will happen’ is so far from using the facts on the ground to extrapolate possible scenarios that there is almost no point in responding. However, one glaring omission from your analysis, one I have pointed out above in two posts, is that the ABC has already indicated that if TEC is to maintain is current course of action, it will be choosing a second tier status for itself. This opens up the potential for tier one dioceses to emerge given TEC’s own polity. Try having a look at last paragraphs in posts 32 and 34 to see what I mean.
[May we thank all for their participation in this interesting thread and in the interests of the discussion ask that all avoid personal comments or referring to those of others. If there are problems which we have not picked up please contact us and we will edit where appropriate – Elf]
Brian,
Further to my post in 42: I am curious as to where you got your information concerning the BP juridical authority? As I understand it, if she is to charge a bishop with abandonment, as against a genuine process, she would need three senior bishops. But since when is charging with abandonment a committal to the HOB? I don’t believe there was a vote on Scriven, Iker, Steenson.
Now to respond to your 41:
[blockquote] According to ++Rowan. “As a matter of constitutional fact, the [Anglican Consultative Council] can only offer the covenant for ‘adoption’ to its own constituent bodies (the provinces),†the archbishop noted.[/blockquote]
++RW’s statement is consistent with his concern for ecclesial order; that is, how we make decisions as individual members of a catholic Church. His statement first and foremost does not negate his earlier response to the pertinent GC Resolutions in which he made clear that TEC’s decision-making was in contradiction to the fundamental commitments of the Covenant Agreement. The clearly articulated facts on the ground at present indicate TEC’s position with respect to the Covenant: they do not wish to be bound to the relational commitments of communion. If this remains the case, we move into the territory I have already discussed concerning a tiered Church which is also consistent with what ++ RW has been talking about for a year with respect to TEC and the ACoC.
The other factor here is that ++RW does not own the Covenant. We are not the Roman Catholic Church. He has no juridical role. The Covenant comes into effect when two Churches on the ACC schedule sign onto it. Initially, yes, it will likely be Provinces. However as the Covenant stands (a standing unlikely to be changed given the recognition that the scope of work done by the CDG was as complete and comprehensive as could be given our current state), anyone on the ACC schedule can sign on and any other Church, our ecumenical partners included, could apply for membership. When two or more members sign on, the Covenant becomes effective for those Churches. Given the expressed desire of the majority of the Primates at the last Primates’ Meeting for Communion rather than a loose federation of Churches (as you would seem to be advocating), and the approval of the first three sections of the Covenant at the last ACC meeting, and the general support in principle for section 4 of the Covenant (even Provinces like Canada are positively inclined without change to section 4), it is likely that the Covenant will become constitutive of what it means to be Anglican. At least tier one Anglican.
[blockquote] As for the moral/spiritual authority, any one of us can covenant with another. The determining factor is the effect. If numerous Provinces agree and ++Rowan says that TEC is fine and the ACC says that TEC is fine, then the Covenant is meaningless.[/blockquote] The whole Communion, including ++RW and the ACC have already said TEC is not fine. This is in fact why The Virginia Report was initiated which was followed by the Windsor Report, the Windsor Continuation Group, the Covenant Design Group and the incredibly lengthy process of discernment and exchange that has gone on through our various channels and councils of communication.
[blockquote] I am taking this from the earliest Church Councils. No non-consensual overlapping jurisdiction.[/blockquote]
The earliest Church councils were dealing with fractions between members of one Church. We have overlapping jurisdictions at present because we live in a time of massive ecclesial division. That is the reality we have to deal with. There is a Roman Catholic Church under the authority of a Roman Catholic bishop right across the street from where I live. There is a Presbytery down the street from where I live, etc, etc. TEC has a choice to make. It can choose to submit itself to remaining bound in interdependent life with the rest of the Communion, or it can choose to, as ++RW put it, walk apart. If it chooses to do so by not signing onto the Covenant, the dioceses of the Episcopal Church, by TEC’s own constitution, have the ability to sign onto the Covenant.
[blockquote]Assuming TEC does not sign and that the above statement by ++Rowan is a fact, Dioceses could not sign because it would elevate them to the level of Provinces.[/blockquote] No it doesn’t. Like other current members without a primate, they would be represented at Lambeth by their bishops and at other conciliar gatherings perhaps by a metropolitan (perhaps ++Rowan himself)
[blockquote] As far as the “two tier†issue, I believe that it is separate. We are not even certain what this would entail, let alone whether it would be a means to a covenantal agreement [/blockquote] No, the issue of two tiers is not at all separate. It is incredibly consistent with Anglican ecclesiology of reform and renewal in the discernment of Scripture (not in ordering itself according to juridical authority or doctrine). It is furthermore consistent with ++RW’s continued discussion of this matter over the last year, and finally, it is consistent with his own personal understanding of God’s providence in acting in human history through his Church.
I regret to end discussions here, but unfortunately I must get back to work. Thank you for the engagement.
This has been an interesting if abstract thread. I find Brian more convincing that Seitz+. Professor Seitz+ is indeed playing with words — ENDORSING vs. SIGNING. The ABC’s comments on individual dioceses ENDORSING a covenant cannot be read as meaning that if a diocese does endorse a covenant and its province does not then the diocese is fully in the Communion, while the province of which it is a part is not. This is an absurd proposition. The ABC has made it very clear that dioceses are free to ENDORSE the covenant, but that is not the same as SIGNING it. He couldn’t be more clear that ONLY provinces can SIGN the covenant.
I also agree with Brian that it’s highly unlikely that provision 4 of the proposed covenant will survive with the key provisions of enforcement intact. It’s much more likely that a modified and watered down provision 4 will be adopted, or, in true Anglican fashion, a totally ambiguous provision 4 (which will yield up many more years of debate about its exact meaning). However, for the sake of argument, let’s say that provision 4 is adopted as it was proposed in Jamaica. I also agree with Brian that TEC will adopt it — knowing that when they violate it nothing of substance will happen. Let’s not forget, even if TEC were not to adopt the covenant, the ABC has already made it abundantly clear that they will STILL be a part of the Communion, albeit relegated to some ill-defined second tier status. CP Bishops and others within TEC will be free to ENDORSE the covenant if the province does not, but that will have NO impact on their status within the structure of the Communion. That status will be determined by the actions of their province.
Where I disagree with Brian is on whether a diocese can withdraw from the TEC. The polity of TEC is episcopal. The constituent units of the TEC are its dioceses, led by its bishops. I have yet to see a convincing argument that a diocese and its bishop cannot withdraw from the TEC. What happens to their relationship with the Communion is unclear, but it is being tested at this very moment by 4 Anglican bishops who were formally part of TEC and now are not. Brian and others may argue that they are no longer bishops, but I don’t think this is the case. Their status in the Communion is ambiguous, but I have seen NOTHING from Lambeth Palace to indicate that the ABC no longer views them as valid Anglican bishops, albeit in some sort of limbo.
The centrality of the provinces in the organization of the Communion at the institutional level, as argued by Brian, however, is underscored by the fact that all 4 former TEC bishops have sought to affiliate with another existing PROVINCE of the Anglican Communion (in each case with the Southern Cone). The legitimacy of this unprecedented realignment is unclear, but what is clear is that all four of the former TEC bishops reject what Seitz+ seems to be suggesting which is that the diocese, as opposed to the province, is the constituent unit of the Anglican Communion. The departing TEC bishops seem to understand the ABC VERY clearly on this matter – which is why they continue to remain connected to the Southern Cone despite the establishment of ACNA. I anticipate that this institutional ambiguity will continue for years, if not decades.
Finally, these institutional questions are matters of secondary importance. The institutional structures of the Communion will NOT solve the problems Anglicanism now faces. These problems will be solved on the ground by countless individuals acting in response to the dictates of their consciences and the institutional structures of the Communion will simply acknowledge the realities that evolve at some later date. The new orthodox Anglican presence in North America will either flourish or it will flounder. TEC will either blossom having embraced a new theology, or it will continue to shrink. These are now the arenas in which the future will be decided, which is why all this focus on the Covenant is misplaced.
The Covenant is a sideshow, the future will be determined by what ACNA does and what TEC does in terms of building up the church in North America. The ABC and the other instruments of Communion will continue to embrace BOTH of them in the ambiguous way that they have over the past five years. No covenant will change that strategy. In this context the Communion Partner bishops will play a marginal role in TEC. I anticipate that they will continue to be a divided and relatively ineffective group. TEC knows that most of them are so institutionally committed to TEC that will never leave, so they will be treated like the crazy old uncle you put up with because he’s “family,” but whom you otherwise essentially ignore. With time they will retire or die and they will be replaced by folks who embrace the “new theology.” They will be footnote in the history of TEC, nothing more. If there is to be any revival of orhodox Anglicanism in North America, and that remains an open question, it’s fate lies with ACNA.
Optimus
All of Dr. Seitz+’s points have been refuted. As for clarification, I’ll be happy to answer your questions:
Section 4 serves the purpose, one about which most of the Provinces agree at least in principle, of enabling the signatory Churches to attend to issues that challenge the common life to which they have agreed. Having a means of communicating, teaching and adhering to, and dealing with violations of a set of moral principles that define the life of the community are necessary for the sustainability of any community. To cast is off in such a manner as ‘fine you can have it’ is nonsensical and uncharitable toward Churches that have come together seeking a way to heal a tear in the fabric of our Communion.
I hate to answer a question with a question, but it is demonstrative of my point. If Section 4 is so key to the argument, why wasn’t it sent to the Provinces for review? Sections 1-3 are out there now being reviewed. It is awaiting amendment or clarification, so speculation about its contents, even from those “in the know,” is simply premature.
Furthermore, A quick check into something like the Fourth Resolution of the 1867 Lambeth Conference, which the Episcopal Church attended and seemingly, given future statements, assented to, would seem to contradict your understanding of the matter.
The Episcopal Church is run by two Houses and decisions for the Province and its Dioceses are made at General Convention. This is how it was founded, has always been and is today. The secular courts have held this view of history and, most importantly, so does The Episcopal Church. A very small minority of individuals and bishops (far fewer than 10%) may try to write a revisionist history, but it is simply not viable.
First, the issue of pension and the issue of actual juridical force the PB has are not equivalent. Withholding of pension could merely mean the PB has done so illegally (let us hope it does not take a legal case to resolve such an issue). Second, the ABC has absolutely no jurisdiction in the internal affairs of TEC (this is one of the major reasons we are where we’re at presently!).
There is an institution called The Episcopal Church. That institution has taken actions. Those actions were challenged in the House of Bishops. A ruling was handed down. No further objection has been filed. This is the sum total of the facts.
Brian your list in post 38 of, ‘this is exactly what will happen’ is so far from using the facts on the ground to extrapolate possible scenarios that there is almost no point in responding. However, one glaring omission from your analysis, one I have pointed out above in two posts, is that the ABC has already indicated that if TEC is to maintain is current course of action, it will be choosing a second tier status for itself. This opens up the potential for tier one dioceses to emerge given TEC’s own polity. Try having a look at last paragraphs in posts 32 and 34 to see what I mean.
Obviously the list is a bit but I thought a little lightening of the mood was helpful. That said, I do believe that what I have outlined will occur to a substantial degree. Reference to the nebulous “two tier” option is simply reference to an idea that has been out there and analyzed before. Placing hope in this incarnation of the idea will most likely hold the same results as the orthodox have been getting since 2003. But, if there is a two-tier situation, it could indeed be a game changer. I for one do not believe that we will see this and offer the past six years of promised action with no follow through as my rationale.
You are correct that ++Rowan’s statement does not change his post GC position. You are also correct that actions taken as a result of the GC resolutions will violate the teaching of the Anglican Communion. Where the argument is open to question is ‘What happens next?’ You assert that TEC refuses to sign the covenant and then we proceed to a tier system. But why would TEC refuse to sign? The PB of TEC at the time of +Gene’s ordination made promises that were not kept. The current PB has put promises in writing and then reneged. The HoB and HoD at GC06 passed resolutions promising not to do what they have been doing since GC06.
But let’s assume TEC does not sign. Then begins the process of setting up a tier system. How long will that take? How much study will be done. Will the Tier Group become the Tier Continuation Group. History is on my side of this argument.
When two or more members sign on, the Covenant becomes effective for those Churches. Given the expressed desire of the majority of the Primates at the last Primates’ Meeting for Communion rather than a loose federation of Churches (as you would seem to be advocating), and the approval of the first three sections of the Covenant at the last ACC meeting, and the general support in principle for section 4 of the Covenant (even Provinces like Canada are positively inclined without change to section 4), it is likely that the Covenant will become constitutive of what it means to be Anglican. At least tier one Anglican.
Without a viable Section 4, the document has no teeth and therefore becomes a gentleman’s agreement. What it means to be Anglican is to be in communion with the See of Canterbury. All other definitions fall short.
The whole Communion, including ++RW and the ACC have already said TEC is not fine. This is in fact why The Virginia Report was initiated which was followed by the Windsor Report, the Windsor Continuation Group, the Covenant Design Group and the incredibly lengthy process of discernment and exchange that has gone on through our various channels and councils of communication.
And the result? Optimus, I hate to beat a dead horse, but this is literally a dead horse. What consequences has TEC suffered? What changes have been made? If you can say that there are real life consequences rather than ephemeral ones, then I would say you have a point. But I see none.
No it doesn’t. Like other current members without a primate, they would be represented at Lambeth by their bishops and at other conciliar gatherings perhaps by a metropolitan (perhaps ++Rowan himself)
This so fundamentally changes the nature of the Anglican Communion that it is untenable.
Thanks Chris Taylor. I thought I was somehow being obtuse. Glad you saw my points through the muck 😉
#46. +Rowan’s stated comments do not rule out a province failing to adopt, and the logic of section 4, or section 4 itself, being the operative way forward for dioceses (or ‘churches’). Your commitment to a new province (ACNA) clouds your judgment.
I am glad that Brian feels he has a colleague in your thinking, though I had failed to note that his ideas about provinces as the sine qua non could line up nicely with a promotion of ACNA. He didn’t seem so forthright in declaring the covenant and the communion (centred on Canterbury) kaput. Obviously he does not share your view that TEC needs to be disciplined.
The nice thing is that the fate of the covenant is not too far from determination. For those who believe ACNA is the way forward, some want the covenant to work (Stephen Noll) and apparently others do not (Chris Taylor). This is much clearer from your note.
PS–I have a busy Sunday and will say Goodbye at this point. I did not foresee a situation where an ACNA proponent who sees CP as pointless would find an ally in a TEC proponent of an episcopal church which is not Episcopal. That is probably a sign that not much more will come of this discussion. Grace and peace.
Not a question of allies, Prof. Seitz, Brian and I are clearly on VERY different sides of the fence vis-a-vis the theology of TEC, however, we share an understanding of logic, rational discourse and the plain sense meaning of words. I see nothing unusual in the fact that while we disagree profoundly on many things, we share a common understanding of logical and reasoned argumentation and how it works. At the end of the day there is an objective reality out there and although we may disagree about whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing we can both see the same reality. Unfortunately, in this case you have chosen to present reality in a manner that neither Brian nor myself recognize. That is unfortunate. All blessings.
No, I actually believe you are allies. You both want a Communion which has its own identity in self-assertion. On the one side, through declaring things like CP worthless and starting up a ‘replacement province’ (I speak of your strident take on things, not the more mature self-appraisal of others in ACNA); on the other, creating a new autonomous episcopal church which is not a catholic body in a Communion. Unsurprisingly then, you both believe a Covenant is a bad idea. Delusional is your notion of objectivity and rationality, and I might have thought that old canard was busted wide open already. No, you believe what you believe, as does Brian, because it bespeaks your understanding of the church. You have no better idea than your dog-catcher whether a covenant will come to flower, even one with a section 4 intact. You just don’t want one. Thank goodness ACNA has proponents like Steve Noll who are mature enough to not want the communion totally to collapse, just so their vision of the church will be vindicated. Don’t fool yourself with congratulations about your debating skills. Your assessments merely serve your purposes as a strident ACNA proponent who wants neither CP or a Covenant. Good day.
[blockquote] I hate to answer a question with a question, but it is demonstrative of my point. If Section 4 is so key to the argument, why wasn’t it sent to the Provinces for review? Sections 1-3 are out there now being reviewed. It is awaiting amendment or clarification, so speculation about its contents, even from those “in the know,†is simply premature.[/blockquote]
There are two responses to this: 1. it is precisely because it is key, that some Provinces wished for greater discernment; 2. The second reason, tied to the first is problematic because in fact it would seem that it was procedure, and questionable tactics, and not the will of the gathered Church that required Section 4 to be submitted for further examination.
[blockquote] The Episcopal Church is run by two Houses and decisions for the Province and its Dioceses are made at General Convention. This is how it was founded, has always been and is today. The secular courts have held this view of history and, most importantly, so does The Episcopal Church. A very small minority of individuals and bishops (far fewer than 10%) may try to write a revisionist history, but it is simply not viable.[/blockquote] I think we’ll have to agree to disagree about this given that neither of us can know how this will work itself out in the midst of changing circumstance; the latest court case in TX being case in point. I will say that it is a rather sad place we are in when our polity and theology is in the hands of secular courts. How pathetic is it that we appeal to the secular world, to courts based on universalizing tenants, in order to define our faith? But then I guess we, as God’s people, are not without precedent for having been turned turned over to the nations. I would pray for hearts willing to repent. How long must we remain deaf and to God’s grace? Why is our witness only that of prideful sects competing to prove themselves righteous according to their own works?
[blockquote] There is an institution called The Episcopal Church. That institution has taken actions. Those actions were challenged in the House of Bishops. A ruling was handed down. No further objection has been filed. This is the sum total of the facts.[/blockquote] Why would they appeal? They consider TEC to have departed from the Church. I don’t agree with their ecclesiology, but that doesn’t change the fact that there simply was no reason to challenge the decision as Chris Taylor has alluded to above, because they found a place in the Communion they felt was non apostate. What is happening in the case of those who wish to remain within TEC (staying for its renewal … not in their own lifetimes of course), is entirely different. These folks will challenge and stand firm. It remains to be seen how that will work itself out. But both the TX case, and the legal examination of the issue prepared by Mark McCall has prepared these folks if in fact this becomes a necessity.
[blockquote] Reference to the nebulous “two tier†option is simply reference to an idea that has been out there and analyzed before. Placing hope in this incarnation of the idea will most likely hold the same results as the orthodox have been getting since 2003. But, if there is a two-tier situation, it could indeed be a game changer. I for one do not believe that we will see this and offer the past six years of promised action with no follow through as my rationale. [/blockquote] We are in a different place now than we have been over the last 6 years. I for one do believe we will see something like the two tier solution pan out; I would in fact think that it will be somewhat more in line with what Chris Taylor suggested (though not entirely). Although let us be honest, at the rate the Episcopal Church and the ACoC is declining, in 10 years, we’re going to have an entirely different landscape, with a generation of individuals who are not caught up or hardened by these battles. It is this fact that will greatly change the landscape of American (and Canadian) Anglicanism. What a humbling reality; for all of our posturing, it is in fact God working through a new, much smaller generation who are willing to repent of our having turned ourselves over to the ‘control of the nations’ that will renew the Church.
[blockquote] Where the argument is open to question is ‘What happens next?’ You assert that TEC refuses to sign the covenant and then we proceed to a tier system. But why would TEC refuse to sign? The PB of TEC at the time of +Gene’s ordination made promises that were not kept. The current PB has put promises in writing and then reneged. The HoB and HoD at GC06 passed resolutions promising not to do what they have been doing since GC06.[/blockquote]
Well this would present quite an interesting scenario, one I think might be more realistically seen in Canada than in the US. I suppose it will indeed depend upon how Section 4 is perceived by TEC; it seems the response thus far has been that “it is a tool to punish TEC” and therefore not something to be signed. But were they to sign, there are two answers I would give: 1. if we’re talking about making a promise, as the leader of a Church, before God, the consequences for failing to live out those promises certainly have biblical precedent we could examine (though I won’t do so here). 2. If we’re talking about immediate historical consequence I would say it will depend upon who else signs onto the Covenant and how they respond.
[blockquote] But let’s assume TEC does not sign. Then begins the process of setting up a tier system. How long will that take? How much study will be done. Will the Tier Group become the Tier Continuation Group. History is on my side of this argument.[/blockquote] What is there to set up in a tier system? All that has to happen is that tier two Provinces are not invited to councils. This is already the prerogative of the ABC. The Covenant, were it to become definitive of what it means to be Anglican, would provide the ABC with a legitimate mechanism (one that has been agreed to by signatory Churches) for determining when a Church should be invited to tier one status. Councils are the place where common faith and common practices are decided upon (this is why it is important that their decisions be binding – so that we might be able to have a common witness to what Jesus Christ has done). Therefore to be tier two Churches would not be a part of this common discernment of Scripture, nor of discerning a common faith or practices by which one part of the Church might be the agent of renewal for another. As I said above, this system provides a means and mechanism for incorporating divine demand for confession and repentance and so opening the door to ecclesial reconciliation – internal and external.
[blockquote] Without a viable Section 4, the document has no teeth and therefore becomes a gentleman’s agreement.[/blockquote] from a our perspective, you are quite correct. However, agreeing to Sections 1-3 before God and then not abiding by the life set out in those agreements has implications and judgments before God.
[blockquote] What it means to be Anglican is to be in communion with the See of Canterbury. All other definitions fall short.[/blockquote]
Why is this important? I’m not saying I don’t agree, but it is not merely because we have some symbolic head that this is important. What is critical, is that a Church of the Communion participates in the councils of the whole Church. Our councils provide the moral authority to order the common life of our Church; without this, we are at best no different than 44 denominations (I think this moves us in a way opposite to Christ’s prayer for the unity of his Church).
The whole Communion, including ++RW and the ACC have already said TEC is not fine. This is in fact why The Virginia Report was initiated which was followed by the Windsor Report, the Windsor Continuation Group, the Covenant Design Group and the incredibly lengthy process of discernment and exchange that has gone on through our various channels and councils of communication.
[blockquote] And the result? Optimus, I hate to beat a dead horse, but this is literally a dead horse. What consequences has TEC suffered? What changes have been made? If you can say that there are real life consequences rather than ephemeral ones, then I would say you have a point. But I see none.[/blockquote]
Have patience. We have too much of a tendency to demand immediate results. God does not work on our time table. We too often forget this and move up to the high end on the Pelagian scale in our responses to what goes on around us.
[blockquote] This so fundamentally changes the nature of the Anglican Communion that it is untenable.[/blockquote]
This already exists in our polity. This is going on right now. It is unusual, but it does not in anyway change the nature of the Anglican Communion. Furthermore, Anglican polity is not rigid. It has in fact been rather ad hoc throughout it’s history as it is shaped not around doctrine, but rather around the discernment of Scripture through time.
Optimus
Why would they appeal? They consider TEC to have departed from the Church. I don’t agree with their ecclesiology, but that doesn’t change the fact that there simply was no reason to challenge the decision as Chris Taylor has alluded to above, because they found a place in the Communion they felt was non apostate. What is happening in the case of those who wish to remain within TEC (staying for its renewal … not in their own lifetimes of course), is entirely different. These folks will challenge and stand firm.
The procedures were questioned at the time by those who claim to be remaining. If there is a violation of the Constitution, why haven’t any of the 7 CP bishops who went to Canterbury filed an objection? Is a “no” vote on deposition your idea of ‘standing firm?’ Where have the challenges been?
We are in a different place now than we have been over the last 6 years.
But are we? Sure, the facts are different. But is the situation any worse than November 2003? Any worse than GC06? Any worse than the dates of the SSBs that have occurred? If the extremes of the past six years have not been enough to motivate, then why would 2 resolutions at a convention? It may indeed be the straw that broke the camel’s back, but what a small straw.
it seems the response thus far has been that “it is a tool to punish TEC†and therefore not something to be signed
Same thing was said about B033 at GC06.
1. if we’re talking about making a promise, as the leader of a Church, before God, the consequences for failing to live out those promises certainly have biblical precedent we could examine (though I won’t do so here). 2. If we’re talking about immediate historical consequence I would say it will depend upon who else signs onto the Covenant and how they respond.
I agree 100%.
What is there to set up in a tier system? All that has to happen is that tier two Provinces are not invited to councils. This is already the prerogative of the ABC. The Covenant, were it to become definitive of what it means to be Anglican, would provide the ABC with a legitimate mechanism (one that has been agreed to by signatory Churches) for determining when a Church should be invited to tier one status.
You are entirely correct that it is the prerogative of the ABC. And, given the tenor of his time in service, what do you believe he will do? Does it not make more sense that he would invite everyone to the Table to work towards common goals? And isn’t it even more likely that ++Rowan will create an Advisory Panel to determine how he should extend invitations to Lambeth and the Primates’ Meetings?
However, agreeing to Sections 1-3 before God and then not abiding by the life set out in those agreements has implications and judgments before God.
Absolutely. But as I am sure you have figured out, I am a pragmatist. Most TEC leadership (if not all) are Universalist in their theology. Therefore “judgment” is not high on their priority list. I fully support living by principle, but when others don’t live by those principles, you have quite the problem.
Chris, did you let slip about the Grand Summit? For shame 😉
So at the end of this discussion which disengaged the masses of Episcopalian pew warmers who might be have been engaged, what is the outcome for middle of the road or orthodox Episcopalians still in TEC? What is the real life impact to the lives of these families. I’m beginning to feel that this is really about preserving the institution rather than the souls of those in her. Again, by the time all our well meaning leaders have sorted out the proper alignments and structures, there will be very few left within those entities to make them viable.
Perhaps this sounds like a lot of finger pointing. It’s not meant to be. It’s meant to serve as a plea to take us back to the key focus: Christ’s redemptive work in PEOPLE NOT institutions!!! After all the carnage in this process, is it too much to ask that we stop saving the institution and begin the process of saving the souls?
#55 you make an uninformed assumption. Upon what do you base your conclusion that people are disengaged? Perhaps you have been disengaged; meanwhile, I have received questions from various individuals who have merely not replied to the thread.
You may be right concerning how many will be left in the pews; but this is indicative of Protestant history isn’t it. We don’t like something, we don’t agree with it, we don’t understand it, we decide to leave for greener ecclesial pastures (and our children often leave the Church’s pastures for good).
Separating polity (structures) from theology and a notion of God’s providence (metaphysics/grace) too often leaves us with a Pelagian or perhaps semi Pelagian practice of mission. Focusing on Christ’s redemptive work, mission and ecclesial reconciliation (given our divided state), requires that we most definitely focus on structures. Look at 17-19th century missionary movements. The missionary movement begins as a break from the status quo structure, but to be sustainable, particularly in Christian division, these movements must have a structural component to them which attaches them to the wider scope of God’s gathering mission. The question then becomes, how do we structure ourselves as a global Church (the Communion) to incorporate renewal that is borne out of the local levels of our Church (various dioceses, Provinces, whole geographic locations)?
Responding to God’s gathering mission through time requires that we recognize that God works through our structures in some fashion to accomplish his task. Therefore the answer is not to do away with them, but rather to attempt to determine how these structures are faithful responses that create time and space for our ability to discern Scripture and therefore God’s will in our current place in history. The Covenant Agreement itself is built on this understanding, one that arises out of the early Church, and one picked up again by the conciliarist of the 15th century, all of whom were responding to the question of how we are to focus on Christ’s redemptive work in people.
My response to your question of what are we to do in the pews? I would suggest that we stop asking where might be the right place in which we can serve God and start asking how is God calling us to serve where we are currently. That is a faithful response, and a biblical one. I suggest it is the response Christ gave to the Father, one figured in the fathers and prophets before him; and thus, it is the response we are called to give.
#55,
I will provide a more succinct answer with respect to your concern about focus on structures: the church is not an institution in the political terms you are asserting for it; it’s the Body of Christ. The Church is in fact Jesus’ idea, not ours.
A little reading of Church history would be very helpful in getting a better understanding of how God works through our structures. It would also help to gain an understanding of God’s providential work in history so that one does not become so intensely focused on the present in trying to discern Scripture and understand our place before God in history. Four really good places to start are: 1 and 2. Samuel Hugh Moffett, “A History of Christianity in Asia: Volumes I and II;” 3. Sundkler and Steed, “A History of the Church in Africa;” 4. Andrew Walls, “The Missionary Movement in Christian History. I would suggest reading the concluding chapters of all of these books and then reading the whole books. The books are largely history books that draw some broad theological implications that are really helpful for thinking about how we are called to respond to God’s grace from where we are.
#56
I am not a theologian nor a historian. I have not pretended to be one. I have attempted to highlight practical aspects of the issue which I believe reflect more accurately the concerns of the average Episcopalian. Clearly the tone of my irritation has irked you and others.
It seems that as one reads this thread, there has been little posting (I call it engagement) by average Episcopalians. The average Episcopalian wouldn’t have the foggiest idea what half the references you or other more learned individuals have made in your postings. At what point does the average Episcopalian say, I’m outta here – on the discussion or the whole scene?
It is this disconnect (where the scholars, theologians and clergy lose sight of the implication for the person in the pew or care to engage with them) to which I refer. I surmise by the responses I got that there wasn’t any merit to the point.
#58
I did not imply you were a theologian or a historian. My assumption is that you are a faithful Christian who seeks to know Jesus more deeply. Part of coming to know Jesus more deeply is learning about his history with his people throughout time. That is not an academic exercise; that is the journey of faith.
In fact, it is people in the pew who have asked questions and provided insight who have stimulated the responses to many of the arguments some of us have presented here. These responses have in fact been shared with many people in the pew who have in return, asked more questions as we have all been struggling to discern our way forward together. Do not project a divide between clergy, theologians and laity: that is simply a way of avoiding the hard work of discipleship which involves learning. Furthermore, it is a false divide as we are always in constant conversation and discernment together.
Arguments based on assumption, opinion, or generalizations are not helpful for learning. If you have questions, ask. If you don’t agree, provide facts that support your argument, but by all means go for it. That isn’t an academic practice removed from the average pew sitter, it is the practice of one seeking to grow in the faith (or in any venue of life for that matter).
Thank you for the enlightenment! I’ll have to make sure I similarly, properly, and politely chide the average pew sitter in my parish. I pray my academic endeavors never lead me to such arrogance. I don’t think we have anything further to discuss. Not coming back here so post to your heart’s content. Matthew 23:27.
#60 (Elves, please give me some room for a bit of a personal response)
I am truly sorry if I have hurt you. It seems this might be the case. I was attempting three things: 1. to respond to your question about what the average pew sitter could take away from both this conversation and what is going on; 2. some resources I have found (and others have found) helpful in the journey of faith; 3. to suggest that some of the ways in which you have approached question asking are not fruitful ways of engaging in asking questions of faith. The last was not meant as a rebuke. Rather it was meant as a suggestion to consider in going about your question asking in a what would hopefully lead to less frustrating and more fruitful engagement for you. These things were undertaken with a heart that wishes to draw you more deeply into learning about Christ, not to offend you or the integrity of your journey. Please accept my apologies as it seems I have done otherwise.
It is this disconnect (where the scholars, theologians and clergy lose sight of the implication for the person in the pew or care to engage with them) to which I refer.
This is a HUGE problem among Episcopal priests. There is a “clergy club” mentality whereby priests feel the need to educate their “inferiors.” You see this especially in the way that lay employees are treated by clergy. Arrogance and separation are rampant in this arena.