Be that as it may, TEC pleads for a right of dissent on a communion level but, by constitutional irregularity and canonical misuse, seeks to close out that possibility within its own ranks. With this point, I rest my case. A failure to pay attention to that wretched cat “Polity” has landed TEC and the Anglican Communion in a proper mess. Anglicans now have before them two accounts of the nature of communion, two accounts of hierarchy, and two accounts of the way in which the common life of the Communion ought to be ordered. For the thick account, hierarchy is of different sorts, each of which has a particular sphere of operation and each of which stands in the service of a thick view of communion. For the thin account, hierarchy is addressed only in its political guise and as such is limited in its sphere of operation to diocese and/or province. Within these spheres, it serves to order local and autonomous churches each of which is called to carry out the mission of the church in a particular locality.
I personally am delighted that both TEC and the Communion are at last paying attention to the wretched cat “Polity.” In doing so, however, the issue of dissent has presented itself with considerable urgency. At the moment, TEC finds itself in a dissenting position in respect to the covenant proposal now before the Communion; while those within TEC who support the covenant find themselves dissenters in relation to their own church. It would seem that everyone within TEC is in one way or another confronted with the issue of dissent.
When the normal processes of governance no longer provide effective means for objection, just what is the right way to express this dissent? For those within TEC, is the right way departure? For TEC itself, is the right way to seek, as now it does, to escape the consequences of its actions by means of a covenant that lacks both theological substance and any meaningful form of accountability? My own view is that the answer to this question is to be found in the well-tested tradition of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience seeks neither to bring down duly constituted authority nor to establish another altogether. Rather it seeks to express loyalty to governing authority by dissenting from actions that do not accord with the reasons for its existence. Further, in dissenting those who are civilly disobedient insist upon suffering the appointed penalties for disobedience. They insist upon consequences so as to express loyalty to duly constituted authority even as they oppose actions that do not accord with the common good that government exists to uphold and further.
Phillip Turner’s article attempts to remain neutral on “the elephant in the room” – the ordination of openly homosexual priests and bishops by TEC, and the clear desire of an influential minority of leaders to bring about the same result in other provinces. But it is not possible to ignore this issue.
The reality is this: It will not matter what is in a covenant (whether “thick” or “thin”), nor what processes are put in place, if a province decides in future to ordain openly practicing homosexual clergy. If that happens, then the orthodox in the communion will reject that province, even if procedures in a covenant say they cannot do so.
Mr Turner should also note the recent call by ++Anis for TEC to be excluded from membership in any covenant until it rejects apostasy. That call also renders a large part of Mr Turner’s article irrelevant.
[blockquote]Be that as it may, TEC pleads for a right of dissent on a communion level but, by constitutional irregularity and canonical misuse, seeks to close out that possibility within its own ranks.[/blockquote]
Liberals are funny when they play high church.
The only non-negotiable doctrine here is the upper middle class does what it wants.
Philip Turner can rightly be seen as the “Episcopal Hooker†in his attention to matters of church order and governance over the past quarter century. Therefore anything he writes is worthy of careful assessment. I wish to offer a few quick comments to his latest article.
I write from the “thick†perspective. I have consistently supported the value of an Anglican Communion Covenant. Indeed, my criticisms have been that the Covenant is not thick enough, and I have argued that Philip Turner’s own position was thicker when he defended “To Mend the Net†as a proposal for Communion discipline in 2002.
I also write as an Evangelical who thinks true Anglicanism is not only catholic but Reformed and that requires a view of sola scriptura and certain essentials, call it a confession if you will. Turner does not deny this: he speaks of the need for “extensive agreements about both belief and practice,†but it is clearly not the center of his interest.
I agree with Dr. Turner that ecclesiology is a kind of Puss that many Evangelicals have not paid attention to, though I might note anecdotally that in the 1990s we added and I taught a course at Trinity School for Ministry called “Church, Ministry and Sacraments,†replacing “Liturgics I,†which had mainly prepared students to answer the arcane questions on the GOEs about the Mozarabic rite.
So I agree that ecclesiology is important. However, it is also the case that in matters of ecclesiastical polity, “God is in the details.†I do not think Dr. Turner has proved the case that the recent “final†form of the Covenant has got the details right. Let me hone in on one area: the role of bishops in Communion governance.
Turner, following the Covenant section 3, rightly points out that “the covenant grants a central role to bishops ‘as guardians and teachers of the faith, as leaders in mission and as a visible sign of unity.’†He goes on to say that Communion governance will be “sustained through common counsel of bishops in conference.†But when he gets down to the nitty-gritty of how the Communion works, he begins speaking of “The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion and the Instruments†working in tandem.
I am a bit surprised to note that Philip Turner in this essay seems to accept the legitimacy of the “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion,†though he takes pains to define it as representing equally the Primates’ Meeting and the ACC “but as I understand it a part of neither.†He strongly objects that the Standing Committee has no “central judicial and jurisdictional authority†but goes on to say that it is part of an “administrative form of hierarchy.†Absolutely so! The problem is that the power of the Standing Committee derives from the Lambeth bureaucracy, not from the collegial mind of the bishops and Primates of the Communion. It is not enough to envision mutuality among the Standing Committee and the Instruments when one of the Instruments – Canterbury and the Communion Office – hold the purse-strings, sends out the invitations and sets the agenda for all the others, with the Standing Committee is its politburo.
Dr. Turner claims that the Archbishop of Canterbury understands “the truth about a conciliar form of governance.†I would say, yes, he understands it and he does not like it. Witness his actions to nullify the will of the Primates’ Meetings at Dromantine and Dar, actions which clearly still grate on Bp. Mouneer Anis, not to mention the FCA Primates. Perform this thought experiment. Suppose the Primates were the ones who had had a secretariat rather than the ACC/Canterbury over the past dozen years. Is there any question that the state of the Communion would be quite different?
In my opinion, until the Covenant orders its offices in line with the principle of bishops in conference, it will only perpetuate the existing problems.
Having differed with Philip Turner on the critical details of Communion governance under the Covenant, let me see him and raise him one in the matter of TEC. He notes that TEC does not practice pluralism and polycentrism at home, only abroad and he asks whether their position is “merely a tactical stance.†I say – no question about it! Look at their utterly hostile and uncomprehending response to the anti-homosexuality legislation in Uganda. I have been saying for many years: “The Episcopal Church is like an imperial army on the move. When advancing into hostile territory, it sends out its negotiators and talks of truces; in the conquered regions, it’s all about suppression.†But many of us experience the same tactic – perhaps with a lighter touch – by Canterbury, through indaba and the “listening process,†all the while looking the other way as Bp. Schori defrocks clergy and empties church buildings.
Rather than “thick” and “thin” I think better terminology would be “robust” and “emaciated.”