The creation of …[the Anglican Consultative Council] required no canonical change in the Episcopal Church’s Constitution and Canons, but it did have implications nonetheless, for someone needed to appoint the three representatives to the ACC, and someone needed to respond to the request for approval of the ACC’s constitution. The special session of the General Convention in 1969 “acceded and subscribed to the Proposed Constitution of the said Anglican Consultative Council,” and took responsibility for election of representatives to that body.34 Subsequent General Conventions approved later changes in the ACC constitution.35 The convention’s Joint Committee on Nominations initially proposed names of ACC representatives for election by convention, but in 1982 the Executive Council (the name adopted in 1967 for what had been called the National Council since 1922) took over the responsibility for selection of ACC representatives.
An additional development in the Anglican Communion had taken place in 1960, which would also bring the Episcopal Church into closer relationship with the Anglican Communion. In that year Stephen Bayne, former Bishop of Olympia in the U.S., had accepted a position as the first Executive Officer or the Anglican Communion, a position later renamed as “Secretary General.” Bayne served until 1964. The fourth person to hold the position (Samuel Van Culin, Secretary General,1983-94), was also an American.
The General Conventions of 1964 and 1967 responded to the call of the Anglican Congress in Toronto that it was time for “the rebirth of the Anglican Communion, which means the death of many old things but””infinitely more””the birth of entirely new relationships.” The Presiding Bishop set up a Committee on Mutual Responsibility, which reported to both conventions. The 1964 Convention adopted a resolution proposed by the committee that resolved
That this Church, speaking through its episcopate and its duly elected representative in the lay and clerical orders in General Convention assembled, accept the message of the Primates and Metropolitans of the Anglican Communion entitled, “Mutual Responsibility and Interdependence in the Body of Christ”, as a declaration of God’s judgment upon our insularity, complacency, and defective obedience to Mission; and be it further
Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That this Church undertake without delay that evaluation and reformation of our corporate life, our priorities, and our response to Mission, which is called for by the leaders of the Anglican Communion”¦.
[blockquote]One of the interesting things about the current moment in the Episcopal Church is that the two movements that have long gone side by side—more centralized authority in the U.S. and deeper relationship with other Anglican church—seem now to be set at odds against one another.[/blockquote] Agreed.
Obviously, when TEC used ‘accession’ language in respect of the ACC it did not mean subordination or irrevocability; it was using the word in its commonly applied sense (a point made very clear in McCall’s essay). For TEC now to argue that a Diocese’s accession is subordination and irrevocable is belied by their very own ‘accession’ vis-a-vis the ACC.
I’m glad you highlighted Prof. Pritchard’s conclusion, Deacon Dale (#1). I agree too, although I’d want to go further and to pass judgment on the latter tendency of TEC (i.e., moving AWAY from “deeper relationship with other Anglican church[es]) as deplorable and reprehensible.
Alas, as the ungrammatical concluding sentence illustrates, this ACI paper lacks the usual polish of most ACI documents. Particularly sad and embarrassing is the opening sentence, which has not just one, but two bloopers:
[i]”In order to current (sic) arguments…it may be may be useful…”[/i]
I hope the elite ACI gang can clear up those blemishes soon. They seem to have rushed to get this piece up on the website and failed to proofread it with their usual care.
But I’m actually glad that Kendall highlighted the portions of Dr. Pritchard’s historical review that he did, for the contrast between the mood of the PECUSA in 1964 with that of TEC today is glaring and stark.
That is, it’s poignant and grievous that the humility shown by General Convention in 1964, in response to the searching criticisms of the western churches leveled by the Anglican Congress in Toronto in 1963 and its important report, [b]Mutural Responsibility and Interdependence in the Body of Christ[/b] has been replaced by what must called the sheer arrogance of TEC’s leaders today and their obstinate refusal to repent when similarly called on the carpet over the last decade for its extremely irresponsible actions that have literally torn the AC apart.
Namely, in 1964, GenCov was willing to humbly concede that the Toronto report the year before was “a declaration of God’s judgment on our insularity, complacency, and defective obedience to Mission.” And Episcopal leaders were willing back then to urge that “this Church undertake without delay that evaluation and reformation of our corporate life, our priorities, and our response to Mission which is called for by the leaders of the Anglican Communion.”
Could the utter contrast with the General Conventions of 2003, 2006, and especially 2009 be any plainer? Alas, nowadays, Episcopal leaders openly and defiantly flaunt the total autonomy of TEC, without displaying the slightest sign of any real desire for “mutual responsiblity and interdepence” in the AC.
[i]”How are the mighty fallen!”[/i]
David Handy+
Dr. Seitz (#2),
You’re quite right, of course, and it’s a very timely and important point. I hope you can clean up the ungrammatical blemishes I perhaps ungraciously pointed out above, for this is an important and valuable essay.
I hope those of you in Toronto can help the rest of us Anglicans to remember the truly momentous work of the Toronto Congress back in August, 1963, when they called the AC to move beyond its colonialistic past and accept the new reality of a worldwide communion that had finally “come of age.” Perhaps that was a bit premature back in the early 1960’s, but it’s certainly true today. In a way that Anglican leaders could scarcely have imagined almost fifty years ago, the Global South is now the vibrant, healthy center of a very sick, dysfunctional AC.
I heartily agree with one line of that famous Toronto report on Mutual Responsibility and Interdependence as it seems even more true and pertinent today than it was then. That prophetic line?
[i]”…the time has fully come when this unity and interdependece (in the AC) must find a completely new level of expression and corporate obedience.”[/i]
Amen. Nothing less than a “[b]completely new[/b] level of expression” of mutual responsibility and interdependence within the AC will do. Or as I like to say, new wine often demands new institutional wineskins.
Thanks for posting this stimulating historical review, Dr. Seitz.
David Handy+
David Handy: Thank you for noting typos in the first sentence of an article posted by ACI, based upon a public presentation at the conference on Hierarchy in Dallas 5-6 February, by Robert Prichard, Professor of American Church History. The essay, and others with it, will be part of a larger publication to be used, it is proposed, in cases now before the courts, and those one might reasonably anticipate given the months ahead. Professor Prichard’s talk was part of a larger effort and was attended by chancellors and counsel from various diocesan settings, and TEC polity was set in relief by comparison and contrast with United Methodism, Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, PCA, and Church of England. The contrast was striking with the latter, given that TEC and the CoE are anglican churches in the same Communion.
It is difficult to see much point in this essay, given that it does not deal at all with the current crisis over orthodoxy. I appreciate that they are in one sense quite different issues, yet the current crisis over orthodoxy is so great (and the chasm between different views so deep) that I really can’t see any point in discussing polity (or whether the position of PB is trending more towards that of an archbishop, or whatever) in complete isolation from the crisis of belief.
To put it another way, these days there are many people in TEC and other Anglican groups whose attitude towards their leaders depends more on their doctrine than on the constitution of their church. Not just for hardline “revisionists” or “orthodox”, but also for many “moderates”.
A constitution only has relevance to the extent that members of the relevant body agree to be bound by it, in an institutional sense.
I think the main point, MichaelA, is the hypocrisy and simple “wrongness” of 815 bleating about how dioceses can’t sign on to the Covenant because it could be “uncanonical” when 815 and TEC merrily signed on to the ACC with nary a bleat about the possibility that it would be uncanonical.
The truth is . . . as Prichard makes implicitly clear . . . the reason why 815 does not want dioceses to sign on to the Covenant is that they don’t want the obvious potential division between dioceses which are in one tier, and dioceses which are in another — and they’ll come up with some hamfisted “canonical” reason why therefore no diocese must sign on to the Covenant individually.
Sarah, I agree the point is implicit.
Not explicit of course, because the article never mentions the covenant, nor alternative oversight, Dar Es Salaam communique, or any other recent issue. But its still a good point.