[This is an edited version of a comment I posted at ACI’s Covenant blog, which is still in moderation]
Mr. McCall’s research is impressive, but he seems to believe that the only acceptable way for a church to establish hierarchy is through the heavy-handed use of express, legal-type language. Evidently he overlooked the fact that TEC’s governing documents establish authority over its dioceses more subtly — by requiring that essentially all positions of authority in a diocese must be held by persons who have pledged to uphold the discipline of the Episcopal Church, (as well as its doctrine and worship), or who act under the supervision and direction of such persons. I enumerated several examples in an essay last December, “The Episcopal Church’s constitution and canons do not permit dioceses to secede or to ‘realign’ with other provinces.”
• Const. art. VIII prohibits ordaining any priest or deacon unless the candidate takes the discipline vow. And a bishop is of course first, and still, a priest;
• The Book of Common Prayer, whose use is constitutionally mandated for all dioceses (see below), likewise requires all bishops to re-profess the discipline vow by promising to uphold the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church (p. 518). Mr. McCall’s sole reference to the discipline vow is the conclusory comment, on page 50, that supposedly “it is not sufficient that bishops promise to uphold the ‘discipline’ of TEC; the question presented is what that discipline is.”
• Const. art. X requires all dioceses to use the Book of Common Prayer approved by General Convention; any special non-BCP services must have the approval of the bishop, who is required by the BCP to take the discipline vow as noted above;
• Canon I.7.1(f) and (g) require annual financial audits of all dioceses, parishes, etc., with audit reports to be made to the bishop, that is, to an individual who has taken the discipline vow;
• Canon I.7.3 prohibits transferring or mortgaging parish real estate without consent of the bishop, who has taken the discipline vow, except pursuant to regulations prescribed by diocesan canons;
• Canon I.14.3 requires that vestry meetings be presided over by the rector, who is required to take the discipline vow;
• Significantly, Canon IV requires that anyone holding virtually any significant religious lay ministry position — Pastoral Leader, Worship Leader, Preacher, Eucharistic Minister, Eucharistic Visitor, or Catechist — must be licensed by the Ecclesiastical Authority, which under Canon IV.15 means the bishop (who has taken the discipline vow) except during times of vacancy. Moreover, the lay minister must serve under the direction of a priest or deacon (who has taken the discipline vow). The lay minister’s license can be revoked essentially at will by the Ecclesiastical Authority.
Mr. McCall’s failure to spot this issue doesn’t inspire confidence in his analysis.
One of the interesting thing about the structure of TEC is that it has no court system. There is little or no way of enforcing its “laws.” Hence the litigation must take place in the civil courts. This looks to be like something other than a hiierarchy.
#2 It does have Ecclesiastical Courts, whose standing only extends to issues such as #1 covers, e.g. who is licensed to be clergy within that diocese. Furthermore, the Court prosecution is appointed by the Ecclesiastical Authority (usuallly the Bishop) and all verdicts are then confirmed (in “convictions”) by the Standing Committee, for execution by the diocesan bishop. This ends up with something along the lines of your post, though literally, ecusa does have a diocesan court system. However, it totally lacks a provincial (“federal”) one.
#1 One exception I can think to your “under the discipline” thesis are lay members of diocesan Ecclesiastical Courts. As a Court member, I’ve never taken such an oath. Given that the Court always has clerical majorities, that means that no verdict can be rendered contrary to ecusa discipline, assuming that the clerics see matters uniformly on that subject (which is a realistic stretch…). However, if the laity and clergy split evenly on a verdict, that “hangs” the proceeding, so no verdict can ever be rendered.
I am a former diocesan chancellor and I spent an evening with other chancellors at General Convention. The court system is not functional. When needed, it has to be created out of nothing. No other court system operates like this.
It seems to me that legal reformation is required in addition to a spiritual reformation. In a secular corporation the rules of ownership and control are quite clear. In the church context it seems that churches should be required to have an associated corporate structure to own and manage assets with a very explicit legal structure.
It is extraordinary that a collection of parishes and dioceses could suddenly be declared to be hierarchical and have all of the assets automatically transferred to the newly hierarchical organization without the agreement of each of the members.
I seem to recall the inability to bring John Spong up under a court because PB Browning (or was it Griswold?) refused to convene a court.
His defense was that TEC did not have ‘core doctrine’, but if we had a standing court, then we shouldn’t have to rely on a decision by the PB, it should be some other process to ensure a checks and balance system.
#5 Indeed John, you put your finger on the issue with #1, which cites how the clergy are under such “discipline”. However, the parishes are secular corporations, whose governance is controlled by the [i]laity[/i], except in corporation sole situations or in diocesan aided-parishes. So, the clergy might feel one way or another, but the parish could go another way. The Dennis Canon was a flimsy attempt at circumventing this situation.
#6 Same thing happens in any diocese if the diocesan bishop wishes to ignore some clerical disciplinary issue. There are ways of pushing a presentment through, but if it never gets put in front of the Ecclesiatical Court, then essentially nothing happens.
[This is an edited version of a comment I posted at ACI’s Covenant blog, which is still in moderation]
Mr. McCall’s research is impressive, but he seems to believe that the only acceptable way for a church to establish hierarchy is through the heavy-handed use of express, legal-type language. Evidently he overlooked the fact that TEC’s governing documents establish authority over its dioceses more subtly — by requiring that essentially all positions of authority in a diocese must be held by persons who have pledged to uphold the discipline of the Episcopal Church, (as well as its doctrine and worship), or who act under the supervision and direction of such persons. I enumerated several examples in an essay last December, “The Episcopal Church’s constitution and canons do not permit dioceses to secede or to ‘realign’ with other provinces.”
• Const. art. VIII prohibits ordaining any priest or deacon unless the candidate takes the discipline vow. And a bishop is of course first, and still, a priest;
• The Book of Common Prayer, whose use is constitutionally mandated for all dioceses (see below), likewise requires all bishops to re-profess the discipline vow by promising to uphold the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church (p. 518). Mr. McCall’s sole reference to the discipline vow is the conclusory comment, on page 50, that supposedly “it is not sufficient that bishops promise to uphold the ‘discipline’ of TEC; the question presented is what that discipline is.”
• Const. art. X requires all dioceses to use the Book of Common Prayer approved by General Convention; any special non-BCP services must have the approval of the bishop, who is required by the BCP to take the discipline vow as noted above;
• Canon I.7.1(f) and (g) require annual financial audits of all dioceses, parishes, etc., with audit reports to be made to the bishop, that is, to an individual who has taken the discipline vow;
• Canon I.7.3 prohibits transferring or mortgaging parish real estate without consent of the bishop, who has taken the discipline vow, except pursuant to regulations prescribed by diocesan canons;
• Canon I.14.3 requires that vestry meetings be presided over by the rector, who is required to take the discipline vow;
• Significantly, Canon IV requires that anyone holding virtually any significant religious lay ministry position — Pastoral Leader, Worship Leader, Preacher, Eucharistic Minister, Eucharistic Visitor, or Catechist — must be licensed by the Ecclesiastical Authority, which under Canon IV.15 means the bishop (who has taken the discipline vow) except during times of vacancy. Moreover, the lay minister must serve under the direction of a priest or deacon (who has taken the discipline vow). The lay minister’s license can be revoked essentially at will by the Ecclesiastical Authority.
Mr. McCall’s failure to spot this issue doesn’t inspire confidence in his analysis.
One of the interesting thing about the structure of TEC is that it has no court system. There is little or no way of enforcing its “laws.” Hence the litigation must take place in the civil courts. This looks to be like something other than a hiierarchy.
#2 It does have Ecclesiastical Courts, whose standing only extends to issues such as #1 covers, e.g. who is licensed to be clergy within that diocese. Furthermore, the Court prosecution is appointed by the Ecclesiastical Authority (usuallly the Bishop) and all verdicts are then confirmed (in “convictions”) by the Standing Committee, for execution by the diocesan bishop. This ends up with something along the lines of your post, though literally, ecusa does have a diocesan court system. However, it totally lacks a provincial (“federal”) one.
#1 One exception I can think to your “under the discipline” thesis are lay members of diocesan Ecclesiastical Courts. As a Court member, I’ve never taken such an oath. Given that the Court always has clerical majorities, that means that no verdict can be rendered contrary to ecusa discipline, assuming that the clerics see matters uniformly on that subject (which is a realistic stretch…). However, if the laity and clergy split evenly on a verdict, that “hangs” the proceeding, so no verdict can ever be rendered.
I am a former diocesan chancellor and I spent an evening with other chancellors at General Convention. The court system is not functional. When needed, it has to be created out of nothing. No other court system operates like this.
It seems to me that legal reformation is required in addition to a spiritual reformation. In a secular corporation the rules of ownership and control are quite clear. In the church context it seems that churches should be required to have an associated corporate structure to own and manage assets with a very explicit legal structure.
It is extraordinary that a collection of parishes and dioceses could suddenly be declared to be hierarchical and have all of the assets automatically transferred to the newly hierarchical organization without the agreement of each of the members.
I seem to recall the inability to bring John Spong up under a court because PB Browning (or was it Griswold?) refused to convene a court.
His defense was that TEC did not have ‘core doctrine’, but if we had a standing court, then we shouldn’t have to rely on a decision by the PB, it should be some other process to ensure a checks and balance system.
Something we obviously don’t have in place.
#5 Indeed John, you put your finger on the issue with #1, which cites how the clergy are under such “discipline”. However, the parishes are secular corporations, whose governance is controlled by the [i]laity[/i], except in corporation sole situations or in diocesan aided-parishes. So, the clergy might feel one way or another, but the parish could go another way. The Dennis Canon was a flimsy attempt at circumventing this situation.
#6 Same thing happens in any diocese if the diocesan bishop wishes to ignore some clerical disciplinary issue. There are ways of pushing a presentment through, but if it never gets put in front of the Ecclesiatical Court, then essentially nothing happens.