The American Anglican Council has just released a new paper by Stephen Noll titled COMMUNION GOVERNANCE: The Role and Future of the Historic Episcopate and the Anglican Communion Covenant.  In this paper, Noll now calls for the Final Draft of the Covenant to be rejected (previously he had called for its acceptance) and proposes an alternative approach.

Noll’s basic rationale for coming to this conclusion is stated in his conclusion:

In my opinion, the takeover of the bishops’ role – that of the Lambeth Conference and the Primates‟ Meeting – by the new Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion is an unacceptable development in Communion governance. I believe that bishops and churches of the Communion should refuse to sign on to a Covenant that enshrines a fundamental error of governance. It is not only wrong in principle, it is also fatal to the actual enforcement of discipline in the Communion, as can be seen from the ebbing of episcopal authority in the years since Lambeth 1998.

I think that Noll’s discussion earlier in the paper in which he compares the “Lambeth executive bureaucracy” with a “conciliar authority of bishops” model sets forth the strongest challenge and critique I have yet read of Rowan Williams’ handling of things.  I think that Noll makes a pretty convincing argument that the governance model favored by Williams is much more secular and political in nature then many are prepared to admit.

Noll’s suggested solution can also be found in his conclusion:

This paper is not intended to give a precise proposal for how these two imperatives – the restoration of episcopal governance and the consolidation of the Communion under the Covenant – be incorporated into the Covenant text. It does strike me, however, that two simple but critical amendments could be made to the latest draft to put the Covenant process on the right track:

1. Replace references to “The Standing Committee” in section 4 with “Primates of churches that have adopted the Covenant.”

2. Change the wording of section 4.1.4 to read: “Every Church of the Anglican Communion is expected [instead of “invited”] to enter into this Covenant according to its own constitutional procedures.

These changes are minimal but crucial. Some will say: “Sign on to the Covenant now and perfect it later.” I myself made such an argument after the Ridley Cambridge Draft was published. The utter manipulation of the ACC Meeting in Jamaica, the revelations of the secret ACC Constitution, and the make-over of the Standing Committee have convinced me that I was wrong....

The autonomy of the Anglican Provinces actually offers an alternative to the “sign now, change later” position. Since the Provinces of the Communion have the final say to adopt a Covenant, they also have the final authority over what text to adopt. There is nothing sacrosanct about the covenant drafting process set up by the Archbishop of Canterbury, especially given its final outworking. The “final” Covenant draft is not final. The Archbishop of Canterbury has endorsed it; the Standing Committee has endorsed it – without any independent authorization by the Primates‟ Meeting or the ACC.  But Canterbury and the Standing Committee have no authority to command the Provinces to adopt it as it stands.

Adoption of the Covenant is necessarily a political process itself and as such may result in an amended version….I see no reason why a Province or a group of Provinces and their Primates should not exercise their autonomy by adopting an amended form of the Covenant. I think that a large number of Anglican bishops and churches would have no problem with the gist of the changes I have suggested. If enough Provinces and Primates adopted an alternative text, there is no reason it could not supplant the present version within the wider Communion. The Global South Provinces and Primates, or the FCA Provinces and Primates alone, could take the lead in this matter and render a great service in restoring the proper relationship of authorities within the Communion and the integrity and effectiveness of the Covenant.

(emphasis added)

I wonder how this recommendation will play out, especially in light of Anis’ resignation from the JSC, the likely Glasspool consecration and the upcoming Global South meeting.

But gosh, I thought this was the final text?!?!?!  However little he likes the SCAC formulation, it is far better than the original Ridley text which allowed some cherry picking of Instruments of Unity.  You cannot have four heads unless there are a clearly spelled out interrelation, check, balances and precedence in handling “complaints.” 

So revisions of the “final document” are now underway!  The chaos will only continue as an ineptly written text attracts more critical attention and further shredding.  The Covenant is dead.

The Covenant is dead.

Michael, you might be right.  But if you are, then so is any meaningful Anglican Communion dead (or at least in a comatose state) until there is a new Archbishop of Canterbury who is willing to cooperate with the enactment and enforcement of communion boundaries.

This is why I think that Stephen Noll’s argument is so important.  The Anglican Communion is currently hanging by a thread.  I do not think that Rowan Williams is capable or willing to do what it takes to save it.  I think that the only hope is for the Global South - with the reckless courage of the GAFCON primates tempered by the calmer wisdom of the moderate conservatives like Anis and Chew - to take some coordinated and bold action.  But that action must be coordinated and I think it must simulataneously challenge the “Lambeth bureaucracy” model being implemented by Williams yet also be faithful to the “conciliar authority by bishops” model.  In other words, just as the Diocese of South Carolina is currently saying to the PB “we respect TEC and your office, but we will not permit you to abuse your authority’, so should the Global South primates say to Rowan Williams “we respect the Anglican Communion and the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury, but we will not permit you to gerrymander the process and force a Covenant on us that will only serve to permanently sideline the majority of the Communion and put the Covenant’s implementation and enforcement in the hands of Western liberals.”

I think that simply accepting the current draft, with the rather discredited Joint Standing Committee having such power, will do nothing to solve the Communion’s problems.  It is my prediction that the Covenant in its current form will simply be ignored by all parties - especially if TEC’s representatives have a disproportionate say in how it is implemented when TEC itself has no intention of honestly signing on to it.  It just won’t solve anything.  We already see an increasing number of primates (the latest being Anis) drop out of Rowan Williams’ sham processes.  The central organ of the Covenant’s enforcement - the Joint Standing Committee - has virtually no credibility with the primates of the vast majority of the world’s Anglicans.  Why does anyone think that doing more of the same will produce anything other then the chaos and anarchy it is currently producing?!? 

I think that the choice now is to either once again paper over real disagreements (only to see the paper tear in two the minute it is put to the test) or take the real risks and do the real work to achieve a Communion-friendly Covenant.  And the only group capable at this point of doing this hard work is the Global South primates, and that will take cooperation and coordinated action from both the GAFCON primates and the moderate primates such as Anis and Chew.

Hmmmm….Michael….a poster calling himself “Michael Russell” had this to say on another thread:

The Provinces have every right to propose further changes to the text. However much work went into this “final” text, there is too much at stake for Provinces not to express or not express changes they would like to see.  It will be interesting to see how many Provinces actually adopt it without revision.

Did someone use your name falsely?  Or am I right to understand that you are suggesting that if liberals propose changes to the Covenant text, it is a demonstration of great thoughtfulness and wisdom, but when conservatives do the same it is cause for derision and mockery???

James - to be fair to Michael - with whom I have nearly constant disagreement and whose postings I generally deplore - He has a point here.  I do not think that he is saying that one group can alter and another not.  He is simply reminding us that either the text is still modifiable, which he maintained, or it is not, as some of us have maintained.  In other words we cannot suddenly change sides as to whether or not the text as presented is alterable in the adoption process.  I still do not believe that it is open to alteration at this point.

Having said that, I agree that Stephen Noll has some trenchant points about weaknesses in the text as presented to the AC for adoption by its Provinces.  I also need to admit that I am one of those whose belief in bishops is limited.  I have written elsewhere on this blog that I would prefer no bishops to bad bishops.  I stand by that.  I agree with Stephen that here we are substituting entities to make oversight decisions that have traditionally been made by bishops and primates.  I also agree that I have even less trust of these entities than I do for some of the pointy hatted folk whose errant behavior we in the US have had to suffer under.  The so called Joint Standing Committee of the AC is a crock and the ACC was shown to be a complete sham and worthless in Jamaica last year.  Meanwhile Rowan Williams has gutted the Primates as a group and recast Lambeth into a tea party where those attending can posture and pose, be talking heads, anyway they like so long as Rowan is in charge and have the final say (which few understand anyway).

So where do we go?

I personally believe that the AC is in its terminal death throes and agonies.  I had hoped that the Covenant might provide a structured community to give a renewed base for a revised AC.  Since the Anis retirement I am also, with Stephen Noll, of a different mind.  His effectively declaring that the AC structures at this point, as developed by Williams, to be untrustworthy is hugely significant.

The alternative is a GAFCON, Global South initiative to do something different, bold and God willing effective.  I am reminded of how the locus of the early Church shifted from Jerusalem to Antioch.  The shift is in process.  Once James was gone from Jerusalem we hear little.  This shift is long overdue.  Canterbury and the western bureaucracy is being weighed in the balances and found wanting.  The mission of the Church is being carried on by Gafcon and the GS folk.  So I believe the “end” is upon us and we will have to make choices.  These are painful - remember Lot’s wife anyone?

Ian: I agree that Michael has a point - but he has to decide which point it is.  A solid case can be made that the only Covenant that should be considered is the one that JSC presented.  An equally solid case can be made that the Dr. Noll is right and that there is no legal requirement that only that Covenant may be considered.  My problem with Michael is that when he thought that it would be the liberals who wanted to amend the Covenant, he took one position, but when he learned that it might be the conservatives who wanted to amend, he took on a mocking and derisive tone.

Practically, it makes no sense for each Province now to rewrite the Covenant to its own liking.  But I don’t think that that is what Dr. Noll is suggesting.  Rather, he is arguing that the whole process by which the Covenant has been hijacked over the last year by Rowan Williams and his political apparatchiks is not legitimate, and so should not be simply accepted.  But he is not then calling for anarchy of uncoordinated reaction, but rather issuing a call to the Global South primates (who happen to be meeting together in a couple of months time) to come to a common decision to make some minor, but very important, amendments to the Covenant, and then to present THAT Covenant to the rest of the Communion for adoption.  The question would become at what point a critical mass of Provinces will have been reached that would have accepted the amended Covenant to make it the new defacto Covenant on the table.

Back to Michael’s point, I think that it is the right of the Provinces to make changes at this point to the Covenant and advocate for such changes.  If those suggested changes do not gain Communion consensus, then the choice will be to sign on to the existing Covenant or become a non-covenanting Province (realizing that if a critical mass rejects the existing Covenant, then the Covenant will be effectively dead).  If, however, those suggested changes DO gain traction and a majority of Provinces agree to those changes and reject the existing Covenant, then the so amended Covenant becomes the new defacto one to adopt or not.

James - you make a good point.  I did not read Michael thusly and so responded as I did.  I am not sure still that the text is changeable as it stands, however the critical mass of the Global South may indeed make it possible.  In this post Anis resignation and pre Glasspool consecration time all looks very different to the way it looked six months ago.  Certainly I welcomed the completed text when announced and thought that the Glasspool election would bring all into the open.  Alas there was more hidden and the Anis resignation has for me changed the playing field.  I now hope for and expect a stronger GS that will welcome into its fold those who had been trying to work with Williams, and who now seem to admit that it was a failed strategy.

We shall see how things turn out over the next few months

Blessings - Ian

Coming late to this thread, I would hope that the covenant text could be changed as the need arises. Like any legal document, it may need to be amended, perhaps fairly soon. I think it is well within the realm of possibility that a member Church would adopt the covenant and immediately propose a change. As the proposed change was being considered, that Church would be bound by the covenant in its unamended form. If the proposed change were to be a matter of great importance to that Church, its rejection might result in the CXhurch withdrawing from the covenant, but I think that would be a reasonable course of action.

Duuuuudes, you need to buy a clue!  My position is that no one has the authority to foist a “finished document” on the Communion. The “But Gosh” in the posting generating this part of the discussion is called sarcasm. 

Aren’t you glad everyone ignored the ACI’s stampede to sign on?  The poor Ridley draft was being riddled with complaints about the efficacy of the 4 IU and by those who did not like the final centering of authority in the ACC even before the photopying was cooled. 

I think it is a hoot that those who were demanding instant implementation have now decided that the ++ABC hasn’t the chops to lead and that the Joint Steering Committee or Star Chamber of the Anglican Communion (more sarcasm here too) is too malleable by TEC or the other forces of darkness in the Communion.

And so of course you settled on the Primates.  This has been the hoped for outcome all along.  In fact my earliest predictions when there were Instruments of Unity before Instruments of Communion was exactly that the Primates were the sharks who would eat the other three IU.

Ian, whose positions I generally deplore, somehow thinks that the GafCon folks have enough support to pull off this coup.  They do not, heck they couldn’t even strongarm the English Evangelicals into signing the Jerusalem Declaration.  But I love having you all work on a losing option, so keep up the pressure there.

Once again you cannot have a process with four heads and four paths of adjudication.  There can be only one head with subsidiary routes to it, for sure.

It is also ludicrous to argue that TEC not even be allowed to sign, the Covenant, whatever final form it takes.  Who has the authority to make that so?  No ONE. But I do want you to continue to make that a demand, because it will only expose your positions to more ridicule.  You cannot preemptively exclude a Province and I predict that any audsh effort will further erode what little indulgence is now afforded GafCon.  They should note that having been quite now for a bit, not one, besides their usuals sychophants, has come begging them to take a central role.

The WWAC is dead, frankly, and this “Final” Draft holds no Lazarian promise of a 4IU dead resurrection.  What I particularly delight in is that all that maneuvering to places its writing in the hands of Gomez and Radner in little partial global south conventicles was undone with some parliamentary maneuvering at the end. I know y’all are whinging about that, but tough… you do not get to manipulate the process and then whine when someone else beats you at your own game. And while I think making a central “administrative” body was necessary to make it workable and workable, I just have to laugh that y’all hate that it is a body which includes clergy and laity as well as Bishops.

So keep on with what you are doing.  It has advanced you cause so well, the cause of Unity and mutual interdependence. Now that the likes of Noll are trashing the Covenant it is dead dead dead, which I new it would be from the beginning.  But I hope that GafCon will hurry up and schism from the ++ABC so he and the rest of the Communion can begin to work at a process that truly represents inclusion of all orders of ministry and not just the Primates know best version found here.

Michael - I will ignore your invective, and respond to some of the actual points you have raised in your last post.

First, I think that you make the mistake of collapsing all those you disagree with into one massive uniform block, when this simply isn’t so.  I realize that this is common for extremists to do, but I would ask you to consider that the world is actually much more complex then that.  Amongst conservatives, there have been (1) those who think that GAFCON should simply walk away from Canterbury and form an alternate Communion; (2) those who have long argued against the Covenant as being premature until the problems with TEC have been solved; (3) those who believe that the various Covenant drafts have all been deeply flawed and should be rejected; (4) those who are generally in agreement with the Covenant but have serious concerns about the method of its implementation; (5) those who are very skeptical of the Covenant, but think it is the best way to have TEC voluntarily depart the Communion; and (6) those who have complete faith in the Covenant and the implementation process.  What you are seeing here is that those in groups 4 and 5 are rethinking their positions in light of recent events.

Second, if you would actually read and absorb the arguments of those with whom you disagree, you would realize that Dr. Noll has set forth some serious ecclesiastical arguments as to why it should be bishops-in-council that maintain the apostolic faith and discipline in the Anglican Communion instead of a politicized and Western liberal dominated bureaucracy.

Third, I still think that there should be a “stampede” to sign on to the Covenant, however, I would suggest that it is now time for the wider Global South primates to sign on to the Covenant that is amended in the way that Dr. Noll suggests.  Of course, there is the very real possibility that the end result will be that no Covenant is signed.  What that would likely result in is, as I have mentioned elsewhere, a defacto Anglican federation with no functioning IU’s, a dying western liberal contingent, and a growing-in-unity Global South contingent.  Under that scenario, the Anglican Communion (federation) would need to wait for a new ABC and for the dying western churches to finally collapse in on themselves, at which time, hopefully the remnants of the Communion could then reform as a real Communion once again.

It seems to me that at least one of the conflicts over the Covenant centers on how much authority/power will be granted to lay people and clergy in the “lower orders.” Noll’s proposal would give the Primates a much greater control over the amending process than in the present Covenant draft. While I am open to arguments in favor of this, my initial reaction is negative. As I have asserted - perhaps ad nauseem - the idea that the Lambeth resolutions are the mind of the Communion should not go unchallendged. When Arbp Williams recently described a statement of the Primates as the position of the Communion’s Bishops, I could only imagine Bishops throughout the Communion wondering when they had decided that the Primates spoke for them. Finally, Noll seems to be deeply suspicious of the polical process in the Communion and its member Churches.

While dooming the idea of a bicameral Communion Council, the ACC politicians proposed amending the Constitution to add five members of the Primates Standing Committee to the ACC plenary and Standing Committee (Resolution 4b and 4d).

I find the disdain with which he views those who were elected to represent their Churches not at all surprising, but more than enough reason for me to view his entire proposal with the greatest scepticism. Perhaps - and here I know I am being a tad snarky - Noll’s next essay can be on The Divine Right of Kings.

Daniel Weir - 04 March 2010 12:17 PM

It seems to me that at least one of the conflicts over the Covenant centers on how much authority/power will be granted to lay people and clergy in the “lower orders.” Noll’s proposal would give the Primates a much greater control over the amending process than in the present Covenant draft. While I am open to arguments in favor of this, my initial reaction is negative. As I have asserted - perhaps ad nauseem - the idea that the Lambeth resolutions are the mind of the Communion should not go unchallenged. When Arbp Williams recently described a statement of the Primates as the position of the Communion’s Bishops, I could only imagine Bishops throughout the Communion wondering when they had decided that the Primates spoke for them. Finally, Noll seems to be deeply suspicious of the polical process in the Communion and its member Churches.

While dooming the idea of a bicameral Communion Council, the ACC politicians proposed amending the Constitution to add five members of the Primates Standing Committee to the ACC plenary and Standing Committee (Resolution 4b and 4d).

I find the disdain with which he views those who were elected to represent their Churches not at all surprising, but more than enough reason for me to view his entire proposal with the greatest scepticism. Perhaps - and here I know I am being a tad snarky - Noll’s next essay can be on The Divine of Kings.

Dear Dan,
When we both worked for +Alex Stewart in W. Mass do you not remember that he was a great pains continually to point out that we were Episcopal, therefore ruled and governed by bishops?  Lay and regular clergy participation was actively
encouraged etc.  However it was the bishops who gave oversight.  In the Anglican world the Bishop is meant to be the theological leader, teacher etc.  Sadly now this is far from true in TEC, however I do believe that in many parts of the AC this theological leadership is still a requirement.  You may correctly adjudge that I have a certain disdain for the theological talents and training of most of TEC’s bishops.  Interesting that +Alex was a Harvard MBA!  He was so passionate to have biblically trained clergy that he was sending many to Oxford and Bristol in England and then sought to import folk, even me!

The following is from the Windsor Report paragraph 63 - I find it particularly apt - The bold emphasis is mine.

The unity of the Communion is both expressed and put into effect among other things through the episcopate. At the Reformation, the Church of England maintained the threefold order of ministry, in continuity with the early Church. As the events of the seventeenth century bear witness, it was by no means a foregone conclusion that the Church of England would end up with a continuing episcopacy. But in the event “there was no attempt [during the sixteenth-century Reformation] to minimise the role of bishops as ministers of word and sacrament or to stop a collegial relation between bishops and presbyters in the diocese or bishops together at the level of Province.”[36] Within a short period of time, in fact, this retention of episcopacy as the foundational form of government within the Anglican churches became the distinctive mark of its claim to be both Catholic and Protestant; and, reflecting the practice of the very early Church, the ministry of bishops as chief pastors and teachers of the faith, as the focus of unity and source of ministry, became central. The principle of Anglican episcopacy was fought over and defended in the life of the Scottish Episcopal Church. It was retained in the life of the Episcopal Church (USA). It was subsequently, and carefully, preserved in the life of all thirty-eight provinces of the Anglican Communion, including the United Churches of South Asia. As recognised in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, an episcopate at once local and universal is therefore an essential element of the life of the Anglican Communion. And, to link once more with scripture as the central fact of unity within the Communion, it is the bishop’s role as teacher of scripture that is meant, above all, to be not merely a symbolic but a very practical means of giving the Church the energy and direction it needs for its mission and therefore the motivation and the groundwork for its unity.

Daniel:  I know that you think that TEC is “democratic” but I find that a ludicrous statement.  I find myself no more represented by TEC’s political lay apparatchiks on the ACC then I do by bishops.  There are so many holes in TEC being anything near a representative democracy that it is a joke to even claim that it is.

First, typically diocesan representation is not based on ASA.  Second, the timing of diocesan conventions typically mitigate against younger or fully employed people from attending, thus skewing the delegate demographics to being more “activist” minded.  So, the overall picture of diocesan votes already is not representative of lay persons.

Third, General Convention is not representative of TEC’s actual attendees, but rather based arbitrarily on diocesan numbers.  Fourth, General Convention’s timing makes next to impossible for employed persons to attend, thus skewing even more the delegate demographics to being of the retired or more activist minded.  Fifth, with the current culture in TEC in which conservatives are subject to abject hostility (being told we are “evil”, etc.) there is even more disincentive for normal people to attend General Convention.  Sixth, at the bureaucratic level of General Convention there is very obviously an “insiders” group that determines who will be the party slate for non-bishop positions.

All in all, I think that the suggestion that a lay or lower clergy political apparatchik is capable of representing me as an individual lay Episcopalian quite ridiculous.

And that’s not even engaging in Dr. Noll’s argument as regards the role of bishops.  When it comes to determining apostolic faith and discipline, there is a preeminent role for the successors to the apostles.  If you think faith and doctrine should be decided by lay politicians, then it would seem to me that you would be better off with some weird concoction of an authoritarianist Marxist Baptist polity.

Daniel: Though I spent most of the last post suggesting that the notion that lay or clerical representation on the ACC means that the laity are somehow better represented is nonsensical, my primary reason for disagreeing with you is because, as Dr. Noll has argued, it is the bishops who are tasked under an episcopal polity with guarding and defending the apostolic faith and order.  I am becoming increasingly of the view that there is a very basic divide in ecclesiology between TEC liberals and the rest of the Communion, with Anglicans upholding the traditional catholic view on the role of bishops, while TEC liberals arguing that bishops are now mere servants of the Supreme Soviet…er, General Convention, whose only purpose is to enforce that body’s decisions.

James Wirrel - 04 March 2010 12:56 PM

Daniel:  I know that you think that TEC is “democratic” but I find that a ludicrous statement.  I find myself no more represented by TEC’s political lay apparatchiks on the ACC then I do by bishops.  There are so many holes in TEC being anything near a representative democracy that it is a joke to even claim that it is.

First, typically diocesan representation is not based on ASA.  Second, the timing of diocesan conventions typically mitigate against younger or fully employed people from attending, thus skewing the delegate demographics to being more “activist” minded.  So, the overall picture of diocesan votes already is not representative of lay persons.

Third, General Convention is not representative of TEC’s actual attendees, but rather based arbitrarily on diocesan numbers.  Fourth, General Convention’s timing makes next to impossible for employed persons to attend, thus skewing even more the delegate demographics to being of the retired or more activist minded.  Fifth, with the current culture in TEC in which conservatives are subject to abject hostility (being told we are “evil”, etc.) there is even more disincentive for normal people to attend General Convention.  Sixth, at the bureaucratic level of General Convention there is very obviously an “insiders” group that determines who will be the party slate for non-bishop positions.

All in all, I think that the suggestion that a lay or lower clergy political apparatchik is capable of representing me as an individual lay Episcopalian quite ridiculous.

And that’s not even engaging in Dr. Noll’s argument as regards the role of bishops.  When it comes to determining apostolic faith and discipline, there is a preeminent role for the successors to the apostles.  If you think faith and doctrine should be decided by lay politicians, then it would seem to me that you would be better off with some weird concoction of a Marxist Baptist polity.

James,

I am close to despair about how to respond to what I can only view as polemic. “TEC’s political lay apparatchiks….” does not deserve a serious response.

Having served in only two dioceses, I do not have your wide view of how insiders control the slates when Deputies are elected. Perhaps my dioceses have been the exceptions to the rule, but the election process in both has been open and both have used forms of preferential balloting that have resulted in deputations that were diverse.

I will disregard the Marxist Baptist insult as I am neither and simply think you must have been misinformed about my position. I am not suggesting that lay people should decide doctrine. I was simply arguing against the exclusion of lay people and priests and deasons from any significant role at the Commuion level in the process by which proposed amendments are handled.

Finally, I have to say that I do not share your disdain for those members of the Churches of the Communion who are willing to represent their Churches. You may use politician as an insult, but I continue to believe that politics is how people order the common life of the polis of their communities. Since we seem to live in differenct universes and you have such disrespect for me and my convictions, I will regard this as the last time I will respond to your posts.

Daniel

Ian Montgomery - 04 March 2010 12:47 PM

Dear Dan,
When we both worked for +Alex Stewart in W. Mass do you not remember that he was a great pains continually to point out that we were Episcopal, therefore ruled and governed by bishops?

Ian,

That is not how I remember it. First, I never worked for Bp Stewart and I suspect he never would have used that way of describing my service in four conrgegations in WMass. Secon, Bp Stewart once joked about the limits of his authority, saying that if he could he would appoint me as rector in Southbridge and Eakins as rector is South Hadley - or vice versa. Finally, I think Bp Stewart would agree with the principle of episcopally led and synodically governed.

Daniel