I think there will be a time when there will be an unquestionably proper Episcopal Diocese, unless, of course, you view that as an oxymoron and can see nothing proper in the Episcopal Church.

I have spent some time reading the documents posted on the diocesan website and Fr. Martins’ response on his blog. Given some of what he wrote, I find it hard to see him as an opponent of secession, something which he himself sees as a possible conclusion in his blog post. However, I agree with Mark Harris and accept Fr. Dan’s statement of his intention to stay in the Episcopal Church. I believe, after all, that theological diversity is a good thing, remembering a bit of verse written by the Provost of Coventry:

What kind of Church would this Church be
If everyone in it were just like me?

At this point it seems to me that the only real reason for the rump diocese to exist is to be a vehicle for suing the ACNA diocese. 2008 shows 19 parishes with average ASA of 47 and average membership of 118, which puts it at the high end of a group of five “small dioceses which ought to be merged into a neighbor” (for the record, the other four are Eau Claire, N. Michigan, Quincy, and W. Kansas, which at average ASA/membership of 26/68 surely is the least viable domestic diocese).

Charles and Daniel:

It is my prediction that the current TEC DSJ will pretty quickly be divided up amongst the surrounding dioceses.  They may try out a bishop to succeed Lamb, but I don’t see how they could afford to pay the person.  I just don’t see how such a small group of congregations can possibly sustain a full time bishop.  In the longer term, I also strongly suspect that the Dioceses of Northern California and El Camino Real will merge back into the Diocese of California.  Both the DNC and the DECR are losing numbers at a fairly significant number and the financial situation is only getting worse.  Both are also facing a demographic implosion once the 70+ age group dies out.

Put it another way - two of the neighboring established dioceses are dangerously close to financial non-viability.  Why will a diocese that has such few people and significant debts be viable?  The math doesn’t add up.

Thus the issue of the purported diocese of San Joaquin isn’t likely to survive much beyond 5 years.

Kudos to the folks who wrote a letter in support of Dan Martins.  The signatories include:

Ms. Sarah Dylan Breuer, Diocese of Massachusetts and Member of Executive Council
The Rev’d Tony Clavier, Diocese of Northern Indiana and Alternate Deputy
The Rev’d Scott Gunn, Diocese of Rhode Island and Deputy
The Rev’d Matt Gunter, Diocese of Chicago and Deputy
The Rev’d Tobias Haller, BSG, Diocese of New York and Deputy
The Rev’d Stephen Moore, Diocese of Olympia and Deputy
The Rev’d Bruce Robison, Diocese of Pittsburgh and Alternate Deputy
The Rev’d Mike Russell, Diocese of San Diego and Deputy
The Very Rev’d George Werner, Diocese of Pittsburgh and past president of the House of Deputies

I note especially our erstwhile friend Michael Russell’s name on this list and, if he is reading this, I would offer him a nod of appreciation for taking a stand on this.

I’m intrigued by the notion that a man would be ineligible for the episcopate because he believes that a diocese can withdraw from TEC.  It looks to me like a perfectly justifiable position for a Christian - including an Episcopal Bishop - to take.  Granted, in this case the matter is moot inasmuch as the Bishop-elect has clearly and repeatedly stated his opposition to withdrawal from TEC.  Nevertheless, it appears to these eyes to be far less problematic than many opinions - including many that a proponderence of our current House of Bishops’ membership appear to hold - that we are repeatedly told we should tolerate and even encourage.  So really, what’s the problem?

By the bye, I think we should be very careful with the word secession - while technically an appropriate term, it conjures all sorts of inapplicable imagery: TEC is not a sovreign nation and there is simply no reasonable comparison to be made between this situation and that of Antebellum America.

I have long expressed the conviction that the departure of a diocese from the Episcopal Church could only happen with the consent of the body that received the diocese into the Episcopal Church, the General Convention. Dioceses are not created by the actions of their organizing conventions alone, and I think any change in their relationship with the Episcopal Church would require the concurrence of General Convention. I understand that when dioceses are incorporated under state law they attain a legal status that may be viewed as independent of their being part of the Episcopal Church. I also understand that the diocese is properly seen as the basic unit of the Church. However neither of these factors suggest to me that dioceses can be independent units that are not part of a larger body, in this case the Episcopal Church, or that can attach themselves to whatever larger body that suits their tastes today. I am reminded of the Oxford University student who insisted on going to the parish church, the one around the corner from his college, because it was the one to which he obviously should belong, rather than to one of the larger evangelical parish churches in the city, even though most of his friends went there.

Daniel, and you’re fine with how pecusa thumbs her nose at the larger body (the Anglican Communion)?  Is the story of the college student meant to convey that Anglicans should be in pecusa because of the geography?

Daniel:  I hear your arguments regarding diocesan autonomy and strongly disagree with it.  But the fact that you hold this argument on diocesan autonomy, although IMHO wrongheaded, would not lead me to say “for this reason, Daniel Weir is not a ‘real’ Episcopalian and thus he shouldn’t be made a bishop.”  This is the point of Daniel Muth’s point and also one of my points.  This is precisely what Jerry Lamb, the SC of the the PB’s purported diocese, and Naughton are suggesting.

Put simply - do you think that having a different view on diocesan autonomy from that which you and the PB espouse is grounds to declare someone not a “real” Episcopalian, and therefore ineligible to be made a bishop?

Tony Seel - 03 November 2010 12:40 PM

Daniel, and you’re fine with how pecusa thumbs her nose at the larger body (the Anglican Communion)?  Is the story of the college student meant to convey that Anglicans should be in pecusa because of the geography?

Tony,

I would suggest that one person’ thumbing the nose might be another person’s standing by convictions. You have left the Episcopal Church because of your convictions; I have stayed because of mine. Although some of those who share my convictions have shown a lack of respect at times for others in the Communion, I think that many of us simply have said that we respectfully disagree.

My story from Oxford was not so much about geography as it was about valuing communities where there is diversity, rather than seeking communities of complete agreement. My young friend valued the diversity in his local parish. A better story would have been of a women who left her Episcopal parish after the ordination of Bp Robinson. She began attending a parish where there was a strong agreement with her on that issue. After a few months she sensed that in her new parish there seemed be an expectation that members would agree on every issue, with the terms of agreement set by the clergy. She returned to her original parish knowing that diversity of convictions about issues such as same-sex relationships and the ordination of women was honored there.

I would not argue that the Anglican Communion can accommodate diversity of convictions on every issue, but I have hoped that on same-sexuality that might be possible. That is unlikely and I accept the possibility that the Episcopal Church will at some time no longer a member of the Communion.

James Wirrel - 03 November 2010 02:09 PM

Daniel:  I hear your arguments regarding diocesan autonomy and strongly disagree with it.  But the fact that you hold this argument on diocesan autonomy, although IMHO wrongheaded, would not lead me to say “for this reason, Daniel Weir is not a ‘real’ Episcopalian and thus he shouldn’t be made a bishop.”  This is the point of Daniel Muth’s point and also one of my points.  This is precisely what Jerry Lamb, the SC of the the PB’s purported diocese, and Naughton are suggesting.

Put simply - do you think that having a different view on diocesan autonomy from that which you and the PB espouse is grounds to declare someone not a “real” Episcopalian, and therefore ineligible to be made a bishop?

I have already made it clear that I agree with those like Mark Harris and Tobias Haller who think Fr. Dan should become a bishop. I think he has made it clear that, whatever his opinion about the limits on diocesan autonomy, he is not in favor of diocese’s leaving then Episcopal Church. Were I convinced that Fr. Dan intended to move the diocese out of the Episcopal Church, I would not favor his ordination. My position has always been that there are limits on diocesan autonomy and that one of those limits is on a diocese’s freedom to rescind its accession to the Constitution and Canons. Disagreeing with me on that hardly makes someone not a real Episcopalian, a idea which I find as dangerous as the idea that there are real Americans.

Daniel, you may call your beliefs convictions if you wish, but that doesn’t make them true.  Kearon has said that pecusa does not share the beliefs of the Anglican Communion.  Disagreeing is one thing; acting in defiance of the communion is an entirely different matter and continuing in the direction that has torn the communion apart is even worse.

As for your Oxford story, who is to say that there is more diversity in the local parish church?  That doesn’t ring true as I observe the pecusa parishes in this area.  As for our parish, we do try to maintain unity over moral values that are explicit in Scripture as well as creedal beliefs.  We see that as part of our discipleship as Christians and Anglicans.

Daniel W.:  I would distinguish between (1) the question of whether a diocese has the right to disaffiliate from TEC, and (2) the wisdom of actually exercising that power.  I think that a loyal TEC person could reasonably answer the first question in the affirmative and the second in the negative.  Personally, I would favor the approach taken by Mark Lawrence on the DSC, and wished that the DSJ had taken that same approach.

Disagreeing with me on that hardly makes someone not a real Episcopalian, a idea which I find as dangerous as the idea that there are real Americans.

I was playing on the wording of your posting on your blog.  As I read the posting by Jerry Lamb, the SC of TEC’s purported diocese, and Jim Naugton’s comments over at his blog, it strikes me that a very good paraphrase of what they are saying is “Dan Martins should not be approved of as bishop because he is not a ‘real’ Episcopalian.  If he was a ‘real’ Episcopalian, then he would support our interpretation of the canons.”

It seems to me that to accept the Lamb/Naughton position, a conservative could say “Obama should be opposed because he is not a ‘real’ American.  If he was a ‘real’ American, then he would support our position against the health care changes.”  You were right to bring this up in your blog Daniel, but the same principle applies to TEC.

I did not actually think that you were opposed to Dan Martins as a bishop.  However, just as you find it troubling to dismiss one’s secular political opponents by subtly suggesting they are not “real” Americans, so is it troubling to dismiss one’s ecclesiastical opponents by subtly suggesting they are not “real” Episcopalians.

I think, Daniel, that in some ways we are not so far apart as you might think. I too am concerned about single bishops taking single dioceses off by themselves. The crazy ways of non-canonical/vagante Orthodoxy should be sufficient warning against that. But as I find myself repeating, Anglican ecclesiology has to allow some means for a group of bishops to separate themselves from the parent church. I do not accept the implicit argument that the constitutional form of ECUSA governance is somehow more binding than what held us to Rome; in the end constitutions and canons are expedients to the mission of the church, and while there may be extremely strong reasons not to abrogate them, I do not see that they trump all other authorities. For example, if General Convention decides to start editing the Creed to the end of changing its meaning, I think any group of bishops in the church still holding to the orthodox and catholic text are bound to separate themselves from the heretical whole, and it is easy to find patristic advocacy of this position.

Tony Seel - 03 November 2010 04:22 PM

Daniel, you may call your beliefs convictions if you wish, but that doesn’t make them true.  Kearon has said that pecusa does not share the beliefs of the Anglican Communion.  Disagreeing is one thing; acting in defiance of the communion is an entirely different matter and continuing in the direction that has torn the communion apart is even worse.

As for your Oxford story, who is to say that there is more diversity in the local parish church?  That doesn’t ring true as I observe the pecusa parishes in this area.  As for our parish, we do try to maintain unity over moral values that are explicit in Scripture as well as creedal beliefs.  We see that as part of our discipleship as Christians and Anglicans.

Tony, I use convictions rather than opinions for matters of importance. I have opinions about movies and TV shows, and convictions about matters of the faith. You are right that being convictions doesn’t make them true, any more than the conviction about slavery that was held by many in the Episcopal Church was true because it was deeply held. I know that I could well be wrong, but I believe that I have what Lutherans would call a bound conscience on this matter. I continue to listen to those with whom I disagree and to read the Scripture and pray for continued guidance. For the present I stand by my convictions and am willing to act on them.