From the Anglican Communion Institute

We note with concern the petition filed by the Presiding Bishop’s chancellor seeking to intervene in the ongoing litigation in Pittsburgh. The Anglican Communion Institute has posted several articles over the past year critical of actions of the Presiding Bishop which are widely perceived to be contrary to the constitution and canons of The Episcopal Church.  In just the past year alone, she has called diocesan conventions on her own authority and held them without proper notice or quorums.  She has dismissed members of diocesan Standing Committees without any authority to do so (or any due process).  She has repeatedly removed bishops of The Episcopal Church (and the Church of England) without following proper procedures.  Actions of the past contrary to the canons are used as precedents for further such actions.

The attempted intervention in Pittsburgh seeks to enlist the civil courts in a new and more serious challenge to the long-standing polity of The Episcopal Church. The complaint proffered by the Presiding Bishop’s chancellor seeks to turn The Episcopal Church’s governance on its head and asks the court to enshrine this reversal in civil law. It alleges that the polity of The Episcopal Church has as its highest tier of authority the central bodies of the Presiding Bishop, General Convention and Executive Council.  Underneath this triumvirate on “the next level” are the dioceses and their bishops.  Dioceses are explicitly characterized as “subordinate unit[s].”

These allegations could hardly be more incorrect.  The Episcopal Church is after all called The Episcopal Church, not The Synodical Church, The Convention Church or The Executive Council Church. This name reflects both the legal reality of The Episcopal Church’s constitution and the ecclesiology of an apostolic church.  The constitution of The Episcopal Church does not purport to define the authority of a bishop, who possesses the inherent authority of the office of successor to the apostles. The Historic Episcopate has long been recognized as an essential, non-negotiable element of Anglican identity. The polity of The Episcopal Church, clearly expressed in its name, its constitution and its history, is that of dioceses and bishops meeting in a general convention as equals. The Presiding Bishop and the Executive Council are the agents, not the superiors, of the dioceses.

The issues raised by the actions of the Presiding Bishop over the past year, and which are now before the civil courts, are these: (1) do the Presiding Bishop and the central bodies of The Episcopal Church (General Convention and Executive Council) have metropolitan authority over the dioceses and diocesan bishops; and (2) do dioceses have authority under the constitution of The Episcopal Church to sign an Anglican covenant independently of The Episcopal Church as a whole in order to remain constituent members of the Anglican Communion, the sine qua non on which The Episcopal Church’s continued constitutional viability rests.  Should the efforts by the Presiding Bishop in the civil courts be successful, the result may very well be to subvert forever the polity of The Episcopal Church.

We are prepared to speak further on these issues, including in an appropriate case the submission of a “friend of the court” brief in civil litigation.  Such a submission would not side with any party to the litigation, but would seek only to preserve the historic polity of The Episcopal Church from interference by the civil courts and a Presiding Bishop acting beyond her constitutional authority.

The Rt. Reverend D. Bruce MacPherson
(Communion Partner Bishops)
The Rt. Reverend John W. Howe
(ACI advisory Committee)
The Reverend Canon Professor Christopher Seitz
The Reverend Dr. Philip Turner
The Reverend Dr. Ephraim Radner
Mark McCall, Esq.
(The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.)

View the original post

We are prepared to speak further on these issues, including in an appropriate case the submission of a “friend of the court” brief in civil litigation.  Such a submission would not side with any party to the litigation, but would seek only to preserve the historic polity of The Episcopal Church from interference by the civil courts and a Presiding Bishop acting beyond her constitutional authority.

Well, if this isn’t throwing down the gauntlet, I don’t know what is.  Is this the first indication of a willingness of the ACI to get directly involved in a civil dispute?  I am happy to know that the ACI would not officially side with any party, though by default I think the brief would tend to strengthen the hand of those who wish to alienate property that TEC claims is held in trust for itself.

I must admit to being uneasy at the thought of the ACI entering the civil domain.  The real issue seems to be more related to disputes over canon law.  Am I right to suppose that confidence in the adequacy of our existing canonical structures to stop any alleged abuses of the canons themselves is so low that it is impossible to find the requisite number of bishops with the political will to intervene?  I would prefer that a dispute over the canons be adjudicated internally. 

On the other hand, I can understand why in ongoing civil litigation, the ACI would be concerned that any court have an alternative view of TEC’s polity to that which TEC’s official lawyers are shaping.

I can understand why in ongoing civil litigation, the ACI would be concerned that any court have an alternative view of TEC’s polity to that which TEC’s official lawyers are shaping.

I think this is the key point - making sure that the courts know from Mark McCall that there is a strong case that the TEC claim about the ability of a diocese to disassociate is false, and that the bishop is the top of our hierarchy.

That sets up the CP bishops to be able to go their own way with respect to what happens with the Covenant.

I think you’re right, Craig, but therein lies my central concern:  In hoping to empower the dioceses separately to accede to or reject any Covenant, how can the ACI and the CP avoid the balkanization of TEC, and indeed, of Anglicanism in general in North America?  (Of course, there’s a case to be made that the balkanization is already well underway, and will not abate whatever the ACI & CP do about it.  Perhaps it’s a question at this point of “what kind” of balkanization:  the Duncanite kind with parallel provinces or something else—a patchwork quilt of TEC-affiliated dioceses, some of whom are and some of whom are not, signatories to the Covenant?)

And what about parishes in dioceses that, if given the choice, will reject any Covenant?  My own parish is a prime example.  We have no intention of leaving the Diocese of Washington, but we have every intention of remaining in full communion with the Anglican Communion.

This is a very dangerous game the ACI is getting into.

I would rather address the issues having to do with the charges against the PB internally.  But maybe everyone’s afraid that the PB would prevail if this path were taken…If the charges have merit, however, shouldn’t they be pursued internally in an orderly fashion?

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what’s at stake here, Nathan+.  But I am assuming that Mark McColl has counseled ACI (and maybe some other legal expert contributed, too) that it is important that there not be an unchallenged legal precedent that accepts the 815 story about the nature of our hierarchy.  Because once that precedent is set, it will then be a factor in future cases across the country.  I am assuming that the a friend-of-the-court ruling is small step in making sure that a finding that would prejudice any chance of the scenario we’ve mentioned here from succeeding is not allowed to stand simply because no one contested it.  This looks to me like a legal strategy that is almost unavoidable.  So it seems to me that the specifics of the PB’s case against Duncan are not at stake for the ACI/CP group, but the potential finding as a point of law regarding the nature of our hierarchy and association as a member of General Convention is at stake.

I think you’re take on what’s at stake in the civil arena is on the mark.  I’m merely raising two parallel concerns:  a) Will an unintended consequence of the ACI’s actions lead to the (further) balkanization of TEC? and b) Why isn’t the beef with the PB being handled internally? 

I don’t expect any answers to these questions—just tossing them out there for what they’re worth…I do agree that the ACI should not remain silent with regard to TEC polity if the ACI believes that the way the polity is being presented in the civil domain is flawed.  It’s just that I fear that one consequence of the ACI’s view of TEC’s polity is as potentially destabilizing of catholic order in a “federalist” direction (wholly autonomous dioceses) as 815’s view is in a “hierarchical” direction (dioceses wholly dependent upon GenCon/PB/ExecCoun.)...I’m wondering, in other words:  is there a way of organizing TECs polity in a new way that is neither exclusively hierarchical or federalist?  The Covenant, after all, is aiming at autonomy-within-interdependence, and I don’t see that balance in either position, ACI’s or 815’s.  But maybe I’m missing something.

Nathan+,
I see your points.  Well taken.  It’s very difficult to act and think theologically when executing in the civil courts.  So we have here a test of raw power.  I think you are wise to note the risks involved.

You know that I am of the opinion that the balkanization is already a present reality, and that I believe we will ultimately see three streams of Anglicanism diverging in North America.  Two of those streams have already embraced the federalist ecclesiology, it seems.  And that leaves the Covenant ecclesiology - articulated so beautifully in the Windsor Report - to the third stream, in which I think many of us are swimming.

Nathan,

When you say this: “And what about parishes in dioceses that, if given the choice, will reject any Covenant?  My own parish is a prime example.  We have no intention of leaving the Diocese of Washington, but we have every intention of remaining in full communion with the Anglican Communion.”

You’re begging the question that I believe ACI is attempting to address—i.e. will it be possible to remain part of the Anglican Communion if TEC as a whole at General Convention rejects the Covenant, or a majority of Dioceses refuse to sign on.  This would suddenly put the Communion Partners Bishops in a difficult situation if there is no way for a Diocese to signal its acceptance of the Covenant.  Likewise, such a situation would make the desire you indicate untenable and moot—if TEC removes itself from the Anglican Communion, then congregations (or at least the clergy and congregants) will have to make a decision of whether to remain in TEC or the Anglican Communion.

It may never come to that, but then again it seems more and more likely (to me anyway) that some version of that choice will be put before us.

I suspect that ACI is beginning to look forward with an eye toward what will happen in the great likelihood that TEC does not sign onto the Covenant (this is so unlikely to happen that it seems almost a necessity to begin thinking along these lines). The concern then becomes, we need to deal with the questions around where this will leave dioceses and parishes that are within TEC. I think this is the backdrop to why they have decided to engage this matter by proposing to enter into the civil court. Notice very particularly that they have stated they are remaining neutral (even so as to raise the ire of several of the fine ACNA folk over at Standfirm).

In this I think they are acting to some degree in a mediatory role, while at the same time establishing groundwork to make it clear that in fact the diocese, as the central point of both theological and legal standing, is the point of connection between the local and the universal (the Anglican Communion) Church. This makes it clear that it will be the diocese that determines the freedom to choose to be a member of the Anglican Communion; the diocese is the determinant of order, not the province.

Therefore, I do not think that there is a concern that ACI’s action in such a case would move the Church into a federal polity. It simply makes it clear that there is a legal case to be made that the Communion’s polity is ordered not by Province, but by diocese.

So what then happens to parishes within non-Covenanting dioceses?  Is this the point at which people with a self-proclaimed “catholic” ecclesiology are “forced” to change dioceses or try to start a Covenanting non-TEC diocese within the same geographical territory as an existing non-Covenanting TEC diocese?  I hardly think there can be a Covenanting TEC diocese that overlaps a non-Covenanting TEC diocese geographically!  (Though if my ROOM proposals were taken seriously, something like this could happen—it’s just that they would be Covenanting and non-Covenanting “orders” within one diocese that itself might be Covenanting or non-Covenanting…) 

This balkanization of TEC is almost as ecclesiologically incoherent to me as the ACNA proposal.  I don’t see what’s so “catholic” about it.  This multiplying of dioceses and bishops ad nauseum within one geographical area isn’t fixed by the ACI position—it merely creates conditions under which parishes that wish to Covenant but are prevented from doing so by their bishops lead to further splinterings…Furthermore, the ABC has given signals that he wouldn’t want anyone to leave the “state in which you were called” (so to speak) on the pretext that remaining in that state takes one out of full communion with the Anglican Communion, this despite the letter to Howe that put forward the Diocese as the “basic unit” of the Church.

In other words, there’s some cognitive dissonance going on here, I fear.  One can’t “stay” in a non-Covenanting diocese, yet if I understand part of the Radnerian argument, one is called to “stay” whether the diocese is “faithful” (in this case “faithfulness” = Covenanting) or not.  That is, if we are called to be faithful in mission even if one’s church structures are not, how would that change for those of us who are laboring in dioceses that are hostile to the Covenant? 

This is where my fear that the Covenant will be used as yet one more wedge to divide rather than to unite comes into play.  I love the theology of the Covenant, but its application seems to be leading to unintended schismatic consequences if the Covenant is seen as the sine qua non of “full communion” within Anglicanism.  This is why I’ve argued for the Covenant to be primarily catechetical and not disciplinary in its approach to ecclesiological controversies.  We need to learn how to be the Church together, not how to carve out “safe” (in this case “safe” = Covenanting) spaces that are not mission-driven, but driven by concerns over “purity.”

I see the Covenant being potentially co-opted if the autonomy of the dioceses is pushed too far.  The Covenant, like anything else, is vulnerable to being fetishized and idolized to such a point that it, rather than Jesus, becomes the ground of our communion with each other.  At best, a Covenant can only teach us how to commit to each other through our commitment to Jesus, and work out the implications of what it means to be committed to Jesus for what it means to be committed to each other.

An ACI brief that is a “friend of the court” must also be one that is a “friend of the Judge”—that Judge being Christ Pantokritor.  That’s the only Court that matters.

Nathan+,

In response to your discussion about catholicity and boundaries, I want to throw in a question about your assumptions that perhaps you ought to answer on the other thread since it is off topic here.  But in response to your question, my mind turns to this question:

http://covenant-communion.net/index.php/forums/viewthread/245/#504

Thanks for the pointer.  I’ve been meaning to bring myself up to speed on Nathan Jennings’ pieces and the comments they have generated.  Will chime in when I get the chance…

About a month ago I read in Episcopal Life On-line, that congregations in the Diocese Forth Worth who had chosen to remain in The Episcopal Church USA, were locked out of their home congregations and were in need of all things liturgical. Our congregation responded to this need, as we had quite a few paraments, chasubles, burses and veils which were retired and living in our basement. We received from Christ the King Episcopal Church a kind letter of thanks. But, what really touched my heart was this paragraph: “The vestry of Christ the King voted overwhemingly to remain in the Episcopal Church and as a result we found the following day that our former rector had changed the security codes and all the locks.” I suggest the ACI folk pay attention to details like this: the profound suffering of church members who are now homeless.

Hi All,

Admittedly, I am somewhat ignorant of TEC canons besides a general overview.  My understanding has been that General Convention is the highest authority in TEC, not individual bishops.  Being bicameral provides us the opportunity to be governed not just by bishops but also by priests, deacons and laity.  How is the interpretation that bishops are the highest authority substantiated (besides the use of “Episcopal” in our name)?

Also, I think there is much too much anxiety being generated around the Covenant.  The ONLY way in which the Covenant will be acceptable to the Church of England (and many other churches, but use them as the primary example being our “Mother Church”) is if it lacks any juridical authority.  They have already made that abundantly clear in synodical action.  Since their polity is tightly entwined with the State, they cannot risk being under any type of international juridical authority.  Without juridical teeth, and unless the Covenant designers are simpleminded enough to attempt to enshrine contemporary politics into the Covenant, I don’t see why TEC would not be willing to sign onto it.  However, currently, it is bogged down in bureaucratic reviews and revisions which will undoubtedly be stretched out for several years.  I wholly suspect that the final product will look nothing like what may have been originally intended when it was first conceived.

In Christ,
Shawn

Hi Nathan,

So what then happens to parishes within non-Covenanting dioceses?  Is this the point at which people with a self-proclaimed “catholic” ecclesiology are “forced” to change dioceses or try to start a Covenanting non-TEC diocese within the same geographical territory as an existing non-Covenanting TEC diocese?  I hardly think there can be a Covenanting TEC diocese that overlaps a non-Covenanting TEC diocese geographically!  (Though if my ROOM proposals were taken seriously, something like this could happen—it’s just that they would be Covenanting and non-Covenanting “orders” within one diocese that itself might be Covenanting or non-Covenanting…)

I think this is still somewhat up in the air but this is how I think (note this thought is not without having been passed through the mind of others) things have the possibility of proceeding. It is being made increasingly clear, that TEC nor the ACoC wish to willingly engage in what it means to live in relationship that is bound by common decision making. But as it stands, we do not have a structure in place capable of making clear what it means to be Anglican (i.e. what are the boundaries, limits, etc to our practices if we are to live as a Communion). This is precisely what the Covenant is aiming to amend ... not the content of what we believe (i.e. not making definitive propositional statements, nor making rigid hierarchical structures; but rather providing a framework of what it means to be in relationship, articulating the manner in which we engage in Scriptural discernment and decision making). 

If the Church, in its majority, determines that the Covenant will become indicative of what it means to be Anglican (in relationship not in doctrinal content or uniformity), then a Church that chooses not to sign on (likely TEC and the ACoC) is choosing to walk apart from what it will mean to engage in relationship as a part of the Anglican Communion. So if it does come into play, and TEC and the ACoC do not sign on, then neither of those two entities would be Anglican. The issue then of overlapping jurisdiction is no longer in play as what we would effectively have, is two different Churches operating in one geographic location. The Anglican Communion church and the TEC church (much like the Anglican, Roman Catholic, Baptist Church at present).

The absolute keys to this are two:

1. we are to maintain the peace and order of the Church which is essential to the Church’s vocation of mission. But maintaining the peace and order of the Church cannot be forced; it can only be entered into freely by any member. If a Church freely chooses not to live according to what the Church as a whole decides (in this case I speak of a potential choice to sign onto the Covenant), then they have chosen to walk apart from that particular Church. While this is not the ideal and it does compromise mission to an extent, what would compromise mission more is either to continue on as we currently are, eventually fracturing into pieces, or to force relationship either through rigid structure or through confessionalism (neither of which do I believe to be as fruitful as the Covenant proposal on the table).

2. IF signing onto the Covenant does become definitive of what it means to be Anglican, this in fact opens the door for any individual parish within a diocese of TEC that does not sign onto the Covenant to become a missional congregation with ties to the Communion without crossing boundaries. Why? Because of the preservation of order and timing of how this plays out. This is very distinct from what ACNA is doing presently as ACNA has acted without the consent of the whole Church and they have acted in such a manner so have to disrupted the order of the Anglican Communion (since TEC and the ACoC are still members of the Communion).

Hi Katie,

You mention TEC and ACoC.  What about the Church of England?  Recent synodical actions in the Church of England have made it clear that they absolutely will not give over any juridical authority to an international body.  If the Church of England does not sign onto the Covenant, does that still mean it defines “Anglicanism”?

Some may argue that the Covenant is not seeking to put into place any juridical actions.  I sincerely hope that is true.  However, the revisions have been rather staggering and one can only guess what future revisions will be made.  Neither TEC nor the ACoC or any other province can make a decision about the Covenant while it is still undergoing such major revisions.  However, it is my theory that as long as there are no juridical teeth to the Covenant and that if it does not attempt to enshrine current politics into it, TEC and ACoC would have no reason not to sign onto it.  If it does contain any of those two items, it is already dead before arrival.

In Christ,
Shawn