I think they are describing an understanding of the church that gives room for people of disparate views to exist safely, without compromising their conscience or the Gospel but continuing to work within TEC and the Anglican Communion. They are offering an alternative to schism by making ACNA not the only option. They are determined to stay at the table and are not demanding that anyone leave. So yes; I’d say they are promoting unity.

Now you answer *my* question

Hi Scott,

You are quite right that the signatories have made it clear that it is their intention to stay within TEC and within the Anglican Communion.  Personally, I believe TEC will remain within the Anglican Communion as well, depending upon how you define the Anglican Communion anyway.  There are those who are wishing to redefine it as the majority of churches with historical roots in Anglicanism rather than those churches in communion with the See of Canterbury.  I simply do not believe that when push comes to shove that the Episcopal Church will voluntarily sever its relationship with the See of Canterbury or that the See of Canterbury will sever his relationship with the Episcopal Church.  Thus, the argument of whether or not we are in or out is a moot one.

Instead, the important question, IMO, is what manner of relationship we will have with the various constituent members of the Anglican Communion.  That is indeed a question I cannot answer for all of them.  For many, I know the answer, but for others it remains to be seen.

In Christ,
Shawn

Shawn,
I think I agree with everything you’ve said here. Communion with Canterbury is an essential component of being Anglican, and it’s extremely unlikely (IMO) that TEC’s relationship with Canterbury will be severed, although it may change. The CP Bishops are probably not worried about being tossed out of the communion if they stay with TEC.

In fact it is the desire to remain connected to Canterbury, I believe, that plays a large role in their determination to remain in TEC. This document provides a paradigm for that to be accomplished - to assert their right of autonomy while remaining a member of TEC, and through TEC, the Communion.

Many here are trying to solve one or more of several issues:
  1) How to have supportive pastoral care and remain in TEC
  2) How to get out of TEC and take assets along
  3) How to punish TEC
  4) How to create mutual interdependence and accountability among “Anglican” “churches”  (I use quotation marks because the definitions for both words are as yet imprecise)
  5) How to create mutual responsibility for some but leave others free to do as they please.

  The solutions so far proposed fall into some categories as well:

  1) Become congregationalists by imbuing local vestries with the power to choose/change their affiliations.
  2) Become Synod/Convention based imbuing what we now call Dioceses with the power to choose/change their affiliations.
  3) Become Imperial/Episcopal vesting power in Bishops to choose/change affiliations for their flock and to define how Scripture is read, interpreted and applied.
  4) Become Curial, imbuing transnational groups with the power to choose/change affiliations and define how Scripture is read interpreted and applied.
  5) Become Confessional allowing anyone (and the ACI would be an anyone) to write a Confession and sign folks up.

  What I have said all along is that the motives in the first section are of dubious real value as a basis for considering restructuring and that the solutions in the second are mostly flailing, successive attempts to achieve a solution to one or more of the goals in part one.  But I have also said that it is the devious, existing process avoidant, and mean spirited tactics of the folks working towards a solution to these issues that have successively sunk their boats.  Like it or lump it, the ultra conservative movement is in shreds, but that is a longer essay (How Conservatives lost their Groove).

  Here are things that could have been done but never were:

  1) Propose direct changes to the C&C allowing parishes and Diocese to disaffiliate.
  2) Engage a more general discussion process of what structures might best serve Anglicanism in the 21st century that was INDEPENDENT of the motivations to punish, humiliate or sideline TEC.  I would have loved such a discussion done at an international level.
 
  Either of those discussions had in themselves would have produced a different set of outcome paths.  But the course taken in this present conflict will present the courts with no pattern of seeking internal administrative remedy and no history of complaint about the structure everyone understood to be in place all along. Whatever sort of useful argumentation you find in McColl or elsewhere, the reality is that everyone has acceded to the authority right along and known that it included property, assets and a hierarchical structure.  In the end the courts, I believe, will read the history of the conflict as showing it all to be after the fact justification for actions that were not allowed by the agreements under which people had lived right along.

  So we will see.  All of Dr. Radner’s verbiage and all the wishful thinking in the world will not now produce the result sought.  And the proposed solutions in the Anglican Covenant and the ACI/CP plan will produce anarchy.  I truly doubt the ACC will pass either along with a commendation.

Scott Kammerer - 23 April 2009 03:03 PM

I think they are describing an understanding of the church that gives room for people of disparate views to exist safely, without compromising their conscience or the Gospel but continuing to work within TEC and the Anglican Communion. They are offering an alternative to schism by making ACNA not the only option. They are determined to stay at the table and are not demanding that anyone leave. So yes; I’d say they are promoting unity.

Now you answer *my* question

First, I cannot see how a document that attempts to lay the foundation for the tearing apart of TEC as being anything short of “schismatic” in nature.

I will agree that it would “give room for people of disparate views to exist safely”....it’s easy to exist safely when you don’t have to remain connected with those with whom you disagree.

Much to their dismay, their plans (evidenced in the email’s connected with the statement) clearly show their ideas for pastoral visits in dioceses where they feel the Diocesan Bishop is not sufficiently supportive is a blatent attempt to short-circuit the order of the Church. When relying upon the definition of the word ‘schism” (a major split in a religous denomination), I feel the use of the word is appropriate. Aa an aside, I found it rather hypocritical that they would feel this “pastoral visitation” is only a good thing when it goes their way. I suppose they never heard the old phrase “whats good for the goose is good for the gander”.

Second, while you may believe they are somehow dedicated to the idea of “staying at the table”, I believe that the idea this document puts forth is one of how a Diocese can leave the table and take the silver with them because, as they see it, the Diocese is the only body that counts. This does not agree with the polity of TEC, and such misinformed thinking can not help but lead to eventual schism.

Third, the authors admittedly knew that this document would serve as legal fodder for blatent schismatics (such as Rev. Duncan), and yet they seem not to have an issue with that.

In closing, please note that in my original post I used the words “of a schismatic nature”. I cannot help but see that nature evidenced when reading the statement itself, and the emails between certain of it’s authors.

David:  What is new about this document is that a number of sitting bishops has now questioned the PB’s claims to possess authority which is not granted to her in the text of TEC’s constitution and canons.  This is very significant for the PB’s litigation strategy.  At issue is the question of whether a diocese is a mere creation of General Convention, or vice versa.  If the former, then dioceses have the right to sign on to the Covenant.  If the latter, they don’t.  Yes, these arguments have all been made before, but the fact is that James Wirrell or Mark McCall making an argument is relatively meaningless to a court.  A significant number of sitting TEC bishops making the same argument suddenly makes the issue “in dispute” for a court.  And if the issue of who is the “highest authority” in TEC is in dispute, that seriously compromises the PB’s strategy.

As for this document’s effect on TEC’s place in the Communion, I believe that the reaction of the PB’s allies suggests that this document is regarded as a serious threat.  My speculation is that it suggests that the PB and her allies are dead set against signing any Covenant, and are virulently opposed to any TEC bishop or diocese signing on.  This suggests not just a “no thanks, that’s not for us, but if any of you would like to sign on, go ahead” strategy, but rather a strategy of active hostility towards the Covenant.  I don’t think so much that this document will make the PB and her allies less likely to sign on to the Covenant, but rather reveals that they never had any such intention in the first place.

To be determined now is what the response of the rest of the Anglican world will be.  Will Rowan Williams simply let the Covenant die?  Will the ACC refuse to support it?  If Rowan Williams lets the Covenant die, what will replace it, if anything?  I have thought for a while now that TEC will never be forcibly ejected from the Communion, but that it might self-select out.  The reaction of the PB’s allies to this document makes me think that TEC might be very close to self-selecting out.  And it would be my expectation that if TEC does indeed “select out” of the Covenant (and full status in the Anglican Communion) it will turn its wrath on the covenanted Communion in just the same way that the PB’s allies have turned their wrath on the CP/ACI.

David:

You wrote:

Much to their dismay, their plans (evidenced in the email’s connected with the statement) clearly show their ideas for pastoral visits in dioceses where they feel the Diocesan Bishop is not sufficiently supportive is a blatent attempt to short-circuit the order of the Church.

Horror of horrors!  The Bishop of Colorado’s permission was going to be sought for a pastoral visitation to a conservative parish!  Are you suggesting that Bishop Chane of Washington was hoodwinked then?  Because he has the exact same sort of arrangement in his diocese as was discussed in the private email correspondence which the PB’s allies put into the public sphere.  Perhaps Bishop Chane should be charged with “Abandonment of Communion” for agreeing to short-circuit the order of the Church???

It only promotes unity if it provides an effective means of limiting the central hierarchy’s schism-making acts. I am supremely doubtful that any kind of analysis is going to be able to them from continuing to push through with their current strategy. It is not going to get GC to so repudiate them as to vacate their acts, and I don’t think it’s going to have enough influence on any legal authorities to get them to override the official interpretation. So at that point maybe all it does is identify a group who will choose unity with Canterbury and the communion over unity with 815 when GC authorizes same-sex marriages and tries to depose anyone who refuses to go along.

Second, while you may believe they are somehow dedicated to the idea of “staying at the table”, I believe that the idea this document puts forth is one of how a Diocese can leave the table and take the silver with them because, as they see it, the Diocese is the only body that counts. This does not agree with the polity of TEC, and such misinformed thinking can not help but lead to eventual schism.

Seems obvious that this paper will help those who are trying to “run away with the spoon.”

But having read the ACI folks now for awhile now, it seems very clear that that is not their intent. Dr Radner et al have the *Covenant* clearly in view, and want individual TEC diocese to be able to opt in.

They don’t want to steal the dinnerware, but instead want to change the menu, and it is not surprising that some do not like the new fare.

Interesting comments, all. 

For what it’s worth, the Communion Partners bishops and ACI have been clear in their opposition to the separation of dioceses (like mine); it is absurd to imagine that they are “schismatic” in that sense.  Yet in the reaction to those moves (which they see as wrong) they see even deeper wrongs being committed by the PB and her lawyers.  Here’s a bad analogy:  they view the separated dioceses as prodigals running off with their inheritance (and their legal “right” to it does not make it right), but for them it is more problematic that a steward of the household (i.e. the PB) has seen fit to take over the governance of the house and rewrite all the rules by will to power.  The first is unadvised but recoverable; the second is ultimately more “schismatic” because it destroys the very base from which the first course of action can be intelligibly described.  What they’re protesting is the juridical free-for-all which leaves the PB and her chancellor the sole and final authority in all matters.  This is not ultimately incompatible with support of the Covenant or even further centralization at a Communion level—but it is to say that such restructuring must happen within the normal order of things and not by arbitrary assertions of power.  The vocal progressive wing (exemplified by Susan Russell et al.) takes a classical subversive move and embraces arbitrary power as the only real way of doing things—it is only a matter of who rather than how.  But you can’t have it both ways.  You can’t deny centralization at a Communion level and then divinize it at the provincial level—or perhaps I should say, you can, but in such a case all bets are off and we should abandon all the nonsense about “justice” and “equality” and go for a much broader and more universal category:  “I should get what I want, and to hell with the rest of you.”

With respect to Sam Keyes comments.

  The Prodigal Son metaphor is off the mark.  Those who have absconded with property and assets have no legal right to them, they are not at all like the silly son.  Nor did the Father make the division, it was stolen. 
  Once the former Episcopalians removed the accession clause they ceased to be the Episcopal Diocese.  At that point the HoB/HoD has every right to move in and re-organize those who remain into the actual Episcopal Diocese recognized by GC.  It is too bad that there are no Canonical processes spelled out for this, but I suspect that the writers of the C&C never imagined that any respectable Episcopalian would behave as the schismatics have. In the face of such anarchy our PB and PHoD and Chancellor are certainly acting responsibly to protect and preserve the assets and properties of TEC.  Not to do so would be a dereliction of duty especially to those faithful Episcopalians who have been tossed off the boat by the schismatics.
  Instead of complaining about the PB and Chancellor the CP Bishops would serve the church better by going to the schismatic Dioceses and demanding the return of all assets, properties and records as a first step in some future conversation. Lets hear them protest the behavior of Iker, Duncan and and Schofield throughout the halls of Anglicanism and lay out a clear line in the sand about the inappropriateness of the tactics used.  What’s more they are certainly welcome to propose to this year’s GC Canons that will cover any such situations in the future.  But to undercut a leader they helped choose, a leader they KNEW would face these issues is pathetic.  Her choices are in response to lawless actions of schismatics and while you may not like them she has acted for the well being of the Church.
  THIS PARAGRAPH DELETED BY MODERATOR FOR VIOLATING COMMENT POLICY
  So lets hold the real actors in this farce accountable before we jump down the throat of the PB.

Michael:  This is exactly what is being contested!  It does no one any good to go around yelling “They stole it! They had no right to it!” as if the assertion makes it true.  The document in question is part of a larger argument as to what the constitution and canons mean.  For the most part the PB and her chancellor have refused to take part in that argument precisely because they seem to think that the meaning of the constitution and canons rest solely with them.

Further, in response to this: 

It is too bad that there are no Canonical processes spelled out for this, but I suspect that the writers of the C&C never imagined that any respectable Episcopalian would behave as the schismatics have.

Putting aside the respectability question, how does this make any sense?  In a stream of the Christian Church intimately tied with a rejection of centralization, and in a church whose foundation consisted in stepping outside provincial boundaries, what on earth makes you think that the writers of the C & C could not have imagined the separation of dioceses?  Perhaps they would have disagreed with the reasons for such separation (I don’t know), but let’s not imagine that they were quite that dense. 

One of the strengths of the current document is its comparison with other canonical/constitutional documents of other churches.  It is wishful thinking to assert that these documents are the way they are because the writers “didn’t know better.”  Hogwash.  At every stage of the way there were obvious alternatives to the language chosen, and yet the canons stand as they are and not as they could have been.

Putting aside the respectability question, how does this make any sense?  In a stream of the Christian Church intimately tied with a rejection of centralization, and in a church whose foundation consisted in stepping outside provincial boundaries, what on earth makes you think that the writers of the C & C could not have imagined the separation of dioceses?  Perhaps they would have disagreed with the reasons for such separation (I don’t know), but let’s not imagine that they were quite that dense.

First, Sam we are not part of a stream of Christianity that rejected centralization, you must be thinking of someone else.  The formation of the US church was at a time when there were no provincial boundaries to step outside.  In fact we bent over backwards to maintain a connection with the English Church even as we formed a church after their own model: a national Church. And what we have is a national church centralized through the C&C.

What we chose not to be was Baptist or Presbyterian in our polity.  Now it would have been lovely, following the civil war had TEC chosen to write in Canons about secession, but we chose instead to pretend it never happened.  It’s less confrontational and punitive that way.  I served a parish in Maryland that simply did not keep Vestry minutes for those four years in a community well split between those sympathetic to the North and South. The southern sympathizers and collaborators were never turned in, even when General Butler bivoacked his troops in the community.

So unlike Southern Baptists who will split over the wrong choice of hymns, Episcopalians do not readily consider it likely and that is reflected in the absence of Canons to facilitate it.  I trust this next GC will change that. None the less there is an accession clause and no secession clause.

One of the strengths of the current document is its comparison with other canonical/constitutional documents of other churches.  It is wishful thinking to assert that these documents are the way they are because the writers “didn’t know better.”  Hogwash.  At every stage of the way there were obvious alternatives to the language chosen, and yet the canons stand as they are and not as they could have been.

What other canonical/constitutional documents of what other churches?  In the end there are no provisions for secession.  Wish as you will.

I did not see Dr Gunderson’s paper nor do I, as a distant Australian whose focus is on Episcopal missions in 19C China, have all that much knowledge of the detailed operations of the TEC then or now.

That said, I did wonder if the frequent references to legal thinking reflect the views of contemporary qualified legal experts. I know enough from my own experience to query folk who try to interpret the meaning of anything written or said by lawyers, who seem in turn to spend most of their time arguing with each other. Lawyers have a unique culture and way of thinking that ordinary folks don’t easily relate to.

I believe it is simply impossible, when discussing legal issues and the nuances involved, to assert anything as fundamental truth. Even when courts make “final” rulings, they are quite capable on occasion of revisiting, revising and refuting earlier decisions.

If all the bishops say about their consecration oaths in the TEC is true, how can Bishop Spong have survived in any kind of Anglican orders?

I found the paper comprehensive and extremely interesting without going further. I hope contributors will not waste time arguing about the integrity and merits of individuals who contribute to this important discussion. That take us nowhere except into insults and unhelpful arguments.

I would really enjoy some comments from experienced constitutional lawyers on the paper.

I must add, however, that my reservations about the Anglican Covenant expressed in the old Covenant forum have been reinforced. It has always been my belief that decisions at diocesan level will be required rather than, as seems to have been assumed by many, provincial and national church resolutions.

I did find some of the material on episcopal leadership historically interesting and, sadly, seriously irrelevant in modern polity. Christendom is long gone and the world is better for its departure.

One reason I am not a clergyman, incidentally, was that I refused to take the Oath of Allegiance when a candidate for holy orders in what is constitutionally a ‘republican’ Anglican Church in Australia. The British monarch is not, and has never been in law, the Supreme Governor of the Anglican Church in Australia other than by an unchallenged custom. Believe it or not, there were, and may still be although I hope not, some Australian dioceses that required that oath into quite recent times.

Oh, and in closing, I am persuaded that Scripture and Scripture alone contains all that is necessary to salvation and I utterly reject any episcopal effort to define what is necessary to salvation. I ask no more of bishops than to do what they promised in their consecration oath. How could any Christian accept. for example and repetitiously, Bishop Spong’s authority.

Ian Welch, Canberra