Michael,

No, I’m not thinking of someone else, I’m thinking of Henry VIII.  Sure, he didn’t think he was rejecting centralization (he was still the ultimate authority in England!), but then it’s all relative:  his assertion was an assertion of local autonomy contra papal jurisdiction, and if we don’t have that we don’t have Anglicanism as it is today (this is not to say that I think this good!).  As far as the Episcopal Church I meant the Scottish connection—though you make a good point with ties to the English church.  Yet the point remains that we went our own way—do you really think that the Americans would have stepped down if the English hierarchy had maintained their refusal to recognize any American hierarchy?

(That’s a fun story about the parish in Maryland.)

I refer to the comparative section of the paper:  it’s in section III, labeled “Other Churches.”  There in Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Presbyterian canons (or equivalent) there are clear examples of the kind of centralized authority that the Episcopal Church lacks.

The argument has never been that there is provision for succession but rather that there is no prohibition and that such actions are consistent with the assumptions of the constitution and canons vis-à-vis the way that they define dioceses, bishops, and the role of General Convention and the PB.  The fact that General Convention will likely have to insert an active proscription of separation should say as much.  I still haven’t seen any evidence that asserts canonically or constitutionally any kind of hierarchical relationship between dioceses and either the PB or the General Convention.  Such a relationship may be good and desirable (and I am inclined to think that it is, because I dislike all talk of autonomy), but it is not implicit or explicit in the canons as they now stand, much less their history.

In 1789 what diocese existed? Where in the Constitution or Canons were *they* required to accede to the C&C of TEC? Did they think that by joining together they were giving up any right to secede?

Hi All,

As for the property disputes, I truly wish that there were a way for us to handle them more charitably.  Maybe it is because I come from a Baptist background that “splits over the choice of hymns” (which is really not that far from the truth) that I just don’t see the value in fighting over property.  Personally, I think both sides are missing a huge evangelistic opportunity by just letting it go.  The new parishes, regardless of what “side” they are on, can be considered like church plants and given the resources to help themselves re-grow.  The positive energy of building a new parish and looking to the future would be far more constructive than the negative energy of legal wrangling.

I have said this before and I’ll say it again.  It would go a LONG WAY to hear the conservatives in the Anglican Communion decry the schisms and border crossings.  After all, that is in the Windsor Report, which seems to be getting near canonical status by some.  TEC has made signicant steps to attempt to abide by the Windsor Report.  I know that there are questions about that, but steps WERE made.  NO steps have been made to stop border crossings.  In fact, even more has been done to further this with the creation of the ACNA.

Finally, Ian, I know that Bishop Spong is a favorite to demonise, but he is only one bishop of many in TEC.  And he’s retired now.  He does not represent our views.  If you want our theology, read our Prayer Book, the 1979 version.  Not the books of individual bishops.

In Christ,
Shawn

Sam Keyes - 23 April 2009 09:22 PM

No, I’m not thinking of someone else, I’m thinking of Henry VIII.  Sure, he didn’t think he was rejecting centralization (he was still the ultimate authority in England!), but then it’s all relative:  his assertion was an assertion of local autonomy contra papal jurisdiction, and if we don’t have that we don’t have Anglicanism as it is today (this is not to say that I think this good!). 

Hi Sam,

You do realize that you have just made an argument in FAVOR of a national church.  King Henry VIII would most definitely NOT have been okay with individual dioceses deciding for themselves what they wanted to do.  He wanted uniformity of doctrine throughout his realm.

Hi Charlie,

Were not the parishes in America part of missionary dioceses from the Church of England?  Did they not have bishops over them in England before the American Revolution?  Thus, a hierarchy existed.  It was connected with the Church of England.  To my mind, it is extremely significant that once that connection was severed due to the American Revolution, one of the most important things to do was to recreate the hierarchy through a General Convention and C&C.  They could have just let individual dioceses float about if they’d wanted that.  There were plenty of examples with the congregationalists all around them.

So, while there was a brief time when the dioceses were not connected to a national structure….since that national structure was being reformed….it was not long after that that it was.

In Christ,
Shawn

Shawn:  Of course that’s right.  The point was that there is a kind of preference for local autonomy (i.e. England) as well—obviously that is in tension with Henry’s desire for uniformity.  I’m not making an argument for Henry’s way of doing anything… one of my consistent arguments on these forums has always been that Anglicanism’s continued existence in schism from the Catholic Church is sinful and dangerous.  I am, however, trying to deconstruct the pretensions of an Episcopal hierarchy which does not have a good sense of its own power.  I believe that Charles Wingate said as much a page or two up on this thread.  Once you go the route of solving problems by severing jurisdictional relationships—present in both C of E and Episcopal Church DNA—what makes you think that such moves are naturally limited to national churches?  (I say “naturally” because I agree that neither Henry nor Seabury nor White would have imagined the situation we now face; yet the church that they formed is one in which such things are imaginable.)

Shawn, I’m pretty sure I have heard the CP bishops speak out as a group against border crossings. I would have to go back to their earlier statements, which I don’t have handy. I know that my own bishop (one of the CP) has spoken against them, although I don’t know if I can provide a cite.

The issue of what constitutes “border crossings” is indeed not as clear cut as many of us see it.  If one holds as I do (and the CP/ACI apparently does) that dioceses have the right to disaffiliate from General Convention (even if we believe that such disaffiliation is not necessarily the best course of action), then it logically follows that there is no “conservative” border crossing in the Dioceses of Pittsburgh, Fort Worth, Quincy or San Joaquin.  Rather, we would suggest that it is the PB and her allies who are guilty of border crossing in those dioceses.

I would also suggest that in the case of parishes leaving dioceses (for which there is a very clear argument for conservative border crossing), that the international primates overseeing these departed parishes do actually see themselves acting out of “last resort” and in the most restrained manner they can.  I recall speaking with a Rwandan bishop 6-7 years ago (before Robinson’s consecration) and he was very sincere in telling me that in 1994 the world looked the other way during the Rwandan genocide, and that there was no way that the Rwandan bishops would “look the other way” when TEC bishops oppressed their parishes.  Folks here may disagree about whether such oppression in TEC actually happened, but it IS the sincere belief of the international primates.  So, if you put yourself in their place, they are usually acting in the most restrained manner they can.

There are always two sides to the issue.  It has been said here that TEC has tried, if imperfectly, to follow the Windsor moratoria but that the Global South primates have not tried to stop border crossing.  From the North American perspective that may be a fair criticism.  But the Global South, I think see things differently.  They see many TEC dioceses pointedly ignoring the Windsor moratoria, they see the TEC hierarchy winking and nodding at this defiance of the moratoria, they see the TEC hierarchy basically telling all who will listen that there is no real commitment to the moratoria beyond 2009, they see the TEC hierarchy seeking to prevent conservative parishes from calling conservative rectors and conservative dioceses from calling conservative bishops.  They see TEC as having unilaterally refused to adhere to the Dar Es Salaam plan.  They see TEC as continuing its litigation campaign and TEC’s hierarchy misusing and abusing the canons to “depose” conservative bishops.  So from the Global South perspective, they would suggest that TEC has tried to put on a false and duplicitous show of Windsor compliance, while they (the Global South) have continued with their honest, but restrained response.  You don’t need to agree with this perspective to empathize with it.  So I don’t think it fair to suggest that TEC has sought to adhere to the Communion discernment, while the Global South hasn’t.

Shawn’s point

To my mind, it is extremely significant that once that connection was severed due to the American Revolution, one of the most important things to do was to recreate the hierarchy through a General Convention and C&C.  They could have just let individual dioceses float about if they’d wanted that.

is not necessarily true.  In the Church of England, dioceses accept the Monarch as the Supreme Governor of the Church.  In Britain, it is the Monarch which holds the dioceses together into a National Church, not any Church structure.  After the American Revolution, this simply no longer existed.  There were, as all acknowledge, a number of independent dioceses.  The fact that they then sought to create some sort of national association does not imply at all that they sought to replace the English king with some sort of ecclesiastical hierarchy known as General Convention to which they all would be subject.  Rather, as the ACI/CP paper argues, the early Episcopalians took very careful steps to AVOID the new national structure (i.e. General Convention) from having such a hierarchical, overarching status.

We would need to look at the actual language of what the early Episcopal dioceses cooked up, and it would appear to be - as the CP/ACI paper argues - that what was cooked up was a national association which linked, but which was not superior in authority to, the individual dioceses. 

I guess my question would be:  what would the early Episcopalians have done differently had they wanted to create a national association of dioceses, in which the dioceses retained their “ordinary” authority?  I think the answer is “not a thing differently”.

But what would the early Episcopalians have done differently had they wanted to create a national hierarchy to which each diocese would have ceded its “ordinary” authority?  I think the answer is “quite a lot differently.”

Sam Keyes - 23 April 2009 07:01 PM

Michael:  …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.

Mr. Keyes,

Yours seems to me to be an extremely charitable interpretation of their actions. While I have little doubt that they have convinced themselves of their imperial authority to interpret the meaning of the C&C, I would also suspect that, at least at some level, they recognize that it is not so, and are in what can readily be viewed as a state of denial. After all, being convinced of the accuracy of one’s interpretation is no more a guarantor of the correctness of one’s opinion, than is utter and heartfelt sincerity a guarantor of the goodness of one’s actions.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

I think there is much good in the Bishops’ Statement and issues which need to be raised and examined. To my mind what is missing is a treatment of how the polity of TEC has in fact developed since the original Constitution and Canons were ratified, and how the manner the interpretation of these texts is affected by similar changes in the manner people engage these texts today.

To be practical I see no power in TEC to prevent a diocesan Convention and Bishop adopting the Covenant. Such an adoption, on its face, would not establish unity with the Communion. However the manner in which Archbishops of Canterbury have expressed their collegial relationships with bishops is by inviting them to the Lambeth Conference. Even if TEC relegates itself to a “Methodist” like relationship with the Communion, nothing may prevent the Archbishop expressing a higher degree of unity with bishops who declare themselves in union with his see.

That’s an interesting thought, Fr. Tony, and quite in keeping with Rowan’s Summer 2006 Pastoral Letter.  The question that begs is the cost to the dioceses who, as a minority, buck the powerful.  Does TEC have sufficient cash to make those dioceses pay a heavy price through litigation?  Or would peace be possible?

I see no way that either the PB or General Convention could discipline a Diocesan Convention or a Bishop for receiving recognition as being in full communion with Canterbury. Even if TEC is relegated to some lesser status its Preamble to the Constitution remains in force and its claim to historical ecclesial authenticity by reference to its organization and ethos intact.

If therefore an individual diocesan Convention and Ordinary proclaimed its continued fidelity to the Communion and to Canterbury while affirming its continued accession to TEC, I see no avenue for discipline. If, as I hope, Bishops and dioceses affirm their commitment to full communion with Canterbury and the Communion before TEC takes any action which might result in an adjustment of its relationship with the wider Communion, there could be no grounds for action at all.

Again if it is impossible for a diocese to leave TEC, the rights of a diocese and its bishops to autonomy within the Canons would seem inviolable. Nothing in the Canons prevent dioceses and bishops from affirming the relationship with the Communion which remains for the present intact. It is for this reason that I hope dioceses and bishops will express their fidelity to ecclesial fidelity to the Preamble to the Constitution and to the proposed Covenant this year.

Sam Keyes - 24 April 2009 08:52 AM

Shawn:  Of course that’s right.  The point was that there is a kind of preference for local autonomy (i.e. England) as well—obviously that is in tension with Henry’s desire for uniformity.  I’m not making an argument for Henry’s way of doing anything… one of my consistent arguments on these forums has always been that Anglicanism’s continued existence in schism from the Catholic Church is sinful and dangerous.  I am, however, trying to deconstruct the pretensions of an Episcopal hierarchy which does not have a good sense of its own power.  I believe that Charles Wingate said as much a page or two up on this thread.  Once you go the route of solving problems by severing jurisdictional relationships—present in both C of E and Episcopal Church DNA—what makes you think that such moves are naturally limited to national churches?  (I say “naturally” because I agree that neither Henry nor Seabury nor White would have imagined the situation we now face; yet the church that they formed is one in which such things are imaginable.)

Hi Sam,

Please know that I am all too familiar with the path of schism.  It is a common one in the Baptist tradition.  I don’t advocate it at all.

As for the Anglican Church being “sinful” for splitting from the Roman Catholic Church, I’m not so comfortable with that notion.  I certainly don’t support King Henry VIII’s reasons for splitting from Rome, but the Protestants were not the first split.  There was the Great Schism.  If it was of paramount importance to me to be with the “original Church”, then I would be Eastern Orthodox, not Roman Catholic.  But that’s not of paramount importance to me.

In Christ,
Shawn

James Wirrell - 24 April 2009 01:38 PM

Shawn’s point

To my mind, it is extremely significant that once that connection was severed due to the American Revolution, one of the most important things to do was to recreate the hierarchy through a General Convention and C&C.  They could have just let individual dioceses float about if they’d wanted that.

is not necessarily true.  In the Church of England, dioceses accept the Monarch as the Supreme Governor of the Church.  In Britain, it is the Monarch which holds the dioceses together into a National Church, not any Church structure.  After the American Revolution, this simply no longer existed.  There were, as all acknowledge, a number of independent dioceses.  The fact that they then sought to create some sort of national association does not imply at all that they sought to replace the English king with some sort of ecclesiastical hierarchy known as General Convention to which they all would be subject.  Rather, as the ACI/CP paper argues, the early Episcopalians took very careful steps to AVOID the new national structure (i.e. General Convention) from having such a hierarchical, overarching status.

We would need to look at the actual language of what the early Episcopal dioceses cooked up, and it would appear to be - as the CP/ACI paper argues - that what was cooked up was a national association which linked, but which was not superior in authority to, the individual dioceses. 

I guess my question would be:  what would the early Episcopalians have done differently had they wanted to create a national association of dioceses, in which the dioceses retained their “ordinary” authority?  I think the answer is “not a thing differently”.

But what would the early Episcopalians have done differently had they wanted to create a national hierarchy to which each diocese would have ceded its “ordinary” authority?  I think the answer is “quite a lot differently.”

Hi James,

With all due respect, you are arguing out of both sides of your mouth.  On the one hand, you chastise TEC for its desired autonomy and suggest that a “true Communion” means giving up such autonomy, but now out of the other side of your mouth you are arguing for the autonomy of individual dioceses to decide whatever they want.  Unfortunately, your thinking appears to be the exact same thinking of leaders involved in the Covenant process….which is most worrisome to me.

I also find it interesting that TEC is being accused of revisionism, when this is exactly what is being employed in this argument.  The fact of the matter is that there IS a national church called the Episcopal Church.  Now, we probably agree that the powers given to the national authorities are limited on purpose.  However, to now begin to argue that we don’t have a national church but rather a “federation of dioceses” and then to go on and argue that the Anglican Communion ought not to be a “federation of churches” but a “true communion” is the height of inconsistency.  I have come to accept a degree of inconsistency as being fundamental to our human nature but there comes a point when that inconsistency becomes so blatant that it risks ruin to one’s whole cause.  That is the point that you and others that support these arguments have reached.  You are doing a great disservice to your first mission of arguing against federation and for communion with this new argument.  A great disservice indeed!

In Christ,
Shawn

[quote author=“Keith Toepfer” date=“1240616150]
Yours seems to me to be an extremely charitable interpretation of their actions. While I have little doubt that they have convinced themselves of their imperial authority to interpret the meaning of the C&C, I would also suspect that, at least at some level, they recognize that it is not so, and are in what can readily be viewed as a state of denial. After all, being convinced of the accuracy of one’s interpretation is no more a guarantor of the correctness of one’s opinion, than is utter and heartfelt sincerity a guarantor of the goodness of one’s actions.

Hi Keith,

I don’t understand this coming from someone who converted from the Epispocal Church to Rome.  What about papal infallibility?  If your statements are accurate, and I don’t believe them to be at all, I just find them strange coming from someone who is now accepting the authority of a Church that places infalliblity in the teachings of one man.

In Christ,
Shawn