tec executive council fudges again

ok, so you've heard that that Executive Council has put 4 of the most conservative, Network dioceses on notice that they must renounce changes in their constitutions that distance them from certain decisions of General Convention. Here's the original June 14 write-up from ENS.

The Executive Council bases this decision on Article 5, section one of the Consitution, according to ENS. But here's the Constitution - read the section in question -- it applies specifically to new dioceses, not necessarily (as I read it) to existing dioceses or existing constitutions. The Constitution has in fact no provision about judging or altering existing diocesan constitutions if the diocese does something 815 doesn't like. This kind of provision is lacking for a very good reason - the framers of our Constitution, many of them the same people who framed the US Constitution, recognized that such a provision would amount to tyranny; indeed, it would be the very tyranny they had just fought a war of independence to escape. The analysis by Bp. Iker is correct: this is simply an opinion of the Executive Council, another attempt by the tolerant leaders of TEC to use exisiting canons as clubs to enforce acceptance of their heterodox policies. They're more interested in power and enforcing their agenda than in being traditionally Anglican or even being simply the Executive Council. It's a free-for-all power grab up there.

Bp. Iker brings up two other excellent points: 1, that the Executive Council has never been granted the authority of judicial review or the authority to change any diocese's constitution by fiat; and 2, that resolutions adopted by both the Council AND EVEN General Convention are non-binding to start with. Add to this the fact that they're misinterpreting the canon itself, and the conclusion is clear: "this resolution is nothing more than an opinion expressed by those individuals who issued the statement. It is itself “null and void" – unenforceable and of no effect. This action is another example of the heavy-handed tactics being used by those who do not have the right to interfere in the internal constitutional process of the dioceses."

Here's the most comprehensive ENS coverage of this, including the offending passages of the 4 constitutions in question.

the principle of arrogance

Though many will continue to deny it, the principles used to justify the ordination of women as priests and bishops, when watered and cultivated, grew into the justification for homosexual priests (and bishops) and for homosexual “marriage.” Those who cannot see the clear connection and progression are, I suspect, simply blinding themselves to the plain, glaring facts of history.

Read it all in the Living Church.

good questions from the aci

From here.

Enhanced Responsibility: What Happened? Three Points and Four Questions in Our Present Season

Facing the possible fracture of the Anglican Communion, the Meeting of Primates met in Dar es Salaam and there issued a Communiqué intended to prevent fragmentation both of the Communion and of The Episcopal Church (TEC) and to "promote healing and reconciliation within the Body of Christ." In particular the Primates agreed to support a pastoral response that included both a temporary Pastoral Council and a Primatial Vicar whose roles would involve maintaining order, oversight, and engagement among various parties in conflict within TEC and North America. Specifically, they agreed that the Pastoral Council would be comprised of five members: two chosen by the Primates, two by the Presiding Bishop of TEC, and one by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Further, the Windsor Bishops were to nominate two people, one of whom would be appointed by the Pastoral Council as Primatial Vicar. This proposal and its details are well-known. It is important to note that the Presiding Bishop of TEC agreed to this scheme. As Archbishop Drexel Gomez has made clear, she did not agree only to present it for further consideration. When she presented the proposal to the House of Bishops of TEC, they rejected the proposal out of hand, and requested that the Standing Committee of TEC do the same. The vehemence of the reaction of the American Bishops has been followed by utter silence on the part of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presiding Bishop of TEC, the Primates, and the Windsor Bishops. No reason has been given for this silence, and no reason has been given for failure to follow through on the hard and painful work done by the Primates at Dar es Salaam. It is still the case that the Primates can make their appointments, as can the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Presiding Bishop of TEC. It also still the case that the Windsor Bishops can make their nominations to the Pastoral Council. No one with the authority to do so has rescinded these proposals. Further, in the face of silence, the fragmentation of both the Anglican Communion and TEC become increasingly likely possibilities.

From the void created by this silence has emerged the establishment of CANA, discouragement and disarray on the part of those who are committed to the sort of communion presented in the Windsor Report, and increasingly aggressive claims to autonomy on the part of those who hold the leavers of power within TEC.

Given this situation, we would make the following points and raise the following questions:

1. ACI has defended not only a collaborative understanding of the Instruments of Unity, but their integrity as well. The failure of the ABC publicly to state that the Dar es Salaam Communiqué is alive and well has been injurious to our common life. It has also been intimated in certain quarters that the adjudication of the Communiqué will be undertaken by a Joint Steering Committee of the Primates and the ACC. We trust that this rumor is mistaken. The Primates have worked hard and declared their intention, and their recommendations and requests are fully within their remit as an Instrument with enhanced responsibility, whose present character was requested by other Instruments of Communion. Lacking any clear understanding of the precise fate of the Communiqué has left the field open for manipulation and the multiplication of other initiatives, borne of fear, concern, power balancing and so on.

2. ACI has sought to work with the Windsor Report, the Covenant, and within the US, the Windsor Bishops. One can watch with curiosity and concern the proliferating of various groups within the conservative ranks, most recently, a Common Cause College of Bishops (as proposed), CANA, and others. The Anglican Communion Network would appear to have split into those bishops now headed toward the Common Cause College, and those who wish to continue on the Windsor path. But to the degree that the Windsor Bishops have no clarity about the future of the Primates' Tanzanian Communiqué, and hence a comprehensive, ordered response to their Communion life in troubled times, they will collapse altogether. Indeed, one wonders what role they might be expected to exercise in the light of such unclarity.

3. It is our understanding that the recent issuing of Lambeth invitations was done in the light of organizational concerns and the timing of the Archbishop of Canterbury's leave. The ways in which the Archbishop has reserved to himself all manner of options, discernment, and counsel regarding the ultimate character of invitations--which is his right to do--means that speculation about the character of the conference is bound to be only that. Still, it is speculation capable of generating unease and reaction that is not always constructive.


Given the fact that the Primates have been assigned "enhanced responsibility" by the Lambeth Conference itself, and given the fact that no one with the authority to do so has withdrawn their proposal to address the threat of fracture our Communion now faces, and given the fact that the claim made that these proposals do not accord with the Constitution and Canons of TEC remains no more than an unsupported assertion, we ask four questions:

1. The Primates still have warrant to make their appointments to the Pastoral Council. Why have they not done so?

2. The Archbishop of Canterbury still has the authority to make his appointment to the Pastoral
Council. Why has he not done so?

3. The Presiding Bishop of TEC still has authority to make her appointment to the Pastoral Council. Why has she not done so?

4. The Windsor Bishops still have warrant to make their nominations for Primatial Vicar. Why have they not done so?

We believe that the credibility of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Meeting of the Primates, the Presiding Bishop of TEC, and the Windsor Bishops depends upon a speedy answer to these four questions. Some may think us naïve for continuing to think these instruments of unity still have credibility. We have, however, considered the alternatives-all of which portend the end of Anglicanism as a communion of churches. We pray, therefore, that those in whose hands Providence has placed responsibility for the peace, faithfulness, and unity of the church will respond publicly and speedily to these questions that rest so heavily upon the minds and hearts of all who care about the future of the Anglican Communion.

Christopher Seitz
Philip Turner
Ephraim Radner

Officers of the Anglican Communion Institute

insight from archbishop gomez...

The following comments from Archbishop Drexel Gomez, Primate of the West Indies, are from the Church of England Newspaper, via T19. Archbishop Gomez is one of those people who understands whats going on, who understands the stakes -- what we stand to gain, and what we stand to lose.

The more I think about it, the more I think that the fate of the Communion will most likely be decided at the next ECUSA House of Bishops meeting, in September. Of all the many meetings, statements, decisions, etc. over the past four or five years, it seems to me that THAT will be the moment of truth. (And a big part of the significance of the Sept. HoB meeting will be how the "foreign prelates" react to it, which we will know only gradually. So I don't mean that we will KNOW what's going to happen as soon as the HoB releases its statement, but only that what the ECUSA Bishops say at their meeting will fix their fate, and the fate of the Communion.)

The Episcopal Church ‘mishandled the debate on human sexuality’

By George Conger

THE EPISCOPAL Church has mishandled the debate on human sexuality by misleading the Anglican Communion about its intentions to regularise gay bishops and blessings, the Primate of the West Indies said on May 15. By placing autonomy above unity it has brought the Anglican Communion to the brink of collapse, Archbishop Drexel Gomez told the clergy of Central Florida. Archbishop Gomez criticised the leadership of the Episcopal Church for not being entirely straight forward with the Communion. "You just cannot have collegiality," he explained, "if when you meet with your colleagues you don't share."

He also chided the African-led missionary jurisdictions, the AMiA and CANA, operating in the United States, saying they were an unfortunate "anomaly." It was "most unfortunate" that the Episcopal Church had hid its intentions to regularise gay bishops and blessings, Archbishop Gomez said, as it had not seen "fit to share with the rest of the Anglican Communion what it intended on doing." During the 2003 Primates' Meeting in Gramado, Brazil "we had a long discussion on this business of [gay] blessings and samesex unions," he said. But at "no time during the meeting, did [US Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold] even indicate that a situation was developing in the Episcopal Church that would lead to the consecration of Gene Robinson." "It is not good enough as Frank [Griswold] had said that The Episcopal Church has been wrestling with this issue for 30 years and the Spirit has led them to this decision. We were unaware of the problem. It must be a shared discernment if we belong to the body," Archbishop Gomez said. ACC-13 in Nottingham was the "first time any presentation had been made by The Episcopal Church" on these issues, he argued.

At the 2003 emergency Primates' Meeting at Lambeth Palace, "We said unanimously, including Frank Griswold, if The Episcopal Church were to proceed with the consecration of Gene Robinson that it would tear the fabric of the Communion. And yet it proceeded and the fabric has been torn," he said. The consecration of Gene Robinson was "the first time in the history of Christendom that someone has been made a bishop who could not function as a bishop," Archbishop Gomez argued. "Theologically I do not consider him to be a bishop," he said. Bishop Robinson's episcopal ordination was an example of Augustine's argument, Archbishop Gomez stated that "a sacrament could be valid but non efficacious." He "has been sacramentally ordained, validly ordained as a bishop, but he cannot function as a bishop in most of the Anglican Communion."

Archbishop Gomez stated he was also "very concerned" about the formation of rival Anglican jurisdictions in the United States under the sponsorship of overseas primates. These "new groupings are anomalous in Anglicanism" he told Central Florida, adding "I tried hard at the last Primates' Meeting to find an answer to that" difficulty, which "complicates the situation." One of the triumphs of the Tanzania Primates' Meeting, he said, had been the agreement made by the onterventionist primates to turn over their US jurisdictions to an international pastoral council. "We got them to the point where they would stop. This was not easy to achieve," he said. "I thought the House of Bishops would jump at the opportunity" to end foreign interventions, but they "wouldn't look at it." The rejection of the pastoral council by the House of Bishops now makes it "twice as difficult to get this back on the table," Archbishop Gomez said. He also stated the Dar es Salaam Communiqué was the first statement by the Primates where each was asked to give their personal assent.

At prior meetings "we worked by consensus in our decisions," but Archbishop Williams "felt that the decision was so important, so critical" that all should be polled for their views. "Individually [Archbishop Williams] went around and individually every person said yes [to the Communiqué]. [Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori] said yes, but said it would be a difficult sell, but she would try." The question put to the Presiding Bishop was whether she accepted the communiqué, "and Katharine agreed to the proposal." Archbishop Gomez did not expect a decisive response from the House of Bishops to the September 30 deadline for compliance to the Primates' Communiqué. "On the basis of past actions, certainly over the past 10 years, I would presume that the Episcopal Church would seek someway of fudging it. And that would be a consistent pattern," he stated. He told the gathering that he had suggested a September 30 deadline for a response from the House of Bishops. "The intention was to give them two full meetings" before an answer was due, although Archbishop Williams had pressed for more time. The Episcopal Church "will have to make a decision" whether it will remain part of the Anglican Communion. "The official Church speaking through its General Convention places autonomy over its mission. That is the reality we have to face in the Communion," Archbishop Gomez said.

--This article appears in the Church of England Newspaper, May 25 2007 edition, page 7

big news expected from fort worth this afternoon

Read the prognostications here.

cana and the acn

Is it just me, or is CANA seemingly overtaking the Anglican Communion Network as the entity best positioned to replace ECUSA as the repository of orthodox North American Anglicanism? I haven't heard much news about the Network in quite some time, but I have of course heard more and more about CANA. Also: +Minns' rhetoric seems to indicate that he is moulding CANA into a provincial shape (with himself as its primate, I would venture to guess). I mean things like this from the LA Times (read it all here):

Minns said the convocation, which he said included about 30 parishes and 50 clergy members, was the result of a "broken relationship" between the Episcopal Church and the rest of the Anglican Communion. He said he planned to work closely with other groups of breakaway Episcopalians to try to bring them together.

"We are what the church used to be," Minns said. "Our desire is not to interfere with what [the Episcopal Church is] doing. We simply don't agree with it."

The message seems to be that ECUSA has become irrelevant with respect to the Communion. I tend to agree... but what's interesting is +Minns' implication that CANA is taking over.

What does this mean? It means, I think, that +Duncan is being sidelined as a potential primate. The tone of the rhetoric seems to indicate not only that realignment is definitely in the pipes, that it will happen sooner rather than later, but most significant with regard to my point here: that the "inside strategy" suggested by such things as Windsor, Camp Allen, the DeS Communique, +Stanton, the ACI, inter alia, has lost out to the more bellicose and evangelical.

What do I think about this? On some level, I'm glad something is finally happening. All the talk was indeed frustrating. On the other hand, I've made no secret of my agreeement with the "inside strategy." I'm sorry to see that it seems to have been sidelined, and that its probably now a lost cause. I also worry that the fact that CANA is the brainchild of Nigerian Anglicanism, that unpleasant things like the 39 Articles and other exclusivist, evangelical, confessional standards will be enshrined as the benchmarks of the new North American orthodoxy. I also wonder where this leaves the FIFNA folks? Will they sign on with CANA, or will they form some other thing? I can't say what I think would be better. Probably joining CANA (and insisting on Tract 90 type interpretations of the 39 Articles), as starting a new thing would mean further division.

Also note that those carrying the day (the more vociferously orthodox) do seem to have cast aside the DeS Communique, and that it IS dividing the Primates. Note that whereas ++Williams and ++Akinola were on the same page at Dar es Salaam, they no longer seem to be. These are the dangerous waters I spoke of in a post a few days ago.

Time will tell. But has anyone else sensed this shift (ACN ---> CANA) in recent weeks / months? Other thoughts?

UPDATE (May 5) -- From Fr Kendall Harmon's liveblogging of Bp Minns' sermon at his own installation: "CANA is God’s gift to orthodox Anglicans for those who cannto find a home in TEC as it is currently led." Funny, Bp Minns describes CANA in exactly the terms I would have applied to the proposals of the DeS Communique. Read Fr Kendall's liveblogging here.

UPDATE-PRIME (May 6) -- Then there is this quote from the NY Times, which gets at how the secular world perceives CANA's doings, whatever the nuanced truth may be: "The hope among leaders of the new diocese, the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, is that it will eventually be recognized by the communion as its rightful representative in the United States, replacing an Episcopal Church they say has strayed from traditional Anglican teachings." Read the whole NY Times article here.

wars and rumors of wars

Read this from Father Dan Martins. Intriguing. Frightening. By comparison, I am totally out of the loop. A consequence of being an insignificant and very young, priest. I agree with everything Father Dan says. (You will have noticed my touting of the Anglican Communion Institute's writings in the last several weeks. Also: don't miss the latest ACI piece in the "Father WB's Shared Items" box at the bottom of the sidebar.)

the british are coming!!! well, the welsh, anyway

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, announced April 16 that he intends to visit the United States this autumn in response to the invitation from the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church.

Speaking in a news conference in Toronto, Williams said he would make the visit together with members of the Standing Committee of the Primates, of which Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori is a member, and the Anglican Consultative Council.

"I look forward to some sharing of our experiences as pastors as well as discussion of the business of the Communion. These are complicated days for our church internationally and it's all the more important to keep up personal relationships and conversations," he said. "My aim is to try and keep people around the table as long as possible on this, to understand one another, and to encourage local churches on this side of the Atlantic and elsewhere to ask what they might need to do to keep in that conversation, to keep around the table."

Read it all from ENS. I guess this means the E-bay auction was a success?

south carolina bishop, take two

Statement of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of South Carolina for immediate release:On September 16, 2006, the people of the Diocese of South Carolina overwhelmingly elected the Very Rev. Mark Lawrence as our next bishop on the first ballot. We are fully persuaded that the Holy Spirit spoke in that election and we were reassured that a majority of both bishops and standing committee's intended to consent to this election. We are determined to carry forward our diocesan mission within the context of the canons which give order to our common life.Accordingly, at our meeting today, we unanimously passed a resolution reconvening the 216th annual meeting of the Diocese of South Carolina, with was recessed. At that re-convened meeting, we will request that the convention take the necessary steps to allow the calling of a special convention later in the summer for the purpose of again electing the Very Rev. Mark Lawrence. Formal notification will follow shortly.

Read the whole thing. Note that Lawrence received 1 more consent than was necessary, but PB Jefferts-Schori threw them out on a technicality -- as is believed, out of spite, since South Carolina has asked for alternative primatial oversight.

dennis canon fails again

Read the whole thing.

The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Episcopal Church (abbreviated DFMS) was told by a New York supreme court judge that it could participate as little more than an observer in the property dispute lawsuit by the Episcopal Diocese of Central New York against St. Andrews Church in Syracuse. Supreme Court Justice James P. Murphy in a written decision earlier this week ruled that "DFMS only asserts that St. Andrew's property is held in trust for the benefit of the Episcopal Church as promulgated by certain Episcopal canons, and as such, the Court finds its legal interest to be insufficient." The judge allowed DFMS to intervene in the ongoing lawsuit, but "that the permissive intervention of the DFMS should be limited."

Note this is not quite a repudiation of the Dennis Canon (I.7.4-5), but it is an expression of skepticism on the part of the judge that that canon makes TEC a significant party in the lawsuit. As far as the court is concerned, it's a dispute between the parish and the diocese, and 815 may only watch. The Dennis Canon states, "All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission or Congregation is held in trust for this Church and the Diocese thereof in which such Parish, Mission or Congregation is located." This decision is typical of those to which we've drawn your attention at Whitehall - judges tend to treat the Dennis Canon with skepticism, as a rule that applies to internal squabbles and not to real legal affairs. It's as if the local Yale Club (just an example) passed a by-law that it now owned all the cars belonging to its members, without all the members actually agreeing to hand over their titles. The Dennis Canon depends only upon internal coercion, strong-arm tactics, and threats for its effectiveness. The courts don't seem to recognize it. Luckily for 815, the aforementioned activities are a well-used part of the playbook. Yessiree, we at TEC are all about eliminating oppression in the world, as per the MDG's. If it were Akinola doing to his liberal parishes what TEC's bishops are doing to their conservative ones, we'd hear plenty of squawking on behalf of the powerless.

if christ be lifted up . . .

The Church of Jesus Christ is growing faster now that at any time in its 2,000 year history. Globally more than 90,000 new converts come to Christ each day with 20,000 new Christians confessing Christ daily in Africa, and 28,000 new Christians coming daily to Christ in China.The Rt. Rev. Derek Eaton, former Bishop of Nelson, New Zealand and now Assistant Bishop in the Diocese of Egypt told more than 1,000 missionary-minded Episcopalians and Anglicans at a New Wineskins for Global Missions conference that despite Western timidity and a deconstructionist gospel being foisted on the American Episcopal Church, there are 8,000 new adult Anglican believers coming to Christ each day across the globe."We are seeing 400 new Anglican churches open each week around the world. In the Province of Nigeria there are more Anglicans in church on Sunday than all the UK, North America and Australasia put together," he told a stunned audience . . ." Read the whole thing.

Compare this to the 2005 Episcopal Fast Facts, in which we find out TEC lost 42,000 members in 2004, and has dropped 8% over the last decade.

from the anglican communion institute (father ephraim radner, et alia)

We are about to enter a church struggle of fearful proportions, and to assume that business will go on as usual is quite unrealistic.

Read it all here. As usual, its very good.

more from father ephraim radner on the house of bishops' statement

Father Ephraim is on a roll. His (long) most recent reply to the House of Bishops' Statement is well (well, WELL) worth taking the time to read in full. Father Ephraim's analysis is absolutely devastating. I would love (love, LOVE) to read a liberal / ECUSA response to Father Ephraim here. He takes the bishops to task, point by point, and shows their statement to be, perhaps more than anything, incoherent -- but also filled with anachronism, theological error, historical inaccuracy, balled-faced animus, arrogance, and deception. Do read the whole thing. It is, in Father WB's opinion, the best and clearest piece on the ECUSA / Communion situation yet produced by anyone. Seriously.

[A minor quibble: Father Ephraim says that the House of Bishops' Statement is in fact, contrary to what has generally been said, unclear. I think that its clarity is in that it shows that the bishops are unwilling to reverse course, and therefore that it clearly reveals (1) the urgent necessity that provision be made for orthodox Anglicans in America, and (2) that the bishops will not cooperate with the Communion on the presenting issues. What is UNCLEAR is the American bishops (ir)rationale.]

Here are some excerpts (though there is much [much, MUCH] more in the document... do read it all!):

...either the matter of “full inclusion” (including to the episcopacy and same-sex unions and blessings) is a matter “indifferent”, and hence is open to compromise for the sake of the Communion; or the matter is one of essential doctrine and discipline, and therefore the bishops should simply confess openly their inability to tolerate and accept alternative views (including within the Communion).... What makes no sense is to claim there is “no going back” because of the essential evangelical issues at stake, yet also to proclaim a willingness to engage in open debate and possible new learning and readjustments of current discipline.

Re: the House of Bishops' discovery of a "generous Prayer Book orthodoxy" --

If the Prayer Book tradition has an “orthodoxy”, it is neither generous nor ungenerous, but sui generis, and that is what should be examined, not some myth of a pluralist commonwealth of religious questers that seems to lie behind the bishops’ vision.

Re: the House of Bishops' criticism of the primates in terms of the latter's supposed over-willingness to "break relationship" in a cultural climate where broken relationships are a big problem --

There is, in fact, something morally unsettling about the Statement’s attempt to appropriate the categories of fidelity, even of marital fidelity, in their argument against the Primates. Much like their attempt to co-opt the language of anti-colonialism, it is contradicted by the facts on the ground, some of them embodied personally by bishops themselves.

Finally, there is this:

With whom and under whom do we now fulfill our vows made before God? It is no longer possible to receive equally the claim made by the House of Bishops to be faithful to the apostolic trust, along with the claim by the “Church throughout the world” that this trust demands another set of actions and commitments. What then shall we do?

Our bishops have left us in a grievous and parlous position. It is true, as our bishops have said, that those who wish to “divide” the church are few. The concerns expressed above come from clergy, like myself, who have long labored to maintain the unity of TEC, internally and with the Communion. We do not wish what the bishops themselves, few in number though they be, are pressing upon us.

Let us who care for Christ’s embrace of Anglican Christianity in Communion redouble our prayers and our efforts to see that the will of Dar es Salaam unfold in God’s good time, and not be thwarted by another unilateral dictation of how the Communion ought to mirror the incoherent image of TEC. God help us. Much is at stake here. It is time to do all we can to assure that the Instruments of Communion be able to do their work unhindered. If TEC’s bishops do not wish to be a part of this, that is their decision. Let them have the courage of their convictions; but let us not quietly accept their invented Anglican Christianity that never existed anywhere before.

albany bishop jumps to rome, renounces orders

This is breaking news and though this is my diocese, I don't have many details yet. The Albany Priests' and Deacons' Update e-newsletter announced that Bishop Daniel Herzog, the newly retired Albany diocesan, has become Roman Catholic, and as this requires a renunciation of his orders and his ministry as a bishop, he has done his. He will be a layman in the pew.

This follows hard on the heels of former Albany suffragan David Bena's transfer to the province of Nigeria. I don't know what effect these moves, together, will have on the diocese and the clergy.

More details will follow as they become available.

subsequent -

Here's more info from the Living Church.

Here's the ENS write-up, with comments from PB Jefferts Schori. Herzog is only the third Episcopal bishop to make the jump to Rome.

Here's the letter from the current Albany diocesan, Bishop Love.

subsequent -

This from the local rag, the Albany Times-Union.

two pieces well worth reading

One is from Father Ephraim Radner, and constitutes Part 2 of the reflections I brought to your attention last week (which are also well worth (re)reading).

The other is from Jordan Hylden, a bright young thing (Fry on Waugh), and Junior Fellow at First Things and postulant in the Diocese of North Dakota. Jordan writes about the ECUSA House of Bishops' response to the Dar es Salaam Communique. Some of the more interesting bits from Jordan's piece:

In their statement, the American bishops accused the global Anglican primates of “unprecedented” spiritual unsoundness and solemnly spoke of the Episcopal Church’s “autonomy” and “liberation from colonialism,” which they understood to be threatened by the creeping rule of “a distant and unaccountable group of prelates.” Apparently, they were serious. With no sense of irony, the bishops of an overwhelmingly white, wealthy, and liberal American church actually saw fit to accuse their fellow Anglicans—many of whom are from poor third-world countries—of “colonialism.”

....

Sadly, the bishops’ rejection of the Pastoral Council means that the disorderly and painful fracturing of the Episcopal Church will likely continue apace, since the bishops do not seem willing to provide any sort of acceptable safe space for conservatives. It also means that tension with Rowan Williams and the primates will ratchet up another notch—their proposed Pastoral Council, by which the primates intended to work with the Episcopal Church, will almost certainly now be implemented against the Episcopal leadership’s will. Conservatives who wish to participate in it will have to do so in defiance of national church leadership, and they may be subject to discipline.

The absurdity of this situation—wherein Episcopalians could be disciplined for daring to conform to Anglican “doctrine, discipline, and worship,” just as printed in every single prayer book in every Anglican pew—apparently has not yet occurred to the Episcopal bishops.

And here is the crucial bit. This part has been under-noticed, I think. Though I'm pleased we noticed it at Whitehall. It concerns the House of Bishops at-first-sight bizarre and even absurd insistence that "The meaning of the Preamble to the Constitution of The Episcopal Church is determined solely by the General Convention of The Episcopal Church.” Of course this is where the Episcopal Church defines and constitutes itself as a "constituent member" of the Anglican Communion, and "in communion with the See of Canterbury". The fear of the bishops is of course that if the Anglican Communion suddenly decided that a majority of ECUSA is no longer a "constituent member" of the Communion, or if the See of Canterbury suddenly decided that ECUSA was no longer in communion with him, but that the Network IS, then that would potentially have very bad legal ramifications for the liberals: the conservatives (who remain "constituent members" of the Communion, and who remain "in communion with the See of Canterbury" might suddenly find themselves the sole heirs of the Episcopal Church, as the Episcopal Church has defined and constituted itself. The lunatic ECUSA bishops must not let that happen, so in a move that Jordan Hylden rightly notes to be worthy of Lewis Carroll, the bishops declare that they are the sole arbiters of who is in communion with whom. "You can't kick us out! Only we can kick us out!" What will they do next? Send Rowan Williams an invitation to the Lambeth Conference?


The depths of this episcopal delusion is reminiscent of the scene in Woody Allen's movie Bananas, where the character played by Allen is made the dictator of a small Latin American nation called San Marcos. He decrees that all children under the age of sixteen are now over the age of sixteen, that the national language will be changed to Swedish, and that all citizens are to change their underwear every thirty minutes, and wear it on the outside for easier inspection by the authorities.

In the end, this move is to insure that the ECUSA hierarchy can maintain, come hell or high water, their own legal basis for suing the pants off the orthodox if they try to leave ECUSA with any property. But it just goes to show the absurdities into which base desires can lead you.

Here's what Jordan says about it:

By stating that the meaning of this sentence is determined solely by General Convention, the Episcopal bishops are doing nothing less than claiming that what it means to be Anglican, what it means to be in communion with Canterbury, what it means to be a part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church and hold to the historic Christian faith—that all of this is to be decided solely by the democratic vote of clergy and laypeople once every two years in a Marriott hotel convention room, with reference to nothing and nobody. It is breathtaking in its arrogance.

Breathtakingly arrogant indeed. Go read the two pieces for yourself. They're both very good.

as rome burns, +peter lee calls for his fiddle

The Bishops overwhelmingly rejected a “Pastoral Scheme” that was proposed by the Primates of the Anglican Communion at their February meeting in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. By doing so, the bishops reaffirmed that the Episcopal Church is a self-governing, autonomous church, and that it is not divided.

Hahahaha! Indeed! And the earth is flat, and the Episcopal Church is vibrant and growing. If you say so, Father. Read it all here.

does the primates' pastoral scheme violate tec's constitution?

Read the Constitution.

There's no part that talks about primatial jurisdiction, because the very idea of the Presiding Bishop as a primate is a new one, only loosely incorporated in the Constitution. The constitution does give General convention full power to institute a number of alternative pastoral schemes, including bishops for foreign lands, missionary bishops, the creation of new (even non-geographical) dioceses, etc. General convention, or the Executive Council acting when GC is in recess, could certainly participate in any such pastoral scheme it wanted to. There's no clause here that clearly rules out participation in the Primates' scheme, such that the House of Bishops could point to it and say, "This clause precludes our participation."

But how many of the Bishops, do YOU think, took time to look over the Constitution before voting for their statement, hmmmmmmm?

What must the argument have been? - that somehow the Pastoral Council would be able to direct 815? Surely not, for even a cursory reading of the Primates' proposal disproves that. The Council would have nothing to do with anything in TEC except as regards the Primatial Vicar, and except to represent the Primates in negotiating the necessary particulars of this temporary arrangement. What about this felt threatening to the Bishops? Their statement seems, upon reflection, to be based on ignorance of their own canons, fear of primatial intevention, fear of the 'plundering' of the church, and, dare I say, wounded pride. Ignorance, fear, pride, love of money - high motives, all.

does the primates' pastoral scheme violate tec canons?

This is what the House of Bishops claimed in its statement: that the primates' pastoral scheme with their version of the primatial vicar "violates our church law in that it would call for a delegation of primatial authority not permissible under our Canons and a compromise of our autonomy as a Church not permissible under our Constitution. "

Well, here are the relevant passages from the Constitution and Canons, Title I:

Sec. 4 (a) The Presiding Bishop shall be the Chief Pastor and Primate of the Church, and shall:
(1) Be charged with responsibility for leadership in initiating and developing the policy and strategy in the Church and speaking for the Church as to the policies, strategies and programs authorized by the General Convention; . . .

(c) The Presiding Bishop shall perform such other functions as shall be prescribed in these Canons; and, to be enabled better to perform such duties and responsibilities, the Presiding Bishop may appoint, to positions established by the Executive Council of General Convention, officers, responsible to the Presiding Bishop, who may delegate such authority as shall seem appropriate.

Whitehallians, tell us what you think - but I don't see anything here that precludes the appointment of a Primatial Vicar, as was first suggested by a group of bishops including former PB Griswold and PB Jefferts Schori, or TEC's participation in the Primates' pastoral scheme. If TEC was willing to find a way forward based on these canons, it could be done. The House of Bishops seems now to be worried that the inclusion of officers of the Primates on the Pastoral Council would put undue power in their hands: but look at the original proposal:

2. The Primatial Vicar would be accountable to the Presiding Bishop and would report to an Advisory Panel that would consist of the designee of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presiding Bishop’s designee, a bishop of The Episcopal Church selected by the petitioning dioceses, and the President of the House of Deputies (or designee).

Compare it to the Primates' proposal:

A Pastoral Council

The Primates will establish a Pastoral Council to act on behalf of the Primates in consultation with The Episcopal Church. This Council shall consist of up to five members: two nominated by the Primates, two by the Presiding Bishop, and a Primate of a Province of the Anglican Communion nominated by the Archbishop of Canterbury to chair the Council.

A Pastoral Scheme

. . .

􀂃 We acknowledge and welcome the initiative of the Presiding Bishop to consent to appoint a Primatial Vicar.

. . .

􀂃 in consultation with the Council and with the consent of the Presiding Bishop, those bishops who are part of the scheme will nominate a Primatial Vicar, who shall be responsible to the Council;

􀂃 the Presiding Bishop in consultation with the Pastoral Council will delegate specific powers and duties to the Primatial Vicar.

Two points: first, the make-up of this Pastoral Council is not so different from that of the Advisory Panel that was already suggested. TEC gets two out of four seats in the Advisory Panel, and two out of five on the Council. One in either case goes to the ABC, and the only other difference is the presence of Primates or the President of the House of Deputies.

Second point: what the primates ask for is precisely what PB Jefferts Schori suggested! There's no usurping of primatial authority. Their ideas fit neatly within the canons and within Jefferts-Schori's own proposal, with the one exception that they ask that the Primatial Vicar be responsible to the Pastoral Council, not the Advisory Panel. the Vicar's powers still come from the PB as delegated powers, so the Vicar would still be responsible to the PB for their use.

Again I say, if the leaders of TEC wanted to find a way forward under these canons, without dividing the church or driving anyone away, they could. It's not that hard. It might take changing 'responsible to the Council' to 'reporting to the Council' or some such, but negotiation could work all that out. But the House of Bishops clearly isn't interested in negotiation, only in stating who they are - again - as if anyone had any doubt. Maybe if they say it louder this time, the rest of the Communion will finally say, "oh, yes, we see, that's all it is. Ok, do as you please." The fact is our communion partners DO understand us just fine; and they still believe our communion stands in jeopardy.

a great piece from father ephraim radner

Read it all here.

He seems to think its Game Over for the orthodox in ECUSA. He has been one of the most coherent and conciliatory voices among the orthodox -- definitely not a hot head. That he thinks its over says much about the gravity of the situation in light of the House of Bishops' rejection of the Primates' requests.

So what now? In my view, the Communion MUST establish the Pastoral Council / Primatial Vicar, now clearly without the help or input of the ECUSA hierarchy. If the councils of the Communion do nothing, then Anglicanism in American will be lost... for years or decades, if not forever. The orthodox will continue to bleed off into a myriad independent and incoherent jurisdictions, or will simply move away from Anglicanism altogether, to Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, etc. Moreover, if ECUSA is allowed to get away with their intractable arrogance, then Anglicanism will be betrayed as an incoherent theological joke -- one in which a thousand mutually exclusive doctrines are held and taught in the name of plurality.

The ONLY way forward, I believe, is for the Primates and the ABC to act NOW (by which I mean something like "by the end of this year") 1) to allow ECUSA to go its on way, apart from the Communion, and 2) to provide a coherent place / primatial jurisdiction for the orthodox who wish to remain in communion with Canterbury and the rest. Lastly (and this will be the most difficult and unlikely): the American orthodox -- Network dioceses, CANA, AMiA, etc. -- must band together and agree to abide by the Primates and the ABC's decisions.

There are a lot of if's and unknowns here. But they must be sorted out very quickly, in my view, or American Anglicanism will be lost.

PS: Now is the time for action by the orthodox BISHOPS in ECUSA. Its time for them to stand up and start acting like orthodox bishops. Its time for them to act concertedly, coherently, unitedly, and humbly -- as the shepherds God has called them to be, and to whom He has given His Holy Spirit for that purpose. The orthodox bishops must come together and show bold leadership. If they do, their priests and laity will follow them. If they don't, all will almost certainly be lost.

the house of bishops resolution rejecting the primates' pastoral scheme

Here's the first Mind of the House resolution, and the one which actually accomplishes the rejection.

.

Mind of the House of Bishops Resolution Addressed to the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church

Resolved, the House of Bishops affirms its desire that The Episcopal Church remain a part of the councils of the Anglican Communion; and

Resolved, the meaning of the Preamble to the Constitution of The Episcopal Church is determined solely by the General Convention of The Episcopal Church; and

Resolved, the House of Bishops believes the proposed Pastoral Scheme of the Dar es Salaam Communiqué of February 19, 2007 would be injurious to The Episcopal Church and urges that the Executive Council decline to participate in it; and

Resolved, the House of Bishops pledges itself to continue to work to find ways of meeting the pastoral concerns of the Primates that are compatible with our own polity and canons.

.

.

First, you've got to wonder why that opening resolved clause is there, about the preamble being interpreted only by General Convention. Though I haven't heard a lot of conservatives push this argument recently, the progressives are still hyper-worried that the preamble might bind us to the Communion, such that we can't do whatever we jolly well please. Which makes one wonder whether independence (in spiritual terms, rebellion) is really more to TEC's taste than Communion or catholicity, and really the root of all of this, from Bp. Robinson onward. What kind of conversation, do you suppose, went on at Camp Allen to necessitate this clause?

.

It's also more than a little immature to say that our words mean precisely what we want them to mean, no more and no less. Words do mean things, and communication would be impossible if words didn't have recognized meanings outside of people's own perspectives. You can't make 'red' mean 'blue'. If you do, you're speaking in code, not straight-forward language. What exactly is the HoB's intention in claiming the sole right of interpretation here? Are they going to transform our preamble into a minefield of code words that mean whatever we want them to mean? Why not just be honest and change the words, rather than giving the same old words brand new, and sometimes contradictory, meanings? That's called 'deception' or 'lying', though I'm sure the HoB just thinks it's being clever.

.

As for the second clause, note that the idea of a Primatial Vicar has not been rejected. Only the Primates' version thereof has been rejected. There's still room here for PB Jefferts-Schori's plan to be effected. Ruth Gledhill is right: this is a game of one-upmanship, a face card to finesse the primates' power. Regardless, as this resolution bears upon TEC's commitment to being catholic, it is to me a frightening indication of, indeed, the mind of the house .