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 No one with the authority to do so has rescinded these proposals.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

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.

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 .

the draft covenant: part II

This is part 2 of an analysis of the Draft Anglican Covenant. Part 1 wondered why the theological idea of communion was treated so shabbily in the Draft, and why the leaders of the Anglican Communion feel the need to depart from communion as a basis for our unity and re-create that unity in a Covenant. This is, I think, the germ and core of the criticism that the whole idea of a Covenant is 'un-Anglican'. Dr. Radner summarizes it this way:

I wonder about the way he [Dr. Franklin] discerns its character in terms of novelty. Certainly, this has been the source of many criticisms of the proposed Covenant in its very identity: it is somehow an innovation within Anglicanism, some have said, an alien element whose introduction will further just the kinds of “curial” re-orderings of the Communion that will undercut the traditional autonomies the buttress Anglican ecclesial life and witness. So how new is the Covenant’s purpose and form in fact? My main argument below is that it is not new at all. It is, rather, who we already are and are called to be more and more.

First, let us note that my criticism is not one of those Dr. Radner mentions. If anything, traditional catholic ecclesiology supports 'curial re-orderings' and does not support 'traditional [Anglican] autonomies', which are, in the case of TEC, being used as excuses for the undue taking of license - indeed, licen-tiousness. If I were merely a pragmatist, I should support the Covenant's innovations because they tighten the central leadership's reins on erring TEC. My side wins, as it were. But we ought not win practical victories at the expense of our Catholicism. Our souls depend upon it.

But in fact, the Covenant does indeed introduce innovations. Dr. Radner's argument - and we could quote him copiously to this point but, for the sake of brevity, without which no one can please bloggers, we'll move on - Dr. Radner's argument is not that critics of the Covenant are simply hallucinating and there is nothing new in the document. Rather, his point is that the innovations that are being proposed stand at the end of a long and authentically Anglican process which began before Gene Robinson, began in fact with the very exportation of the Faith that created the Communion, and which has only recently been recognized for what it is by documents such as the Virginia Report, the Eames Monitoring Group Report of 1988, and the Windsor Report. These documents describe a movement toward something like a Covenant that has been afoot for some time, but we tend to forget the Winsor Report's and the Covenant's continuity with this process because of the events around GC 03, etc. Dr. Radner believes that whatever the Covenant does to our ecclesiology has actually already been done, that it merely reflects developments that have already taken place in our Communion. The Covenant Design Group puts it this way:

What is to be offered in the Covenant is not the invention of a new way of being Anglican, but a fresh restatement and assertion of the faith which we as Anglicans have received, and a commitment to inter-dependent life such as always in theory at least been given recognition.

So there is to be something new, something 'fresh' about the Covenant, something that reflects the latest novelty of Anglican development. I see nothing in the Design Group's report about studying the Fathers or trying to be more catholic. I see nothing in Dr. Radner's comments about studying the Fathers or trying to be more catholic. To the extent the covenant fails thus, it also fails to be an instrument toward greater union with other Churches who claim catholicism. Do they not display the same catholicism we claim? Have they not 'communion' as well as we? Why must our process of definition be pointed only inward, not at all outward to the rest of the Body of Christ? If TEC has such responsibility toward Nigeria, does not the entire Anglican Communion, insofar as it claims to be catholic, have such responsibilities toward Rome and the Patriarchs? Self-exploration inevitably clashes with Christian self-surrender - can we not embody something of the self-effacing, essentials-only spirit of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral in the document that is supposed to clarify and define who we are today? The Quadrilateral was borne of long study in the Fathers, and it shows not only in its substance, which is properly reflected in the Draft Covenant, but also in its ecumenical spirit, which is not reflected in the Covenant.

As to the novelty itself which the Covenant introduces, I understand it to be the very coup that was accomplished at the Primates' meeting in Tanzania - namely, that the Primates emerge as the most powerful body of leaders in the Communion, and the only one with any real power. Section 5 of the Covenant acknowledges the Archbishop of Canterbury, but only gives him the power to convene the instruments of Communion; the ABC becomes a QEII-type figurehead. The Lambeth conference exists as a support group for bishops and with the amorphous mission "to guard the faith and unity of the communion" (although I support more 'curial' forms, note that this vague mission could allow Lambeth to go beyond its traditional advisory-only authority). The ACC is relegated to coordinating parts of Anglican ecumenical and missionary work, and who is it that gets carte blanche?

The Primates’ Meeting, presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury, assembles for mutual support and counsel, monitors global developments and works in full collaboration in doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters that have Communion-wide implications.

Ok, ok, maybe this could be less earth-shattering than I've claimed -- that is, if it weren't backed up by this in section 6: Each church commits itself . . .

. . . to seek the guidance of the Instruments of Communion, where there are matters in serious dispute among churches that cannot be resolved by mutual admonition and counsel:
1. by submitting the matter to the Primates Meeting
2. if the Primates believe that the matter is not one for which a common mind has been articulated, they will seek it with the other instruments and their councils
3. finally, on this basis, the Primates will offer guidance and direction.

Who's calling the shots these days? Who exercises real pastoral authority, according to the Covenant? Why isn't our chief pastor, the ABC, given this job?

Dr. Radner is correct. The Covenant only articulates developments that are already afoot. The document does not seek to make us more catholic or bind us more closely to our catholic traditions. It DOES reflect the Global South's distrust of ABC Williams - that's why the ABC loses authority (and Williams is probably happy for this, because he doesn't wear his WWLD bracelet) - and the Global South's distrust of the ACC - that's why it gets shoved aside. It reflects the fact that the Global South primates only trust those instruments of communion that they can control - Lambeth and the Primates' meeting. Dr. Radner is right. The document does indeed reflect recent Communion developments. But they aren't developments toward catholicism.

Don't get me wrong. I like the Primates. I agree with them. I even like most of the Covenant. But I fear we banish one evil while inviting another in. I fear the Anglican masses in the Global South won't care so much about being Catholic as being Evangelical, and will too quickly sacrifice our catholicism to enforce Evangelical faith. Much as I've prayed for decades that TEC would rediscover its Evangelical faith, I don't want the Anglican Communion to lose its catholicism. The process that gives rise to this Covenant at this time in our life as a Communion is itself a symptom of a weakened urge toward catholicism in both TEC and the Global South. A strengthened catholicism would fix all our problems without sacrificing anything essential. A Covenant could do this for us, should do this for us - but this Draft does not.

the draft covenant: part I - this is what's wrong with the covenant

This is part one of a two-part analysis of the Draft Covenant. You can read the entire Covenant here. I also recommend highly Eprhaim Radner's comments and Dr. Poon's response, as posted on Whitehall last week, as well as the Covenant Design Group's report.

I decided to split this post in two because there are really two things going on that are of interest to me - one is genuinely an ecclesiological development, and the other is a pragmatic, political matter. Personally, I don't think these two spheres ought to be separated. The church ought always to stive to sbumit real-world practicalities to God's call; we ought ever and always to be expressing in our 'real' world the greater realities of the Spirit. Catholicism IS one of those realities. Ours ought always to be getting purer. Where we divorce the spiritual reality of catholicism from the practical realities of human institutions, we deny the miracle of the Church and pave the way for corruption and innovation, heresy and schism -- 'detestable enormities', all.

But the leaders of the Communion don't seem to see it that way. So the major ecclesiological innovation in the Covenant is tucked away, mid paragraph, mid sentence, barely even more than a reference or implication - not through any practice of deceit, I feel sure, but simply through neglect, which is worse. The first part of this post, below, will be dedicated to fleshing that innovation out. But because Dr. Radner and others have so vehemently denied that there exists any ecclesiological innovation in the Covenant, the second part of this post will be dedicated to proving, from the Design Group report, Dr. Radner's comments on the formative impulses of the document, and the Covenant itself, that there is, in fact, an ecclesiological innovation in the Covenant. And yes, for all of you who thought you've heard me imply it, here at anglicancatholic.blogspot.com, 'innovation' IS generally a dirty word. At least when it comes to the Church and its faith once received.

So the paragraph in question comes in the 5th section, on "Our Unity and Common Life" and reads thus:

Of these four Instruments of Communion, the Archbishop of Canterbury, with whose See Anglicans have historically been in communion, is accorded a primacy of honour and respect as first amongst equals (primus inter pares). He calls the Lambeth Conference, and Primates’ Meeting, and is President of the Anglican Consultative Council.

The first sentence here is one of only two times in the document the word 'communion' has real theological content (the other time it refers to sharing the same Eucharist) and is not just the name of the particular group of churches we're talking about. What's wrong with this, despite the proclamation right at the beginning that we "uphold and act in continuity and consistency with the catholic and apostolic faith, order and tradition . . . ", is that the theological concept of communion, born of the blood and sweat of the Church Fathers, is nowhere mentioned as the foundation for our unity or identity. It only appears here, noted as an historical fact that explicitly has nothing to do with what the Covenant is trying to accomplish. Historically, we've been in communion with Canterbury, but today we Covenant to make that relationship obsolete, at least on the most foundational level of our identity. It's in our past, not our future.

The future of the Anglican 'Communion' seems to be to become the 'Anglican Covenant Group of Churches', an arrangement which may bear some strucutral similarities and historical continuities to an actual communion of Churches but may not be one in actuality.

Let me be clear that the creation of this kind of covenant does not, I think, necessarily destroy the communion we share already as Anglican Churches in communion with Canterbury. It could even, for all practical purposes, enhance our experience of that communion by more clearly articulating our understanding of God's expectations for ourselves and our communion partners, so long as we are clear that the Covenant does not create or define the relationship of communion, but only clarify it to help out infirmities (ahem, TEC). And by all means, let the miracle of communion be the foundaton we build upon, not the stone which the builders rejected.

on the primates' key recommendations

For the full Communique and Recommendations, read here.

First, note that their proposal is for "an an interim response . . . in the period until the Covenant is secured." (paragraph 30) It is the Covenant that they hope will ultimately solve this problem and give the Communion a way to handle such problems again if they ever arise. It remains to be seen whether the Covenant design process can come up with a document that reliably is able to do that.

"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. "

This Pastoral Council acts on behalf of the primates, not on behalf of the ABC. Who's calling the shots in the Communion these days? Clearly, the primates are. I think ABC Williams abdicated the traditional role of ABC (WWLD - What would Laud do?) when he waffled on Gene Robinson. Williams has not exercised the authority he could have, so the Primates have filled the gap. Or restored the breach. In this climate of rapid change in the ecclesiastical structures of the Communion, I lament (as Whitehall has heard me do before) that so little appeal has been made to the Fathers. We began morphing with the Virginia report, but GC03 and the Windsor Report have accelerated and even directed the metamorphoses. Whatever happens, the Anglican Communion in 2010 will not look, structurally, anything like it did at the turn of the 19th century. These are historic years.

The Primates recommend "the Pastoral Council and the Presiding Bishop invite the bishops expressing a commitment to “the Camp Allen principles”, or as otherwise determined by the Pastoral Council, to participate in the pastoral scheme; 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.

So this Pastoral Scheme would apply only to the Camp Allen bishops, and only at a diocesan level (so far). Provision could be made for AMiA and other groups who wish to be included. Note who nominates the PV - NOT the PB, nor the ABC, but the Camp Allen Bishops themselves. This is clearly NOT what PB Schori had in mind when she first suggested it. She and the other TEC bishops who worked on the proposal wanted the appointment to be made by the PB in consultation with the ABC, and the Primatial Vicar to be responsible to the PB only. No primates involved. Again I ask, who's pulling the strings in the Communion these days?

"Once this scheme of pastoral care is recognised to be fully operational, the Primates undertake to end all interventions. Congregations or parishes in current arrangements will negotiate their place within the structures of pastoral oversight set out above."

So would TEC be better off with many small interventions or one big one? The interven-ers are only interested in what works - one scheme is as good as another, if the people are getting legitimate pastoral care. As far as the primates are concerned, if TEC doesn't like a million small interventions, they can choose one big one; but intevention there will be, because faithful people are crying out for deliverance. You could say it's a matter of social justice.

"In particular, the Primates request, through the Presiding Bishop, that the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church 1. make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention (cf TWR, §143, 144); and2. confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent (cf TWR, §134);unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion (cf TWR, §134).

What's most important about these two requests is, I think, that the HoB is not being asked to do anything it can't do. The primates are not misunderstanding American polity. Instead, they're doing a remarkable job of translating American polity into answers that other provinces with other polities can accept. What they're asking is for the HoB to 1. bind their own conduct by resolution of their own house; and 2. give their considered interpretation, as a house, of Resolution B033. If the former happens, will bishops who break their word be liable for presentment? They should be, but I doubt our PB will prosecute. As regards the latter, the primates want to know what TEC's intention is, and they're asking the HoB to interpret an ambiguous resolution. Do the American bishops believe that B033 is Windsor Compliant? They're not asking the bishops to control the consent votes of their own standing committees or undermine the prerogatives of the HoDep. They're asking for an interpretaton, hoping for a show of good-faith. The reason the primates asked the HoB for this is that that's the traditional catholic synod that all the other Anglican polities recognize. A synod is supposed to be made up of bishops, not of lay or clergy. The fact that TEC allows lay and clergy to participate is cute, but we've got to translate their words into a traditional, catholic ecclesiological language that can be understood everywhere.

"The Primates request that the answer of the House of Bishops is conveyed to the Primates by the Presiding Bishop by 30th September 2007.If the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion."

This is the threat clause. The details will be spelled out in the Covenant design process. As for timing, it seems like the Primates want all the ducks in a row in time for Lambeth. They seem to be willing to relenquish the power they've taken up for Lambeth, but not for the ABC. My, how things have changed. I think the Primates as a rule hold a much more catholic ecclesiology than we in TEC do, or many at Lambeth Palace do, I think -- namely, that local synods report to ecumenical councils -- the Anglican version of which is provincial synods reporting to Lambeth. The problem is that Lambeth has always been clear that it exercises only advisory authority and does NOT constitute a church council, nor can it decree with authority in matters of doctrine. That's why even Lambeth 1.10 is only a statement of the mind of the Communion, not a binding doctrinal law. To my mind, all these are weaknesses that make us less catholic as a communion than we ought to be. But they are traditional. Sigh.

"The Primates urge the representatives of The Episcopal Church and of those congregations in property disputes with it to suspend all actions in law arising in this situation. We also urge both parties to give assurances that no steps will be taken to alienate property from The Episcopal Church without its consent or to deny the use of that property to those congregations."

Easy for them to say. What would this look like on the ground in, say, Connecticut? They've asked a lot of the bishops themselves, because someone like Bp. Smith of CT would have to be content to not visit the grounds of his dissenting parishes, not enforce licenses to minister, not enforce his own inhibitions, not to confirm or ordain; in short, let those impertinent 6 parishes go on thumbing their noses at him in the buildings he thinks he owns until the Covenant gets OK'd sometime after Lambeth 08 + an additional round of consultation + the ACC's 14th meeting. You'd have parishes temporarily without Episcopal oversight, waiting until the Primatial Vicar can send someone to see them and confirm their litte ones. From which parishes do you ask assessment? Which parishes have the right to join in diocesan convention? Are those parishes in or out of communion with their local diocesan? Who has responsibility to fill vacancies if a dissenting rector dies or retires? In short, this is a request to temporarily send our tightly-enforced local diocesan structure into a spiral of chaos until the Covenant is finished and ratified. Is it worth it for Christian charity?

Or maybe it's the dissenting parishes that need to knuckle under and submit, temporarily, to their bishops. But would those bishops respect the identity of their formerly-dissenting parishes? They might not attack property, but is parish income 'property'? Doesn't the myth of the Dennis Canon give all parish property to the diocese? Are the primates making a ruling on the Dennis Canon? The primates are asking us to think of parishes as the owners of their property, and the parish/property unit to be transferrable -- but that's not the way our canons describe things. This is where I would like to see a perfect world's 815 do some spade-work on fitting the Primates' recommendations into our canons. I suppose the Pastoral Council is supposed to do that.

All you legal-beagle Whitehallies, what's the process in the American legal system to simply drop a case like this? If a dissenting parish and an attacking bishop were to take this call seriously, who should drop their charges first?

And here's another interesting thought. The two parishes seceding from the diocese of Pittsburgh would, apparently, come under the jurisdiction of the Primatial Vicar - who is very likely to be Bishop Duncan, currently of Pittsburgh! Even if it's not him, would they be willing to accept the same Primatial Vicar as, say, the Virginia cluster?

And here's something even more interesting: During this controversy, it has been noted that the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church was not, originally, supposed to be a primate. That function was abrogated only recently, and only because TEC needed someone to represent us among the other primates, and the PB was the natural choice. If we carry this reasoning out, then a Primatial Vicar would actually be the only acting Primate for American Anglicans and therefore our sole primatial representative in the Communion.

All told, I think this document presents more of a challenge to TEC than to the intervening foreign archbishops. And that's as it should be.

a few pictures from the primates' meeting

The Bishop of Dar Es Salaam celebrates mass in the chapel for the ACC Standing Committee as the Primates Meeting gets underway. Photo Credit: ACNS Rosenthal.

There are more here.

some more prayers to pray during the primates meeting

I urge you, first, to prayer for the primates. I urge you, second, to these prayers during the Primates' Meeting. I also remind you again of the helpful resources and information at Lent and Beyond.

If you pray the Daily Office, and I hope you do (see the links in the sidebar if you would like to say it online), pray these and other intercessions at the end of the office, just before "The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ..." Print them out and put them in your Bible, BCP, or Office Book.

For the Unity of the Church

Our God, amidst the deplorable division of your Church, let us never widen its breaches, but give us universal charity to all who are called by your name. Deliver us from the sins and errors, the schisms and heresies of the age. Give us grace daily to pray for the peace of your Church, and earnestly to seek it and to excite all we can to praise and to love you; through Jesus Christ, our one Savior and Redeemer. Amen.

(A prayer of Thomas Ken)

For the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams

O God, the shepherd and ruler of all the faithful, look down favorably upon your servant Rowan, whom you have been pleased to appoint pastor over your Church; grant, we beseech you, that he may benefit both by word and example those over whom he is set, and thus attain life eternal, together with the flock committed to his care. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

the primates' meeting

The Primates' Meeting is getting underway at Dar es Salaam. I invite you all to pray. Priests, I would encourage you to offer your Daily Office and Mass (if you offer mass daily) with special intentions for the Primates, that they would all be given wisdom, humility, zeal for the catholic faith, and above all charity.

Because he happens to be the Archbishop of Canterbury at this moment in history, an enormous weight is being borne by Rowan Williams. I would invite you to pray for him particularly. Arguably, he bears more responsibility for the fate of Anglicanism than any other single person - maybe since Elizabeth I or Thomas Cranmer. I would not have his job for all the tea in China, and I can only imagine how burdensome this responsibility must be for him. Pray for him.

Also don't neglect to pray for Katharine Schori, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. She leads the province which, by its actions and impenitence, has brought the Communion to the brink of dissolution. Pray that she would be especially blessed with the grace of humility, true contrition, and wisdom.

Lent and Beyond has terrific resources to guide your prayer.

Stand Firm is shaping up to have the best, or at least the most extensive and up-to-date news coverage. (Probably the best too.) It looks like they will be doing daily video blogging. My! The Anglican blogosphere is certainly getting technologically advanced.

And speaking of "vlogging" and so forth, don't forget to check out Anglican TV. Kevin has gone to Tanzania and will be posting videos. If you donate to Anglican TV (even a dollar), I think you can get on their special secret list for extra videos or something. Its not clear to me what exactly you get by donating (or whether it might actually be too late), but I believe you get some special access to extra video coverage or something.

Lastly, I would commend the Blessed Virgin as a very suitable prayer partner for each of you. Her humility and wisdom is the antidote to Episcopalian arrogance and foolishness. When she was presented with a choice that would have enormous consequences for the whole world, she responded "Be it done to me according to thy word." In consequence of her humility, Almighty God has magnified her, and all generations call her Blessed (Luke 1.46ff).

Saint Mary, full of grace, exalted pattern of humility and Seat of Wisdom, pray for us sinners! Show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb!

to cleave or to cleave? the primates meeting in tanzania

Here is a very thoughtful piece on the upcoming primates' meeting from the Rev'd Canon Graham Kings. One of the article's strengths is that it gests at the polychromatic aspect of ECUSA and the Communion. I.e. that the situation is really much more complex, at both levels, than a mere division of "liberals" from "conservatives." Kings identifies "at least five...'streams' " within ECUSA.

Texanglican has some good comments on the piece. For my part, I don't think Kings lays quite enough stress on the need for something to be done NOW. Everyone knows that anything done now will necessarily be a stopgap measure. But such a measure is necessary. It is urgent. As Yeats put it:

...
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.

I don't know about the Second Coming, but some definite relief, even if only provisional, for orthodox Anglicans in North America must be at hand. I agree that the Windsor and Covenant process(es) are the best hope for the Communion. And I understand that they will necessarily take some years to be devloped, submitted, and received by the Communion. That will be a process which, in order to have moral weight and authority, must involve Lambeth, etc. But between now and then, it is urgent that provision be made for the orthodox. And by "provision" I mean that orthodox dioceses must be (provisionally) relieved from the oversight of the Presiding Bishop, from the authority of 815, and indeed from the General Convention. The authority formerly exercised by the PB and the General Convention should be invested in the interim in either a (provisional) primate, or as Kings suggests, in a college of Windsor-compliant or (better) Network bishops. The latter (a college of bishops) is probably a better stopgap solution.

pray for the primates

My dear friends, the primates of the Anglican Communion will be meeting in Tanzania next month (February 12-19). No one knows quite what will happen, nor apparently even quite what the agenda will be in its particulars. But there is a general consensus 1) that the meeting is incredibly important, and 2) that ECUSA's fate will be, if not determined, at least clarified.

That being the case, I hereby officially urge everyone to pray every day for the primates. Include in your intentions that they would be given wisdom and grace, especially Rowan, who will chair and preside at the meeting. And pray that Katharine would be blessed and converted to the Christian faith, that the only Son of God would reign in her heart and that she would know him.

The keystone of devotional blogs, Lent and Beyond, has tremendously helpful resources for those of you (I hope all of you) who would like to pray for particular intentions and particular primates. Go there. Pray.

Lastly, here is a prayer I have been saying as a part of my Daily Office, adapted from a 1662 prayer (with the addition of a single little phrase):

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who alone workest great marvels; send down upon our primates, bishops and curates, and all congregations committed to their charge, the healthful Spirit of thy grace; and that they may truly please thee, pour upon them the continual dew of thy blessing. Grant this, O Lord, for the honour of our Advocate and Mediator, Jesus Christ. R. Amen.

Now, print out that prayer, cut it into a card sized thing, and put it into your Prayer Book.

yet more evidence that the episcopal church (so called) is unanglican, and hostile to christianity as it has always been practiced

"...I pray that the Archbishop of Canterbury will understand that the recommendations made by the panel are incongruent with Episcopal Church polity and therefore inappropriate for implementation."

This is from Bonnie Anderson, the president of the House of Deputies of the General Convention. Not surprisingly, she concludes that the General Convention Knows All, Sees All, and is All Powerful, that its canons eclipse the Word of God, catholic tradition, and the doctrine of the Anglican Communion. And she clarifies that the General Convention has decreed that all bishops must "ordain" women, or be driven out. There's more (much, much more) here.

a glimmer of hope in dark times

Those Anglicans who hold to the catholic teaching about apostolic order have had their consciences defended by the Panel of Reference appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Read the Panel's report on the Diocese of Fort Worth (which does not accept the ministry of ordained women) here. Know ye: its a pdf file. Read Fort Worth's response here. And here is an article in the Living Church. ++++++Jefforts-Schori has issued her own response, to which +Iker refers in the Living Church article; but I have not been able to find it online. The Panel's report is not legally binding (very few things in Anglicanism are legally binding at the global Communion level). But it carries a great deal of moral authority, and is something of a vindication of the integrity within Anglicanism of the Church's universal teaching about the ordained ministry. It is absolutely unconscionable and appalling to me that the integrity of the Church's universal teaching on this (and many other issues) actually needs to be defended from the power of ECUSA. But it illustrates very clearly that ECUSA is hostile to the historic faith.

Highlights of the Panel's report include:

...while the Communion is in a process of reception, no diocese or parish should be compelled to accept the ministry of word or sacrament from an ordained woman; and that provision has to be made to meet the conscientious objection to ministry by women.

....

The Panel recommends that it be made clear that it is legitimate for a diocese to ask of candidates for election as bishop that they abide by the particular policy of the diocese in relation to the ministry of women, and that theological views on the ordination or consecration of women should not be a ground on which consent might be withheld by the Province/House of Bishops.

....

The Panel also recommends that the Archbishop of Canterbury continue discussions with the Diocese of Fort Worth and with the Episcopal Church with the aim of securing the place of Fort Worth in the Communion.

This is all good news for folks (like your friends at Whitehall) who defend the catholic faith with regard to the all male priesthood.