stayin' Anglican

Bishop Doyle of Texas assesses +Canterbury’s Pentecost Letter and PB Schori’s Response

Bishop C. Andrew (Andy) Doyle of the Episcopal Diocese of Texas has written a letter to the Diocese concerning the Archbishop of Canterbury's May 28, 2010 Pentecost letter to the Anglican Communion. In Bishop Doyle's letter, dated June 4, 2010, he also discusses the response to the Archbishop contained in a June 2, 2010 pastoral letter written by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori. In this article, I will relate how it seems to me Bishop Doyle understates the seriousness of the Archbishop's concerns for the future of the Episcopal Church in the Anglican Communion. I will also say how I think he understates the severity of the conflict between the views of the Archbishop and those expressed by TEC's Presiding Bishop.

   

Bishop Doyle on the Archbishop's letter

   

Bishop Doyle expresses confidence that the actions taken by the Archbishop do not change life or ministry in the Diocese of Texas or his relationship with the Archbishop. Although correct in the sense that the changes do not stem from the Archbishop's actions so much as the actions in TEC that resulted in them, Bishop Doyle is not correct in thinking relationships have not been changed by TEC's actions. Regarding his initiatives calling for non-participation by TEC representatives in Communion activities related to faith and order and ecumenical relations, Archbishop Rowan is clear as to the reason: TEC is insistent on engaging in what "the representative bodies of the Communion have repeatedly pleaded should not be done." TEC is thereby exceeding, in the words of the Archbishop, "what the Communion as a whole has come to regard as the acceptable limits of diversity in its practice." The Archbishop's position was stated even more pointedly by Canon Kenneth Kearon of the Anglican Communion Office at a press conference during the recent Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada when he said that in the act of consecrating Mary Glasspool, "it is clear that The Episcopal Church does not share the faith and order of the vast majority of the Anglican Communion as expressed through the Instruments of Communion time and time again."

   

Is it possible that the Diocese of Texas can be distinguished from the regnant majority of TEC in its determination to disregard the acceptable limits of diversity? At one time, this might have been argued. Currently however, it must be remembered that while Bishop Doyle did not consent to the consecration of Mary Glasspool, the Standing Committee of the Diocese did.¹ In addition, at the 2009 General Convention, the diocese's deputies were evenly split on resolution D025 (approving the consecration of noncelibate homosexual bishops), with two deputies voting for and two against in both the clerical and lay orders. On C056 (approving the development of liturgies for same-sex blessings), the lay deputies were divided two for and two against. A majority of the clerical deputies voted no on C056 but Suffragan Bishop Rayford High voted in favor. At the 2010 Diocesan Council, a resolution was adopted according honor to same-sex relationships and asserting that God is made known in and through them.² Although the Diocese of Texas can still be distinguished as more moderate than a number of others, drawing meaningful distinctions concerning responses to what the Communion has requested has become more problematic.

   

Although Bishop Doyle says that the Archbishop's proposals for representatives of TEC to step down from positions in various Communion bodies are intended to further the objective of achieving unity, he does not go into the Archbishop's reasoning. The Archbishop's reasoning is expressed not only in the Pentecost letter but in his earlier reflection "Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future" (July 2009, following the 2009 General Convention). Bishop Doyle's references to the Archbishop's actions seem almost to apologize for the Archbishop's having found it necessary to take the steps he has taken. "Rightly or wrongly," Bishop Doyle believes, the Archbishop "is trying to help." The Archbishop, he says, "is being forced to act." This way of stating things does not seem calculated to express confidence in the Archbishop's reasoning, much less endorse the actions that result from it.

   

Bishop Doyle writes repeatedly and enthusiastically of diversity. His letter contains twelve occurrences of the word or its variants, usually without elaboration as to the kind or kinds of diversity being spoken of. Bishop Doyle does not mention, however, that a key element of the Archbishop's letter is his reiteration that there are limits to diversity that is acceptable in the Communion and that his proposals for limiting the Communion roles of representatives of TEC and certain other provinces simply confirm that TEC has exceeded the acceptable limits.

   

The Presiding Bishop's rejoinder

   

Further light is cast on Bishop Doyle's regard for the Archbishop's letter by his comparison of it with the very critical letter written by Presiding Bishop Schori in response. Bishop Doyle emphasizes not the striking contrasts but what he sees as themes common to the Archbishop's letter and the one written by the Presiding Bishop. Bishop Doyle appears to believe that they want essentially the same things for the Anglican Communion. Under a heading "Same yet Different," Bishop Doyle finds sameness in a common hope and longing for a common mission and ministry, and differences that largely relate to matters of "style, culture and strategy about how we move forward together."

   

In her letter the Presiding Bishop conveys the belief that the Archbishop of Canterbury has a deficient understanding of Acts 2 and Pentecost and that he is participating in the imposition of colonialist cultural excesses and doing spiritual violence to a contextual Christianity. Bishop Doyle is silent about these accusations. He does not mention the Presiding Bishop's expression of "distress" at the Archbishop's action removing TEC representatives from Communion bodies or her related accusations of "double-mindedness" and "failure of nerve." He does not mention her statement that the Archbishop's letter represents a troubling push toward centralized authority.

   

Bishop Doyle states that the Presiding Bishop "represents well the Episcopal Church on the matters of sexuality." Does this expression of a favorable view of the Presiding Bishop's position indicate that Bishop Doyle will ultimately come on board with it, notwithstanding the course he took regarding Mary Glasspool?

   

In contrast to Bishop Doyle's perspective that the differences relate to matters of style, culture and strategy, the Rev. Dr. Philip W. Turner characterizes Bishop Schori's response to the Archbishop as "heated" and intended "to call into question both the probity of the Archbishop and his authority to respond as he has."³ The Rev. Professor Christopher Seitz has critiqued in detail the Presiding Bishop's understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit.⁴ Most recently, the Rev. Dr. Andrew Goddard emphasizes that the differences are deeper than just ecclesiological and relate also to pneumatology and theology. Regarding the Presiding Bishop's response, Dr. Goddard says⁵,

   

The understanding of how the Spirit leads us into all truth has become divorced from the plain sense of Scripture, the wisdom of Christian tradition and the mutual discernment of the contemporary church. Even if TEC were right on issues of sexuality, the problem with its approach in relation to ecclesiology and pneumatology is that it renders the church catholic incapable of being able to heed the Johannine warning and injunction – "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 Jn 4.1). Its refusal to show gracious restraint and its defence of this refusal if accepted would render Anglicanism as a global communion unable to obey Paul's commands to "Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil" (1 Thess 5.21-2) . . . .

   

But we still can have a common mission, right?

   

As noted, Bishop Doyle maintains that the Presiding Bishop strives, along with Archbishop Williams, for a common mission. Speaking of his many contacts with primates and bishops from around the world, he emphasizes that the Diocese of Texas is "increasing our mission and outreach locally and globally." Among other things, he maintains that those who agree with the direction of TEC desire to join with other Anglicans globally in mission.

   

To know what to make of the desire to maintain a common mission while rejecting the repeated pleas of the representative bodies of the Communion, it is necessary to consider the sense in which "mission" is being used. In one sense, Anglicans can engage in common mission with the Rotary Club. More than that, Archbishop Rowan has been clear that Anglicans can and should do things for the care of God's poor and vulnerable even in the face of sharp division.

   

But at a deeper level, mission that is distinctively Christian cannot be unaffected by the theological divisions that are manifest when the Presiding Bishop's letter is held up against the Archbishop's. At that deeper level mission is not unaffected but in fact damaged. As the Archbishop's letter puts it: "To maintain outward unity at a formal level while we are convinced that the divisions are not only deep but damaging to our local mission is not a good thing." It makes little sense to say that TEC has exceeded the acceptable limits to diversity within Anglicanism, but that this makes no difference to the Church's mission. At issue specifically is the impact on mission on what the Archbishop calls recognizability. In his "Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future" reflection mentioned above, he said the following:

   

When a local church seeks to respond to a new question, to the challenge of possible change in its practice or discipline in the light of new facts, new pressures, or new contexts, as local churches have repeatedly sought to do, it needs some way of including in its discernment the judgement of the wider Church. Without this, it risks becoming unrecognisable to other local churches, pressing ahead with changes that render it strange to Christian sisters and brothers across the globe. . . . This is not some piece of modern bureaucratic absolutism, but the conviction of the Church from its very early days.

   

The Anglican Covenant

   

Bishop Doyle also expresses his belief that there are those who agree with the direction of TEC who also desire to affirm the Anglican Covenant. Presumably anticipating an objection, Bishop Doyle volunteers that there is no inconsistency here. But there is inconsistency. By the choices it has already made, TEC has demonstrated its unwillingness to adhere to the undertakings and commitments of the Covenant. As observed by The Anglican Communion Institute in September 2009⁶,

   

An Anglican church cannot simultaneously commit itself through the Anglican Covenant to shared discernment and reject that discernment; to interdependence and then act independently; to accountability and remain determined to be unaccountable. If the battle over homosexuality in The Episcopal Church is truly over, then so is the battle over the Anglican Covenant in The Episcopal Church, at least provisionally. As Christians, we live in hope that The Episcopal Church will at some future General Convention reverse the course to which it has committed itself, but we acknowledge the decisions that already have been taken. These decisions and actions run counter to the shared discernment of the Communion and the recommendations of the Instruments of Communion implementing this discernment. They are, therefore, also incompatible with the express substance, meaning, and committed direction of the first three Sections of the proposed Anglican Covenant. As a consequence, only a formal overturning by The Episcopal Church of these decisions and actions could place the church in a position capable of truly assuming the Covenant's already articulated commitments. Until such time, The Episcopal Church has rejected the Covenant commitments openly and concretely, and her members and other Anglican churches within the Communion must take this into account.

   

Similar conclusions are drawn by the Rev. Dr. Andrew Goddard in his paper referred to above:

   

[G]iven TEC's actions and given the Archbishop's response it is now logically impossible for TEC to sign the covenant without significantly changing course and showing that it no longer is driven by a "vision . . . not shaped by the desire to intensify relationships in this particular way, or whose vision of the Communion is different" [quoting from paragraph 22 of the Archbishop's "Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future"]

   

Having raised the matter of the Anglican Covenant, Bishop Doyle then makes reference to a process for the Diocese of Texas to consider the Covenant. The first point that emerges from what he says about this relates to the issue of timing. In his February 2010 report to the 161st Diocesan Council, Bishop Doyle proposed a discussion at the next annual Council in 2011 in anticipation that a mind of Council resolution would be adopted at that time. It appears from Bishop Doyle's current letter that his timetable for Council consideration has slipped a year, to the 2012 annual Council. Meanwhile, several other dioceses have moved ahead much more purposefully. The Dioceses of Central Florida, Dallas, Albany and Western Louisiana have all taken actions in some form to adopt or endorse the Covenant. The Diocese of West Texas has discussed the Covenant at its last annual council with action anticipated in 2011. None of these particular Dioceses face impediments to adoption such as those created by the Diocese of Texas' standing committee.

   

The second point that seems worth noting is that Bishop Doyle says that he strongly supports the Anglican Covenant. This expression of support seems clouded by Bishop Doyle's apparent belief that agreement with the direction of TEC on the matters at issue is not inconsistent with support for the Covenant. (By "agreeing with the direction of TEC," it seems reasonably clear that Bishop Doyle must mean not just advocacy of a position on sexuality issues in continuing discussions, but agreement with TEC's actions violative of what has been requested by the Communion's representative bodies.)

   

A third point concerning the Covenant is Bishop Doyle's proposal for a study of issues regarding the Covenant and "theological and practical realities of a healthy Communion" using a curriculum to be developed by a task force he has appointed. (The members of the task force are not identified in Bishop Doyle's letter.) The question arises whether the task force developing the curriculum will be operating under the assumption that the undertakings and commitments of the Anglican Covenant can be made in good faith by those "agreeing with the direction of TEC" as reflected, for example, in the consecration of Mary Glasspool. If input is to be sought from the Diocese at large, it seems important that the issues be presented to the Diocese in a way that does not obscure the point of view of the representative bodies of the Communion.

   

Will the Diocese of Texas adhere to "the faith and order of the vast majority of the Anglican Communion" or "agree with the direction of TEC"?  It is not apparent how the Diocese can do both.

___________ 

¹ I commented on this at http://www.stayinanglican.com/stayin_anglican/2010/03/the-dot-standing-committees-consent-as-to-glasspool-and-further-reflections-on-the-councils-samesex-.html.

² I discuss this action in "Diocese of Texas passes council resolution according legitimacy to same-sex relationships." http://www.stayinanglican.com/stayin_anglican/2010/02/diocese-of-texas-passes-council-resolution-according-legitimacy-to-same-sex-relationships.html.

³ Philip W. Turner, "The Tail is Wagging the Dog: A Response to the Pastoral Letter of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori" (June 10, 2010), http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/2010/06/the-tail-is-wagging-the-dog-a-response-to-the-pastoral-letter-of-presiding-bishop-katharine-jefferts-schori/

⁴ Christopher R. Seitz, "God the Holy Spirit and 'being led into all truth'" (June 6, 2010), http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/2010/06/god-the-holy-spirit-and-%e2%80%9cbeing-led-into-all-truth%e2%80%9d/.

⁵ Andrew Goddard, "Reflections on the Archbishop of Canterbury's Pentecost Letter: A pathway for Anglican spiritual renewal?" (June 17, 2010), http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=539.

⁶ Anglican Communion Institute, Inc., "The Anglican Covenant: Shared Discernment Recognized by All" (September 3, 2009), http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/2009/09/the-anglican-covenant-shared-discernment-recognized-by-all/.

Does Opting for “Local Option” Equate to Opting out of Life in Communion?

In this piece I want to critique two articles appearing in the March 2010 issue of News From the Hill, a newsletter of Virginia Theological Seminary.  They are companion articles written by two prominent figures in the Diocese of Texas – the Honorable James A. Baker III, former Secretary of State and a member of St. Martin’s, Houston, and the Reverend Dr. Russell J. Levenson, rector of St. Martin’s.  Secretary Baker’s article, “Finding Our Way Forward,” appears on page 6 of the issue and may be accessed at http://tinyurl.com/yeyplzn.  Dr. Levenson’s article, “A Time for Self-Restraint:  Reclaiming the Middle Way” appears on page 8 of the issue and may be accessed at http://tinyurl.com/ydp5z36.   The articles deal with the crisis in The Episcopal Church related to issues that include human sexuality.  They propose solutions that can be characterized generally as involving “agreeing to disagree” and implementing local option down to the parish level.

In late March, the Baker and Levenson articles were picked up in the Anglican blogosphere (TitusOneNine, Stand Firm and elsewhere).  On the blogs, the two articles drew criticism, in large part based on the belief they exhibited naïveté about the leadership of the national Church.  Some commenters were skeptical that agreement on a local option approach would even be within the realm of possibility.  I want here to consider these two articles from a different point of view.  Putting aside any prediction about whether the dominant forces within the national organization of The Episcopal Church would be receptive to local option, I will argue that both articles fail to consider the basic Anglican doctrine that while some things are adiaphora (things that don’t make a difference), others aren’t.  Further, I will observe that in the case of the issues involved here, the Anglican Communion has some time ago decided that positions now being taken by The Episcopal Church contravene the acceptable limits of diversity.   From a Communion point of view, these are not issues as to which an “agreement to disagree” is appropriate.  Although avenues for further discussion can and should remain open and reexamination of that determination is not foreclosed, that is where matters stand.  I hope to be able to express my disagreement in a respectful way, especially since the persons with whom I am disagreeing are the rector and a distinguished member of the parish I attend.

Local option at the parish level – a solution?

In his article, former Secretary of State Baker advocates an approach under which both sides of the controversies on sexuality would agree to disagree.  He says that the approach would be called an “all are welcome” or “local option” approach and that the approach “would promote a church of authentic inclusivity.”  Parish votes beginning in 2012 would determine which position each parish would take, following passage of implementing resolutions or canonical changes at the 2012 General Convention.  After 2012, additional votes could occur in General Convention years if requested by petition from 50% or more of the communicants of a parish, thus allowing a position initially taken to be changed at a later date.  Bishops would exercise oversight over a parish “in keeping with that particular parish’s most recent vote.”  Secretary Baker’s approach is that of a problem solver.  He does not disclose in the article where he stands personally on the sexuality issues.

Unlike Mr. Baker’s article, Fr. Russell Levenson’s article repeatedly emphasizes that he personally espouses a conservative, traditional position on the sexuality issues.  He maintains, however, that too much attention is being given to these issues and wants to distinguish himself from those taking a legalistic approach and from “absolutists” and “conservatives running from grace into the pseudo-safety of fundamentalism.”  At what point a traditional approach turns into one involving absolutists running from grace toward fundamentalism seems, however, less than clear.  By virtue of this lack of clarity, Fr. Levenson’s article exhibits a disjointedness that renders its logic (for me at least) somewhat hard to follow.  But at the end of the day he too desires a “solution that respects not only the autonomy of individual bishops and their dioceses, but also of clergy and their parishes.” 

Fr. Levenson’s two candidates for a solution that respects autonomy in the way he describes are, first, Secretary Baker’s local option approach and, second, one that allows adoption or affirmation of the Anglican Covenant not only at the provincial level but also at the diocesan and parish levels.  The mechanics of the second approach are not spelled out by Fr. Levenson in the way Mr. Baker does for his proposal, but it appears that Fr. Levenson would like to see agreed local option in one of two forms, the difference being that the first would not be linked to decisions regarding the Covenant and the second would.  Either would provide, says Fr. Levenson, a way to “move past issues and put our focus where it should be all along.”  And either would allow TEC to “reclaim[] an authentic understanding of grace, by becoming what it has sometimes claimed to be, the roomiest place in God’s house.”  The foundation of the roominess that Fr. Levenson looks forward to would be “not legalism, but autonomy.”  He too desires an outcome that honors “authentic inclusion.”

I will come back later to Fr. Levenson’s linkage in his second approach of local option at the diocesan and parish levels with the Anglican Covenant, because I want to try to make it clear that the agreed local option overlay makes what he is proposing something quite different from the solution involving the Anglican Covenant usually envisioned by traditionalists.

Former Secretary of State Baker acknowledges in his piece that his perspective is from the world of national and international politics.  From his experience, he posits that for some hotly contested issues, the most practical approach includes postponing decisions on irresolvable issues with the two sides affording mutual respect for their differing opinions.  Viewed from that perspective, and recognizing Mr. Baker’s experience and successes, his approach is clearly worthy of careful evaluation.  A question some will be left with, however, is whether a conflict-minimizing strategy appropriate for national and international politics takes into account everything that needs to be considered in addressing a conflict within the Church.

An Anglican approach: determining which things make a difference

What I see as missing from the approaches of Secretary Baker and Fr. Levenson is a recognition that there are some things about which practices can differ without threatening church unity and others for which this is not the case.  The former category is identified by the term adiaphora, that is, things that do not make a difference.  But not all things fall in this category.  As The Windsor Report states (paragraph 89),  

It has never been enough to say that we must celebrate or at least respect ‘difference’ without further ado.  Not all ‘differences’ can be tolerated. * * *  This question is frequently begged in current discussions, as for instance when people suggest without further argument, in relation to a particular controversial issue, that it should not be allowed to impair the Church’s unity, in other words that the matter in question is not as serious as some suppose.  * * * On the contrary: Paul insists that some types of behaviour are incompatible with inheriting God’s coming kingdom, and must not therefore be tolerated within the Church. ‘Difference’ has become a concept within current postmodern discourse which can easily mislead the contemporary western church into forgetting the principles, enshrined in scripture and often rearticulated within Anglicanism, for distinguishing one type of difference from another.

By presenting the issue as one as to which it is possible to agree to disagree, and advocating making express provision for local option, the authors of the two articles are expressing the belief, in terms of the words from The Windsor Report just quoted, that “the matter in question is not as serious as some suppose.”  Further, they are doing so “without further argument.”  These beliefs might turn out to be correct, but how would one know that?  The Rt. Rev’d N.T. Wright, Bishop of Durham, in his May 21, 2010 address to his diocesan synod argues we can’t know it by simple assertion.

And again the point is this: we cannot assume that this or that issue belongs at the ‘flexible’ end of the scale, so that by appealing to the existence of such a scale we can thereby locate a particular issue at one point on it.  As I said before, the proposal that something hitherto mandatory is now optional, or that something hitherto prohibited is now permitted, or that something previously important is now trivial, is not itself trivial. Just because Christians have agreed to differ on one matter – say, on the mode of Eucharistic presence, or on whether Christians can fight in the army – that doesn’t mean we can agree to differ on any other topic that happens to come up. Each case has to be argued on its merits.

In a February 2009 meeting of the General Synod of the Church of England, Bishop Wright discussed the criteria for decision on such matters, arguing from the 2008 Kuala Lumpur report of the third Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission (paragraph 104).  He maintains that a Communion-wide, rather than a local, decision needs to be made when the subject matter possesses the characteristics of intensity, substance and extent, at least unless a strong presumption to that effect is rebutted.  Says Bishop Wright:

Where a matter presses these three buttons a strong initial case is made that the issue cannot be decided locally with everybody else simply told to accept difference.  That might be the eventual decision, but if the matter possesses Intensity, Substance and Extent you can’t and shouldn’t assume it.  To do so would be a cavalier flouting of the very nature of Communion.

 

The “intensity, substance and extent” criteria were subsequently rearticulated by the Archbishop of Canterbury in his July 27, 2009 reflection “Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future,” where he noted that a recognition that intensity, substance and extent are lacking “cannot be wished into being by one local church alone.”  The “intensity, substance and extent” criteria were thereafter incorporated into section 3.2.5 of the text of the Anglican Covenant.

Taking all this into account, what is the result -- on the merits -- of the Church’s consideration of whether the sexuality issues are adiaphora?  Bishop Wright gives the following answer in his May 2010 address.

[I]n the case of sexual relations outside the marriage of a man and a woman, the church as a whole, in all its global meetings not least the Lambeth Conference, has solidly and consistently reaffirmed the clear and unambiguous teaching of the New Testament. But the substantive issue isn’t the point here. The point is that the Church as a whole has never declared these matters to be adiaphora. This isn’t something a Bishop, a parish, a diocese, or a province can declare on its own authority. You can’t simply say that you have decided that this is something we can all agree to differ on. Nobody can just ‘declare’ that. The step from mandatory to optional can never itself be a local option, and the Church as a whole has declared that the case for that step has not been made. By all means let us have the debate. But, as before, it must be a proper theological debate, not a postmodern exchange of prejudices.

When Bishop Wright provides his clear articulation of the vital Anglican doctrine of adiaphora and how the Church decides which disagreements can be tolerated without endangering unity, he is not inventing something new.  The concept of distinguishing acceptable from unacceptable forms of diversity is developed extensively in The Windsor Report, particularly paragraphs 36-37 and 71-96.  (Included in the Windsor discussion in the concept of autonomy, which is found to signify within Anglican discourse something quite different from Fr. Levenson’s idea that a solution to the sexuality debate turns on according respect for the autonomy of clergy and their parishes.)  While it was not the purpose of The Windsor Report to consider the sexuality issues on their merits, it may be noted that the report does observe that “the overwhelming response from other Christians both inside and outside of the Anglican family has been to regard these developments (the consecration of Gene Robinson experimentation with same-sex blessings in The Episcopal Church and related developments in Canada) as departures from genuine, apostolic Christian faith.” (paragraph 28)

As indicated by his use of the "intensity, substance and extent" criteria mentioned above, the Archbishop of Canterbury also takes as a given that there are limits to acceptable forms of diversity. Archbishop Rowan associates the limitations on diversity with the objective of maintaining recognizability to other local churches.  In the same “Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future” talk, he said the following:

When a local church seeks to respond to a new question, to the challenge of possible change in its practice or discipline in the light of new facts, new pressures, or new contexts, as local churches have repeatedly sought to do, it needs some way of including in its discernment the judgement of the wider Church. Without this, it risks becoming unrecognisable to other local churches, pressing ahead with changes that render it strange to Christian sisters and brothers across the globe. . . . This is not some piece of modern bureaucratic absolutism, but the conviction of the Church from its very early days.

More recently in his 2010 Pentecost Letter to the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican Communion, in the course of proposing that representatives of TEC and other provinces that have policies that breach the requested moratoria not participate in certain Communion activities, he states:

This is simply to confirm what the Communion as a whole has come to regard as the acceptable limits of diversity in its practice.

Further, the Archbishop observes:

To maintain outward unity at a formal level while we are convinced that the divisions are not only deep but damaging to our local mission is not a good thing.

As The Windsor Report and Bishop Wright make clear, the principle we are talking about finds its classic biblical expression in Romans 14:1 – 15:13 and in 1 Corinthians 8-10.  It was invoked and developed by the early English Reformers and has been a major feature of Anglican theology since then.  This makes it all the more surprising, in my opinion, that Fr. Levenson makes no mention in his article of any such basis for deciding whether particular issues should or should not be subject to the local option approach he and Mr. Baker advocate.  Somewhat discordantly, in a lengthy January 2008 letter to the members of St. Martin’s, Fr. Levenson says, “Windsor specifically asked that TEC express regret and repentance for its actions of GC’03 in the approval of the consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire and for allowing a kind of ‘local option’ on same-sex unions.”  If there is a distinction between the allowance of local option on same sex unions viewed as something to be repented of in 2008 and the local option now put forward as a solution, that distinction does not seem to be one that has been explained.

Who are the schismatics?

Instead of dealing explicitly with the issue of whether disagreement over sexuality issues can be tolerated without endangering unity, Fr. Levenson posits a conflict between conservatives who have “taken up the arms of schismatic and pietistic separation from those deemed unholy” and liberals who have “returned the favor by failing to include the conservatives fully, often deeming them as a dying breed that needs to catch up, convert, or move on.”  As noted above, Fr. Levenson does not provide criteria for determining when, for example, ordinary conservatism turns into schismatic and pietistic separation. Consistent with his subtitle “Reclaiming the Middle Way,” he seems to be positioning his local option solution between the extremes he identifies.  Since he doesn’t acknowledge the traditional Anglican concept of determining what is or isn’t adiaphora as a possible argument against his approach, and since no other criteria are identified, one might perhaps be justified in concluding that Fr. Levenson identifies the schismatics and pietists as the ones who don’t buy into his “middle way.”

Can local option be associated with the Anglican Covenant?  

Finally, to come back to something alluded to earlier, is Fr. Levenson’s second alternative in which local choice would be linked to adoption or affirmation of the Anglican Covenant something that is aligned with the Covenant's objectives?  Certainly many proponents of the Anglican Covenant advocate the possibility of diocesan adoption.  This is an aspect of the “other Church adoption” issue discussed in the blog entry immediately preceding this one.  The difference is that “other Church adoption” in the context of the Anglican Covenant is typically viewed as a “lifeline” (as it was termed by the Bishop of Winchester) for a diocese that wishes to remain recognizably Anglican when its province does not.  This is quite different from local option premised on a valuing of autonomy or “roominess” desired as an end in itself.  It is one thing to think about contingencies as to how dioceses or aggregations of parishes might adopt the Anglican Covenant (assuming that becomes possible) or stay aligned with the Communion given that TEC seems determined to take another path.  It is something else to promote affirmatively agreement on a permanent structure for local option.

 

The Anglican Covenant and Adoption by “other Churches”

Was there an effort to pull the life preserver out of reach of dissenting TEC dioceses?

  There has been considerable critical discussion of the composition and role of the “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion” in connection with the Anglican Covenant that is now out for consideration by the Provinces of the Anglican Communion.[1]  The subject taken up here is related but different – the evolution of the “other Church adoption” provision of the Covenant, found in Section 4.1.5.  The Covenant text provides that the Churches that are invited to adopt it in the first instance are the current member Churches of the Anglican Communion.  (See Section 4.1.4.)  Section 4.1.5 makes provision for “other Churches” – Churches other than the currently recognized Churches of the Anglican Communion – to be invited to adopt the Covenant as well.

  The significance of other Church adoption has largely been seen in terms of the potential for adoption by dioceses within Provinces which do not adopt, for example by dioceses within The Episcopal Church, and by newly organized Churches such as the Anglican Church in North America.  Some disappointment among people to whom these possibilities are important accompanied the release of the final Covenant text in December 2009.  The disappointment stemmed from a raising of the bar for such adoptions to occur and an indication that there would be a delay of over two years before any invitations for other Churches to adopt might even be issued. [2]  It will be argued below that the changes to Section 4.1.5 that may stand in the way of prompt use of this provision were neither compelled by nor reflective of more than a small minority sentiment expressed in the comments received from the member Churches of the Communion.

  First, the nature of the changes that raised the bar should be stated more specifically.  In the April 2009 Ridley Cambridge Draft (RCD), Section 4.1.5 provided simply that it would be open to other Churches to adopt the Covenant.  It went on to state that adoption would not bring any right of recognition by, or membership in, the Instruments of Communion, but that adoption of the Covenant could be accompanied by a request for such recognition and membership.  No procedures or formalities were prescribed for the process of adoption itself.  The result was that, notwithstanding that adoption would not itself result in membership in the Instruments of Communion, it would offer the opportunity to make a covenantal undertaking pursuant to a Communion process, and to be able to do so expeditiously.  Support for allowing a diocese to be a Covenant signatory where its Province was unwilling to make the requisite commitment was not limited to minorities within TEC but also found expression, for example, in remarks to the February 2009 General Synod of the Church of England by the Bishop of Winchester, Michael Scott-Joynt, who supported providing anxious dioceses within TEC “the lifeline of remaining recognizably Anglican” even if TEC as a Province chose another course. [3]

  In the final text revised by the Covenant Working Group and approved by the Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) in December 2009, Section 4.1.5 was changed to contemplate that other Church adoption would be by invitation from the Instruments of Communion and that adoption would be by the same procedures set out by the Anglican Consultative Council for the amendment of its schedule of membership.  The idea that there would be a two-plus year delay before invitations would be considered was not contained in the Covenant text itself but in a December 18, 2009 letter from Canon Kenneth Kearon.  Canon Kearon’s letter attributed the decision in favor of delay to the ACC’s Standing Committee, even though under the revised Covenant text such invitations are the prerogative of the Instruments of Communion, not the Standing Committee.   The combination of a completely new gatekeeping function and a built-in delay meant that the lifeline referred to by the Bishop of Winchester, although not completely removed, was pulled away from near-term reach.[4]

  In discussing the desirability of having a provision that expressly allows for expeditious adoption by other Churches, we are not considering here the case that can be made that under TEC’s constitutional polity it is the dioceses that have the inherent right to determine whether or not to commit to the Covenant (noting that under Section 4.1.4, adoption by a member Church is to be in accordance with its own constitutional procedures). [5] There is no indication that the decisions by the Working Group and Standing Committee to change Section 4.1.5 were made in reliance on any assumption that TEC dioceses (for example) could act under Section 4.1.4, and we wish here to assess the changes on a basis that does not make such an assumption either.

  The story of the action at the ACC’s May 2009 meeting in Jamaica (ACC-14) that resulted in Section 4 of the Covenant text being returned to the Provinces for further comment has been recounted before and will not be dwelt upon at length here.  Suffice it to say that there was substantial confusion arising from multiple attempts by a minority of members to derail Section 4, resulting in doubt as to whether most of the members understood what they were actually voting on when they narrowly passed an amendment that was interpreted to open Section 4 of the Covenant to revision. [6]  Compounding the confusion were specific failures to follow the Council’s own written procedures pertaining to debate on motions before the Council, which are in accord with accepted parliamentary practice. [7]

  Even under the view of the proceedings taken by the ACC bureaucracy, only a small majority (51%) of ACC members voted in favor of the resolution that was regarded as calling for Section 4 to be returned to the Provinces for additional comment.  This resolution requested appointment by the Archbishop of Canterbury of a “small working group to consider and consult with the Provinces on Section 4 and its possible revision, and to report to the next meeting of the Standing Committee.” [8]  The question then may be asked:  Putting aside whether the process was properly authorized, what were the results of the consultation and revision process, particularly with respect to Section 4.1.5, and were the changes that were made to Section 4.1.5 warranted by the comments received from the member Churches? [9]
 

  Out of 38 national Churches (34 Provinces and 4 United Churches),[10] 17 provided no written comments at all.  Of the Churches that commented, five (the Churches in Ireland, Japan, Papua New Guinea, South Africa, and Tanzania) expressed support for the entirety of Section 4 of the April Ridley Cambridge Draft.   Since it seems reasonable to assume that those not submitting written comments on Section 4 were satisfied with it as it stood, adding these five Churches to the 17 that did not make written submissions yields a minimum support level of 58% before even considering the nature of the remaining comments.  Without more, this is substantial evidence in support of the view that the confusion and failure to follow the ACC’s own rules and procedures yielded a result to return Section 4 to the Provinces that ran counter to actual sentiment within the member Churches. 

  Starting with this base of 22 Churches, we find that another three Churches (those in North India, the Southern Cone and Wales) commented or requested clarification only on issues not having to do with the “other Church” adoption provisions of Section 4.1.5.  This places the level of “non-objection” to Section 4.1.5 as it existed in the April 2009 RCD at a minimum of 66%, before considering the comments that deal specifically with Section 4.1.5.

  The comments that deal specifically with Section 4.1.5 can be grouped into those that comment adversely on the language of the RCD, either by suggesting changes or otherwise expressing a negative view of it, those that comment positively and those that merely raise questions or suggest clarification.  Those expressing a negative view include the Churches in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia (stating, for example, that allowing individual churches to adopt where the province does not has the potential to create strife and confusion), Australia (viewing other Church adoption as directed to ecumenical dialogue rather than internal relationships within the Communion) and Brazil (stating that other Church adoption raises doubts about “schismatic Anglican churches that have broken communion within existing Provinces” and suggesting “disfiguration of Anglicanism” as a possible outcome).  The United States Episcopal Church also seems to belong in this category, because although some of its comments seem only to raise questions,[11] TEC also expressed the view that if there were to be a body that “determined membership or implementation of a covenant” it should be exclusively the role of the Anglican Consultative Council.  The comments of the Scottish Episcopal Church also sought clarification as to “who (Diocese or Province) would sign the Covenant” and as to “the status of dioceses or congregations within the Scottish Episcopal Church who find themselves at odds with a decision by the Scottish Episcopal Church regarding the acceptance or otherwise of the Covenant.”  Although the comments from Scotland could be viewed as neutral as to the text of Section 4.1.5, the comments also expressed a general feeling that Section 4 is unclear and ambiguous and could “even lead to, and enshrine schism” and therefore it might be reasonable to classify Scotland in the negative category.  The comments from the Church of the Province of the Indian Ocean (assuming I follow the French correctly) propose that the request for adoption by other Churches should be accompanied by a request to the Instruments for recognition and membership and action on both should be taken together in accordance with each Instrument’s procedures.  Although they do not oppose other Church adoption, they would appear to place an effort to adopt on the same track as an application for recognition and membership.  If we add TEC, Scotland and the Indian Ocean to New Zealand, Australia and Brazil, there are six Churches to be classified as viewing Section 4.1.5 of the April RCD negatively, at least in some respects.  On a percentage basis, this is about 16% of the 38 Churches considered.     

  Even this 16% figure exaggerates the degree of opposition on the basis of the provincial commentary the Working Group actually had before it, because the responses from Brazil and the Indian Ocean were not received until after the Working Group had met. [12]  On this basis, the Working Group had before it when it did its work negative responses from about 10.5% of the 38 member Churches.  

 

  The Churches commenting positively on Section 4.1.5 would include Canada (suggesting that only the first sentence remain, i.e., “It shall be open to other Churches to adopt the Covenant” [13]), England (limiting other Church adoption to those in the Anglican tradition, specifically including dioceses, and providing that adoption constitutes a request to the Instruments for recognition and membership), South East Asia (discussing unspecified proposed amendments to Section 4.1.5 and concluding that the section should stand as proposed in April) and Uganda (insisting that Section 4.1.5 needed to remain unaltered).  The Churches raising questions about Section 4.1.5 or suggesting clarification in a seemingly neutral manner include Burundi (suggesting the need for clarification as to the circumstances when dioceses may sign when a province does not), Jerusalem and the Middle East (asking what is the meaning of the word “Church” when referring other than to a Province [14]) and the West Indies (expressing the concern that further clarification of “other Church” adoption would be useful).

  In light of the comments, it is instructive to examine the Covenant Working Group’s rationale for the changes it made to Section 4.1.5.  In their commentary on the Revisions to Section 4,[15] they said the following:

In response to the question, ‘what happens if Churches other than current member Churches of the Anglican Consultative Council wish to adopt the Covenant?’ the Working Group was concerned that due process was needed. The procedures set out in the Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council for amendment of its Schedule of Membership provide a suitable course of deliberation and consultation with the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting before an invitation to consider adoption of the Covenant by any such Church is agreed upon. The Working Group incorporated these principles in Section 4.1.5.

The Working Group concluded that “due process was needed.”  But there is no showing of how the April Ridley Cambridge draft was lacking in due process.  It prescribed a different process, certainly, but what constitutes due process cannot be determined in the abstract but only by reference to some understanding of rights to be protected or purposes sought to be achieved.  A principal feature of Section 4.1.5 in the RCD was that it made clear that the process for recognition and membership in the Instruments was not changed.  Adoption of the Covenant stands separately and it is hard to see how a more flexible and expeditious procedure for other Church adoption, especially when there is a need such as the “lifeline” objective identified by the Bishop of Winchester, compromises due process.  If the operative provisions of the Covenant are examined, including the rights and responsibilities assigned, there does not appear to be a risk associated with a Church’s making a covenant with parties that may include some not initially named.  If there were thought to be such a risk, it appears it was not one identified by the commenters.  It would have been reasonable for the Working Group to have incorporated changes such as the one suggested in comments by The Church of England to restrict other Church adoption to Churches (including dioceses) in the Anglican tradition, because it could be anticipated that such a change would be noncontroversial.  That cannot be said about the changes that were made, and the Working Group and Standing Committee must surely have known this.

  The new process incorporated in Section 4.1.5 as revised by the Working Group provides that “The Instruments of Communion may invite other Churches to adopt the Covenant using the same procedures as set out by the Anglican Consultative Council for the amendment of its schedule of membership.”  To what activity does the “using the same procedures” requirement apply?  The natural reading is that it relates to the procedure to adopt rather than to be invited to adopt, just as the Constitutional procedures for amending the schedule lead to being added to it, not being invited to do so.  But the Working Group’s commentary states otherwise, i.e., that the procedures for ACC membership must be followed prior to issuance of an invitation to an “other Church” even to consider adoption.  One can ask what could be the objective of such an interpretation other than delay. 

  The problems associated with the Standing Committee of the ACC assuming for itself the role of “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion” have been dealt with in detail elsewhere. [16]  It is worthwhile to emphasize here that if the “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion” is identified with the existing Standing Committee of the ACC, whether the role is performed by the Standing Committee or by the ACC itself,[17] the changes made to Section 4.1.5 give the ACC a gatekeeping role with respect to other Church adoption.  It is true that adoption under the revised procedures would also require the assent of two-thirds of the Primates, but it is the role of the ACC that seems to present the greater concern, particularly in light of the proceedings at ACC-14.  Even if the changes originated with the Working Group, it seems inappropriate for the Standing Committee to have approved changes it understood to elevate its own role in such a material way without a clear demonstration of support from the member Churches.

  In the introductory portion of its commentary on the revisions to Section 4, the Working Group expressed the intention to observe a principle of minimal revision and to maintain consistency with the work that had already achieved a wide measure of support.  They also said the changes they incorporated were in faithfulness to the provincial responses.  But following those statements, they said:

Where a point seemed to be particularly strongly and well made, or if it was made by a range of responses, the Group gave full consideration to how the text could be amended to meet that point.

That is, if the Working Group considered that a point was “particularly strongly and well made” it would be incorporated even if not included in “a range of responses.”  Which Church’s comments can be read to support the view that the ACC should be a gatekeeper for other Church adoption?  That of TEC, whose comments stated, “If there were to be a body that determined membership and implementation of a covenant, deputies and deputations felt that should be exclusively the role of the Anglican Consultative Council.”[18]  That under the procedure adopted the Primates would also serve a gatekeeping role is not particularly relevant because TEC’s concerns would have been the ability to prevent adoptions by its dioceses, and the ACC alone could do that.  Nor is it an answer to say that the ACC’s gatekeeping function has been delegated to its Standing Committee, expanded to include some Primates as a minority of its members, because ACC members are still a numeric majority and (contrary to what has been suggested), the Committee’s responsibilities are to the ACC and not the Primates.  (For this and other reasons, the identification of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion with the existing Standing Committee of the ACC is not an assumption that should be accepted.)

  It is hard to escape the strong suspicion that the changes to Section 4.1.5 and the accompanying statements as to how it would be applied were made in deference to TEC’s wishes, especially given the strong likelihood that there would soon occur a demonstration of TEC’s unwillingness to adhere to Covenant principles that would make the case for the ability of dioceses to adopt more compelling.  Indeed by the time the Standing Committee met on December 15-18 and acted to approve the revised Covenant text, the Los Angeles diocese had already acted to elect Canon Mary Glasspool as suffragan bishop.  Knowing what was likely to occur, it was advantageous for TEC to have the bar to other Church adoption raised as high as possible.

  It may be hoped that covenanting Churches will take appropriate action to put the lifeline back in reach of those in need of it.

---

[1]  See, e.g., Christopher Seitz, Philip Turner, Ephraim Radner and Mark McCall, The Anglican Communion Covenant: Where Do We Go From Here? (Anglican Communion Institute, Inc., January 31, 2010), http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/2010/01/the-anglican-communion-covenant-where-do-we-go-from-here/; Stephen Noll, Communion Governance: The Role and Future of the Historic Episcopate and the Anglican Communion Covenant (American Anglican Council, February 25, 2010), http://www.americananglican.org/assets/News-and-Commentary-Files/2010/03-2010/COMMUNION-GOVERNANCE.pdf.

[2]  The indication of a two-plus year delay appeared in a statement accompanying the release of the final text, mentioned below.

[3]  Links to the report under discussion and audio of the session are at http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/gsfeb120209am.html.  The Bishop of Winchester’s remarks were transcribed by blog commenter Pageantmaster at http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/20339/#335834.  The Bishop expressed this view while recognizing the current legal position that in the Church of England an individual diocese would not be able to sign the Covenant.  The view that dioceses should be able to sign the Covenant (where permitted by provincial law) in furtherance of the objective of healing both historic and more recent fractures within global Anglicanism was also expressed in the comments of the Church of England on Section 4.  Church of England Proposals for the Revision of Section 4 of the Ridley Cambridge Draft of the Anglican Covenant, http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/covenant/docs/ridley_church_of_england.pdf.

[4]  In his December 17, 2009 video message, Archbishop Williams stated that the Covenant text makes it clear that “at some point” it would be open for adoption by other Ecclesial bodies, and that in the meantime anyone who wished could affirm its principles.  But anyone can affirm whatever principles they want whether invited to do so or not.  Without minimizing the helpfulness of these and earlier remarks of Dr. Williams, what is lost by the change is the ability to proceed expeditiously to adopt the Covenant through a formal process, conceived within the Communion, which expressly allows a contemporaneous application for full recognition and membership.

[5]  See Christopher Seitz, Philip Turner, Ephraim Radner and Mark McCall, Communion Partner Dioceses and The Anglican Covenant (Anglican Communion Institute, Inc., September 8, 2009), http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/2009/09/communion-partner-dioceses-and-the-anglican-covenant/, and Mark McCall, TEC Polity, The Civil Law and the Anglican Covenant  (Anglican Communion Institute, Inc., October 19, 2009), http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/2009/10/tec-polity-the-civil-law-and-the-anglican-covenant/.

[6]  See ACC-14: Did the Members Know What They Were Voting On?” (Anglican Communion Institute, Inc., May 28, 2009), http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/2009/05/acc-14-did-the-members-know-what-they-were-voting-on/.

[7]  See Mike Watson and Mark McCall, ACC-14: Did the Clauses on Section 4 Ever Pass? (Anglican Communion Institute, Inc., May 28, 2009), http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/2009/05/acc-14-did-the-clauses-on-section-4-ever-pass/.

[8]  According to the resolution, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s appointments were to be made “in consultation with the Secretary General.”  The appointees were:  The Most Rev’d Dr. John Neill (Chair) (The Church of Ireland); The Most Rev’d Dr. John Chew (Church of the Province of South East Asia); Dr. Eileen Scully (Anglican Church of Canada); and The Rt. Rev’d Dr. Gregory Cameron (The Church in Wales).  Classified as staff were; The Rev’d Canon Joanna Udal (Lambeth Palace); and Mr. Neil Vigers (ACO).  Not listed in the initial announcement but listed in the group’s final commentary as staff is the Rev’d Canon Dr Alyson Barnett-Cowan (ACO).

[9]  The written comment submissions may be found at http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/covenant/responses/index.cfm.

[10]  The term Provinces is sometimes used to refer to all the national Churches, including those that are technically United Churches rather than Provinces.

[11]  TEC found ambiguity regarding the meaning of “Church” and especially “other Churches” and asked if a province in one geographic area chose not to sign, could a new province in that area do so.

[12]  The lateness of these responses is mentioned in the material linked in footnote 9.

[13]  The suggestion from the Canadian church to delete the remaining language of RCD Section 4.1.5 appears to have stemmed largely from a misconception that Section 4.1.5 could be read to apply to existing Provinces that became Covenant signatories so as to require them to reapply for recognition by the Instruments, which was not the case.

[14]  Although the questions proposed in the Provincial comments appear to be expressed neutrally, the submitter of the comments, Bishop Mouneer Hanna Anis, added his own comments in the capacity of Bishop of Egypt.  Addressing the situation in which a Province refuses to sign but dioceses within the Province wish to adopt the Covenant, Bishop Mouneer stated his belief that it would be unfair to ignore the request of such dioceses.  The comments from the Province of Jerusalem and the Middle East are accompanied by a note expressing the apologies of the Anglican Communion Office that although emailed prior to the Working Group’s meeting, due to technical problems the comments were not seen until after the Working Party had met.

[15]  The Working Group’s commentary may be accessed at http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/covenant/final/commentary.cfm.

[16]  See the papers cited in footnote 1.

[17]  Under a change to the ACC’s constitution finalized only recently, it is now the Standing Committee rather than the full Council that acts in connection with changes to the ACC’s schedule of membership.

[18]   It is difficult to see this comment as meeting the Working Group’s criterion of being “particularly strong and well made.”  It is worth contrasting this position taken on behalf of TEC with the comments of the Church of England on the St. Andrew’s Draft of the Covenant text expressing the belief that the Anglican Consultative Council in its present form is not capable of fulfilling the responsibility that would be given to it under the Covenant text.  See A Covenant for the Anglican Communion – Comments from the Church of England, paragraph 28 (February 2009), http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/covenant/docs/06_england.pdf.

The DOT Standing Committee's consent as to Glasspool and further reflections on the Council's same-sex resolution

Now that Canon Mary Glasspool has received the expected consents for ordination as bishop, it seems in order to consider further the role of the standing committee of the Diocese of Texas.  I received information that on March 12, 2010 the standing committee of the Diocese of Texas released the following statement concerning its consent to Mary Glasspool’s becoming a bishop.  (I received this statement in an email and assume it to be accurate.)

  The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Texas met on February 12, 2010 to consider consents to election for several bishop elections, including Canon Mary Glasspool as a Suffragan Bishop of Los Angeles.  Following prolonged discussion, the Standing Committee voted to consent to the election.

  Representing a diverse spectrum of theological perspectives, the Standing Committee prayerfully considered multiple facets of this election, including canonical compliance and Canon Glasspool’s suitability for the Diocese of Los Angeles and the larger church.  While not uniform in our discernment, we felt led by the Holy Spirit to a strong majority decision to consent.

  We sincerely thank our brothers and sisters in Christ for your prayers and invite continued dialogue on this issue and others. We are aware that our decision differs from Bishop Doyle’s position; we have communicated with him about this issue and will continue to work with him collegially and congenially. We appreciate Bishop Doyle’s recognition and support of the Standing Committee as an independent body, and will continue to be in conversation with him about all aspects of our communal life.

Prior to the issuance of this statement, a report on the Diocese of Texas web site (http://www.epicenter.org/edot/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=646&SnID=1834046764) quoted the new president of the standing committee as saying, "We voted on the side of justice" and also, "I felt any dissent to her election was only based on her sexuality and we've been discussing that in this diocese for 30 years."  This seemed to me to be glibly dismissive of the views of a majority of the world’s Anglicans and at the same time suggestive of an intention to press further in the same direction in the future (because those who make something into a "justice" issue are not going to be inclined to allow the injustice to continue).

When I read this earlier report, I thought surely the standing committee owes the diocese a better explanation than this.  I suppose we now have the formal explanation in the form of the statement quoted above, but it hardly seems better.  For example, the explanation fails to explain why the committee chose to disregard the understanding of sexual ethics reflected in the diocese's canon on moral discipline (canon 43), which classifies as the received teaching of the Church the teaching that all of the Church’s members are to abstain from sexual relations outside Holy Matrimony, defined as between a man and a woman. Canon 43 also states that the moral qualifications of a person, as that term is used in the Canons of the Episcopal Church, include conformity to the obligation of clergy to model in their own lives this received teaching.  This canon on moral discipline has withstood several attempts at prior annual councils to change or repeal it. 

Although the standing committee’s statement makes reference to canonical compliance, the action it took was in no way required by TEC’s canons.  On the other hand, the standing committee’s action is inconsistent with the Diocese’s own canonically expressed views as to the Church’s received teaching and as to clergy qualifications.  Perhaps the standing committee thinks the moral discipline canon won't survive the next council, and if so perhaps they are right.  But it hardly seems their role to act unilaterally to anticipate such a result.  Too, nowhere do the standing committee members even mention the significance of what they have done as an act in furtherance of a violation of one of the moratoria to which the Anglican Communion instruments have repeatedly urged adherence.

It appears the standing committee did what they wanted to do because they could.  Saying that "this is where the Holy Spirit led us" is but the usual euphemism for behavior sought to be justified on grounds that are hard to regard as other than self-referential.

Unfortunately, the Diocese's problems are not confined to a rogue standing committee.  I return to the subject of the so-called unity resolution that was passed at the annual council last month (referred to in the two entries immediately below) and ask, if presumably orthodox leaders are supporting the view expressed in this resolution, who is going to credibly challenge actions like the standing committee's?  The standing committee’s vote on the Glasspool consent took place on the day the Diocese’s annual council convened.  (This is according to the statement quoted above; the report on the Diocese’s website says the vote took place the preceding day.)  One might have thought the standing committee, having waited over two months since the election, would have considered it wise to obtain a sense of the Council.  But given the support for the resolution on same-sex relationships, it seems reasonable to wonder what that sense might have turned out to be.

To recap, the "unity resolution" had its origin in the form of two resolutions affirming the integrity of same-sex relationships.  They did not claim to be unity resolutions.  Two rounds of pre-council adjustment and tweaking consolidated the resolutions into one, left the substance the same (as confirmed by successive claims that the "spirit" of the resolutions was retained through both sets of changes), added a bare claim to unity in the first resolve and changed the title to "a resolution of unity within our diversity."  The original proponents, including one of the standing committee members advancing the Glasspool consent, were still quite satisfied.  But along the way, a group of clergy identified generally as conservative apparently decided (in effect), "let's tell ourselves it can be read to mean something else, and sponsor it too."

There do not seem to be many other than those involved more or less directly who are interested in trying to defend the actions of the conservative clergy group that signed on to the resolution legitimizing same-sex relationships.  Some of the few who have tried are insistent that the resolution that emerged as a result of their involvement was at least a minor improvement on what the resolutions committee put forward.  But when they are pressed to explain how so by reference to specific language, no coherent explanation seems to me to have emerged.  

Is there an explanation for the endorsement by nominally conservative leaders that goes beyond naïveté and language skills that weren’t quite up to the task?  If this resolution amounts to anything other than the complete capitulation on sexual ethics that it appears on its face to be, a likely alternative explanation is that it’s a less sophisticated version of the kind of “evolving” thinking reflected in the recent Presidential Address by the Bishop of Liverpool, James Jones. Bishop James, once an evangelical Anglican committed to traditional teaching, has apparently been in the process of shifting his positions in recent years.  In his recent address, he argues for an overt acceptance of ethical diversity on sexuality without basing his argument on any engagement with Scripture or Anglican tradition.   Viewed as a similar tilt in the direction of ethical diversity, the resolution and the rationalizations for it deserve the same criticism given to +James Jones' address by the Rev. Dr. Andrew Goddard:  ". . . [T]he whole pattern of reasoning is disturbingly like that of the North American churches - weak on biblical and theological reasoning, emphasising the reality of diversity of views found within the local or national church, and calling for seemingly uncritical acceptance of that diversity and hence abandonment of traditional teaching and discipline."

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=518.

How, more specifically, does this James Jones-like ethical diversity manifest itself in the resolution?   There is evidence that some people who have been viewed as orthodox leaders are saying that the place we are going to hold the line in our parish is on sacramental recognition of same-sex unions, specifically, on calling or employing ordained ministers in such relationships or allowing same-sex marriage rites or blessings of unions.  Short of this sacramental line, however, they are emphasizing in an increasingly open manner that they are accepting of ethical diversity on how to regard non-celibate same sex relationships.  In the context of the resolution approved at council, one such member of the clergy argued to me that we "honor" gay couples (in the sense endorsed by the resolution) by our hospitality, by inviting them to join the parish, by allowing them to serve in ministries and by welcoming them to the Lord's Supper.  He additionally cited an instance of baptism of the child of a same-sex couple as something that in some sense legitimized the same-sex relationship.  Note that the argument here goes beyond an affirmation of an intent to provide pastoral care to individuals in such relationships and to be generous in the exercise of discretion in the administration of that care.  The argument is rather that these things and others are ways of honoring or legitimizing same-sex relationships as such.  And the drawing of the line on a sacramental versus non-sacramental basis was affirmed by the same priest in stating his view that the parish is of one mind regarding sacraments that would legitimize sexual activity outside of marriage, but are all over the map when it comes to honoring, supporting or legitimizing such activity other than sacramentally.   He further said that persons in the “all over the map” category include a number of the parish’s strongest and most visible leaders.  

In all this, there is an apparent lack of recognition that this distinction (sacramental versus non-sacramental) is not ground that is capable of being held, and indeed it is wrong to try if one is proceeding rationally.  Reasons for this include that without the ethical undergirding, the sacramental restrictions seem arbitrary, that abandoning the ethical teaching cannot be done without distorting sound anthropology, soteriology and Christology, and that pastoral care that attempts to legitimate same-sex relationships is not really in the best interests of the intended beneficiaries of that care. 

The possibility also exists that in some cases there is not a lack of recognition that maintaining sacramental restrictions while abandoning the moral and ethical undergirding is not ground that can ultimately be held, but a calculation that it will keep people in the boat until culture and demographics evolve to the extent it will no longer be necessary to maintain the distinction.  I am not suggesting this is true in any particular case, but it certainly seems to be a possibility.

Diocese of Texas passes council resolution according legitimacy to same-sex relationships

Houston clergy identified as conservatives join with original supporters

This is an update to the entry immediately below, which commented on a then-proposed Annual Council resolution according honor to same-sex relationships and stating that God is made known in and through such relationships.   The resolution, modified in some details from the version proposed by the diocese’s resolutions committee but still to the same effect, was approved by vote of the Council on February 13.[1] Somewhat surprisingly, it passed with the support of several clergy generally identified as having a conservative view, who signed on as named proponents of the resolution alongside the five proponents (three clergy and two lay) of the original resolutions submitted to the committee.  All five of these new proponents are clergy from Houston, two of them being rectors of the Diocese’s largest two parishes. Four of the five are listed on the Communion Partners web site as Communion Partner Rectors[2]and one of these four is listed as a member of the Communion Partner Clergy Steering Committee.  These new named proponents of the resolution do not include any laypersons, and accounts of the Council meeting published on the diocese’s web site do not indicate that any laypersons identified with the conservative side spoke from the Council floor in support of the resolution.  The text of the resolution, the names and parish identifications of the proponents and a summary of statements made from the floor appear at http://161council.blogspot.com/2010/02/final-council-actions-and-elections_16.html(scroll down to Resolutions).[3]

In some pre-council dialog, claims were made that the conservative clergy proponents had negotiated significant changes to the resolution endorsed by the resolutions committee as it existed prior to their involvement.  This turned out not to be the case.  Although the final resolution includes several changes put forward by the conservative proponents, the most significant one seems to be the change from a listing of the sexual identity categories gay, lesbian and transgendered to a reference to various sexual orientations.   That change doesn’t alter the fact that the resolution expresses a legitimization of different forms of relationship without making any distinction between same-sex relationships and other relationships such as marital ones. 

One clergy proponent of the resolution who is identified with the conservative side provided insight into the rationale for conservative support.  The view he expressed does not assume that there exists any clear understanding of how the resolution does or doesn’t apply to same-sex relationships, but is premised instead on the possibility of different interpretations.  The key language is the passage stating that all people and their relationships are to receive “the pastoral care, time, attention and honor they are due as God is revealed in and through them.”  The clergy proponent related to me his view that this can be read to admit of the possibilities both that same-sex relationships should be honored and that they should not, depending on whether or not God is revealed in and through them.  Therefore, he said, both sides can claim a "win" for now and the conservatives will gain needed time.  According to this proponent, there was a great deal of discussion about the “as God is revealed in and through them” phrasing, resulting in a decision to leave it in the resolution agreed to by the group indentified with the conservative side.

As an initial matter, the language itself is not easily read to convey the degree of conditionality this explanation implies.  And even if the language could be regarded as a unity gesture of this nature, it was not something negotiated by the conservative group, the language at issue being essentially the same as that which had been produced by the resolutions committee.  Moreover, it seems odd to characterize as a “resolution of unity” a resolution as to which agreement depends on completely opposite understandings about what we all know to be the issue in dispute.  Put another way, is it a good thing or a troubling thing for a diocesan council to adopt a resolution premised on an assumption that there is unity when there isn’t?  What would be the theological basis for a conception of Christian unity underlying this understanding of the resolution?  And if the conservative proponents did think they were making a gesture of unity, might not they have had reason to know it would not be reciprocated, in light of information circulating that the Standing Committee of the Diocese (including one of the principal proponents of the original resolutions) either had consented or was expected to consent to the consecration of the Rev. Canon Mary Glasspool as suffragan bishop of Los Angeles?

That a plausible reading of the final resolution is hard to square with a “unity created by ambiguity” approach is also demonstrated by the resolutions committee’s statement (made in putting forth its own resolution in substitution for the two original resolutions that had been submitted to it) that it intended to preserve the spirit of the two original resolutions.  Later on the floor of Council, in moving the substitution of the so-called compromise amendment, one of the new proponents, according to the account on the Diocese’s web site, articulated the belief that the revised resolution expresses the spirit of the original resolution.  Even if by “original resolution” he meant the committee’s substitute rather than the two originals, the successive articulations of the intention to preserve the spirit have sufficient transitivity to establish a linkage of the passed resolution back to the two originals, at least one of which was decidedly unambiguous.

Finally, if the conservative rationale for the resolution was premised on ambiguity that allows it to be understood a different way, what is one to make of the fact that, at least in the record of the statements from the floor on the diocese’s web site, none of the proponents identified with the conservative view stated or even hinted at this rationale?  The statements from the non-conservative supporters of the resolution were clear enough as to how they thought it applied to same-sex relationships.  The two statements from the floor made by those identified with the conservative side appear not to have implied any contrary view, but were cast in the broadest generalities.

As noted in the entry below, none of what is being pointed out here is an argument that persons in same-sex relationships are not loved by God or that they are not entitled to pastoral care.  Rather, what is noted is that appropriate pastoral care will resist actions to legitimate same-sex relationships.  Nor is it argued that a relationship between members of the same sex, like any human relationship, cannot have elements of good such as mutual caring (see, e.g., True Union in the Body? (a study commissioned by Archbishop Drexel Gomez), paragraph 4.27). 

The historical parallels, discussed in the entry below, between the adopted resolution and TEC General Convention D039 (2000) and the subsequent use of the adoption of D039 to further the arguments for rites of blessings for same-sex unions and ordination of persons in such relationships remain.  Just as former Bishops of Texas Claude Payne and Don Wimberly voted in 2000 in favor of resolution D039 (perhaps even thinking of it as a resolution promoting unity) and can see D039 today deployed as it has been, supporters of this year’s resolution in the Diocese of Texas will likely see similar results.

As I understand it, one of the emphases of Communion Partners clergy, in addition to substantive identification with, and advancement of, the principles reflected in the Anglican Covenant, has been a willingness when appropriate to position themselves so as to achieve meaningful differentiation from the national leadership structure of The Episcopal Church which is proceeding down another path.  At a minimum it seems that the approach taken in this instance by the new proponents of the resolution is a step away from an emphasis on meaningful differentiation.

Mike Watson

[1]   The question of the canonical appropriateness of the committee’s resolution noted in the entry below was addressed by not bringing the committee’s substitute to the floor as the pre-council edition of the Journal had indicated would be done, but instead bringing one of the two original resolutions to the floor and moving substitution of the new resolution endorsed by the new proponents.  The fact that the original resolutions had been withdrawn was apparently not considered an impediment to doing this.

[2]  The understanding of the author is that one of these four is no longer rector of a parish as a result of assuming a new position.

[3]  Accounts of the action by Council are based on the record appearing on the Diocese’s website.  The author was not present at the meeting.

Whither the Diocese of Texas

     There are more developments than just one that raise questions about the future of the Episcopal Diocese of Texas.  The one singled out for discussion here relates to the 161st annual Council of the Diocese, to be held on February 12 and 13 in Killeen, Texas.  According to the material presented in The Texas Episcopalian and in the Journal (Volume I) and other material published on the Diocese’s website, one of the items on the agenda is a resolution that, among other things, accords honor to gay and lesbian relationships and states that God is made known in and through such relationships.

 

    It is not so surprising that such a resolution would be proposed, but it is seems quite irregular that the resolution would originate from, and be recommended by, a majority of the Diocese’s committee on resolutions.  Under the canons, the resolutions committee, appointed for each year by the bishop at the preceding Council meeting, has the duties of receiving and processing resolutions, conforming them to proper usage, ranking them by importance, and making recommendations if they so determine.  The canons do not assign to the resolutions committee any role of drafting and presenting resolutions on behalf of itself.

 

    In this case, the action taken by the committee was apparently in response to two resolutions received from a group of five individuals, including the Very Rev. Joe Reynolds, Dean of Christ Church Cathedral and the Rev. David Boyd, Rector of St. David’s, Austin.  One of the resolutions put forward by this group upholds same-gender couples living in committed relationships, saying the relationships are characterized by “the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God.” The commentary accompanying the resolution affirms the integrity of such relationships and that some persons in these relationships are “in all ways faithfully participating in Diocesan life.”  In putting forth its own resolution, the resolutions committee stated (as published in Volume I of the Journal) that it intended to preserve the spirit of the two resolutions that had been submitted by the group, while doing so in “a true and complete statement of unity and inclusion.”  According to material on the Diocese’s website, in response to the committee’s resolution, Dean Reynolds, Fr. Boyd and the other proposers have withdrawn their original resolutions.

 

    Apparently the committee’s objective of putting forward a resolution that is a true and complete statement of inclusion is thought to be achieved by making the resolution applicable not only to same gender couples but also to relationships involving heterosexuals, Anglos, persons of color or diverse languages, rich and poor, young and old, healthy and infirmed, etc.   Not to be outdone in inclusiveness when it comes to sexual identity categories, the resolutions committee adds “transgendered,” which was not included in the two submitted resolutions.  The various additions, however, don’t keep the Committee’s resolution from according honor to gay and lesbian relationships and saying that these relationships are means of making God known.  One wonders if the Committee’s thinking is that by adding in all the other identity groupings, this will no longer be noticed?

 

    It is true that the Committee’s resolution correctly states that persons who identify as gay or lesbian are loved by God.  But if this were the only point it would have been sufficient to use the language to that effect in Lambeth Resolution 1.10 (1998).  The point of the Committee’s resolution is not to support Lambeth 1.10, which according to the Archbishop of Canterbury still reflects Communion teaching.  Its effect is instead to place the Diocese in opposition to Lambeth 1.10 by upholding a category of relationship that Communion teaching considers inappropriate. 

 

    The Diocesan committee’s resolution calls for pastoral care to be extended to these relationships.  While the Anglican Primates have called for a “breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care,” (Pastoral Letter of May 2003) the source they cite for this is the paper True Union in the Body, which states:

 

“Pastoral care that is shaped by this costly grace will resist actions to legitimate same-sex unions and seek to show that, because they are in theological error, such actions by the Church do not contain within them the promised seed of freedom.”

 

(True Union in the Body, paragraph 5.15)  It is hard to argue that the committee’s resolution does not seek to legitimate same-sex unions.  The text itself does so, as does the Committee’s own acknowledgement that its resolution encompasses the spirit of the resolutions submitted by Dean Reynolds and Fr. Boyd.  In a way the committee’s resolution goes further, by placing homosexual relationships on a par with marriage between a man and a woman, drawing no distinction between the treatment to be accorded one versus the other.

 

    Is what the resolutions committee has produced a statement of unity?  Obviously it is not if words are to be given their ordinary meanings.  And here again the provenance of the resolution is instructive.  Dean Reynolds, a deputy to the 2009 General Convention, wrote during it, “if the cost of unity and the absence of conflict is the denial of people and relationships that I have come to believe are holy and life-giving, then the cost is just too high.”  In the original resolutions submitted by his group, disagreement on the subject matter was even acknowledged.  Dean Reynolds seems to know, if the majority of the resolutions committee do not, that what is being put forward is not a proposal for unity.

 

    It might be argued that the resolution is relatively innocuous because it doesn’t really have any operative effect.  History shows, however, that resolutions such as this, once passed, are deployed as arguments in favor of more substantive measures.  For example, the first paragraph of one of the resolutions proposed by the Reynolds, et al., group contains language taken verbatim from Resolution D039 of the 2000 ECUSA General Convention, recognizing committed relationships “characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God."  This language has been used in support of subsequent action by General Convention, most recently by incorporation into Resolution D025 (2009) supporting persons in same-sex relationships being called to any ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church.  The approval of Resolution D025 laid groundwork for the subsequent election and likely consent to the consecration to the episcopate of the Rev. Mary Glasspool.   Dean Reynolds, as a deputy to the 2009 General Convention who voted in favor of D025, would have been aware of the potential future uses of language such as that included in the resolution he proposed (the spirit of which, please recall, the resolution committee intends to preserve).

 

 

    We see this pattern also in the Diocese of Virginia, where at the 2009 annual council a resolution (R-4a) was adopted that affirmed the integrity of committed relationships characterized by the same words quoted above from Resolution D039.  At present, there are two mind-of-the-council resolutions proposed to be acted on in February that cite the same language, and the fact of its passage a year ago, in support of further determinations by council.  The first (R-3) is to the effect that ordination and selection to serve in ordained ministry in any parish or other capacity should not be precluded by living in a committed same-sex relationship and the second (R-4) would urge the bishop to authorize clergy to preside over the public blessing of same-sex unions.

 

    Finally, it must be asked where is Bishop Doyle in all this?  Perhaps it is really the case that the resolutions committee undertook activity beyond its canonical warrant without consulting anyone, and that the young and/or non-parochial clergy on the committee were comfortable negotiating an outcome with senior clergy, but it seems natural to ask whether this was so.  The question also occurs whether the committee’s proposed substitute resolution was finalized before the November 15 deadline.  If not, then (even assuming introduction of the committee’s resolution is otherwise proper) it could be introduced only with the bishop’s consent and would require a two-thirds vote for adoption.

 

    Much more is at stake for the Diocese of Texas in the outcome of the consideration of this resolution than the committee indicates.

 

    Mike Watson  

 

 

REFERENCES

Journal of 161st Annual Council (Volume I), https://www.epicenter.org/images/edot/161thCouncil/2010Volume1_Final.pdf  (resolutions published at pp. 11-12)

 

Committee resolution with revised commentary indicating withdrawal of original resolutions, https://www.epicenter.org/images/edot/161thCouncil/resolutions2010final.pdf

 

Diocesan Canon 2.1(j) on the Committee on Resolutions, http://www.epicenter.org/images/edot/160thCouncil/2008%20Constitution%20and%20Canons.pdf(pp. 16-17).

 

Statement of Dean Reynolds that the cost of unity may be too high, http://edotnews.blogspot.com/2009/07/from-deputy-joe-reynolds-dean-of-christ.html(penultimate paragraph of post dated July 16, 2009).

 

General Convention Resolution D039 (2000), http://www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/acts/acts_resolution.pl?resolution=2000-D039

 

General Convention Resolution D025 (2009), http://www.gc2009.org/ViewLegislation/view_leg_detail.aspx?id=986&type=Final

 

2009 Resolutions adopted by Diocese of Virginia, http://www.thediocese.net/Councils/214Council/resolutions_results.html#R4 (resolution R-4a)

 

2010 Resolutions under consideration in Diocese of Virginia, http://www.thediocese.net/Councils/215Council/resolutions_submitted.html(resolutions R-3 and R4)

Litigation against Disaffiliating Dioceses: Is it Authorized and What does Fiduciary Duty Require?

The purpose of this entry is to provide a link to a paper I wrote in September 2009 that appears on the web site of The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.  The web version (without footnotes) appears at http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/2009/09/litigation-against-disaffiliating-dioceses-is-it-authorized-and-what-does-fiduciary-duty-require/.  For the full pdf version (with footnotes) see http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/litigation-against-disaffiliating-dioceses-is-it-authorized-and-what-does-fiduciary-duty-require.pdf.

The following is a brief abstract:

This paper examines whether the Presiding Bishop is authorized to initiate and conduct recent property litigation and finds no source for such authority in the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. Arguments based on a presumed equivalence of the roles of the Presiding Bishop and Executive Council to those of a corporate CEO and board of directors are found not to be valid. The paper also examines claims that pursuit of litigation is necessitated by fiduciary duty. It concludes that no convincing case has been made that this is so. First, no person is under a fiduciary duty to undertake something that has not been authorized. Putting aside the issue of authorization, several factors relevant to a proper fiduciary duty analysis suggest refraining from litigation such as has been commenced against disaffiliating dioceses. In this connection, relevant fiduciary duties are not limited to those that may be owed to TEC as an organization, but also include duties owed to its member dioceses. Claims that a member diocese cannot disaffiliate and retain ownership of its property implicate the latter set of duties. The paper presents a case that the duties to dioceses include duties to those that have withdrawn because the claims against them are based on alleged consequences of their having been dioceses of TEC rather than the actions of an unaffiliated third party.

(This paper was written during a period in which I was not actively maintaining this weblog.  The date shown below is the date the paper was published on the ACI site, and has been inserted here to achieve a correct chronology of authorship rather than placement on the blog.)