Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20041119032137/http://anglicancommunioninstitute.org:80/articles/appendix4.htm
The Case Against the
Episcopal Church USA:
ASSESSING THE PROPOSAL FOR
A SECOND OR PARALLEL PROVINCE
by the Very Rev'd Dr. Philip Turner
Vice President, The Anglican Communion Institute
A Formula for the End of The Anglican Communion as Such
I
One proposal for addressing the divisions and crisis caused by ECUSA’s General Convention actions (and actions within the Canadian Anglican Church) regarding sexuality is the creation of a ‘second province’ for those dioceses and parishes that find these actions unacceptable. It is unclear if the proposal envisions two alternative provinces (one in Canada and one in the U.S.) or a single second province (one that includes both Canada and the U.S., or perhaps just the U.S.). These details are of enormous importance, but they do not bear immediately on the assessment that follows of the general idea of a separate province, an assessment that is decidedly negative in its conclusions.
II
The proposal seems to have its origin in a perceived similarity between the divisions brought about by the ordination of women and those that have resulted from the more recent actions of New Westminster (Canada) and ECUSA. For some time now, some opponents of women’s ordination, dissatisfied with present arrangements for alternative pastoral oversight, have argued for the creation of a non-geographical province that would not admit the practice of ordaining women. The idea of a second province for those who do not approve of ‘gay blessings’ or the ordination of homosexual people who are not sexually abstinent is often seen as a possible solution for circumstances perceived to be analogous.
The first thing to be said about the second province proposal for those who do not agree with this change in teaching and practice in respect to homosexual relations is that the analogy with women’s ordination does not hold. [See the material in Appendix 3.] In respect to the ordination of women, the Lambeth Conference of Bishops has never said that this practice is contrary to scripture. Rather, they have argued that a process of reception be allowed and not closed prematurely. Thus, a second (non-geographical) province in which women are neither ordained nor preside at the Holy Eucharist may be seen as a means of seeing that the process of reception is allowed to continue without premature closure.
Things are quite different, however, when it comes to a second province for those who cannot accept a changed teaching and practice in respect to homosexual activity. The Lambeth Conference of Bishops, in this case, did not say that a process of reception should be allowed. Rather, the Bishops, by an overwhelming majority, said that homosexual practice is contrary to Holy Scripture. This is as strong a theological statement as Anglicans can make. From the beginning Anglicans have insisted that doctrine be “proved” or “tested” by Holy Scripture, and that no doctrine is to be held or taught that is contrary to Holy Scripture (Articles 6, 20, 21, 34 of the 39 Articles; cf. the 1789 Preface to the American BCP). They have also insisted that it is a primary responsibility of the Episcopate to insure that doctrine accord with Holy Scripture. While it is true that some contest the interpretation of Scripture given by the Bishops, it is nonetheless the case that, in the exercise of their responsibility to ensure that doctrine and practice accord with Holy Scripture, the Bishops assembled at Lambeth in 1998 spoke forcefully and clearly stating that a change in teaching and practice would indeed be contrary to Holy Scripture. The statement of the Bishops assembled at Lambeth was, furthermore, supported by a later meeting of the Primates of the Communion who spoke strongly against any change in teaching and practice.
III
The difference noted above between a second province for those who do not accept the ordination of women and a second province for those who do not accept a change in sexual ethics suggests several things about the latter proposal that argue strongly against it.
1. By creating a second province recognized on the same basis as the original one, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates of the Communion would be saying that Anglicans may, at one and the same time, have a province whose practice accords with Scripture and a province whose practice does not. This precedent would undermine the principle that Anglicans are not to hold doctrines that are contrary to Holy Scripture. [On the plain meaning of Scripture, and the common teaching of Scripture in the Church, the material in the main paper above.]
2. The creation and recognition of a second province whose teaching and practice runs directly contrary to the stated view of the Lambeth Conference about the import of Holy Scripture would undermine the moral authority of that body and render its future proceedings of little consequence.
3. The creation of a second province whose teaching and practice is considered contrary to Holy Scripture would also weaken the moral authority of the Primates who have been given an “enhanced responsibility” for addressing crises such as the one brought about by the actions of New Westminster and ECUSA. Having on more than one occasion reaffirmed Lambeth’s teaching, by being seen as giving approval both to a province whose teaching they hold accords with Holy Scripture and to one whose teaching does not, they would undermine the credibility of their moral decisions and leadership.
4. The creation of a second province whose teaching and practice is considered by the Bishops of the Communion to be contrary to Holy Scripture would also make the practice of ECUSA to honor “local option” (i.e. each diocese determining its own policy on these matters) the de facto practice of the Anglican Communion, something that, on a matter of Scriptural teaching, contradicts the character of Christian “communion” itself.
5. Should the Communion as a whole adopt the policy of “local option” in matters that most consider contrary to Holy Scripture, the Anglican Communion would cease, in any meaningful sense of the word, to be a Communion. At best it would become a federation of churches linked by (fading) historical relations and purely pragmatic considerations. At worst, it would fragment into groupings no longer in communion one with another.
6. By creating co-existing, and in some cases geographically overlapping, provinces, which are equal members of the Communion yet whose Scriptural and moral teachings contradict each other, the Anglican Communion would be sowing great confusion in the missionary witness of its churches. This would be the case both in America (where contradictory teachings would be promoted equally under the aegis of “Anglicanism”) and elsewhere in the world (where contradictory moral teachings would cause scandal to non-Christians and Christians alike).
IV
The factors listed above comprise substantive issues that would flow from giving official license to teaching and practice that the Anglican Communion as a whole considers to be contrary to Holy Scripture. There are also more practical considerations that tell against the creation of a second province.
1. If a second province were to be created, which province would be considered by the Anglican Communion to be ECUSA? If the one associated positively with the past General Convention is said to be ECUSA then the province whose teaching and practice accord with that of the Anglican Communion would have no access to the considerable assets of that province. It seems odd – as a matter of justice at the minimum -- to adopt a policy that favors legally the very province that has acted without regard to the moral authority of either the Lambeth Conference of Bishops or the Meeting of the Primates. If, on the other hand, both provinces were held to be ECUSA then both would presumably have access to the assets now held by the single province known as ECUSA. Both options portend a legal quagmire, and the shameful sight of Christians contending one with another in courts of law.
2. The creation of a second province when the point of division involves teaching and practice considered contrary to Holy Scripture also does nothing to force a divided church to come to a common mind and find its way back to peace and unity. Each may claim victory and in so doing continue to regard the other as an enemy they may either ignore or with whom they continue to contend for members. This contradicts the Scriptural view of the Church (cf. Philippians 2; Ephesians 4), and reduces the relationship between the purported churches of Christ to the struggle between vying claimants to the Gospel (cf. 1 John 2:19f; 4:5f.).
3. The creation of a second province for those who find the recent action of General Convention unacceptable would also place those who have honored the moral authority of Lambeth and the Primates at a distinct disadvantage. They would not have an adequate system for educating future clergy. They would also be viewed by many members of ECUSA, even those unhappy with the recent actions of General Convention, as disgruntled “conservatives” who have left the Church. Episcopalians have a deep-seated dislike of people who leave, and this no matter what the reason. A second province would for these two reasons alone, weaken the position of those who in fact support the view of the Communion as a whole, something that injures the claims to justice and prudence within the Communion.
4. The creation of a second province would also put enormous strains on those Bishops within ECUSA who have opposed the recent action of General Convention. Each would have a terrible battle to face in their diocese in respect to going into a second province. Many who oppose the action of General Convention could not gain assent for a second province in their own diocese.
5. The creation of a second province would demand of parishes a decision of some kind regarding their allegiance and membership. How would such a decision be made? By congregational majority vote? Would the minority in such a vote be forced to leave their parish? The pastoral and political chaos of such a process would be hard to untangle and would most certainly devastate the common life in Christ to which individual Christians and congregations are called.
V
There are, in short, both substantive and practical reasons that tell against the creation of a second province. In brief, this solution is no solution at all. On the one hand, it will undermine Anglicanism as a Communion of Churches, and on the other it will render those who are in agreement with the larger Communion extremely vulnerable. Most important of all, it will do little to help the members of ECUSA find unity and peace in the Gospel. It will simply fuel their divisions. When the issue is not a process of reception (as in the ordination of women), but a practice that runs contrary to that of the Anglican Communion (as with the blessing of homosexual relations) appropriate pastoral practice must differ. In the first case, pastoral practice should serve to ensure that the process is allowed to proceed without hindrance or undue haste. In the case of unacceptable practice or teaching, pastoral practice should be designed to bring the practice of an erring province or diocese back into line with that of the rest of the Communion. When the issue is a process of reception, a second province may provide a temporary strategy that allows the process to go forward in a constructive manner. When the issue is unacceptable teaching or practice, a second province serves only to give tacit approval to the teaching or practice in question and to reduce the prospects for reconciliation.
