The American Episcopal Church has since its inception understood itself to be an integral part of a much broader Anglican reality. Unlike the Methodist Church, for example, it chose not to declare ecclesial independence in the American context, but carefully referred and deferred to the Church of England and to Anglicanism in the wider context of the British Isles. Samuel Seabury sought consecration in the Church of England and when that was not possible for political reasons, he was consecrated in Aberdeen.Though the American Church had functioned without indigenous bishops for many years, when the revolutionary war ended it was deemed desirable and logical for American Bishops to be consecrated, and the oversight that had been exercised from England to be shifted to the New World. That said, matters related to the Book of Common Prayer and even the composition of the General Convention (now with a House of Bishops) were sufficiently weighty that deference to the concerns of the English Bishops was still deemed necessary (place of the Nicene Creed, the descent clause in the Apostles Creed, and so forth).
So when the preamble to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church declares this Church to be a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, in communion with the See of Canterbury, it is stating the character of its self-understanding. The American Church is self-governing, and in that sense it has its own character, even as this character was from the beginning formed in relationship to expectations of both its own New World context and to the Anglican Church to which it made clear and desired reference.
From the beginning there was a hesitancy to give too much authority to Bishops, and yet the office emerged on terms that were acceptable to and in continuity with what had obtained in the British Isles. There was never any 'archbishop,' however, and the 'presiding bishop' was only ever just that, much as in the Scottish Episcopal Church or the Province of the MiddleEast, to this day; that is, the senior bishop with a diocese who presided when plenary meetings demanded this for good order. In time the Presiding Bishop became something more on the order of a Chief Executive Officer, but even then it was never considered appropriate or desirable for the Presiding Bishop to exercise metropolitan powers.
The Present RealityFor these reasons and others, the concept of Communion Partner Bishops was worked out with careful attention to the reality of the office of Presiding Bishop within the self-governing structures of this church.The development of a Partners plan was seen as a positive contribution to the life of this church and an opportunity to remind American Episcopalians about the true character of its Anglican life. For this reason, the Presiding Bishopwas consulted and it was seen to be desirable for her to offer a 'no objection' for the purposes of good order, and to send a wider signal to the Communion at large. But it was never thought appropriate for the Presiding Bishop to grant permission for the deployment of the plan, and the Presiding Bishop's own communications confirmed that this was not a part of her proper role. It was on these terms that the Communion Partners Plan was conceived and is moving forward.
Moreover, in contrast to the Episcopal Visitors notion mooted after New Orleans, the Partners idea required nothing from the 'national church' and did not envision requests for visitations as needing to pass through the Presiding Bishop. Indeed, it might have considered such an idea inappropriate. Similarly, 'oversight' was never envisaged in this plan as it is not something the Presiding Bishop has at present, and so is not something for which an 'alternative' could be granted.
In recent times it has appeared that new understandings of the office of the Presiding Bishop are being (formally or informally) contemplated, including suggestions of metropolitan powers (archiepiscopal crosses and insignia; cathedral consecrations; dismissals of Standing Committees, and such like). This would be to introduce notions into the self-governing life of the Episcopal Church that are inappropriate and untrue to the self-understanding of this church, and even progressives have sounded a note of concern at points. For a church concerned to emphasize its autonomy in the present season, it would be a strange thing indeed to undo the specificself-governing character of this church in the name of securing political power at a time of unrest and contestation. We were pleased that the Diocese of South Carolina modeled a proper understanding of this church's polity, when it included the Bishop of the Diocese of Winchester as a Communion representative from the Church of England and requested that the Presiding Bishop not serve as chief consecrator, matters fully within the logic of our canons, underscoring her role properly to be 'the presiding Bishop.' We hope the Partners plan can model a way forward that underscores the true character of this church's self-governing life, and as well as shore up its association and partnership within the wider Communion.
The Partners idea received a 'no objection' from the Presiding Bishop and in this sense, the appropriate limits of the office of Presiding Bishop were acknowledged. The Plan entails Bishop-to-Bishop cooperation, on a pattern that has always marked the life of this church. If a parish would like a visit from a Primate, or from a Partner Bishop, the Diocesan Bishop would be contacted, consulted, and proper arrangements made.The Plan offers for Episcopalians keen to underscore their Communion fellowship a concrete way to undertake that. At a time when The Episcopal Church, at the provincial level, will be deciding whether or not to undertake the obligations and hopes of a Covenant, the Partners plan enables those dioceses and parishes, eager to belong to the Communion through a covenant, a way to emphasize and model that. The covenant is a mechanism for the Episcopal Church to remain in the Communion on the very terms that have always characterized its self-understanding, throughout the history of this church, and at a time of contestation, to clarify this.
The Partners plan further allows parishes and dioceses a wayt o include within their life Primates of the Communion whose churches and missionary life are a witness and an encouragement to Episcopalians in the United States. This happens in various ways already, of course, but the Partners plan offers a more concrete means to organize and deploy this. And finally, it allows Episcopalians"”Bishops, Dioceses, Parishes"”a means of identification, a way of foregrounding Communion membership and wider Anglican belonging, all the while remaining in this church and seeking its best furtherance, in accordance with the self-governing identity that has marked itin the past.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has been consulted and briefed on what has been worked out. He had already on several occasions given public support to those Bishops in the United States organized around what Dar es Salaam referred to as 'Camp Allen Principles.' The Partners Bishops plan is in full continuity with that. The individual Primatial Partners were discussed with the Archbishop, as a courtesy in the light of his role as presiding chair at Primates Meetings. The notion of an 'order' of fellowship, partnership, and differentiation has long been seen as a positive way to extend the mission of Jesus Christ, at a time when struggles and contestation mar this church's life.The Archbishop has signaled his support of the development of a Partners fellowship, and had encouraged those eager to bring this to fruition to seek the nihil obstat of the Presiding Bishop as a sign of good order and Christian charity, in this difficult season. In this way a considered recognition of the specific self-governing reality of The Episcopal Church, and the limits placed upon the role of the Presiding Bishop within this church's polity, were acknowledged.
The Primates of the West Indies, Burundi, Tanzania, and the Middle East have all been contacted and have signaled either their immediate willingness to participate in this plan, or minimally their support and concern to see it developed. The (then) Archbishop-elect of Tanzania graciously met with Partner Bishops and Rectors in Houston in April, and indicated his wish to be involved. Our understanding has been that the Archbishop of Canterbury would indicate his support of the plan to the Primates originally named, once it was clear that a nihil obstat had been given by the Presiding Bishop. The communication of that had been clearer within the US context than across theAtlantic. Early stories in the press which named the Primates or misrepresented certain aspects of the plan also challenged its development, but it is clear that no major damage was done and the Primates we have consulted are well aware of the challenges of proper communication in this season.
The description of the Communion Partners drawn up as a memorandum for the Bishops involved is now in the public domain. It was sent as a courtesy to the Presiding Bishop, and to the Archbishop of Canterbury. It indicates what has been their thinking and how the plan will be undertaken. We are pleased that a consortium of rectors, representing major parishes of theEpiscopal Church, have been involved in the development of this plan and have responded with support and encouragement. Already other rectors have been in contact with the Rectors' representative and the Bishops hope for the samething.
It is a time of great difficulty and of God's judgment on our church. Those anxious to signal their firm commitment to catholic Communion Anglicanism, and an alliance of differentiation and identification within The Episcopal Church, can avail themselves of this Plan. Others will seek ways forward as they see best. Pray for the Church.
The Anglican Communion Institute
Last Updated ( Monday, 02 June 2008 )
