Several things need to be borne in mind about the Communion Partners Plan as it is discussed on the internet via the lens of news stories now appearing.
The Polity of The Episcopal Church in respect of the Presiding Bishop.
Particularly in a period of contestation about the role of the Presiding Bishop it is crucial to keep in mind the peculiar polity of TEC. Bishop Stanton of Dallas has been clearest about this in questioning the option of alternative Episcopal Oversight given that specific limitations already inhere in the office of Presiding Bishop. No metropolitan powers are attached to this office. More recently, in the Diocese of South Carolina we witnessed appropriate attention to the limits this Church has imposed, in the course of its history, on the role of the Presiding Bishop. The Diocese of South Carolina did so, in other words, not as an act of revenge nor in a position of questionable advocacy, but in full compliance with the Canons of TEC.
One news report is accurate when it speaks, not of permission by the Presiding Bishop, but of offering the courtesy of a nihil obstat ('no objection').
The Plan should be assessed in the light of this. Five points can be registered.
· The Primates at Dar es Salaam recognized the Camp Allen Principles as sufficient to express compliance with the Communion
· The basic unit of Anglicanism is the Diocese
· The Presiding Bishop of TEC has no metro-political powers
· Parishes outside Partner Bishop Dioceses will only ever have been able to secure visitations, or sacramental actions demonstrating their life in Communion beyond TEC, by moral persuasion; building non-juridical links to the Partner Primates, supported by Canterbury, can only help with this
· Those parishes which wish to leave and pursue other forms of alignment have in great measure already chosen that path; Dioceses which do not ordain women to the Priesthood face a set of problems this Plan cannot and did not seek to address, even as we believe a Provisional Episcopal Visitor scheme such as obtains in the Church of England was always a positive way forward; this Plan does not hinder the development of such a reality, but it lies outside its remit
For those Dioceses which wish to abide by Camp Allen Principles, this Plan offers a way to model full and enthusiastic compliance with Communion life. This is particularly important at a time when the terms of belonging to the wider Communion are under assessment and negotiation.
Christopher Seitz
____________
In response to some specific queries on the Blogs.
1. CANA, AMiA et al have another vision and they are pursuing it; they want not to be TEC-AC, and work for the Communion processes which could expose the unwillingness of liberals in TEC to be communion compliant, but have concocted other schemes: they believe in these; in some cases, the matter is one of tragic expediency (Southern Cone's 'temporary' idea), in other cases a different polity for the Communion may be or is envisaged;
2. The vast majority of GS Primates have not rushed to embrace Gafcon, and this Plan is not responsible for that fact on the ground;
3. The Windsor Continuation Group has solid members on it, including +Mtetemela and +Lilliebridge and +Chew;
4. The PB was not in a position to give permission because Bishops can proceed to implement this as they choose, given the polity of TEC, but a nihil obstat clears the way for involving Primates; people tend to forget that the Primates who are not intervening at present are not intervening because they do not feel they are at liberty to, and would not want the tables turned; that is a fact and is not something the Plan creates, but acknowledges;
5. this is all the more true of the role of +Canterbury;
6. It is important to build as much solid Communion presence as possible given that the Communion is in a period of self-assessment (to say the least);
7. The point is to model Communion compliance in Camp Allen dioceses; in moderate dioceses whose Bishops would not wish to block this if requests were made; in more difficult places; and then to demonstrate in places where the Plan was not accepted that these Dioceses were unwilling to abide by a generally positive Plan, with conservative Primatial leaders backing it;
8. It must be remembered that during the next season, eyes will be on the TEC situation as it unfolds.
That is all I am going to say because it strikes me that a lot of this has been said already, or could be picked up by clear-headed reading of the statements already out there. I found Mark Harris's assessment fairly clear-headed, and reproduce it here.
As I understand it the scheme would be that the Episcopal Visitors have some group of Primates that they can engage for fellowship and in a forum for considering matters related to the Anglican Covenant and the Windsor process.
Up to a point this seems a reasonable scheme by which the Episcopal Visitors might have access to the thinking of Primates who are committed to working things out within the norms of life in the Anglican Communion. But here are some initial problems:
(i) the Participants will consist of the Episcopal Visitors and those bishops who are willing to be Episcopal Visitors, along with five primates and others who might join them. That is the forum could grow to include all bishops in the Episcopal Church who consider themselves "Windsor Bishops" (committed to an Anglican Covenant and the so called Windsor Process) and are willing to be Episcopal Visitors and all Primates willing to abide by a "no boundary crossing" rule. This opens the door to the argument by those who are in this "forum" that they are the center of The Episcopal Church and that they have the approval of the majority of the worlds Anglican Provinces.
For those who believe either that (a) the Anglican Covenant is a really bad idea at least as conceived in the St. Andrew's Draft or worse the drafts previous to it, or that (b) the Windsor Report along with its "process" is now moot, this drift is not such good news.
(ii) The "Anglican Partners" idea is not a bad one. Actually it has been tried on a number of levels - The Lambeth Conference, the variety of networks within the Anglican Communion, the Anglican Consultative Council, the wide variety of Companion Diocese relationships. Seemingly those are not enough. What makes this one different is that it is a gathering of "partners" committeed to Covenant and Windsor Process, not necessarily to the Anglican Communion as a fellowship of churches.
How that plays out is yet another strand in the continuing desire to make the Anglican Communion look more like a world-wide church. The "Anglican Partners" is a move towards defining the Anglican Communion by subscription to a covenant. It would become the international forum for that proposition. More importantly it would give the Episcopal Visitors and those who would be willing to be Episcopal Visitors a primary voice in pursuing this end.
The offer of Episcopal Visitors was a good one when first made. This overlay - that the EV's should become TEC's members in an international forum for the promotion of the Anglican Covenant and the Windsor Process - is a bad one.
Of course the Presiding Bishop's permission was not asked. No matter that as Conger reports, "The Presiding Bishop was briefed ... giving her "nihil obstat" to the Communion plan, one participant reported." Bishop Howe's email makes it clear, "Our purpose in meeting with Bishop Schori yesterday was to apprise her of this plan, seek her counsel, and assure her..." Apprising her is not like asking permission or seeking approval. These bishops are going to do it anyway. Had she objected they would have been under no obligation to cease working on this.
Two members of that interesting and often neglected entity, the Anglican Communion Institute, Inc, (as opposed to the Anglican Communion Institute), Prof Seitz and Dr Ephraim Radner were party to the planning of this deal. Their agenda is very much bound up with making the Anglican Communion a more coherent (and I think more conservative) whole. Both were present at the meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury. It appears from Bishop Howe's note that they were not present at the meeting with the Presiding Bishop.
Additionally, Bishop Drexel Gomez and Dr Ephriam Radner are on the Covenant Design Group and busy at the task of producing an Anglican Covenant.
So the bishop players are being guided by people with a high committment to the Anglican Covenant. They are guided within by bishops who are part of the Network or part of the wider group called the Windsor Bishops.
How this all unfolds I do not know. The early read is that this is yet another effort to organize those who do not want a woman Presiding Bishop exercising primatial oversight (whatever that is), particularly someone who supported the ordination of Bishop Robinson and a feminist, and, under the guise of the Episcopal Visitor program, to give them greater voice in the Anglican Communion. It seems a very bad idea.
The Polity of The Episcopal Church in respect of the Presiding Bishop.
Particularly in a period of contestation about the role of the Presiding Bishop it is crucial to keep in mind the peculiar polity of TEC. Bishop Stanton of Dallas has been clearest about this in questioning the option of alternative Episcopal Oversight given that specific limitations already inhere in the office of Presiding Bishop. No metropolitan powers are attached to this office. More recently, in the Diocese of South Carolina we witnessed appropriate attention to the limits this Church has imposed, in the course of its history, on the role of the Presiding Bishop. The Diocese of South Carolina did so, in other words, not as an act of revenge nor in a position of questionable advocacy, but in full compliance with the Canons of TEC.
One news report is accurate when it speaks, not of permission by the Presiding Bishop, but of offering the courtesy of a nihil obstat ('no objection').
The Plan should be assessed in the light of this. Five points can be registered.
· The Primates at Dar es Salaam recognized the Camp Allen Principles as sufficient to express compliance with the Communion
· The basic unit of Anglicanism is the Diocese
· The Presiding Bishop of TEC has no metro-political powers
· Parishes outside Partner Bishop Dioceses will only ever have been able to secure visitations, or sacramental actions demonstrating their life in Communion beyond TEC, by moral persuasion; building non-juridical links to the Partner Primates, supported by Canterbury, can only help with this
· Those parishes which wish to leave and pursue other forms of alignment have in great measure already chosen that path; Dioceses which do not ordain women to the Priesthood face a set of problems this Plan cannot and did not seek to address, even as we believe a Provisional Episcopal Visitor scheme such as obtains in the Church of England was always a positive way forward; this Plan does not hinder the development of such a reality, but it lies outside its remit
For those Dioceses which wish to abide by Camp Allen Principles, this Plan offers a way to model full and enthusiastic compliance with Communion life. This is particularly important at a time when the terms of belonging to the wider Communion are under assessment and negotiation.
Christopher Seitz
____________
In response to some specific queries on the Blogs.
1. CANA, AMiA et al have another vision and they are pursuing it; they want not to be TEC-AC, and work for the Communion processes which could expose the unwillingness of liberals in TEC to be communion compliant, but have concocted other schemes: they believe in these; in some cases, the matter is one of tragic expediency (Southern Cone's 'temporary' idea), in other cases a different polity for the Communion may be or is envisaged;
2. The vast majority of GS Primates have not rushed to embrace Gafcon, and this Plan is not responsible for that fact on the ground;
3. The Windsor Continuation Group has solid members on it, including +Mtetemela and +Lilliebridge and +Chew;
4. The PB was not in a position to give permission because Bishops can proceed to implement this as they choose, given the polity of TEC, but a nihil obstat clears the way for involving Primates; people tend to forget that the Primates who are not intervening at present are not intervening because they do not feel they are at liberty to, and would not want the tables turned; that is a fact and is not something the Plan creates, but acknowledges;
5. this is all the more true of the role of +Canterbury;
6. It is important to build as much solid Communion presence as possible given that the Communion is in a period of self-assessment (to say the least);
7. The point is to model Communion compliance in Camp Allen dioceses; in moderate dioceses whose Bishops would not wish to block this if requests were made; in more difficult places; and then to demonstrate in places where the Plan was not accepted that these Dioceses were unwilling to abide by a generally positive Plan, with conservative Primatial leaders backing it;
8. It must be remembered that during the next season, eyes will be on the TEC situation as it unfolds.
That is all I am going to say because it strikes me that a lot of this has been said already, or could be picked up by clear-headed reading of the statements already out there. I found Mark Harris's assessment fairly clear-headed, and reproduce it here.
As I understand it the scheme would be that the Episcopal Visitors have some group of Primates that they can engage for fellowship and in a forum for considering matters related to the Anglican Covenant and the Windsor process.
Up to a point this seems a reasonable scheme by which the Episcopal Visitors might have access to the thinking of Primates who are committed to working things out within the norms of life in the Anglican Communion. But here are some initial problems:
(i) the Participants will consist of the Episcopal Visitors and those bishops who are willing to be Episcopal Visitors, along with five primates and others who might join them. That is the forum could grow to include all bishops in the Episcopal Church who consider themselves "Windsor Bishops" (committed to an Anglican Covenant and the so called Windsor Process) and are willing to be Episcopal Visitors and all Primates willing to abide by a "no boundary crossing" rule. This opens the door to the argument by those who are in this "forum" that they are the center of The Episcopal Church and that they have the approval of the majority of the worlds Anglican Provinces.
For those who believe either that (a) the Anglican Covenant is a really bad idea at least as conceived in the St. Andrew's Draft or worse the drafts previous to it, or that (b) the Windsor Report along with its "process" is now moot, this drift is not such good news.
(ii) The "Anglican Partners" idea is not a bad one. Actually it has been tried on a number of levels - The Lambeth Conference, the variety of networks within the Anglican Communion, the Anglican Consultative Council, the wide variety of Companion Diocese relationships. Seemingly those are not enough. What makes this one different is that it is a gathering of "partners" committeed to Covenant and Windsor Process, not necessarily to the Anglican Communion as a fellowship of churches.
How that plays out is yet another strand in the continuing desire to make the Anglican Communion look more like a world-wide church. The "Anglican Partners" is a move towards defining the Anglican Communion by subscription to a covenant. It would become the international forum for that proposition. More importantly it would give the Episcopal Visitors and those who would be willing to be Episcopal Visitors a primary voice in pursuing this end.
The offer of Episcopal Visitors was a good one when first made. This overlay - that the EV's should become TEC's members in an international forum for the promotion of the Anglican Covenant and the Windsor Process - is a bad one.
Of course the Presiding Bishop's permission was not asked. No matter that as Conger reports, "The Presiding Bishop was briefed ... giving her "nihil obstat" to the Communion plan, one participant reported." Bishop Howe's email makes it clear, "Our purpose in meeting with Bishop Schori yesterday was to apprise her of this plan, seek her counsel, and assure her..." Apprising her is not like asking permission or seeking approval. These bishops are going to do it anyway. Had she objected they would have been under no obligation to cease working on this.
Two members of that interesting and often neglected entity, the Anglican Communion Institute, Inc, (as opposed to the Anglican Communion Institute), Prof Seitz and Dr Ephraim Radner were party to the planning of this deal. Their agenda is very much bound up with making the Anglican Communion a more coherent (and I think more conservative) whole. Both were present at the meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury. It appears from Bishop Howe's note that they were not present at the meeting with the Presiding Bishop.
Additionally, Bishop Drexel Gomez and Dr Ephriam Radner are on the Covenant Design Group and busy at the task of producing an Anglican Covenant.
So the bishop players are being guided by people with a high committment to the Anglican Covenant. They are guided within by bishops who are part of the Network or part of the wider group called the Windsor Bishops.
How this all unfolds I do not know. The early read is that this is yet another effort to organize those who do not want a woman Presiding Bishop exercising primatial oversight (whatever that is), particularly someone who supported the ordination of Bishop Robinson and a feminist, and, under the guise of the Episcopal Visitor program, to give them greater voice in the Anglican Communion. It seems a very bad idea.
