More On Communion And Hierarchy

I In an article entitled "Why direct sign-on now to the Covenant is a bad idea" (that appeared on his blog PRELUDIUM shortly after our article "Communion and Hierarchy") Fr. Mark Harris has done us all a big favor.  He has made clear the full scope of the widespread view among TEC's present leadership that the Archbishop of Canterbury's observation about the possibility of covenant ratification on the part of dioceses is both harmful and unhelpful. Fr. Harris registers five objections to ratification on the part of individual dioceses. We will address each in due course. First, however, there are two general comments that will help frame the disagreements we have both with his assessment of the situation and the objections he lodges against the possibility of diocesan ratification of the proposed covenant. Let it be noted first that the chief concern of those individual dioceses that might want to ratify the covenant is not, contra Fr. Harris, a desire to leave TEC for another jurisdiction.  Neither is it a desire to create an international form of governance.  The chief concern is, given the fact that TEC has provisionally rejected the Covenant by repudiating the Communion teaching the Covenant requires and given that is unlikely that TEC will ratify a covenant that places limitations on the course of action taken at this past General Convention, it is more than likely that TEC's relation with the Instruments of Communion and a large majority of Anglican Provinces will be compromised.  The status of TEC's relation to Canterbury in this case will at best be ambiguous. Further, its relation with many provinces will remain or become broken. As a result, both the Anglican and catholic identity of TEC will have been compromised.  The reason for diocesan ratification in this case is therefore not a change of jurisdiction.  It is the continuation of both Anglican and catholic identity under circumstances where a province has compromised both. The second comment is that Fr. Harris' title, "Why direct diocesan sign-on now (emphasis added) is a bad idea" misconstrues the present situation.  Until the end of the year, no provision will have been made either by the ACC or any other Instrument of Communion for anyone, province or diocese, to sign on now.  At present, the ACC has made it clear that it is asking "member churches" to ratify the Covenant.  Given that TEC has provisionally repudiated the Covenant, "member churches" must be understood to include the constituent dioceses and extra-provincial dioceses and churches of such member Churches.  What individual dioceses can do right now is express their support for the Covenant by signing the first three sections of the Ridley/Cambridge Draft that have already received final approval.  There is certainly no let or hindrance that stands in the way of such an action, and indeed ACI urges dioceses to take precisely such action.  To do so will let both members of TEC and the larger Communion know that not all segments of TEC support the direction taken at the last General Convention, and that they desire to be part of a covenant community even if TEC declines membership.  It is difficult to see why an action of this sort on the part of individual dioceses would subvert the democratic process of which Fr. Harris is such a strong advocate. These things being said, why does Fr. Harris believe "diocesan buy in is a very bad idea"?  We note that in posing the question in the body of his text rather than in the title Fr. Harris no longer speaks of buying in now but speaks in more general terms of buying in at all.  In any case, his first objection is that it would be a bad idea to make provision for diocesan ratification prior to the time TEC as TEC has had opportunity to study the Covenant and give its decision in respect to ratification.  Why?  He gives two reasons: (1) "Those affirming the Covenant would by that deny that they are bound together with the rest of The Episcopal Church in a common decision making community;" and (2) "they would be acting in the face of what they fear would be a negative vote on the matter in ways contrary to any consensus building at all." In response, let us say first that, in principle, there is nothing wrong with waiting for the results of provincial consideration and then acting independently of the province if it refuses to ratify the Covenant and the Communion makes such an allowance.  Indeed, all things being equal, waiting for a provincial decision is the most orderly course of action to follow.  The problem is that not all things are equal. By rejecting Communion teaching TEC has already provisionally repudiated the Covenant. Its rejection is highlighted by the fact that the most recent General Convention has taken decisive action in respect to the moratoria that runs counter both to Lambeth 1:10, the statements and requests of all three other Instruments of Communion, and a direct appeal by the Archbishop of Canterbury.  It is simply beyond the realm of credibility to think that TEC will respond favorably to a covenant containing the account of consequences to be found in section four of the Ridley/Cambridge Draft. Note also that the first three sections of the Covenant's text appear to be fixed, and are no longer formally open to further discussion and revision.  Yet the recent General Convention has acted in ways that are in stark contrast to these sections (especially 3.2).  Once more we note that it challenges belief that TEC will adopt this Covenant, or if it does, that its adoption will do anything but subvert the texts plain meaning. We, therefore, are forced to the conclusion that, given TEC's actions to date, postponement of action for three years does not provide an opportunity to build consensus, as Fr. Harris suggests.  Rather, it appears as a strategy by TEC's leadership to buy time in which to put together an international alliance more favorable to its more federalist views of an Anglican future.  Or, it is a move that seeks to guard autonomy and resist interdependence, no matter what the consequences of this for all. If provision were made for diocesan ratification, a decision by a diocese to ratify would in point of fact not be taken out of fear of a "negative result" and in "ways contrary to any consensus building."  The dioceses that made such a decision would not be acting out of fear but out of conviction that TEC has set itself on a course from which it cannot turn back.  Further, they would not be acting in ways contrary to consensus building because it has become clear to them that consensus building is not the goal of those who now hold the levers of power in TEC.  Those who hold power have acted decisively in ways founded on crude majoritarian vote rather than consensus. Ratifying dioceses would, in short, be acting, should they be invited to do so, in order to distinguish themselves from the actions of TEC's General Convention and the majority of its bishops, and in order to establish their full membership in the Anglican Communion. Would they, as Fr. Harris states, "by this action be denying that they are bound together with the rest of The Episcopal Church in a common decision making community?"  No! They, as members of The Episcopal Church, would be taking action as dioceses of The Episcopal Church that is allowed by the constitution of that church.  They would not be removing themselves from a common decision making process.  They would be taking an extraordinary course within a decision making process because the common decision making process of The Episcopal Church had arrived at a decision that compromises the constitutionally-defined identity of The Episcopal Church. That is, by its constitution, The Episcopal Church defines itself as a church in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury and a full member of the Anglican Communion. When these identifying marks are in question, so obviously is the identity of those bodies that so define themselves.  Why then should a diocese, while remaining a part of TEC, not seek to establish its bona fides as a diocese of the Anglican Communion? II Fr. Harris' second objection is that since TEC is not the only church that has problems with the Covenant, dioceses from several provinces might sign on.  This is a bad idea because then, he says, there might be a list of six or seven hundred dioceses that belong to the communion rather than a list of thirty-eight provinces.  An unmanageable mess!  Further, it is unclear to whom the announcement of joining would be made--to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Meeting of the Primates or the ACC?  If the latter, who would then, as he says, pay the freight?  The dioceses? These concerns appear to us an unreasonable attempt to reduce a reasonable argument to the status of an absurdity.  To think that six or seven hundred dioceses from around the Communion would be part of provinces that did not ratify the Covenant is way beyond the bounds of credibility.  If there were that degree of disagreement among the provinces, the Communion would have effectively fallen apart.  The Covenant would have failed.  Far more plausible is a signing of the Covenant by a wide majority of provinces, and alongside this provision for those "churches" (dioceses, parishes, etc.) that wish to covenant when the province in which they reside has refused this direction. As to the worry about who would receive the various diocesan ratifications, speculation on this matter can only be speculation.  If provision is made for ratification, it is reasonable to assume that provision will be made for its reception (much as the current text of Section Four already indicates).  To say that the Communion does not have the infrastructure to handle the applications will remain the case until such time as the communion takes action to make the option of diocesan ratification a possibility.  Presumably provision will be made for receiving and vetting these applications.  Provision of this sort need not be complicated if it is indeed desired.  Fr. Harris simply doesn't desire it. Further, there is no reason to hold that reception of diocesan ratification by the ACC would mean that dioceses would belong to the ACC as dioceses and so pay part of the expenses.  The ACC is not composed of dioceses, but provinces.  The question would be what form of representation dioceses that were allowed to ratify the covenant would have in the meetings of the Instruments of Communion, including the meeting of the ACC. (Currently, such extra-provincials are represented by Canterbury). The question is one that would have to be answered, but individual diocesan membership in the ACC or the Meeting of Primates is surely not a proposal anyone would take seriously since there are already provisions in place that address this. III In his third objection to diocesan ratification, Fr. Harris returns to the claim to which we objected in our response to his previous posting, viz., that diocesan ratification leads directly to "the madness of yet another papal system."  If such were the case, we would object to diocesan ratification. So Fr. Harris' objection deserves serious scrutiny, even though he worries about an eventuality that, in so far as we can determine, no one wants. Just why does he believe such an eventuality lies hidden in the bosom of diocesan ratification?  The first reason is that diocesan sign on is a "sign of connective relationship" that is "directly between the diocese and the Archbishop of Canterbury."  He objects to this because the Archbishop of Canterbury controls invitations to meetings of the Instruments of Communion.  This control he goes on to say "gives to the ABC and the Primates central power."  He further objects that the Primates involved would be only those of provinces that had signed on. It seems reasonable to say that only Primates whose provinces have ratified the Covenant would be involved in inviting people to meetings of the covenanted provinces (and dioceses).  That being said, "central power" as employed by Fr. Harris is a very loaded, and in this case misapplied, term.  It could mean lots of things, including the plenipotentiary power of the Pope.  However, the power accorded to the Archbishop of Canterbury (not the Primates) takes the form of authority to gather the Instruments of Communion.  The authority to gather implies the authority to withhold an invitation.  However, it is unlikely that the Archbishop would exercise this authority apart from the agreement of the Primates in a covenanted communion.  It is reasonable to say that the authority to gather belongs to the Archbishop as the first among equals. However, to compare this sort of authority to the power of the Pope is at best a gross exaggeration.  The Archbishop has only a very limited form of authority in the Communion as a whole. He gathers!  Further, he gathers with the advice and consent of the Communion as a whole. (And as we already know, no one has to come!) He has no jurisdictional powers. No curial centrism is apparent here.  We wonder if the real reason for calling up the specter of papal power is worry that TEC will not be "gathered" once the Covenant is in place.  If this is the worry, it would be better to state it directly rather than alluding to an eventuality favored by no one. The second defense of the claim that papal power lies hidden within the diocesan option is that with a direct connection with Canterbury, "a diocese could be so out of connection with its own province, its own Church, that it identified entirely with the ABC."  It is certainly the case that if a diocese in fact asks to ratify the Covenant because its province has not, there has taken place a weakening of the connection between diocese and province.  How could that not be the case?   The extent of that distancing no doubt would vary from diocese to diocese and from province to province.  However, to say that a diocese could be so out of touch "that it identified entirely" with the Archbishop is a misrepresentation of the facts. If a diocese remains a part of the province in question it has not "entirely" identified with the Archbishop.  What it has done is to say that its primary identity is a diocese of the Anglican Communion.  As such it is also a diocese of The Episcopal Church.  Nevertheless, it has said that the center of catholic identity is never simply a national church.  It is the church catholic of which various national churches are constituent parts or partial expressions. By signing the Covenant, a diocese is making a statement about the ordering of the aspects of its identity.  First the church catholic, then the national expression of the church catholic!  That is the proper lexical order of loyalty. This observation brings us to our primary objection to Fr. Harris' analysis, with its implicit proposal that dioceses are subject in a final sense to the determinations of a national governing body.  We have on numerous occasions shown that, within TEC, there is no constitutional basis for this claim.  According to its constitution, as a national church, TEC is not hierarchical.  It is hierarchical in a constitutional sense only at the diocesan level. The burden of Fr. Harris' argument is the opposite, namely, a national body that is sovereign within its own borders governs TEC.  TEC is, in short, a denomination in the same sense as are the Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Methodist churches.  Is TEC an expression of catholic Christianity or is it but another denomination within the spectrum of American denominationalism?  This is the ecclesiological question with which both The Episcopal Church and its constituent dioceses are now confronted. We need to point out, however, that this question was answered in favor of "catholic Christianity" many years ago, through the very processes that underlay the development of the Lambeth Conferences and the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral! That Fr. Harris' supports a denominational ecclesiology becomes plain in his fifth objection to diocesan ratification (an objection that for the sake of clarity we discuss prior to objection four).  He says that what he most dislikes about the notion of diocesan buy in is "that it is in total denial of the Episcopal Church as a body that makes decisions together."  Here the issue once more is misstated.  A diocese that determines to take advantage of the possibility of ratification apart from a province that decides not to ratify is not denying the province in question as a body that makes decisions together.  It is saying that the province of which it is a part has made a decision that compromises a more basic aspect of its identity.  Assuming the capacity will be guaranteed them, they are saying that it is not enough for them "to uphold the moratoria on their own."  Their representation within the Communion has been compromised, and they must, therefore, seek a direct relation apart from the compromised one provided by the province to which they belong. In taking the step of direct ratification they would be saying no to a Christian identity defined first of all by the boundaries of a nation state and the confines of a denomination that locates itself first of all within those boundaries. IV It is this view that in fact prompts his fourth objection.  He asks why those that want TEC to sign the Covenant do not wait for the next General Convention and there cast 51% of the votes for ratification. If this time were taken before a final judgment, there might, he says, be some possibility of a provincial decision by "the so called 'local' Church." It is of course the case that if no provision is made before that time for dioceses to ratify the Covenant, then dioceses would not have to hold off casting their votes.  They would have no vote to cast. The question would be moot. However, if provision is made for diocesan ratification dioceses that want to ratify the Covenant would simply be foolish not to do so.  First The Episcopal Church has already taken steps that both effectively repudiate the approved portion of the Covenant and make ratification of a Covenant that limits its autonomy impossible to imagine.  Second, a provincial decision that is the result of consensus building among those who support the decisions of the General Convention and those who do not now sadly lies beyond reach and has, in any case, been contradicted by a majoritarian system of decision-making.  Pronouncements of victory have been heard resounding from the halls of our deliberations.  "It's time to move on" is the mantra that focused the attention of the vast majority of all three orders and both houses.  How then can there be consensus building that includes those who have a problem with the majority if they have no way to contribute to building such a consensus. According to the reports we have received, a declaration of consensus by majority vote has already been made. In such a context "minority influence" must be exercised in new ways.  Thus, in taking the step of direct ratification the minority would, as previously noted, be saying no to a Christian identity defined first all by boundaries of a nation state and the confines of a denomination that locates itself first of all within those boundaries.  Again, as previously noted, the primary objection we lodged against Fr. Harris' first two articles on these subjects is that they locate the identity of The Episcopal Church first within the boundaries of a nation state.  His further explication of his views makes doubly clear that this is indeed his position.  And having stated it in this way, it becomes increasingly clear that Fr. Harris not only believes this innovative understanding of our polity is true, but also that it must be enforced as true by making all dioceses and members suffer whatever fate is in store for a province that does not intend to sign any covenant restricting a course of action undertaken, for example, like that of the last General Convention.  All must go where the church of the nation goes, whether they want to or not, even if to do so calls into question their belonging to the Anglican Communion. V We have stated very serious disagreements with the concerns Fr. Harris expresses.  Nevertheless, we welcome the care with which he has given expression to the view of TEC's identity now common among TEC's leadership.  It is a view that has found expression in the representations of the Office of the Presiding Bishop in the cases now under review in San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, and Fort Worth. Nevertheless, it remains largely unarticulated in a consistent, thorough, and coherent manner. We believe a comprehensive and coherent statement of this novel understanding of Episcopal and Anglican identity held by Fr. Harris is of the utmost importance.  We say this because the views Fr. Harris expresses, views he shares with the Presiding Bishop and much of the present leadership of our church, are views that go against its constitution and change, indeed almost reverse, the way in which TEC has understood itself since its foundation.  Our founders were careful to define TEC in relation to the doctrine and worship of the Church of England.  Latterly that definition changed to communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury and membership in the Anglican Communion. Both definitions place The Episcopal Church within a communion of churches, the whole of which is more fundamental to Christian identity than its national expression.  We do not know if it is any longer possible to carry on a meaningful discussion of this crucial issue, but we are grateful to Fr. Harris for making an attempt.