What Are We Meeting About? The Current Shape of our Common Discussions in the Episcopal Church
A reflection by the ACI
Several important meetings, mostly of American bishops, are soon to be held (e.g. in New York , in Texas , and, we are told, elsewhere). It is important to think through, in advance, what can and cannot, or what should and should not, be pursued at these gatherings. It is no longer possible, we believe, to “patch up our disagreements” within the Episcopal Church; it is no longer possible to “broker deals” with the Communion or, for that matter, with this or that part of the Communion (the Global South, Africa, South America, etc..).
The Episcopal Church is falling apart. The extent of her disintegration is debatable, to be sure. But the disintegration is real. It began most recently in 2000, and has continued through the course of two further General Conventions without abatement: at least a couple of hundred parishes have been split or have left, along with clergy; thousands of laity have left or had their commitments to TEC frayed; thousands more are eager to see their ministry and witness decoupled from and unencumbered by the scandals they believe have been caused by General Convention and its leadership; and most recently, around a dozen dioceses have either formally requested, or indicated a forthcoming request, that their relationship with the Presiding Bishop-elect and therefore with the structures the Presiding Bishop oversees and represents be placed in question. Statistics demonstrating membership decline are alarming. None of this is minor. This is so especially as the dynamics of our disintegration have now insinuated themselves into the larger Communion, where parties within TEC or among those who have left her have set up sometimes formal ecclesial alliances with various portions of the Communion in a manner that has been non-consensual, uncoordinated, and increasingly conflictual.
The disintegration turns on at least two major elements: first, the teaching and discipline of the TEC and whether it is congruent with the “historic faith and order” of the Church Catholic; and second, the parameters and perhaps substance of the Anglican Communion’s life, and whether TEC’s current teaching and disciplinary practices are consistent with them. The 2004 Windsor Report, commissioned by the Primates, provided an attempt at addressing these two major elements. It did so through a general theological outline of what “communion” means, and through a set of recommendations addressed to TEC for this church’s (it was hoped, positive) response.
Where do we now stand?
The General Convention was given the broad task, by TEC’s House of Bishops and the Windsor Report itself, of making a choice to “walk together” with the Communion or to “walk apart”, by responding concretely to the Report’s affirmations. (This, certainly, was how the Primates, who commissioned the Report, understood the import of General Convention’s challenge.) This choice regards not only the specifics of the Report’s recommendations – upheld, by and large, by three of the Instruments of Communion (Primates, the ACC, and the Archbishop of Canterbury as the Communion’s “Focus”). More importantly, it engages the substance of the Report’s outline of the Communion’s reality as an interdependent, conciliar organism in which common teaching and discipline in matters that touch the entire Communion demand mutual subjection in decision-making and practice.
The 2006 General Convention, as the event unfolded, worked hard, though chaotically, to respond to Windsor . It chose to affirm membership within the Communion in general. But it also chose not to address several key elements of the Report’s actual recommendations, to address others in more general and vague ways, and finallynot to address the more substantive implications of mutual subjection with respect to actual teaching and discipline. Indeed, some of General Convention’s resolutions, and the election of a Presiding Bishop, Katherine Jefferts Schori, who has, in Nevada, flouted the recommendations of The Windsor Report and the teaching and discipline of the Communion over just the past three years, overtly contradict the requests of the Communion.
What is the status of General Convention’s response? Is it and should it be deemed a positive response to the plea of the Windsor Report and Instruments to “walk together” with the Communion, or does it constitute a negative response to this plea? ACI happens to believe that General Convention responded negatively (see ourGeneral Convention, The Windsor Report and ECUSA's Relationship to the Anglican Communion). But although there are some Episcopal Church bishops who are adamant that the response is in fact sufficient, it must be stressed that, whatever their genuine views, neither their opinions nor ACI’s on the matter are ultimately pertinent: General Convention was asked to respond to requests from outside its provinces, and only those who made these requests are in a position to judge the response’s adequacy.
From this perspective, some leading Communion representatives have already noted that the response is at least partially negative; others have viewed it as negative in a more definitive and complete fashion (see the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, a number of individual Primates, and the African Anglicans represented by CAPA). The negative aspects of TEC’s choice have also been noted by a number of TEC’s own bishops and by various lay and clergy groups. While these evaluations are by no means universal nor yet conclusive, it is clear that General Convention’s response to the conciliarly upheld recommendations and theological challenge of the Windsor Report stands under a dark cloud.
In the shadow of this cloud, it remains for the Instruments of Communion themselves formally to respond to General Convention’s actions and to the character of the choice they represent. That is, we await the response of the Primates, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and perhaps most importantly, of the Lambeth Conference, which set in motion fundamental aspects of the current debate with the passing of Resolution I.10 in 1998. (The ACC will meet separately again in 2009).
In the meantime, however, it is not yet clear that the Presiding Bishop-elect of TEC will be able to function as a Communion representative for the people of the TEC, whatever their views. Certainly, there are intimations that she will not, due to at least two reasons: first, her inability to represent the teaching and discipline of many TEC bishops and dioceses as they have now been uniformly upheld by the Communion; and second, her personal standing as a violator of the Windsor Report’s recommendations, one who has consequently been asked to consider “withdrawing from representative functions” in the Communion (WR par. 144), a request in fact accepted by TEC as it applied to participation at the last ACC. (It should be noted that the current Presiding Bishop has himself, through the steady process of Communion decision-making, been moving into such an excluded position.)
What avenues for legitimate response now lie before the various players?
The wider Communion is not in a position, legally, canonically, or morally, to manipulate the internal arrangements of TEC and its membership: Episcopalian leaders and members must make decisions in response to choices put before them, and no one can make these decisions on their behalf. Internal Episcopal Church arrangements and the order of Anglican witness within America (which is still, from a Communion perspective, tied solely to the Episcopal Church, although this may change) are the business of the TEC itself, and of those legal instruments -- ecclesiastical, civil, and charitable -- that might further a godly and orderly resolution to conflict among Christian brethren and disputing parties within the Church of Christ. It is important that the distinction between Communion membership and internal ordering be kept practically clear. It is furthermore important that we grasp how our internal ordering will inevitably have repercussions on, and perhaps eventually reflect, our Communion membership (see Rowan Williams’ comments in “The Challenge and Hope of Being an Anglican Today”).
Specifically, however, the Instruments of Communion who have both founded and upheld the Windsor Report, are the only legitimate evaluators of TEC’s response to that Report’s requests, as they have articulated them. Although they hold the role of interpreter of this response, they are also able to determine TEC’s place in the Communion’s councils, via the power of invitation, made on the basis of TEC’s choices, or the choices of its bishops.
Furthermore, it now increasingly looks as if a yet-to-be-formulated “Anglican Covenant” will prove the final arbiter of Communion membership. Such a Covenant will provide individual Anglican churches (as provinces, or perhaps smaller units) with the free choice to “opt in” or “opt out” of the Communion. The parameters for participation in this future Covenant’s formulation will probably come out of the next Lambeth Conference (2008). But whether or not all or only some or no American bishops are invited to Lambeth may well depend on the Primates’ interpretation of General Convention’s response to their requests. This, in turn, is something that will deeply influence the choices made regarding the Covenant formulators. No one should underestimate the Communion-ordering force, therefore, of the Lambeth invitations. (Nor should we assume that only Americans, in their failure to embrace Windsor ’s recommendations adequately, will be singled out in the exercise of the power of invitation. Other provinces who have flouted the common teaching and discipline of the Communion, on matters regarding diocesan and provincial jurisdiction for instance, are similarly under a cloud.)
It is theoretically possible that TEC’s House of Bishops could meet quickly and act to clarify their own commitment to Communion teaching and discipline in a way that is far clearer and more positive than what General Convention did as a whole. But this is very unlikely, given recent episcopal witness. Therefore, in view of the particular cloud over General Convention’s actions and its future status at the Communion’s councils, those Episcopal Church bishops who wish to continue to remain a party to the Communion’s life, through common counsel in a formal way, have a clear opportunity and demand before them that cannot await the actions of others. They should:
a. publicly affirm their commitment and subjection to the Communion’s teaching and discipline, particularly Lambeth I.10 (this is something that current House of Bishops’ meetings and General Conventions have not allowed them to do, with the result that “the underlying reality of our communion in God the Holy Trinity is obscured, and the effectiveness of our common mission severely hindered" [Primates, 2004]);
b. publicly affirm their commitment, within their jurisdictional purview, to the recommendations of the Windsor Report as upheld by the Instruments of Communion;
c. request on this basis from the Archbishop of Canterbury and Primates formal representation in common at Communion councils, especially among the Primates, in whatever form the Primates are able to provide it (“Alternative Primatial Oversight”, in any exact meaning of the phrase, may not prove feasible for a host of reasons);
d. request on this basis from the Archbishop of Canterbury and Primates formal Communion recognition, in whatever form is deemed appropriate, such as may permit invitation to the Lambeth Conference;
e. do the above as a body, in order to demonstrate the ongoing ecclesial (and, one hopes, catholic) character of their commitment to life in common with the larger Communion.
The character of the present moment
We need to accept that from now until any Covenant is formalized and offered for acceptance, relationships within the Episcopal Church (including between bishops and their own dioceses) will necessarily be ad hoc with respect to Communion membership and common mission, for we cannot know for sure any longer what are the grounds for that membership and mission as they apply to specific individuals and groupings in America (whatever may be the self-assertions of this or that individual or group).
Within this ad hoc period, Episcopal Church bishops who wish to remain "in full communion" with rest of the Communion's councils need to make clear why and how they intend to do this. This, it seems, ought to be the goal of all Communion-oriented bishops and their gatherings, no more and no less (see above). The opportunity at stake here is the possibility that they can be invited to be part of the Covenant process, including Lambeth.
Furthermore, during this ad hoc period, any number of things could happen in TEC, including amicable rearrangements, lawsuits, struggles, etc.. If the bishops and councils of TEC want to deal with these matters and in a way that minimizes acrimony and even litigation, these would be worthy goals. However, the Communion herself at this point has no role to play in such discussions, except that of godly encouragement; and, conversely, these Episcopal Church councils have no role to play in adjudicating Communion participation on the part of either TEC or her individual bishops.
With regard to the Anglican Communion Office – since the ACO will be involved in gatherings of American bishops – it is clear that it cannot be a “mediating” structure between TEC and the Communion. The ACO, after all, represents the Communion as a whole, and TEC only as she is a member of the Communion. The ACO’s job is to articulate the Communion's standards, hopes, demands, procedure, and to listen and share American views with other Communion members. Our job, as American bishops and Episcopalians, is to respond to this as we are able in conscience to do. We must be clear that we are no longer in the business of finding ways to "settle our differences", since our differences have to do, fundamentally, with Communion teaching and discipline that are not, internal to TEC, capable of our American manipulation.
One of the grave challenges of this period is that it will require enormous patience on the part of American bishops, dioceses, congregations, laity, and their various overseas friends. It is a patience borne in the face of a certain open-endedness of council over the next months. The danger is that such patience will be thrown over in favor of unilaterally-arranged alignments made between various separated segments and parties of the Communion. The latter will prove a path that will in fact foreclose the clear choices that must be made, in our case, by Americans for life in Christ’s communion or for some other, narrower, and more desiccated and embittered ecclesial existence.
