What We Say And How We Say It: A Response to Fr. Harris' Attack on Bishop Stanton

In recent days, Fr. Mark Harris has published a comment on Bishop Stanton's address to the Convention of the Diocese of Dallas (link) entitled "Bishop Stanton barks up the wrong tree so that we won't notice the bite." (link)  The comment demands response because it shows so clearly the dubious nature of both the substance and manner of argumentation within our church. Fr. Harris takes issue with almost everything Bishop Stanton has to say save for one important point. With the Bishop he holds that individual dioceses have a right to sign onto the proposed Anglican Covenant!  Coming from the mouth of such a staunch progressive an admission of this sort is both startling and welcome.  Nevertheless, Fr. Harris has a problem. He grants the right of a diocese to sign on but he objects strenuously to the exercise of this right. His objection takes several forms and each deserves attention because each displays in its own way the perilous state of our common life. Though later in his argument he contradicts this statement, he notes (correctly) that the reason for a diocese exercising such a right is "to affirm and maintain a connection with Canterbury and/or other Provinces quite independently of what might happen at General Convention." Fr. Harris believes that independent action of this sort will have several baleful results that, in combination, subvert national and regional churches. So he claims first that diocesan sign-on renders "any discussion in General Convention moot." He goes on to say that if indeed discussion in General Convention is moot (i.e., deprived of any practical significance), direct relations between dioceses and the Communion will completely subvert national and regional church structures. Finally, subversion of national and regional churches will render a "covenanted worldwide church directly made up of dioceses" (rather than national churches). I take it that the heart of Fr. Harris' argument is that dioceses have a right to ratify the Covenant but that to do so would prove destructive to the integrity of national churches and in the end to the Communion as a whole. The charge is serious and deserves careful scrutiny. The place to begin is with the one point Fr. Harris appears to grant Bishop Stanton"”a diocesan right to pass a resolution supporting and signing onto the Anglican Covenant. Fr. Harris grants this right for contingent reasons only, namely, that at present "there is no canon or even legislation requiring restraint from doing so." Though he does not address the issue directly, one is forced to the conclusion that if there were such a canon or such legislation Fr. Harris would say that a diocese has no such right. It is at this point that a fundamental disagreement between Bishop Stanton and Fr. Harris appears. Fr. Harris claims that Bishop Stanton believes the right to be unqualified because TEC is "a confederation of dioceses" rather than a "local franchise" of a larger corporation. It would be more accurate to say that the Bishop holds that TEC is a "voluntary association" of dioceses because that is the way in which it is constitutionally and legally defined. Be that as it may, Fr. Harris objects that TEC is not to be understood in this way because, as Bishop Stanton himself freely admits, each new diocese is required to make an "unqualified accession" to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church. It is clearly the view of Fr. Harris that an unqualified accession means that the national church stands in a hierarchical relation to the several diocese of which it is comprised, and that these diocese are subject in all ways and at all times to the canons and legislative actions of the General Convention by which they are governed. Fr. Harris makes this point by assertion rather than argument, and he does so knowing full well that the laws of voluntary association were not understood in this way by the original drafters of TEC's constitution, and are not understood in this way by the present civil laws governing voluntary associations. In the minds of the framers of TEC's constitution and in contemporary jurisprudence the laws governing voluntary associations do not limit the rights of individual members in the way Fr. Harris asserts. Here we come to the first point I wish to make about the substance and manner of present progressive argument. The substantial issues have to do with the nature of TEC's constitution. Communion Partner Bishops along with ACI have argued consistently and in great detail that TEC's constitution is indeed unusual within the Anglican Communion in that it neither sets up a metropolitan ecclesial authority nor a corporation enjoying a hierarchical relation with its various franchises (link). The unqualified accession required of new dioceses applying for membership in the General Convention as a voluntary association does not require of them submission to all future canons or constitutional changes. It does not require them to refrain from passing diocesan canons contrary to those of General Convention. It does not even require of them permanent membership. These points have been argued in great detail, objections have been lodged, replies have been given, and briefs filed with the courts by both sides. As we wait the judicial determination of these issues, we find in Fr. Harris' post only more and repeated assertions! TEC has before it a substantial disagreement about the meaning of its constitution. What Fr. Harris has offered in his response to Bishop Stanton, however, is not an argument but an assertion; and it is at this point that a defining characteristic of current forms of public speech within TEC appears in rather stark relief. There is little argument but much assertion! This mode of public discourse is a cause for alarm because, as the history of the 20th Century so well illustrates, when assertion takes the place of public argument, one is confronted not with the give and take of a free society, but with the assertion of power on the part of those who control its mechanisms. For this reason alone, Fr. Harris' response to Bishop Stanton should cause alarm among both progressives and conservatives because in his remarks assertion constantly replaces argument. Indeed, his prudential worries about diocesan sign-on take the form of unsubstantiated assertions designed to draw his readers into the alarm he, himself, feels. So we must ask is it really the case that, as Fr. Harris claims, "marshalling dioceses to sign on now, if successful, can be a way to make any discussion in General Convention moot?" I suppose it might indeed render the discussion moot if a significant number of dioceses were to do so. However, if indeed a substantial majority of dioceses were to "sign on" prior to action by the General Convention, the dioceses would have done no more than exercise a right they have and so rightly rendered such a discussion and action moot. The more likely circumstance, however, is that a few, a very few, dioceses will take such an action. How will the action of a few render the discussion of General Convention moot? It would not in any way do so. If the General Convention were to sign on, then a majority would have expressed its agreement with those who did so independently. If the General Convention were not to sign on, then a minority would have exercised their right to demur. In neither case is the discussion "moot." Now for another assertion! Diocesan sign on independent of General Convention will "further the direct relationship between dioceses and the Communion completely (emphasis added) subverting the national and regional church structures in the process." Given the fact that as yet arrangements have not been made by any of the Instruments of Communion for direct diocesan sign-on for all the churches of the Communion, a statement such as this ought to be placed in "scare quotes." The facts are these. Dioceses within TEC contemplating such an action claim the right to do so under TEC's Constitution, not under a general invitation by the communion's Instruments to all dioceses of the communion. Acting lawfully under TEC's constitution is hardly subverting TEC and has no effect on other churches of the Communion. Remember, the Communion has been defined since the 1930 Lambeth Conference as a fellowship of "dioceses, provinces, or regional churches," a definition incorporated into TEC's own constitution. It is nonetheless true that dioceses that might sign on prior to a discussion by the General Convention will do so in order to signal not only their support of the proposed covenant but their firm belief that TEC will not vote for ratification. Indeed, given the actions of the recent General Convention that make way for both "gay blessings" and the consecration of partnered gay Bishops (and so run directly counter to Sections One and Three of the proposed covenant) many in these dioceses hold that TEC has already given a provisional No to the covenant. For them Fr. Harris' lament that early sign-on means "a loss both for Dallas and the rest of the church", given the declaration by the last General Convention that it is now time to move on, appears at best disingenuous. The time for dialogue is now past it would seem, so what is to be missed? The motive for early ratification is thus not to subvert national and regional church structures but, as Fr. Harris at one point states, "to affirm and maintain a connection to Canterbury and / or to other Provinces independent of what might happen at General Convention." No matter what the motive, however, it is hard to see why early action on the part of a diocese or even a group of TEC dioceses would completely subvert national and regional church structures of the entire Communion. These structures would certainly continue to function. Complete subversion of national and regional structures seems a far-fetched result of sign-on by TEC dioceses in exceptional circumstances. What diocesan sign-on might do in such circumstances is show that there are dioceses that do not accept the actions of their national and regional structures. In cases where the Instruments of Communion share this disagreement, a request to the Instruments to sign on as dioceses would express a desire to establish full communion with the dioceses and provinces represented by those Instruments. They would in no way be aiming to create anarchy within the Communion for a simple reason. They would be acting for the sake of maintaining relationships with the communion rather than seeking to further diocesan autonomy. Here we come to the real issue that troubles Fr. Harris. He worries next that "If the Communion is about dioceses in covenant, then the future of the communion will no longer involve national or regional churches at all (emphasis added)." It will become without remainder a "covenanted world wide church directly made up of dioceses." Frankly, a result of this sort seems beyond the realm even of remote possibility. If, say, dioceses whose Bishops belong to Communion Partners were to take an action of this sort, and if a way were found to relate these dioceses in some direct manner to the Instruments of Communion, how would that subvert national and regional churches. I can't imagine people in Singapore or North Africa even thinking such a thought! I certainly cannot think of the Archbishop of Canterbury doing so. Even more I cannot imagine the delegates to General Convention announcing the dissolution of this structure because Communion Partner Bishops and Dioceses had signed on independently. So why does Fr. Harris worry about such an unlikely result? Given the other things he has to say in this posting, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that his actual concern is that the position of TEC within the councils of the Communion may, because of its recent actions, be in jeopardy. To counter such a possibility he holds out the possibility of the collapse of the provincial structures of the Communion as a whole if any space is given for diocesan sign-on. It appears that what he wants is a corporate form of Anglican governance that gives each national church, autonomy in its own sphere. Parenthetically, I must remark that it is difficult to see how, if Fr. Harris' view of autonomy were to prevail among Anglicans, they would any longer be able to lay claim to the term Communion. Be that as it may, it is important to ask what the relation between provincial and diocesan structures ought to be within Anglican polity. It would have been more helpful if Fr. Harris had raised this question directly rather than making a somewhat concealed case by way of assertion for the primacy of national structures over diocesan ones (and apparently over communion ones as well). The Archbishop of Canterbury has clearly indicated that he believes that dioceses have priority within Anglican polity. Ephraim Radner has argued on the basis of good evidence that provincial structures were intended from the outset to serve an administrative function"”one that does not subvert the primary responsibility of the local bishop for the doctrine, discipline and worship of the church (link). This question is of fundamental importance for Anglicans throughout the world. Voices such as these are due a considered and well-argued response rather than a contrary assertion. I hope I have accurately presented both the substance and the manner of Fr. Harris' presentation. I cannot complete this response, however, without noting another thing about the manner of his argument. In addition to the fact that he presents his case by assertion rather than argument, he in effect accuses Bishop Stanton of being disingenuous. Thus, he concludes with an ad hominem attack on the Bishop's motives. I have been unable to avoid this conclusion. Fr. Harris begins by saying that the reason the Bishop takes the position he does is to "affirm and maintain a connection to Canterbury and / or to other Provinces quite independently of what might happen at General Convention." At this point he takes the Bishop at his word. However, his title suggests suspicion about the Bishop's motives. So he says that the Bishop "barks up the wrong tree so that we won't notice the bite." What does he mean by the title? Apparently he means that that the Bishop's real desire is to establish the right of a diocese "to autonomy apart from its existence within The Episcopal Church and its canonical limitations." He then goes on to say that the Bishop wishes to establish this right in order to keep TEC from preventing a diocese from leaving with its property. Though it is not his primary purpose, it certainly is the case that Bishop Stanton wishes to establish the autonomy of dioceses apart from The Episcopal Church and its canonical limitations. My question is on what grounds does Fr. Harris make the assertion that Bishop Stanton's real motive is protection of property? By this charge, Fr. Harris questions Bishop Stanton's transparency and integrity. I have worked with Bishop Stanton for many years and have never experienced him as a man who dissimulates. His conduct in respect to the property of Parishes that wished to leave the Diocese of Dallas has been to negotiate a settlement and so avoid going to court. Further, he has no design to take the Diocese of Dallas out of TEC. It is true that in reaction to dioceses that have left, the Presiding Bishop has stated publically that her motive for taking the actions she has is to secure property. However, there is no indication that Bishops Stanton has spoken or acted either to secede from TEC or gain control of property. On just what basis does Fr. Harris level the charge that these are his true intentions? As far as I can tell these charges are leveled on the basis of no evidence what so ever. Which brings me once more to the manner rather than the substance of argument! Another indication that public discourse has devolved into a struggle for power is the substitution of personal attack for hard evidence and civil argument. The personal slur has become a favored mechanism for establishing dominance. It is a mechanism for political control. It is not the sort of speech that promotes freedom, let alone the Communion of Saints. Not a happy thought, but one that accurately identifies where we are as a church!