Introduction
The new Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church and a group of like minded bishops have just released a proposal to address an appeal by a number of dioceses for Alternative Primatial Oversight/Relationship.
It must be pointed out that this appeal was originally to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and thereby to the Primates of the Communion, and not to the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, she herself symbolizing the very problems necessitating such alternative arrangements.
Further, any solution that leaves the new Presiding Bishop giving alternative relationships and oversight as her gift is highly problematic. Such a solution leaves her fully at the table and has the effect of appearing to establish the very commitments and authority that drove some of the bishops to make this request for APO in the first place.
Any solution that leaves the Episcopal Church in an undiminished capacity also has the effect of behaviorally overturning the Primates decisions at Dromentine and thereby establishing the decisions of General Convention as viable options within the Anglican Communion.
For these reasons, the Anglican Communion Institute makes this our own proposal, that has previously been circulated among some of the leadership of the Anglican Communion, a public document.
Following is the proposal:
Context
Following the decisions of GC 2003, relationships within ECUSA deteriorated at various levels. The Communion’s response of the Windsor Report has now been considered by GC 2006 and although a final decision awaits the Primates’ Meeting in Feb 2007 it is becoming clear that the majority of provinces find it, at best, inadequate and incomplete. It is also clear that this is creating even deeper problems within ECUSA/TEC to which an urgent response, in the form of new structures, is required.
There are now the following areas within the life of TEC for which a response is being sought from the wider Communion:
(1) Dioceses seeking some form of Alternative Primatial Oversight
(2) Dioceses clearly distinguishing themselves from GC 2003 and 2006 (”Windsor Bishops and Dioceses”)
(3) Parishes in other dioceses which wish to distinguish themselves from their bishop and from GC 2003 and 2006 and align with (1) or (2)
(4) Parishes which have already left TEC and are currently under the oversight of a bishop from another province.
A further development is the “Common Cause” initiative seeking to bring some of those within the 4 categories above into closer relationships with other ecclesial bodies (AMiA, REC etc) that separated from TEC some time ago. While it may be tempting to seek to involve these in any Communion response, such an attempt is likely to complicate matters and it would be preferable for any such arrangements to take place after finding a resolution to the more immediate and pressing problems (relating to TEC churches/dioceses and those which have left TEC since GC 2003), perhaps through the covenant process.
Some Principles
Any response should, as far as possible, be a response on the part of the Communion and not simply one or two provinces within the Communion acting without reference to the wider counsels and Instruments of Communion. In particular, proposals that lack the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury and/or the Primates should be avoided as far as possible both because they will cast doubt on their legitimacy and because they will be seen by many as tantamount to creating an alternative Communion.
A stark choice of EITHER the status quo OR a new alternative/parallel province is one which should be avoided if at all possible. It is recognized that the Communion covenant process may well lead to clear differentiation between “constituent” and “associate” members of the Communion and that this distinction may well take shape within existing provinces.
As far as possible, a means should be found for TEC to avoid any irrevocable realignment through the creation of a new province until it decides on the covenant. If this is done precipitously then it risks not only causing division among the different orthodox groupings noted above (1-4) but also causing other parts of the Communion to fragment in response to such a situation in the US rather than focusing on their response to the covenant. However, given the actions of GC 2003 and 2006 some form of movement towards a provisional form of such a “constituent”/”associate” distinction is probably now required within TEC.
The response needs, as far as possible, to address all 4 of the areas noted above in a coherent manner that produces some form of unity and order and establishes a recognizable body of Anglican believers committed to Communion teaching and discipline (a “separate ecclesiastical structure of the Anglican Communion in the USA” in the words of Kigali) in contrast to the position taken by GC 2003 and 2006 and other dioceses (some most recently rejecting even the tentative moves of GC 2006 eg on some form of moratorium). Such a response must itself therefore seek to respect the ongoing Communion processes of common counsel or else it will cut off the very branch it claims to be sitting on.
As far as possible, outside involvement should focus on facilitating an internal American solution to the problems in which other provinces only have a formal role (eg in terms of jurisdiction, oversight or obligatory financial links) where there is no possible alternative limited to American bishops and dioceses.
This will require both unity among those seeking to distinguish themselves from the official organs of TEC and, if possible, some form of agreed negotiated settlement with the Presiding Bishop/815/HOB etc.
As a sign of continued commitment to the councils of the church until some final separation has to be effected, those participating in any “separate ecclesiastical structure” should continue to give financially (but at a significantly lower level) to those from whom they have distanced themselves and, where possible, continue to participate in councils calling for TEC to return and walk together with the Communion.
Because what is sought is the creation of an ordered and peaceable space for the councils of the Communion and particularly the covenant process to work, issues of property should be put on hold until such final resolution is accomplished (through reconciliation or major realignment).
Proposal
Those in (1) and (2) need to establish a “college” of bishops and dioceses within TEC which will be recognized by the wider Communion and be the means of meeting the needs of those in (3) and (4) without this requiring either an alternative province or the intervention of bishops from outside the US. Failure to do this will inevitably result in these other two options becoming firmly established.
The college will need to negotiate with TEC-815-HOB how it meets the needs of those in (3) who are currently under the jurisdiction of a non-college TEC bishop. It would effectively assume corporate provisional jurisdiction in such situations and arrange pastoral oversight of each affiliated parish by a particular bishop of the college whose diocese would take over matters of deployment, ordination and discipline in relation to those parishes. They would become in effect “peculiars” (a not uncommon phenomenon in recent Anglican history), no longer under the jurisdiction of the bishop in whose traditional territory they live.
Those provinces currently “holding” departed parishes (ie group (4)) would need to give the college their full support and transfer their parishes to the college for them to exercise jurisdiction and arrange oversight in the manner described above. They would refuse to “receive” any other parishes and instead direct them to affiliation with the college.
Parishes in non-college dioceses may affiliate to the college by ¾ vote of membership
Parishes in college dioceses who wish to remain fully committed to TEC can dissociate by ¾ vote of membership and be placed under the provisional jurisdiction of a nearby non-college diocese.
Dioceses and parishes within the college should continue to give a proportion of their tithe (eg ¼) to TEC (on the part of dioceses) or their original non-college diocese as a sign of commitment to continued council and negotiation.
A proportion of college income (eg ¼) goes to Communion needs, the remainder helps finance a minimal administration.
The Primates’ Meeting should assign one of its number to provide the necessary oversight traditionally exercised by TEC’s Presiding Bishop (eg chief consecrator) for dioceses within the college.
The college should have a representative elected by the college - at the Primates’ Meeting alongside the Presiding Bishop in order to speak for the dioceses and affiliated parishes.
All arrangements are provisional and will need to be redefined when TEC determines its response to the covenant. This will lead either to a return to a single, undifferentiated jurisdictional structure within the Communion or a more permanent reordering (including in relation to property) and the creation of a new Communion province, possibly incorporating other “continuing” Anglican bodies currently part of Common Cause.
No comments:
Post a Comment