The Presiding Bishop of TEC: Does She Know What She Is Doing?

From the Anglican Communion Institute website:

Written by Rev. Dr. Philip Turner

Thursday, 01 May 2008

Three events in the recent past have posed a serious question. Does the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church (TEC) know what she is doing? The possible answers to this question have raised even greater concern than the question itself. For, I have concluded, if, on the one hand, she does not know what she is doing then TEC is without effective leadership at perhaps the most crucial time in its history. If, on the other hand, she does know what she is doing, she is leading TEC in directions for which she has no warrant. To be specific, her decline of an invitation to greet the Pope on his present visit calls into question her understanding of the office of Presiding Bishop. The canonical irregularities surrounding the specially called convention in the Diocese of San Joaquin and the actions to depose Bishops Cox, Schofield and Duncan raise questions about the way in which she understands and deploys the Constitution and Canons of TEC. Finally, her Easter Message to TEC raises a question about the adequacy of her grasp of the Christian Gospel. When first I learned that the Presiding Bishop was not going to greet the Pope, I wondered if, because of her gender and her controversial positions on a number of issues, she had not been invited. I was relieved to learn that she had been invited, but troubled by the fact that she sent regrets because of scheduling conflicts. Upon further enquiry, I learned that the scheduling conflicts involved visits to the parish of Bethesda by the Sea in Palm Beach and the Cathedral in Miami and the Episcopal Diocese of Utah (where she was scheduled to dedicate a new diocesan center). I confess that this decision produced in me a degree of amazement. First, at an ambassadorial level, regrets based on "scheduling conflicts" are always interpreted as a "diplomatic" excuse meant to send a negative message. Second, central to the office of Presiding Bishop is the responsibility to represent TEC in its relations with the Anglican Communion and with other churches. The Anglican Communion has no more important ecumenical partner than the Church of Rome. Why would dedication of a building have priority over an opportunity to greet the Pope in the name of TEC? If there was some reason to give it priority, why was that reason not made public so that the members of TEC and the Anglican Communion would know that the reason for sending regrets was of serious consequence? Further, a more lengthy explanation might prevent Roman Catholic observers from concluding that she thought it for a number of reasons proper that she absent herself. Third, many of us have struggled for years to insure that women take their rightful place within the leadership of TEC and the Anglican Communion. Given the negative reception by Rome of TEC's decision to ordain women as priests and bishops, why would an opportunity for the Pope to meet a Presiding Bishop who is a woman be passed up? It is hard to avoid the conclusion that if the Presiding Bishop knew what she was doing, she knew also that she would be sending a negative message to the Pope and to the Roman Catholic Church-a negative message that would not be lessened by sending, as she did, two envoys in her place. I find it hard to believe that she actually intended to slight the Pope. It is easier in this case to conclude that she has failed to understand perhaps the central aspect of her office, namely to represent TEC in its inter-Anglican and ecumenical relations. The decision not to greet the Pope is I grant a prudential one that must, sadly, be judged imprudent. More serious is her aggressive interpretation of the Constitution and Canons of TEC in the cases mentioned above. In each instance, either the Presiding Bishop does not understand the Constitution and Canons of TEC or she is trying to expand the power of her office in a way contrary to the clear meaning of the Constitution and Canons and without due authorization by the General Convention. The most serious of the irregularities concern her interventions in the Diocese of San Joaquin. As one commentator has stated in a private communication, though in the cases of Bishops Cox and Duncan the violations on the part of the Presiding Bishop pertain to individual Bishops, those with respect to the Diocese of San Joaquin "subvert the governance of an entire diocese and go the heart of TEC's polity as a ‘fellowship of duly constituted dioceses' governed by bishops not under a metropolitan or archbishop." The specific violations laid at the feet of the Presiding Bishop are reasonably well known so I will list briefly only a few. In violation of Articles IV and II.3 of the Constitution and in repudiation of her duty under Canon I.2.4 (a) (3) she refused to recognize the Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin. In violation of Article II.3 she appointed representatives and vicars in the Diocese of San Joaquin. Without the consent of the House of Bishops as required by Canon IV.9.2 she deposed Bishop Schofield. In violation of Article II.3 and the applicable canons of the Diocese of San Joaquin, she convened a convention. Contrary to the plain sense of Article II.3 and Canon I.2.4 (a)(6) she consulted with clergy and laity of the Diocese of San Joaquin and, finally, she appointed a provisional Bishop in violation of Article II.3 and Canon III.13. This is quite a list, and it concerns very fundamental aspects of TEC's polity-a form of polity, incidentally, to which the Presiding Bishop has herself on many occasions made reference as a constraint upon her freedom to act. If she has failed to understand that her actions are in fact irregular, she needs at a minimum to seek more adequate advice. If, however, these actions have been taken with the knowledge that she is reaching beyond the limits imposed by TEC's Constitution and Canons she is trying by the creation of an unchallenged precedent to expand the powers of the Presiding Bishop and in so doing convert the office into that of a Metropolitan. Such a move amounts to a sea change and runs directly contrary to the original constitutional purpose of having a Presiding Bishop rather than an Archbishop." At a minimum, the House of Bishops, or members thereof, ought to register a formal objection to these highly questionable moves. They do indeed threaten to subvert the way in which TEC's dioceses are governed, and they do indeed strike at the heart of TEC's polity as a ‘fellowship of duly constituted dioceses' governed by bishops not under a metropolitan or archbishop." The process by which Bishop Cox was deposed provides but further evidence of a serious threat to the orderly governance of TEC that TEC's Bishops ought not to ignore. Again, the accusations of irregular procedure are well known so I will list them briefly and only in part. The Presiding Bishop failed to seek the inhibition of Bishop Cox as required by Canon IV.9.1. In pursuing the inhibition, the Presiding Bishop failed to gain consent to inhibition by senior bishops as required by Canon IV. 9.2, and she failed to give requisite notice. Moves such as these in fact create new procedures for deposing bishops-procedures that remove the procedural protections afforded to a charged bishop. Finally, the Presiding Bishop deposed Bishop Cox without the required consent of the "whole number of Bishops entitled to vote" as required under Canon IV.9.2. and explained in Article XII of the Constitution. Noting the extent of these irregularities it is hard to avoid the conclusion that they demonstrate a pattern of willful violation. One must conclude that in this case the Presiding Bishop does know what she is doing. What she is doing is attempting to change the way in which TEC is ordered and governed without the requisite action of General Convention. One can only hope that the Bishops who are responsible for TEC's good order will not acquiesce in what must be understood as a radical change in the powers of the Office of Presiding Bishop that is ultra vires. In one way the last of my questions and concerns may seem the least serious, namely, the content (or lack thereof) of the Presiding Bishop's Easter message. However, this concern is in fact the most serious and anxiety producing of all. If, in this instance, she did not know what she was saying, then one must conclude that she does not understand the central tenets of Christian belief, namely, the meaning of Christ's death and resurrection. If, however, she does understand what she is saying, she is suggesting a novelty that forces one to ask if her version of Christian belief is in fact recognizable as what Christians through the ages have believed and professed. It is hard to miss the fact that there is but one reference to the resurrection in her entire message. In this reference Episcopalians are urged to become "the sacrament, the outward and visible sign, of the grace that you know in the resurrected Christ." This means for her that each member "consider how your daily living can be an act of greater life for other creatures." This one can do by living in a way that allows others to live more abundantly. Indeed, it is by living in this way that one fulfills the promise of TEC's baptismal covenant to respect the dignity of one's fellow creatures. Concretely, a commitment such as this means paying attention to "the food we eat, the energy we use, and the goods and foods we buy, the ways in which we travel." I note only that the significance of the resurrection of Christ is here presented in entirely moral terms. One might note as well that the office of The Presiding Bishop posted during Lent a new series of Stations of the Cross that called attention not to the passion of Christ but to the Millennium Development Goals. It would appear that both the cross and resurrection are understood in moral terms and in moral terms alone. The point is this. If the Presiding Bishop in fact knows what she is doing, she is proposing a moral understanding of the Christian Gospel that appears to ignore or reject the fact that the cross and resurrection of Christ have through the ages been understood as having to do first of all with the conquest of sin and death and so reconciliation with God and redemption from the great enemies of human kind. One can only celebrate the Presiding Bishop's concerns for the environment and the alleviation of human want and suffering. However, for Christians these concerns serve as a witness to a more fundamental belief. In the cross and resurrection God has bridged the gap that separates us from the true source of our life and in so doing has opened for us a new way of life. The Easter message is first of all that sin and death have been defeated and that God in Christ has proved to be faithful to his promises. It is this confession that is missing in the Presiding Bishop's Easter Message and in the new version of the Stations of the Cross her office is making available to TEC. It is, however, this confession that gives Christians their identity. It is also this confession that many Anglicans throughout the world fail to hear coming from TEC's leadership. It is silence on this matter that worries Anglicans in the Global South far more than the new sexual ethic that TEC now seems in the process of adopting. It is silence in respect to the central Christian confession that may make our Presiding Bishop an ineffective representative in the councils of the Anglican Communion. It is also silence on this matter that may have led the Pope on his recent visit to express to an ecumenical gathering at which the Presiding Bishop was not present concern about "so called prophetic actions that are based on a hermeneutic not always consonant with the datum of scripture and tradition." One can only say that the Pope's concern is widely shared, and that the absence of the Presiding Bishop from the gathering at which these words were spoken serves only to isolate further both her and TEC from the voice of the church catholic.

Last Updated ( Thursday, 01 May 2008 )