The Way TEC Does Business: Let The Buyer Beware!

from Stand Firm by Sarah Hey

This is an excellent article by Philip Turner of the ACI, laying out very clearly the tactics that TEC has used and is using in its attempt to remake the Anglican Communion. There are two errors in this article, however, which I assume proceed from the overall bias of the ACI.

First, TEC did not agree at all to the three moratoria at its General Convention -- in particular it manifestly did not agree with the proscription against conducting same sex unions, but rather left it open to local option, and those same sex unions continued unabated and escalating in some 20 dioceses at least, with the approval of General Convention. The fact that some institutionalists shamefully wished to pretend otherwise and lied to their dioceses, parishes, and other peers in the worldwide Anglican Communion is merely an indication of their own character. But there was no question -- none at all -- once the resolutions were passed at GC 2006, that same sex unions were local option.

Second, the disastrous Jamaica meeting of the ACC did indeed result in a substantially weakened Section Four of the Covenant, not one that was "rejigged" but "essentially as before." The "rejigged" Section Four was utterly gutted, so much so that it led to many provinces pulling back from being willing to sign on to it. This leads me to pointing out the part that is left out of this otherwise wonderful essay describing TEC's modus operandi -- and that is the complicity of Rowan Williams, from his deliberately premature invitations to Lambeth of the bishops of TEC who approved of and participated in the consecration of Gene Robinson, to his assignment of the Joint Standing Committee, rather than the Primates as a whole, to be the one's to monitor TEC's response at the New Orleans HOB meeting, to his parliamentary maneuverings at Jamaica, to many more grotesque and corrupt incidents of obvious manipulation of the process in order to reach his own desired outcome, which is no discipline of the Anglican Communion by excluding TEC. He has, in fact, collaborated with TEC apparatchiks to assist them in their delays and avoidance of consequences, and it has been shameful behavior. Thankfully, history will judge and clearly communicate his actions to future generations of Anglicans, exposed as those actions have been in particular over the past two years.

So not only does Dr. Turner describe "The Way TEC Does Business" but he also describes the way Rowan Williams does business. That is, in fact, one of the problems. It's not simply that TEC is a rogue diocese, bent on inflicting its own unwanted theology and other gospel on other provinces and the Communion as a whole. It is that Rowan Williams has willfully and openly supported their continued role in the Communion.

At any rate, despite the caveats above, it's a great article and spells out TEC's MO very clearly and eloquently -- make sure you read the whole piece, from which the below is excerpted.

Since the Standing Committee has decided that, in so far as it is concerned, TEC’s position in the Communion is to be decided through an indefinite period of dialogue, it is essential to understand just how TEC understands this process. TEC’s recent history makes one thing perfectly clear. Dialogue, for TEC, is not a process of disciplined argument designed to clarify issues, expose false reasoning, and arrive at a truth both parties can hold. It is not even a process of critical examination that occurs before taking a disputed action. Rather it is an aggressive form of self-promotion built around “talking points” rather than disciplined argument—talking points that are meant to beat down opposition to a disputed action already taken. In short, the decision made by the Standing Committee is in reality a decision to allow TEC more time to gain acceptance for its actions. It is not, in TEC’s mind, a time to subject those actions to “consequences” or to critical examination.

TEC’s recent history reveals that it now has a standard way of doing business—one that exposes its pleas for dialogue as disingenuous. What is that way? One makes changes in disputed aspects of the life and order of the church by breaking the rules and then calling for conversation rather than “consequences.” This standard way of doing business carries with it its own very idiosyncratic notion of dialogue–one that, by laying claim to the prophet’s mantle, will not allow the possibility that one could be wrong and one’s opponent right. When TEC acts, TEC acts (according to TEC) in the power of the Holy Spirit; and when TEC speaks, TEC speaks (according to TEC) in the power of the Holy Spirit. To be in opposition, therefore, is to oppose both the Holy Spirit and the justice it is God’s purpose to bring to the world. These are shocking conclusions but, given TEC’s recent history, they are unavoidable conclusions–conclusions that if ignored by the Instruments of Communion and the member Provinces, will lead to the demise of the Anglican Communion.

TEC’s recent history makes the truth of these charges abundantly plain. Let us begin with the first of the more recent challenges to the Communion’s common life–the ordination of women to the priesthood. Before I begin this tale, I wish to make it clear that I am a strong supporter of the ordination of women both to the Presbyterate and to the Episcopate. What I do not support is the way in which TEC made this change. The way in which it was done opened Pandora’s box, and now TEC seeks to spread the bad habits it learned though this event to the rest of the Communion.

Go back to the year 1974. The General Convention of The Episcopal Church (then ECUSA) had twice refused (by a narrow vote) to approve the ordination of women to the priesthood. After the second refusal, three retired bishops ordained 11 female deacons as priests. The bishops said they broke the rules as an “obedient” and “prophetic” protest against oppression and an act of solidarity with those who are oppressed.

What were the consequences of breaking the rules? There was an attempt to bring the bishops to trial, but it failed despite committee advice to the contrary. The House of Bishops did decry the action of their colleagues and went on to pass a motion of censure; but since the bishops were all retired, the motion was of little effect. It was of so little effect that the following year Bishop George Barrett, yet another retired bishop, ordained four more women to the priesthood. Once again, no meaningful consequences followed. On their part, the women involved said that they consented to this action because to wait for another General Convention was to affirm in principle the concept that discrimination against ordaining women to the priesthood may be practiced in the church until the majority changes its mind and votes. It probably does not need saying, but in case the point is missed, very similar reasons are given by TEC for its recent breach of the moratoria in the case of Mary Glasspool’s ordination as Suffragan Bishop of Los Angeles.

The basic point, however, is that a pattern was established. There was a prohibition by TEC’s governing body of a proposed course of action. The action was undertaken anyway as a “prophetic witness.” There followed assertions that those who acted against the rules ought to be free from consequences because of the righteousness of their actions. The consequences that ensued were indeed minimal. Continuing conversation was substituted for ecclesial discipline. A new way of effecting change had been established. If the constitutional and canonical processes do not go your way, act anyway, deny the applicability of consequences, and then call for conversation.

The same pattern appeared again shortly after the struggle over women’s ordination when the issue of ordaining people engaged in same gender sexual relations arose. In 1977 Bishop Paul Moore of the Episcopal Diocese of New York ordained a professed and sexually active lesbian to the priesthood. In response, the bishops did no more than express “disapproval.” The next General Convention passed a resolution saying, “It is not appropriate for this Church to ordain a practicing homosexual or any person who is engaged in heterosexual relations outside marriage.”

It appeared that the General Convention had spoken definitively on this matter, but some 20 bishops dissented, citing wording in the resolution that might be taken to mean that the resolution was only “recommendary” and not “prescriptive.” Recommendation was most certainly not the intent of the General Convention! Nonetheless, the 20 bishops found an unintended loophole, claimed the prophet’s mantle and stated that they would not implement the resolution in their dioceses.

In 1989, 1990, and 1991 the dioceses of Washington DC and Newark ordained men involved in same gender relations. The justification for these actions was that new experience and knowledge make the ordination of gay people a “justice issue” that must be furthered by a “prophetic” episcopate. This time, one of the offending bishops, Walter Righter of Newark, was brought to trial; but he was acquitted–not on grounds that the action of General Convention was “recommendary” rather than “prescriptive,” but on grounds that his action was not contrary to the “core doctrine” of the Episcopal Church.

It was now well established! Within TEC prohibited actions (of a progressive sort at any rate) are not to be subject to meaningful consequences. Within TEC, just as women’s ordination was losing its status as a matter of reception and becoming a requirement, the question of ordaining persons engaged in same gender sexual relations was becoming what the ordination of women once had been–a matter of “local option” (open to local choice by each diocese). The consecration of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire, despite universal opposition by the Instruments of Communion (including resolution 1:10 of the Lambeth Conference of Bishops), had now become for TEC (according to the way it understands its relation to the rest of the Communion) also a matter of local option. Apparently, it had also become a matter of sufficient weight to render inoperative Resolution B020 of the 1991 General Convention, which stated clearly that the potentially divisive issues concerning human sexuality “should not be resolved by the Episcopal Church on its own.” This resolution had never been repealed or changed. It was simply ignored. The well-established pattern persisted. If the rules don’t suit a political agenda, break the rules, seek to avoid meaningful consequences and then ask to talk about the matter.