Episcopal Church Leadership Lashes Out

From the Institute for Religion and Democracy:

Denominational Officials Lobby against Anglican Rivals, Plot against Conservatives within Church

by Jeff Walton

February 11, 2010



Important Correction: An earlier version of this story stated that Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori traveled to Britain in advance of the Church of England Synod. While talking points were made available by the Episcopal Church Public Relations Office in regards to AC-NA, Jefferts Schori did not travel to Britain. We regret the error.



A blizzard of winter weather on the Eastern seaboard was matched this past week by a flurry of activity from the Episcopal Church Center. The Episcopal Church Office of Government relations released a series of talking points to bishops in order to lobby Church of England (CoE) leaders against a motion favorable to conservative rivals in North America. At the same time, South Carolina Bishop Mark Lawrence revealed that the Presiding Bishop’s office had retained an attorney in South Carolina who was apparently laying the groundwork for a challenge to the diocesan leadership.

If the latter turns out to be correct, it marks the first time that the denomination has taken action against a diocese that has not announced plans to separate from the church.

Almost simultaneously, the CoE Synod considered a motion introduced by an evangelical lay leader, Lorna Ashworth, stating that “this Synod express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America.”

In preparation for Synod debate, the Episcopal Church (TEC) Office of Public Affairs issued a series of talking points to TEC allies in the CoE, seeking to dissuade the Synod from adopting Ashworth’s motion. The points criticized the Anglican Church in North America (AC-NA) as not a legitimate member of the Worldwide Anglican Communion and questioned AC-NA’s size relative to TEC.

Leaders of the rival North American church also sent representatives, including Canadian Bishop and AC-NA Dean Donald Harvey, the Rev. Dr. Tory Baucum of Virginia’s Truro Church, Communications Director Cynthia Brust of the Anglican Mission in America (TheAM) and Dr. Michael Howell of Forward in Faith North America. The four were made available to answer questions from Synod members.

Following 2 ½ hours of debate, the Synod adopted an amended version of the motion, which read:

That this Synod, aware of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada,

“(a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;

(b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and

(c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.”

The amended language passed by a 309 – 69 margin, with seven abstentions, supported by both the Archbishops of Canterbury and York.

Some conservatives criticized the motion, calling it weak or watered-down, while others praised it.

AC-NA Archbishop Robert Duncan thanked Ashworth for bringing forward the motion. “We are very grateful to Mrs. Ashworth and the scores of other friends in the Synod of the Church of England for all they did to give us this opportunity to tell our story to the mother church of the Anglican Communion. It is very encouraging that the synod recognizes and affirms our desire to remain within the Anglican family,” Duncan said in a statement.

The Episcopal News Service interpreted the result differently, trumpeting the headline “Church of England Says No to Full Communion with Breakaway Entity,” despite the fact that Ashworth’s original motion merely expressed a desire to be in communion, something that the Synod itself did not have the power to enact.

Most observers agreed, however, that the adopted motion provided a positive acknowledgement of AC-NA and would lead to further conversation in the Synod when the Archbishops reported back. Conservatives pointed to failed attempts by TEC allies to shelve or delay the motion as evidence that AC-NA had scored a win.

While the CoE debate was in some ways a proxy fight between TEC and AC-NA, conservatives still within the denomination received a jarring message when Lawrence announced an emergency postponement of the diocese’s annual convention, stating that “the Presiding Bishop's Chancellor, if not the Presiding Bishop herself, is seeking to build a case against the Ecclesiastical Authorities of the Diocese (Bishop and Standing Committee) and some of our parishes.”

According to Lawrence, the Chancellor of the diocese was informed in December of 2009 that a local attorney had been retained by the Chancellor of the Presiding Bishop to represent The Episcopal Church in some "local matters."

The following month, a series of letters requesting documents from diocesan records were sent to the South Carolina chancellor. Requested records included lists of all persons ordained since October 24, 2009, all parish bylaws and amendments since 2006; all Standing Committee Minutes since the episcopacy of former South Carolina Bishop Salmon; parish charters, parish founding documents, parish deeds, parish mortgages, documents evidencing parish participation in diocesan programs and others.

Lawrence indicated the collection of information by the Presiding Bishop’s office was unprecedented, and vigorously asserted that he was the only bishop with canonical jurisdiction. In the Episcopal Church, the Presiding Bishop acts as a “first among equals,” not unlike the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Outside of actions by the General Convention, she does not hold authority over diocesan bishops as an Archbishop would.

“The Standing Committee and I believe this action is an unjust intrusion into the spiritual and jurisdictional affairs of this sovereign diocese of The Episcopal Church,” Lawrence wrote. “This provocative interference has been pursued without the Presiding Bishop having communicated with me in a manner consistent with the Constitution of The Episcopal Church and the historical polity of this Church.”

The Presiding Bishop’s Office has previously taken action against leaders and dioceses that have separated themselves from TEC, initiating lawsuits over property and deposing clergy. Jefferts Schori has also been the target of criticism that she has violated church canons by “accepting the renunciation of orders” of bishops who have joined AC-NA, even though the bishops she has effectively deposed have insisted that they did no such thing.

h/t Fr. Dick Kim