[Diocese of Texas] At Least One Parishioner Isn’t Buying Bishop Doyle’s Spin on the Pentecost Letter

from Stand Firm

Here's a portion of Michael Watson's excellent analysis of Bishop Doyle's response to the Dueling Pentecost Letters -- but the entire piece is excellent:

But we still can have a common mission, right?
As noted, Bishop Doyle maintains that the Presiding Bishop strives, along with Archbishop Williams, for a common mission. Speaking of his many contacts with primates and bishops from around the world, he emphasizes that the Diocese of Texas is "increasing our mission and outreach locally and globally." Among other things, he maintains that those who agree with the direction of TEC desire to join with other Anglicans globally in mission.

To know what to make of the desire to maintain a common mission while rejecting the repeated pleas of the representative bodies of the Communion, it is necessary to consider the sense in which "mission" is being used. In one sense, Anglicans can engage in common mission with the Rotary Club. More than that, Archbishop Rowan has been clear that Anglicans can and should do things for the care of God's poor and vulnerable even in the face of sharp division.

But at a deeper level, mission that is distinctively Christian cannot be unaffected by the theological divisions that are manifest when the Presiding Bishop's letter is held up against the Archbishop's. At that deeper level mission is not unaffected but in fact damaged. As the Archbishop's letter puts it: "To maintain outward unity at a formal level while we are convinced that the divisions are not only deep but damaging to our local mission is not a good thing." It makes little sense to say that TEC has exceeded the acceptable limits to diversity within Anglicanism, but that this makes no difference to the Church's mission. At issue specifically is the impact on mission on what the Archbishop calls recognizability. In his "Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future" reflection mentioned above, he said the following:

When a local church seeks to respond to a new question, to the challenge of possible change in its practice or discipline in the light of new facts, new pressures, or new contexts, as local churches have repeatedly sought to do, it needs some way of including in its discernment the judgement of the wider Church. Without this, it risks becoming unrecognisable to other local churches, pressing ahead with changes that render it strange to Christian sisters and brothers across the globe. . . . This is not some piece of modern bureaucratic absolutism, but the conviction of the Church from its very early days.

The Anglican Covenant
Bishop Doyle also expresses his belief that there are those who agree with the direction of TEC who also desire to affirm the Anglican Covenant. Presumably anticipating an objection, Bishop Doyle volunteers that there is no inconsistency here. But there is inconsistency. By the choices it has already made, TEC has demonstrated its unwillingness to adhere to the undertakings and commitments of the Covenant. As observed by The Anglican Communion Institute in September 20096,

An Anglican church cannot simultaneously commit itself through the Anglican Covenant to shared discernment and reject that discernment; to interdependence and then act independently; to accountability and remain determined to be unaccountable. If the battle over homosexuality in The Episcopal Church is truly over, then so is the battle over the Anglican Covenant in The Episcopal Church, at least provisionally. As Christians, we live in hope that The Episcopal Church will at some future General Convention reverse the course to which it has committed itself, but we acknowledge the decisions that already have been taken. These decisions and actions run counter to the shared discernment of the Communion and the recommendations of the Instruments of Communion implementing this discernment. They are, therefore, also incompatible with the express substance, meaning, and committed direction of the first three Sections of the proposed Anglican Covenant. As a consequence, only a formal overturning by The Episcopal Church of these decisions and actions could place the church in a position capable of truly assuming the Covenant's already articulated commitments. Until such time, The Episcopal Church has rejected the Covenant commitments openly and concretely, and her members and other Anglican churches within the Communion must take this into account.

Similar conclusions are drawn by the Rev. Dr. Andrew Goddard in his paper referred to above:

[G]iven TEC's actions and given the Archbishop's response it is now logically impossible for TEC to sign the covenant without significantly changing course and showing that it no longer is driven by a "vision . . . not shaped by the desire to intensify relationships in this particular way, or whose vision of the Communion is different" [quoting from paragraph 22 of the Archbishop's "Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future"]

Having raised the matter of the Anglican Covenant, Bishop Doyle then makes reference to a process for the Diocese of Texas to consider the Covenant. The first point that emerges from what he says about this relates to the issue of timing. In his February 2010 report to the 161st Diocesan Council, Bishop Doyle proposed a discussion at the next annual Council in 2011 in anticipation that a mind of Council resolution would be adopted at that time. It appears from Bishop Doyle's current letter that his timetable for Council consideration has slipped a year, to the 2012 annual Council. Meanwhile, several other dioceses have moved ahead much more purposefully. The Dioceses of Central Florida, Dallas, Albany and Western Louisiana have all taken actions in some form to adopt or endorse the Covenant. The Diocese of West Texas has discussed the Covenant at its last annual council with action anticipated in 2011. None of these particular Dioceses face impediments to adoption such as those created by the Diocese of Texas' standing committee.

The second point that seems worth noting is that Bishop Doyle says that he strongly supports the Anglican Covenant. This expression of support seems clouded by Bishop Doyle's apparent belief that agreement with the direction of TEC on the matters at issue is not inconsistent with support for the Covenant. (By "agreeing with the direction of TEC," it seems reasonably clear that Bishop Doyle must mean not just advocacy of a position on sexuality issues in continuing discussions, but agreement with TEC's actions violative of what has been requested by the Communion's representative bodies.)

A third point concerning the Covenant is Bishop Doyle's proposal for a study of issues regarding the Covenant and "theological and practical realities of a healthy Communion" using a curriculum to be developed by a task force he has appointed. (The members of the task force are not identified in Bishop Doyle's letter.) The question arises whether the task force developing the curriculum will be operating under the assumption that the undertakings and commitments of the Anglican Covenant can be made in good faith by those "agreeing with the direction of TEC" as reflected, for example, in the consecration of Mary Glasspool. If input is to be sought from the Diocese at large, it seems important that the issues be presented to the Diocese in a way that does not obscure the point of view of the representative bodies of the Communion.

Will the Diocese of Texas adhere to "the faith and order of the vast majority of the Anglican Communion" or "agree with the direction of TEC"? It is not apparent how the Diocese can do both.