The Questioning Christian: We're helping with the Great Project

Bishop Stacy Sauls' essay on Anglican polity

Bishop Stacy Sauls, who is also a lawyer and a doctoral student in canon law, has written a lengthy essay on Anglican polity. You should read it if you're at all concerned about the demands by some scripturalists that the Episcopal Church submit to the will of conservative archbishops in other countries. Here are some excerpts (all bold-faced emphasis is mine, footnotes are omitted):

• On the role of canons and polity "I am pleased ... that this conference has elected to include a consideration of polity along with ... canon law. ... Both are important to our life together because the alternative to the rule of law on this side of the kingdom of heaven is not grace, but the rule of men (and I use the gender-exclusive term quite intentionally), men who equate their prejudices with God’s word, their ambitions with God’s will, and their agendas with the tradition of God’s Church. Polity and canon law are the security of God’s people against the wrongful exercise of power."

• The three key aspects of Anglicanism polity: "The constitutional identity of Anglicanism is not in the violent course of the English Reformation itself but in the Elizabethan Settlement that brought that violence to an end by charting a middle way. That Settlement has three key aspects: (1) the principle of autonomy, (2) the principle of toleration, and (3) the principle of lay participation in the governance of the Church.

• On local autonomy: "... the supremacy has found expression in Anglican canon law, not so much vesting authority in a hereditary monarch, even a constitutional one, as vesting authority for the government of national churches in national communities. It is a principle we have come to recognize as local autonomy, and it has been considered fundamental to the identity of Anglicanism."

• On the importance of the laity in Anglican polity: "The laity thus assumed a very powerful role in the life and governance of the Church of England from the beginning. The role of the laity remains a fundamental characteristic of Anglicanism."

•On agreeing to disagree in matters of theology: "The first Prayer Book in 1549 expressed its catholic theology of the presence of Christ in the consecrated elements of bread and wine ('The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee' and 'The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee'). The second Prayer Book in 1552 expressed a quite different Zwinglian theology of the Eucharist ('Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee' and 'Drink this in remembrance that Christ’s blood was shed for thee'). The Elizabethan Prayer Book in 1559 combined the two, doctrinal inconsistency notwithstanding. The standardization of worship with a toleration of theological diversity has been constitutionally characteristic of Anglicanism ever since.

• On the less-exalted role of bishops in TEC: "... to my knowledge, TEC is the only Church in the Anglican Communion that took shape in its formation entirely without the involvement of bishops. ... in TEC’s origin, securing the historic [episcopal apostolic] succession in the former colonies was secondary in importance to uniting the isolated and scattered congregations formerly a part of the Church of England."

• On the supremacy of General Convention in TEC: "... the exercise of episcopacy was one area in which [TEC's] central authority initially delegated power to the states. Each state was to choose its own bishop according to its own rules. Some dioceses even limited their bishops to a seat in their state conventions without the right to preside, and some allowed a bishop to be tried for offenses without the presence of another bishop. The General Convention has reclaimed a great deal of this authority over the years, as is its right."

• On the non-unitary nature of the Anglican Communion: "Last year the present Archbishop of Canterbury expressed his concern that the Anglican Communion might, in its current tensions, degenerate into no more than a federation. I was immediately alarmed, as a federation is already a great deal more than I think we are now."

• On the draft Anglican Covenant: "The draft Anglican Covenant ... abrogates the constitutional principles that make us Anglicans. It abrogates the principle of lay participation in the governance of the Church by placing disproportionate emphasis on the views of the highest ranking bishops. It abrogates the principle of toleration by imposing a standard, and more frighteningly a mechanism, for judging orthodoxy other than the idea of common worship. Most dangerously of all, it appears merely to compromise the principle of autonomy when, if fact, it virtually destroys it by vesting the right to determine what is a matter of common concern, what the common mind of the Communion is, and what punishment is appropriate for violations of the common mind in the Primates Meeting. It is as if the English Reformation, to say nothing either of the Elizabethan Settlement or the constitutional development over time of independent churches voluntarily cooperating on the basis of a shared heritage, never happened."

• On property litigation: "There are many pleas coming from secessionist congregations and dioceses to end the recourse to secular law, a plea that has been adopted recently by the Joint Standing Committee. Since the secessionist case is so weak in secular as well as canon law, the plea, while understandable, is also hollow. The most appropriate, and absolutely effective, way to end all property litigation immediately is for the secessionists and uninvited bishops to stop trying to steal the property."

• On same-sex blessings: "... I believe General Convention, as the legitimate voice of the whole Church, should begin a process to move toward authorizing such liturgies sooner rather than later. In the meantime, though, I think it is incumbent upon the rest of us, particularly bishops—individually and collectively, as something less than the General Convention, to wait on General Convention to act because it is crucial to maintaining our polity that we do."

What happened to 'an inquiring and discerning heart'?

Dean Nick Knisely alerts us to an article by Savi Hensman in Ekklesia. The article documents Anglicanism's traditional approval of the pursuit of knowledge, and notes how, in some precincts of the Anglican Communion, that pursuit is scorned and even suppressed when it comes to homosexuality.

It's said that the Episcopal Church believes as it prays. In our post-baptismal prayer (BCP p.308), the celebrant petitions God to give the newly baptized "an inquiring and discerning heart, . . . a spirit to know and to love you, and the gift of joy in wonder in all your works." It seems that some hardliners would prefer conformity to particular human understandings instead.

Here's an excerpt from the Hinsman piece; bold-faced emphasis is mine:

‘Anyone of discretion acts by the light of knowledge,’ wrote the ancient author of Proverbs. Many people of faith highly value study and work diligently to deepen their understanding, in a spirit of humility and compassion. However others are less open, either because they are supremely confident that their own views are superior to any alternatives or because they fear that too much questioning will undermine faith or offend the Almighty. They may indeed undertake some learning, but within tightly restricted boundaries. Some even try to silence or expel dissenters.

Current tensions among Anglicans to some extent reflect these differences of approach. Until quite recently in this denomination, the quest for knowledge tended to be rated highly. Even if there was vigorous disagreement on particular matters, there was some measure of trust that the church, if open to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, would be led towards truth and justice. Yet some leaders now not only refuse to consider scholarship which does not conform to their own perspective but also demand the right to prohibit others from acting on the fruits of study.

This is a sharp break with mainstream Anglicanism. ‘It is no part of the purpose of the Scriptures to give information on those themes which are the proper subject matter of scientific enquiry, nor is the Bible a collection of separate oracles, each containing a final declaration of truth. The doctrine of God is the centre of its teaching,’ bishops from different parts of the world agreed at the 1930 Lambeth Conference. ‘We believe that the work of our Lord Jesus Christ is continued by the Holy Spirit, who not only interpreted him to the Apostles, but has in every generation inspired and guided those who seek truth.’ And ‘We recognize in the modern discoveries of science - whereby the boundaries of knowledge are extended, the needs of men are satisfied and their sufferings alleviated - veritable gifts of God, to be used with thankfulness to him, and with that sense of responsibility which such thankfulness must create.’

In 1958, the Lambeth Conference gratefully acknowledged ‘our debt to the host of devoted scholars who, worshipping the God of Truth, have enriched and deepened our understanding of the Bible, not least by facing with intellectual integrity the questions raised by modern knowledge and modern criticism’, and ‘the work of scientists in increasing man's knowledge of the universe, wherein is seen the majesty of God in his creative activity. It therefore calls upon Christian people both to learn reverently from every new disclosure of truth, and at the same time to bear witness to the biblical message of a God and Saviour apart from whom no gift can be rightly used.’ * * *

While caution is indeed important in approaching new developments and discoveries (and rediscoveries), and theories should be tested rigorously, those who ignore or suppress the fruits of study in fact put huge confidence not in divine truth but in their own intellects, assuming it is impossible that they might be wrong. Yet no human is intellectually infallible. It is all too easy to end up ‘teaching human precepts as doctrines'  (Mark 7.7). * * *

After the Windsor Report, many clerical and lay leaders in North America were willing to postpone further steps towards full inclusion, painful though this was; but hardliners scornfully rejected such concessions. They wanted nothing less than submission to them.

Read it all.

Spinners versus truth-seekers

"I don't think the main divide is between liberals and conservatives, since after all there are plenty of people happy to accept the best from both and reject the worst from both. The main divide is between spinners and truthseekers."
—From a comment by Christopher Shell at Thinking Anglicans (scroll down to Saturday, 15 December 2007 at 12:41pm GMT).

Very well put.

A must-read debate about defining "the Church"

Dale Rye, a sometime commenter at TitusOneNine and elsewhere, has posted a thoughtful essay about recent moves by certain conservative dioceses and parishes to secede from the Episcopal Church — and, subtly, about TEC's own actions in recent years.

Church 'trademarks' have consequences

Rye argues that Christians cannot simply disregard the agreed rules of the branch of the church to which they belong. In terms that would sound quite familiar to a marketer concerned about dilution of a company's brand name, Rye says.

... We are not free to call ourselves Anglicans while behaving like Baptists or Unitarians. A church (while it is the Body of Christ, the People of God, the Communion of the Faithful, and so much more) is also an ordered human society governed by agreed rules of conduct. Those who would regard themselves as part of that society must obey the rules or face the consequences---which no longer feature burning at the stake, but do include possible expulsion from the society. [Emphasis added.]

Drawing on a remark by Ignatius Loyola, which he quoted in a similar on-line essay, Rye continues:

If we see black when our church tells us to see white, we (unlike Roman Catholics who believe they are in the One True Church) are free to go join a black-seeing church. We are not free to put a blindfold on our present church so it will see black when we want it to. We are not free as individuals (or groups smaller than the whole) to expel others from the group because their behavior does not comply with our private judgement of how they should behave.

Moreover, if we leave, we leave as individuals (no matter how many like-minded individuals leave with us). We are not free to subvert the rules of the group we are leaving in order to take its assets with us (if the rules allow us to do so, that is another thing entirely, of course). The organization has its own corporate identity distinct from the individual wills of its membership. We are not free to impose our private judgment on how the group ought to handle dissenters; that is for the group itself to decide, consistent with its distinctive way of being the Church.

Obviously, none of this makes any sense from the perspective of someone who is convinced that he belongs to the church that has sole possession of the truth. I am not such a person. I am an Anglican.

[Emphasis added.]

In a later comment, Rye distinguishes between "mere personal preference" and "an assessment [presumably an individual one] of how closely the church fits our understanding of what a church should be in order to comply with the truth of the Good News revealed in Christ Jesus… an objective standard, not a subjective one" (emphasis added).

But are churches not allowed to evolve?

The one part of Rye's essay that gave me trouble was his argument, in effect, that churches should be preserved in amber, never changing from what they originally were:

Having chosen Anglicanism because it has a particular way of being, a special God-given charism if you will, we are not free to remake it into something that it is not. If we want a church of the Assemblies of God or the Metropolitan Community Church or the Roman Rite, we can go join one; we should not be trying to change our local Anglican church into a mirror image of those quite different bodies. [Emphasis added.]

Ross TenEyck seems to have been likewise was likewise troubled; he challenges the bold-faced portion in Rye's second paragraph above, saying:

This would seem to imply that all churches must remain forever static and unchanging, since you deny the possibility—or at least the right—of ever changing the church into “something it is not.” Do you allow for the possibility of evolution of a church, and if so how would it happen?  What fraction of the church must agree to a change before it becomes allowable? [Emphasis added.]

* * *

The comments on Rye's remarks are worth reading as well: they illustrate some fundamental differences in the way people define "the Church."

Bishop Iker denies that there's such a thing as an Episcopal Church

[UPDATED]  Judging by his diocesan convention address, Bishop Jack Leo Iker of Fort Worth has an interesting perspective on his station in life: He seems to believe that, as bishop of the Diocese of Fort Worth, he is the head of an independent denomination that can do as it pleases. (Recall that he still refuses to ordain women as priests and places severe restrictions on their serving in 'his' diocese.)

The good bishop concedes that yes, Episcopal dioceses do periodically meet in something called General Convention. But he must think General Convention is strictly a voluntary, social-type gathering that has an advisory role only, because he seems to reject the idea that GC has any real authority over what dioceses do:

... I must object to the claim that the Presiding Bishop has any canonical authority in this Diocese or any legitimate power over the leadership of this Diocese.  She has no authority to bring Fort Worth into line with the mandates of a so-called “national Church.” There is no such thing as “the national Church.” We are a confederation of Dioceses, related to each other by our participation in General Convention.

From the earliest days of the beginnings of the Episcopal Church in this country, including the formation of dioceses and eventually the creation of the General Convention itself, there has been a strong mistrust of centralized authority that is deeply rooted in our history as Episcopalians. We do not have an Archbishop in this Church, who has authority over other Bishops and their Dioceses. Instead, we have a Presiding Bishop, with very limited canonical responsibilities, mainly administrative in nature.

We must object to the tendency in recent years in this Church to create some sort of central bureaucracy at the top that holds power and authority over the various Dioceses of this Church.  We do not have a Curia that dictates policy and dogma in this Church.  We do not have a Presiding Bishop with papal authority over us, nor do we believe in the infallibility of any Bishop or any council or, indeed, of any General Convention.

If I may be so bold to speak on your behalf, dear friends: the leadership of this Diocese does not need to be brought into line with the mandates of some mythical “national Church.”

(Emphasis and extra paragraphing added; hat tip: TitusOneNine.)

[UPDATE] So there's never been a "national" Episcopal Church after all, huh? Then we've been going to a lot of time and expense for no reason. For example:

• Fort Worth didn't need to go to the trouble of seeking consent of General Convention to become a diocese in the first place. And it needn't have included a provision in its constitution, unqualifiedly acceding to TEC's constitution and canons.

• Fort Worth shouldn't have bothered seeking anyone else's consent to ordain Mr. Iker as bishop; election by their diocesan convention was all they needed to do. And the diocese's various bishops and standing committees needn't have bothered consenting to other dioceses' election of their own bishops over the past 25 years.

• Fort Worth's clergy — including +Iker — should have refused to profess those portions of their ordination vows that refer to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the non-existent Episcopal Church. [It just occurred to me that secessionist Fort Worth clergy should, in conscience, first resign their orders in the Episcopal Church, because secession indisputably violates those "discipline" portions of their ordination vows.]

• The drafters of Article VII of TEC's constitution, which allows General Convention to group dioceses into provinces, needn't have bothered including a carve-out that "no Diocese shall be included in a Province without its own consent," because obviously that goes without saying.

I'm sure others will come up with additional examples.

They went to all that trouble for nothing, it seems.

Someone needs to explain to +Iker & Co. the doctrine of estoppel. I'm sure TEC's lawyers will do so. And maybe in due course a Texas judge will do so as well.

Incidentally, check out +Iker's all-purple regalia, including a zuchetto, no less — a yarmulke-like skull cap  — of the kind Roman Catholic bishops wear. (Cardinals wear scarlet zuchettos, and the pope, a white one.) I can't remember ever seeing an Episcopal bishop wear a zuchetto, of any color.

I feel sorry for progressive and moderate Episcopalians in Fort Worth, who deserve better. If the non-existent national church would get off its duff and depose Bishop Iker, maybe they'd have a shot at getting someone better.

Church is mostly about rituals and belonging, not propositional beliefs - Andrew Brown

In The Guardian, Andrew Brown has this to say:

... Most churches, most of the time, don't give a damn for theology. That's one of the things that atheists get wrong about religion. They think it is about propositional beliefs, rather than rituals and belonging. And so they assume that the dispute in the Anglican Communion is really about gays. But if it were, it would be possible to reach a compromise, as has been done about women, where people at least pretend to accept each others' viewpoint.

(Hat tip: TitusOneNine.)

Here's how a seceding diocese MUST proceed under the Episcopal Church's constitution

It surprised me to learn that the Episcopal Church's constitution contains a complicated mechanism that a diocese such as Fort Worth could use to secede, after a fashion. But it would not be able to do so so unilaterally; it would first have to obtain approval of its proposed action by super-majority votes of both houses in General Convention and of its TEC-loyal parishes. Given that each diocese's own constitution contains an unqualified accession to TEC's own constitution, it follows that a diocese's extra-constitutional attempts to secede would necessarily be ultra vires, and thus null and void.

Here's how a constitutional secession of sorts would work. Under Article VI, section 2 of TEC's constitution: 

• Bishop Iker and the Fort Worth standing committee must propose to cede jurisdiction of a part of Fort Worth's territory to TEC, where it would have the status of unorganized mission territory.
• The ceded territory would not be the parishes that wanted to stay in TEC, but the ones that wanted to leave; this is counterintuitive but will make sense momentarily. 
• General Convention must then approve the proposed cession of territory by: 
  • a 2/3 vote of the House of Bishops; 
  • a 2/3 vote of the dioceses in the House of Delegates, voting by orders; 
  • a 3/4 vote of the parishes in the ceded territory, i.e., of the secessionist parishes; and 
  • a 3/4 vote of the remaining parishes.
• If GC approved, the Diocese of Fort Worth would still exist, but it would shrink down to encompass just the TEC-loyal parishes that did not want to secede; the remaining parishes would be in unorganized mission territory.
  
• Bishop Iker and his standing committee would then leave TEC and be received in the Southern Cone or other province. In the newly-designated TEC mission territory, they could organize on behalf of their new church, in competition with their former church, as they and their ecclesial authorities saw fit.
  

This would undoubtedly be a funky and cumbersome process, in which a successful secession would be by no means assured (the votes probably just aren't there). The new church would be in violation of the ancient canons prescribing geographic dioceses (but those should be revisited in any case). And property ownership issues would still have to be fought out (but that would be true in any case).

But here's my point: TEC's constitution sets forth a constitutional way for a diocese to 'secede.'  The secessionist dioceses unqualifiedly acceded to TEC's constitution. So, if those dioceses wish to leave TEC, that's how they must attempt to do it; they can't just go off and do what seems good in their own eyes. As a result, the recent extra-constitutional attempts to secede, on the part of Fort Worth, San Joaquin, and Pittsburgh, are no more than so much noise (and are grounds for presentment of their bishops).

Martin Luther didn't secede; why does Bishop Duncan think he should do so?

You have to read this op-ed piece by a conservative Episcopalian in the Diocese of Pittsburgh who disapproves of that diocese's secessionist moves. Here's an excerpt (emphasis is mine; hat tip to TitusOneNine, Father Jake, etc.):

I am not a liberal. I think the Episcopal Church made a terrible mistake when it installed Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire in 2004. . . .

I know Republicans who simply refused to acknowledge Bill Clinton as president in the 1990s. I know Democrats who did the same regarding George W. Bush. But both presidents were elected under the rules laid out in our national Constitution.

The same thing has happened in our church. My side lost on the Gene Robinson issue. It was bitter, but it was fair.

Secession is not the biblical pattern of resistance to flawed authority. Young David served under a tyrannical and apostate King named Saul. David submitted to Saul's authority and he resisted the urge to revolt or secede. He remained faithful to Israel and Saul until the end, and then, because of his patience, became king himself.

David's great (28 times) grandson, Jesus, was a reader in the synagogue despite its shortcomings. He worshipped in the temple despite its corruption and oppression. King Herod was a murderous crook and the temple priesthood were his hired cronies and yet Mary and Joseph and Jesus were there year after year, making offerings, saying prayers, talking with rabbis.

When St. Paul was beaten by the high priest he showed him deference, not contempt. "You salute the rank," as they say in the military, "not the man."

That's because the authority of a priest or bishop doesn't come from him; it comes from God. The failings of the man, or woman, don't erase that authority. Saul would regularly try to murder David. He disregarded God and took on the responsibility to offer sacrifices himself. He murdered faithful priests. Through all of this, David saluted the office long after the man had outlived his merit.

On Oct. 31., the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church USA sent a letter to the bishop of Pittsburgh, directing him not to split the diocese from the denomination. Bishop Duncan replied by quoting Martin Luther, "Here I stand. I can do no other."

It's a powerful quote, but a misuse of history. Martin Luther didn't leave the Roman Catholic Church; he was kicked out. He decided to "stand" and fight. It's ironic that Bishop Duncan quoted Luther's pledge to "stand" in order to justify his intention to "walk."

The underlying theological disputes won't be 'settled' any time soon

A recurring theme among some scripturalists is that the church should not proceed with 'innovations' such as same-sex blessings, women's ordination, and communion without baptism, until the underlying theological questions are 'settled.' At worst, that's merely a delaying tactic; at best, it's an unrealistic approach.

We're not going to see a 'settlement' of such theological questions any time soon. Not only do people (of all persuasions) tend to fall in love with their own opinions; in the Anglican / Protestant tradition, there are few if any penalties for bitter-enders who loudly assert their opinions, even — or especially — as a contrary consensus evolves:

• Such questions can't be resolved by empirical proof one way or another; there's no penalty of peer scorn for those who refuse to face the facts, because there are no facts, at least none that are useful;

• We have no pope who can supposedly resolve the matter by ex cathedra pronouncement; there's little or no danger of excommunication for those who refuse to conform to 'settled' theology;

• In modern Western civilization, there’s no Emperor Constantine (or Grand Inquisitor or Marshal Stalin or Dear Leader) whose minions will jail or execute dissenters from 'correct' views.'

Given these realities, we're not going to see Anglican theologians joyfully proclaiming in unison, “It’s settled — Bishop X has found the right answer!” No; what we'll see instead is the theological counterpart to the aphorism that old economic theories don’t die off until old economists do.

Contribute to funding of Anglican listening process

My friend David Grizzle forwarded the following funding appeal to me and said it'd be OK to post it here. I've made a contribution and encourage readers to do the same.

For those who don't know, Dr. Louie Crew, one of the co-authors of the funding appeal, is a professor emeritus at Rutgers, founder of IntegrityUSA, and one of the deans of the LGBT movement in the Episcopal Church. The Rev. Canon Brian Cox, the other co-author, is rector of Christ the King Episcopal Church, an orthodox congregation in Santa Barbara, California, and senior vice president of the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy in Washington DC.

Here's David's email:

---

D.C.,

You may wish to consider this appeal and forward to some of your constituents.

I have contributed [a generous sum - DCT]. As most people would measure coordinates, Louie Crew and I are antipodes for one another. However, we are dear friends, because we both believe that truth and love are more important organizational subsistence.

I wanted to contribute to this effort because I do not want my extreme orthodox views ever to be construed as contempt or indifference.

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Louie Crew
Sent: Oct 10, 2007 8:40 PM
To: David Grizzle
Subject: A 'Bi-Partisan' Appeal to Help Fund the Listening Process in the Anglican Communion

David Grizzle, Esq.

Gentle David Grizzle,

We write this appeal to you as leaders in the Episcopal Church who have profoundly different convictions about matters concerning human sexuality. Yet, both of us are committed to reconciliation as a different paradigm or culture from win/lose advocacy in terms of how we as a faith community deal with the deepest of differences among us.

We write this appeal in light of the House of Bishops' recent decision in New Orleans to respond affirmatively to the primates' request for clarification regarding approval of suitable candidates for bishop and authorizing liturgies for same-sex unions. This offer to refrain from moving forward has created space to launch an Anglican Communion Wide Listening Process. In a sense, the time has come for a global conversation in the Anglican Communion about human sexuality. The purpose of the Listening Process is to hear the concerns of all members of the Anglican Family; not only gays and lesbians but also Global South leaders. The purpose of the Listening Process is not to create a predetermined outcome or to "wear opponents down." It is to hear respectfully one another's stories, hopes and fears about this matter.

The facilitator of the Listening Process explains: "The ACC 13 resolution talked of mutual listening. We are attempting to listen to all voices including Global South voices, indigenous groups, those who describe themselves as having same sex attraction and who support Lambeth 1.10, and an array of other voices. We are not setting up a polarised debate, but an attempt to enable listening. It [our report to the Lambeth Conference] will not make any claim to be a definitive document, but to promote ongoing dialogue."

We appeal to you to consider a financial gift to support this initiative of the Anglican Consultation Council. Approximately $80,000 is needed to fully fund this initiative.

Please direct your gift to the ACC account in New York made payable to the "Anglican Consultative Council" with a memo "For the LGBT Listening Process."

Account Name Anglican Consultative Council Account No 42 914 652
Bank: Deutsche Bank Trust Co Americas
280 Park Avenue NYC03-0201
New York NY 10017 USA

The ACC has pledged to use gifts thus designated solely for that purpose. Phil Groves [Phil.Groves [|at|] anglicancommunion [|dot|} org], the facilitator of the Listening Process, can make available to any donor full accounts of funds thus restricted.

Please be generous.

Dr. Louie Crew
The Reverend Canon Brian Cox