Written by: Rev. Dr. Philip Turner
Tuesday, June 30th, 2009
Chief among the claims now made by The Episcopal Church (TEC) is that it is an inclusive church that is open to a variety of opinions and practices. This self-definition is an updated version of the traditional claim that Anglicanism represents a via media between extremes of one sort or another—Catholic/Protestant, liberal/conservative, modern/traditional, etc. The simple fact is, however, that the policies and actions of the progressive leadership of The Episcopal Church have exposed the false nature of these claims, at least as in so far as they are applied to TEC.
The false nature of the claim is easy to see. The logic used by progressive Episcopalians to explain and justify TEC’s “inclusive” agenda is in point of fact necessarily “exclusive” of contrary opinion. How so? The standard justification for the inclusive agenda is almost without exception stated in terms of justice. That is, behind efforts to change church practice in respect of the blessing of unions between persons of the same gender and the ordination in persons in faithful and permanent same sex unions is a firm belief that the rights of these brothers and sisters in the Lord are being violated by antiquated church practice—a practice that rests upon misinformation, fear, and prejudice. “It’s a justice issue” is a statement made again and again, and it is made in a way that is meant to end all argument and cast aspersions on the moral state of anyone defending a contrary opinion.
In the minds of progressive Episcopalians, to acquiesce in matters of injustice and to allow ignorance, fear, and prejudice to go unopposed is a betrayal of what to their mind is central to the Gospel message. Jesus in fact came “to preach good news to the poor…to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind and to set at liberty those who are oppressed…” (Lk. 4:18) The mission of the church in each age is to follow Jesus in this ministry.
One or another version of the progressive view summarized above has been stated repeatedly by none other than our Presiding Bishop, and it appears repeatedly on liberal blogs like Preludium and Episcopal Café. Indeed, claims that the Gospel is, almost without remainder, one of inclusive justice appears now to be beyond question in the minds of TEC’s leadership. The problem is many Episcopalians are made quite uneasy by a version of the Gospel that does not in all ways cohere with the one they received through Baptism and from the larger Anglican Communion. It seems to them that the Gospel of inclusion ironically excludes them.
In response to questions and objections that reflect this discomfort progressive Episcopalians might seek to reduce anxiety and blur the exclusive rather than inclusive logic now regnant among them by pointing to the actions of General Convention when a decision was taken to ordain women. A “conscience clause” was inserted into the legislation that allowed bishops to refuse women entry into these orders. So progressives might suggest that this action shows The Episcopal Church under their leadership to be indeed a broad and pluralistic church. They might say such a thing and even on occasion act upon it. However, the life of the conscience clause proved to be relatively short, and as a result at least two Episcopal Bishops have felt it necessary to lead their diocese out of The Episcopal Church. The reason given for this reversal of policy was “It’s a matter of justice!” Progressive logic in reality precludes allowance for any significant length of time for diversity in respect to the matters that lie at the heart of their agenda.
The very logic of the progressive position at best allows only for temporary measures of expediency designed to provide space and time to establish just practices without unduly disturbing the broad membership of the church. Time and space must be given for those slow of step to “catch up.” Nevertheless, those not in agreement with the progressive agenda of inclusion, after observing the present scene, will see the actions of progressive Episcopalians as shaped by a combination of a principled commitment to the justice agenda that can allow no compromise, and a pragmatic set of tactics designed to buy time and so make sure that they have sufficient power to enforce (as soon as expedient) what they hold to be the requirements of justice.
This admixture of principle and pragmatism is clearly evident in the course of action now being followed in respect to the internal governance of The Episcopal Church and in respect to its relations with other provinces of the Anglican Communion. The domestic agenda is to centralize power in the Office of the Presiding Bishop and the Executive Council and in so doing locate the dioceses of TEC as units subordinate to General Convention, the Executive Council, and the Office of the Presiding Bishop. This argument is precisely that being made by the Office of the Presiding Bishop in the present litigation in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. It is also a strategy abundantly obvious in the use now being made of the “Abandonment Canon.” These moves are in the one case unconstitutional and in the other un-canonical. Both open the way to enforce conformity in respect to justice issues TEC’s progressive leadership deem central to the Gospel.
Domestically, progressive Episcopalians seek more centralized authority, particularly in the Office of the Presiding Bishop. Internationally, however, they plead for pluralism in the form of a polycentric communion that allows for wide variations in belief and practice. It is on this level that they still plead for pluralism, but not, in any credible sense, on a domestic level. The plea for pluralism on an international level is but a tactic to protect moves toward centralization and uniformity domestically.
Despite the fact that there is a logical contradiction in arguing for increased centralism on the one hand and increased diversity on the other, this strategy was clearly evident at the recent meeting of The Anglican Consultative Council where TEC’s representatives sought to derail the fourth section of the draft covenant that provides for consequences if Provinces act in ways other members of the Communion believe not in accord with Christian belief and practice. Nevertheless, given the logic of a Gospel of justice, one can only view TEC’s pleading for pluralism as tactical—a prudential adjustment until such time as TEC has accrued sufficient power within the councils of the Communion to gain acceptance, or at least tolerance, of its views about these matters of justice.
For the moment I will leave aside the many problems that attach to TEC’s press for a polycentric communion. It is enough to say that their argument will work only if communion excludes common belief and practice but focuses instead on cooperation in good works and mutual aid. (Though even here, because of conflicting theological commitments, “good works” can be construed quite differently) Of more immediate importance is the logic of inclusive justice. The logic of inclusion employed by progressive Episcopalians excludes meaningful opposition from the start.
This exclusion is of such importance that it must not go unchallenged. It is a matter that concerns all Episcopalians. Exclusion of meaningful opposition in respect to the matters now before The Episcopal Church in the end will produce a niche church rather than a catholic church. Progressive claims to inclusivity are in fact false. The logic of their position drives relentlessly toward an increasingly constricted identity. The question progressive Episcopalians must answer is why members of the Episcopal Church that do not share their views ought to think otherwise. To put the issue more directly, progressive Episcopalians need to show the membership of their church and the rest of the Anglican Communion why their position does not end in an exclusive form of church life rather than a diverse one. This observation leads to a direct question. The question is what reason can be given from the point of view of progressive Episcopalians to a traditional Anglican for being a member of The Episcopal Church. I certainly have my own reasons and have stated them on many occasions. But progressive Episcopalians have claimed something that both their words and actions belie, and it seems only right for them to confront and explain this inconsistency to the rest of us.
June 30 2009 | Articles
Written by: Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner
Thursday, June 18th, 2009
In May, 2007 the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada issued a Pastoral Statement on same-sex blessings. At the end of the statement, the bishops made the following request:
“Looking ahead, we ask the Primate and General Synod for a report on:
1. The theological question whether the blessing of same-sex unions is a faithful, Spirit-led development of Christian doctrine (St. Michael Report)
2. The implications of the blessing of same-sex unions and /or marriage for our church and the Communion (The Windsor Report)
3. Scripture’s witness to the integrity of every human person and the question of the sanctity of human relationships.”
The reflections that follow are a contribution to the discussion that this requested report has engendered. Rather than look broadly at the question of same-sex blessings, my remarks concentrates on the Scriptural meaning of blessing as it has been taken up by the Church, and provides some preliminary evaluations of how this meaning applies to the question of same-sex blessings.
read more...
June 18 2009 | Articles
Written by: The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.
Thursday, May 28th, 2009
ACI is posting today two pieces about the recently concluded meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council. The first, “ACC-14: Did the Members Know What They Were Voting On?” shows that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that a majority of the Council members intended any result other than to approve the Ridley Cambridge text of [...]
read more...
May 28 2009 | Articles
Written by: The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.
Thursday, May 28th, 2009
A transcript of the proceedings at ACC-14 on May 8, 2009, when the Council voted in conflicting ways on key votes, raises the important question of how many of its members, including officers and proponents of key amendments, understood what they were actually voting on when they narrowly passed an amendment intended to open Section [...]
read more...
May 28 2009 | Articles
Written by: Mike Watson & Mark McCall
Thursday, May 28th, 2009
Much of the criticism of the Anglican Consultative Council’s deliberations concerning the Anglican Communion Covenant has centered on control of the resolutions committee by those opposed to a covenant with real accountability, confusing and inadequately explained procedures during the debate and intervention by the Archbishop of Canterbury said to have had the effect of diminishing chances for adoption of the intact Ridley Cambridge draft. As forceful as those criticisms may be, there is still more to the story. The bottom line is that it appears the deliberative process did not produce the resolution claimed to have emerged, because the critical clauses intended to introduce a delay of several months for further consideration of Section 4 of the Ridley Cambridge draft were never approved by the Council.
In a discussion at the dais immediately following adjournment of the May 8, 2009 session at which the debate took place, this was apparently pointed out to the Chair, Bishop John Paterson of Auckland, New Zealand. It apparently did not take Bishop Paterson long to realize his mistake, because he quickly reactivated his microphone and announced to the large crowd still in the room that there would need to be a vote on the two clauses in question when the plenary session reconvened at 5 p.m. He went on to apologize for misleading the council members about the status of the proceedings. By the time, however, the plenary reconvened, the position had changed, apparently as a result of discussions involving a legal advisor.
read more...
May 28 2009 | Articles
Written by: Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner
Wednesday, May 13th, 2009
A number of persons from around the Communion have asked me for my perspective on the recent ACC meeting’s treatment of the proposed Anglican Covenant. There are at least two reasons, I suppose, why my opinion might be solicited. First, I have been a member of the Covenant Design Group that, over the past two and half years has worked at the drafting of this document. Obviously, I have a particular stake in what happens to the work we have spent over 30 full days in prayer, study, and labor producing. But second, I have long argued that doctrinally traditional Anglicans like myself should both be engaged in the Covenant’s promise and articulation but also willing to maintain that engagement from a posture of continued communion within and among our divided member churches. There are many who now wonder whether the outcome to the ACC meeting undercuts that argument.
read more...
May 13 2009 | Articles
Written by: The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.
Sunday, May 10th, 2009
Friday’s session of the Anglican Consultative Council is an embarrassment to Anglicans everywhere, and a sad display of procedural confusion. Members were given complex resolutions right before the vote without sufficient time to study them and understand their consequences. Resolutions that had been distributed earlier were replaced by resolutions drafted by a committee largely composed of members from provinces known to be opposed to the Ridley Cambridge Draft. Before a vote could even be taken on these resolutions, however, Archbishop Aspinall introduced a third resolution that not even the chairman of the resolutions committee had seen. The proponents of these resolutions, the intent of which was to remove Section IV and so significantly alter the Ridley Cambridge Draft, could not describe them to the members in a coherent way even though their first language was English, unlike many of those voting. All three resolutions were being debated at the same time. In consultation with various members present, there is agreement that this was improper.
The first motion to remove Section 4 for review and so alter the Covenant was defeated overwhelmingly by the members of the ACC. But the proponents of delay and alteration attempted yet again to insert the main provisions of the resolution just defeated into the resolution then under consideration. This attempt was rightly ruled out of order by the chair, Bishop Paterson of New Zealand, himself sympathetic to the leadership of TEC. For reasons that are unclear, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who had himself called for a vote on Resolution A, personally challenged this ruling of the chair and it was reversed. (It has been suggested that delegates voted against Resolution A because they had an interest in other resolutions. But that should never have been the condition under which voting was taking place, and it requires that 15 of the votes were cast because of this in order actually to approve Resolution A – a matter we cannot ever know because it is pure conjecture. This puts a cloud over the entire logic of voting as such and would clearly suggest the need for a re-vote, not a moving ahead with new resolutions).
read more...
May 10 2009 | Articles
Written by: Communion Partners
Tuesday, May 5th, 2009
A group of Bishops of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion have issued a statement on the polity of the Episcopal Church with which we as Rectors of churches in the Episcopal Church are in full agreement. Our understanding of the seat of authority in the Episcopal Church, as elaborated by the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, is consistent with that elaborated in the Bishops’ statement. We also find the arguments supporting the statement to be compelling and worthy of intentional study by the sundry dioceses, bishops, deputies, clergy and laity of the Episcopal Church.
The authority of the Episcopal Church resides at the diocesan level. This is witnessed to by the structure of the church as “that of a voluntary association of equal dioceses.” Also, the Constitution and Canons of the Church make no provision for either a central hierarchy or a Presiding Bishop with metropolitan authority. Furthermore, our General Convention representation is as dioceses and not as communicants, with only an administrative role for the convention leadership, the voting members of the leadership themselves drawn from the diocesan deputations. In addition, the ordinal does not contain any language acknowledging or committing to submit to any metropolitan or central hierarchal authority.
read more...
May 05 2009 | Articles
Written by: Rev. Dr. Philip Turner
Tuesday, April 28th, 2009
The posting of a stream of private emails that came from an unnamed source, including the correspondence of senior Bishops of this church and their lawyer, has added considerable heat to the debate that has followed publication on the ACI Website of the Bishops’ Statement on the Polity of The Episcopal Church.
To date, the discussion that has taken place on the Web has served more to cloud than clarify the significant issues now faced both by The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. If one reads carefully the comments of those who find themselves in disagreement with the Bishops’ statement a number of questions come to mind—each of which deserves a clear and unequivocal answer.
read more...
April 28 2009 | Articles
Written by: Mr. Mark McCall
Thursday, April 23rd, 2009
Fr. Mark Harris has published today a further article on his blog, “Preludium,” concerning the “Bishops’ Statement on the Polity of The Episcopal Church,” published yesterday by the Anglican Communion Institute, Inc. Fr. Harris is a member of the Executive Council of The Episcopal Church.
Fr. Harris had previously disclosed on his blog obviously confidential communications, [...]
read more...
April 23 2009 | Articles
Next »